Marriage as Sacrament versus State Defined

[SuperLuigi]

Interesting point. How does the state subsidize gay marriages? I would be very interested to hear that argument cause I have never heard it before.

Trickster
Bruce

It shouldn’t subsidize nor recognize them.

I believe the American Supreme Court ruled that they had to have benefits.

That’s really what subsidization is.

Bad analogy and one that does not represent the situation well. First of all gay people who choose to get married are not troubled, they are intelligent human beings who have analyzed all the fact and made peace with their Creator in all of this and in a lot of cases realized a marriage that is successful (I don’t have any statistical back up on that).

I sincerely doubt that a lot of couples—gay or straight----analyze things enough. If they did, the divorce rates would not be so high.

In my experience there’s a lot of people out there who think they are smart but really don’t prove it all that well.

Homosexual relationships are unstable and children with homosexual parents are at distinct disadvantages.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Also don’t forget that any state action either legalizing or banning setting is not because the goodness or the love of its gobernants. States either legalize or ban things depending on what is convenient to the states or what the state wants to control. The only reason why legal marriage exists is mainly because it solves inheritance problems, specially among men, and because the state needs people to work to produce money, in consequence they need to encourage reproduction so they can have generations that can support the state in and of itself. Married people get tax benefits because the state wants to encourage marriage between ppeople to create a families in which children can be born and raised and to solve many issues that come up when people are not married so by creating so called gay marriage the state is encouraging this conduct.

I’ve been saying it until I am blue the face:

Marriage laws have historically been about economics.

But when a nice big government entitlement is on the line, all bets for principles and facts are off.

 

[mikeeh]

Something is missing in my argument around gay marriages defined by the State. Why does the Church even care how the state defines’ marriage as long as the state does not deny the idea of marriage between man and woman for the purposes of pro-creation?

trickster

The Church has a moral obligation to encourage a moral lifestyle for everyone. With that said, I prefer the libertarian standpoint on state marriage.

 

[marymary1975]

I’ve been saying it until I am blue the face:

Marriage laws have historically been about economics.

But when a nice big government entitlement is on the line, all bets for principles and facts are off.

People need to read Frederik Engel’s the origin of family, private property and state. I know Engel is a communist but from a legal and secular point of view what he writes is exactly how legal marriage came to be. I don’t know why but too many here have an idealistic idea of government and the legal system and is not like that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

People need to read Frederik Engel’s the origin of family, private property and state. I know Engel is a communist but from a legal and secular point of view what he writes is exactly how legal marriage came to be. I don’t know why but too many here have an idealistic idea of government and the legal system and is not like that.

Because it’s easy to think that. You can take pretty much any issue on here and break it down along the lines of personal selfishness, generosity and natural law.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

With morality, one question you can ask would be, “If everybody did this, what would the consequences be?”

If EVERYONE was gay, would this be a good thing?

If it is, let’s promote it. If not, let’s not.

I say, let’s not, because we don’t want to promote anything that’s detrimental to the family, society or the individual.

What if everyone was [insert any profession besides farming]? What if everyone went to the supermarket at any given moment?

 

[livingwordunity]

Something is missing in my argument around gay marriages defined by the State. Why does the Church even care how the state defines’ marriage as long as the state does not deny the idea of marriage between man and woman for the purposes of pro-creation?

It’s because the minute it becomes civil law anyone who disagrees with it is labeled a “bigot” or “homophobic” and is punishable as a lawbreaker. And orthodox, traditional Catholics as well as “bible believing” Protestant Christians have already lost our freedom of religion and conscience in America as a result of this even though it hasn’t yet been accepted as the law in every state. So far, the punishment has been in the form of putting a muzzle on Christians so that we can’t speak our views in public without being called a bigot, being sued or losing our jobs. Once labeled as a “bigot”, it becomes easy for the public to hate the “bigots” and then to feel justified in committing acts of violence against the “bigots”. Light can not coexist with darkness.

 

[JimG]

The state didn’t invent marriage and has no right to re-invent it, as if that were even possible. Marriage precedes the state. It is a natural institution. The state merely recognizes it, because as a natural institution, it can provide certain benefits to the state: the formation of families and the raising of the next generation of citizens, and the continued existence of the nation.

Marriage isn’t just some idea invented by the state or by a religion, or a philosopher. Marriage is based upon the structure, anatomy and biology of human beings. They are male and female for a reason, their complementarity being necessary to the continuation of the human race.

It isn’t just some nice ceremony that wedding planners came up with. It isn’t just a nice idea to demonstrate feelings of love. Whether it’s a religious sacrament or a civil commitment or a pagan pledge has nothing to do with the essentials of the institution, which is based upon the nature of man and woman, and the potential for the continuation of the species.

There is only one human act which can properly be called marital, and it is only possible between man and woman.

The state can no more make two persons of the same sex capable of marriage than it can make men capable of bearing children.

The institution of marriage has already been severely weakened. It has been weakened by contraception, by divorce, by cohabitation, by fornication, by adultery, by every conceivable kind of sexual permissiveness. Same sex ‘marriage’ can never be marital. It can never be conjugal. It’s an impossibility which can only serve to further destroy an already destabilized institution and the society which is built upon it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It’s because the minute it becomes civil law anyone who disagrees with it is labeled a “bigot” or “homophobic” and is punishable as a lawbreaker.

I’m a bit lost here. I could see “punishable by public pressure.” I’m not quite so sure on “punishable as a lawbreaker.” But what type of legal ramifications would you expect from publicly stating that “I am opposed to homosexual marriages.”

 

[DrTaffy]

The state didn’t invent marriage and has no right to re-invent it, as if that were even possible. Marriage precedes the state. It is a natural institution. The state merely recognizes it, because as a natural institution, it can provide certain benefits to the state: the formation of families and the raising of the next generation of citizens, and the continued existence of the nation.

That is all very well if you are talking about the religious concept of ‘marriage’ - but that is neither the only concept of marriage, nor the one being discussed in various legislatures around the world (who obviously cannot make decisions that influence a ‘natural institution’) nor even, linguistically, the original meaning of ‘marriage’ which comes from a latin root that explicitly referred to the civil, legal recognition of two people as a single family unit. Which the State obviously did invent.

So the divine or natural thing you are talking about is different from anything the law might be influencing. Even the word ‘marriage’ ‘belongs’ originally to the legal definition, not the religious one, so you can’t even complain about the State stealing ‘your’ word.

So what moral right do you claim to have to prevent the State from recognising same sex couples, giving them legal rights that make their life easier, or using the word ‘marriage’ to refer to this recognition?

 

[JimG]

That is all very well if you are talking about the religious concept of ‘marriage’ - but that is neither the only concept of marriage, nor the one being discussed in various legislatures around the world (who obviously cannot make decisions that influence a ‘natural institution’) nor even, linguistically, the original meaning of ‘marriage’ which comes from a latin root that explicitly referred to the civil, legal recognition of two people as a single family unit. Which the State obviously did invent.

So the divine or natural thing you are talking about is different from anything the law might be influencing. Even the word ‘marriage’ ‘belongs’ originally to the legal definition, not the religious one, so you can’t even complain about the State stealing ‘your’ word.

So what moral right do you claim to have to prevent the State from recognising same sex couples, giving them legal rights that make their life easier, or using the word ‘marriage’ to refer to this recognition?

No, I’m not speaking of “the religious concept” of marriage, or of marriage as a religious institution. Nor do I equate natural with religious.

Marriage is a natural institution based on the complementarity of man and woman. Religion didn’t invent that physical complementarity, nor did the state. Anatomy predates the state. Most states, most religions, most societies, do not make it a policy to ignore biological fact for the sake of making people feel better. Legislatures can if they wish, ignore natural human complementarity. They do so at the risk of their own societal stability.

There is, as I said before, only one human act which can properly be called marital. That’s why it’s called the marital act, and it is only possible between man and woman. A legislature can ignore reality. It can call something which has no possibility of being marital, ‘marriage.’ It can call all triangles circles in the interest of equality. But it only does damage to the language in attempting to turn fiction into reality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is all very well if you are talking about the religious concept of ‘marriage’ - but that is neither the only concept of marriage, nor the one being discussed in various legislatures around the world (who obviously cannot make decisions that influence a ‘natural institution’) nor even, linguistically, the original meaning of ‘marriage’ which comes from a Latin root that explicitly referred to the civil, legal recognition of two people as a single family unit…

Latin roots aside, from the beginning of recorded history, “marriage”, or whatever word is used to mean the same thing in other languages, has always meant a union of a man and a woman. It has never meant anything more general than that, except in metaphors, as in saying “This hamburger is the perfect marriage of beef and bun!”. Any serious attempt to consider the union of two people of the same sex a marriage is a new invention - a redefinition of the word. It makes no more sense to say that is a marriage than it is to say marriage is an avocado.

 

[DrTaffy]

Latin roots aside, from the beginning of recorded history, “marriage”, or whatever word is used to mean the same thing in other languages, has always meant a union of a man and a woman.

This is simply not true, if you mean that it meant exclusively the union of a man and a woman. The topic was done to death quite recently in this thread and may have been part of why that thread was closed, so I don’t want to reopen the whole topic here.

It makes no more sense to say that is a marriage than it is to say marriage is an avocado.

This is the kind of dismissive mockery of the other side’s point of view that does nothing to advance the debate. Could we leave it out, please, showing courteous respect for another’s views is surely not too much to ask?

 

[DrTaffy]

Marriage is a natural institution based on the complementarity of man and woman.

Marriage is a civil legal institution recognising that a couple now form a single economic and family unit. Has been from the time of the Romans, from whom we get the word, and who did have same sex marriages. This is indisputable.

Now if you also want to use the same word to specifically refer to a heterosexual anatomical arrangement, fine if confusing. But how would that give you the right to tell the state and other religions to stop using the word in its original sense?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is simply not true, if you mean that it meant exclusively the union of a man and a woman. The topic was done to death quite recently in this thread and may have been part of why that thread was closed, so I don’t want to reopen the whole topic here.

But you could at least have given me a link to the page where the historical meaning of marriage was ever two men, so I don’t have to read through 290 postings searching for something that may or may not be there. But I will revise my statement. At times marriage has included polygamy. But it has never meant a government sanctioned union of two men. No one ever called that a marriage before.

 

[DrTaffy]

But you could at least have given me a link to the page where the historical meaning of marriage was ever two men, so I don’t have to read through 290 postings searching for something that may or may not be there.

Gosh - I thought I had, that is I thought I had linked to the specific post that started the discussion, but you are quite right. No idea how that happened, sorry.

For those joining the conversation that post is here (assuming I got the link right this time.) Or the relevant wikipaedia page is here.

But I will revise my statement. At times marriage has included polygamy. But it has never meant a government sanctioned union of two men. No one ever called that a marriage before.

Yes, yes they did. As cited in the thread above, Ancient Rome and Native American tribes both did. I mention those two for relevance to the linguistic roots of the word ‘marriage’, western culture in general, or the USA in particular, but there are other examples. For example the Sifra says of ancient Egypt that:
A man would marry a man, and a woman would marry a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, a woman would be married to two men.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, yes they did. As cited in the thread above, Ancient Rome and Native American tribes both did. I mention those two for relevance to the linguistic roots of the word ‘marriage’, western culture in general, or the USA in particular, but there are other examples. For example the Sifra says of ancient Egypt that:
A man would marry a man, and a woman would marry a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, a woman would be married to two men.

As for the Sifra, as I am sure you know, it was a Israelite commentary on the behavior of a foreign and despised land. It was meant to show the Israelites what to avoid. As such, it is far from a dispassionate and historically accurate telling of the history of the Egyptian people. It is all too likely that the language in the Sifra was chosen to emphasize and exaggerate the depravity that the author felt needed to be avoided. How do we know that he was not just reacting to a tolerance for homosexual behavior in Egypt? If you had asked the average ancient Egyptian if such a union was a kind of marriage, that person would probably have laughed and said no. Tolerance of homosexual behavior is not equivalent to societal acceptance that the definition of the word “marriage” as including such unions.

As for the ancient Chinese customs cited in your other link, they describe intimate bondings of various sorts. But where is the evidence that the Chinese themselves considered these bindings to be the same as the bindings of a man and a woman, so that they can be fairly described by the same word? No, I’m afraid this is grasping at straws to show an historical understanding that marriage includes such things.

 

[DrTaffy]

As for the ancient Chinese customs cited in your other link, they describe intimate bondings of various sorts.

Chinese customs? I am guessing that you are referring to the Wikipaedia link, which I have not read in detail in a long while - and it can change quite frequently. As far as I recall, China has had or at the very least proposed legally recognised unions for same sex couples, but never under the same name as that used for heterosexual couples, so is not a good example in my opinon.

How do you refute the Roman and Native American examples I actually quoted?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How do you refute the Roman and Native American examples I actually quoted?

Since you didn’t give a reference for you statements, I guess you mean the material in the Wikipedia article. From the description of the “Two Spirit type”, it sounds like they are talking about a same sex relationship of some sort, but I see no indication that they put this relationship in the same category as normal marriage. So there is no reason to think that they grouped the two kinds of relationships under that same heading.

As for the Romans, to quote Wikipedia:

Amongst the Romans, there were instances of same-sex marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperors Nero and (possibly - though it is doubted by many historians) Elagabalus, who both supposedly married men, and by its outlaw in 342 AD in the Theodosian Code, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.

This is a long way from demonstrating a common understanding among the Romans that marriage included same-sex unions. Nero, being emperor, was obviously in a position of greater power than most Roman citizens. If he got it into his head that he wanted the state to recognize his personal same-sex union as a marriage, it is not surprising that he could make it so.

 

[Monkey1976]

Since you didn’t give a reference for you statements, I guess you mean the material in the Wikipedia article. From the description of the “Two Spirit type”, it sounds like they are talking about a same sex relationship of some sort, but I see no indication that they put this relationship in the same category as normal marriage. So there is no reason to think that they grouped the two kinds of relationships under that same heading.

A relationship between someone who would today be called a “Two Spirit” - a term invented in the 1990s by gay Amerindian activists - and a man or woman would not have been seen by the culture of the time as a same-sex “marriage”. Those individuals - whose label varied among different tribes, being totally unknown in many of them - we seen as neither male nor female, but as a “third gender” somewhere between the two, but distinct from both. For advocates of same-sex “marriage” to claim that these unions were seen in the same way as marriages is both anachronistic and a deeply offensive hijacking of cultures about which we know little.

As for the Romans, to quote Wikipedia:

This is a long way from demonstrating a common understanding among the Romans that marriage included same-sex unions. Nero, being emperor, was obviously in a position of greater power than most Roman citizens. If he got it into his head that he wanted the state to recognize his personal same-sex union as a marriage, it is not surprising that he could make it so.

I’ve provided Taffy with multiple citations from actual Roman law regarding marriage, noting that the parties are always qualified as male and female, yet he insists that because it was not specifically disallowed, it must have been allowed, and because it was not disallowed, it must have been common. By that logic, I was able to successfully prove that both Bigfoot and unicorns exised thent:

1. 
   *]Marriage between a sasquatch and a unicorn is not specifically prohibited by Roman law
   *]Because it was not forbidden, it must have been legal
   *]Because it was legal, it must have been common
   *]For it to have been common, sasquatches and unicorns must have existed at that time
   
   Finally, what the Theodosian code actually outlawed were same-sex weddings, which would be equivalent to a law forbidding “commitment ceremonies” in states where same-sex “marriage” is still recognized as a fiction that should not be enshrined in law. There was no need to outlaw same-sex “marriage”, because no such thing ever existed in Roman law, going all the way back to the Twelve Tablets.