Marriage is subjective

[filter2700]

Ultimately, marriage is a subjective issue. As Catholics, it is our subjective opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is based from our religious views, and our religious views are subjective. There are moral truths secular and religious people can agree on, like the right to live and be free, but more cultural-based issues like marriage are subjective.

I believe in Catholicism, that marriage is religious in its nature and is a sacrament from God. But this stems from a subjective religious view!

Secular, gay-rights activists believe marriage is a legal union between two individuals who love one another. This is also a subjective view.

With this being said, how can the Federal government set an objective, standard definition of what “marriage” is when “marriage” is subjective depending on what a person believes?

This is why I say get the Federal government out of this issue. Allow couples to create their own legal documents (or Church officials in charge) and then it is up to the states to make the marriages official.

If a gay couple wants to legally “marry” one another and have the legal union aspect of marriage without the religious part, then they have that right to create a legal contract of unity. Those who are religious simply have the right to deny their marriage as valid in the eyes of God. We can say “they are legally married, but in the eyes of God they are not a married couple.” Do not mistake what I am saying and think I am approving, condoning, or supporting immoral behavior like homosexuality. In order for humans to truly have free will, we must be allowed to sin even if its wrong. If those who are non-religious wish to create their own legal contracts of unity/marriage and disregard all religious aspects, I believe they have a right to do that. This does not mean I approve of it.

What are your thoughts on this? Since religion is subjective, even though there are objective truths within our universe (like the right to life), I would say marriage being religious in its nature is not an objective truth, rather, it is a subjective truth that is only “objective” if a person holds a religious belief that says so, but this religious belief is subjective so therefore the nature of marriage is also subjective.

I see no other solution than this than to get the Federal government out of it. I am definitely open to changing my view but I don’t know how possible this is.

 

[snarflemike]

How do you know, objectively, that “marriage is subjective”?

I do suspect that America will have gay “marriage” before too long. Then the lawsuits against churches will begin, and then priests and ministers will begin going to jail. Which is, I think, one of the primary goals of all this.

 

[filter2700]

Because marriage being between one man and one woman is not an objective truth… Inalienable rights, like the right to live and be free are objective truths because these come from our humanity. The nature of our humanity coming from “God” is a subjective view, because belief in God is subjective. We can objectively state we are humans, therefore we have a human nature and naturally occurring rights, these rights are very limited.

Marriage is not a matter of rights in its nature, it is a matter of defining the validity of a unity between two people. This issue does not deal with objectivity, it deals entirely with subjectivity. Us Catholics believing marriage is between one man and one woman appears to be an objective truth only because of our subjective belief as I said before.

 

[PeterJohn]

Ultimately, marriage is a subjective issue. As Catholics, it is our subjective opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is based from our religious views, and our religious views are subjective. There are moral truths secular and religious people can agree on, like the right to live and be free, but more cultural-based issues like marriage are subjective.

I believe in Catholicism, that marriage is religious in its nature and is a sacrament from God. But this stems from a subjective religious view!

Secular, gay-rights activists believe marriage is a legal union between two individuals who love one another. This is also a subjective view.

With this being said, how can the Federal government set an objective, standard definition of what “marriage” is when “marriage” is subjective depending on what a person believes?

This is why I say get the Federal government out of this issue. Allow couples to create their own legal documents (or Church officials in charge) and then it is up to the states to make the marriages official.

If a gay couple wants to legally “marry” one another and have the legal union aspect of marriage without the religious part, then they have that right to create a legal contract of unity. Those who are religious simply have the right to deny their marriage as valid in the eyes of God. We can say “they are legally married, but in the eyes of God they are not a married couple.” Do not mistake what I am saying and think I am approving, condoning, or supporting immoral behavior like homosexuality. In order for humans to truly have free will, we must be allowed to sin even if its wrong. If those who are non-religious wish to create their own legal contracts of unity/marriage and disregard all religious aspects, I believe they have a right to do that. This does not mean I approve of it.

What are your thoughts on this? Since religion is subjective, even though there are objective truths within our universe (like the right to life), I would say marriage being religious in its nature is not an objective truth, rather, it is a subjective truth that is only “objective” if a person holds a religious belief that says so, but this religious belief is subjective so therefore the nature of marriage is also subjective.

I see no other solution than this than to get the Federal government out of it. I am definitely open to changing my view but I don’t know how possible this is.

I would argue that there’s a good reason that marriage is a public entity and that it should concern the government. I earnestly agree with experts who say civilizations are only as strong as the families they are built on. This ssm debate is not troubling to me because the LGBT groups want legal recognition of their unions. It’s troubling to me because of what redefining marriage would entail for the future generations of our country.
Divorce rates are really bad now a days. 50% divorce. With ssm becoming enshrined into law, the remaining 50% of American marriages will dwindle because marriage will be such a loose, and less meaningful cliche. What is a public(non religous) marriage anyways? It’s a publicly acknowledged union that “should be” permanent, that is open to bearing children, and more importantly raising well balanced, healthy, productive, good willed kids. It’s about a family, not solely about love. People don’t need a marriage to have a family, but a marriage is the ordinary way to start a family. I’m not saying LGBT’s cannot produce healthy children, but the average ss couple cannot naturaly conceive a family, and cannot fulfill the natural balance of masculine, feminine mommy and daddy that is required for a normal, healthy child to flourish. Science shows us that broken families, either through divorce, sepration, or other causes, have a greater tendency to fall short of meeting a developing child’s emotional and psychological needs, which most would agree that is more important then any adults emotional desires. These studies show less privileged children; and by privileged I mean the privilege of having both biological parents in an unbroken family, do worse in school, have higher dropout rates, higher tendencies toward crime, higher tendencies towards divorce in their relationships, and the cycle repeats and slowly worsens as it spreads. All children are precious and deserve to have the best soil to flourish in. Unwanted babies are a sad tragedy, and God bless the married couple who cannot have kids that adopt them. But adoption by ss couples puts a less privileged child, into a home that is less then ideal for what they deserve.

 

[snarflemike]

Because marriage being between one man and one woman is not an objective truth… Inalienable rights, like the right to live and be free are objective truths because these come from our humanity. The nature of our humanity coming from “God” is a subjective view, because belief in God is subjective. We can objectively state we are humans, therefore we have a human nature and naturally occurring rights, these rights are very limited.

Marriage is not a matter of rights in its nature, it is a matter of defining the validity of a unity between two people. This issue does not deal with objectivity, it deals entirely with subjectivity. Us Catholics believing marriage is between one man and one woman appears to be an objective truth only because of our subjective belief as I said before.

Well, asserting something to be true is not the same as offering evidence. Are you saying there is no evidence via natural law (which is of course based upon our natures) that marriage is limited to one man and one woman?

 

[PeterJohn]

Because marriage being between one man and one woman is not an objective truth… Inalienable rights, like the right to live and be free are objective truths because these come from our humanity. The nature of our humanity coming from “God” is a subjective view, because belief in God is subjective. We can objectively state we are humans, therefore we have a human nature and naturally occurring rights, these rights are very limited.

Marriage is not a matter of rights in its nature, it is a matter of defining the validity of a unity between two people. This issue does not deal with objectivity, it deals entirely with subjectivity. Us Catholics believing marriage is between one man and one woman appears to be an objective truth only because of our subjective belief as I said before.

Catholic or not, marriage is subjective indeed, subjective to the human race. Not to the failed civilizations, but to the successful ones, our current one. Our personal rights cannot conflict with the greater good. Such as if my personal right to happiness means anothers death. Or 5% of our nations population’s romantically based emotional state conflicts with the fruitfulness of our future generations. Marriage is a public oath simply and historically because of the need for successful child rearing. We currently aren’t producing a very healthy crop of future tax payers and neighbors across the board in the US. Why? Broken families is one reason. This public oath we call marriage is recognized and encouraged by our government rightly because it is responsible for our future. Two SS individuals cannot naturaly procreate, nor give the absolute best possible home for our future generations. The very redefinition of marriage will weaken the concept of marriage which is already weakened by no fault divorce that runs rampant through our society. 50%!!! 50% of these marital organizations don’t last! It might be your right to be able to make a house out of straw but if your house is flammable, in a world of common brush fires, the state should tell you “Hey, maybe that’s not the best idea” and restrain you from causing possible problems in your community with a house that’s ready to burn up with one spark.

Its not about should we limit marriages, but how much should we limit them and why.
Why couldn’t 15 y/o’s marry? Why would the state give a hoot? What about 3 men marrying? Who are they going to harm?

 

[ricofall]

I applaud and thank you for your beautiful heart and clear-minded logic to see the issue from the perspective of others who follow a different belief system than you do.

Just one question: If we leave it up to each individual state…then if someone wants to get married to a same sex partner and their state does not allow it…this would mean they’d have to move from their home and get married and live elsewhere?

Yes. However If you get married in a state that allows ssm, then move to Texas or another state that does not recognize ssm, then your marriage is no longer recognized. It’s like you were never married.

 

[emilyjackson]

More than the unity of two people, Marriage is a ceremony, to bring two families together to have a life long relationship. My wedding proposal was from one of my relative.My husband and his family were in United States.I am an Indian and all my relatives were in India.So selecting a wedding location was a huge task for the two families.It was a month before my marriage that I came to know about Tamarind Weddings, a wedding planner in India.They were okay with the idea of hiring a wedding planner and thus, the wedding planning proceeded with Tamarind Weddings. Our wedding venue was in a resort near one of the best backwaters in God’s own country ,really a good destination in India. Tamarind Weddings made my wedding day memorable .

 

[brierpatch1974]

How do you know, objectively, that “marriage is subjective”?

I do suspect that America will have gay “marriage” before too long. Then the lawsuits against churches will begin, and then priests and ministers will begin going to jail. Which is, I think, one of the primary goals of all this.

I agree with this even though they say freedom of religion would. To allow suites. But we all know that’s crazy. If they make it legal they should not be allowed to force churches to do it. Let them go someplace else like one of the many churches who claim to follow God yet support gay marriage and gay church leaders. Neither side has a right to force their views on others so keep it separate.

 

[Bookcat]

Marriage is objective. It is a reality that either is or is not. It can either exist with a particular two persons or it cannot.

It can come to exist with two persons who are opposite gender and who are free to marry. It cannot come to exist with two persons of the same gender.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

How do you know, objectively, that “marriage is subjective”?

I do suspect that America will have gay “marriage” before too long. Then the lawsuits against churches will begin, and then priests and ministers will begin going to jail. Which is, I think, one of the primary goals of all this.

I don’t think it will come to that. Lawsuits will happen, definately, but imo it will just lead to churches that refuse to perform “gay weddings” (some, like the ECLA, UCC, and EC-USA already perform them, so they’ll be fine) losing tax exemption, and maybe losing the ability to offiicate civil marriages at all. If that happens, it’ll be like in some other countries where a couple will have 2 ceremonies-one at church (if they want the Church to recognize their marriage), and one at the courthouse or in front of a JOP for the government to recognize their marriage. Right now in the U.S., to get married in the Church, you have to have a civil marriage license first (the Church won’t officiate a wedding that won’t be a legal marriage). It’ll be interesting to see if the Church will require a civil marriage first prior to witnesses a couples Sacramental marriage.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[ahs]

This is why I say get the Federal government out of this issue. Allow couples to create their own legal documents (or Church officials in charge) and then it is up to the states to make the marriages official.

If a gay couple wants to legally “marry” one another and have the legal union aspect of marriage without the religious part, then they have that right to create a legal contract of unity. Those who are religious simply have the right to deny their marriage as valid in the eyes of God. We can say “they are legally married, but in the eyes of God they are not a married couple.”

I think what this boils down to, in the eyes of the pro-“gay-marriage” crowd is equality, or equal rights. But I disagree that this is an “equal rights” issue…because currentl EVERYONE has the right to be married…toi enter into a lifelong monogomous relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Marriage is witheld from NO ONE. I also believe that the governement MUST take a position on marriage and what marriage means, because marriage is what built society. Allow me to explain:

This is not an issue about equality , but rather about the purpose/meaning of Marriage and why the state should promote it. It’s not about extending Marriage to same-sex partners, rather it’s a demand to redefine Marriage. The idea of Marriage that has always and everywhere been understood as being a biological union of a man and woman for children…will be redefined as an emotional commitment between “two people”. It becomes an issue of the state no longer promoting Marriage, which has supported and built our societies, but rather supporting “emotional commitments”, regardless of what is in the best interest of the children. The state cannot take a neutral stance… it must promote Marriage as either a conjugal relationship or not. And if it’s not conjugal in nature, then there is no reason for the state to promote any set of relationships over another…and the battle to redefine Marriage is a moot point because Marriage then has no true meaning aside from how one feels for another…and then why should the state bother to promote it?

 

[bmonk]

I once saw marriage defined as a personal but public commitment between a man and a woman. It cannot be subjective, because it has so many public consequences, such as in the tax laws, medical issues, care of children, and so on.

What is the purpose of marriage? Traditionally it has two purposes, going all the way back to our primate ancestors: It promoted the protection and formation of children, and it provided for the good of the couple. And the children are primary: the good of the couple is so they can better provide all that children need, because human children are so helpless for so long.

Given that, it is essential that the community know who is married and who is not. Hence it must be public in some way. Legally this is accomplished by the state issuing marriage licenses; canonically we have a similar process using marriage preparation and the resulting documents, plus notations in various Church registers (marriage and baptismal notations). It is also why a “marriage” without a church witness, or at least a dispensation from that form, is automatically invalid for a Catholic: it is not properly public, and so it fails to have effect.

The problem with same-sex unions being marriage is that it fails to provide for the purposes of marriage. There can be no children of the union without some outside intervention, and it is not good for the persons, because it promotes a disordered and unfruitful relationship, not open to children. All that is left is the pleasure of the couple–which is hardly a sufficient purpose for marriage.

 

[Pax]

Marriage is objective. It is a reality that either is or is not. It can either exist with a particular two persons or it cannot.

It can come to exist with two persons who are opposite gender and who are free to marry. It cannot come to exist with two persons of the same gender.

Bookcat,

Thanks so much for making the counterpoint. I will simply add a few comments.

The claim that religion and marriage are subjective has not been established on this thread. Moreover, differences of opinion are not the determining factor in what is or is not subjective. The truth is a description of the facts and it is not up for grabs. The truth is not subjective but many opinions are.

If we think that religion and marriage are subjective, then we have capitulated to the errors of relativism and truth will become totally elusive. I am not optimistic about our nation’s future in regards to the definition of marriage. If we decide to redefine marriage to include same sex partners, then there will be nothing to stop us from redefining it later into something else.

Simply because more and more people are in favor of something does not make it right or true. Sympathy for the difficulties associated with same sex attraction should not cause us to abandoned the truth in favor of a misplaced compassion that will exchange the truth for a lie in the definition of marriage.

Again, thanks bringing up the counterpoint and God bless.

 

[brb3]

Ultimately, marriage is a subjective issue. As Catholics, it is our subjective opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is based from our religious views, and our religious views are subjective. There are moral truths secular and religious people can agree on, like the right to live and be free, but more cultural-based issues like marriage are subjective.

I believe in Catholicism, that marriage is religious in its nature and is a sacrament from God. But this stems from a subjective religious view!

Secular, gay-rights activists believe marriage is a legal union between two individuals who love one another. This is also a subjective view.

With this being said, how can the Federal government set an objective, standard definition of what “marriage” is when “marriage” is subjective depending on what a person believes?

This is why I say get the Federal government out of this issue. Allow couples to create their own legal documents (or Church officials in charge) and then it is up to the states to make the marriages official.

If a gay couple wants to legally “marry” one another and have the legal union aspect of marriage without the religious part, then they have that right to create a legal contract of unity. Those who are religious simply have the right to deny their marriage as valid in the eyes of God. We can say “they are legally married, but in the eyes of God they are not a married couple.” Do not mistake what I am saying and think I am approving, condoning, or supporting immoral behavior like homosexuality. In order for humans to truly have free will, we must be allowed to sin even if its wrong. If those who are non-religious wish to create their own legal contracts of unity/marriage and disregard all religious aspects, I believe they have a right to do that. This does not mean I approve of it.

What are your thoughts on this? Since religion is subjective, even though there are objective truths within our universe (like the right to life), I would say marriage being religious in its nature is not an objective truth, rather, it is a subjective truth that is only “objective” if a person holds a religious belief that says so, but this religious belief is subjective so therefore the nature of marriage is also subjective.

I see no other solution than this than to get the Federal government out of it. I am definitely open to changing my view but I don’t know how possible this is.

Right … ‘get the Fed Gov out of it’ . Put the Catholic Church in charge of all marriage… even Protestant and Atheist ones.

 

[brb3]

I applaud and thank you for your beautiful heart and clear-minded logic to see the issue from the perspective of others who follow a different belief system than you do.

Just one question: If we leave it up to each individual state…then if someone wants to get married to a same sex partner and their state does not allow it…this would mean they’d have to move from their home and get married and live elsewhere?

Yes … so, lets not approve it yet — until all 50 states agree to it. In the year 2525 … if man is still alive, and woman can survive