Marriage, or no marriage

[Robert_in_SD]

I have been reading Robert’s posts. They’ve illuminated very well that you guys and I have differing base definitions that I see no way to reconcile at the moment. Thank you for giving me your opinions, they have been very informative.

You are welcome. But I feel compelled to point out that it’s not MY definition of marriage that matters. The nature of marriage is what it is. The issue is whether or not the law will recognize the truth, or try to pass a lie to conform with prevailing social convention.

Peace,
Robert

 

[tonyinatlga12]

Hey coptic,

I have be recovering from surgery the past week. I was so bored out of my mind until somehow I came across this website. Unfortunately it is back to work with me. It has been such fun toying with you. You have had me laughing my *** off. Thank you so much for the entertainment. You crack me up. It has been so much fun having you run from here and there. I would just cut and paste stuff off the internet and I can just imagine you taking all that time reading a bunch of ****. I feel kind of bad jerking you around, but I couldn’t resist. You just made it too easy. I wish I could take a couple of more days off to play around with you, but its back to the real world.

 

[da_nolo]

Govt. does not have any autonomy. the people do.

We refer to the various governments as sovereign. The actions of government are separate from those of individuals, as is necessary for the regulation of society. This is true even in a total democracy since the government acts differently than the dissenters would like. Yet the problem of having no government is greater than the problem of a government that is contrary.

we are self-governed, as we should -though many lack- regulating govt. influence.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

Govt. is strictly based on society/grouped people. If we want no govt.; some govt.; or all govt…then that is what there will be. we regulate it and its influence on us (as in laws).

It is connected to the previous ‘people have autonomy, not a thing’ statement. where as a group of people have the ability and sovereign right to form their own government. a literal take on the word, since when speaking of a nations/country’s being sovereign it refers to the people as a whole (and not separating govt. - society)

Or so that be my take on the word and as it has been used.

Sure. The responsibility of government is to facilitate just society. To the extent it does that, it succeeds. To the extent it does not, it fails.

Marriage is naturally ordered toward bonding a man and woman together and toward their begetting and raising children (who would, in turn, continue the cycle). In order to establish this in the most successful way, and for robust continuance of the process, it is necessary to do everything reasonable to ensure that each marriage is well-established and lasting. (some ways to do that include required premarital counseling, requiring a cause and counseling prior to civil divorce and enforcing a penalty on infidelity - at least in family court). That helps the married couples to stay married and children to have reasonable expectations for their own lives.

So , what you are trying to say is that if an authoritative figure (govt.) acknowledges a biological character (marriage) as the thing it is (vs not) then the society it governs is more likely to connect to the pure meaning of the character (marriage) instead of being confused about what is or isn’t???

 

[SonCatcher]

Govt. is strictly based on society/grouped people. If we want no govt.; some govt.; or all govt…then that is what there will be. we regulate it and its influence on us (as in laws).

It is connected to the previous ‘people have autonomy, not a thing’ statement. where as a group of people have the ability and sovereign right to form their own government. a literal take on the word, since when speaking of a nations/country’s being sovereign it refers to the people as a whole (and not separating govt. - society)

Or so that be my take on the word and as it has been used.

So , what you are trying to say is that if an authoritative figure (govt.) acknowledges a biological character (marriage) as the thing it is (vs not) then the society it governs is more likely to connect to the pure meaning of the character (marriage) instead of being confused about what is or isn’t???

It seems you equate “government” with “people” for purpose of this discussion. I do not.

You are correct that people in a society tend to equate permissiveness with morality. That isn’t quite what I was aiming at, however. I meant that there are greater benefits to the persons in the society when marriage is properly defended which consequently benefit society as a whole.

 

[TarkanAttila]

You are welcome. But I feel compelled to point out that it’s not MY definition of marriage that matters. The nature of marriage is what it is. The issue is whether or not the law will recognize the truth, or try to pass a lie to conform with prevailing social convention.

Peace,
Robert

Yes. The truth of the matter is that marriage has ALWAYS had as a/the main point having children and raising them. So-called “gay marriage” doesn’t. In fact, I think a lot of people don’t understand that this is the point of marriage. They think it’s about two people who love each other so much they get to have sex with each other.

I think the Catholic understanding of marriage combines the best of both of these worlds. The Church agrees that the love of a man and a woman is celebrated in a special way in marriage. It is so special it in fact, produces life, and something which will bind the man and the woman together in love for life.

 

[Andre1000]

Glad you’re not the one defining legal terms then.

Then you will not like the German government, because they are trying to eliminate the difference between marriage and living together. And they have almost succeeded.