Pray for California

[Giants]

And the localites which do “allow” it are dangerously corrupting the structure of society and opposing the natural law principles which are the underpinnings of criminal, civil, and constitutional law. As to impotence, that’s been covered in other threads. Try using the search feature. It’s a wonderful antidote to laziness.

My point stands, obviously. You’re quick to cite the State definition of marriage as evidence of what marriage should be. But disallow it for all the instances when that definition deviates from Catholic doctrine. You can’t have it both way - it’s a silly thing for you to bring into the argument. But, if you’re going to now claim that I’m mistaken, and that impotence is not an automatic disqualifier for marriage in the eyes of Catholicism, well then, the floor is yours. I’m sure your fellow Catholics are very interested in hearing this.

As for “natural law,” to the extent that this isn’t just a poorly defined, man-made construct, I’ve addressed it already. “Natural law” says nothing about what marriage should be. Even if we accept the premise that this “natural law” is ordered toward life-giving, and conclude that SSM marriages are disordered on that basis, you would still have to explain why “natural law” allows for gay people in the first place?

 

[Bradski]

The further that legal marriage goes from Holy marriage…

Many people do not know what the Catholic church’s position is on marriage.I just did a quick check around the office and asked a few people (without mentioning any religion):

Would you agree with someone who says that people who don’t want to have children should not marry?

Would you agree with someone who says that people who are physically unable to have a sexual relationship should not marry?

Would you agree with someone who says that it’s OK for a 14 your old child to get married?

Would you think that that person would be someone you’d be prepared to listen to in regards to other aspects of marriage?

Not a very big poll I’ll admit. Just 4 people. But I’ll bet you all know what they said to the last question.

 

[Stephen168]

Feel free to mention this to Elizabeth502, who tried citing the State’s definition of marriage as something that strengthens her argument about what marriage is. Forgetting, evidently, that some localities actually do allow for gay marriage, and all localities allow it for impotent couples and couples who don’t want children.

Same-sex no, Impotence no, sterile yes. If the State matches this, then the State has properly defined marriage.

 

[Giants]

Same-sex no, Impotence no, sterile yes. If the State matches this, then the State has properly defined marriage.

It doesn’t. So why bring up the State’s definition of marriage as support for the idea that marriage is only what the Catholic Church defines it to be? As far as I know, the U.S Government’s definition of marriage has never been in line with the Catholic Church’s.

 

[Stephen168]

It doesn’t. So why bring up the State’s definition of marriage as support for the idea that marriage is only what the Catholic Church defines it to be? As far as I know, the U.S Government’s definition of marriage has never been in line with the Catholic Church’s.

I never brought it up. The state does not define marriage. You haven’t shown me where Elizabeth said it either. I just told you who can be married.

 

[Giants]

I never brought it up. The state does not define marriage. You haven’t shown me where Elizabeth said it either. I just told you who can be married.

Look at post #137. That’s her saying it. Then look at post #143. That’s you responding to me responding to her saying it. So not only did she say it, I’ve just proven that you’ve known all along that she said it, and now you’re pretending it never happened.

 

[Stephen168]

Look at post #137. That’s her saying it. Then look at post #143. That’s you responding to me responding to her saying it. So not only did she say it, I’ve just proven that you’ve known all along that she said it, and now you’re pretending it never happened.

You are wrong on both counts. It is homosexualists that rely on the state for a definition because they don’t have their own. They just want what they want without reason.

 

[Giants]

You are wrong on both counts. It is homosexualists that rely on the state for a definition because they don’t have their own. They just want what they want without reason.

Of course they have one of their own. They have the same definition as the State, plus the inclusion of gay couples to marry as well. All they want is the State to take its current definition, and expand it to include gay couples. And they want it for a whole host of obvious reasons.

 

[Stephen168]

Of course they have one of their own.

What is your definition of marriage?

 

[Giants]

What is your definition of marriage?

Same as gay folks - the State’s current definition, plus gay folks.

 

[Faithdancer]

So glad I’m in a position to influence many young minds in a positive way- to teach them that homosexual activity is sinful and unnatural and any arrangement based on that activity, whether “union” or “marriage” is thereby also sinful and unnatural.
Deo gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Of course they have one of their own. They have the same definition as the State, plus the inclusion of gay couples to marry as well. All they want is the State to take its current definition, and expand it to include gay couples. And they want it for a whole host of obvious reasons.

Wrong. The State has a completely different context for marriage than homosexuals do. (Among homosexuals who want a faux “marriage” label; the wiser ones want no such thing.)

 

[Stephen168]

Same as gay folks - the State’s current definition, plus gay folks.

There was marriage before there was a State. There was marriage thousands of years before the State got involved (Civil marriage). So without the state you have no definition; like I said.

 

[Giants]

There was marriage before there was a State. There was marriage thousands of years before the State got involved (Civil marriage). So without the state you have no definition; like I said.

Marriage also existed long before Christianity, to say nothing of the Catholic Church. And I’m willing to bet it allowed for couples to marry without them intending to have children, or even if the man couldn’t get an erection. So the Catholic definition of marriage is already a departure from how marriage used to be defined. Though this is neither here nor there.

I don’t “need” the State to have a definition of marriage. It just so happens that my definition of it lines up almost (but not quite) perfectly with the State’s. I could just as soon proclaim my opinion that marriage is only valid between humans and plants. I think the odds of getting the State to agree with me on this are slim, but I would still have a definition.

 

[Stephen168]

Marriage also existed long before Christianity, to say nothing of the Catholic Church.

Yes, and the Catholic Church along with all previous western cultures adopted the ancient definition.

And I’m willing to bet it allowed for couples to marry without them intending to have children, or even if the man couldn’t get an erection.

I bet they didn’t

So the Catholic definition of marriage is already a departure from how marriage used to be defined. Though this is neither here nor there.

So you are wrong about what you think is the ancient and Catholic definition.

I don’t “need” the State to have a definition of marriage. It just so happens that my definition of it lines up almost (but not quite) perfectly with the State’s. I could just as soon proclaim my opinion that marriage is only valid between humans and plants. I think the odds of getting the State to agree with me on this are slim, but I would still have a definition.

Are you saying your definition lines up perfectly with the State of Saudi Arabia? What is your definition of marriage?

 

[Bradski]

What is your definition of marriage?

How about this: marriage is the state in which two people, of an age to make mature decisions and not directly biologically connected, are in when they each make a committment to each other to spend the rest of their lives together in an intimate relationship.

Personally I don’t believe that the state needs to be involved, although I can appreciate the argument that says that some sort of legal recognition might be required.

So that would preclude incestual relationships and those involving young children but would allow people of the same sex and those who don’t want, or can’t have children. It would also preclude multiple partners, but for the life of me I can’t think of a valid reason against it.

 

[Giants]

Yes, and the Catholic Church along with all previous western cultures adopted the ancient definition.

You misspelled “altered.”

I bet they didn’t

I’ll bet they did. But go ahead and prove me wrong, if you think you can.

So you are wrong about what you think is the ancient and Catholic definition.

Well, certainly not the Catholic definition. That’s as plain as day.

Are you saying your definition lines up perfectly with the State of Saudi Arabia? What is your definition of marriage?

Pretty sure that Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow gay folks to marry. And I’ve told you my definition already.

 

[Stephen168]

How about this: marriage is the state in which two people, of an age to make mature decisions and not directly biologically connected, are in when they each make a committment to each other to spend the rest of their lives together in an intimate relationship.

Personally I don’t believe that the state needs to be involved, although I can appreciate the argument that says that some sort of legal recognition might be required.

So that would preclude incestual relationships and those involving young children but would allow people of the same sex and those who don’t want, or can’t have children. It would also preclude multiple partners, but for the life of me I can’t think of a valid reason against it.

Yes, I think when same-sex couples are included in marriage, excluding children, siblings, and multiple partners seems pretty random.

 

[Stephen168]

Pretty sure that Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow gay folks to marry. And I’ve told you my definition already.

It also includes multiple partners. You have not given a definition of marriage. But that isn’t unusually as I’ve said.

 

[Giants]

It also includes multiple partners. You have not given a definition of marriage. But that isn’t unusually as I’ve said.

Whatever. I don’t know why you think “What is your definition of marriage” is such a checkmate move. It’s an easy question to answer. And I answered it. And you don’t really have a response except to pretend that I didn’t.