question regarding marriage

[KatholikosMercy]

So that we are using the same meanings for terms, I will explain the sense in which I am using some of the terms above:

From Merriam-Webster
infidelity: 2 a : unfaithfulness to a moral obligation : DISLOYALTY b : marital unfaithfulness or an instance of it
Infidelity may take many forms, which may or may not include sodomy. It is the unfaithfulness to a moral obligation that I find objectionable.

Sodomy is a specific sexual act which may or may not be engaged in by persons who have taken a vow of fidelity to one another, be they heterosexual or homosexual (and yes, some heterosexual couples engage in this practice, including married ones). If it is engaged in between persons who have taken a vow of fidelity to each other, it is neither infidelity nor fornication.

Fornication is, by definition, sexual intercourse between two persons who have not taken a vow of fidelity to one another. It may or may not include sodomy.

Therefore, infidelity, fornication and sodomy are not equivalent, interchangable terms. Infidelity is not limited to sodomy and if one has not take a vow of fidelity, sexual intercourse with another person is not a breach of that vow.

You are absolutely correct, I do not consider myself bound by what the Catholic Church says or what the Christian Scripture says about the matter, as I am not Christian. Similarly, I doubt you consider yourself bound to Hindu or Buddhist (or other religious) teaching on the subject or consider yourself “disobedient” to a tradition to which you do not subscribe.

Even the most ignorant know its wrong to cheat on your spouse or to kill another human being.

Even the dictionary calls infidelity immoral. So you subscribe to morality when it suits you. It suits you when it effects you but when it affects others you could care less is that it?

Its instilled in us by God. Just as the sex act itself is a binding commitment whether you say so or not. I think you know what I mean. You cannot fornicate and maintain emotional health. From that moment on you have made a commitement by joining yourself to another regardless if you immediately divorce yourself from the person as soon as you can. That person has a part of you and takes it with them.

You can deny your internal morality all you want by accepting humanizing deceptions of the flesh and liberally intelectualizing your conscience but all the thinking or liberalizm in the world will not change how you will feel the first time you bite that apple. Once you commit the sin there is no undoing it.

Were not going to legalize immorality on any level if I can help it and if you want to then your un-american in my book. Thats coming from a Veteran and Patriot. Take it for what its worth.

 

[KarenNC]

**Even the most ignorant know its wrong to cheat on your spouse or to kill another human being.

Even the dictionary calls infidelity immoral. So you subscribe to morality when it suits you. It suits you when it effects you but when it affects others you could care less is that it?**

In what way do you see my statements as an indication of “when it affects others you could care less?” Infidelity is infidelity, violating and betraying a solemn vow, and I believe it is always wrong and always dishonorable.

Just as the sex act itself is a binding commitment whether you say so or not. I think you know what I mean. You cannot fornicate and maintain emotional health. From that moment on you have made a commitement by joining yourself to another regardless if you immediately divorce yourself from the person as soon as you can. That person has a part of you and takes it with them.

Reread my posts and you will find that I agree with you. I believe I have said explicitly that I cannot understand how a person can take sexual intimacy casually and can engage in sexual intercourse of any sort without a commitment to monogamy.

However, I do recognize that there are adults who do so willingly and knowingly on both parts with the clear understanding between them that it does not involve such a commitment or vow. In the absence of such a vow or commitment, I can say that I think they are incorrect and that there will be lasting emotional (if not physical) consequences to such a choice, but I cannot reasonably call such behavior infidelity. Damaging, short-sighted, etc, but not infidelity.

The biggest problem, I believe, is when the parties involved do not agree or do not communicate to each other their beliefs on the significance of sexual behavior, so that one sees and expects commitment and one does not. This is also dishonest, in my view.

You can deny your internal morality all you want by accepting humanizing deceptions of the flesh and liberally intelectualizing your conscience but all the thinking or liberalizm in the world will not change how you will feel the first time you bite that apple. Once you commit the sin there is no undoing it.

You are going to have to explain this one, as I do not know what you mean by it. In what way am I “denying my internal morality,” “accepting humanizing deceptions of the flesh” or “liberally intellectualizing my conscience?”

Were not going to legalize immorality on any level if I can help it and if you want to then your un-american in my book. Thats coming from a Veteran and Patriot. Take it for what its worth.

Un-Catholic and un-Christian, perhaps (which shouldn’t be a great surprise to anyone ), I will grant you, but un-American? Hardly

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Even the most ignorant know its wrong to cheat on your spouse or to kill another human being.

In what way do you see my statements as an indication of “when it affects others you could care less?”

Simply by condoning the immoral behavior of others as you have in the case of sodomy. Sodomy is as immoral as infidelity

Just as the sex act itself is a binding commitment whether you say so or not. I think you know what I mean. You cannot fornicate and maintain emotional health. From that moment on you have made a commitment by joining yourself to another regardless if you immediately divorce yourself from the person as soon as you can. That person has a part of you and takes it with them.

Good, then I’m sure you will agree this would include the homosexual. What I am wishing you to understand is that the inclination to same sex fornication is just as immoral as infidelity is.

The sex act itself creates a committed bond. Even though you don’t subscribe to scripture there’s one that says the “two become as one”. So to fornicate at all is to create that physical bond. To deny that it will create that bond or to undertake the act without first Honestly making a loving commitment openly and even better yet, publicly binding is to be every bit as dishonorable as infidelity.

You can deny your internal morality all you want by accepting humanizing deceptions of the flesh and liberally intellectualizing your conscience but all the thinking or liberalism in the world will not change how you will feel the first time you bite that apple. Once you commit the sin there is no undoing it.

You are going to have to explain this one, as I do not know what you mean by it.

By rationalizing that its ok for a homosexual or anyone else for that matter to do as they wish behind closed doors as ok because its their choice or as you have said think it should be legalized in such a way that it would redefine the moral intention of marriage is to murder your conscience. To deny your internal morality is easy. We are all subject to it with out own appetites. A condition known as concupiscence. Though I appreciate you have said that you abhor infidelity are you to tell me that you have never felt horny or lustful? That you didn’t have to mortify that inclination of concupiscence to uphold your moral ideal fidelity to your spouse. This is what God expects of you. Its no difference for anyone of the other actions of the flesh be they an inclination to fornication or sodomy or even gluttony for that matter. We are called by an internal morality to mortify those appetites as well. If you don’t think they are internal then imagine yourself doing something un-natural to you or your design. Now, imagine someone who is weighted down with an abnormal inclination. Though it be a sad predicament that deserves all our sympathy and help for that person, their condition in no way makes the immoral act any less immoral. If we begin to exercise that immorality then does our will then become the new norm of what is moral. I think not. I have an example. If I were to fornicate and adulterate myself with as many women as I can until I no longer have any remorse and live only by lust until I am well beyond the point of any type of ordered love for another person then does my disorder then become the norm of morality for me or others. I think not. In actuality what has happened is that I have nullified my conscience and fallen into believing God thinks like me and will conform to me. I believe this is New Age belief and not truth. Instead its a result of hedonism.

Were not going to legalize immorality on any level. That’s coming from a Veteran and Patriot. Take it for what its worth.

Un-Catholic and un-Christian, perhaps (which shouldn’t be a great surprise to anyone ), I will grant you, but un-American? Hardly

I say un-American because as a Christian retiree from our military who struggled with the concept of a just war I have experienced first hand the morality of this country intended by the framers of our bill of rights and constitution that I defended.
The separation of church and state was intended to protect the church, not to remove or devoid our society from morality as is the case in our current predicament. So you see the current state of affairs of removal of God from society isn’t the tenant of what this country was founded on or ever intended to stand for, nor does it yet or should it ever though many are trying to make it just that. If this country looses morality it will have lost itself and will be destined for the same fall as all other immoral societies throughout history. Take a look at other societies that have condoned immorality in the past and see how they ended. I assure you they all have ended.

 

[KarenNC]

**Good, then I’m sure you will agree this would include the homosexual. What I am wishing you to understand is that the inclination to same sex fornication is just as immoral as infidelity is.

The sex act itself creates a commited bond. Even though you don’t subscribe to scripture theres one that says the “two become as one”. So to fornicate at all is to create that physical bond. To deny that it will create that bond or to undertake the act without first Honestly making a loving commitment openly and even better yet, publically bindling is to be everybit as dishonorable as infidelity.**

True, that is why I see no compelling reason to deny the opportunity for same sex couples the same access to a legally binding commitment. Many already take advantage of publically binding commitments through religious marriage ceremonies. If two people are engaging in sexual behavior within the bounds of a committed monogamous relationship, it is not infidelity, regardless of whether they benefit from the legal perks of marriage or not.

We are all subject to it with out own appetites. A condition known as concupisense. Though I appreciate you have said that you abhor infidelity are you to tell me that you have never felt horney or lustful? That you didn’t have to morify that inclination of concupisense to uphold your moral ideal fidelity to your spouse.

Concupiscence is simply strong desire, particularly strong sexual desire. There is neither morality or immorality attached to it. It simply is. Frankly, emotions are neither moral nor immoral, actions are. Morality is about conduct, not about feelings.

**If you don’t think they are internal then imagine yourself doing something un-natural to you or your design. **

As you would have homosexuals do, if they are indeed products of nature rather than nurture, as science seems to be showing? Forcing them either into heterosexual relationships or celibacy would not then be natural to their design.

** If I were to fornicate and adulterate myself with as many women as I can until I no longer have any remorse and live only by lust until I am well beyond the point of any type of ordered love for another person then does my disorder then become the norm of morality for me or others.**

And what relevance does this have to a discussion of monogamous committed life-long same sex relationships?

**The seperation of church and state was intended to protect the church, not to remove or devoid our society from morality as is the case in our current perdicament. So you see the current state of affairs of removal of God from society isn’t the tennant of what this country was founded on or ever intended to stand for, nor does it yet or should it ever though many are trying to make it just that. **

No one is threatening the right of any church to do exactly as they please in the arena of marriage. They currently do so without impediment. What is being discussed, by me at least, is the right to a legal civil marriage and equal benefits under the law based on the same standards used for heterosexual couples.

This country was not founded on the interpretation of morality as defined by any specific sect or religion, including the Christian one. There is not a unified stance on this issue even among Christians, much less followers of the wide diversity of religions (and those who follow no religion) that exist in our country. In all honesty, I believe more harm has been done by those who have consistently sought to insert their own interpretation of morality and religion as the basis of law.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Could I marry my brother? Current secular law forbids it. Why can’t I have the same rights as any other man and woman approaching marriage.
I love him.
I want to spend the rest of my life with him.
I want to be legally protected in the event of his death.
I don’t get it?!

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Good, then I’m sure you will agree this would include the homosexual. What I am wishing you to understand is that the inclination to same sex fornication is just as immoral as infidelity is.

True, that is why I see no compelling reason to deny the opportunity for same sex couples the same access to a legally binding commitment.

I was thinking this would be your reply as I wrote. The problem with this argument is that the act of sodomy is as immoral as fornication. The sex act in marriage is no longer fornication. This is not to say that it changes after marriage if its done before hand either. That’s a whole different topic. The fact is that sodomy would still be an immoral sex act after the gay marriage even if fornication was abstained from before the union where by the procreative act of man and woman would not after a marital contract as it would be natural design to consummate a marriage. If a gay union could bear fruit then I would be all for the help of society with that

Concupiscence is simply strong desire, particularly strong sexual desire. There is neither morality or immorality attached to it. It simply is.

Again this is New Age thinking. Morality and the appetites of the flesh are often opposed to each other and as such cannot be dealt with separately. You seem to like the definitions of words. Look up mortification and self-indulgence.

**If you don’t think they are internal then imagine yourself doing something un-natural to you or your design. **

As you would have homosexuals do, if they are indeed products of nature rather than nurture, as science seems to be showing? Forcing them either into heterosexual relationships or celibacy would not then be natural to their design.

Granted and thus the crux of the dilemma. Since they have an abnormal condition that may occur in nature should it then be sanctioned as the norm? I think not. Though its unfortunate for them just as it is for other handicapped people its ridiculous to redefine the norm because of it. Again, New Age thought that seeks to conform morality into what we want it to be and not what it always has been and always will be. There are no fruits of this type of thinking except death.

** If I were to fornicate and adulterate myself with as many women as I can until I no longer have any remorse and live only by lust until I am well beyond the point of any type of ordered love for another person then does my disorder then become the norm of morality for me or others.**

And what relevance does this have to a discussion of monogamous committed life-long same sex relationships?

Relevance as an example of New Age thought that wishes to redefine morality and even sacredness of marriage itself.

**The separation of church and state was intended to protect the church, not to remove or devoid our society from morality as is the case in our current predicament. So you see the current state of affairs of removal of God from society isn’t the tenant of what this country was founded on or ever intended to stand for, nor does it yet or should it ever though many are trying to make it just that. **

What is being discussed, by me at least, is the right to a legal civil marriage and equal benefits under the law based on the same standards used for heterosexual couples.

As I said before the union of Man and Woman bears the fruit of procreation. What fruit does sodomy bear?

This country was not founded on the interpretation of morality as defined by any specific sect or religion, including the Christian one. There is not a unified stance on this issue even among Christians, much less followers of the wide diversity of religions (and those who follow no religion) that exist in our country. In all honesty, I believe more harm has been done by those who have consistently sought to insert their own interpretation of morality and religion as the basis of law.

The Christian position is very unified. I do not include heretical or protesting beliefs in that assessment as you do.

You need to recognize the constitution of this country was derived from Judaic, Christian and Islamic principles of law as well as elements of democracy as a socialist republic.

If you don’t like that the basis for laws in this country are based on an interpretation of morality then you should try another country if you think you can find one greater. There are other systems. None has survived as long as the Church. Though we tend to function on a liberal fundamentalist bent in this nation at least were not apostate as the Eastern governments are. Personally I will stick with the intellectual agnostic -Thomas Jefferson who framed very well from the three religions already mentioned above until a better system comes along.

 

[KarenNC]

As I said before the union of Man and Woman bears the fruit of procreation. What fruit does sodomy bear?

Procreation, even the ability to do so, is not a criteria for legal civil marriage. There are many, many sexual behaviors in which heterosexual married couples may and do engage that likewise do not and can not end in procreation, but they are not barriers to civil marriage. The known inability to procreate is not a barrier to civil marriage, indeed in some states marriages that would otherwise be illegal (as between first cousins) are allowed if it can be shown that one of the couple is incapable of reproducing.

The Christian position is very unified. I do not include heretical or protesting beliefs in that assessment as you do.

Yes, I can see that you would not include dissenting opinions. I go on the basis of those who call themselves Christians and who are recognized by society as such.

**You need to recognize the constitution of this country was derived from Judaic, Christian and Islamic principles of law as well as elements of democracy as a socialist republic.

If you don’t like that the basis for laws in this country are based on an interpretation of morality then you should try another country if you think you can find one greater. There are other systems. None has survived as long as the Church. Though we tend to function on a liberal fundamentalist bent in this nation at least were not apostate as the Eastern governments are. Personally I will stick with the intellectual agnostic -Thomas Jefferson who framed very well from the three religions already mentioned above until a better system comes along.**

Derived from, yes. Founded on, no. Required to establish or uphold as law every specific prohibition held by a denomination of one of these religions, no.

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”—US Treaty with Tripoli, ratified by the US in 1797

yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm#art11

 

[KarenNC]

Could I marry my brother? Current secular law forbids it. Why can’t I have the same rights as any other man and woman approaching marriage.
I love him.
I want to spend the rest of my life with him.
I want to be legally protected in the event of his death.
I don’t get it?!

Well, there is religious precedent for it in your religion, in that Abraham married his half sister. Also, cousin marriages, even among first cousins are not prohibited in Scripture (Jacob married two of his first cousins, for instance). Aaron and Moses were the products of the marriage of an aunt and nephew
Ex. 6:20 Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years

It is obvious that even within the Scripture the guidelines for who is and is not allowed to marry changed over time.

Could you have a religious marriage? That is up to your religious tenets. If such unions were not prohibited in your religion, there is nothing barring you from having a religious marriage, it simply would not confer on you the legal benefits of a legally recognized marriage.

The short answer as to legal marriage is “no,” as the practice of incest is illegal. Same sex relationships are not illegal. Neither would same sex siblings be allowed to marry. Interestingly, at least to me, while marriage between first cousins is usually prohibited, some states will allow it if both parties are over 65 or if one can show proof of sterility.