Report: "Christian photographer sues Virginia over law that may force him to service gay weddings."

[MNathaniel]

I have no idea what to think of conscience rights or even the concept of rights in general, or it being good for governments to make it their purpose to guarantee/not violate these, or anything about it. I don’t really have political opinions there, so maybe it is wrong, or maybe it isn’t. They may very well be right in saying it is wrong, I don’t know, law and polsci is above me.

Oh, friend, that resonates with me so much right now. I’ve recently been coming to this place too. Of realizing I just “don’t know” on legal/political issues. That I’ve had so many changing political opinions over time, and over time I’ve realized the limitations of every opinion I’ve held.

I think political clarity is not a gift God has given me. At least, right now I’m in a place where I just want to focus on what’s right in front of me in my real life (the daily concrete moments to sanctify), and trust everything political into God’s hands (and the hands of those humans He actually does gift to move things along however He wants).

So we seem to be of a mind there, compadre.

PS thank you for your thoughtful response to my thought experiment about the possible compounding factor of scandal if attending a ritual for money but not for a friend. I think we agree on the general conclusion there, that potential impacts from perceptions of others if we seem to act inconsistently are relevant to consider in the choice.

PPS one thing I’ll just add, though it’s probably its own conversation entirely… in your final line you mention “cutting out bad company”. I’d respectfully disagree on this one, or at least in real life I find myself acting contrary to it. I have dear loved ones who in various ways might qualify as “bad company” in terms of long-term activity contrary to Catholic teaching… But in my heart I can’t be the one to ‘cut out’ these dear people (though socializing frequency and the type of socializing may have changed). I believe the strain is probably similarly challenging on their end, but so far we’re all trying to love each other though from very different paradigms. I’m still learning to navigate this situation, but God is supporting me so lovingly, and I just can’t bring myself to cease holding up my end of the relationships. If the other people ever end them, they can, but I intend to keep the door open. I know I’m in God’s house and I want to welcome them home one day if they’re ever ready to come in.

I do think it’s super important to balance that out with healthy and holy company though. And I don’t mean the above as a criticism if anyone has ‘cut out’ an abusive person or someone they genuinely didn’t have the capacity to continue relationship with for whatever reason. Now that I think of it, there is one person who finally did end up entirely ‘cut out’ of my life (abusive and seemingly immune to being helped, at least by me), so I understand how, though tragic, sometimes it really is best.

 

[Freddy]

Marriage is not merely the love of a man for a woman.

And there is more than one definition.

 

[Rau]

And there is more than one definition.

Indeed! Though some fit the observable facts better than others!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And there is more than one definition.

Indeed! Though some fit the observable facts better than others!

But a definition (and I think this is a tautology) defines the facts. And your definition of marriage fits the facts as you see them: A joining together of a man and a woman in a celebration of…etc etc.

My definition reads: A joining together of two people in a celebration of…etc etc.

Is my definition wrong and yours right or vica versa? Not really. We can have both.

 

[Rau]

And your definition of marriage fits the facts as you see them

The facts I see are:

1. By marriage, we mean a relationship incorporating sexual relations;
2. The bodies of man and woman are constructed to complement each other sexually.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And your definition of marriage fits the facts as you see them

The facts I see are:

1. By marriage, we mean a relationship incorporating sexual relations;
2. The bodies of man and woman are constructed to complement each other sexually.

They’re not, obviously, the facts as I see it.

Marriage does not have to be a relationship that incorporates sexual relations. And sex doesn’t necessarily need to comply with procreation - which I think your second point implies.

 

[Rau]

Marriage does not have to be a relationship that incorporates sexual relations.

Yet it almost always has. Some governments sought to redefine the word recently, but even that did not move us away from understanding it as a sexual relationship.

And sex doesn’t necessarily need to comply with procreation

I didn’t mention procreation explicitly, but it may be instructive to note the sexually complementary nature of man and woman. Sex, for the man at least, seems to lead toward the delivery of sperm… in search of an egg. This is simply our nature Fred. I don’t think it can be overlooked as some minor detail.

 

[RhodesianSon]

You’re missing the point.

The stare shouldn’t be able to compel businesses to do business with anyone. One of the most fundamental human rights is freedom of association, if you can’t choose who you want to be around, what rights do you really have?

 

[RhodesianSon]

And sex doesn’t necessarily need to comply with procreation

It actually does though. That’s the main purpose of sex.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Marriage does not have to be a relationship that incorporates sexual relations.

Yet it almost always has. Some governments sought to redefine the word recently, but even that did not move us away from understanding it as a sexual relationship.

And sex doesn’t necessarily need to comply with procreation

I didn’t mention procreation explicitly, but it may be instructive to note the sexually complementary nature of man and woman. Sex, for the man at least, seems to lead toward the delivery of sperm… in search of an egg. This is simply our nature Fred. I don’t think it can be overlooked as some minor detail.

‘Yes it almost always has’ does not exclude ‘does not have to be’. In fact, it includes it. So we are in agreement there.

And gee, yeah. Men and women can have babies. Apologies for the mild sarcasm but why on earth does that need to be brought up? It doesn’t mean that only men and women who can have babies can marry. Obviously.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And sex doesn’t necessarily need to comply with procreation

It actually does though. That’s the main purpose of sex.

Actually, the main purpose of having sex is to enjoy it. I haven’t had sex for the sake of procreation for…nearly thirty years. And even it it was the main purpose, you are admitting by describing it as the ‘main’ purpose that it isn’t necessarily compliant with procreation.

Which is what I said.

 

[Rau]

And gee, yeah. Men and women can have babies. Apologies for the mild sarcasm but why on earth does that need to be brought up? It doesn’t mean that only men and women who can have babies can marry. Obviously.

It’s kind of like “1 + 1=?”, or… what’s that other expression…oh, yeah… “connect the dots”…
I have never been able to attach meaning to men exchanging sperm. Personally, I think there is something in that. But that may be just me.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And gee, yeah. Men and women can have babies. Apologies for the mild sarcasm but why on earth does that need to be brought up? It doesn’t mean that only men and women who can have babies can marry. Obviously.

It’s kind of like “1 + 1=?”, or… what’s that other expression…oh, yeah… “connect the dots”…
I have never been able to attach meaning to men exchanging sperm. Personally, I think there is something in that. But that may be just me.

Most people I’m sure think that the process as far as the male half of any sexual encounter is concerned is something of an inconvenience in most cases. I won’t go into details…

 

[catholicray]

They’re not, obviously, the facts as I see it.

Marriage does not have to be a relationship that incorporates sexual relations. And sex doesn’t necessarily need to comply with procreation - which I think your second point implies.

By this I would ask what exactly is marriage to you that it is something more than a really good friendship.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

They’re not, obviously, the facts as I see it.

Marriage does not have to be a relationship that incorporates sexual relations. And sex doesn’t necessarily need to comply with procreation - which I think your second point implies.

By this I would ask what exactly is marriage to you that it is something more than a really good friendship.

A life long commitment to another person (which happens to be legally recognised). Your mileage may vary.

 

[Rau]

A life long commitment to another person (which happens to be legally recognised). Your mileage may vary.

Winding it back to just that is certainly the recent claim Fred. But not the full answer widely held through our history.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A life long commitment to another person (which happens to be legally recognised). Your mileage may vary.

I might strike “life long” from that. Just as there are civil marriages there are also civil divorces.

I would define civil marriage as state recognized contract between a couple to recognize each other as a spouse.

Love, sex, children, and even commitment will vary.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A life long commitment to another person (which happens to be legally recognised). Your mileage may vary.

Winding it back to just that is certainly the recent claim Fred. But not the full answer widely held through our history.

I didn’t need to study the history of marriage before I asked my wife. When I said ‘Will you marry me?’ I was saying that I was prepared to make a lifelong comittment to her and would she do the same to me.

When she said yes then that was it. The paperwork we signed a few days later simply made it legal.

 

[Rau]

I would define civil marriage as state recognized contract between a couple to recognize each other as a spouse.

Probably that’s reasonably close to what many State’s mean these days.

 

[Rau]

I didn’t need to study the history of marriage before I asked my wife.

Right - because we just knew. Governments have prescribed something broader in recent times and many have taken that on-board