I
iloveangels
Guest
It’s only legally valid, and only in the jurisdictions that honor documents from the state of NY. IT’s not sacramentally valid.
It’s a piece of paper.
- Status
It’s a piece of paper.
S
spencelo
Guest
I’m an atheist. Can I get married in a Catholic church? I assume not, but I can nevertheless get married. So the Catholic church doesn’t dictate the scope of permissible marriage arrangements.
I
iloveangels
Guest
No. Non-Catholics cannot get married in Catholic churches.
different topic*
If you’re an athiest, and you’re for gay marriage, what are you doing in a Catholic forum? Just curious.
S
spencelo
Guest
We marriage equality proponents only care about the former, not the latter. Again, it seems that you have some difficulty separating the two.
I
iloveangels
Guest
That’s because in our society there is an overlap.
A marriage certificate is considered to be more than just a certificate of cohabitation for most people.
S
spencelo
Guest
Right, and “civil marriage” encompasses both Catholics and non-Catholics, so there isn’t much overlap between the two concepts.
To debate the issue.
S
spencelo
Guest
And that “more” part is personal, varying from couple to couple – many of whom are NOT Catholic. So again, I don’t see much of an overlap between civil marriage and religious marriage.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
So you base your morality exclusively on the current laws of government. What you are saying is your god is the government. Do you believe the Nazis who tortured and killed innocent Jewish men, women, and children were ok in doing so since it was legal in their country, and Nazis were following orders that came from the top of their government (Hitler)?
You are being hypocritical here. When NY considered so-called “same-sex marriage” invalid “gay” activists didn’t respect the law.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Hey, Spencelo. I used to be an atheist too. A pretty severe one and a better one than you.
Catholicism is a pretty nice religion. This ain’t the safest place for an atheist to hang around, from a religion point of view. You could end up religious.
S
spencelo
Guest
What does that even mean?
I
iloveangels
Guest
What do you think it means?
S
spencelo
Guest
This doesn’t follow from what I said at all. But I’ll say this: people ought to be with equal dignity and respect under the law, which our Fourteenth Amendment guarantees. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them that constitutionally entitled respect.
An absurd question.
What are you referring to?
S
spencelo
Guest
I have no idea, which is why I asked.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Actually, Livingwordunity is completely correct. In opting to define your wants as “civil marriage,” you are limiting yourself to the definition of the prevailing governmental system.
Now, in the USA, we’ve only just had one governmental system so far, and so most Americans can only see that system in their minds when they think of laws.
However, the nation of Germany has had several governmental systems, as have most other coutntries. One of Germany’s governmental systems was precisely the Third Reich. That government had rules and laws that were particular to it too. All governments do.
And you know, we’re only talking about paperwork here. Certificates of cohabitation and the like. Governments can’t legislate morality. And certainly the Third Reich was hell in terms of morality.
S
surritter
Guest
Well, this is certainly a case of dodging the debate.
You must provide a definition of marriage (civil marriage is OK).
Think about what you’re saying: Civil marriage is defined by what the state defines it as. That doesn’t cut it; it’s merely a circular reference which can change. Tell us what the state needs to have as the material effects (i.e., the people) presented to it before it will grant the right to marry.
Maybe start with this: Tell us why a government should certify a love relationship. I love my cat, but there is no certificate needed for that relationship. Tell us why…
S
surritter
Guest
To the Catholics here: I don’t see any problem with limiting the discussion to civil marriage, if that’s what it takes for the non-believers here.
A civil marriage is still based on the idea of children (well, historically at least). This is simply biology, and can be reasonably defended from the viewpoints of science and natural law.
A civil marriage is still based on the idea of children (well, historically at least). This is simply biology, and can be reasonably defended from the viewpoints of science and natural law.
I
iloveangels
Guest
No, no, that’s already an expansion of the term. What Spencelo is talking about–he has made it clear–is a certificate of cohabitation, the terms of which are hashed out privately. What he is claiming that he wants has nothing to do with sacramentality or morals in the conventional sense, and he has said nothing about children for obvious reasons. He’s after a piece of paper from the government that says that the government recognizes that he cohabits. [That’s not a marriage, that’s something else.]
B
benjohnson
Guest
The crux of the matter is that certain people are trying to use the force of government to re-define marriage. The only hurdle are people who know God, or people who know history - they understand the ramification of such a false and useless definition.
Feel free to call it whatever you want, but it’s not marriage. And it will never be marriage even if 100% of the people say it’s marriage - truth exists independent of popularity.
Feel free to call it whatever you want, but it’s not marriage. And it will never be marriage even if 100% of the people say it’s marriage - truth exists independent of popularity.
S
spencelo
Guest
In this country, we have something called the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the equal treatment of people under the law. Currently, in most states, same-sex couples are excluded from the legal union of marriage (civil marriage), and that exclusion lacks a rational basis (the lowest, most deferential level of scrutiny). If marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples from marriage lack a rational basis, then those laws ought to change to include same-sex couples.
So the issue is whether our marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples from marriage lack a rational basis. The onus is on the government, in an equal protection challenge, to articulate the rational basis for the law, and one rationale that has been articulated is the “inability to procreate” justification, which is susceptible to my objection in the op. Can you articulate a “rational basis” for maintaining the status quo? That is the central issue here.
Originally, you appealed to the “ordered towards procreation” rationale, but in light of my two objections, you appeared to have abandoned it. Can you articulate a different rational basis rationale that isn’t susceptible to my op objection?
S
surritter
Guest
But my point is that we can defend marriage to society at large without discussing sacraments! Suppose he really wants to present it as a certificate of cohabitation. Guess what: then such a goofy definition would obviously mean that four people can get married. But then everyone says, “Four people married? Now you’re being ridiculous.”
At that is where you have to get them to really think about what marriage is. They will hopefully see the ridiculousness of the changed definition, and realize that the cornerstone of a government getting involved in the first place – even in a civil marriage – is the biological function of reproduction. If that doesn’t connect with them, then yes, I agree that it’s been reduced to a meaningless word, and we can then show them that there is no need for a government to certify a relationship if it’s simply several people cohabiting.
- Status