Separation of religious and civil marriage

[PRmerger]

The Catholic definition of marriage is the Catholic definition which most people are aware of which is fine.

If by “Catholic definition” you mean the view that marriage that lifelong relationship which binds men and women together and any children that they may create, then, it’s not our definition but rather the definition that is consonant with reality.

That’s like saying that the “mathematical definition” of a circle is “A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center” but non-mathematicians are free to reject this definition of a circle.

That, of course, would be:

 

[SMGS127]

That’s like saying that the “mathematical definition” of a circle is “A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center” but non-mathematicians are free to reject this definition of a circle.

Behold! A circle:

http://www.medievalbridalfashions.com/catalog/images/SilverMoon_Circlet4.JPG

Also known as a crown, circlet, tiara, or headpiece.

See, the problem with having petty feuds over minute words in the English language is that it is an easily countered argument. We should be discussing the importance of elevating a chaste heterosexual matrimony as the ideal rather than engaging in outright warfare over a made-up English word that doesn’t actually have an inherent meaning.

Also, I’m pretty sure frobert doesn’t “reject” anyone’s definition of the word marriage. He just accepts that language evolves over time to use the same word for different meanings. For example, a circle can mean a 2-dimensional rounded mathematical plane OR a tiara in the English language. There’s no need to be condescending towards him and Thorolf, whether or not they are unorthodox and/or non-Catholic.

 

[frobert]

If by “Catholic definition” you mean the view that marriage that lifelong relationship which binds men and women together and any children that they may create, then, it’s not our definition but rather the definition that is consonant with reality.

That’s like saying that the “mathematical definition” of a circle is “A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center” but non-mathematicians are free to reject this definition of a circle.

That, of course, would be:

Your reasoning is circular and nonsensical. You are saying that you (PRmerger) have a faith definition of marriage and therefore anyone who does not share your particular faith definition is rejecting reality. The fact that you believe something does not make it a reality. On the other hand I readily accept that your faith definition is your reality and that you are entitled to your belief.

BTW, you did not answer my question. Who are you trying to convince? Someone who is often overly insistent that others answer their questions should at the least make an effort to answer questions posed to them.

 

[frobert]

Behold! A circle:

findresults.site

Also known as a crown, circlet, tiara, or headpiece.

See, the problem with having petty feuds over minute words in the English language is that it is an easily countered argument. We should be discussing the importance of elevating a chaste heterosexual matrimony as the ideal rather than engaging in outright warfare over a made-up English word that doesn’t actually have an inherent meaning.

Also, I’m pretty sure frobert doesn’t “reject” anyone’s definition of the word marriage. He just accepts that language evolves over time to use the same word for different meanings. For example, a circle can mean a 2-dimensional rounded mathematical plane OR a tiara in the English language. There’s no need to be condescending towards him and Thorolf, whether or not they are unorthodox and/or non-Catholic.

You are correct, I do not reject any reasonable (pertaining to custom) definition of marriage. Even a cursory review of the history of marriage reveals that there have been numerous true definitions of marriage both simultaneously and over time.

 

[PRmerger]

Behold! A circle:

findresults.site

Also known as a crown, circlet, tiara, or headpiece.

Yes, those are circles. And marriage is AKA matrimony, a nuptial relationship, being in wedlock.

Not sure what your point is in showing examples of different types of circles. I could just as easily show examples of differ types of marriages.

Behold! A marriage!



http://592f46.medialib.glogster.com...53-cartoon-wedding-couple-getting-married.jpg



However, if you show a tiara to any child older than 5 and ask her: is that shape a circle or a triangle? The correct answer is NEVER going to be the latter.

Similarly, if you ask a rational person: is a man and a man living together a marriage? The correct answer is NEVER going to be yes.

See, the problem with having petty feuds over minute words in the English language is that it is an easily countered argument. We should be discussing the importance of elevating a chaste heterosexual matrimony as the ideal rather than engaging in outright warfare over a made-up English word that doesn’t actually have an inherent meaning.

I think Catholics are quite capable of discussing both.

It’s imperative that we understand what matrimony is before we can discuss what it means to have chaste matrimony.

Definitions are of great import, no?

If you wanted to say “A tiara is not a circle!” you need to let us know what you think is a circle first, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Behold! A circle:

findresults.site

Also known as a crown, circlet, tiara, or headpiece.

I decided to search Google for “headpiece”.

Behold! NOT a circle:

http://www.glitzysecrets.com/vintage-petals-headpiece_3608-medium.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So it’s possible for something to match the definition in one form, but not the other, yes?

Not all headpieces are circles.

While most marriages are loving relationships, not all loving relationships (i.e. between 2 men) are marriages.

QED.

 

[frobert]

What is marriage again, in your opinion? What is it for? Why do we have it in your opinion?

Make sure your definition is able to explain why it would logically exclude all sorts of other relationshipa.

The definition of marriage, the legal union of a couple as spouses, is not my opinion. It can be found in any up-to-date dictionary and it underpins the legal definition in the majority of US states. As an example, take the NY State definition.

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are:
(1) the parties’ legal ability to marry each other,
(2) mutual consent of the parties, and
(3) a marriage contract as required by law.

The definition is crystal clear, it is for two people, beyond two people who are you insinuating are being left out? If you believe that such definitions are not logical I suggest that you take it up with the various state legal departments or if you want to (in my opinion) waste your money donate to the anti same sex marriages groups.

Again you fail to answer my question. You appear to have a deficit recognizing when a questions posed to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, I’m pretty sure frobert doesn’t “reject” anyone’s definition of the word marriage.

Well, that’s a pretty peculiar comment to make, given this discussion.

Let’s ask frobert: do you REJECT the definition that marriage is ONLY between 1 man and 1 woman?

There’s no need to be condescending towards him and Thorolf, whether or not they are unorthodox and/or non-Catholic.

Very Catholic, this.

 

[PRmerger]

The definition of marriage, the legal union of a couple as spouses, is not my opinion. It can be found in any up-to-date dictionary and it underpins the legal definition in the majority of US states. As an example, take the NY State definition.

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are:
(1) the parties’ legal ability to marry each other,
(2) mutual consent of the parties, and
(3) a marriage contract as required by law.

So 2 sisters can get married to each other?

And a father and a son?

Provided, of course, that they give mutual consent and aren’t already married to other folks?

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

The definition is crystal clear, it is for two people, beyond two people who are you insinuating are being left out?

Give me a good reason, using your definition and rationale for marriage, that it should be for 2 people only.

Why can’t it be 3 or 4 or 10?

 

[PRmerger]

BTW, you did not answer my question. Who are you trying to convince?

Everyone who wants to change the definition of marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

You are saying that you (PRmerger) have a faith definition of marriage and therefore anyone who does not share your particular faith definition is rejecting reality.

Nope. It is NOT a “faith” definition. It is* the* definition. Anyone, believer or not, ought to subscribe to that definition…if he wants to be rational, at least.

Just like the definition of a circle isn’t the “mathematical” definition. It’s* the* definition.
Anyone, whether a mathematician or not, subscribes to that definition…if he wants to be rational, at least.

 

[PRmerger]

Someone who is often overly insistent that others answer their questions should at the least make an effort to answer questions posed to them.

Surely you can’t be serious. You posted your question, what–less than 12 hours ago?

And you were giving me grief for not answering it yet? Really?

Do you stand in front of the microwave cooking your cup o’soup and bang on it because it’s taking more than 12 seconds?

 

[frobert]

Surely you can’t be serious. You posted your question, what–less than 12 hours ago?

And you were giving me grief for not answering it yet? Really?

Do you stand in front of the microwave cooking your cup o’soup and bang on it because it’s taking more than 12 seconds?

You have been on this topic several times in the last 12 hours. So do you intend to answer the question or keep grasping at straws.

 

[PRmerger]

You have been on this topic several times in the last 12 hours. So do you intend to answer the question or keep grasping at straws.

Do you want to delete this post?

I won’t fault you if you do. There’s still time to delete.

(IOW: scroll upwards).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

frobert;12546042:

You have been on this topic several times in the last 12 hours. So do you intend to answer the question or keep grasping at straws.

Do you want to delete this post?
I won’t fault you if you do. There’s still time to delete.
(IOW: scroll upwards).

I believe she is referring to #218. You’ll have to go back a page. Scrolling up isn’t sufficient for encountering it. Better yet I’ll just re-quote it here to save you the effort.

If by “Catholic definition” you mean the view that marriage that lifelong relationship which binds men and women together and any children that they may create, then, it’s not our definition but rather the definition that is consonant with reality.

 

[frobert]

So 2 sisters can get married to each other?

And a father and a son?

Provided, of course, that they give mutual consent and aren’t already married to other folks?

Yes?

I am dyslexic and at times fail to make connection quickly.

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are:
(1) the parties’ legal ability to marry each other,
(2) mutual consent of the parties, and
(3) a marriage contract as required by law

.

Perhaps you have a similar reason why you do on occasion fail to make connections. Please read (1) in the above definition. It pertains to the legal ability to marry. As far as I know incest relationships between sisters and between father and son do not have the legal ability to marry in any US states. If you believe that incest relations should be included I am not the right person to consult.

Your is an example of where you had an excellent opportunity to answer my question, but perhaps you need more time to think about it.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe she is referring to #218. You’ll have to go back a page. Scrolling up isn’t sufficient for encountering it. Better yet I’ll just re-quote it here to save you the effort.

Post #218 is mine.

 

[PRmerger]

Please read (1) in the above definition. It pertains to the legal ability to marry. As far as I know incest relationships between sisters and between father and son do not have the legal ability to marry in any US states.

But we can change that, right?

Just like you’re attempting to change what was illegal 20 years ago regarding 2 men marrying.

So, let’s take the legal argument out, because it’s irrelevant.

Why can’t 2 sisters marry, in your estimation, given your definition of marriage?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you have a similar reason why you do on occasion fail to make connections.

Careful…frobert. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

So it would be a shame for you to be banned or suspended again for uncharity.