Separation of religious and civil marriage

[frobert]

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.

Many thanks.

From post 218

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

It is not consonant with reality as there are other valid reasons to marry that do not restrict the definition but rather broaden it include 2 people of opposite or same sexes.

From post 216

Who is it that you want to convince that same sex marriage is irrational?

An addition to the question, “Who is it that you want to convince that same sex marriage is irrational and the only one consonant with reality?”

 

[PRmerger]

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

Give me some good reasons, frobert, that they can’t marry that can’t be changed (for, of course, we can change the legal restrictions against incest just like you’re attempting to change the legal restrictions against 2 men marrying).

 

[PRmerger]

It is not consonant with reality as there are other valid reasons to marry that do not restrict the definition but rather broaden it include 2 people of opposite or same sexes.

And give me some good reasons that we can’t broaden it to include 5 people.

Why can’t we change the laws for that?

The conjugal view of marriage has a very, very good answer to that.

But I am waiting for your answer, since you seem to believe that marriage is between any adults who love each other? Why does it have to be 2 people?

 

[frobert]

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?

I am not arguing that the definition is written in stone. If there are some people who believe they have valid reasons to include sister-sister and father-son incest in civil marriage. I don’t agree with them but I have no objection against them stating their opinion. I don’t believe they have any chance of succeeding to bring about a change in civil marriage but it you believe their is a reasonable plausibility then you may want to do something about it?

 

[PRmerger]

I am not arguing that the definition is written in stone. If there are some people who believe they have valid reasons to include sister-sister and father-son incest in civil marriage, I don’t agree with them but I have no objection against them stating their opinion. I don’t believe they have any chance of succeeding to bring about a change in civil marriage but it you believe their is a reasonable plausibility than perhaps you may want to do something about it?

Wow.

So you can see why we advocates of nuptial marriage are IMPELLED to stop this wild horse from leaving the barn.

There will be, as you have proposed above, absolutely no rational reason to prevent INCESTUOUS relationships from being called marriage.

Crazy.
Appalling.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not arguing that the definition is written in stone. If there are some people who believe they have valid reasons to include sister-sister and father-son incest in civil marriage. I don’t agree with them but I have no objection against them stating their opinion. I don’t believe they have any chance of succeeding to bring about a change in civil marriage but it you believe their is a reasonable plausibility then you may want to do something about it?

READ the above, all ye Lurkers who are yet undecided as to whether gay “marriage” is a good thing or a bad thing for society!

There will, as frobert so articulates, **be no reason to prevent INCESTUOUS relationships from being called marriage. ** After all, his view is that marriage is simply that relationship we acknowledge between people who love each other. And why can’t an incestuous relationship be denied recognition of their love?

It’s the logical application of the view that marriage is simply about people who love each other and want recognition of their love.

 

[frobert]

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.

Is it reasonable that people should go against their own beliefs (faith or otherwise) to subscribe to a definition that you believe is “the” only rational definition.

Thank you for finally answering the question in your previous post. Your potential audience is large enough to provide you a lifetime of opportunity.

 

[frobert]

READ the above, all ye Lurkers who are yet undecided as to whether gay “marriage” is a good thing or a bad thing for society!

There will, as frobert so articulates, **be no reason to prevent INCESTUOUS relationships from being called marriage. ** After all, his view is that marriage is simply that relationship we acknowledge between people who love each other. And why can’t an incestuous relationship be denied recognition of their love?

It’s the logical application of the view that marriage is simply about people who love each other and want recognition of their love.

You are being disingenuous. You know very well that my comment pertained to free speech and that tolerating free speech is not equal to agreeing with or advocating the content.

You commented on a post (I believe #216) twice in which I include my views on civil marriage that coincide with legal definition from NY state, nowhere in the NY state definition of marriage does it say or indicate that “marriage is simply that relationship we acknowledge between people who love each other or that love of any kind is a requirement” You are disregarding the same point of a civil marriage over and over. The connections you are making are simply incorrect.

I don’t believe that sister-sister or father-son incest is a possibility to become legal in the US, it is a hypothetical that I am not concerned with. You may wish to start a new thread discussion regarding the hypothetical.

 

[PRmerger]

Is it reasonable that people should go against their own beliefs (faith or otherwise) to subscribe to a definition that you believe is “the” only rational definition.

No. That would be absurd.

Who is advocating that?

 

[PRmerger]

You are being disingenuous. You know very well that my comment pertained to free speech and that tolerating free speech is not equal to agreeing with or advocating the content.

Then you are against incestuous marriage?

If so, please explain how you can rationally be against it while advocating for gay “marriage”.

Isn’t marriage for you simply about people who want legal recognition of their love?

 

[DrTaffy]

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?

The definition of ‘marriage’ not only need not exclude incestuous or polygamous marriage, it cannot do so if it is to accurately reflect the use of the word. Queen Hatshepsut married her brother and Solomon allegedly had wives by the hundreduch: so the definition must cover those uses of the word.

As an analogy, the definition of ‘sex’ need not exclude rape or child abuse for us to believe that such things are wrong. Only those who lack the ability to argue why something is morally wrong would feel the need to try to define it out of existence rather than explain their moral judgement.

While there is evidence that under age marriage (to pick an example) does objective harm, the evidence if anything shows that same sex marriage benefits both society and the couple involved.

 

[PRmerger]

The definition of ‘marriage’ not only need not exclude incestuous or polygamous marriage, it cannot do so if it is to accurately reflect the use of the word. Queen Hatshepsut married her brother and Solomon allegedly had wives by the hundreduch: so the definition must cover those uses of the word.

As an analogy, the definition of ‘sex’ need not exclude rape or child abuse for us to believe that such things are wrong. Only those who lack the ability to argue why something is morally wrong would feel the need to try to define it out of existence rather than explain their moral judgement.

While there is evidence that under age marriage (to pick an example) does objective harm, the evidence if anything shows that same sex marriage benefits both society and the couple involved.

What evidence is there to show that 2 brothers marrying is harmful?

Please cite your sources.

 

[PRmerger]

As an analogy, the definition of ‘sex’ need not exclude rape or child abuse for us to believe that such things are wrong

But rape necessarily includes sex, no?

One cannot rape someone without having sex.

 

[frobert]

Then you are against incestuous marriage?

If so, please explain how you can rationally be against it while advocating for gay “marriage”.

Isn’t marriage for you simply about people who want legal recognition of their love?

There you go again!

You know I already said I do not agree with the advocates of incestuous marriage. Just for you will say it differently: I am not for incestuous marriage.

Being a proponent of civil marriage which includes two adults that are legally able to marry is not the same as being for a marriage that includes incestuous relationships but I am sure you already know that.

Why ask your third question?

You commented on a post (I believe #216) twice in which I include my views on civil marriage that coincide with legal definition from NY state, nowhere in the NY state definition of marriage does it say or indicate that “marriage is simply that relationship we acknowledge between people who love each other or that love of any kind is a requirement” You are disregarding the same point of a civil marriage over and over. The connections you are making are simply incorrect.

In case you didn’t make the connection the first two times, I don’t believe that love is a prerequisite for two people to enter into a marriage. I can think of situations where two people who like each other but don’t love each other marry because they want to raise kids or for companionship. Are Catholics required to love each other to enter into a Catholic marriage?

 

[PRmerger]

There you go again!

You know I already said I do not agree with the advocates of incestuous marriage.

Being of a proponent of civil marriage which includes two adults that are legally able to marry is not the same is not the same as being for a definition of marriage that includes incestuous relationships but I am sure already knew that.

Why ask your third question?

You haven’t given a single reason for why you are against it.

Why can’t 2 brothers be married if they love each other? It’s illegal now, but we can certainly change that.

Please answer the question.

Why are you against incestuous marriage?

 

[frobert]

You haven’t given a single reason for why you are against it.

Why can’t 2 brothers be married if they love each other? It’s illegal now, but we can certainly change that.

Please answer the question.

Why are you against incestuous marriage?

Again its a hypothetical that I am not concerned with so why should I give you my reasons? What does it matter to you what I think especially when you appear to have a knack to misinterpret them.

But since I have a generous nature I will say.

Perhaps you do not recall that on a previous topic in which both of us were participants, I stated something to the effect that based on my education and experience I find incest to be abusive and damaging. It is abusive to children because its a disruption of child’s primary support system: the family. In a similar way it is damaging to siblings in that the more dominant sibling is taking advantage and abusing a family support system.

Other than your faith belief do you have any reasons why you are against incest being included in marriage?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you do not recall that on a previous topic in which both of us were participants, I stated something to the effect that based on my education and experience I find incest to be abusive and damaging. It is abusive to children because its a disruption of child’s primary support system: the family. In a similar way it is damaging to siblings in that the more dominant sibling is taking advantage and abusing a family support system.

So let’s say there’s a loving 2 brother relationship that is sexual and consensual–would you be against their marrying each other?

Why?

 

[PRmerger]

Other than your faith belief do you have any reasons why you are against incest being included in marriage?

My reason for excluding it is because it is nonsensical. It is not a marriage.

It’s like saying, “What is your reason for being against a square circle”? Or, “Why are you against calling this a circle”?

 

[PRmerger]

Are Catholics required to love each other to enter into a Catholic marriage?

Required by the priest before he will marry them?

What do you mean by “required”?

 

[frobert]

From: Wikianswers Legal

Is incest legal in any country?

Consensual incest between brother and sister is frowned on, but not prohibited in France. It has been legal there since the time of Napoleon, but still you can’t marry your sister. It is similar in Japan, legal between consenting adults but not legal for incestuous marriages. Sweden is the only country in Europe which allows marriage between siblings who share one parent. They have recently been silently dropping anti-incest laws in other countries too. It is still technically illegal in lots of countries, but police in most countries will now turn a blind eye to it unless someone makes a complaint. Most police will leave happy couples alone these days.