Separation of religious and civil marriage

[ThinkingSapien]

Now if the spousal privilege in defense of a possible criminal charge is an important reason for one to enter into a marriage with an opposite or same sex partner…],

The ability to share information with a significant other without fear of being legally compelled to disclose it is not a motivation for marriage , but a privilege of it. To be able to share what ever information with someone that either partner sees fit to share without burdening him/her with having to making a conflicting decision between remaining true to one’s partner and saving one’s self from legal punishments is what I am talking about.

Why would one want a partner who is a potential criminal, someone utilitarian and utterly selfish?

Note that I said “information to be used against someone.” That doesn’t necessarily mean that the person has done wrong, only that the information could be framed in a context that causes someone to appear to have done wrong. This isn’t necessarily the same as what I think you have in mind. It seems that you are thinking of someone that did commit a crime and is trying to cover it up.

If I told my wife that one day “Fred really made me mad!!!” and the next day Fred turned up dead by someone else’s hand the information that Fred had once angered me could be used against me. If my legal adviser were to tell me that it’s better that I not share that I had been mad at Fred prior to his death I would probably follow that advice and would want my wife to be able to follow it too. If the information is discovered by some other means I wouldn’t want her to be at any risk of prosecution for not having disclosed it.

 

[frobert]

If it’s a legal arrangement, it’s irrational that it’s scope is restricted. If it’s something more, eg. Involving sex, it’s irrational that the participants are not sexually complementary.

That is your opinion which is ok.

The latest US polls on gay marriage show around 60% support it with majorities in all regions of the US. By your logic you must believe a majority of people in the US are irrational because they do not support incest marriage.

Anti gay marriage advocates have a problem in accepting that the gay marriage battle is about civil rights and that the courts have nearly unanimously ruled in favor for gay civil rights

I am all for people fighting for what they believe are their civil rights even it is something that I don’t like, are you? If you are for incest marriage go for it.

 

[Bradski]

Of course sex is what makes marriage different than other relationships. This is why the State gets involved in the first place.

I think you mean: ‘Of course a particular type of sex is what makes marriage different than other relationships’.

It certainly can differentiate between someone you consider to be good friend and someone who you consider to be more than just a good friend. But it’s not required to be able to class the relationship as a marriage and the state has no interest in that aspect of marriage.

I went to some friends’ wedding a few weeks ago. At one point they made a public declaration of their love for each other. It was a little more than just ‘we’re really good friends and would like to make this a formal and legally binding arrangement’. No mention of tax laws. No mention of financial rights. No mention of visitation rights or their right not to have to testify against each other. No mention of sex either.

What they told us all, and what they told ech other in the presence of close friends and family, was that they had found someone with whom they had fallen in love. Someone with whom they wanted, more than anything else, to share the rest of their lives together. Everything that the world was going to throw at them, they’d face it together. If there was just one person in the world meant for each of them it seems that they had struck gold and found that one person.

They said a lot more besides and there were more than a few tears and a lot of laughter and cheering and the world became, that afternoon, a happier place.

And you want to prevent people from experiencing that. I hope you realise (and I think that you do) that you have absolutely no chance whatsoever.

And were they gay? Well, hell, it doesn’t matter in the slightest, does it.

 

[Rau]

That is your opinion which is ok.

The latest US polls on gay marriage show around 60% support it with majorities in all regions of the US. By your logic you must believe a majority of people in the US are irrational because they do not support incest marriage.

Anti gay marriage advocates have a problem in accepting that the gay marriage battle is about civil rights and that the courts have nearly unanimously ruled in favor for gay civil rights

I am all for people fighting for what they believe are their civil rights even it is something that I don’t like, are you? If you are for incest marriage go for it.

I have not argued for sisters to be able to access civil marriage. I have pointed out that that the argument used to extend marriage to two blokes would seem to apply to other groupings.

 

[Bradski]

I have not argued for sisters to be able to access civil marriage. I have pointed out that that the argument used to extend marriage to two blokes would seem to apply to other groupings.

And I think it has been pointed out that that is not an argument for not allowing gay marriage but rather an argument for extending those rights to others.

 

[stewstew03]

Show me the quotes from Catholic dogma and state civil marriage laws that say “sex is a required or obligatory for a marriage to be a marriage.”

“The harmony of the [married] couple…depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.”

See CCC #2332 for more.

As far as state law, here in Texas a divorce or an annulment may be granted due to impotency (depending on the circumstances). I believe there are other states that have similar laws. You’d have to do your research to learn more…

 

[Thorolfr]

“The harmony of the [married] couple…depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.”

See CCC #2332 for more.

As far as state law, here in Texas a divorce or an annulment may be granted due to impotency (depending on the circumstances). I believe there are other states that have similar laws. You’d have to do your research to learn more…

As someone pointed out on one of these threads, if sex is a requirement of marriage then Joseph and Mary wouldn’t have been married.

 

[Rau]

And I think it has been pointed out that that is not an argument for not allowing gay marriage but rather an argument for extending those rights to others.

Exactly. Your argument for gay marriage simultaneously makes the case for arbitrary groupings. And if you support that, then you are being entirely consistent. But if you find that leads somewhere you didn’t want to go, then the premise needs to be revisited.

 

[stewstew03]

I think you mean: ‘Of course a particular type of sex is what makes marriage different than other relationships’.

It certainly can differentiate between someone you consider to be good friend and someone who you consider to be more than just a good friend. But it’s not required to be able to class the relationship as a marriage and the state has no interest in that aspect of marriage.

I went to some friends’ wedding a few weeks ago. At one point they made a public declaration of their love for each other. It was a little more than just ‘we’re really good friends and would like to make this a formal and legally binding arrangement’. No mention of tax laws. No mention of financial rights. No mention of visitation rights or their right not to have to testify against each other. No mention of sex either.

What they told us all, and what they told ech other in the presence of close friends and family, was that they had found someone with whom they had fallen in love. Someone with whom they wanted, more than anything else, to share the rest of their lives together. Everything that the world was going to throw at them, they’d face it together. If there was just one person in the world meant for each of them it seems that they had struck gold and found that one person.

They said a lot more besides and there were more than a few tears and a lot of laughter and cheering and the world became, that afternoon, a happier place.

And you want to prevent people from experiencing that. I hope you realise (and I think that you do) that you have absolutely no chance whatsoever.

And were they gay? Well, hell, it doesn’t matter in the slightest, does it.

Poetry aside… I wanted to pick up on something you said (in bold). The answer, as you point out, is ‘No.’ And I would dare say most of us here on CAF do NOT want to deny anyone happiness. The bone of contention is with calling it “marriage” and saying that the so-called traditional form of marriage is equivalent to same-sex marriage. It’s not. Furthermore, this line of reasoning suggests that before Windsor and Hollingsworth, gay couples were completely miserable. You’re not saying that gay couples somehow need to be validated by the state or perhaps by their community in order to experience happiness, are you? I hope not, Bradski, because that would certainly be “anti-gay.”

 

[stewstew03]

As someone pointed out on one of these threads, if sex is a requirement of marriage then Joseph and Mary wouldn’t have been married.

I don’t believe I pointed out that the Church teaches sex as a requirement for marriage. Obviously, a married couple may agree to be chaste. However, as Paul teaches in his letter to the Corinthians…

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.…

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t believe I pointed out that the Church teaches sex as a requirement for marriage. Obviously, a married couple may agree to be chaste. However, as Paul teaches in his letter to the Corinthians…

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.…

Paul is only making a suggestion. As he says in the next verse (1 Corinthians 7:6), “This I say by way of concession, not of command” (NRSV). Or as the Contemporary English Version says, “In my opinion that is what should be done, though I don’t know of anything the Lord said about this matter.”

 

[frobert]

“The harmony of the [married] couple…depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.”

See CCC #2332 for more.

As far as state law, here in Texas a divorce or an annulment may be granted due to impotency (depending on the circumstances). I believe there are other states that have similar laws. You’d have to do your research to learn more…

What you quoted is not saying sex is obligatory or required. From your quote it would appear that the church does not exclude a couple that chooses to remain celibate if it mutually suited the spouses. I know that a marriage can be annulled if it is not consummated but the parties are married until it is annulled.

As far as civil marriage, love or sex are not requirements.

 

[frobert]

“The harmony of the [married] couple…depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.”

See CCC #2332 for more.

As far as state law, here in Texas a divorce or an annulment may be granted due to impotency (depending on the circumstances). I believe there are other states that have similar laws. You’d have to do your research to learn more…

What you quoted is not saying sex is obligatory or required. From your quote it would appear that the church does not exclude a couple that chooses to remain celibate if it mutually suited the spouses. I know that a marriage can be annulled if it is not consummated but the parties are married until it is annulled.

As far as civil marriage, neither love or sex are a requirement.

 

[frobert]

“The harmony of the [married] couple…depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.”

See CCC #2332 for more.

As far as state law, here in Texas a divorce or an annulment may be granted due to impotency (depending on the circumstances). I believe there are other states that have similar laws. You’d have to do your research to learn more…

What you quoted is not saying sex is obligatory or required. From your quote it would appear that the church does not exclude a couple that chooses to remain celibate if it mutually suites the spouses. I know that a marriage can be annulled if it is not consummated but the parties are married until it is annulled.

As far as civil marriage, neither love or sex are a requirement.

 

[frobert]

I have not argued for sisters to be able to access civil marriage. I have pointed out that that the argument used to extend marriage to two blokes would seem to apply to other groupings.

That is different than.

Originally Posted by Rau
If it’s a legal arrangement, it’s irrational that it’s scope is restricted. If it’s something more, eg. Involving sex, it’s irrational that the participants are not sexually complementary.

“would seem” is much different than “it’s irrational”

I think we can agree that we have different opinions but saying one or the other is irrational is plain silly because gay marriage is about civil rights.

A Blunt Defense of Marriage Equality

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner put the case for equality starkly. “Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities,” he wrote. Denying them the freedom to marry imposes “continuing pain,” he said, and claims that allowing same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual unions or children, or other state interests, were “totally implausible.”​

 

[stewstew03]

What you quoted is not saying sex is obligatory or required. From your quote it would appear that the church does not exclude a couple that chooses to remain -]celibate/-] continent if it mutually suited the spouses. I know that a marriage can be annulled if it is not consummated but the parties are married until it is annulled.
…

Yes – see corrections above, frobert.

A marriage that has not been consummated is still valid, but it is not indissoluble until after the “one flesh” (conjugal) act.

 

[stewstew03]

…

As far as civil marriage, love or sex are not requirements.

The only reason the State became involved was to protect children who might result from the marriage. English Common Law required consummation for a valid marriage, and allowed annulment for those marriages not consummated.

 

[Rau]

I think we can agree that we have different opinions but saying one or the other is irrational is plain silly because gay marriage is about civil rights.

A Blunt Defense of Marriage Equality

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner put the case for equality starkly. “Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities,” he wrote. Denying them the freedom to marry imposes “continuing pain,” he said, and claims that allowing same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual unions or children, or other state interests, were “totally implausible.”​

And such reasoning leads unswervingly here:
marriage-equality.blogspot.com.au/p/case-studies.html

 

[stewstew03]

…/

I think we can agree that we have different opinions but saying one or the other is irrational is plain silly because gay marriage is about civil rights.

A Blunt Defense of Marriage Equality

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner put the case for equality starkly. “Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities,” he wrote. Denying them the freedom to marry imposes “continuing pain,” he said, and claims that allowing same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual unions or children, or other state interests, were “totally implausible.”​

But saying it’s “just about civil rights” is rather hollow. The same quip could be used for any number of relationships – which is the point many here are making.

 

[Bradski]

The bone of contention is with calling it “marriage” and saying that the so-called traditional form of marriage is equivalent to same-sex marriage. It’s not.

Indeed it is not. And I’m glad you used the qualifier ‘so-called’. Because neither is the ‘so-called traditional’ position of a woman in a marriage the same as it was. The ‘so-called traditional’ role of housewife is no longer the same. The ‘so-called traditional’ role of the husband either. But it does appear that most arguments against gay marriage rest entirely on the proposition that it is not ‘traditional’. Unless you can come up with a better argument (and I use the term generously), then thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys…the game is over.

Furthermore, this line of reasoning suggests that before Windsor and Hollingsworth, gay couples were completely miserable. You’re not saying that gay couples somehow need to be validated by the state or perhaps by their community in order to experience happiness, are you? I hope not, Bradski, because that would certainly be “anti-gay.”

You’re quite right. I am not suggesting that. It would be idiotic to do so. My friends weren’t miserable before they got married. But having everyone recognise their marriage and to have everyone able to celebrate it with them was an occasion of great happiness for all concerned. That’s not going to be denied to couples who happen to be the same gender. What you have to do is work out how you deal with it. Which is still the point of the thread.