Separation of religious and civil marriage

[PRmerger]

In the sense that we are using the word “marriage” to refer to the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament defining the covenant between a man and a woman, I agree. I just disagree that the term “marriage” inherently means that.

Marriage does not necessarily have to mean a covenant between 2 people. It can simply be a lifelong commitment between a man and woman for the purpose of caring for any children that may come from this union.

The English langauge has not always existed, but the concept of what Catholics refer to as “marriage” has. Therefore, I see no reason to expect that everyone define marriage in the same manner. If they were misusing the original Hebrew word, I would consider it a different story.

No, SMGS. The concept of marriage existed wayyyyy before the Hebrew concept of marriage as a covenant existed.

Or do you think that there were no marriages in societies before the Israelites?

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly. It means precisely what you want it to mean.

Imagine you telling your child, “You just tell your mean old professor that you get to define the quadratic equation any way you want! You get to say it means what you want it to mean.”

If your child is going to do that, and then graduate with an engineering degree and then make a bridge, make sure I’m not anywhere near any bridges she designs!

 

[frobert]

“Do not rape” is a religious value?

Really?

So all atheists who embrace the paradigm that rape is always wrong are embracing a religious value?

Interesting. So you say that not raping is a religious concept, and you also say that it’s illegal…so I assume that you’re ok with people imposing religious views on society?

Did I say that not raping is a religious concept? Hmmmmmm I thought I said rape was illegal, In the original post that you were referring to, my comment was on marriage, you introduced rape.

 

[PRmerger]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t include people who have been divorced and for whom there has been no declaration of annulment.

You are correct.

I would say that would include the majority of people who remarry. They are not considered married by the Catholic church.

That is correct.

They would be committing adultery.

I don’t hear much of a hue and cry about that

That’s because most divorced and “re-married” Catholics leave the Church over this.

and I’ll bet that you personally consider them married. Unless you start asking personal questions.

If I know they were married before, I don’t consider them married to their new spouses.

Bill: Hi Rau. Nice party. I’m Bill and this is my wife Jane.
Rau: Your wife? Well that is yet to be determined if you don’t mind me saying so.

That would not be the Catholic response.

The Catholic response is that we consider all marriages valid until proven otherwise.

So that’s why the Church can’t marry a divorced Catholic, because she considers the first marriage valid, until proven otherwise.

 

[PRmerger]

Did I say that not raping is a religious concept?

Actually I said that you said that not raping is a religious value.

Not even 8 hours ago you said this:

You are correct, it is not a religious concept but rather a religious value.

Remember now?

Hmmmmmm I thought I said rape was illegal.

Indeed it is.

So if you are saying it’s a religious value, and you’re okay with rape being illegal, then you are ok with religious values being imposed on society as laws.

Yes?

 

[frobert]

Actually I said that you said that not raping is a religious value.

Not even 8 hours ago you said this:

Remember now?

Indeed it is.

So if you are saying it’s a religious value, and you’re okay with rape being illegal, then you are ok with religious values being imposed on society as laws.

Yes?

I see you have a sense of humor.

 

[Rau]

This should be a TV commercial.

Agreed.

 

[PRmerger]

I see you have a sense of humor.

Can you answer the question?

Since you seem to believe that not raping is a religious value, and you assert (correctly) that it’s not legal to rape,

are you ok with religious values being imposed on society by law?

Yes or no?

 

[Bradski]

Imagine you telling your child, “You just tell your mean old professor that you get to define the quadratic equation any way you want! You get to say it means what you want it to mean.”

The legal definition of marriage in some countries is different to those in others and those definitions even differ within areas of the same country. Those definitions in turn are different to yours which are in turn different to mine. It does seem a little perverse to say otherwise. Even discounting anything at all do with the OP, when someone says ‘a marriage’ it does mean different things to different people.

If I know they were married before, I don’t consider them married to their new spouses.

PR: Hey Bill, who is that talking to your wife?
Bill: The woman talking to Jane? That’s my ex-wife.
PR: Oh, sorry. I didn’t know. I meant ‘talking to your partner’. I hadn’t realised you were married before.
Bill: Yes. We were. It took ages to get the annulment organised.
PR: Oh, so it is your wife I meant. You are Catholics?
Bill: Yes. We’ll be getting married once it comes through.
PR: Ah – it hasn’t been granted yet? So she IS your partner. I must talk to her and your ex-wife about it.
Bill: Well, strictly speaking, we were in a de facto relationship.
PR: OK. So it’s your ex-partner, not your ex-wife, your current partner not your wife, but she’s soon to become your ex-partner and become your wife. Have I got that right now?
Bill: Yep. Definitely going to be wife number two. As soon as the sex change procedure is finalised. Canape?

 

[PRmerger]

The legal definition of marriage in some countries is different to those in others and those definitions even differ within areas of the same country. Those definitions in turn are different to yours which are in turn different to mine. It does seem a little perverse to say otherwise. Even discounting anything at all do with the OP, when someone says ‘a marriage’ it does mean different things to different people.

Well, the confusion today is due to folks trying to re-define it.

Let’s go back 100 years and ask people: what is marriage?

No one would tell you: it’s a legal commitment recognizing 2 men who love each other sexually.

PR: Hey Bill, who is that talking to your wife?
Bill: The woman talking to Jane? That’s my ex-wife.
PR: Oh, sorry. I didn’t know. I meant ‘talking to your partner’. I hadn’t realised you were married before.
Bill: Yes. We were. It took ages to get the annulment organised.
PR: Oh, so it is your wife I meant. You are Catholics?
Bill: Yes. We’ll be getting married once it comes through.
PR: Ah – it hasn’t been granted yet? So she IS your partner. I must talk to her and your ex-wife about it.
Bill: Well, strictly speaking, we were in a de facto relationship.
PR: OK. So it’s your ex-partner, not your ex-wife, your current partner not your wife, but she’s soon to become your ex-partner and become your wife. Have I got that right now?
Bill: Yep. Definitely going to be wife number two. As soon as the sex change procedure is finalised. Canape?

Well, that certainly would be my bubble thoughts.

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

But it would be not very Christian to animate those thoughts in the manner you described.

Thank goodness I’m a Christian, no?

 

[frobert]

Can you answer the question?

Since you seem to believe that not raping is a religious value, and you assert (correctly) that it’s not legal to rape,

are you ok with religious values being imposed on society by law?

Yes or no?

The question is non sensical and therefore humorous. I think you need to go back to the post I replied to where you will find that my comment was that “man+woman is special,” is not a fact but a religious concept. That post was on topic.

Is not raping peculiarly a religious concept? Is it possible that the state arrived at the illegality independent of rape without any religious imposition. If not, why not?

Religions are a source of guidance so I have no problem with religion having an (name removed by moderator)ut as opposed to imposing. So my direct answer to your funny question is …drum beat…no.

Would you like to get back on topic?

 

[Rau]

The question is non sensical and therefore humorous. I think you need to go back to the post I replied to where you will find that my comment was that “man+woman is special,” is not a fact but a religious concept. That post was on topic.

Is not raping peculiarly a religious concept? Is it possible that the state arrived at the same concept independent of any religious imposition. If not, why not?

Religions are a source of guidance so I have no problem with religion having an (name removed by moderator)ut as opposed to imposing. So my direct answer to your funny question is …drum beat…no.

Would you like to get back on topic?

But we dispelled the notion of religiousness in the matter. Where we got to is that you were unable to recognize any unique attribute of the man+woman coupling, and I offered the hope that further on in your life its uniqueness may become apparent…

 

[frobert]

But we dispelled the notion of religiousness in the matter. Where we got to is that you were unable to recognize any unique attribute of the man+woman coupling, and I offered the hope that further on in your life its uniqueness may become apparent…

No, in every relationship there are unique attributes. Whether religious or not your unique likely differs from my unique as well as everyone else. It is not measurable. The problem belongs to you as you appear to expect others to accept your undefined unique as a fact. We can discuss the uniqueness and merits of different types of marriage and likely have some agreement but certainly not total agreement.

 

[Rau]

No, in every relationship there are unique attributes. Whether religious or not your unique likely differs from my unique as well as everyone else. It is not measurable. The problem belongs to you as you appear to expect others to accept your undefined unique as a fact. We can discuss the uniqueness and merits of different types of marriage and likely have some agreement but certainly not total agreement.

We are not speaking of individual relationships, but the entire class of man+woman in comparison to any other. You are Catholic? Do you consider the opportunity of man+woman to participate in Gods creation just another attribute, or something that truly sets this relationship class apart?

And the same observation can be expressed without religious overtones. Which class of relationship is most significant to subsequent generations? Which class is essential to our continuation as a human family?

With which class has marriage been closely identified for centuries, and for which one does the sexual nature of marriage serve the greater purpose?

You may argue all you wish for other than man+woman to access legal benefits and I may well support you. But let’s not claim all these classes of relationship are the same thing.

 

[Bradski]

Well, the confusion today is due to folks trying to re-define it. Let’s go back 100 years and ask people: what is marriage?

You are not addressing the point that it already has many definitions, as I thought I just pointed out. Different countries have different definitions, different areas within countries, different ethnic groups, different age groups, different religions, different people – good grief, even two people who are married to each other can have different definitions.

It is different religiously, politically, generationally, geographically, ethnically, temporally and personally. And what do you say? Well, we mustn’t change it…it has to remain exactly as it is. Sorry, PR, the horse has not only bolted but people are in the process of dismantling the stall.

This is not now an argument about what is to be done. It is a discussion about how you manage the change.

 

[PRmerger]

Is not raping peculiarly a religious concept? Is it possible that the state arrived at the illegality independent of rape without any religious imposition. If not, why not?

BINGO!!

You got it, frobert!

The immorality of rape can be discerned independent of any religious dogma.

Similarly, the concept of marriage between one man and one woman can be discerned independent of any religious dogma.

You originally declared it to be a “religious value judgement”.

You seem to be referring to the “concept” of marriage between one man and one woman as an indisputable fact when in reality it is a religious value judgement?

Clearly, you can see that, like the immorality of rape, marriage between one man and one woman can be apprehended without any religious revelation.

 

[frobert]

We are not speaking of individual relationships, but the entire class of man+woman in comparison to any other. You are Catholic? Do you consider the opportunity of man+woman to participate in Gods creation just another attribute, or something that truly sets this relationship class apart?

And the same observation can be expressed without religious overtones. Which class of relationship is most significant to subsequent generations? Which class is essential to our continuation as a human family?

With which class has marriage been closely identified for centuries, and for which one does the sexual nature of marriage serve the greater purpose?

You may argue all you wish for other than man+woman to access legal benefits and I may well support you. But let’s not claim all these classes of relationship are the same thing.

I am assuming that you are referring about the specific case of man+women who are legitimately married. The relationships are not the same, they are quite different.It is a fact that they are different because we the difference between them are quantifiable, but it is not a fact that man+woman+special or unique.

I am not Catholic.

Let’s get back to the original discussion. Is man+woman special or unique a fact? You fail to distinguish between fact and value/qualify and to adjust your statements accordingly. For example how about unmarried man+woman who have offspring are they committing a mortal sin in the eyes of God or is it a special are they special unique relationship? How about divorced and remarried Catholics. How about the man+woman who engages in anal sex prior to intercourse? How about the man or woman who uses his partner as an object has a one night stand and never sees their partner again. How about single woman who use a male as a donor? Is that a special and unique man+woman? How about a person who marries someone of the opposite sex solely to have children thus treating their spouse as an object to be used. All the above can produce offspring and are unique but I doubt unique in a way you like.

Now getting back to the original statement the above facts or are they values?

 

[PRmerger]

You are not addressing the point that it already has many definitions, as I thought I just pointed out. Different countries have different definitions, different areas within countries, different ethnic groups, different age groups, different religions, different people – good grief, even two people who are married to each other can have different definitions.

Firstly, can you give some examples of these different definitions of marriage, excluding the topic we are currently discussing: same sex unions (for that would be begging the question).

Secondly, even if 2 people who are married to each other can have different definitions (“I believe in free love!” “I believe that marriage is just until I want out!”), that doesn’t make those definitions correct.

There were people just a few decades ago who had different definitions of what is a human person (they gave some people a yellow star to indicate what was thought of them). That certainly didn’t make their definitions correct. (Heck, this is still going on today with some human persons in the womb).

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, PR, the horse has not only bolted but people are in the process of dismantling the stall.

This is not now an argument about what is to be done. It is a discussion about how you manage the change.

It is debatable that the horse cannot be returned to the barn. That argument proposed by some pro-homosexual union folks is presumptuous. Slavery was the law of the land but we were able to turn the hearts and minds of folks towards truth to dismantle slavery. We can do the same with same sex unions too. We must.

 

[frobert]

Where are the studies that show the outcomes are as good for children raised by single parents or cohabiting parents, compared to children raised by biological married parents? As for children raised by homosexual parents, I think there is a question mark on their outcomes compared to other children because where are the studies on outcomes for children raised by homosexual parents that don’t have issues such as being open to social desirability bias, small samples etc.

I think the study you are referring to is the one sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics which spans 3 decades.

Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics the week before the court case, arguing that three decades of research concur that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

In an interview with BU Today, Siegel acknowledges the limits of all this research: none of the studies has been a randomized, controlled trial—the Holy Grail of scientific investigation—and all studies of gay parenting are necessarily small, since there aren’t many gay parents. The report cites estimates that gay couples and single parents are raising almost two million American children.

Granted, samples are small and the nature of science is to be skeptical but it is an excellent start. I have come across many people here on CAF who believe that the ONLY credible parent are legitimately married man and woman and have made up their minds that SS sex parenting should be stopped if not eliminated. The study referred to spans 3 decades and does not falsify that SS parents are incapable of providing quality parenting and a suitable environment to raise children. If fact the implications are that it is the quality of the parents and not the orientation that is the important condition.

Indulge me while I switch to a different scenario of the close to one half million kids in foster care many of whom do not fare well. Rather than expend rhetoric, time, money and energy on condemning SS parenting why not put our rhetoric, efforts, time and money to promoting good families for those in real need.