Separation of religious and civil marriage

[1newcatholic]

Most insightful, trenchant, scholarly, well-researched article I have read on the reputed same sex “marriage” history. As stated earlier: ga-ga, la-la nonsense.

"To the contrary, no one has ever argued that samesex
marriages are “unheard of.” Rather, it has been argued only that the
world’s major civilizations, and most of its minor ones, have not conferred
upon same-sex unions the status of marriage as that has been understood
in each of those civilizations.

How old are you?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s absurd to expect the secular laws of a worldly kingdom to reflect and enforce my religious beliefs, when the scriptures and the saints of that very tradition have taught for centuries that these two kingdoms are fundamentally opposed, and that we should not expect perfect cooperation between them.

I suppose you are against social security, publicly funded health care for the poor, food stamps?

For are not those programs enforcing our religious views on caring for the poor?

And I suppose that you are against laws against domestic violence.

Wouldn’t that be imposing a religious view that it’s wrong to harm another person?

 

[PRmerger]

Most insightful, trenchant, scholarly, well-researched article I have read on the reputed same sex “marriage” history. As stated earlier: ga-ga, la-la nonsense.

"To the contrary, no one has ever argued that samesex
marriages are “unheard of.” Rather, it has been argued only that the
world’s major civilizations, and most of its minor ones, have not conferred
upon same-sex unions the status of marriage as that has been understood
in each of those civilizations.

More from the fabulous article.

We assume also that since the chapter is about “samesex
marriage,” We’wha, of course, will have entered into such a marriage,
duly recognized by the Zuni tribe. So it comes as some surprise to
read that Professor Eskridge’s authority for the story of We’wha is a recent
book, entitled The Zuni Man-Woman by Will Roscoe.33 At no point
in that book is We’wha described as having been in a recognized “marriage.”

And

None of this is evidence that the Igbo culture tolerates same-sex marriages
of the sort Professor Eskridge contemplates.

Curiouser and curiouser…

 

[1newcatholic]

I suppose you are against social security, publicly funded health care for the poor, food stamps?

For are not those programs enforcing our religious views on caring for the poor?

And I suppose that you are against laws against domestic violence.

Wouldn’t that be imposing a religious view that it’s wrong to harm another person?

Doing good things for other people in the society is not just a Christian value, but also a pragmatic policy for a nation that wants to stay in business. Fortunately as a Christian and an American I am free to help the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the hungry whether or not my nation has laws and programs in place to help.

I am against domestic violence whether or not the government protects the victims and prosecutes the abusers. I support traditional marriages whether or not the government recognizes additional forms of marriage. What I think of as “right” and “wrong” isn’t affected by what the government says is “legal” or “illegal.”

 

[PRmerger]

Doing good things for other people in the society is not just a Christian value,

Bingo.

And that’s our point re: marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman.

It’s also not just a Christian value.

 

[PRmerger]

Fortunately as a Christian and an American I am free to help the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the hungry whether or not my nation has laws and programs in place to help.

But the fact that you are not opposed to laws “imposing” this religious view (and who can doubt that feeding the poor and elderly is a religious imperative commanded by the Creator) is telling.

I am against domestic violence whether or not the government protects the victims and prosecutes the abusers.

I presume you are not opposed, however, to laws imposing this view on society?

I support traditional marriages whether or not the government recognizes additional forms of marriage. What I think of as “right” and “wrong” isn’t affected by what the government says is “legal” or “illegal.”

Point: you are not opposed to some laws which impose religious views on society.

So, be consistent: do not be opposed to some laws which support traditional marriage.

 

[1newcatholic]

So, be consistent: do not be opposed to some laws which support traditional marriage.

I’m not opposed to any laws which support traditional marriage.
I’m also not opposed to laws which support other forms of marriage as well.

Traditional marriage is not destroyed by non-traditional marriage.
You’re creating a false dichotomy.

 

[Rau]

I’m also not opposed to laws which support other forms of marriage as well.

Not “opposed”, but how would you vote if asked to support the broadening of marriage to include same sex couples? For or Against?

 

[PRmerger]

Traditional marriage is not destroyed by non-traditional marriage.
You’re creating a false dichotomy.

I never proposed that traditional marriage would be destroyed by non-traditional “marriage”.

I am opposed to it for the same reason apparently that you are.

 

[_Abyssinia]

As an American and a Catholic, I’m not interested in imposing my religious definition of ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ marriage on people who are not participating in my religious tradition.

That’s why I support separating religious and civil marriage, as many other countries have done.

The Catholic Church is welcome to maintain its traditional teachings about marriage and sexual complementarity, and in my own private opinion these traditions are both pragmatic and reasonable. But I have not confused America, a kingdom of this world, with the Church, the kingdom of God.

It’s absurd to expect the secular laws of a worldly kingdom to reflect and enforce my religious beliefs, when the scriptures and the saints of that very tradition have taught for centuries that these two kingdoms are fundamentally opposed, and that we should not expect perfect cooperation between them.

Homosexual ‘marriage’ has effects on broader society, from impacting religious liberty to changing people’s view on marriage is and that is why we have to oppose it. Also, there are secular arguments/reasons that homosrxual ‘marriage’ should not be legalised.

 

[Corki]

I’m not opposed to any laws which support traditional marriage.
I’m also not opposed to laws which support other forms of marriage as well.

Traditional marriage is not destroyed by non-traditional marriage.
You’re creating a false dichotomy.

Traditional marriage is not necessarily “destroyed” by non-traditional marriage but calling them both “marriage” is the problem. It is the concept of marriage that is destroyed. Non-traditional marriage is not marriage in any way other than a group of activists having co-opted the term. By doing so, this damages the concept of marriage and the rightful participants in real marriage.

What has for centuries been understood as “marriage” is now not marriage. People are forced to add a qualifier to identify a real marriage vs. anther relationship being called a marriage.

 

[1newcatholic]

Traditional marriage is not necessarily “destroyed” by non-traditional marriage but calling them both “marriage” is the problem. It is the concept of marriage that is destroyed. Non-traditional marriage is not marriage in any way other than a group of activists having co-opted the term. By doing so, this damages the concept of marriage and the rightful participants in real marriage.

What has for centuries been understood as “marriage” is now not marriage. People are forced to add a qualifier to identify a real marriage vs. anther relationship being called a marriage.

Eventually it will stop being “same-sex” or “gay” marriage, and will just be called “marriage.” Everyone will know that the Catholic church doesn’t endorse this as marriage, just like they don’t endorse divorced-remarriage as “real marriage,” but people who reject Catholic teaching will be able to enter into the same legal and social structures that I enjoy as a married heterosexual practicing a traditional religion.

I can live with that.

I don’t think it’s necessary to restrict expansions in the legal definition of marriage based on appeals to social tradition, traditions grounded in a particular religious ideology. American law is public space, and doesn’t belong solely to Christians or the Catholic Church.

When they start outlawing natural marriage, then we have a real problem. But allowing non-traditional marriage is not even remotely the same thing as restricting or degrading traditional marriage.

 

[Rau]

…American law is public space, and doesn’t belong solely to Christians or the Catholic Church.

Which simply means we all get a say. Yet many seem to take great umbrage at Christians expressing their opinion about what the law should be.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think it’s necessary to restrict expansions in the legal definition of marriage based on appeals to social tradition, traditions grounded in a particular religious ideology.

Marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman is not a religious ideology.

Just like feeding the poor, opposing rape and domestic violence are not religious ideologies.

If you do not oppose legal restrictions for rape and domestic violence, to be consistent, you ought not oppose legal restrictions for marriage.

 

[frobert]

But the fact that you are not opposed to laws “imposing” this religious view (and who can doubt that feeding the poor and elderly is a religious imperative commanded by the Creator) is telling.

I presume you are not opposed, however, to laws imposing this view on society?

Point: you are not opposed to some laws which impose religious views on society.

So, be consistent: do not be opposed to some laws which support traditional marriage.

There you go again with your humorous assumptions based a false premises. In democracies where state and religion is separate the state makes laws for the benefit of its citizens, that some of those laws coincide with religious views is simply a byproduct.

It is not an inconsistent or dichotomous when 1newcatholic or I or anyone else champion some laws that coincide with religious views as well as some that don’t. More to the point it is not incongruent to support anti-discrimination laws and laws that benefit the poor while being opposed to civil laws based on a religious based definition of marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

There you go again with your humorous assumptions based a false premises. In democracies the state makes laws for the benefit of its citizens, if some of those laws coincide with religious rules it is simply a byproduct.

You are correct. Although I wouldn’t use “simply”. But I quibble.

It is not an inconsistent or dichotomous when 1newcatholic or I or anyone else champion some laws that coincide with religious beliefs as well as some that don’t.

Sure. I haven’t posited anything contrary to that.

It’s where you say that the definition of marriage stems from a religious ideology where you are gravely in error.

The conjugal view of marriage existed for millenia prior to any Judeo-Christian influence.

 

[frobert]

Marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman is not a religious ideology.

Just like feeding the poor, opposing rape and domestic violence are not religious ideologies.

If you do not oppose legal restrictions for rape and domestic violence, to be consistent, you ought not oppose legal restrictions for marriage.

Both you and 1newcatholic have missed the point. For the purpose of civil law the salient factor is whether the bans on same sex marriage are constitutional or not.

Whether feeding the poor, opposing rape and domestic violence is a religious ideology or not, laws regarding them are in the interest of the state and its citizens. As I commented similarly in a previous post if laws coincide with religious views it is simply a byproduct.

 

[PRmerger]

Whether feeding the poor, opposing rape and domestic violence is a religious ideology or not, laws regarding them are in the interest of the state and its citizens.

You are correct.

As is preserving the nuptial view of marriage. Definitely in the interest of its citizens.

 

[frobert]

The conjugal view of marriage existed for millenia prior to any Judeo-Christian influence.

Conjugal may not be the right word. I looked up the definition of conjugal

**From google search **

con·ju·gal
?känj???l/
adjective
adjective: conjugal

of or relating to marriage or the relationship of a married couple.
"conjugal loyalty"

synonyms:	marital, matrimonial, nuptial, marriage, bridal;
spousal;

From dictionary.com

[kon-juh-guh l]

adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage:
   conjugal vows.
2. pertaining to the relation between marriage partners.

There were others. What was absent in all the definitions was the mention of the sexes of the partner being between 1 man and 1 woman.

What I think you may be implying is that the view/ideology/definition of marriage is fixed in time across all cultures and societies. If so you may want to dig deeper.

 

[frobert]

You are correct.

As is preserving the nuptial view of marriage. Definitely in the interest of its citizens.

Awesome!

To be certain, I did a search on nuptial and as I suspected it is gender neutral.

From Goggle

nup·tial
ˈnəp(t)SHəl/
adjective
adjective: nuptial

1.  of or relating to marriage or weddings.
"moments of nuptial bliss"
synonyms:	matrimonial, marital, marriage, wedding, conjugal, bridal; 
married, wedded;

noun
noun: nuptial; plural noun: nuptials

1.  a wedding.
"the forthcoming nuptials between Richard and Jocelyn"
synonyms:	wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage, union;
archaic espousal
"we attended the young duke's nuptials"

Somehow though I suspect that your definition of “nuptial” varies from the common definition in that it is an espousal view.