The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[glendab]

Hello HerCrazierHalf.

I guess what I don’t fully understand is why can’t we all just agree to separate civil and religious marriage? The Catholic concept of marriage is already much different other Western concepts of marriage.

Civil law and Church law has always been separate. The only exception is in theocracies where the rulers impose their religion on the populace. For the most part, civil rulers always excepted religious rites for marriages. The exception is in times of persecution or in the instances of slavery. That is what can be learned about the issues from history.

Glenda

 

[KP3243]

I guess what I don’t fully understand is why can’t we all just agree to separate civil and religious marriage? The Catholic concept of marriage is already much different other Western concepts of marriage​

I think, at least in the US, when an ecclesiastical authority marries a couple they have to do paper work to the civil government because I had a friend get married without a state marriage license thinking that she was Catholic and was getting married by the Church not a Justice of the Peace so she didn’t have to have the state license and the priest married them but could not declare it a marriage until she got the license which made for a very interesting honeymoon.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I think, at least in the US, when an ecclesiastical authority marries a couple they have to do paper work to the civil government because I had a friend get married without a state marriage license thinking that she was Catholic and was getting married by the Church not a Justice of the Peace so she didn’t have to have the state license and the priest married them but could not declare it a marriage until she got the license which made for a very interesting honeymoon.

I understand that as it is now, a priest will require the couple to get a license. I actually asked (out of curiosity) during my marriage prep, but thought it was a requirement of the church. There are some cities and states that don’t prohibit religious marriages without a civil license.

 

[glendab]

Hello Crow.

Thank you, I mean sincerely THANK YOU, for saying this.

If 2 people, gay or straight are in REAL LOVE with each other, then it’s a beautiful and truly good thing.

Real Love, Who actually is a Person, Jesus Christ, cannot enter into a relation that is morally repugnant. He it is Who called such actions aberrations long before He sent His Son into our world. He it is Who destroyed Sodom and all the persons in it for their deeds. The name of the place gave the reason any with ears to hear all through history fro its destruction and recalling the destruction that befell Sodom and Gomorrah tells everyone with half a brain the truth about how God really feels about such things.

God is love. Real love is that kind that laid Itself down upon the Cross for man so that man might enter into an authentic love with Himself. His death upon the Cross redeemed mankind from sin; it didn’t make sin an acceptable thing. This is the Truth. We are called to imitate Him is His love, to sacrifice ourselves in love, in total donation. That type of relationship you think is a loving one, is the exact opposite of real love, the love the Father has for the Son, Who pours Himself out in the Spirit upon man. To call homosexual love* real *by comparison is almost a blasphemy, but it can be understood among the ignorant who do so.

There is no beauty in anything that is a mockery of love. Genuine beauty is a reflection of our Creator. To say that two men “in love” is beautiful tells me that the person who thinks so has no comprehension of Who it is Who is the Author of all beauty and I can only feel pity for someone so blind as to not even know Who Jesus Christ is in His essence, Love.

Glenda

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hello Crow.

Real Love, Who actually is a Person, Jesus Christ, cannot enter into a relation that is morally repugnant. He it is Who called such actions aberrations long before He sent His Son into our world. He it is Who destroyed Sodom and all the persons in it for their deeds. The name of the place gave the reason any with ears to hear all through history fro its destruction and recalling the destruction that befell Sodom and Gomorrah tells everyone with half a brain the truth about how God really feels about such things.

God is love. Real love is that kind that laid Itself down upon the Cross for man so that man might enter into an authentic love with Himself. His death upon the Cross redeemed mankind from sin; it didn’t make sin an acceptable thing. This is the Truth. We are called to imitate Him is His love, to sacrifice ourselves in love, in total donation. That type of relationship you think is a loving one, is the exact opposite of real love, the love the Father has for the Son, Who pours Himself out in the Spirit upon man. To call homosexual love* real *by comparison is almost a blasphemy, but it can be understood among the ignorant who do so.

There is no beauty in anything that is a mockery of love. Genuine beauty is a reflection of our Creator. To say that two men “in love” is beautiful tells me that the person who thinks so has no comprehension of Who it is Who is the Author of all beauty and I can only feel pity for someone so blind as to not even know Who Jesus Christ is in His essence, Love.

Glenda

Please watch the movie The Desire of the Everlasting Hills, and then tell me that two gay people in a relationship can’t love each other. With all due respect, what you’re saying is nonsense.

everlastinghills.org/movie/

Note: The film was made by Courage, a Catholic apostolate.

 

[glendab]

Hello KP.

I guess what I don’t fully understand is why can’t we all just agree to separate civil and religious marriage? The Catholic concept of marriage is already much different other Western concepts of marriage​

I think, at least in the US, when an ecclesiastical authority marries a couple they have to do paper work to the civil government because I had a friend get married without a state marriage license thinking that she was Catholic and was getting married by the Church not a Justice of the Peace so she didn’t have to have the state license and the priest married them but could not declare it a marriage until she got the license which made for a very interesting honeymoon.

Civil law and Church law has always been separate. That is not the problem. The problem is the civil authorities imposing an ideal upon the society that most in that society are against and calling it law and forcing us to accept it or be guilty of discrimination, which can be a crime. They are placing something OVER the Church and her members and requiring her and her members to accept something against our religion. The State is saying it governs the Church. They are the ones burring the lines between Church and State, not us. Look at it from a different angle than the one the main stream media projects the images from. Look for the real issues behind the issues.

Thou shalt not discriminate is not a Commandment of God; it is the rallying cry of a civil rights movement that has run amok.

Glenda

 

[LoganBice]

Please watch the movie The Desire of the Everlasting Hills, and then tell me that two gay people in a relationship can’t love each other. With all due respect, what you’re saying is nonsense.

everlastinghills.org/movie/

Note: The film was made by Courage, a Catholic apostolate.

I think two gay people can defiently love eachother but it still dosnt makes a marriage between them or sexual acts moral. Same sex attraction is a burden they have to bear just like someone who is lustful toward women or has a tendency toward violence. They must look to God for strength

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think two gay people can defiently love eachother but it still dosnt makes as triage between them or sexual acts moral. Same sex attraction is a burden they have to bear just like someone who is lustful toward women or has a tendency toward violence. They must look to God for strength

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Keep in mind, they are very close to being able to give ANY number of mixture of people regardless of gender, the ability to conceive a child, I watched a long program about this, apparently they are getting close to being able to take genetic material from 2 men, 2 women, 4 men, 6 men, 55 men, so on and so on, with virtually NO limits on how many ‘parents’ a child can have…I was surprised how close they are to this, I think we will see this happen within 20 yrs or sooner.

Although Im fairly sure God will not permit such a thing to become a reality, I hope so anyway, it would be the ultimate abomination, I dont think God would sit idly by and just let this take place. I think this would be on the same level as our scientific world eventually beating death…this is also something they are getting close to as well!!!

Hmmm kind of odd. I guess it’s not really much different form our own genetic make up. We have the genetic material of our ancestors going back to the beginning. If they are hand picked genetic traits to produce a super human of some type. Then we are looking at a dark future. As for beating death. Not much chance of that happening. Slowing down the aging process might have some potential. This I’m sure, would be a truly great achievement. But in the end death comes for us all.

ATB

 

[Prodigirl]

Government is in the marriage business because the union of a man and woman can produce a child, and children deserve a relationship with their mom and dad. That’s the reason we have government in the bedroom.

(read more)[/INDENT]

We would not have government in the bedroom if legislators did not believe it is their duty to control our reproductive lives. It’s not the business of any government to oversee what goes on in the bedroom of any couple, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc., nor is it their task to enact laws which reflect their own religions leanings and expect the whole of the citizenry to obey these laws.

The Catholic Church, by the way, has a permanent seat in the bedrooms of every single Catholic couple or mixed marriage couple who comes close enough to it. I find that equally offensive. There is no freedom of self-expression for many people under these kinds of Catholic prohibitions and proscriptions.

Additionally, children do NOT deserve a mom and/or a dad who is a drunk, a pedophile, a thief, a drug dealer or user, a murderer, a rapist, an arsonist, or a perpetrator of any kind. Mom and Dad are not always what we would wish them to be.

 

[Rau]

We would not have government in the bedroom if legislators did not believe it is their duty to control our reproductive lives. It’s not the business of any government to oversee what goes on in the bedroom of any couple, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc., nor is it their task to enact laws which reflect their own religions leanings and expect the whole of the citizenry to obey these laws.

The Catholic Church, by the way, has a permanent seat in the bedrooms of every single Catholic couple or mixed marriage couple who comes close enough to it. I find that equally offensive. There is no freedom of self-expression for many people under these kinds of Catholic prohibitions and proscriptions.

Additionally, children do NOT deserve a mom and/or a dad who is a drunk, a pedophile, a thief, a drug dealer or user, a murderer, a rapist, an arsonist, or a perpetrator of any kind. Mom and Dad are not always what we would wish them to be.

What controls over your reproductive life concern you? What more freedom would you like?

What laws do you believe exists over bedroom activities? Which laws reflect religious leanings?

What Freedoms of Self expressions are you denied that concern you? What would you like the Catholic Church to teach?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We would not have government in the bedroom if legislators did not believe it is their duty to control our reproductive lives. It’s not the business of any government to oversee what goes on in the bedroom of any couple, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc., nor is it their task to enact laws which reflect their own religions leanings and expect the whole of the citizenry to obey these laws.

The Catholic Church, by the way, has a permanent seat in the bedrooms of every single Catholic couple or mixed marriage couple who comes close enough to it. I find that equally offensive. There is no freedom of self-expression for many people under these kinds of Catholic prohibitions and proscriptions.

The Church doesn’t force anyone to be Catholic.

Additionally, children do NOT deserve a mom and/or a dad who is a drunk, a pedophile, a thief, a drug dealer or user, a murderer, a rapist, an arsonist, or a perpetrator of any kind. Mom and Dad are not always what we would wish them to be.

Suppose I were to say, “Children deserve education.” Could you prove me wrong by telling me that many teachers are bad? Of course not. By saying “children deserve education”, I don’t endorse bad teachers.

In the same way, children deserve a mom and a dad. By saying so, I don’t endorse bad parents.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m not sure if this has been said, but to respond to the OP:

The benefits of marriage to society are far more general than the matter of rearing children. If marriage’s only benefit were derived from children, then surely couples who have failed to reproduce after a certain time period would be disqualified from the tax breaks and legal rights befitting marriage.

No, marriage contributes to stability in other ways, even ways that would apply to gay couples. Married people lead less risky lifestyles. This is evidenced by the bias of insurance companies toward couples. Married couples are less likely to undergo a financial disaster than a single person because they can pool resources even if someone gets fired or laid off. Marriage simplifies the exchange of property ownership upon the previous owner’s death. It isn’t obvious even from a Catholic perspective why a gay person shouldn’t be able to pass down their property to whomever they wish. It also isn’t obvious why a gay person shouldn’t be able to have their insurance apply to whomever they designate as their partner. What difference does it make from an insurance company’s perspective whether they are chaste? Should romance be relevant to the pooling of resources?

 

[Rau]

I’m not sure if this has been said, but to respond to the OP:

The benefits of marriage to society are far more general than the matter of rearing children. If marriage’s only benefit were derived from children, then surely couples who have failed to reproduce after a certain time period would be disqualified from the tax breaks and legal rights befitting marriage.

No, marriage contributes to stability in other ways, even ways that would apply to gay couples. Married people lead less risky lifestyles. This is evidenced by the bias of insurance companies toward couples. Married couples are less likely to undergo a financial disaster than a single person because they can pool resources even if someone gets fired or laid off. Marriage simplifies the exchange of property ownership upon the previous owner’s death. It isn’t obvious even from a Catholic perspective why a gay person shouldn’t be able to pass down their property to whomever they wish. It also isn’t obvious why a gay person shouldn’t be able to have their insurance apply to whomever they designate as their partner. What difference does it make from an insurance company’s perspective whether they are chaste? Should romance be relevant to the pooling of resources?

The tax benefits of marriage are minimal in most jurisdictions, and nil in a great many. In sensible jurisdictions, the material tax benefits attach only to the presence of children.

Asset sharing, inheritance and such matters are reasonable social arrangements which the State may wish to facilitate for arbitrary pairs (or other sets) of persons. However, marriage is the only sexual institution of relevance to the state.

 

[Oreoracle]

Asset sharing, inheritance and such matters are reasonable social arrangements which the State may wish to facilitate for arbitrary pairs (or other sets) of persons. However, marriage is the only sexual institution of relevance to the state.

But you do realize that they aren’t forcing the Church to acknowledge the marriages? Civil marriage is already separate from religious marriages in that procreation isn’t paramount. Why not just allow civil marriages to be pragmatic means of reaching those “reasonable social arrangements” and the Church still gets to keep its pure form of marriage? Everyone wins.

 

[glendab]

Hello ProdigalGirl.

We would not have government in the bedroom if legislators did not believe it is their duty to control our reproductive lives. It’s not the business of any government to oversee what goes on in the bedroom of any couple, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc., nor is it their task to enact laws which reflect their own religions leanings and expect the whole of the citizenry to obey these laws.

The Catholic Church, by the way, has a permanent seat in the bedrooms of every single Catholic couple or mixed marriage couple who comes close enough to it. I find that equally offensive. There is no freedom of self-expression for many people under these kinds of Catholic prohibitions and proscriptions.

Additionally, children do NOT deserve a mom and/or a dad who is a drunk, a pedophile, a thief, a drug dealer or user, a murderer, a rapist, an arsonist, or a perpetrator of any kind. Mom and Dad are not always what we would wish them to be.

MOST of a marriage actually occurs outside of the bedroom. Sex isn’t the reason for marriage, it is a by-product of being married. The government isn’t so much concerned about what goes on in the bedroom in this particular instance, but what legal benefits fall upon the married and wants there to be no limit to homosexual couples in this regard. That is the distortion that they’d like us to see as truth so as to give a compassionate validity to their argument towards the homosexual couples.

And no, the Catholic Church is about spreading the good news of Jesus Christ and bringing souls to Him, not about all that goes on in the bedrooms of Catholic Church goers. If you find the Church’s laws regarding marriage to be too difficult, then you need to pray about it and accept it or if that proves fruitless, then leave until you can live by them. You’ll only make things harder for yourself if you cannot give the assent of your will to the Church’s laws regarding marriage and all it entails and if you receive Communion while being in a state of dissent from Church teachings, etc., you’ll be committing the sin of sacrilege.

Glenda

 

[Rau]

But you do realize that they aren’t forcing the Church to acknowledge the marriages? Civil marriage is already separate from religious marriages in that procreation isn’t paramount. Why not just allow civil marriages to be pragmatic means of reaching those “reasonable social arrangements” and the Church still gets to keep its pure form of marriage? Everyone wins.

The Church also recognises what you are calling “civil marriage” as Marriage - but I mention that just in passing.

It makes no sense to me to use the same word to refer to different things. The State has no vital interest in 2 blokes or 3 women sharing assets, caring for each other into the future, etc., but I agree that enabling those sorts of arrangements might be a reasonable thing to do. A marriage is of considerable interest - it is THE institution through which the society builds itself, and through which new members of that society are provided with care and nurturing for many years till their independence.

 

[Rau]

…

MOST of a marriage actually occurs outside of the bedroom. Sex isn’t the reason for marriage, it is a by-product of being married. The government isn’t so much concerned about what goes on in the bedroom in this particular instance, but what legal benefits fall upon the married and wants there to be no limit to homosexual couples in this regard. That is the distortion that they’d like us to see as truth so as to give a compassionate validity to their argument towards the homosexual couples…

I can’t speak to the US legal system, but in other jurisdictions, the legal system makes little or no distinction between married persons or de facto couples, including same sex couples.

I also comment that sex, between a man and woman, is a big part of the reason that the State takes an interest in Marriage. As a class of relationship, Marriage is a rather special institution because it is sexual. Whether sex is a part of “same sex relationships” makes absolutely no difference to that class of relationships.

 

[randomusername]

I can’t speak to the US legal system, but in other jurisdictions, the legal system makes little or no distinction between married persons or de facto couples, including same sex couples.

I also comment that sex, between a man and woman, is a big part of the reason that the State takes an interest in Marriage. As a class of relationship, Marriage is a rather special institution because it is sexual. Whether sex is a part of “same sex relationships” makes absolutely no difference to that class of relationships.

It does. It makes a huge different. Same-sex couples can’t procreate through sex.

 

[Oreoracle]

It does. It makes a huge different. Same-sex couples can’t procreate through sex.

But we already extend marriage to couples that choose not to procreate or can’t due to infertility. For the life of me I’ve never seen the practical difference between not being able to reproduce and choosing not to reproduce. Who cares if you can reproduce in principle if you aren’t going to?

The Church also recognises what you are calling “civil marriage” as Marriage - but I mention that just in passing.

I disagree. For example, the Church doesn’t consider a second civil marriage valid unless the first is annulled. In fact, the Church ignores divorce unless you have an annulment.

It makes no sense to me to use the same word to refer to different things.

We do that all the time. The word “God” is an obvious example. Sure, someone from another religion may use the word to refer to a different entity, but that entity plays the same role in their lives as your god does in yours. Ditto for gays; gay marriage plays the same role for gays that traditional marriage does for straight people.