The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[marymary1975]

But can’t a priest just decline to marry the couple if they object to the marriage? I don’t see how the State’s position is forcing the Church’s hand on the matter. You guys will still have all of your autonomy. In fact, since marriage is theological and not contractual from a religious perspective, a religious group could recognize marriage in a situation in which the State doesn’t.

Besides, I don’t see how it would encourage gay sex or homosexual relationships. Those things will happen with equal frequency even without granting gay couples slips of paper saying they are married.

And now because every rule has an exception let me show to you the exception of my home state of MA

mass.gov/governor/getinvolved/justiceofpeace/summary-of-duties.html

Now note that in MA priests to have power to marry must be registered under the Commonwealth and must take oath so it only applies to priests that have taken oath to perform marriages, but the supreme judicial court ruled that a justice if the peace cannot refuse to perform same sex marriages. Under this ruling if a SS couple comes to a priest (or any religious minister for the matter) who has taken oath and they requests a marriage to be performed by this religious minister and that minister refuses he can incur into personal liability and the couple indeed may have an action against the priest/minister.

So in Massachusetts a priests may very well be sued for refusing to perform a same aex marriage. It has not happen yet but it can happen.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=theCrow;12216203]ANY loving couple can produce a child, it’s called adoption.

Adoption is not production of a child.

Guess they’ll have to “redefine” that word, too, huh?

Therein lies the biggest dilemma.

:dts:

There’s no dilemma.

If you base marriage on a union being able to produce a biological child, well then a man and woman who are married and cannot produce a child due to biological child, or do not wish to or have children, this point becomes moot.

An old argument that is easily countered. :yup:

In “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage”, Adam Kolasinski notes that it would not be beneficial for the state to stop infertile couples from marrying because of the massive investment required to test people.

Besides, a lot of people who think they are infertile are actually not.:aok:

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Prodigirl;12230541]I had a nice, footnoted, articulate response to your post. It was summarily absorbed by CAF, so here’s the short of it: Catholics live by rigid, stringent rules. You are willing to subject yourself to them.

Everyone has free will. God’s way is the Truth, which is Catholicism. Anything else requires some lame excuse or accusation of judging, which is what happens in later in the prior post (see below).

That’s fine; that’s your choice. I am not willing to do so, because I find human interpretation of something as vast and complex as the “word of God” lacking, regimented, full of loopholes and opportunities for accruing vast wealth and power.

:yawn:uch::yawn:

Secularism is even worse in that regard.

You don’t have the power to judge me, nor does the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, or the Pope.

Opposing so-called gay “marriage” is not judging. That is only the argument of the truly desperate.

God is the judge. God and I will sort it out.

I wish the best of :shamrock2::irish3: with that!

You can just go sit down.

:ehh:

People type standing up?

 

[SuperLuigi]

A few clarifications:

-secular language which like to play around with vocabulary to brainwash people, likes to call “reproductive rights” what is an abortion. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child. Your first paragraph goes around the “reproductive rights” idea. If what you are implying is as to the issue of abortion, abortion should not be a reproductive right.

• a state does have a duty to enact laws to protect its citizens, to maintain the health and order of its citizens, and it has a duty to pass laws to protect or encourage any aspect of life in which the state has an important interest to protect. Also the state has a duty to enact laws that forbid behavior that causes a sustancial burden on its system.
• the catholic church is not a democracy. Morality is not subjective. Morality is and has to be objective. The catholic church has a divine origin and its precepts ate not open to debate precisely because morality has to be objective. Things are right or wrong and God already decided what is right and what is wrong. The catholic church has the duty to tell people what they do wrong. If you don’t like it and you want to go and do wrong, no one is tying you up or putting a gun on your head. You have freedom of will and you can do it, but do not expect everyone else to put a blindfold on their eyes just because you want to do wrong and you don’t want to hear that your actions ate wrong. The church’s duty is to speak the truth and that is what they do and will always do. The church doesn’t have a sit on anyone’s bedroom. The church is telling you that curtains actions are wrong and shouldn’t be done. If people want to do whatever they want without having to hear that what they do isbwrong then probably is because deep inside of them something tells them that what they are doing is wrong.

As to the last paragraph I have no idea what it has to do with the entire discussion.

:clapping:

 

[SuperLuigi]

How is the state - any state - “encouraging” people to get married in a religious ceremony?
Wouldn’t you agree that this is unconstitutional and illegal?

States have that right under the 10th Amendment.

Unlike “reproductive” rights and so-called gay “marriage”, that’s an actual Constitutional right.

 

[Prodigirl]

Everyone has free will. God’s way is the Truth, which is Catholicism. Anything else requires some lame excuse or accusation of judging, which is what happens in later in the prior post (see below).
Whose God? Yours? Are you lucky enough, smart enough, astute enough, to have chosen the correct God among all interpretations of a Creator? Wow. Today’s the day you need to buy a bucketful of lottery tickets.

:yawn:uch::yawn: (Ahh, here’s a little judgment!)

Secularism is even worse in that regard. More judgment.

Opposing so-called gay “marriage” is not judging, nor is *WHAT? *

You’re unbelievable.

I wish the best of :shamrock2::irish3: with that! So you think God needs your help? What an incredibly arrogant, ignorant position to take.

:ehh:

People type standing up? Hey, people can have sexual intercourse standing up. What would keep them from typing?

 

[marymary1975]

I had a nice, footnoted, articulate response to your post. It was summarily absorbed by CAF, so here’s the short of it: Catholics live by rigid, stringent rules. You are willing to subject yourself to them. That’s fine; that’s your choice. I am not willing to do so, because I find human interpretation of something as vast and complex as the “word of God” lacking, regimented, full of loopholes and opportunities for accruing vast wealth and power. You don’t have the power to judge me, nor does the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, or the Pope. God is the judge. God and I will sort it out. You can just go sit down.

Again the catholic church doesn’t force you to be catholic and no one is putting a gun on your head to be Catholic. You have freedom of will but do not expect others to not tell you that your actions are wrong. While is true that we are not to judge the state of someone else’s soul , we can and we have a duty of judging actions and behaviors. There is right and wrong and actions have consequences and no one can escape consequences. God is the judge but God does calls us to discern wrong from good so yes we have the duty to point out wrongful behaviors to others.

Again the attitude of you cannot judge is nothing but I want to do whatever I want no matter if it is wrong and I don’t want anyone to remind me that my actions are wrong and I want to get away with what I want with no consequences.

 

[phil19034]

I had a nice, footnoted, articulate response to your post. It was summarily absorbed by CAF, so here’s the short of it: Catholics live by rigid, stringent rules. You are willing to subject yourself to them. That’s fine; that’s your choice. I am not willing to do so, because I find human interpretation of something as vast and complex as the “word of God” lacking, regimented, full of loopholes and opportunities for accruing vast wealth and power. You don’t have the power to judge me, nor does the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, or the Pope. God is the judge. God and I will sort it out. You can just go sit down.

Sounds like you are basiclly a protestant. Catholics believes that the Church has athority because Christ said “He who hears you hears me. He who denys you denys me.” And because “what you bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, what you loosen on Earth will be loosened in Heaven.”

We believe the Church is the Body of Christ, so it cannot be wrong because Christ promissed that He would protect His Church from errors regarding the teaching of Faith and Morals.

May the Lord Bless you and bring to the light of His Face.

 

[marymary1975]

I think you’re making this more complicated than it is.

I don’t see how this is more complicated. The state has the power over civil marriage and onlyvstate officials can perform civil marriages. The state decided that they want to vest the power to perform civil marriages over religious clergy. Hence states in the US (all of them) have enacted statutes to vest the power of performing civil marriage on clergy --any: rabbis, ministers, priests, etc- hence when these clergy perform marriages they act under state law and power and become state officials. This means that there is an overlap between civil and religious marriages.

Most countries in the world do not do that, instead if you want a religious marriage you go to a rekigious minister but you are not civilly marries. If you want legal rights then you have to go and perform a second marriage in front of a judge to be civilly married. You need two weddings. That is not the case in the US

 

[Rau]

How is the state - any state - “encouraging” people to get married in a religious ceremony?

I agree with the sentiment. The current arrangements appear to me simply to be pragmatic and efficient. Marriage involves, principally, mutual promises between the participants (and before God if that is your belief). These need to be made and witnessed and notified to the State. The State has no reason to see this process involve a Church, and no reason to exclude a Church.

 

[Rau]

And now because every rule has an exception let me show to you the exception of my home state of MA

mass.gov/governor/getinvolved/justiceofpeace/summary-of-duties.html

Now note that in MA priests to have power to marry must be registered under the Commonwealth and must take oath so it only applies to priests that have taken oath to perform marriages, but the supreme judicial court ruled that a justice if the peace cannot refuse to perform same sex marriages. Under this ruling if a SS couple comes to a priest (or any religious minister for the matter) who has taken oath and they requests a marriage to be performed by this religious minister and that minister refuses he can incur into personal liability and the couple indeed may have an action against the priest/minister.

So in Massachusetts a priests may very well be sued for refusing to perform a same aex marriage. It has not happen yet but it can happen.

If your facts are correct, then clearly it will happen, and quite soon I would expect.

 

[phil19034]

If your facts are correct, then clearly it will happen, and quite soon I would expect.

Yeap, because someone who knows the priest won’t marry them will do ask just to force a law suit.

 

[Rau]

Yeap, because someone who knows the priest won’t marry them will do ask just to force a law suit.

Though I assume the priests will simply resign their state-given authority, presumably meaning Catholic people in the State will go thru 2 processes?

 

[phil19034]

Though I assume the priests will simply resign their state-given authority, presumably meaning Catholic people in the State will go thru 2 processes?

I guess so. It that becomes the norm, I wonder how many more couples will not get married in a Church (Catholic or other)?

 

[Rau]

I guess so. It that becomes the norm, I wonder how many more couples will not get married in a Church (Catholic or other)?

Well, if that makes a difference, I’d suggest whether they married in the Church or not will have little impact in their lives.

Presumably the state process is minimalist anyway. No guests, etc.

 

[phil19034]

Well, if that makes a difference, I’d suggest whether they married in the Church or not will have little impact in their lives.

Presumably the state process is minimalist anyway. No guests, etc.

True

 

[Prodigirl]

States have that right under the 10th Amendment.

Unlike “reproductive” rights and so-called gay “marriage”, that’s an actual Constitutional right.

A right is not a duty to attempt to sway people to one side or the other.

You are, unfortunately, correct when you imply that reproductive rights are becoming less and less protected by the Constitution. But since 1973 they have been protected by the Constitution and are, to a more limited degree, still protected today, so don’t gloat yet.

After all, what do women need reproductive rights for? How self-centered. How whimsical. How ludicrous.

 

[phil19034]

A right is not a duty to attempt to sway people to one side or the other.

You are, unfortunately, correct when you imply that reproductive rights are becoming less and less protected by the Constitution. But since 1973 they have been protected by the Constitution and are, to a more limited degree, still protected today, so don’t gloat yet.

After all, what do women need reproductive rights for? How self-centered. How whimsical. How ludicrous.

And babies don’t deserve rights? I don’t think there is anything more selfish than killing a child to maintain the status quo. Nothing more whimsical or ludicrous than saying a unborn child isn’t a human being, and a defenseless one at that.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Okay, but I don’t think you can dismiss a classification as *irrational *without knowing the rationale by which it was made. If you just throw out a random pairing like a tuba and a tree, then of course it sounds nonsensical because the connection isn’t obvious. However, I’m open to the possibility that there may arise a situation in which relating the two makes sense under a certain rationale.

Different languages are a natural example of this sort of thing. For example, if I recall from my Spanish classes correctly, there is no word in Spanish that exactly translates to “nut” in the English sense of the word. Food is classified differently in Spanish because the cuisine is different; different combinations of foods are eaten than in other cultures.

If we assume there is some objective, ontological classification that can be made, we would have to assert that at least one of us, the English-speakers or the Spanish-speakers, are wrong on this point. But I think we can agree that the different rationales behind the classifications justify those classifications in their own right. There needn’t be a “correct” classification, so long as each makes sense in its own context.

OK, sure. But the question then becomes whether some purposes for which language can divide the world “matter” or “have significance” in some special way. I don’t have a problem with having a word for tuba/trees, if that word has a special purpose. But some objects – “life” or “death” – for example, are going to “matter” in ways that are cross-culturally important. A society that make a meaningful distinction between life and death would be incapable of understanding why other societies were justifiably upset at the arbitrary murders the first society (innocently enough) committed. Science fiction is full of situations like this, where a myopic culture fails to conform to universally binding moral norms, because the culture (despite the capacity for language) doesn’t understand the norms.

If you’re going to say there are any universal moral norms at all, you have to say that some word distinctions matter, since these distinctions enable people to understand and obey the norms.

 

[Prodigirl]

Again the catholic church doesn’t force you to be catholic and no one is putting a gun on your head to be Catholic. You have freedom of will but do not expect others to not tell you that your actions are wrong. While is true that we are not to judge the state of someone else’s soul , we can and we have a duty of judging actions and behaviors. There is right and wrong and actions have consequences and no one can escape consequences. God is the judge but God does calls us to discern wrong from good so yes we have the duty to point out wrongful behaviors to others.

Again the attitude of you cannot judge is nothing but I want to do whatever I want no matter if it is wrong and I don’t want anyone to remind me that my actions are wrong and I want to get away with what I want with no consequences.

1. I have not claimed to be “forced” to follow the tenets of Catholicism. However, once a Catholic, always a Catholic, according to Catholicism. In other words, if a person falls away from Catholicism and, say, gets married in a civil ceremony and does not get married in a Church-sanctioned ritual, he or she is committing a sin, even though the bride or groom no longer subscribes to Catholicism. This is what I mean by not being able to wash it off, if you will.
2. I expect people to mind their own business. If I choose to share an experience, an action, a thought or idea with someone, I will, on my own timetable. Human beings do not have the authority to judge the actions of others. They may observe behaviors or attitudes, they may have visceral reactions to them, they may even mouth off about them, but they just don’t have the credentials to judge. It is not their job to judge. If someone is offended or fearful about another’s actions, he can call law enforcement or a therapist or a clergy person or a friend, he can even pray or cry or worry, but he cannot judge. It is not his place to do so. ** It has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with “getting away with something”.** I hope I’ve made my lexicon understandable to you.

Go ahead and cast that first stone, marymary1975. Be the first, the one, the only full human ever to have been conceived, and born, with nary a stain of sin.