The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inocente said:
What is wanted is not necessarily what is morally justified.
Click to expand...
The truth is not the monopoly of the majority.
What is the purpose of gay marriage if a civil relationship suffices to obtain state benefits?
Click to expand...
Strange question. If the purpose of state recognition was to obtain state benefits then everyone would go for the simpler civil partnership and no one would get married. That’s obviously not the case, so if it’s not the case for heterosexuals why would it be any different for homosexuals?
Click to expand...

What** is **the purpose of gay marriage apart from obtaining state benefits?
Do you
Click to expand...
believe the primary purpose of marriage is** not **to safeguard the family - and especially children? If so what is its primary purpose?You will need to explain how a civil marriage safeguards a family, and why that safety should be withheld from some but not others.
Click to expand...

The existence of more than one million one-parent families in the UK demonstrates how the absence of marriage and the absence of respect for marriage leads to the breakdown of the family with ensuing misery for the fathers, mothers and their children.
The purposes of a marriage is whatever the spouses believe about their marriage…
Click to expand...
Do the purposes of a marriage depend** solely** on whatever the spouses believe about their marriage?
…but unless the traditional vows are superfluous nonsense, they are probably what most people starting out on married life hope for in purpose: to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death parts us.
Click to expand...
**Most **people starting out on married life hope not only to have and to hold each other but also their children…
Click to expand...
 
Charlemagne_II said:
inocente
**
It’s very easy to tell others to do the impossible. When all opponents of equal marriage prove that they can abstain from their own sexual orientation by become life-long celibates, they may earn the right to ask others to do so.**

This is yet another instance of your silly-putty type logic.

We can never tell others or force others to the lifelong celibates. If homosexuals want to ride each other’s sex organs, there is nothing and no one who can stop them.

The objection to making a mockery of marriage is another matter altogether. Never in the history of the world has this happened until we let loose the insanity of it in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
👍 Marriage has become for most people in secular societies no more than a legal arrangement which is not even necessary! Its absurd extension to other sexual relationships merely reinforces the view that it is meaningless…
 
tonyrey said:
👍 Marriage has become for most people in secular societies no more than a legal arrangement which is not even necessary!
Click to expand...
Indeed. Everything that a same sex couple wants to have (power of attorney, inheritance of their partner’s estate, etc) is already available to them legally, without the need for any marriage certificate.
 
PRmerger said:
Indeed. Everything that a same sex couple wants to have (power of attorney, inheritance of their partner’s estate, etc) is already available to them legally, without the need for any marriage certificate.
Click to expand...
Well, not everything. Fifth amendment rights come to mind. For those not from the USA one of the rights granted by the fifth amendment allows one to share information with their spouse without being compelled to disclose that information in court. There’s also some survivors’ benefits, matters related to bankruptcy, and a few other items that had only been available through marriage. I’ve not yet looked to see what impact the repeal of DOMA has on these.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Well, not everything. Fifth amendment rights come to mind. For those not from the USA one of the rights granted by the fifth amendment allows one to share information with their spouse without being compelled to disclose that information in court. There’s also some survivors’ benefits, matters related to bankruptcy, and a few other items that had only been available through marriage. I’ve not yet looked to see what impact the repeal of DOMA has on these.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

So change the laws.

Don’t change the holy covenant of marriage.
 
PRmerger said:
Fair enough.

So change the laws.

Don’t change the holy covenant of marriage.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what is happening. Laws are changing. Civil marriage is not holy, thus no holy covenants are being changed.
 
PRmerger said:
Fair enough.

So change the laws.

Don’t change the holy covenant of marriage.
Click to expand...
mek42 said:
That is exactly what is happening. Laws are changing. Civil marriage is not holy, thus no holy covenants are being changed.
Click to expand...
Like mek42 said, I think that is what is happening. At least within the USA where same sex marriage has been made legal I it is for the civil contract of marriage, not on the religious concepts of marriage. The Sacrament of Matrimony has not been redefined for those that have interest in receiving it.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Like mek42 said, I think that is what is happening. At least within the USA where same sex marriage has been made legal I it is for the civil contract of marriage, not on the religious concepts of marriage. The Sacrament of Matrimony has not been redefined for those that have interest in receiving it.
Click to expand...
But the agenda is to change the definition of marriage.
 
PR

**But the agenda is to change the definition of marriage. **

For all we know, the real agenda might be to put homosexual married partners on the same legal footing with heterosexual married partners for the purpose of child adoption.

How perverse is that? Excuse me for suspecting the worst possible scenario for those children. :eek:
 
PRmerger said:
So then there is no reason to change the def of marriage.
Click to expand...
Again, no one is applying external force to change marriage within the Church. The State is modifying something that was changed when the first civil marriage happened.

Regarding the adoption issue, if you really, truly believe that same sex parents raising a child puts the child’s soul in danger, why are you not publicly and politically trying to remove children from the care of blasphemers and those who take the Almighty name in vain? Do not those examples for a child cause even more separation from He Who Is?
 
mek42 said:
Again, no one is applying external force to change marriage within the Church. The State is modifying something that was changed when the first civil marriage happened.

Regarding the adoption issue, if you really, truly believe that same sex parents raising a child puts the child’s soul in danger, why are you not publicly and politically trying to remove children from the care of blasphemers and those who take the Almighty name in vain? Do not those examples for a child cause even more separation from He Who Is?
Click to expand...
It’s about the mental health…
 
mek42 said:
Again, no one is applying external force to change marriage within the Church. The State is modifying something that was changed when the first civil marriage happened.
Click to expand...
Yeah. And we oppose the state attempting to re-define something into a false definition.

The state does not have the right to state, “We now proclaim that this is a square!”

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...7cnUdbCF6e5ncRNMLwcUB4wgGi37dxc0vE4l9fh_wBbaw
Regarding the adoption issue, if you really, truly believe that same sex parents raising a child puts the child’s soul in danger, why are you not publicly and politically trying to remove children from the care of blasphemers and those who take the Almighty name in vain? Do not those examples for a child cause even more separation from He Who Is?
Click to expand...
I think you may be confusing me with another poster. I have never addressed endangering a child’s soul in this context.
 
tonyrey said:
**Most **people starting out on married life hope not only to have and to hold each other but also their children…
Click to expand...
There are other valuable and beautiful personal relationships but there is no valid reason to give them the same name as the union of a man and a woman without whose love and commitment the survival of both the family and the human race would be in peril because it is the only relationship which safeguards the procreation, nurture and development of children.
 
PRmerger said:
Yeah. And we oppose the state attempting to re-define something into a false definition.

The state does not have the right to state, “We now proclaim that this is a square!”

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...7cnUdbCF6e5ncRNMLwcUB4wgGi37dxc0vE4l9fh_wBbaw

I think you may be confusing me with another poster. I have never addressed endangering a child’s soul in this context.
Click to expand...
I maybe should have made two posts. I’m mobile only until we finish moving, rehabbing a HUD home, and not doing fancy quote things from my phone. The second paragraph was inspired from a different poster later than your post.

I will counter your argument by the State has already determined they can make marriage mean what it wants marriage to mean independent of the desire of the Church. Even before same sex issue, civil and Sacremental marriage is already square and circle due to the difference in Sacremental nature. In essence, the die was cast long ago.
 
PRmerger said:
But the agenda is to change the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...
It’s statutes and laws that are being changed and proposed to be change. The documents that make up these and some other items are in the domain of civil matters and the civil contract of marriage. These documents don’t impact what’s in people’s bibles, the CCC, other religious documents, or any holy covenants and agreements that people establish with their God.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
It’s statutes and laws that are being changed and proposed to be change.
Click to expand...
Yes. No one has argued differently.

However, there’s also an agenda of wanting to re-define marriage.

We who believe in Truth cannot let this happen.
 
ion

**It’s about the mental health… **

It’s about the mental health of heterosexual children to be adopted by same sex parents. Do you think these children have a right to be adopted by heterosexual parents, or would you deny their right in favor of the right of homosexuals to adopt heterosexual children?

The law does not specifically endorse the right of blasphemers to adopt heterosexual children.

But now sodomites can because they have equal marital footing with heterosexual parents?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top