The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No one is proposing that the civil authorities want to change our understanding of the sacrament of matrimony
okay, cool.
What you are trying to do is change our definition of marriage.
I’ve not tried to change the definition of marriage. That’s not an issue on the ballot in my state. I also haven’t taken any action to get it on a ballot. If either of that changes then the conversation on what I am trying to do with marriage can occur.
We oppose that.
I am aware you are opposed to some forms of marriage including but not limited to marriage among homosexuals. I’ve got no plans to attempt to change your mind on that.
You have no more right to do that than you can declare yourself to be the Queen of England.
Were it on the ballot I might disagree with you. But not need to go down the path of events that belong to the subjunctive mood.
 
How can it be holy if the Church considers us living in sin? I thought sin and holy were strict opposites.
I don’t think the Church considers you living in sin. It is considered a marriage until proven otherwise.

That’s why if you divorce and sought to marry someone else in a Catholic Church you would have to seek an annulment first. The Church wouldn’t simply presume your marriage was invalid.
 
okay, cool.

I’ve not tried to change the definition of marriage. That’s not an issue on the ballot in my state. I also haven’t taken any action to get it on a ballot. If either of that changes then the conversation on what I am trying to do with marriage can occur.

I am aware you are opposed to some forms of marriage including but not limited to marriage among homosexuals. I’ve got no plans to attempt to change your mind on that.

Were it on the ballot I might disagree with you. But not need to go down the path of events that belong to the subjunctive mood.
sigh.

Not you personally.
 
mek
**
Assuming your last question is honest inquiry, no, it is far from common sense.**

Then you don’t have common sense? :confused:
**
And you assume children are heterosexual at birth.**

I actually said all children have a heterosexual destiny. Not that the destiny cannot be thwarted by corrupt influences.

I truly hope that my precious little daughter is asexual until at least puberty.

If she has a vagina, she is not asexual. Consult a biology textbook.

**Further, does this mean that single parents who are assisted in their child rearing by only other adults of the same gender but the child is opposite gender, is this situation then also child abuse? **

Please review the silliness of remarks like these. :mad:
 
Pretending between people, that a cirlce is a square, here is the painful part; the government might say something today, change it tomorow, but there is always the personal opinion/space. And do not think that atheists will swallow anything just because is against religion, or because the leaders of the atheistic organizations keep a low profile, in the post-comunist countries they are the most fierce opponents of homosexuality. From now on you will step on everybody’s toes…
 
I don’t think the Church considers you living in sin. It is considered a marriage until proven otherwise.

That’s why if you divorce and sought to marry someone else in a Catholic Church you would have to seek an annulment first. The Church wouldn’t simply presume your marriage was invalid.
End challenge mode, begin simple inquiry mode

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that for me to return to Eucharist I would need to convalidate my marriage and would be unable to maintain conjugal relations with my wife and at the same time as a state of grace required for Communion prior to said convalidation. All this because my current civil marriage is considered invalid by Canon Law.
 
End challenge mode, begin simple inquiry mode

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that for me to return to Eucharist I would need to convalidate my marriage and would be unable to maintain conjugal relations with my wife and at the same time as a state of grace required for Communion prior to said convalidation. All this because my current civil marriage is considered invalid by Canon Law.
I am saying that if you wanted to marry a different woman in the Catholic Church, the local ordinary would not say, “Since your current marriage is invalid, you are certainly free to marry your ‘second’ wife in the Catholic Church.”

What the ordinary would say is: we presume that your current marriage is a valid one, until proven otherwise, and thus, since you are already married, you cannot marry again in our Church.
 
All this because my current civil marriage is considered invalid by Canon Law.
Incidentally, if it s found that you are indeed in an invalid marriage, it is, by definition, not a marriage, and therefore not holy or covenantal.
 
Incidentally, if it s found that you are indeed in an invalid marriage, it is, by definition, not a marriage, and therefore not holy or covenantal.
But this finding is indeed independent of what the State finds, correct?

Further, if we are to presume validity, right now my child is not born of a sinful act, but if a finding of invalidity is made it is then that my child somehow becomes born of sin?

Is this Schroedinger’s marriage? Are you applying some form of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to my marriage?
 
What are you kid, a boy or a girl?
I don’t know, my mummy says i’l find out when 19…
What does this mean? I was trying to determine if I correctly understood how the Church sees my marriage and then point out that the Church and State might see my marriage differently already.
 
What does this mean? I was trying to determine if I correctly understood how the Church sees my marriage and then point out that the Church and State might see my marriage differently already.
If it helps any (I am sure I will be corrected if I misstate anything):

The Catholic Church does differentiate between legal, state-recognized (civil) marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony. Being legally married doesn’t mean that two people have participated in the Sacrament of Matrimony (becoming husband and wife through a sacred covenant with God).

A marriage between a baptized man and woman would be considered a Christian marriage. To be a part of the Sacrament of Matrimony at least on of the participants of the wedding must be Catholic and the other at least a Christian. Non-Christians can’t participate in the Sacrament of Matrimony. Marriage with a non-Christian or unbaptized person is considered a natural marriage. The participants of the wedding must intend to remain married until death, open to the possibility of children, and not intend to engage in adultery. If one or both of the participants of the wedding did not have these intentions on the wedding day that information would be relevant in getting an annulment.

If Catholics get married in a civil non-religious ceremony than a convalidation ceremony is needed to make the marriage valid in the eyes of the church.

The Catholic church does not recognize a civil marriage or civil union between members of the same gender.
 
ThinkingSapien, that is pretty much what I thought, which is why I asked for verification from PRmerger regarding the presumption of validity.

I also think that a civil marriage between Catholic and Protestant is also invalid without convalidation. I didn’t notice that you somehow omitted this case in your thorough treatment.
 
I also think that a civil marriage between Catholic and Protestant is also invalid without convalidation. I didn’t notice that you somehow omitted this case in your thorough treatment.
A baptized protestant and Catholic can engage in the Sacrament of matrimony. If unbaptized then the two have only engage in natural marriage.
 
A baptized protestant and Catholic can engage in the Sacrament of matrimony. If unbaptized then the two have only engage in natural marriage.
So if they are both baptized and do a nonreligious JP civil marriage then they are invalid as per the Church?
 
So if they are both baptized and do a nonreligious JP civil marriage then they are invalid as per the Church?
It’s still recognized as a marriage by the Catholic Church. But it is, (and I may have the terminology wrong here) “lesser” than the Sacrament of Matrimony.
 
mek42, Ive been reading a couple of your posts and I would like to share some things with you.

In regards to homosexual couples adopting -

When this comes up, I tend to avoid it whenever possible, because I don’t think there is a “one size fits all” when it comes to adoption, however I do believe placing a child with a homosexual couple is an act of child abuse, just like placing them with heterosexual couples who are doing immoral things etc etc (like you mentioned before mek42) some more so than others though as there are many, many variables when it comes to adoptive families.

When it comes to homosexual couples adopting, these are my primary concerns -

The greatest influences in a childs life are their parents, they will generally mimic them whether people want them to or not, they will mimic them and their lifestyle, if they are homosexual or heterosexual, because it’s all they know.

There is no magical choice that they can make, because their choice is bias, with heterosexual parents their choice will be bias towards heterosexuality, regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual (not saying homosexuals will be heterosexual with heterosexual parents as it’s not a choice, simply that they will think about or act on heterosexual desires before they infact find out whether they are homosexual or not).

Same with homosexual parents, their choice will be bias towards homosexuality regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual (same thing, they will think about or act on homosexual desires before they find out whether they are in fact homosexual or not) they mimic their parents in how to live their life by what they do, kids are very observant.

Please consider this:

A) (If you believe in God, I don’t expect atheists to agree with this) The nature of homosexuality means using the bodies organs in a manner they are not designed to be used for (this is why we say that homosexual acts are disordered and immoral)

B) The greatest role models or influences in a Child’s life are their parents, not what they say, but what they do. (Example when a parent say’s to their Child “Don’t Smoke” the chances of that Child smoking are greatly increased simply because the parents smoke)

Now put A) and B) together and tell me that this will not have a detrimental effect on a poor childs development.

Id also like to ask, what does an adolescent say to themselves about acting on their own sexual desires, about sexual morality, when people say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral and are accused of “bigotry” “oppressing” and “hate speech”? Or when the sexual acts of homosexuality are labelled as moral and an encouraged variant of sexuality?

And finally, my major concern is with homosexuals trying to have biological children, because for a homosexual couple to try and do that, means to intentional bring a child into this world with the absolute intention to deprive that child of their mother or father, not because it will benefit the child in any way, but to selfishly benefit themselves, thus in these situations, it is absolutely child abuse.

In regards to whether same sex marriage can or can’t be done -

I find that the “same sex marriage” debate is not about whether it can or cannot be done, because obviously it can be done, it’s about whether it SHOULD or shouldn’t be done, It’s a morality debate.

So the question I wish to put to you Mek42 is -

Do you think same sex marriage SHOULD be done (legalised and embraced by society)? and if so why?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
The sexual abuse against children is not a physical aggression like beaten or so (the kid gets candies, is fondled, made to feel good etc.) but a psychological one and the kid is not going to develop the right psychology of sex. In a homosexual family is going to get the same thing but through theoretical instruction.
 
Josh, your post is long, I’m not going to quote it.

Using probability theory and a dash of integral calculus I can honestly answer in the affirmative a belief in God. While I was raised Catholic, I do not self identify as Christian. More than that requires face to face or at least not my mobile.

My limited reading of the Bible yields only one reference prohibiting male homosexuality in and of itself. This is buried somewhere in Leviticus and I am not certain offhand if it applies to gentiles. The oft quoted Sodom and Gomorrah stories are in my reading a Prohibition against rape, especially against rape hidden beneath hospitality. Culturally, the breach of the covenant of hospitality may be the bigger sin. I read no Prohibition against lesbian intercourse.

I do support civil relationships between same sex folks that are legally equivalent to civil marriage. However, I strongly oppose any external group that seeks to force any religious body to marry gays. Why, it is mostly equality, but also partly defense of the underdog. The gay community has been persecuted for so long, it is time that they have standing, that they have defenses of their own. That is the nutshell version.
 
But this finding is indeed independent of what the State finds, correct?
The state doesn’t get to find a marriage valid when it is really an invalid one.
Further, if we are to presume validity, right now my child is not born of a sinful act, but if a finding of invalidity is made it is then that my child somehow becomes born of sin?
This question puzzles me. “Born of sin”? There is no significance, as far as the Church is concerned, regarding whether your child is “born of sin.”

That is not a relevant Catholic concept.

The Church doesn’t have any teaching whatsoever regarding a child being “born of sin”. The child has inherent dignity and value because he is made in the image and likeness of God. Period.
Is this Schroedinger’s marriage? Are you applying some form of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to my marriage?
I’ve never heard of Schroedinger’s marriage, and at this point have no desire to look it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top