The Purpose of Marriage

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Civil marriage was introduced to give religious freedom, for instance previously Catholics in England had to get married in Anglican churches. You cannot stamp your religious view on civil marriage without every other religion doing the same.

Yeah, you have an obviously skewed and revisionist prespective on history. If you’re referring to Catholics during the Elizabethan persecutions, then you are entirely incorrect. If you are referring to later times when persecutions subsided, Catholics don’t need civil marriages either because the concept itself is heretical. Marriages performed by Catholics outside of a Catholic nuptial Mass need a special dispensation by the local Bishop or they are invalid. Therefore any civil marriage not recognized by the local ordinary is invalid as well.

Two, its not my “religious view” as if truth is something subjective. Truth is NOT subjective. Neither you, nor I, have the right to define what is true or what isn’t. We have the obligation to adhere to the truth, because Christ IS the Truth. And we don’t have the right to disregard what Christ says about the truth just to satisfy our own sensibilities and desires.

The fact is that civil marriage is defined by the citizens of a society, and not by organized religions.

And your “definition” is no more valid, nor is the group that “redifined” it any more authoritative, and no less absurd than it is to “redefine” the “truth” that says 2+2=17. And just because a large group of people all agreed that 2+2=17 doesn’t make it any less absurd.

If you hate democracy so much, you can always move to North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

Again, democracy is only a good and valid so long as it adheres to truth. The same “democracy” that you make an moral and legal absolute is the same “democracy” that raises men like Hitler, like Kim Jong Il and his son, like Saddam Hussein, and Ahmadinejadh to power.

Democracy is only a means, the end can either be adherence to the truth or to falsehood. If to the truth, democracy is good. If to falsehood, then democracy is just as tyrannical, oppressive, and evil as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or any other evil state.

 

[inocente]

Yeah, you have an obviously skewed and revisionist prespective on history. If you’re referring to Catholics during the Elizabethan persecutions, then you are entirely incorrect. If you are referring to later times when persecutions subsided, Catholics don’t need civil marriages either because the concept itself is heretical. Marriages performed by Catholics outside of a Catholic nuptial Mass need a special dispensation by the local Bishop or they are invalid. Therefore any civil marriage not recognized by the local ordinary is invalid as well.

Yeah, you have an obviously skewed and revisionist perspective on history.

with the enactment of “Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act” of 1753, which required that, in order to be valid and registered, all marriages were to be performed in an official ceremony in a religious setting recognised by the state, i.e. Church of England, the Quakers, or in a Jewish ceremony. Any other form of marriage was abolished. Children born into unions which were not valid under the Act would not automatically inherit the property or titles of their parents. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

Two, its not my “religious view” as if truth is something subjective. Truth is NOT subjective. Neither you, nor I, have the right to define what is true or what isn’t. We have the obligation to adhere to the truth, because Christ IS the Truth. And we don’t have the right to disregard what Christ says about the truth just to satisfy our own sensibilities and desires.

Muslims don’t share that religious belief. Hindus don’t share your religious opinion. What you going to do, start a holy war?

And your “definition” is no more valid, nor is the group that “redifined” it any more authoritative, and no less absurd than it is to “redefine” the “truth” that says 2+2=17. And just because a large group of people all agreed that 2+2=17 doesn’t make it any less absurd.

It’s not my definition, it’s society’s definition. What you going to do, start a religious war?

*Again, democracy is only a good and valid so long as it adheres to truth. The same “democracy” that you make an moral and legal absolute is the same “democracy” that raises men like Hitler, like Kim Jong Il and his son, like Saddam Hussein, and Ahmadinejadh to power.

Democracy is only a means, the end can either be adherence to the truth or to falsehood. If to the truth, democracy is good. If to falsehood, then democracy is just as tyrannical, oppressive, and evil as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or any other evil state.*

The US is an oppressive tyranny like North Korea and Saudi Arabia just because you don’t like how the people may decide to change the definition of civil marriage?

It’s no wonder the majority of Catholics in the States approve equal marriage if that’s your alternative. Most people don’t tend to go in for fundamentalist extremism, despite the propaganda Fox puts out.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m going on what historians say.

I’m going on what historians say.

Orthodox Christians believe the teaching of Jesus about marriage is concerned with** love** and the pursuit of happiness. There is no evidence that the majority of Christians have ignored His teaching in this respect.

 

[inocente]

Orthodox Christians believe the teaching of Jesus about marriage is concerned with** love** and the pursuit of happiness. There is no evidence that the majority of Christians have ignored His teaching in this respect.

Orthodox Christians belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Oriental Orthodoxy. I don’t.

I’m the only one on this thread who has posted any evidence, and the historical evidence is that marriage was not about the pursuit of happiness.

Most Catholic posters say the purpose of marriage is procreation. They can’t have heard your argument either, so now’s your chance to say why you think Jesus teaches that marriage is concerned with** love** and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[mek42]

Do most Catholics really believe that the only good form of government is a Catholic theocracy?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

inocente;10942665r:

Yeah, you have an obviously skewed and revisionist perspective on history.

with the enactment of “Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act” of 1753, which required that, in order to be valid and registered, all marriages were to be performed in an official ceremony in a religious setting recognised by the state, i.e. Church of England, the Quakers, or in a Jewish ceremony. Any other form of marriage was abolished. Children born into unions which were not valid under the Act would not automatically inherit the property or titles of their parents. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

Using Wikipedia as a source now? You’d fail in any college level history course.

Second, you still commit the fallacy of kettle logic by citing positive law theory. The Church is not subject to civil law, but vice versa. Church law is divine law. Civil law is man made, and if it is not in accord with divine law is in fact invalid.

IOW, as with anything claiming earthly power, it is only as powerful as it’s ability to enforce it, or precisely, how many people believe it. The weight and power of civil law is a farce, its a shadow on the wall. It’s meaningless. And can only be enforced by force. Therefore it is tyrannical.
inocente;10942665r:

Muslims don’t share that religious belief. Hindus don’t share your religious opinion. What you going to do, start a holy war?

No, you’re right. They don’t share my religious beliefs on gay marriage. I still think people who practice homosexuality are people and deserve life.

Muslims would just simply behead them. Hindus may or may not, just depends on their tradition. Hindus believe the absurd belief that divinity is no different than things. They reject as a principle the duality of morality. But they also reject the self and its base desires.

Either way, your charge doesn’t make sense.
inocente;10942665r:

It’s not my definition, it’s society’s definition. What you going to do, start a religious war?

Again, it’s the Scotsman fallacy. And it’s entirely subjective. To call it “law” violates any notion of it being “civil”. It claims by force of law that something is true which is not, and it tries to intolerantly force people to accept it who disagree with it.

It is in fact you forcing your beliefs and desires upon others. Therefore you commit the very crime that you claim the law tries to avoid.

The law, and your “civil law”, are committing hypocrisy.
inocente;10942665r:

The US is an oppressive tyranny like North Korea and Saudi Arabia just because you don’t like how the people may decide to change the definition of civil marriage?

See above…
inocente;10942665r:

It’s no wonder the majority of Catholics in the States approve equal marriage if that’s your alternative. Most people don’t tend to go in for fundamentalist extremism, despite the propaganda Fox puts out.

No, the joke is that self-professed “christians” like yourself ignore your Christianity and favor instead subjectivism and moral relativism.

Two, your numbers are skewd. The majority of Catholics, and the majority of Americans as a whole, do not support gay marriage. Polls over here are always doctored and slanted to present an agenda in the media. And since the media is dominated by progressives and socialists/communists, they’re nothing more than the PR wing of progressive and socialist causes.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Do most Catholics really believe that the only good form of government is a Catholic theocracy?

No. I don’t.

You ought to look up G.K. Chesterton or Hillare Belloc and look into their writings on Distributism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

IOW, as with anything claiming earthly power, it is only as powerful as it’s ability to enforce it, or precisely, how many people believe it. The weight and power of civil law is a farce, its a shadow on the wall. It’s meaningless. And can only be enforced by force. Therefore it is tyrannical.

Are not rules which people call “divine” not also enforced by the same way?

 

[inocente]

Using Wikipedia as a source now? You’d fail in any college level history course.

As opposed to your non-existent source? Anyway, all the sources say the same.

*Second, you still commit the fallacy of kettle logic by citing positive law theory. The Church is not subject to civil law, but vice versa. Church law is divine law. Civil law is man made, and if it is not in accord with divine law is in fact invalid.

IOW, as with anything claiming earthly power, it is only as powerful as it’s ability to enforce it, or precisely, how many people believe it. The weight and power of civil law is a farce, its a shadow on the wall. It’s meaningless. And can only be enforced by force. Therefore it is tyrannical.

No, you’re right. They don’t share my religious beliefs on gay marriage. I still think people who practice homosexuality are people and deserve life.

Muslims would just simply behead them. Hindus may or may not, just depends on their tradition. Hindus believe the absurd belief that divinity is no different than things. They reject as a principle the duality of morality. But they also reject the self and its base desires.

Either way, your charge doesn’t make sense.

Again, it’s the Scotsman fallacy. And it’s entirely subjective. To call it “law” violates any notion of it being “civil”. It claims by force of law that something is true which is not, and it tries to intolerantly force people to accept it who disagree with it.

It is in fact you forcing your beliefs and desires upon others. Therefore you commit the very crime that you claim the law tries to avoid.

The law, and your “civil law”, are committing hypocrisy.

No, the joke is that self-professed “christians” like yourself ignore your Christianity and favor instead subjectivism and moral relativism.

Two, your numbers are skewd. The majority of Catholics, and the majority of Americans as a whole, do not support gay marriage. Polls over here are always doctored and slanted to present an agenda in the media. And since the media is dominated by progressives and socialists/communists, they’re nothing more than the PR wing of progressive and socialist causes.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.*

OK

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Are not rules which people call “divine” not also enforced by the same way?

No, because divine law is identical with reality.

You will of course argue that homosexuality and civil marriage is reality. This is just an obfuscation and sophistry.

Just because a government body declares by democratic process that a square is really a triangle doesn’t turn a square into a triangle.

Just because a government body declares by democratic process that 2+2=17 doesn’t mmmm make it true either.

So just because a government body declares that marriage, civil or otherwise, includes people involved in homosexual behavior, doesn’t make it marriage.

Your confusing subjective and relative value opinions with objective truth and reality.

The former only carries any weight so long as it conforms to the latter. If not then it is meaningless.

 

[mek42]

No, because divine law is identical with reality.

You will of course argue that homosexuality and civil marriage is reality. This is just an obfuscation and sophistry.

Just because a government body declares by democratic process that a square is really a triangle doesn’t turn a square into a triangle.

Just because a government body declares by democratic process that 2+2=17 doesn’t mmmm make it true either.

So just because a government body declares that marriage, civil or otherwise, includes people involved in homosexual behavior, doesn’t make it marriage.

Your confusing subjective and relative value opinions with objective truth and reality.

The former only carries any weight so long as it conforms to the latter. If not then it is meaningless.

Marriage and Holy Matrimony have not been the same since civil marriages began, for whatever reason they began. At that time, by not insisting that civil marriages be called something other than marriage, the Church abdicated to the State that the State may define marriage how it will.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Marriage and Holy Matrimony have not been the same since civil marriages began, for whatever reason they began.

And that is curcular reasoning. You can’t assume your own conclusion in your premise.

At that time, by not insisting that civil marriages be called something other than marriage, the Church abdicated to the State that the State may define marriage how it will.

Again, you’re just asserting your preferences without reason. You don’t have the right to dictate to the Church or God what was “abdicated” or not. The State as a whole, much less any individual, has no right to play God and usurp reality to make it whatever they please.

Again, truth is OBJECTIVE. Objective means that it exists “independent of the knower.”

That means that the definition of marriage exists independent of either you or the State.

You’re charge is just as absurd as the belief that because the “State” wanted 2+2=17, and since the mathematical community refused to address that absurdity, that the mathematical community abdicated it’s right to insist that 2+2=4.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The Church is not subject to civil law, but vice versa. Church law is divine law. Civil law is man made, and if it is not in accord with divine law is in fact invalid.

IOW, as with anything claiming earthly power, it is only as powerful as it’s ability to enforce it, or precisely, how many people believe it. The weight and power of civil law is a farce, its a shadow on the wall. It’s meaningless. And can only be enforced by force. Therefore it is tyrannical.

Are not rules which people call “divine” not also enforced by the same way?

No, because divine law is identical with reality.

You will of course argue that homosexuality and civil marriage is reality. This is just an obfuscation and sophistry.

Nope, not the direction I was going at all. So I hope you don’t mind if I don’t respond to the other parts of your response that were contingent upon me arguing that. I was trying to get a better understanding of your position. But I’m inferring from what you’ve said that in terms of application “divine law” and “civil law” are entirely different.

So just because a government body declares that marriage, civil or otherwise, includes people involved in homosexual behavior, doesn’t make it marriage.

Here I think civil marriage/contract of marriage and religious/sacred marriage are being conflated ( ? ). Civil marriage is a contract that automatically includes certain agreements and states or groups that recognize that contract will grant certain permissions, such as allowing one person that has made such a contract visit another in a hospital during “family only” hours, has implications on property ownership, and many other legal matters. If some one knew that their contract of marriage will not be acknowledge as meeting the criteria for “The Sacrament of Matrimony” but would only give the person acknowledgements in the domains of laws and employment health benefits I hazard a guess that there would generally be apathy on the disagreement.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Nope, not the direction I was going at all. So I hope you don’t mind if I don’t respond to the other parts of your response that were contingent upon me arguing that. I was trying to get a better understanding of your position. But I’m inferring from what you’ve said that in terms of application “divine law” and “civil law” are entirely different.

Its really simple. All truth is objective not subjective or relative. Truth is that which corresponds with reality; IOW truth “is.”

Divine law is truth because that is where all truth derives its source. In regards to the material world Divine law is the standard by which the Church has discovered and called natural law which order material creation to their proper ends under Divine law.

Civil law is an entirely man made creation as is therefore lowest on the scale. It is only good insofar as what says agrees with the two higher orders of law. If it violates either of the higher two orders then it is invalid and non binding on anyone. Civil law when correct is identical to Divine law. When incorrect it is to be shunned and overturned.

Here I think civil marriage/contract of marriage and religious/sacred marriage are being conflated ( ? ). Civil marriage is a contract that automatically includes certain agreements and states or groups that recognize that contract will grant certain permissions, such as allowing one person that has made such a contract visit another in a hospital during “family only” hours, has implications on property ownership, and many other legal matters.

I really dont care about what it is for; secular govt. has no business sticking their nose into redefining anything. Civil marriges are invalid because secular States are not valid representatives of Divine law, especially when the laws they inact utterly contradict it.

Marriage is not a contract it is a covenant oath. Contracts involve the exchange of goods; whats mine is yours and vice versa. Covenant oaths are exchanges of persons; I am yours and you are mine, which calls upon God as witness as to the truth and fidelity of the persons involved.

The conflation of terms is the fault of secular progressives trying to use political means of co-opting the term to force it to mean what they want it to for their ends. They tack the term “civil” on before it to infer a sense to it being their “right.” And they insultingly compare their cause to the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

Its a terrible joke.

If some one knew that their contract of marriage will not be acknowledge as meeting the criteria for “The Sacrament of Matrimony” but would only give the person acknowledgements in the domains of laws and employment health benefits I hazard a guess that there would generally be apathy on the disagreement.

If that’s all that the gay marriage fight was about then they have no reason to carry on. The GLTB community already has those things granted them by “civil law.” They want to own the word. They want to own “marriage” because when they own it they can destroy it. Not that Divine law can actually be destroyed, but they can water down the true purpose of marriage to such a degree that marriage would be no longer recognizable.

The reason for this is simple; the traditional family, father, mother, and child are the only thing in material existence which reflects the life and love of the Trinity.

Obscure or destroy marriage and you obscure or destroy another means for humans to discover God.

 

[tonyrey]

Orthodox Christians believe the teaching of Jesus about marriage is concerned with** love** and the pursuit of happiness. There is no evidence that the majority of Christians have ignored His teaching in this respect.

The primary meanings of orthodox are:

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

**2. ** Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

I’m the only one on this thread who has posted any evidence, and the historical evidence is that marriage was not about the pursuit of happiness.

Please produce the evidence that the teaching of Jesus about marriage is not concerned with love and happiness and that the majority of Christians have ignored His teaching in this respect.

Most Catholic posters say the purpose of marriage is procreation. They can’t have heard your argument either, so now’s your chance to say why you think Jesus teaches that marriage is concerned with** love** and the pursuit of happiness.

Jesus teaches that all our behaviour should be inspired by love which unites us to others in this world and in heaven. Marriage is no exception because God created man and woman to live together and have a family.

Do you believe Jesus teaches us nothing about marriage?

 

[inocente]

The primary meanings of orthodox are:

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

**2. ** Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

Nope, Orthodox Christian is someone in the Orthodox Church. Anyone can google it.

Opponents of equal marriage try desperately to redefine anything and everything, being too old-fashioned to realize that these days with search engines we have instant access to real information.

Please produce the evidence that the teaching of Jesus about marriage is not concerned with love and happiness and that the majority of Christians have ignored His teaching in this respect.

I already linked articles saying marriage wasn’t about love and the pursuit of happiness, no one has cited any contradictory evidence, or indeed any evidence.

*Jesus teaches that all our behaviour should be inspired by love which unites us to others in this world and in heaven. Marriage is no exception because God created man and woman to live together and have a family.

Do you believe Jesus teaches us nothing about marriage?*

CIVIL marriage remember? It’s only four days since I posted that.

Opponents of equal marriage on this thread don’t seem to be able to work out the difference between a registry office wedding and a Catholic church wedding, and imagine twelfth century serfs thought exactly like them.

Which means it’s not exactly a challenging thread.

 

[tonyrey]

The primary meanings of orthodox are:

You are deliberately ignoring the context in which I used the term. Mainstream Christians - including members of the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches - believe the teaching of Jesus about marriage is concerned with love and the pursuit of happiness and there is no evidence that the majority of Christians have ignored that teaching.

Opponents of equal marriage try desperately to redefine anything and everything, being too old-fashioned to realize that these days with search engines we have instant access to real information.

Irrelevant ad hominem.

Please produce the evidence that the teaching of Jesus about marriage is not concerned with love and happiness and that the majority of Christians have ignored His teaching in this respect.

I already linked articles saying marriage wasn’t about love and the pursuit of happiness, no one has cited any contradictory evidence, or indeed any evidence.

Why do you restrict your attention to civil marriage as if marriage is totally unrelated to Christian beliefs? The topic is not civil marriage but marriage which is not solely a human convention but regarded by Christians as intended by God.

Jesus teaches that all our behaviour should be inspired by love which unites us to others in this world and in heaven. Marriage is no exception because God created man and woman to live together and have a family.

Do you believe Jesus teaches us nothing about marriage?

CIVIL marriage remember? It’s only four days since I posted that.

Why are you uncivil yet restrict your attention to civil marriage - as if marriage is unrelated to Christian beliefs?

Do you believe Jesus teaches us nothing about marriage?

Opponents of equal marriage on this thread don’t seem to be able to work out the difference between a registry office wedding and a Catholic church wedding, and imagine twelfth century serfs thought exactly like them.

Which means it’s not exactly a challenging thread.

Irrelevant given that the topic is not restricted to civil marriage.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Its really simple. All truth is objective not subjective or relative. Truth is that which corresponds with reality; IOW truth “is.”
Divine law is truth because that is where all truth derives its source. …]

Civil law is an entirely man made creation …]

Okay, then it looks that a primary difference here is one is prescriptive where as the other is descriptive.

I really dont care about what it is for;

Are you sure? The voice of apathy at it’s strongest is silence. Since you’ve engaged in this conversation I get the impression that to some degree you do care.

secular govt. has no business sticking their nose into redefining anything.

Laws and contracts are often dependent on how terms or qualifying criteria are defined for that particular law or contract. If you scroll through an EULA for software even then you’ll find that they define terms for the purpose of the agreement. As long as people are writing laws and contracts, people are going to be defining the terms in that contract or law.

Civil marriges are invalid because secular States are not valid representatives of Divine law, especially when the laws they inact utterly contradict it.

Okay, I understand that you don’t consider such marriages valid.

Marriage is not a contract it is a covenant oath.

That’s true for some but not all types of marriage.

The conflation of terms is the fault of secular progressives trying to use political means of co-opting the term to force it to mean what they want it to for their ends. They tack the term “civil” on before it to infer a sense to it being their “right.” And they insultingly compare their cause to the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

The civil qualifier before marriage itself isn’t a conflation. Given the definitions of “civil” it’s appropriate.

Civil

• Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state
• Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time

The requirements for civil marriage may differ from those that churches put forth. (ex: can two people that were previously married marry each other even if their ex-spouses are still alive? The answer to that will differ depending on which type of marriage you are talking about. They don’t all have the same requirements and implications which is why I discourage conflating the civil marriage contract with the sacrament of matrimony.

If that’s all that the gay marriage fight was about then they have no reason to carry on. The GLTB community already has those things granted them by “civil law.”

In some states they do, but not in all states. Now if they aquire those rights in all states I don’t know if there is a “next fight.” I’ll call some one gay in a bit to ask if he knows of anything. I must admit I’ve not kept up with any issues that extend beyond civil marriage contracts. I know there had been issues before dealing with gays being physically assaulted for being gay and other things that equate to attacks. But I don’t hear about those problems as much now days.

I was in San Francisco for the Microsoft Build conference when the Supreme Court ruling came out. Turns out that came out at the same time as Pride Week in San Francisco (Pride Week happens at different times in different states). One of the offices I had visited was having a Pride party. That would have been a prime time to get more information on other issues! If only we were having this conversation earlier.

 

[mek42]

What is the temporal consequence of an allegedly invalid marriage that is valid in the eyes of the state?

 

[josh987654321]

.

Inocente, may I ask, what do you believe about sacramental marriage? (you can use the churches definition if you also agree with your churches definition of sacramental marriage).

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh