Okay, then it looks that a primary difference here is one is prescriptive where as the other is descriptive.
No, the difference is that one is true and the other is false. The true one pertains to natural law and the false one is based on legal positivism.
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.
Let me rephrase: I don’t care what they say they want it redefined for. They’re lying about their ends. So I have no reason to believe that their premises are motivated by what they claim either.
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.
Wrong again. Terms already have definitions, objective definitions. Marriage already has a definition. The state doesn’t reserve the right to change definitions of objective terms and facts whenever it is politically motivated to do so. This is again based on the utter stupidity of the legal theory of positive law.
That’s true for some but not all types of marriage.
I don’t agree with your premise of “types of marriage”. Anything less than that fact is objectively not a valid marriage.
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
Again, I reject the definition and it’s use in regards to marriage because it is a legal positivist definition.
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.
No it will not. Divine law states that what you describe is in fact adultery and is against divine and natural law.“What God has brought together no man may put asunder.”
You will argue that in civil marriage God is not involved in all so therefore neither does that statement apply. You’re wrong, it only makes their offense that much more severe. By enacting an invalid marriage they’ve already committed serious sin, then by copulation and procreation of children they’ve committed fornication. Then further by “civil divorce”, or outright abandonment, they then enact another “civil marriage” they only compound their offense by committing adultery.
The bottom line is that just because you call something “civil” doesn’t give you or the state the right to set aside divine and natural law for the sake of your own ideology. They are entirely objective.
Even if everyone believes a lie, that doesn’t make it true.
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.
All marriage has the same requirements and implications. Again your argument is a legal positivist argument. Therefore I reject it.
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.
Each and every state issues living wills with power of attorney and power of executor clauses which covers all those contingencies, if not outright “equal rights”.
Either way, my charge still stands.
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.
That is the supreme example of the difference between secular progressives and the Church.
They have “pride week” where they openly display their perversions and debauchery for all to see.
The Church has Corpus Christi processions.
