The State and a Definition of Marriage

[PRmerger]

So, women who have passed the menopause, and wounded military veterans who no longer have the “capacity to procreate” are to be denied marriage licences?

If they are able to engage in the marital act, then the ought not be denied marriage license, for in that their marriage is still ordered towards procreation.

The great majority of homosexuals also have the “capacity to procreate”, and so would be eligible for one of your licences.

Indeed. All homosexuals in this country who have the capacity to procreate are indeed eligible for a marriage license. They simply have to follow the same requirements as I did. I could not marry someone who’s already married. I could not marry a child. I could not marry my close relation.

So no discrimination is offered to the homosexual. He can’t marry anyone he wants. Just like the heterosexual can’t.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Guys, is homosexuality still a sin if you don’t tell your wife?

 

[PRmerger]

Guys, is homosexuality still a sin if you don’t tell your wife?

Heh.

Here’s my question for you;
Is adultery still a sin if you don’t tell your wife?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Here’s my question for you;
Is adultery still a sin if you don’t tell your wife?

You’re the Catholic, you tell me. I don’t believe in no sins.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re the Catholic, you tell me. I don’t believe in no sins.

That would be a double negative, hence: “I do believe in sins.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then it might be better for the sake of clarity that you do not use it as an example.

So you’re saying I should not use the word vocation to describe the nature of marriage because you prefer to see marriage more as a “job?”

 

[PRmerger]

You’re the Catholic, you tell me. I don’t believe in no sins.

What if I phrased it this way: is it still wrong to commit adultery if you never tell your wife?

As an atheist you dol believe in right and wrong, yes?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

That would be a double negative, hence: “I do believe in sins.”

Yes, I knew that when I typed it up. Though I’m sure you knew what I meant, you clever clogs, you.

What if I phrased it this way: is it still wrong to commit adultery if you never tell your wife?

Sure. If she wasn’t okay with it, I mean, but I suppose if you didn’t tell her she wouldn’t be.

As an atheist you dol believe in right and wrong, yes?

Of course. Else I’d be in prison, or worse.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. If she wasn’t okay with it, I mean, but I suppose if you didn’t tell her she wouldn’t be.

Not sure what the bolded section means. Could you please explain?

And are you of the belief that adultery is wrong at the time it is committed, or only if your wife finds out and is hurt by it?

If your wife never finds out, is adultery still wrong?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Not sure what the bolded section means. Could you please explain?

Adultery is fine if your wife is okay with it. Some people have open relationships.

And are you of the belief that adultery is wrong at the time it is committed, or only if your wife finds out and is hurt by it?

At the time it is committed.
PRmerger;10171846:

If your wife never finds out, is adultery still wrong?

Yes.

 

[PRmerger]

At the time it is committed.

Excellent.

I am happy to see that you have an objective morality that is not based on the very subjective, “It’s only wrong if someone gets hurt by it.”

This notion of an objective morality puts you one step closer to apprehending the concept of an Objective Morality, which puts you one step closer to apprehending the concept of a Divine Lawgiver who gave us this Objective Morality.