Unrestricted "marriage" for everyone and everything- why not?

[Stephen168]

Analogies can be challenged however, if their premise dissuades consistency. So if I say that there should be black and white drinking fountains, and then use an analogy such as “It’s like a washroom, where one is for men and the other is for women”, you have every right to challenge that analogy and use it against me for my main argument.

Two people of the same sex are not marriage and never have been.

 

[Ethan88]

Two people of the same sex are not marriage and never have been.

Thank you for your opinion, it has added a lot to the conversation.

 

[Bradski]

It is more than the Catholic Churches view. Many cultures share that view. Many since the dawn of mankind. Do you have an alternate defintion that will cover a larger scope of people and time than Peter’s?

I gave my personal definition of marriage earlier.

If you want a description of the position of women ‘since the dawn of mankind’ as it relates to what we know call marriage, I can sum it up in one word: Property. And I gave a quote from a book that I had lying in front of me when I made the post to Peter as an example. Although I didn’t really think that anyone would need an example.

Tell me if you think this is a fair analogy. I think you’ve been a poster of integrity in the past, so I anticipate your honest response (that is, you’ll say: "Ok. It does make sense, PR. The analogy limns that the CC’s position is consistent).

Yeah, right. The kind word and a smile just before she slides the knife between my ribs.

Does this limn for you better how the Church does not forbid marriage between 2 senior citizens while she does for homosexual unions?

But I’ve never had a problem understanding it before. I can see how the example works perfectly (I’ve seen it a few times before). It’s a good analogy, and a fair one, of how the Catholic Church thinks on this matter. But as you’d know, I simply don’t agree with it.

I don’t see life, or marriage for that matter, as something that has a fixed set of rules. The Catholic Church says that this is the only game in town and these are rules by which we are all to play it. And the idea is to win. That is part of the reason why you actually playing. It must form part of your game plan.

But in my game a lot of people play it for fun. They enjoy the game as much as anyone else, they play it just as hard, but they’re not interested in winning. The score doesn’t matter. And the Catholic Church says – well, if you call it baseball, then no-one will turn up to watch our games. And we don’t get that argument.

 

[Stephen168]

Thank you for your opinion, it has added a lot to the conversation.

So did my two previous posts that you ignored. As well as the question you can not answer.

 

[Stephen168]

Thank you for your opinion, it has added a lot to the conversation.

so did my previous posts which you have ignored

 

[PRmerger]

Analogies can be challenged however, if their premise dissuades consistency. So if I say that there should be black and white drinking fountains, and then use an analogy such as “It’s like a washroom, where one is for men and the other is for women”, you have every right to challenge that analogy and use it against me for my main argument.

Sure. There’s nothing above that I disagree with.

 

[Stephen168]

I gave my personal definition of marriage earlier.

Where?

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, right. The kind word and a smile just before she slides the knife between my ribs.

Heh.

But I’ve never had a problem understanding it before. I can see how the example works perfectly (I’ve seen it a few times before). It’s a good analogy, and a fair one, of how the Catholic Church thinks on this matter. But as you’d know, I simply don’t agree with it.

See? I am right. You have shown yourself to be a man of integrity. (Although I am a bit skeptical about your cliam to “never had a problem understanding it before”…but I’ll accept your word on that right now, for the sake of this discussion.)

So that’s why the Church, consistently, says that marriage between a man and woman who are infertile is still ordered towards procreation…

while a union between 2 men will never be ordered towards procreation.

 

[PRmerger]

But in my game a lot of people play it for fun.

Have you ever tried to play this type of game without any rules, Bradski?

 

[Bradski]

Have you ever tried to play this type of game without any rules, Bradski?

Different people have different rules (yours are different to mine, for example). I tend to play with people who follow the same basic rules as I do. There are some subtle differences even between close team mates, but I think that’s the way it works with most people.

 

[Bradski]

Where?

What?

 

[PRmerger]

Different people have different rules (yours are different to mine, for example). I tend to play with people who follow the same basic rules as I do. There are some subtle differences even between close team mates, but I think that’s the way it works with most people.

Ah. So you’re not opposed to assigning rules to marriage/baseball games.

You just disagree with the rules that have been established by the Church?

Why, then, do you get to establish rules but not some other entity?

 

[Stephen168]

What?

You claim to have giving your definition of marriage. I didn’t see it. Where is it? I would have thought that you would just use the quote function to show your definition.

 

[Bradski]

You claim to have giving your definition of marriage. I didn’t see it. Where is it? I would have thought that you would just use the quote function to show your definition.

Sorry, It was in another thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10080869#post10080869

But I pretty much inferred what I think it is in post 89.

In passing, my definition is not what I think everyone should follow, just what I personally think a reasonable description.

Ah. So you’re not opposed to assigning rules to marriage/baseball games.

You just disagree with the rules that have been established by the Church?

Why, then, do you get to establish rules but not some other entity?

I don’t get to do it. I just play with people who follow pretty much the same rules as me. As descibed in the link above. But I’m not insisting that eveyone must do the same.

 

[Stephen168]

Marriage is the lifelong commitment of a man and woman who come together for the procreative intent of having offspring and caring for each other and their progeny.

But this is your conception of marriage. In fact it’s the Catholic Churches view. And you have the nerve to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is simply wrong. That there can be people in other cultures that have a totally different views seems to have escaped your attention. Your description is not and has never ever been the norm for marriage. Not since ‘the dawn of mankind’ or any other time. It’s an idealised view of how you’d like the world to be.

It is more than the Catholic Churches view. Many cultures share that view. Many since the dawn of mankind. Do you have an alternate defintion that will cover a larger scope of people and time than Peter’s?

How about this: marriage is the state in which two people, of an age to make mature decisions and not directly biologically connected, are in when they each make a committment to each other to spend the rest of their lives together in an intimate relationship.

Personally I don’t believe that the state needs to be involved, although I can appreciate the argument that says that some sort of legal recognition might be required.

So that would preclude incestual relationships and those involving young children but would allow people of the same sex and those who don’t want, or can’t have children. It would also preclude multiple partners, but for the life of me I can’t think of a valid reason against it.

Yes, I think when same-sex couples are included in marriage, excluding children, siblings, and multiple partners seems pretty random.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t get to do it. I just play with people who follow pretty much the same rules as me. As descibed in the link above. But I’m not insisting that eveyone must do the same.

Fair enough.

But you don’t get to call what you’re doing “baseball”.

 

[Ethan88]

Just thought I would lighten up the mood by linking to some pictures of some recent marriage licenses granted to LGBT couples, or as some people like to call it, the “destruction of society”

i.imgur.com/Zz8Im.jpg

i.imgur.com/TUJbI.jpg

Talk about priorities people…

 

[scipio337]

I take it that you didn’t read a single post here.

You assume much. You probably shouldn’t rely so much on ad hominem in your argument. I still havent’ seen any logical argument against polygamy, polygyny, incestual unions for sterile or non-reproducing adults, or unions with higher mammals.

What is missing in this case, applying strict scruntiny, would be a compelling interest for the state to overturn and redefine a cultural and religious institution that has stood for a millenia.

Simply put, there isn’t any.

 

[fix]

Simply put, there isn’t any.

Always the same. Relativism and hedonism.

 

[Patti_RCIA]

You have just as-good-as-stated that consentual gay sex is morally equivalent to murder.
If nothing seems a bit off to you about that, I have no hope of convincing you. But if anyone reading this sees a difference between private, consentual acts of sex, and violently snuffing out a human life, you might begin to see why the nonreligious do not look to the bible or the magisterium for moral guidance. You might begin to understand why many gays consider Christians homophobic. Perhaps you might even begin to question whether these are really God’s teachings.
All I can think to do at this point is leave and shake the dust from my feet.

You have no hope of convincing me because of what is stated in the bible. There is a reason Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt when they left Sodom. (Which is where we get the word sodomy.)

I guess it depends on who you are calling “nonreligious”. If you are not Catholic I can’t say that you would put much toward the magisterium as being the official teacher of all peoples.

Christians may be worried for their eternal well-being, in other words, frightened for them, not of them. Whether you lose your soul for killing someone else or some other reason, makes little difference in the end.

Peter eloquently answered your third point for me. But I want to add that for me, since I can only speak for myself, when I talk to people about these issues it is out of compassion for the person whom I am speaking with, and because I pray for all people - that their hearts and lives will be turned over to the will of God. As I’ve taught my children, “Love the person even if you hate the act (or sin).”

If you are questioning God’s teachings then maybe you should read the bible and become involved in a Church who teaches what the Catholic Church professes; and I don’t mean just go to Mass on Sunday out of obligation… really become involved.

I find it interesting that you would use a quote about those not listening to Jesus’ teachings against someone who is propagating those same teachings. Remember, in Mt 10:34 Jesus tells us that he “…came not to bring peace, but the sword.” Death to self and sin is not an easy thing for any of us; myself included.