A
aemcpa
Guest
Hmm… Maybe it was in a comment or something. In any case, I gathered that you were Catholic.I don’t think I ever put on in my header.
What if the government was to get out of the marriage business altogether?
- Status
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I made it earlier but to recap: It is considered Communion by Protestants but not the Full Sacrament by Catholics. It doesn’t devalue the Catholic Sacrament.
Also both are considered valid by the state in that they are religious practices. There is no call to have the Protestant practice revoked or banned for lacking the of the full validity of the Catholic Sacrament.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
In countries such as the Netherlands which have had so-called “same-sex marriage” for quite some years, statistics show that changing the definition of marriage has only resulted in a lack of regard for the institution of marriage itself. The evidence for this is in the sky-rocketing rate of out of wedlock births since the time the law had changed. Please see the following:
Lessons of the same-sex marriage debate in the Netherlands
It’s more evidence than what people have for the emotional yet scientifically baseless claim that people are born that way.
P.S. Changing the definition of marriage in the Netherlands hasn’t changed how homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit suicide either.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Neither show causation. The marriage trend seemed to be a trend independent of gay marriage. It seemed to be happening regardless.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
You miss the point. What is your basis for believing that changing the definition of marriage in America will have a different result than in the Netherlands? It seems that the burden of providing proof has been on us while you haven’t had to provide any proof for your position.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
You are missing the point. The things you are pointing to don’t show any evidence to what you are claiming.You miss the point. What is your basis for believing that changing the definition of marriage in America will have a different result than in the Netherlands? It seems that the burden of providing proof has been on us while you haven’t had to provide any proof for your position.
Because more homosexual men were molested doesn’t mean that is the reason that they are gay.
Because out of wed lock births increased it doesn’t show that gay marriage is the cause. It was a general move to secularism rather than gay marriage. Gay marriage is a symptom of the secularization. Not the other way around.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
At least I have provided evidence for our position while all you’ve done is say that you don’t accept our evidence without providing any evidence for your claim. You are the one who thinks a change in the law should happen. Therefore, it would make sense that the onus would be on you to provide evidence for why you think a change in the law should happen. We are only saying that marriage should remain how it has always been. And you have not given a reason why you think changing the law on marriage in America will have a different result than what it has been in the Netherlands. All you have given is your opinion with zero evidence to back it up, and you expect us to just trust what you say. Talk is cheap.
J
Joko2599
Guest
Get government out of marriage. I agree fully with you on that point.
For tax benefits, visitation rights, and all other legal procedures regarding relationships, just let there be a secular partnership between 2 people, without regards to gender.
There. Marriage is betwen a man and a woman, and the legal rights are in place.
For tax benefits, visitation rights, and all other legal procedures regarding relationships, just let there be a secular partnership between 2 people, without regards to gender.
There. Marriage is betwen a man and a woman, and the legal rights are in place.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
“A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it.” - CCC, 2202
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
All I am saying is:
Civil Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults traditionally a Man and a Woman.
Catholic Marriage is a sacrament that holds a different connotations and responsibilities in the eyes of the Church and God.
Civil marriage doesn’t devalue Catholic marriage. It is no less sacred in the eyes of the Church or God because civil marriage exists.
This purely anecdotal but it is my experience - I live in a state where gay marriage is legal. I have gay neighbors and friends. They are married, their kids go to school with my kids and play together. The parents seem to be responsible adults and good parents. Their kids seem to be good kids. It doesn’t devalue my Catholic Marriage or family. I feel that they add value to my community. They are in the PTA, they pay their taxes, they volunteer, etc. The only difference that I can see is who they fell in love with. I don’t see it as a great evil. I live with it and it seems to be ok.
E
edwest2
Guest
“It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV.”
Source: cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm
Monogamy doesn’t seem very important.
nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0
Peace,
Ed
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Ok.
Not different, but higher. The natural marriage of one man and one woman is raised to the supernatural level of a sacrament. The foundation remains the same.
It does in public opinion of marriage when civil law redefines it as whatever. When the civil law acts careless about marriage people will act careless about it. And you still haven’t given any evidence for your belief that changing the definition of marriage in America will have a different societal result than what followed changing it in Netherlands.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
That’s why I pointed to Communion. Catholic Communion isn’t devalued by Protestant Communion. Because someone does something different doesn’t make yours less.Ok.Not different, but higher. The natural marriage of one man and one woman is raised to the supernatural level of a sacrament.It does in public opinion of marriage when civil law redefines it as whatever. When the civil law acts careless about marriage people will act careless about it. And you still haven’t given any evidence for your belief that changing the definition of marriage in America will have a different societal result than what followed changing it in Netherlands.
I offered anecdotal evidence. I can look at mountains of articles but seeing what I live with everyday is much more convincing to me. I know it can’t change your mind but I can show why my mind is at ease about it.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Very True, abstinence is the only 100% safe guard for sexually transmitted HIV.
A very interesting article but it’s a small sample. I don’t know how true it is across the board.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Catholics believe that the bread and wine transform into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Protestants believe it to be just a symbol. It can’t be the Body and Blood of Christ and not be at the same time and in the same place. And a Catholic who goes up to receive Holy Communion without believing in the Real Presence will not care about profaning the Body and Blood of Christ. So there is a devaluing happening. And just as we can’t substitute the bread and wine with Pepsi and Chips, what constitutes a valid marriage in the eyes of God can’t be substituted for anything other than what God has ordained. Since you are going into Catholic doctrine. Do you realize that Adam and Eve didn’t merely get married but Eve was created as Adam’s wife from the get-go by God?
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I’m confused about your position. Are you saying because if people don’t practice your faith it causes you to lose faith? Or are you saying that if people practice lesser practices it causes the Sacrament to be less Sacramental?Catholics believe that the bread and wine transform into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Protestants believe it to be just a symbol. It can’t be the Body and Blood of Christ and not be at the same time and in the same place. And a Catholic who goes up to receive Holy Communion without believing in the Real Presence will not care about profaning the Body and Blood of Christ. So there is a devaluing happening. And just as we can’t substitute the bread and wine with Pepsi and Chips, what constitutes a valid marriage in the eyes of God can’t be substituted for anything other than what God has ordained. Since you are going into Catholic doctrine. Do you realize that Adam and Eve didn’t merely get married but were created married from the get-go by God?
L
livingwordunity
Guest
You tried to used the Holy Eucharist as an analogy for marriage. If someone doesn’t believe in the Real Presence they will profane the Body and the Blood of Christ without caring when they go up to receive it. This is how having a different belief in something can lead to devaluing of it. By the way, when we receive Holy Communion we are receiving Christ as members of the Church, His Bride. The Holy Eucharist is about marriage. I don’t know if you stumbled onto this by accident.
E
edwest2
Guest
V
Veronica
Guest
It took many years for the woman’s movement to get the government to uphold the family.
It use to be the woman holding the bag, so to speak.
We now have laws that fathers are not going to get away with being dead beat dads, etc. Women who spend their most productive years at home raising the children should be compensated if left by their spouse.
Children should know where they are from and they should be protected and taken care of by their parents. Even the UN has Children’s Rights and one of them is the right to live with a mother and a father.
Property rights especially when it involves large land holdings can be at issue. Especially ranches and farms. They don’t just get pasted out of families.
So the question of doing away with these protections that women worked so hard for is rather sad. And the women’s movement I am referring is not the feminist movement.
Just a few of my thoughts on this important subject. I really appreciate the well thought out comments.
It use to be the woman holding the bag, so to speak.
We now have laws that fathers are not going to get away with being dead beat dads, etc. Women who spend their most productive years at home raising the children should be compensated if left by their spouse.
Children should know where they are from and they should be protected and taken care of by their parents. Even the UN has Children’s Rights and one of them is the right to live with a mother and a father.
Property rights especially when it involves large land holdings can be at issue. Especially ranches and farms. They don’t just get pasted out of families.
So the question of doing away with these protections that women worked so hard for is rather sad. And the women’s movement I am referring is not the feminist movement.
Just a few of my thoughts on this important subject. I really appreciate the well thought out comments.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I still don’t get what you are saying - How does someone not believing in the Real Presence make me not believe in the Real Presence?You tried to used the Holy Eucharist as an analogy for marriage. If someone doesn’t believe in the Real Presence they will profane the Body and the Blood of Christ without caring when they go up to receive it. This is how having a different belief in something can lead to devaluing of it. By the way, when we receive Holy Communion we are receiving Christ as members of the Church, His Bride. The Holy Eucharist is about marriage. I don’t know if you stumbled onto this by accident.
Nothing is an accident. Although I didn’t intend it
- Status