why can't another label be used for same sex marriage?

[Peter_Plato]

“Marriage” has had a meaning in civil law for ages. “Marriage” under civil law does not mean the same thing as marriage in a religious context. Civil marriage does not, e.g. include the duty to (try) to have children. Civil marriage can end up in legal divorce. People can have more than one civil marriage, etc.
The simple fact is, that under civil law, there is no reason to start calling same-sex unions anything different than ‘marriage’.

Just because some societies or civil jurisdictions have been confused about what a marriage really is, does not justify redefining it. There is a very real physiological union between one man and one woman that has, throughout the history of humankind, resulted in the creation of new life. That is a very real and very unique biological reality that cannot be contrived nor de-contrived by resorting to historical errors in judgement and behavior. That reality was never “defined” into being. The reality is what brought about our understanding and, hence, the definition. Not the other way around.

Marriage is not a civil construct, it is a natural, biological reality.

 

[Joe_5859]

Sometimes they can; sometimes not.

As you and the other poster say, they may be able to achieve power of attorney ahd hospital visitations without recognition of “marriage.”

But, according to the article I posted, there are financial benefits available only to “married” couples; for example, in New York they can file joint state tax returns, and they can transfer assets at death without being subject to state estate taxes. On the federal level, only “married” couples get Social Security spousal benefits.

There was a piece in the newspaper the other day about one of the parties in the current federal SSM cases. Although she was legally married in her state, when her spouse died she was liable for over $300,000 in federal taxes because federal law doesn’t recognize SSM.

What this argument basically boil down to is “It’s not fair for married people to get tax breaks that other people don’t get.” I disagree.

But even if one views this as an injustice in need of correction, the far simpler solution is to change the tax code, not redefine marriage.

 

[iloveangels]

What this argument basically boil down to is “It’s not fair for married people to get tax breaks that other people don’t get.” I disagree.

But even if one views this as an injustice in need of correction, the far simpler solution is to change the tax code, not redefine marriage.

You guys are all arguing about the concept of civil marriage. This is not necessarily sacramental marriage you’re talking about. There is a difference, you know. You do realize that, I hope.

 

[belorg]

Belorg,

Who defines Marriage?

People. And the definition evonves and has evolved as I have shown.

Do I have to accept any definition?

No, you are a free being. You do not have to accept that the earth is round either.

Define Love?

The definition of love has evolved through the age too.

 

[belorg]

Just because some societies or civil jurisdictions have been confused about what a marriage really is, does not justify redefining it. There is a very real physiological union between one man and one woman that has, throughout the history of humankind, resulted in the creation of new life. That is a very real and very unique biological reality that cannot be contrived nor de-contrived by resorting to historical errors in judgement and behavior. That reality was never “defined” into being. The reality is what brought about our understanding and, hence, the definition. Not the other way around.

Marriage is not a civil construct, it is a natural, biological reality.

That’s how you define it. Others have the right to define it in other ways.
And reality is that different kinds of relationships exist and that societies have the right to call them marriages. Creation of new life is not a necssary part of civil marriage in my country. Now, you would probably want to call this civil marriage something else, but you are several decades too late for that.

 

[iloveangels]

That’s how you define it. Others have the right to define it in other ways.
And reality is that different kinds of relationships exist and that societies have the right to call them marriages. Creation of new life is not a necssary part of civil marriage in my country. Now, you would probably want to call this civil marriage something else, but you are several decades too late for that.

You’re still discussing what civil marriage consists of, not sacramental marriage. They’re not necessarily the same thing, you must realize.

 

[JimG]

Sacramental marriage is a marital union between two baptized Christians.
Civil marriage is a natural marriage recognized by the State.
(In the U.S., a civil marriage may also be sacramental especially when performed by clergy.)

The Church recognizes the validity of both natural and sacramental marriage.

It doesn’t recognize that a union between biologically non-complementary sexes can even be a natural marriage. It is not possible for it to be a natural marriage without sexual complementarity.

Now the state might legally recognize any sort of relationship and call it “marriage;” but that doesn’t change reality or biology.

Where same sex marriage is recognized by the State, I don’t think that the State requires that the participants certify as to their homosexual status.

That being the case, there would be nothing to prevent two business partners from marrying for the sole purpose of obtaining the legal benefits of marriage for business purposes. Or a mother and a daughter. Or two brothers. Or any two individuals. Or perhaps more than two.

Marriage, as a meaningful word, will have been destroyed. It will be just a partnership of any two–or more–people who desire legal recognition from the State and the legal benefits to be derived therefrom.

That’s not good for the State, even from a secular standpoint. There’s no point in the State providing benefits to unions which do not benefit it.

 

[iloveangels]

Sacramental marriage is a marital union between two baptized Christians.
Civil marriage is a natural marriage recognized by the State.
(In the U.S., a civil marriage may also be sacramental especially when performed by clergy.)

The Church recognizes the validity of both natural and sacramental marriage.

It doesn’t recognize that a union between biologically non-complementary sexes can even be a natural marriage. It is not possible for it to be a natural marriage without sexual complementarity.

Now the state might legally recognize any sort of relationship and call it “marriage;” but that doesn’t change reality or biology.

Where same sex marriage is recognized by the State, I don’t think that the State requires that the participants certify as to their homosexual status.

That being the case, there would be nothing to prevent two business partners from marrying for the sole purpose of obtaining the legal benefits of marriage for business purposes. Or a mother and a daughter. Or two brothers. Or any two individuals. Or perhaps more than two.

Marriage, as a meaningful word, will have been destroyed. It will be just a partnership of any two–or more–people who desire legal recognition from the State and the legal benefits to be derived therefrom.

That’s not good for the State, even from a secular standpoint. There’s no point in the State providing benefits to unions which do not benefit it.

It’s not primarily my problem what the state decides to do to itself. That’s a secondary issue to me. My interest in this is pointing out that there’s a difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage.

In Paris, when you get married, you go to the governmental offices and get a civil marriage. But then, IF you are Catholic, and IF you have prepared for the religious sacrament of marriage, you can go and get that too.

I cannot control what civil society, which is made of all sorts of people, do. I can vote my faith and care on that level, but I cannot insist that they adopt my religious views by force or by blurring or re-defining my religion to accommodate anybody or anything. It doesn’t work that way. The Catholic Church is not that kind of thing. Truth is not that kind of thing.

 

[vera_dicere]

I used to be apathetic towards “civil unions”, in that I thought “meh, why not? have at it, just don’t call it marriage”.

So NZL passed a CU law, the politicans who drafted the bill and its supporters saying “This won’t lead to a gay marriage law”. Well, a few years later, here we are, a “same sex marriage” bill before our select committee, and giving the politican numbers supporting it, likely to be law by the end of 2013.

Frankly, they should never have allowed CU laws. Its a back door for SSM. Yes, they should have rights to inheritence and next of kin et cetera, just like everyone else, and those laws existed without them needing CUs in the first place.

ITs about some preceived lack of equality. They have equality, being disallowed to marry someone of the same gender isn’t denying equality, its about acknowleding that certain instutitiutions have particular formulaes. The 9 sided triangle is a good example.

 

[iloveangels]

I used to be apathetic towards “civil unions”, in that I thought “meh, why not? have at it, just don’t call it marriage”.

So NZL passed a CU law, the politicans who drafted the bill and its supporters saying “This won’t lead to a gay marriage law”. Well, a few years later, here we are, a “same sex marriage” bill before our select committee, and giving the politican numbers supporting it, likely to be law by the end of 2013.

Frankly, they should never have allowed CU laws. Its a back door for SSM. Yes, they should have rights to inheritence and next of kin et cetera, just like everyone else, and those laws existed without them needing CUs in the first place.

ITs about some preceived lack of equality. They have equality, being disallowed to marry someone of the same gender isn’t denying equality, its about acknowleding that certain instutitiutions have particular formulaes. The 9 sided triangle is a good example.

That is a problem of civil society. It’s a grave problem, yes, but it’s still a problem of civil society.

If and when people want to be converted to the Church, then they must embrace its teachings. If they do not want to convert, then we cannot force them, and we should not make the Catholic Church so elastic to accommodate them that is ceases to exist. We cannot do that.

 

[JimG]

It’s not primarily my problem what the state decides to do to itself. That’s a secondary issue to me. My interest in this is pointing out that there’s a difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage.

In Paris, when you get married, you go to the governmental offices and get a civil marriage. But then, IF you are Catholic, and IF you have prepared for the religious sacrament of marriage, you can go and get that too.

That’s fine, though I don’t see any particular reason for the State to not allow a priest to sign a marriage certificate to certify that a legal marraige has taken place. Why require people to go through two ceremonies? Some want a civil ceremony only; some want a religious ceremony.

I meant rather to point out that while a State’s definition of “civil” marriage can be entirely arbitrary, it should not be. It should at least accord with biological reality and the nature of men and women. If it doesn’t, then marriage really does become arbitrary and meaningless, and there is no reason for the state to provide particular benefits for it.

 

[iloveangels]

That’s fine, though I don’t see any particular reason for the State to not allow a priest to sign a marriage certificate to certify that a legal marraige has taken place. Why require people to go through two ceremonies?

So is this laziness or what? Do you not want people to have to explicitly receive a sacrament? They might take it more seriously if they did. Also, there are certain people who just want to “get married” and don’t really care about real religious observance. They probably should not be receiving sacraments anyway, til they’re ready to commit to them religiously. “Yanking the Church’s chain” etc is not an appropriate activity. Showing up just to make grandma happy may not be either.

Some want a civil ceremony only; some want a religious ceremony.

This is correct.

I meant rather to point out that while a State’s definition of “civil” marriage can be entirely arbitrary, it should not be. It should at least accord with biological reality and the nature of men and women. If it doesn’t, then marriage really does become arbitrary and meaningless, and there is no reason for the state to provide particular benefits for it.

You must take that up with the civil society, whose problem it is. As a Catholic, you have the right to vote with your faith. You do not have the right to yank people around over it, who aren’t even Catholic. You can’t make people be Catholic against their wills, unless they use their wills to vote you into office or they give you that power by some other sort of proxy. Bottom line.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s how you define it. Others have the right to define it in other ways.
And reality is that different kinds of relationships exist and that societies have the right to call them marriages. Creation of new life is not a necssary part of civil marriage in my country. Now, you would probably want to call this civil marriage something else, but you are several decades too late for that.

Who or what gives the right to do so? Is it just a right claimed by anyone who wills to do so to define it, irrespective of reality? Then it has no objective reality. If you are happy in your delusional reality who am I to argue with you? Reality has ways of making itself known even to those who think it doesn’t exist apart from their own delusion. The piper will be paid.

If the realities of these other relationships were the same as the reality of what a marriage is, then it would be appropriate to call them marriages but they are inherently different, except to the blind who wish to mislabel things out of willfulness but not out of reasoned judgement.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You must take that up with the civil society, whose problem it is. As a Catholic, you have the right to vote with your faith. You do not have the right to yank people around over it, who aren’t even Catholic. You can’t make people be Catholic against their wills, unless they use their wills to vote you into office or they give you that power by some other sort of proxy. Bottom line.

And Catholics are part of civil society, and certainly should be informed on this issue. The truth of the natural law is something the Church has a right to uphold and a duty to teach people about - even if they aren’t Catholic. Do not make the mistake of saying that the Church cannot comment on civil organizations.

Take a look at this link again:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

 

[Giants]

If the realities of these other relationships were the same as the reality of what a marriage is, then it would be appropriate to call them marriages but they are inherently different, except to the blind who wish to mislabel things out of willfulness but not out of reasoned judgement.

And if there was good reason to believe that society would go down in flames because the government recognized gay marriage, then I’d be against it too. As would just about every other straight person. And probably most gay folks.

Nobody wants society to burn to the ground. Folks on my side of the argument haven’t been presented with any reasonable evidence that gay marriage will make it happen.

 

[iloveangels]

And Catholics are part of civil society, and certainly should be informed on this issue. The truth of the natural law is something the Church has a right to uphold and a duty to teach people about - even if they aren’t Catholic. Do not make the mistake of saying that the Church cannot comment on civil organizations.

Take a look at this link again:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

On the contrary, you CAN comment on civil matters, but you CANNOT act like a spoiled child and try to take them over by force or nastiness and then try to run them, against the wills of the other members of society. You do not have that right.

Or that power, when it comes right down to it. And if you are presumptuous enough to try it without the power to do it, you are going to get beat to a pulp for your presumption.

 

[Flame4]

I don’t think we can have a monopoly on the word marriage, even if we’d really like it. People will throw it around and civil society will abuse it. But we can’t expect people to abstain from using it in a way that doesn’t suit us. Anywaysm this “name game” would just be a bandaid solution to a real problem. Marriage is the “cell of society” as the Church teaches. It is a sacrament, but it also plays such an important role is civil and social life. A destruction of marriage itself is the problem. Calling it something else won’t change that problem.

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t think we can have a monopoly on the word marriage, even if we’d really like it. People will throw it around and civil society will abuse it. But we can’t expect people to abstain from using it in a way that doesn’t suit us. Anywaysm this “name game” would just be a bandaid solution to a real problem. Marriage is the “cell of society” as the Church teaches. It is a sacrament, but it also plays such an important role is civil and social life. A destruction of marriage itself is the problem. Calling it something else won’t change that problem.

You are assuming that Catholic sacramental marriage = civil marriage = natural marriage. For everyone, under every condition. That is simply not the case.

 

[Flame4]

You are assuming that Catholic sacramental marriage = civil marriage = natural marriage. For everyone, under every condition. That is simply not the case.

No its not the same, but obviously marriage plays a huge role in civil life and society at large.
Anyways, if they are different things, while we can define marriage as being a certain thing, we can’t expect that the rest of society will.

 

[iloveangels]

No its not the same, but obviously marriage plays a huge role in civil life and society at large.

It depends on which kind of marriage you are speaking of, and with reference to whom.

If you just throw a generic salvo like that out there, it doesn’t really mean anything.
AKA the sky matters, and air is transparent except when it isn’t. Whatever.