The existence of a law means that it is real, it exists and it will have an effect. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that the law does not exist is silly.An unjust law can and does exist. That is really no law at all unless you mean the mere existence of a law makes it just.
This is a fair enough point. That and I also concur with this poster about the reality of law. A law’s being unjust does not invalidate its legality, reality or force.It is in the thread title: “civil marriage”. Not “Catholic marriage”, not “traditional marriage” but “civil marriage”. That is marriage as defined by the appropriate civil legal jurisdiction. This thread should be discussing the Church’s attitude to such civil marriages.
The Church already has an attitude to divorce in civil marriages – something which differs from Catholic marriage. I thought that this thread was to try to work out whether the Church’s approach should be similar to its approach to civil divorce (against it, but not very noisy about it) or whether it should continue along its current line, against it and very noisy about it.
So you are being dishonest. Yet you expect honest communicationI wrote I could work with the definition I posted; I didn’t say I agreed with it. I merely hoped to give this conversation a renewed beginning place.
On the matter of dictionary definitions: Lexicographers use two different authorities. In Britain they use the Queen’s English (literally the track the way Her Majesty uses the language and include it in their books) and in other English-speaking countries common usage is what is used. That usage is constantly changing, witness the word “gay” until 1960 or so, it meant happy, then it meant homosexual, and now teens are using it to mean bad, evil.
“Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”The existence of a law means that it is real, it exists and it will have an effect. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that the law does not exist is silly.
Yes, there are unjust laws. That is why people acknowledge that those unjust laws really exist and work to repeal them. Pretending that they don’t exist will do nothing to remove the injustice.
rossum
We don’t need to work out anything. A false premise does not require a rational answer. You won’t be getting anything but the right - non-religious - answer here. And quit bothering us, OK? Send a letter to the Vatican or read this if you are so concerned about what the Church thinks:It is in the thread title: “civil marriage”. Not “Catholic marriage”, not “traditional marriage” but “civil marriage”. That is marriage as defined by the appropriate civil legal jurisdiction. This thread should be discussing the Church’s attitude to such civil marriages.
The Church already has an attitude to divorce in civil marriages – something which differs from Catholic marriage. I thought that this thread was to try to work out whether the Church’s approach should be similar to its approach to civil divorce (against it, but not very noisy about it) or whether it should continue along its current line, against it and very noisy about it.
rossum
And #5:We don’t need to work out anything. A false premise does not require a rational answer. You won’t be getting anything but the right - non-religious - answer here. And quit bothering us, OK? Send a letter to the Vatican or read this if you are so concerned about what the Church thinks:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
See number 4.
Ed
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.
What is your definition of marriage?Either we have a set of words that we can use to describe the reality we are addressing or we do not. If we do not, then discussion is hopeless.
what is your definition of marriage?It is in the thread title: “civil marriage”. Not “Catholic marriage”, not “traditional marriage” but “civil marriage”. That is marriage as defined by the appropriate civil legal jurisdiction. This thread should be discussing the Church’s attitude to such civil marriages.
The Church already has an attitude to divorce in civil marriages – something which differs from Catholic marriage. I thought that this thread was to try to work out whether the Church’s approach should be similar to its approach to civil divorce (against it, but not very noisy about it) or whether it should continue along its current line, against it and very noisy about it.
rossum
I am refraining from returning the level of rudeness that you exhibit in your response to me. Signing “best” doesn’t erase that tone, sir.What a pointless remark. What part of civil don’t you understand? And what does religion have to do with civil?
Best,
Ed
Right. They want affirmation.We wouldn’t even be thinnking these thoughts and writing them down here right now, if a man and a woman had not cooperated in giving us existence. Marriage is foundational to our existence as persons, same-sex unions are nothing of the sort. And that’s where the rub is. The gay agenda at large will not be satisfied with equal human rights, what the agenda really wants is “same-ness” in the name of equal rights… recognition and affirmation that the gay lifestyle is “just as good as” marriage. Or that it is part of God’s plan in exactly the same way that marriage is. It should be obvious to anyone that the concept of “same-ness” is absurd, the proof is in the body parts, or in the stare-you-in-the-face uniqueness of each individual. There is no such thing as same-ness. And our society will not function rationally if it tries to put this square peg in a round hole.
Marriage is the term that is used to confer the benefits upon couples in the US. That’s why the term marriage matters. Civil unions do not confer the same rights-it’s been tried.I think people should be allowed to have whatever financial and medical arrangements they wish. If they’d like a same sex person to sign the hospital papers, fine with me. If two guys want to share a home and a checking account, ok.
But don’t call it marriage. That’s all. Don’t try and equate anything else with marriage because nothing else IS a marriage. We wouldn’t even be thinnking these thoughts and writing them down here right now, if a man and a woman had not cooperated in giving us existence. Marriage is foundational to our existence as persons, same-sex unions are nothing of the sort. And that’s where the rub is. The gay agenda at large will not be satisfied with equal human rights, what the agenda really wants is “same-ness” in the name of equal rights… recognition and affirmation that the gay lifestyle is “just as good as” marriage. Or that it is part of God’s plan in exactly the same way that marriage is. It should be obvious to anyone that the concept of “same-ness” is absurd, the proof is in the body parts, or in the stare-you-in-the-face uniqueness of each individual. There is no such thing as same-ness. And our society will not function rationally if it tries to put this square peg in a round hole.
Apparently pointing out the obvious puts one in danger of being compared to a fundamentalist. If that’s the case the recognition of marriage as between opposite sexes by all civilizations for thousands of years means that all of history was filled with nothing but fundamentalists. Only in our enlightened age has denial of reality become popular.Not everyone looks at marriage as being all about procreation. Yes, the Church does-we’ve covered that quite well. Yes, there is a state interest in subsidizing procreative behavior, we’ve covered that as well. But there is also an interest in promoting relationships between non-procreative couples, or the benefits the state provides to childbearing couples would not exist for couples who are unable to bear children.
As for the “it’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature” argument, are we heading to Pat Robertson territory and blaming gay marriage for hurricanes and other natural disasters?
Well that’s the thing. Civil unions that are functionally equivalent to marriage are unconstitutional. And they should be. That’s “separate but equal.” If the only thing that’s different is the label, then really the only reason for the difference is discrimination.Marriage is the term that is used to confer the benefits upon couples in the US. That’s why the term marriage matters. Civil unions do not confer the same rights-it’s been tried.
Given that there is a split between church and state, if we accept this, then we have no choice but to tolerate civil gay marriage. Just because something is wrong does not mean that it qualifies as illegal. Neither does tolerating that fact mean that we are accepting gay mariage as morally correct. Like you I don’t understand the problem.Since Catholics don’t consider civil marriage a sacrament anyway, then why not just let homosexuals marry each other civilly? So long as any laws passed passed do not force Catholic sacramental gay unions, why not just tolerate them? We don’t even allow two straight Catholics who are merely married civilly to receive Communion, because we don’t consider civil marriage to be an authentic marial union in the Christian sense.
To say otherwise would mean that we actually are giving civil unions a significant measure of validity.
Apparently pointing out the obvious puts one in danger of being compared to a fundamentalist. If that’s the case the recognition of marriage as between opposite sexes by all civilizations for thousands of years means that all of history was filled with nothing but fundamentalists. Only in our enlightened age has denial of reality become popular.
Only men and women can engage in marital relations. Procreation sometimes results; often it doesn’t. But persons of the same sex are inherently incapable of marital relations. That’s the reality. Gay marriage advocates go through a lot of words to try to obfuscate the obvious.
You’re still stuck on procreation. Yes, that is the Church’s view-all relations are to be procreative. Done and overdone-no need to continue to rehash it.Well that’s the thing. Civil unions that are functionally equivalent to marriage are unconstitutional. And they should be. That’s “separate but equal.” If the only thing that’s different is the label, then really the only reason for the difference is discrimination.
Civil unions that are not functionally equivalent to marriage should be the law of the land in my opinion. As clem said; property rights, visitation, all of that stuff. That’s fine. But marriage is about more than that because it is, or at least was, about the creation of the next generation via the committed sexual relationship of two people. It was not merely about love or sex or even about raising kids. It was about creating new children through the marital act.
That’s something that homosexuals simply cannot do. They cannot create new children through natural acts. They never will be able to. It’s biologically impossible. That’s why marriage deserves to be something unique.
Lawmakers are pretty adept at writing the law as they see fit, for better or worse.Marriage is the term that is used to confer the benefits upon couples in the US. That’s why the term marriage matters. Civil unions do not confer the same rights-it’s been tried.
It’s impossible to separate faith from society/law. It never works, always a disaster. Our laws need to recognize realities like:]and again…this is not about religious definitions. This is about “non-sacramental, civil gay marriage”.
That’s right. Apparently too many view reality through the lens of relativism and faux rights. There is no reason the State needs to deny reality.Apparently pointing out the obvious puts one in danger of being compared to a fundamentalist. If that’s the case the recognition of marriage as between opposite sexes by all civilizations for thousands of years means that all of history was filled with nothing but fundamentalists. Only in our enlightened age has denial of reality become popular.