Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[fix]

I 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.

Marriage has a meaning that exists regardless of how any particular dictionary or civil law describes it. That is the point.

 

[fix]

Being contrary is. When you can bend reality to your will, who needs to define anything except yourself? Or engage in vague vagueness ™.

Peace,
Ed

Uh huh. I want what I want because I want it and I want everyone’s affirmation or I will call you names.

 

[edwest2]

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?

What a pointless remark. What part of civil don’t you understand? And what does religion have to do with civil?

Best,
Ed

 

[RevDon]

Marriage has a meaning that exists regardless of how any particular dictionary or civil law describes it. That is the point.

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.

 

[fix]

What a pointless remark. What part of civil don’t you understand? And what does religion have to do with civil?

Best,
Ed

The fallacy, and insult, of comparing heterosexual married couples with same sex pairings is absurd.

 

[edwest2]

Uh huh. I want what I want because I want it and I want everyone’s affirmation or I will call you names.

That’s right. I think it’s time to start reporting posts that are rude and anti-Catholic. I mean it.

We’ve just gone through how many posts that say the exact same thing how many times, with slight differences in word combinations?

Ed

 

[RevDon]

What a pointless remark. What part of civil don’t you understand? And what does religion have to do with civil?

Best,
Ed

We’d like to think that the two are clearly separated, and we can define the differences, but when we get down to the task of making civil law, it’s very hard not to rely on religious thinking which has created in us such a deeply-ingrained sense of right and wrong that we would like to see represented in our laws.

Not saying it’s right or wrong to operate this way, just that it’s hard not to.

 

[fix]

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.

The discussion is hopeless/ As I said in another post there is no convincing those who refused to be convinced. One has to be open to the truth.

Up until about 5 minutes ago no one is this culture would have suggested two men could ever be “married”. That is a complete contrivance. Now this political group is trying to turn the tables and make people defend marriage as if it is some institution that is plastic and can be redefined simply by fiat.

 

[scipio337]

Wait, I thought they just wanted “equal protection under the law”? (CA has had same sex domestic parnerships since 1999)

 

[rossum]

The law can contradict common sense and reason but that just means it is no law at all. It is unjust. Nothing new under the sun.

A law may contradict both common sense and reason, but it is still a law and it still exists. Not all politicians are amenable to either common sense or reason.

Trying to ignore the existence of a law is not sensible. If you don’t like the law then campaign to have the law repealed. Merely ignoring it won’t change it.

In this case we are discussing civil gay marriage, which is defined by the law, as are all civil marriages. We cannot discuss sensibly without taking account of the law.

rossum

 

[RevDon]

For what purpose?

definition doesn’t say. You want to supply an answer so that we can talk about it?

 

[RevDon]

The discussion is hopeless/ As I said in another post there is no convincing those who refused to be convinced. One has to be open to the truth.

Up until about 5 minutes ago no one is this culture would have suggested two men could ever be “married”. That is a complete contrivance. Now this political group is trying to turn the tables and make people defend marriage as if it is some institution that is plastic and can be redefined simply by fiat.

The price of being human with the gift of imagination. New things come up and we have to deal with them.

 

[edwest2]

The fallacy, and insult, of comparing heterosexual married couples with same sex pairings is absurd.

It is irrational. But propagandists need to keep telling us we’re wrong. It works like advertising. We just need to keep reminding them that reality is… uh real. As opposed to their fantasy.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

That’s right. I think it’s time to start reporting posts that are rude and anti-Catholic. I mean it.

We’ve just gone through how many posts that say the exact same thing how many times, with slight differences in word combinations?

Ed

I was thinking more about the general culture. If one does not support faux marriage one is a bigot. We now need complicated philosophical proofs to show what is self evident. Marriage is about male and female.

 

[rossum]

Then give us one.

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

 

[edwest2]

A law may contradict both common sense and reason, but it is still a law and it still exists. Not all politicians are amenable to either common sense or reason.

Trying to ignore the existence of a law is not sensible. If you don’t like the law then campaign to have the law repealed. Merely ignoring it won’t change it.

In this case we are discussing civil gay marriage, which is defined by the law, as are all civil marriages. We cannot discuss sensibly without taking account of the law.

rossum

There is no discussion because there are no rational definitions. The law, in this case, is devoid of rationality. We can and will ignore it.

Best,
Ed

 

[fix]

We’d like to think that the two are clearly separated, and we can define the differences, but when we get down to the task of making civil law, it’s very hard not to rely on religious thinking which has created in us such a deeply-ingrained sense of right and wrong that we would like to see represented in our laws.

Not saying it’s right or wrong to operate this way, just that it’s hard not to.

They should not be that separate. The truth is Christianity has always informed our democracy. Without it we will have tyranny which has already begun.

 

[fix]

A law may contradict both common sense and reason, but it is still a law and it still exists. Not all politicians are amenable to either common sense or reason.

Trying to ignore the existence of a law is not sensible. If you don’t like the law then campaign to have the law repealed. Merely ignoring it won’t change it.

In this case we are discussing civil gay marriage, which is defined by the law, as are all civil marriages. We cannot discuss sensibly without taking account of the law.

rossum

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.

 

[fix]

The price of being human with the gift of imagination. New things come up and we have to deal with them.

New things can be legitimate or illegitimate.

 

[fix]

It is irrational. But propagandists need to keep telling us we’re wrong. It works like advertising. We just need to keep reminding them that reality is… uh real. As opposed to their fantasy.

Peace,
Ed

It is all about affirmation. It is a type of craving. They think it will quell the gnawing thoughts.