Why should marriage be preserved for a man and a woman?

[davidv]

Technically, aren’t all civil rights invented?

Relevance to the preservation of marriage?

What a marriage is, is not about civil rights, it is about the reality of the complementarity of man and woman.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is intended to be in the marriage vows…

It was designed to be permanent within the confines of our lifespan. Do not confuse humanity’s misinterpretation and abuse of marriage with the reality of Marriage.

There’s no confusion.

I understand that various religious definitions and conditions of marriage are considered permanent, including what I’ve often seen labeled by Catholics as “The Sacrament of Matrimony” (and other names by other groups). But legal marriage in the nation where I live isn’t contingent on satisfying such conditions. It’s considered a civil contract and can be ended even if the parties involved had intended it to be life long and even if it doesn’t satisfy CCC 1629.

 

[davidv]

There’s no confusion.

I understand that various religious definitions and conditions of marriage are considered permanent, including what I’ve often seen labeled by Catholics as “The Sacrament of Matrimony” (and other names by other groups). But legal marriage in the nation where I live isn’t contingent on satisfying such conditions. It’s considered a civil contract and can be ended even if the parties involved had intended it to be life long and even if it doesn’t satisfy CCC 1629.

Given the schizophrenic nature of legality, how can it be any measure of the proper definition of marriage?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In some places 50 years ago it was unheard of that a black man was allowed to marry a white woman. But there was a voice in the wilderness.

Not that it diminishes your point any, but during those times interracial marriages were not recognized. Not just between Black and White, but any marriage between two people that didn’t meet the same racial classification. Black and White were the most common of these, but not the only possible combination.

 

[davidv]

Marriage isn’t permanent.

Even if true (which it isn’t), how it this relevant to the definition of marriage.

 

[tonyfrancis21]

All men and women are indeed created equal to other men and women. It is not the same as saying man-man or woman-woman pairing is equal to man-woman in marriage.

The right to gay ‘marriage’ is an invented civil right.
,

Today, it is safer ( physically and financially,) for an American male to marry another male than to marry an American female. Also he will have more pace of Mind and will have to listen to less complaints and nagging.

 

[davidv]

Today, it is safer ( physically and financially,) for an American male to marry another male than to marry an American female. Also he will have more pace of Mind and will have to listen to less complaints and nagging.

When did “safety” become the measure of morality?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Given the schizophrenic nature of legality, how can it be any measure of the proper definition of marriage?

I’m not sure what it would mean to “measure” a definition.

With respect to “proper definition”: The definitions applied to a word can be different within different context. Some times qualifiers are attached to words to make clear which context is being used. “*Legal *Marriage” refers to the civil contract. *Spiritual *Marriage, *Religious *marriage, or the Sacrament of Marriage do not necessarily refer to the same thing.

ThinkingSapien;10782851:

Marriage isn’t permanent.

Even if true (which it isn’t), how it this relevant to the definition of marriage.

Legal marriage isn’t permanent.

 

[Muze]

The white-supremacist logic of 50 years ago was that marriage between a black man and a white women was disordered for that very reason, since according to them the new life created wouldn’t be “racial pure”.

My post was gently suggesting that civil rights is an ongoing struggle, and our institutions are broken unless they reflect the primacy of the truth we hold to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal.

Let’s be a bit more specific. Loving v. Virginia was about the right of a man and a woman to live together as a married couple. It wasn’t about a license or any right to have their union recognized by anyone.

The supreme court case cited Skinner v. Oklahoma, which said, that marriage and procreation are fundamental to the furtherance of the [human] race. Thus, the courts closely tied together marriage and procreation.

Homosexuals don’t procreate together, so they don’t fit under this court definition.

However, gays do already have the right to take vows together and to live together, which is the only elements of this that are actual “rights”, and no one is denying them any of that.

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s be a bit more specific. Loving v. Virginia was about the right of a man and a woman to live together as a married couple. It wasn’t about a license or any right to have their union recognized by anyone.

The supreme court case cited Skinner v. Oklahoma, which said, that marriage and procreation are fundamental to the furtherance of the [human] race. Thus, the courts closely tied together marriage and procreation.

Homosexuals don’t procreate together, so they don’t fit under this court definition.

However, gays do already have the right to take vows together and to live together, which is the only elements of this that are actual “rights”, and no one is denying them any of that.

Irrefutable!

 

[tonyrey]

Given the schizophrenic nature of legality, how can it be any measure of the proper definition of marriage?

I like the expression “the schizophrenic nature of legality” which underlines its fallibility.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Marriage isn’t permanent.

Orthodox theology teaches that Marriage is permanent. All Sacraments are eternal. You don’t ceased to be baptized in heaven, a priest doesn’t cease to be a priest in heaven, so why is marriage not available in heaven?

 

[tonyrey]

There’s no confusion.

I understand that various religious definitions and conditions of marriage are considered permanent, including what I’ve often seen labeled by Catholics as “The Sacrament of Matrimony” (and other names by other groups). But legal marriage in the nation where I live isn’t contingent on satisfying such conditions. It’s considered a civil contract and can be ended even if the parties involved had intended it to be life long and even if it doesn’t satisfy CCC 1629.

The law does not always reflect moral or personal values.

 

[tonyrey]

To paraphrase Mary Eberstadt…in her new book…“How the West really lost God”…the DNA of a civilization is built on the double helix of Faith and Family.

The traditional family of a man’s unique gift complimented by a woman’s unique gift…bringing forth children into a stable, self-sustaining and self-nurturing environment…is a tottering wall today…and gay marriage will knock it over. Yes, changing the definition of Marriage will have broad consequences…it already has…It was unheard of just 50 years ago that America would allow a radical Leftist regime to bully its populace in the name of “empathy”…but most of us are satisfied with these bullies as long as our government continues to subsidize and support our broken homes and hook-up culture.

Beware…Marriage is a load-bearing wall of Western civilization.

A wall which is rapidly crumbling in the UK and elsewhere.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The law does not always reflect moral or personal values.

Orthodox theology teaches that Marriage is permanent. All Sacraments are eternal. You don’t ceased to be baptized in heaven, a priest doesn’t cease to be a priest in heaven, so why is marriage not available in heaven?

Yes, I understand that this is the Catholic teaching. While there have been religious influence on law it does appear that adhering to the seven sacraments isn’t one of the goals of the the law.

From what I’ve seen when some one wants to redefine marriage in the public sphere the person is not seeking to redefine the Sacrament of Matrimony. It seems that the goal is to get the legal benefits that come with having such a civil contract. In other words if the option were available to allow the legal benefits of the marriage contract with the condition that “Your marriage will not be recognized as a Marriage by various churches” (not just speaking about the Church here) that proponents of marriage redefinition would largely accept as a state level victory with the exception of a small few. In the regions of the USA in which marriage has been redefined (12 states + the District of Columbia) this seems to be what has happened.

The Sacraments are considered permanent. But civil contracts can be terminated. It is because of this that there has been previous talks of renaming the civil agreements from “Marriage” to something else. But such a decision was largely unpopular. So legal marriage contracts and the Sacrament of Matrimony are often conflated together though it seems they are polysemic.

 

[tonyfrancis21]

When did “safety” become the measure of morality?

*All moral Laws and Rules are framed to preserve, sustain and keep a society safe from premature death. *

 

[davidv]

*All moral Laws and Rules are framed to preserve, sustain and keep a society safe from premature death. *

This is my standard of morality as a Catholic;

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

Based on this, marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.

 

[JackQ]

Are there any valid reasons why marriage should lose its unique status as a permanent bond between a man and a woman which is the basis of family life?

It’s impossible for it to lose its status. Marriage is a permanent bond between a man and a woman, and the state can’t change it. Even if the state tries to change it, no change actually happens. Same sex marriage is an illusion.

That’s the point that both sides in the debate keep missing.

 

[tonyfrancis21]

Orthodox theology teaches that Marriage is permanent. All Sacraments are eternal. You don’t ceased to be baptized in heaven, a priest doesn’t cease to be a priest in heaven, so why is marriage not available in heaven?

*Because God said so.

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage;(Mt 22:30)

Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,( Luke 20:34)*

 

[tonyfrancis21]

This is my standard of morality as a Catholic;
Based on this, marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
How does your morality as a Catholic justify the above law?

*The purpose of this legislation was to assure that each family and tribe in Israel was perpetuated by the bearing of children. When the oldest brother married, but died before having any children, the younger brother was to take the widow as his wife so that the first son would carry on the name and the leadership of the deceased. Other legislation assured that the inheritance of land would remain in the tribes and families. Here was a very practical law, given to assure future generations. One can especially see the importance of this legislation when you recall the fact that Messiah would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15), from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:9-10), of the line of David (2 Samuel 7:8-16). How crucial it was for the tribes of Israel to perpetuate, for from such the Messiah would be born.
*
Laws are made to suit the circumstances and location and time when it is applied.
In Moses’ time, it was a sin to kill a man, but in Jesus’ time, even not loving your enemy was a sin.
In Moses’ time, fornication was a sin, but in Jesus’s time, even looking at a woman lustfully was a sin.
Now since America is tracing her path back to the days of Noah, Laws have to change to suit the times.