R
Rau
Guest
I can’t imagine why.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bradski
Guest
Then I guess if we checked the divorce rate for Christians, we would find ample evidence to support your claim. That is, a marriage in the eyes of God is not a pseudo-commitment (which, incidentally, is a gross insult to all those who were not married in a religious ceremony - but I’ll try not to take it personally) and for life.Marriage, as it stands today, is a statement of a pseudo-commitment of indeterminate length without any inferred goals and objectives.
I’ll bet that you know what we’ll find…
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Marriage is so messed up by heterosexuals I don’t think that’d actually make it worse what with many married people claiming the benefits of marriage and refusing to have kids.So you would agree that it’s okay for someone to paint their car to look like a police vehicle and ware a police uniform too, correct? How about someone dressing in a black suit and Roman collar collecting money?
If the two example above are examples of decite then so are civil unions. It doesn’t matter what you call them. If you are equating marriage and homosexual unions as having the same dignity and benefit to society then it is supporting decite. Marriage benefits under the guise of civil unions is saying that those unions have the same intrinsic value as marriage, but they don’t. Living with you mom or dad has no more intrinsic value than a homosexual union so why not let singles living with their widowed or divorced parent have the same benefits? How about letting 2 platonic friends share those benefits? Heck two of my single sisters lived together for 8 years, shouldn’t they be given the same benefits?
Why should homosexual unions get treated like marriage when all these others aren’t?
U
Usige
Guest
I am talking about from a secular government standpoint. If one person wants out of a marriage then there is no recourse for the other party in most Western cultures. In other words there is no expectation or requirement that marriage is a lifetime commitment. You can marry today and divorce a week, a month, or 50 years later with essentially no penalty for breaking the contract. Heck I have had a harder time getting out of a gym membership contract then some of my friends that have divorced.Then I guess if we checked the divorce rate for Christians, we would find ample evidence to support your claim. That is, a marriage in the eyes of God is not a pseudo-commitment (which, incidentally, is a gross insult to all those who were not married in a religious ceremony - but I’ll try not to take it personally) and for life.
I’ll bet that you know what we’ll find…
As a society both religious and non-religious people do not take commitment as binding anymore. Most people may say “till death do us part”, but many harbor a little voice that adds “or until we fall out of love”. Divorce and lack of marriage is not a religious or secular problem so much as it is a problem of the throwaway society that says, when I’ve used something up it’s time to throw it out. By pseudo commitment I mean that many people do not believe in staying married past it being of benefit to themselves. Their commitment is contingent on getting their needs met. One of the reasons governments have supported marriage historically is that it provides long term stability, In the past 50 years that stability has eroded to the point that many young people don’t even want to get tied up in the whole marriage business.
So what does that have to do with secular marriage laws? The whole reason to uphold it (stability to build future generations of citizens) is falling by the way side. It no longer serves it’s purpose. People enter long term monogamous relationships without tax or survivor benefits all the time. So why should those in a non binding contract get any greater recognition then those who don’t sign a contract?
U
Usige
Guest
I would agree. SSM isn’t the first nail in the coffin, but the last in a long line of nails driven through marriage. At this point the secular view of marriage has so many tears and holes that it no longer serves a function.Marriage is so messed up by heterosexuals I don’t think that’d actually make it worse what with many married people claiming the benefits of marriage and refusing to have kids.
R
Rau
Guest
Usige’s statement did not differentiate between Christians and others. Only yours did.Then I guess if we checked the divorce rate for Christians, we would find ample evidence to support your claim. That is, a marriage in the eyes of God is not a pseudo-commitment (which, incidentally, is a gross insult to all those who were not married in a religious ceremony - but I’ll try not to take it personally) and for life.
I’ll bet that you know what we’ll find…
B
Bradski
Guest
His post made it clear that he was specifically talking about secular marriage.Usige’s statement did not differentiate between Christians and others. Only yours did.
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t believe so.His post made it clear that he was specifically talking about secular marriage.
B
Bradski
Guest
Perhaps Usige could confirm…I don’t believe so.
U
Usige
Guest
Usige’s statement did not differentiate between Christians and others. Only yours did.
As you can see in [post=13855961]post 26[/post] above, I am talking about marriage from the point of view of secular government. There are plenty of people, religious, atheist and areligious alike, that hold a secular view of marriage that simply sees it as a contract with open ended terms; something that can be broken at any time without mutual consent or repercussions. One of the main changes over the last 60 years or so is that there is no longer a common understanding of marriage beyond perhaps that these people are having intimate relations.Perhaps Usige could confirm…
From the standpoint of the government it is a contract that confers certain rights, but (as defined now) it has no implied duties or responsibilities of the contracting parties. Purely from the standpoint of a secular government one has to ask why the government would have any vested interest in promoting specific types of intimate relationships while disallowing other relationships that might provide benefit even if they are non-conjugal in nature.
E
edwest2
Guest
I’m in a shopping mall, and with all due respect, I see 100 people. Which one of them is gay? I can tell who is Black or Oriental, for example, but not if someone’s gay.I can’t imagine why.
Ed
R
Rau
Guest
Indeed, but why does Brad suggest they should be identified in some way?I’m in a shopping mall, and with all due respect, I see 100 people. Which one of them is gay? I can tell who is Black or Oriental, for example, but not if someone’s gay.
Ed
B
Bradski
Guest
I don’t think that the fact that it appears that more people are getting divorced (and that includes Catholics who seem to divorce at pretty much the same rate as everyone else) means that people are going into it with a view that it is not a lifetime commitment. I’d be very surprised indeed if someone said that they went into it thinking ‘We’ll see how it goes’. My definition of a marriage IS a lifetime commitment so if someone were to suggest that their relationship was dependent on future conditions then it wouldn’t, in my opinion, be a marriage.As you can see in [post=13855961]post 26[/post] above, I am talking about marriage from the point of view of secular government. There are plenty of people, religious, atheist and areligious alike, that hold a secular view of marriage that simply sees it as a contract with open ended terms; something that can be broken at any time without mutual consent or repercussions.
Notwithstanding that, there appears to be no more of a commitment if you happen to make it to God as well as your partner, so I can’t see any justification for suggesting that religious marriages are somehow more meaningful than secular ones.
R
Rau
Guest
The commitment is in every instance to one’s partner. In theory, a Catholic understands marriage to be indissoluble - while acknowledging the possibility of civil divorce, remarriage ought not to be possible if the original marriage was valid. Many Catholics stick with that commitment (the real yardstick of indissolubility) but many do not. In the purely “secular world”, the commitment may be for permanence, but divorce is generally accepted as a means of dissolution, making possible another marriage.I don’t think that the fact that it appears that more people are getting divorced (and that includes Catholics who seem to divorce at pretty much the same rate as everyone else) means that people are going into it with a view that it is not a lifetime commitment. I’d be very surprised indeed if someone said that they went into it thinking ‘We’ll see how it goes’. My definition of a marriage IS a lifetime commitment so if someone were to suggest that their relationship was dependent on future conditions then it wouldn’t, in my opinion, be a marriage.
Notwithstanding that, there appears to be no more of a commitment if you happen to make it to God as well as your partner, so I can’t see any justification for suggesting that religious marriages are somehow more meaningful than secular ones.
B
Bradski
Guest
I’ve no problem with divorce. As long as it’s not used as an easy way out.The commitment is in every instance to one’s partner. In theory, a Catholic understands marriage to be indissoluble - while acknowledging the possibility of civil divorce, remarriage ought not to be possible if the original marriage was valid. Many Catholics stick with that commitment (the real yardstick of indissolubility) but many do not. In the purely “secular world”, the commitment may be for permanence, but divorce is generally accepted as a means of dissolution, making possible another marriage.
Marriage is not easy. We are not designed to be monogamous and we are not the same person in, for example, our fifties as we were in our twenties. I’m not the same person that my wife married. We change, circumstances change…sometimes, even with the best will in the world, it just doesn’t work out.
R
Rau
Guest
Sure. The question is whether divorce dissolves the marriage, or simply addresses legal matters. In the “secular world” these two are generally understood to be the same.I’ve no problem with divorce. As long as it’s not used as an easy way out.
Marriage is not easy. We are not designed to be monogamous and we are not the same person in, for example, our fifties as we were in our twenties. I’m not the same person that my wife married. We change, circumstances change…sometimes, even with the best will in the world, it just doesn’t work out.
B
Bradski
Guest
Well, if a marriage is a lifetime commitment between two people and either one or both of the two people realize that they cannot maintain that commitment, then there is no marriage.Sure. The question is whether divorce dissolves the marriage, or simply addresses legal matters. In the “secular world” these two are generally understood to be the same.
As far as I am concerned, just as a marriage actually starts when you make that commitment. it ceases to exist the moment the commitment is no longer there. What the views are of the state or of any church is irrelevant.
R
Rau
Guest
If one holds that view, is it not misleading to describe the marriage - at the start - as a lifetime commitment? In reality, it seems more in keeping with that intent to view the commitment as genuine, but with a rider such as: “for so long as I want, or feel able, to remain committed to you”.Well, if a marriage is a **lifetime commitment **between two people and either one or both of the two people realize that they cannot maintain that commitment, then there is no marriage.
As far as I am concerned, just as a marriage actually starts when you make that commitment. it ceases to exist the moment the commitment is no longer there.
The form of phrase “realise that they cannot maintain that commitment” - suggests a compulsion imposed on the parties. Now I agree that there may well be a compulsion that necessitates separation. But what of that commitment made at the outset? You are saying every aspect of the commitment is then simply erased?
I have no quarrel with your choice to define marriage as dissoluble or less than enduring. But if that’s your meaning, I struggle with the idea of (you) declaring it a “lifetime commitment”.
J
jjr9
Guest
CCC:I’m not talking about those who say that Homosexual sex is bad, I’m talking about Westboro Baptist, Conversion Therapy/Reparative Therapy, Protestant Fundamentalism, etc.
I’ll even say that the Church is somewhat complicit at times. Now, I don’t mean that because we support traditional marriage, I’m talking about outright discrimination.
I believe we need to live and let live. Fine, don’t call it marriage, but I’m fully in support of Civil Unions, as is my Parish Priest.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively
disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite
to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
This is the Church’s position unfortunately the Magisterium has accepted the myth of the “homosexual person”; all people should
be " accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".
Encouraging confused people to believe they are something that does not exist, the “homosexual person”, is just cruel.
God bless
R
Rau
Guest
If the “homosexual person” is a myth, then are we to understand that no one really experiences attractions to the same sex, often with an absence of attraction to the opposite sex? Are these persons - many of them Catholics striving to live a chaste life, praying daily for their affliction to be lifted - lying about their experience?This is the Church’s position unfortunately the Magisterium has accepted the myth of the “homosexual person” …Encouraging confused people to believe they are something that does not exist, the “homosexual person”, is just cruel.
Or are we to understand that nothing afflicts such persons other than a little confusion that could be resolved by…what? A good talking to? A refresher course on the birds and the bees? A review of Catholic teachings on morality?
The Church accepts that for many, their experience while of unknown cause is real, and rather than itself constituting a temptation (as you like to argue) exposes such persons to temptations of a particular kind - that fortunately most of us never have to deal with. [The rest of us are of course also prone to sexually based temptations.] The Church holds no position whatsoever about the potential for that experience to be changed by (an as yet unidentified) medical/psychological treatment.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.