Supreme Court

[Nihil Obstat]

It's really not a yes or no question. It's a trick question, there would never be a marriage between the two men, and the other person wouldn't have to recognize it as a marriage. CCC 2105 would still need to be honored, and it most certainly should be honored by Catholics in our nation. The State has a duty to recognize and honor marriage, and discourage unnatural unions.

That was not the question though. Yours was a trick answer. :smile3:

[KnightofChrist]

That was not the question though. Yours was a trick answer. :smile3:

The individual in that case may not be able to prevent the other two men pretending they are married. But that doesn't mean their actually married or that the other person has to also pretend along. The State or government, is different than the individual, it doesn't have to honor such pretense marriage and it can and has a duty to discourage them. I don't think Winnie will like that answer though.

[Winchester]

It's really not a yes or no question. It's a trick question, there would never be a marriage between the two men, and the other person wouldn't have to recognize it as a marriage. CCC 2105 would still need to be honored, and it most certainly should be honored by Catholics in our nation. The State has a duty to recognize and honor marriage, and discourage unnatural unions.

 

Not discussing Sacramental Marriage. I would have said it, if I were. Mike needs to answer the frigging question.

 

And no one is asking him to pretend along.
 

Edited March 29, 2013 by Winchester

[ardillacid]

Not discussing Sacramental Marriage. I would have said it, if I were. Mike needs to answer the frigging question.

 

And no one is asking him to pretend along.
 

It depends. Are they going to take money out of my pocket and call it a benefit?

[Winchester]

It depends. Are they going to take money out of my pocket and call it a benefit?

 

This argument I get, although I disagree because then nothing will ever change. The government has so many damned programs that there's always an excuse to get its grubby fingers out of things like "illegal" immigration, drug prohibition, drug regulation, and healthcare regulation.

 

I'm told by "conservatives" that it's perfectly okay to point guns at people just trying to come in to work because there are some people who commit actual crimes, not to mention those who partake of the welfare state. We simply can't afford to stop creating a black market that results in untold human suffering, because someone might get some handout even though they don't really "deserve" it on account the wussn't borned in Merica.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Winchester

[Anastasia13]

This would be that "case" on a scholarly level:

 

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364395187&sr=8-1&keywords=What+Is+Marriage

 

And you are incorrect, Christians (and other people who oppose the redefinition of marriage) will be sued (already cited), lose their jobs (such as government clerks who will not validate same sex marriages and public school teachers who defend true marriage), and perhaps even have their children forcibly removed from their homes because they will be deemed unfit to be parents (a natural consequence of the legislation) for refusing to accept the validity of same sex marriage. It's not really a question of if, because much of this has already happened.

 

Here is another great blog post: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2013/03/dear-dr-greg-dont-be-a-bigot-letter-from-a-child-of-a-gay-father/

 

I appreciate that he follows up with the comments on his blog too.

If those clerks who get in trouble for not recognizing gay marriage are sacramental Christians who recognize a Buddhist/Jewish/Islamic/Civil/Protestant/Hindu marriage, then they are being hypocritical. Marriage is a sacrament, and those other groups do not have it. If those clerks are Protestant, then they should not recognize Buddhist/possibly Jewish/Islamic/Civil/Hindu marriages, they they still lack the Protestant "vow before God" aspect.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Light and Truth

[ardillacid]

This argument I get, although I disagree because then nothing will ever change. The government has so many damned programs that there's always an excuse to get its grubby fingers out of things like "illegal" immigration, drug prohibition, drug regulation, and healthcare regulation.

 

I'm told by "conservatives" that it's perfectly okay to point guns at people just trying to come in to work because there are some people who commit actual crimes, not to mention those who partake of the welfare state. We simply can't afford to stop creating a black market that results in untold human suffering, because someone might get some handout even though they don't really "deserve" it on account the wussn't borned in Merica.

 

Leaving aside your immigration tangent, could you please clarify the 1st paragraph? 

[Roamin Catholic]

Moved to debate table

[Nihil Obstat]

If those clerks who get in trouble for not recognizing gay marriage are sacramental Christians who recognize a Buddhist/Jewish/Islamic/Civil/Protestant/Hindu marriage, then they are being hypocritical. Marriage is a sacrament, and those other groups do not have it. If those clerks are Protestant, then they should not recognize Buddhist/possibly Jewish/Islamic/Civil/Hindu marriages, they they still lack the Protestant "vow before God" aspect.

There is a distinction between sacramental marriage and natural marriage. A natural marriage can occur between two non-Christians, but it cannot occur between two men or two women.

[StMichael]

You can keep on restating it over and over again, but it is not a yes or no.

 

3 men stuck on an island that all that exists is natural law. No government to officiate. Stranded from civilization and 2 of the 3 are not thinking about how to eat, get out of this situation, but instead decide to "marry." Can't think of a better straw man argument for this Winchester?

 

 

 

Looks like it's either 'yes', or 'no', to me.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Sounds like you are having some trouble answering a simple question.

[Winchester]

You can keep on restating it over and over again, but it is not a yes or no.

 

3 men stuck on an island that all that exists is natural law. No government to officiate. Stranded from civilization and 2 of the 3 are not thinking about how to eat, get out of this situation, but instead decide to "marry." Can't think of a better straw man argument for this Winchester?

 

There's no strawman, there.

 

 

[Winchester]

Leaving aside your immigration tangent, could you please clarify the 1st paragraph? 

 

No.

[Socrates]

So if you were on an island with two other dudes, and they wanted to marry each other, you could prevent them from doing so?

 

No, as he couldn't prevent that which does not exist.  A "union" consisting of two same-sex sodomites cannot a marriage be.

 

However, he would certainly have no obligation to (and indeed he should not) support, recognize or acknowledge their bogus "marriage" in any way.

 

That goes for whether they are on an island, a mountaintop, a big city apartment, or the moon.

[Socrates]

If those clerks who get in trouble for not recognizing gay marriage are sacramental Christians who recognize a Buddhist/Jewish/Islamic/Civil/Protestant/Hindu marriage, then they are being hypocritical. Marriage is a sacrament, and those other groups do not have it. If those clerks are Protestant, then they should not recognize Buddhist/possibly Jewish/Islamic/Civil/Hindu marriages, they they still lack the Protestant "vow before God" aspect.

 

Wrong.

 

The Church regards marriage between man and woman as a good of the natural order which goes back to Adam and Eve, long before Christ established His Church.

 

While it would be best if everyone entered the Catholic Church and was sacramentally married in the Church, the Church does regard marriages between non-Catholic men and women as actual marriages in the natural order, so long as they are open to life, permanent, and so forth.  A marriage between a Muslim man and woman, a Buddhist man and woman, or an atheist man and woman is recognized as a natural good, which a homosexual "marriage" cannot be.  Non-Catholic married couples who convert to the Catholic Faith are not required to "re-marry" after entering the Church.

 

The Church regards homosexual activity, on the other hand, as being intrinsically disordered and immoral.

 

You'll note in the CDF letter against homosexual legal unions cited earlier, that it does not regard its teachings on marriage to be relevant only to Catholics or Christians: "Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society."  

 

If you think the Church places non-Catholic marriage between a man and a woman in the same category as homosexual "marriage," you are woefully misinformed of Catholic moral teaching.