a thought on marriage

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 15 2004, 04:02 PM'] I really don't care what the American Anthropological Association says. These academic Associations are predictibly Left-wing and their statements are guided by politics more than science. They would never say anything that might upset the gay-rights crowd or other "progressive" political lobbies.

And their statement is a joke - they claim to make it based on "more than a century of research" while marriage was "an exclusively heterosexual institution" throughout the past two centuries, while "gay marriages" only began last year!

Who do they think they're kidding?! [/quote]
Ah, I see. Any research will inevitably be left wing? *rolls eyes*

Yes, a century of research...on several thousand years of civilization. Good try though.

And, as I pointed out above, same-sex marriage has existed over time in other cultures. It's far more than two years old.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 15 2004, 04:06 PM'] that is an incrediblly silly statement, Governments have the ability to massacre civilians in mass, it doesn't mean they have the right to use that ability at all. [/quote]
Point.

However, our government has the right to grant marraige licenses. Since they have that right, they must also have the right to define marriage (ie the people to whom they will give licenses). Does that make more sense?

[Quietfire]

Burnspivey,

I found it truly sad that you mocked my first post here, even though it was eloquently and correctly explained to you by others (and I humbly thank them)
If you wish to continue this debate, for the sake of honing you skills then by all means continue.

I hope you are prepared to do alot of reading though.



Pax.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Dec 17 2004, 01:35 PM'] Burnspivey,

I found it truly sad that you mocked my first post here, even though it was eloquently and correctly explained to you by others (and I humbly thank them)
If you wish to continue this debate, for the sake of honing you skills then by all means continue.

I hope you are prepared to do alot of reading though.



Pax. [/quote]
If you are referring to the abortion issue, it's off-topic and I don't wish to debate it here.

If you re referring to the abstinence issue, it's off-topic and I don't wish to debate it here.

I already do a lot of reading and I already have opinions as well as statistics and research on those issues. But, if you want to start a new topic and discuss there, I'd be glad to oblige. I'm always interested in other people's opinions and what fuels them.

[Quietfire]

No not abortion.

The topic was marriage and sex.
Part 1.

[Quietfire]

The Bible, which has a marriage in the first chapter, is shot through with intimation of God's will upon sex and marriage. In its main lines His teaching is to be found in the OT; Christ Our Lord developed and clarified this in His time upon earth, and has continued to teach it through His Church in the twenty centuries since.
Broadly, it may be summerized in two statements: that the powers of sex must never be used outside marriage; and that marriage is monogamous and unbreakable save by death.

Consider first the restriction of the use of sex to marriage. This involves two consequesnces; sex must only be used between a man and a woman; and only within the framework of a legal union. Concubinage was tolerated among the chosen people for a long enough time, but it had disappeared before the coming of Christ: and concubinage was, in any event, a state recognized and regulated by law; it was not casual intimacy, stil less mere promiscuity: for neither of these has Scripture a moment's tolerance. A man and a woman must not unite their bodies merely at their choice but only within the framework of a legal union; no union of bodies, or any use of the sex organs, was in any circumstances thinkable save between a man and a woman-not by either alone(masterbation), or in union with another person of the same sex(homosexuality), or with an animal(beastiality).

Christ Our Lord simply took over these laws, adding one profound development-for He taught that sex might be misused even in the mind, apart from any outward act- the man that looks after a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The Church has nothing to clarify here or make in any way plainer.

Now taking that into truth it is not hard to see the reasonableness of this.
It enables the sexual powers to do what they are there for; and to be most fully themselves. Only within marriage do the powers of sex serve the new life of which the race is continued. For only from the sexual union of a man and a woman can children be born, obviously sex's primary purpose; only in their legal union is the ordered framework of life possible in which the children can be reared to maturity. And in marriage, as we have seen, sex can attain its own maturity as an expression of the total union of two personalities.

So we come to the second great law-the law of marriage as the union of one man with one woman till death (with concubinage, as with polygamy; Christ tells us that Moses allowed it because of the hardness of man's hearts, but He Himself restored the original law). Here the teachings of the Church holds a very delicate but quite essential balance between fixity and freedom. Marriage is an institution whose nature and laws do not depend upon man's choice. Marriage is what it is; God made it what it is because thus it is best for the human race. Man cannot alter it. He can only take it or leave it, and it that precisely lies his freedom. He can take it or leave it. A man and a woman cannot be forced to marry; either is morally free to marry or not to marry (and of course either is physically free to enter into any sort of living arrangement with the other) We can choose whether or not to marry; but we cannot choose what marriage is. The Church expresses all this in the statement that marriage is a relationship resulting from a contract: the contract is made by the man and the woman, the relationship that results is made by God. The man and the woman agree to take each other as husband and wife for life: God makes them so, taking them at their word.
Thus the laws relating to marriage fall into two divisions-laws about the contract, laws about the relationship. Consider the contract: a man and a woman agree to marry. There are two key words here- agree and marry. Their agreemant must be unforced, otherwise it is not an agreement at all: prove that either of them was compelled, and the contract vanishes. Similarly it must be an agreemaent to marry, this is to enter into a union for life, to the exclusion of others, a union that is meant by God to produce, and normally will produce, children. If they enter into an agreement to take each other for a term of years, or till one or other wearies of the arrangement, or to the total exclusion of children- then it is not a contract to marry. Prove any of these things and the contract vanishes. There are other ways in which what looked like a marriage contract turns out not to be one(as, for example, if either is married already, or is impotent, or if the due form is not observed)but the two we have dwelt on illustrate the principle best. Before God brings the relationship called marriage into existence, the man and woman must have made a contract to marry. Where it can be shown that a given couple have not done so, the competent authority will grant a decree of nullity(annulment). Where they have done so, there is a marriage. God has brought the relationship into being. If marriage were only a contract, it would, like all other contracts, be breakable by the agreement of both parties to it. But it is not. Once they have made their contract, the parties are bound, not by it(the contract), but by the relationship that follows. Let us look more closely at this relationship.

God has taken a man and a woman at their word. They are now husband and wife, made so by God. They are not simply a man and a woman who have agreed to live together for certain agreed purposes. If that wer all, they would have entered into an arrangement; but marriage is not an arrangement, it is a relationship. It is hard to make this clear, though once one has seen it nothing could be more illuminating. A man adopts a son: that is an arrangement. A man begets a son: that is a relationship. In marriage the man and woman have not simply adopted each other as husband and wife, inthe way a man adopts a son. They have become husband and wife, God has made them so. They are united, not simply by an agreement to be so, but by some vital reality. The relationship of husband and wife is not brought into being in the same way as the relationship of parent and child, for the latter arises in a union of bodies, the marriage relationship is a union of wills: but it is all the closer and more real for that. A husband and wife are not less vitally and really related to each other than they are to their own children, but more.

Our Lord makes His own the phrase of Genesis which puts this fact with dazzling clearness: " they shall be two in one flesh." In the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel we find him saying to the Pharisees: "A man therefore will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife and the two will become one fiesh. And so they are no longer two they are one flesh: what God, then, has joined, let not man put asunder." In his fifth chaper of his epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul quotes the same phrase of Genesis, leading up to it by a figure of speech which at once re-asserts the new oneness that marriage has brought into being, and lays its foundation deeper than the natural eye of man can peirce: for he compares the union of a man and his wife with the union of Christ and His Church.

"Wives must obey their husbands as they would obey the Lord: the man is the head to which the woman's body is united, just as Christ is the head of the Church, the Savior on whom the safety of his body depends. Why then, women must owe obedience at all points to their husbands, as the Church does to Christ. You who are husbands, must show love to your wives, as Christ showed love to the Church when he gave himeslf up on its behalf....and that is how husband ought to love wife, as if she were his own body; in loving his wife, a man is but loving himself...That is why a man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Yes, these words are a high mystery and I am applying them to Christ and His Church.

There is something in the modern temper, in the Western world at least, which is so jarred by the opening phrase "Wives must obey their husbands"- that we do not read on to the vastly exhilarating truth that follows and , if we do, are exhilarated by it.
That phrase seems to sum up all that business of masculine domination from which women feel they have fought free. But it certainly does not mean that. The woman's duty of obedience is balanced by the man's duty of love: she is to be obidient, not to a sultan issuing ukases, but to one who loves her as himself. The model is the obedience of the Church to Christ, and Christ is not tyrannical: Christ commands, but gives love, not fear, as the reason for obedience-"If you love me, keep my commandments." Further, the Church has clarified the obedience due. In the encyclical Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI writes: "This subordination, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman, both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to a wife. In short, it does not imply that the wofe would be put on a level with those who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account their lack of mature judgment or of their ignorance of human affiars. What it does is to forbid the exaggerated liberty which has no care for the good of the family; it forids that in this body which is the family the heart be separated from the head to the great detrimnet of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin . For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to make her own the chief place in love."

A family is a society, an dsomeone must have the final word, otherwise nothing is ever decided but all is in permanent debate. An endless tug-of-war is a miserable business. Nor would it be for the good of family life if the question of headship should be settled in each family by a contest of personalities, won in some families by the man, and some by the woman.

It is not a quesiton of men being superior to woman-the need any society has for an authority to order it aright does not mean that those who wield the authority are in any way at all superior as persons to those who obey it. In secular society Queen Elizabeth, for example, was not greater than her subject, Shakespeare; In the Church, Gregory IX was not a holier man than his subject Francis of Assisi. The wielding of authority is a function, a necessary function, giving no reason to feel proud, any more than obedience to it gives reason to feel humiliated.

To move on though, there is more. this will be continued. It will specifically center on the marriage and sex and the how the Church, and of course, God views sex.

[Quietfire]

And before you reply to the above, keep in mind, there is more.

I would ask you to read it a few times to understand it completely and let it sink in a bit, before you give your opinions on it.

and again, there is more coming. I can only type so fast.

[Carrie]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 10 2004, 12:57 PM'] I have a catholic friend who wants to outlaw birth control -- except in cases where it's used for medical purposes and not as birth control.  She also says that she doesn't want catholicism to be the supreme religion making the laws.  I have a lot of trouble understanding that cognitive dissonance.  It's one of those issues that bothers me to my core.  How does one person dare to tell another how, when and why he/she can have sex?  Even if you see it as a command from god, how is it any of your business -- shouldn't you let god take care of it? [/quote]
I can see your friend's point.

Birth Control (and I'm assuming you mean the pill because you say it can be used for medical purposes) is an abortificant. Outlawing something that causes the death of children is not solely a Catholic issue. It is a human issue that affects everyone of every religion (or non-religion, as might be).

So, it would seem your friend's priority is outlawing the murder of children. That does not mean she feels Catholics should be making all the laws. There is a difference.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Dec 17 2004, 03:06 PM'] And before you reply to the above, keep in mind, there is more.

I would ask you to read it a few times to understand it completely and let it sink in a bit, before you give your opinions on it.

and again, there is more coming. I can only type so fast. [/quote]
Please, do us all a favor, don't post the rest. It's off-topic and I won't respond.

[Quietfire]

Getting back to specifically the union of husband and wife, man and woman, in entering into this union, each has given to the other (and to the other exclusively) the right to sexual union. Notice that sexual union is a thing due, a right: either is entitled to demand it of the other and, unless there is a very serious reason, neither can refuse it to the other. For the man to refuse his wife or the wife her husband without good reason would be a grave sin. But notice that it is a right, not to [i]any[/i] sexual union but to [i]normal[/i] sexual union, the union by which, in the way of nature, children are conceived. *Abnormal sexual unions are forbidden to the married as to everyone else: *abnormalities in the normal sexual union- all the ingenious trickeries that interfere with it to prevent children being conceived-are likewise forbidden. The sexual act must be wholly itself.

And the right thus given is no merely legalistic right- a mere right to the use of the other's body for a specified purpose. The will must go with it; as far as possible- (it is not always possible, the feelings cannot be commanded) -the whole personality must go with it. The marriage act is a duty, certainly, but this is one duty that cannot be done simply as a duty; it must be done generously or it is not being done at all. It can never be repeated too often that the sexual union is not simply a union of bodies; it is a union of personalities, expressing itself in the union of bodies. But precisely because the bodily union has so splendid a function, it should itself be splendidly performed. The is a technical competence to be learned by each, for this is an action not of each individually but of two in unison; each surrendered totally to the rhythm of the other. Where it is rightly done, there is an exquisite physical pleasure for both, for so God has made man and woman. Both are meant to experiece this pleasure - each must strive that the other may have it. In its fulness the act not only expresses the union of personalities, the total giving of the body uttering the totol giving of the self, but intensifies and enriches it. Where there is any want of generosity in the act by either, the union of personalities is impoverished.

It is interesting to observe how the Church, pictured often enough as the enemy of sex, insists upon all this.

What surprises me more is that all this is in the the Holy Bible, as far what is allowed and what is forbidden and yet, many people will complain that it is no one's business but their own how they choose to treat their bodies and as to whether they engage in sex outside of marriage. The facinating thing is that over the course of, especially the 20th century, these phrases have been said time and time again. It has gotten to the point, sadly, that many believe this mode of thinking. We have become desensitized to the shock of hearing those very words. Yet, when asked if they believe in God, and all that the Bible teaches, and that Jesus is thier personal Lord and Savior, they most assuredly confirm that He is. Yet then why do they pervert His very teachings and introduce their own thoughts and views of how specific passages and laws should read, or be read, when it is not their business to do so? When did "and the two shall be as one", suddenly become, "its my body and nobody has the right to tell me what to do with it." (this is in reference to specifically the topic of sex. Although, I suppose, we could apply it to anything involving the body really. But let's just stick to the topic at hand.) It very well may be your body, but it is God who willed you into existence, and that absolute Truth should always be observed first and foremost.

In a book written by Father Alfred Wilson, he lists some questions that husbands and wives might ask themselves to test how far their sexual life together approaches the ideal: the first two are especially for wives:
"Have I habitually failed in my duty, by giving to intercourse only a reluctant and condescending acquiescence, and by my grudging attitude largely destroyed the value of such acquiescence?"
Have I been selfish in the refusal or performance of intercourse? Consulted only my own mood and never attempted to accomodate myself to my husband's mood or done so only with the pose of a martyr to duty?"

For husbands: "In the preliminaries of intercourse have I nauseated my wife by my complete failure to show a delicate and sensitive consideration for her feelings and desires?"
"Do I realize that whilst the biological purpose of intercourse is procreation, the phsychological purpose is the expression and preserving of a unique love?"
"Have I raised my mind to God during intercourse and humbly thanked Him for this pleasure, this sacramental expression of love...or have I instead considered myself 'outside the pale' and mentally skulked away from His presence and His love?"

The Church, then, see that the health of marriage requires a positive attitude to sex. It must be whole heartedly accepted as God's plan for the continuance of the race; its pleasure must be accepted simply and frankly and with all gratitude to God, by whose will it is there. Which brings us to the other element in the Church's thought upon marriage. Just as there must be a positive attitude to God. A negative attitude to either is corrosive. God must not be seen primarily as someone we can offend, or sex primarily as something we may misuse. But God must be seen as the fount of life and of love, sex as a channel of life and of love.


There is a lot more that I would love to post. This doesnt even to begin to touch on the subject. I also left out (not purposely) the whole nature of sex and marriage and how outside of marriage, sex is truly reduced to nothingness. Give me some time here. I am pooped and my fingers are tired too. I tried to scan all this into my puter, so I could just cut and paste, but I ended up wasting a good hour doing nothing but getting fustrated. I will take a break here and continue when I have a moment.

Thanks.
Q

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Dec 17 2004, 03:48 PM'] I can see your friend's point.

Birth Control (and I'm assuming you mean the pill because you say it can be used for medical purposes) is an abortificant. Outlawing something that causes the death of children is not solely a Catholic issue. It is a human issue that affects everyone of every religion (or non-religion, as might be).

So, it would seem your friend's priority is outlawing the murder of children. That does not mean she feels Catholics should be making all the laws. There is a difference. [/quote]
Hormonal birth control's primary function is to prevent ovulation. It's secondary function is to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg (by thickening cervical mucus). These are not abortifacient effects. If it can be used for medical purposes, which will allow abortifacient effects, why can it not be used for ovulation prevention? It's an all or none position.

[Quietfire]

How is it off topic?
It deals specifically of marriage of a man and woman and that it what this topic started as.
It defines marriage as between a man and a woman and that is what this topic started as.
It also is explaining marriage and the laws of God.

If you wish me to post on sex outside of marriage and why it is wrong, then fine. I can do that.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 17 2004, 05:52 PM'] Hormonal birth control's primary function is to prevent ovulation. It's secondary function is to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg (by thickening cervical mucus). These are not abortifacient effects. If it can be used for medical purposes, which will allow abortifacient effects, why can it not be used for ovulation prevention? It's an all or none position. [/quote]
If I were a woman I don't think I'd want to take that stuff for any reason. There are documented health risks associated with it that in my opinion would outweigh menstrual discomfort, or acne, or whatever medical reason there is for it.


From orthotricyclin-lo:

Oral contraceptives are not for everybody. Most side effects of the Pill are not serious. And those that are occur infrequently. [b]Serious risks, which can be life threatening, include blood clots, stroke and heart attacks, and are increased if you smoke cigarettes[/b]. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of serious cardiovascular side effects, especially if you're over 35.

[url="http://www.epm.org/articles/pilldebate.html"]Abortifacient qualities of pill? Medical opinion.[/url]

[toledo_jesus]

[url="http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=abortion+doctors/v=2/SID=w/TID=OVT_8/l=WS1/R=4/IPC=us/SHE=0/H=0/SIG=11pq015g3/*-http%3A//www.abortiontv.com/ProLifeDoctorsSpeakOut.htm"]Pro-life doctors speak out...C. Everett Koop![/url]

haha.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Dec 17 2004, 04:52 PM'] How is it off topic?
It deals specifically of marriage of a man and woman and that it what this topic started as.
It defines marriage as between a man and a woman and that is what this topic started as.
It also is explaining marriage and the laws of God.

If you wish me to post on sex outside of marriage and why it is wrong, then fine. I can do that. [/quote]
[quote]Actually the question was whether government has the right and/or ability to change the definition of marriage. That question has already been answered yes inasmuch as we are discussing legal marriage.


It doesn't matter whether we agree on the source of law, because that is not the question before us. The questions are:

1. Does the government have the ability/right to change the definition of legal marriage. A: Yes.
2. Does the government have the ability/right to change the definition of religious marriage. A: No.
3. Should the government change the definition of legal marriage. A: Still under debate.
4. Should the government change the definition of religious marriage. A: No.[/quote]