Homosexual MARRIAGE

[rckllnknny]

bump up..just cuz.

[jasJis]

[quote name='rckllnknny' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:34 PM']if you want a thread just for soc soj..email them. or explain that in the topic.
thanx.
[right][snapback]797850[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]read the beginning posts to get an idea what the thread is about. We are trying to stay on track for a logical and reasonable discussion.

[rckllnknny]

btw..this is in DEBATE TABLE.

[Aloysius]

yeah, so that means debate, not throw your opinion out there and establish that you disagree and you have a right to disagree. argue the reasons for your position, that's the step you can't seem to take. you only state your position... in a debate that's called the BEGINNING, you did it on the third page here.

[TheoGrad07]

I agree. If you want to have a reasonable debate, go for it. But that means establishing deffinitions, and arguing in a rational, sequential manner -- not throwing around insults and names and irrational fuming. Ranting is not debate. If you think homosexual persons have a right to unions and that these unions can be termed marriages, then establish a deffinition of marriage from which foundation you can argue homosexual unions are marriages. Don't just call names and rant.

[TheoGrad07]

QUOTE: "TheoGrad and JasJis, this is what I find lacking in your most recent definition of marriage ("A permanent, exclusive, and procreative union between one man and one woman")--it doesn't explicitly recognize the sacramental nature of marriage, and thus it can be confused with a civil union which can essentially create a permanent, exclusive, and procreative union between one man and one woman as well."

Yes, my deffinition does encompass such a "civil union." If that is what you mean by civil union, I think your idea of civil union is what I mean by natural marriage. I'd say that most "civil unions" --- as the term is most commonly used -- are not true marriages because they lack one of those four characteristics. Thus I think the term "natural marriage" is more clear. Thus I am arguing there can be a valid (true) marriage that takes place outside the Church (but this is not licit--allowed--for Catholics -- just a side note).

So granted, I didn't talk about the sacramental nature of marriage. That's because a sacramental marriage, by deffinition, is one of the seven sacraments of the Church. Thus it must have the matter and form prescribed by the Church and brings with it sacramental grace. Sacramental marriage takes natural marriage and elevates it through the Church.

I think that by the "sacramental nature of marriage" you mean that all marriage is sacred, not to be profaned or taken lightly, I absolutely agree and say that applies to natural and sacramental marriages.

Is this a clear distinction you agree with?

If so, perhaps it is time to establish who (church and state) has authority over marriage (sacramental and natural marriage being distinct).

[Thumper]

[quote name='TheoGrad07' date='Nov 22 2005, 07:53 PM']QUOTE: "TheoGrad and JasJis, this is what I find lacking in your most recent definition of marriage ("A permanent, exclusive, and procreative union between one man and one woman")--it doesn't explicitly recognize the sacramental nature of marriage, and thus it can be confused with a civil union which can essentially create a permanent, exclusive, and procreative union between one man and one woman as well."

Yes, my deffinition does encompass such a "civil union."  If that is what you mean by civil union, I think your idea of civil union is what I mean by natural marriage.  I'd say that most "civil unions" --- as the term is most commonly used -- are not true marriages because they lack one of those four characteristics.  Thus I think the term "natural marriage" is more clear.  Thus I am arguing there can be a valid (true) marriage that takes place outside the Church (but this is not licit--allowed--for Catholics -- just a side note).

So granted, I didn't talk about the sacramental nature of marriage.  That's because a sacramental marriage, by deffinition, is one of the seven sacraments of the Church.  Thus it must have the matter and form prescribed by the Church and brings with it sacramental grace.  Sacramental marriage takes natural marriage and elevates it through the Church.

I think that by the "sacramental nature of marriage" you mean that all marriage is sacred, not to be profaned or taken lightly, I absolutely agree and say that applies to natural and sacramental marriages.

Is this a clear distinction you agree with?

If so, perhaps it is time to establish who (church and state) has authority over marriage (sacramental and natural marriage being distinct).
[right][snapback]798100[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would argue for an additional distinction between natural marriage and civil unions, in that civil unions are created under the auspices of the state. Natural marriages, in my view, may be recognized by the state, but also exist apart from the state.

[TheoGrad07]

Thumper,Nov 22 2005, 09:09 PM
"I would argue for an additional distinction between natural marriage and civil unions, in that civil unions are created under the auspices of the state. Natural marriages, in my view, may be recognized by the state, but also exist apart from the state."

>>> If a civil union is a true marriage (i.e. has the four characteristics) then it IS a natural marriage. As such, it must not only be recognized, but protected by the state. They are "created under the auspices of the state" in the sense that the couple takes vows before a civil magistrate -- but the state doesn't "create" marriage -- it (either natural or supernatural) was created by God.

If a civil union lacks any of the four characteristics, then it IS NOT a marriage--and as I said earlier, I think that's the case with most "civil unions" today.

In my mind, a "civil union" **cannot be claimed as a marriage** -- it's living together, but not a marriage. This is because there is natural marriage, which everyone can know by reason. Because it's in the natural law, everyone is bound by it. And this isn't imposing my morality on people, because it's the natural law.

[jasJis]

[quote name='TheoGrad07' date='Nov 23 2005, 12:16 AM']Thumper,Nov 22 2005, 09:09 PM
"I would argue for an additional distinction between natural marriage and civil unions, in that civil unions are created under the auspices of the state.  Natural marriages, in my view, may be recognized by the state, but also exist apart from the state."

>>> If a civil union is a true marriage (i.e. has the four characteristics) then it IS a natural marriage.  As such, it must not only be recognized, but protected by the state.  They are "created under the auspices of the state" in the sense that the couple takes vows before a civil magistrate -- but the state doesn't "create" marriage -- it (either natural or supernatural) was created by God.

If a civil union lacks any of the four characteristics, then it IS NOT a marriage--and as I said earlier, I think that's the case with most "civil unions" today.

In my mind, a "civil union" **cannot be claimed as a marriage** -- it's living together, but not a marriage.  This is because there is natural marriage, which everyone can know by reason.  Because it's in the natural law, everyone is bound by it.  And this isn't imposing my morality on people, because it's the natural law.
[right][snapback]798310[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]That's what I've been trying (clumsily) to explain. The State, who's authority indirectly comes from God, is obligated to recognize and protect Natural Law. In this sense, it doesn't mean 'common law marriage' and such, but is restricted to what Natural Law Marriage is, as created by God. It's a recent error that Americans think the Governemnt is totally seperate from Church and God.
The fundamental principle 'all men are created equal' is dependent on a greater "being" or outside force. Whether we want to call this creator "God" or "Yaweh" or "Allah" or "Great Spirit" or "Mother Nature" or "Big Bang" or "Intelligent Design" or "Coincidence of Random Events", it's recognizes the fundamental dignity and value of humans that is superior to animals. That principle is recognizing Natural Law.
When we recognize 'marriage', we do so in the context of natural law. The 4 elements,
1.) Between Persons. This eliminates bestiality. It recognizes equal dignity and respect so it eliminates forced marriages and marriage when one's will is not exercised (children, etc.).
2.) Permanent. It recognizes the importance and commitment of the bond. This also recognizes the openess to self-sacrifice for each other (richer/poorer, sickness/health, etc.). If/when children become present, it's the stability that helps create the best environment for them.
3.) Exclusive. Recognizes the fidelity required that is the ideal for sexual and emotional health. Remember kids, monogamy is the best prevention for STDs. This also is an example of fidelity and commitment to the children to provide them a solid example for their adulthood.
4.) Open to procreation. This is the sticking point for many. Marriage is all about survival of the species as well as a reflection of God's love for us. Humans have a purpose. At the least theological level, we recognize our purpose is to be good, not evil, and to cause good to continue past our lifetime. Openess to procreation is the Natural Element that a marriage is more then personal comfort. You can't be open to procreatio unless both partners are open. You can't be really committed if you aren't open to procreation because you limit the relationship to self. You can't recognize the spiritual bonds of a marriage if you aren't open that this partnership becomes more than mutual selfishness. This directly translates to hetero-sexual couples that can join in the sexual act. (we can discuss more on this later.)

These elements are not dependent on moral choices, but moral fact. Just as cold blooded murder isn't a moral choice. It's recognized as 'wrong'. Especially Catholics are aware that mankind is ingrained with the ability to recognize right from wrong. Humans recognize natural law, but are also able to choose otherwise and attempt to justify it later.

Marriage is a Social Institution, meaning it's a Natural Law fact and is a fundamental principle of human society and human nature. Human society doesn't create marriage, but is created BY marriage. That is why the State must recognize and protect it as a neccessary Social Institution. Marriage can only be between a male and female. Marriage can only be between 2 persons who are acting of their own free will. Marriage can only be between persons who are commiting to the other person with permanance and fidelity. Any thing else is a partnership or 'civil relationship'. The State serves societal institutions, not create them.

On the question of gay 'marriages', the answer should be pretty clear to Catholics (in my opinion, but I hope we can discuss others). There cannot be gay Marriage. To us, it's an oxymoron. But we are compasionate and fair people. If one person wants to designate another as being the heir, the legal benificiary, legal representative in case of illness or incapacitation, etc., we should allow it. Though we don't want to promote homosexuality, what about a platonic relationship? What if two women live together chastely and together provide for each other? Can we not allow the government afford legal protection of property rights and other legal responsibilities if two people are sharing their lives together?

Personally, I think the government can and should make provisions for this. This is a legal right and freedom that should be allowed and protected, but it should not be confused with or tied to what Marriage is. It is a Civil or Legal relationship, not a Marriage. I wouldn't even call it a Civil Union, but a Civil Partnership. A Marriage is a union. In legal terms, a Partnership is a mutual agreement to share rights and responsibilites, benefits and liabilities. They don't become one entity as you do in a real Marriage.

[Craftygrl06]

I answered number 3, and i'm probably going to be told why i'm wrong, which is fine, I'm playing the devil's advocate.

Seriously, i've been struggling with this topic lately. A lesbian friend of mine (she's Catholic, pray for her) said this to me recently : "I pay taxes why shouldn't I be able to get married and reap the benefits." This seems logical to me. If there is a true separation of church and state then why not give them civil union, homosexual unions are only just as harmful as divorce to the good name of marriage so why not.

In the eyes of God they can never be truely be married anyway, so as long as the church still refuses to marry them what do I care. I wouldn't go and vote to make it legal, but i guess i feel like it doesn't much matter.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Craftygrl06' date='Nov 23 2005, 12:57 PM']I answered number 3, and i'm probably going to be told why i'm wrong, which is fine,  I'm playing the devil's advocate. 

Seriously, i've been struggling with this topic lately.  A lesbian friend of mine (she's Catholic, pray for her) said this to me recently : "I pay taxes why shouldn't I be able to get married and reap the benefits."  This seems logical to me.  If there is a true separation of church and state then why not give them civil union, homosexual unions are only  just as harmful as divorce to the good name of marriage so why not. 

In the eyes of God they can never  be truely be married anyway, so as long as the church still refuses to marry them what do I care.  I wouldn't go and vote to make it legal, but i guess i feel like it doesn't much matter.
[right][snapback]798820[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Re-read my post. Point 1 is calling it a marriage, cause it just can't because it isn't. Point 2, for your friend, would be a 'civil partnership' or something like that, to reap what ever civil or tax benefits. Point 3, there is no such thing as a real seperation of church and state. Point 4, just because easy divorce is screwing up Marriage, that is not justification to further damage marriage in our society. Point 5, we should care because in the long run, things can further screw up society and make it just that more difficult for ourselves, our children, our grand children, etc., to livea decent and moral life.

[Jaime]

Jas Theograd et al

As folks are looking to come up with a definition of marriage, I for one would like to see some references being quoted.


Just a thought

[Socrates]

[quote name='Craftygrl06' date='Nov 23 2005, 12:57 PM']I answered number 3, and i'm probably going to be told why i'm wrong, which is fine,  I'm playing the devil's advocate. 

Seriously, i've been struggling with this topic lately.  A lesbian friend of mine (she's Catholic, pray for her) said this to me recently : "I pay taxes why shouldn't I be able to get married and reap the benefits."  This seems logical to me.  If there is a true separation of church and state then why not give them civil union, homosexual unions are only  just as harmful as divorce to the good name of marriage so why not. 

In the eyes of God they can never  be truely be married anyway, so as long as the church still refuses to marry them what do I care.  I wouldn't go and vote to make it legal, but i guess i feel like it doesn't much matter.
[right][snapback]798820[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This argument is flawed in a number of ways. Why should we give benefits to something that is sinful and detrimental to society?
Why should being in a sodomistic "relationship" be rewarded with benefits not enjoyed by single persons?

And, as JasJis has pointed out, just because divorce has damaged the institution of marriage and society, this does not mean we should continue to do further damage.

This is equivilent to a Catholic saying, "Since we already have legalized abortion on demand, why not legalize infanticide and euthanasia as well? What should I care?"

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Thumper' date='Nov 22 2005, 12:32 PM']Sojourner--I like your analogy as well, because it seems to uphold the idea that marriage always has a sacramental nature.  That nature can, as you've pointed out, be obscured by sin or by ignorance of God and the Church.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in your view does this differentiate "marriage" (a.k.a. a sacrament of the Church) from civil unions (I won't use the word marriage for these, b/c that seems to confuse the issue)?
[right][snapback]797784[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is exactly where I've been going in my line of thinking.

[quote name='Thumper' date='Nov 22 2005, 12:32 PM']It seems to me that as soon as marriage is linked with sacrament--which it is, primordially--then we have to think who is in the business of dispensing sacraments.  Obviously the answer to that question is the Church, rather than government. 

Government is not in the business of dispensing sacraments, and therefore cannot legislate the creation (or dissolution) of marriage.  Government is in the business of making laws that deal with contractual obligations between two parties, including laws that protect and promote those contractual obligations.  Therefore government can create "civil unions"; but not "marriages."   
[right][snapback]797784[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Right, that's the conclusion I've come to. Using the term "marriage" to describe the union sanctioned by the state is a misnomer. The state views marriage as a contract, not a sacrament. As administered by the state, it's a contract we call "marriage." I think a more appropriate -- and accurate -- term would be "domestic partnership."

[PadreSantiago]

Ecclesiastes 3:1,3,8

“[b]there is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven[/b]…a time to kill and a time to heal…a time for war and a time for peace”