The Definition Of Marriage

[CatherineM]

[quote name='track2004' post='1866924' date='May 14 2009, 01:17 AM']Also I have a Civ Pro exam in 10 hours, so I would appreciate some prayers. At noon tomorrow I'll be done with my 1L (and therefore drunk asap after)![/quote]

Definitely. I still get cold sweats when I go past that stack of blue exam books at the UofA bookstore while killing time waiting for my husband.

[RezaMikhaeil]

...to make it fair... the whole "marriage license" issue is fairly new in our history. It's really just the governments way of controlling the people and taxing them. Since when did the government have the right to marry people? Marriage happens between clergy and those getting married.

Marriage is a sacrament, since when did the government have the right to give a sacrament? What will be next? Having to obtain a license to take the Eucharist, to get baptised, maybe Christmated too, while getting taxed upon it.

Reza

[Augustine]

Why is marriage important? You can do all these things without marriage.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1865775' date='May 12 2009, 11:31 PM']In Ethiopian Christian couples that get married, seperate at an elderly age to join monestaries to prepare them for the afterlife.

Reza[/quote]
I think that's actually kind of cool.

*waits to be whacked over the head by wife*

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1867223' date='May 14 2009, 12:26 PM']I think that's actually kind of cool.

*waits to be whacked over the head by wife*[/quote]

Yeah, when I mentioned this to my husband, he said, "that isn't going to happen with us, so get it out of your head."

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1867228' date='May 14 2009, 01:33 PM']Yeah, when I mentioned this to my husband, he said, "that isn't going to happen with us, so get it out of your head."[/quote]

[hijack]
I actually think it would be really cool for Catholic married couples to move in next to each other and form a little community that prayed together every morning and evening and (as much as possible) went to daily Mass together. It would be great if they could do this around a parish or monastery. Then they could hang out together, go on retreats together, learn their faith together. If professionals in various fields did it, they could take the substance of their fields and collaborate to come to certain common grounds between the faith and other fields of work and study, as a sort of dialogue between the Church and the world. Of course, they'd have to be careful to avoid sectarianism or elitism.

That way, the elderly could get that end of life formation without leaving their families.
[/hijack]

[VoTeckam]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1867232' date='May 14 2009, 02:39 PM'][hijack]
I actually think it would be really cool for Catholic married couples to move in next to each other and form a little community that prayed together every morning and evening and (as much as possible) went to daily Mass together. It would be great if they could do this around a parish or monastery. Then they could hang out together, go on retreats together, learn their faith together. If professionals in various fields did it, they could take the substance of their fields and collaborate to come to certain common grounds between the faith and other fields of work and study, as a sort of dialogue between the Church and the world. Of course, they'd have to be careful to avoid sectarianism or elitism.

That way, the elderly could get that end of life formation without leaving their families.
[/hijack][/quote]


I'm in! The title of the community woudl have to include phatmass and I am guessing it would be located somewhere in Texas. lol

Seriously though, there are some aspects of communal living that are have strong root in our faith. There are hints of communal living amongst the disciples int he New Testament.

[Ziggamafu]

This thread reminded me:

I think it is possible that the conservative push for a government definition of marriage could end up hurting Christians in the long run; it would seem to me that if we say that the State has the power to declare what a marriage is [i]not [/i]then we are simultaneously saying that the State has the power to declare what a marriage [i]is[/i], which is extremely dangerous ground to stand on. I think the government should only back civil unions (for any couple) and completely strike "marriage" from their records. The government has the power to declare joint-benefits, shared assets, etc., anything that has to do with civil pursuits of secular character; the government has no power to declare what is and what is not God's will, and marriage is a religious term. I do not think that a gay-couple's ability to have shared benefits via [i]civil union [/i]poses a threat to civil-structures (after all, straight people of the same sex live together all the time). I am against gay "marriage" but I am not for a government definition of marriage (of any kind).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1867257' date='May 14 2009, 02:11 PM']This thread reminded me:

I think it is possible that the conservative push for a government definition of marriage could end up hurting Christians in the long run; it would seem to me that if we say that the State has the power to declare what a marriage is [i]not [/i]then we are simultaneously saying that the State has the power to declare what a marriage [i]is[/i], which is extremely dangerous ground to stand on. I think the government should only back civil unions (for any couple) and completely strike "marriage" from their records. The government has the power to declare joint-benefits, shared assets, etc., anything that has to do with civil pursuits of secular character; the government has no power to declare what is and what is not God's will, and marriage is a religious term. I do not think that a gay-couple's ability to have shared benefits via [i]civil union [/i]poses a threat to civil-structures (after all, straight people of the same sex live together all the time). I am against gay "marriage" but I am not for a government definition of marriage (of any kind).[/quote]
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.

State or federal laws defining legal marriage as between one man and one woman do NOT give the government any "power over" marriage it did not previously have. They only prevent the government from extending legal marriage and the attendant benefits to include homosexual couples and others the government has never previously recognized as "marriage." Strange as this may seem to our current young generation raised on a steady diet of political correctness, states had NEVER previously recognized "gay marriage" before the past decade.
The term "gay marriage ban" is something of a misnomer, as amendments defining marriage as between man and woman don't [i]ban[/i] anything that was previously legal, merely refuse to extend legal "marriage" to sodomistic same-sex couples. Such laws [i]limit[/i] what government does, not grant it any new powers.
In states with laws "banning" homosexual "marriages," homosexuals are still allowed to live together, to call themselves "married," and to even be joined in "marriage" ceremonies if they like; the state simply would not legally recognize such couples as "married."

I find the "slippery slope" argument supremely silly that says that legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman would lead eventually to Catholic or Christian "heterosexual" marriages becoming illegal, or cops busting up Catholic weddings, or whatever else we conservatives are supposed to be afraid of. (And let's face it, in the event that government persecution of Christians or Catholics really ever got [i]that[/i] bad, the wording of the legal definition of "marriage" would be the very least of our worries.)

I seriously think such "slippery-slope" arguments against defining marriage as between a man and a woman are nothing more than slick (though ultimately nonsensical) attempts by the "gay rights" crowd to get "conservative Christians" to side with them against such amendments.

The Catholic Church, however, has always taken a different stance.
Government recognition of marriage between a man and a woman, flawed and imperfect though it may be, is at least a recognition of a basic institution of natural law. (Marriage is not exclusively a Catholic sacrament, but a fundamental natural law institution of human society which the Church has raised to a sacrament.)
Giving married couples certain legal benefits is simply a recognition of this fundamental building block of human society.
When I get married, I would appreciate the state recognizing that union with benefits.
Not giving marriage between man and woman any benefits or legal recognition not also extended to homosexuals or anyone else fails to recognize marriage and the family's importance to society.

Though this seems to get ignored by the "Catholics" of phatmass every time I post it, I'll again direct readers to the CDF document: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]

I STRONGLY recommend that everyone interested in this topic read the entire document to read all the reasoning, but I'll quote the conclusion:
[quote][b]CONCLUSION[/b]

11. [b]The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/b][/quote]

The Church sees the legal recognition of marriage as between man and woman, and clearly opposes not only homosexual "marriage," but homosexual "civil unions" as well.
It's sad that so many "Catholic" phatmassers apparently take an opposing position.

It seems that many (perhaps a majority) on here prefer to be politically-correct than to stand with with the Church.

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1867646' date='May 14 2009, 11:07 PM']I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.

State or federal laws defining legal marriage as between one man and one woman do NOT give the government any "power over" marriage it did not previously have. They only prevent the government from extending legal marriage and the attendant benefits to include homosexual couples and others the government has never previously recognized as "marriage." Strange as this may seem to our current young generation raised on a steady diet of political correctness, states had NEVER previously recognized "gay marriage" before the past decade.
The term "gay marriage ban" is something of a misnomer, as amendments defining marriage as between man and woman don't [i]ban[/i] anything that was previously legal, merely refuse to extend legal "marriage" to sodomistic same-sex couples. Such laws [i]limit[/i] what government does, not grant it any new powers.
In states with laws "banning" homosexual "marriages," homosexuals are still allowed to live together, to call themselves "married," and to even be joined in "marriage" ceremonies if they like; the state simply would not legally recognize such couples as "married."

I find the "slippery slope" argument supremely silly that says that legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman would lead eventually to Catholic or Christian "heterosexual" marriages becoming illegal, or cops busting up Catholic weddings, or whatever else we conservatives are supposed to be afraid of. (And let's face it, in the event that government persecution of Christians or Catholics really ever got [i]that[/i] bad, the wording of the legal definition of "marriage" would be the very least of our worries.)

I seriously think such "slippery-slope" arguments against defining marriage as between a man and a woman are nothing more than slick (though ultimately nonsensical) attempts by the "gay rights" crowd to get "conservative Christians" to side with them against such amendments.

The Catholic Church, however, has always taken a different stance.
Government recognition of marriage between a man and a woman, flawed and imperfect though it may be, is at least a recognition of a basic institution of natural law. (Marriage is not exclusively a Catholic sacrament, but a fundamental natural law institution of human society which the Church has raised to a sacrament.)
Giving married couples certain legal benefits is simply a recognition of this fundamental building block of human society.
When I get married, I would appreciate the state recognizing that union with benefits.
Not giving marriage between man and woman any benefits or legal recognition not also extended to homosexuals or anyone else fails to recognize marriage and the family's importance to society.

Though this seems to get ignored by the "Catholics" of phatmass every time I post it, I'll again direct readers to the CDF document: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]

I STRONGLY recommend that everyone interested in this topic read the entire document to read all the reasoning, but I'll quote the conclusion:


The Church sees the legal recognition of marriage as between man and woman, and clearly opposes not only homosexual "marriage," but homosexual "civil unions" as well.
It's sad that so many "Catholic" phatmassers apparently take an opposing position.

It seems that many (perhaps a majority) on here prefer to be politically-correct than to stand with with the Church.[/quote]

Great document. I don't know how I missed it. Kind of interesting that it was from Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.

[add]

What about mutable marriages, it was not that long ago that divorce and remarriage was considered scandalous.
The gay agenda has pushed the envelope, as has divorce, I know of hundreds of cases of court ordered child support, bitter divorce legal cases, and shared custody.

How miserable a life this must be! Yet, it is sill called legal marriage to behave this way
Therein lies the rub.

God blessThe nuclear family

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1867257' date='May 14 2009, 12:11 PM']This thread reminded me:

I think it is possible that the conservative push for a government definition of marriage could end up hurting Christians in the long run; it would seem to me that if we say that the State has the power to declare what a marriage is [i]not [/i]then we are simultaneously saying that the State has the power to declare what a marriage [i]is[/i], which is extremely dangerous ground to stand on. I think the government should only back civil unions (for any couple) and completely strike "marriage" from their records. The government has the power to declare joint-benefits, shared assets, etc., anything that has to do with civil pursuits of secular character; the government has no power to declare what is and what is not God's will, and marriage is a religious term. I do not think that a gay-couple's ability to have shared benefits via [i]civil union [/i]poses a threat to civil-structures (after all, straight people of the same sex live together all the time). I am against gay "marriage" but I am not for a government definition of marriage (of any kind).[/quote]
I actually used to be fully in agreement with you, but in thinking and writing on the topic from an academic standpoint I've come full circle on my thoughts.

If Christians back off of pushing for government to rightly define marriage, we do a great disservice to our society by effectively saying that we don't think marriage deserves recognition in the public square. We make marriage a "Christian" issue, rather than an issue that is of importance to the whole of society, and affects the whole of society. There are legitimate, secular reasons that a stable marriage between a man and a woman deserves approbation and support from government. If we're smart about it, we can dovetail our arguments with these and make a much stronger case for we believe is the best path for society.

I think what really needs to happen is a twofold approach. First, Christians themselves (or ourselves) need to come to a consensus about what marriage is and what its place is in society. We have a divorce rate in the Church that rivals secular society, so that's a pretty big clue that we don't get it.

Second, I think the argument needs to be reframed. We're letting those who support homosexual marriage frame the discussion we're having on this topic as a nation. Personally, I think the discussion needs to include things like contraception and long-term faithfulness. But again, those are issues we need to first get worked out among Christians, because we're all over the map on those things.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Terra Firma

[RezaMikhaeil]

What's the significance of the government recognizing my marriage? Tax cuts?

[CatherineM]

There's also the right of inheritance for things like pensions and benefits, and the right to decide things like who makes decisions for your spouse should they become incapacitated, or even where they will be buried.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1867726' date='May 14 2009, 08:24 PM']There's also the right of inheritance for things like pensions and benefits, and the right to decide things like who makes decisions for your spouse should they become incapacitated, or even where they will be buried.[/quote]

Those are given to common law spouses too, yet we don't tell them that they shouldn't have those benefits, despite the fact that their living in sin.

My point is this: Why should married couples get economic benefits over people that are single? Why should we allow the gov to define marriage and sanction it? The government allows random marriages and divorces that are not sanctioned by the church, yet we don't say nothing about that and look at the statistics of divorce.

I was disappointed that I had to get a marriage license and not even sure if I think it was the right decision, because I don't believe that I should have to seek the governments approval before I can get married. I was actually legally married before I was married in the Church, so whom decided if I was married or not?

...on another point... I don't get the idea that gay marriage, sanctioned by the government, threatens the sanctity of marriage...if I'm in a park with my wife...walking together... and we see two gay men walk by...I never for a second get tempted to be gay. I never tell my wife, "you know honey, that looks better then what we got". Just like being friends with Muslims doesn't threaten my Christianity.

The Coptic Church, in which I belong to, has been clear on the issue of homosexuality and divorce. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III has addressed both of these issues directly.

I think the idea that the government has to sanction marriage is threatening to the sancitity of marriage because it allows for multiple divorces and has limitations on the morals of the Church. I don't believe in divorce, yet the system allows it.

Reza