The Definition Of Marriage

[CatherineM]

I will say that I did prefer getting married in the church without the marriage license from the government. I could entirely be about the sacrament.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1867852' date='May 15 2009, 03:09 AM']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.[/quote]
Marriage between man and woman is part of natural law, though the Church has elevated it to a sacrament. Marriage is not just a "Christian thing." Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are in themselves a perversion contrary to the natural law, and cannot be a marriage.
The marriage of, say, a Muslim man and woman for instance, cannot be considered in itself sinful and perverted in the way a homosexual "union" would be.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Married couples should get economic benefits because marriage (between man and woman) and the family is fundamental to human society, and because raising children can be expensive. Rewarding marriage with economic benefits is just a small way the state can recognize and encourage this important institution. Do you think it would be somehow better if no marriages were recognized or rewarded in any way by the state?
The amendments in question do not redefine marriage in any way; they prevent marriage from being legally redefined to include homosexuals (or other arrangements besides one man and one woman).


[quote]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?[/quote]
If it really bothered you so much, you could have simply not gotten a marriage license, and not have the state legally recognize your marriage.
Do you think the state not legally recognizing any marriages at all would make things better for your marriage or for marriages and society in general?


.[quote]..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.[/quote]
The reason for not giving legal recognition to homosexual "marriages" has nothing to do with fear that "straight" married couples would be tempted to "go gay." Nobody has made such a claim.
The reason is that, as the Church teaches, society should encourage and reward that which is good and in accord with natural law, rather than put it on the same level as that which is perverted and contrary to the natural law.

[quote]The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) [b]Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.[/b][/quote]
[quote][b]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.[/b][/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]
And can I presume your Coptic Pope is against "gay marriage"?

[quote]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.[/quote]
True, no-fault divorce is a serious attack on the sanctity of marriage. But why make things worse by legally recognizing "gay marriage"? That's basically driving the final nail in the coffin.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1867703' date='May 14 2009, 11:05 PM']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.[/quote]
Excellent post. Agree 100%

[Guest Not Applicable]

Marriage to me is between teh couple and God, I could be wrong but I don't think ancient rituals involved certain rites/vows between people in MANY ancient pagan religions...it's like Christianity to me...you invited the holy spirit, and you invite commitment into your life...one doesn't become a christian by getting baptized, it was by accepting and believing the truth, accept and believe you are forever committed to each other...a reception without your parents is just a bonus. The government is out of their jurisdiction.