Marriage, or no marriage

[Robert in SD]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

Not asking Society to have 2 definitions. Asking for an amendment to the Law's definition, and I don't care one bit for your Church's definition. The Church and State have different definitions on other things without leading to the collapse of western civilization.

Do you not see your self-contradicting statement. If the law recognizes "marriage" as a relationship that includes same-sex couples, those who believe contrary must be compelled to accept it, contrary to what their conscience tells them to be true. Again, I'm not relying on Church definitions here. I'm relying on a common understanding of marriage the crosses many different religious, cultural, and social boundaries.

Originally Posted by EviP

I really don't think that analogy works. A better term would be food. As Muslims, Jews, and gay Christians still do get married in this world. It is not a sole possession of general Christianity like kosher is to the Jewish. However, like marriage, food is something people of every group do partake in. I would expect the Jewish Deli you mention to acknowledge pork as food, just not food they serve, nor would I ever expect them to.

Jews already acknowledge pork as food. The analogous concept would be telling jewish people that pork was now "kosher" under the law of "State X" and/or the laws of the United States.

Originally Posted by EviP

Just like the Catholic Church could say that a gay couple can be married, just not married by the Catholic Church and such a union would not be recognized by the Church. That's 110% fine with me. What you do and don't want to do within a religion as long as it harms no one and is between consenting adults, have a blast.

But my point is that redefining marriage as the pro-gay-marriage advocates contend harms the public institution, which in turn harms everyone. Again, I'm not reducing my argument to only the Catholic position. So, stop limiting your comments to the "what you do in your church is fine with me, just leave me alone" line. That argument is non-responsive.

Originally Posted by EviP

But you can't say "My Religion defines word X as thus-and-such, therefore common law must view X as thus-and-such." If there were a movement to get pork outlawed as a food item, I would be against that too.

I'm not making that argument! I'm saying marriage is what it is, and its fundamental orientation towards procreation and rearing of children is ascertainable by simply viewing the relationship in its natural context, separate and apart from what revealed religion says on the matter.

Finally, your argument cuts both ways. I can say that just because your group wants to redefine marriage (or kosher laws) to suit your own tastes, that does not mean that the law of the land must change. No one is stopping the gay community from forming its own standards, and calling whatever you want a "marriage." Just don't force me to accept your definition as what I understand a marriage to be. Your problem with this argument is that IF laws of the State change (as you propose), then contrary to your "live and let live" argument, those who see marriage as between man and woman will be compelled to accept same sex unions as "marriages" upon pain of civil and criminal penalty.

Peace,
Robert

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by da_nolo

Govt. does not have any autonomy. the people do.

We refer to the various governments as sovereign. The actions of government are separate from those of individuals, as is necessary for the regulation of society. This is true even in a total democracy since the government acts differently than the dissenters would like. Yet the problem of having no government is greater than the problem of a government that is contrary.

we are self-governed, as we should -though many lack- regulating govt. influence.

I don't know what you mean by this.

please, if you may. explain the benefits or importance to govt. recognizing "Marriage"?

Sure. The responsibility of government is to facilitate just society. To the extent it does that, it succeeds. To the extent it does not, it fails.

Marriage is naturally ordered toward bonding a man and woman together and toward their begetting and raising children (who would, in turn, continue the cycle). In order to establish this in the most successful way, and for robust continuance of the process, it is necessary to do everything reasonable to ensure that each marriage is well-established and lasting. (some ways to do that include required premarital counseling, requiring a cause and counseling prior to civil divorce and enforcing a penalty on infidelity - at least in family court). That helps the married couples to stay married and children to have reasonable expectations for their own lives.

[TarkanAttila]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

Making things illegal on the basis of them not intrinsically helping The State first off sounds like North Korea, second off it is not the reason we decide on the legality of things. Why are you mentioning this then? If you're not trying to argue that it should remain Illegal because it doesn't help society, then why bring it up?

Because gay marriage is quite the opposite. It confuses the point of marriage. The point of marriage has never been solely or primarily about this romantic notion of "love" (until recently). The reality of marriage has always been partially or wholly an economic contract of some kind. The point of secular marriages, whatever the case, is to increase the family and the society's productivity, economic prosperity, and power by having children and raising them to be upstanding workers and citizens, and to preserve the parents' futures by having their children preserve them when they grow old.

Gay "marriages" are not conducive to this in the least. It is impossible for two people of the same sex to conceive children. They are not technically marriages because of this. (And as I have said before, infertility is almost always treatable in heterosexual couples. It is an irrelevant question for gays because the problem has nothing to do with infertility.) Gay marriages are more like legal recognition that two people are "best buddies forever".

Haha, sure.

Well, OK, then.

You're severely missing my point either on accident or purpose, not sure which. I said "When and if you can prove procreation is a necessary trait of marriage" not "How is baby formed".

As I said above, throughout history, marriage has been intended to create economic security and prosperity by producing children. Whatever the definition of marriage, it has never been divorced from birthing and raising children until now. But without children to bear or raise, there really is no point for two people to declare themselves "married" in the secular sense. Just as there's no point in calling oneself "religious" if one is not bound to believe anything by God or by anything aside from your five senses.

I like what you say there. (for the most part anyway) I would actually be fully supportive of the state providing civil unions that have the full secular benefits that a marriage (performed by the government) would normally have.

-With the caveats I've mentioned before. Civil unions should be for the economic reason of bringing children into the world and raising them for your own good and for society's good. Since gays cannot do this, civil unions could not be applied for gays.

OR civil unions would have absolutely nothing to do with the economics of it, and could be given to any two people who felt this "best buddies forever" thing. Of course, it then wouldn't be limited to gay or straight couples and could be applied to anyone, since such a "civil union" has no connection with the economy or the society at large, but is more a legal recognition that you love someone else. To which society might as well say, "Whoop-dee-doo. You love each other. Who cares? It generates nothing for the GNP or the treasury, and helps no one in the society. Do you want a gold star when you make pee-pee, too?"

"of what value are gay marriages to the state, to the society, or to the two who wish to "marry" in question?" The same value of an infertile couple, or a couple that never procreates. It goes FAR beyond simply dealing with children.

Not at all. Parents are as much contributors to the government, the economy, and the society as workers out in shops, factories, and offices are. After all, people are the cornerstone of every economy.

Part of the parents' contribution is showing their children how a man and woman must come to relate to each other in order for society to continue to grow, prosper, and maintain happiness. They show not only how children are conceived and come into the world, but how to relate to each other as humans, as different sexes with different needs of all kinds. You don't get this with two men or two women.

[TarkanAttila]

I recommend reading Robert's posts on the subject. He seems to know what he is talking about in a way I'm not sure I do...

[EviPolevhia]

I have been reading Robert's posts. They've illuminated very well that you guys and I have differing base definitions that I see no way to reconcile at the moment. Thank you for giving me your opinions, they have been very informative.

[Robert in SD]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

I have been reading Robert's posts. They've illuminated very well that you guys and I have differing base definitions that I see no way to reconcile at the moment. Thank you for giving me your opinions, they have been very informative.

You are welcome. But I feel compelled to point out that it's not MY definition of marriage that matters. The nature of marriage is what it is. The issue is whether or not the law will recognize the truth, or try to pass a lie to conform with prevailing social convention.

Peace,
Robert

[da_nolo]

Govt. does not have any autonomy. the people do.

Originally Posted by SonCatcher

We refer to the various governments as sovereign. The actions of government are separate from those of individuals, as is necessary for the regulation of society. This is true even in a total democracy since the government acts differently than the dissenters would like. Yet the problem of having no government is greater than the problem of a government that is contrary.

we are self-governed, as we should -though many lack- regulating govt. influence.

Originally Posted by SonCatcher

I don't know what you mean by this.

Govt. is strictly based on society/grouped people. If we want no govt.; some govt.; or all govt...then that is what there will be. we regulate it and its influence on us (as in laws).

It is connected to the previous 'people have autonomy, not a thing' statement. where as a group of people have the ability and sovereign right to form their own government. a literal take on the word, since when speaking of a nations/country's being sovereign it refers to the people as a whole (and not separating govt. - society)

Or so that be my take on the word and as it has been used.

Sure. The responsibility of government is to facilitate just society. To the extent it does that, it succeeds. To the extent it does not, it fails.

Marriage is naturally ordered toward bonding a man and woman together and toward their begetting and raising children (who would, in turn, continue the cycle). In order to establish this in the most successful way, and for robust continuance of the process, it is necessary to do everything reasonable to ensure that each marriage is well-established and lasting. (some ways to do that include required premarital counseling, requiring a cause and counseling prior to civil divorce and enforcing a penalty on infidelity - at least in family court). That helps the married couples to stay married and children to have reasonable expectations for their own lives.

So , what you are trying to say is that if an authoritative figure (govt.) acknowledges a biological character (marriage) as the thing it is (vs not) then the society it governs is more likely to connect to the pure meaning of the character (marriage) instead of being confused about what is or isn't???

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by da_nolo

Govt. is strictly based on society/grouped people. If we want no govt.; some govt.; or all govt...then that is what there will be. we regulate it and its influence on us (as in laws).

It is connected to the previous 'people have autonomy, not a thing' statement. where as a group of people have the ability and sovereign right to form their own government. a literal take on the word, since when speaking of a nations/country's being sovereign it refers to the people as a whole (and not separating govt. - society)

Or so that be my take on the word and as it has been used.

So , what you are trying to say is that if an authoritative figure (govt.) acknowledges a biological character (marriage) as the thing it is (vs not) then the society it governs is more likely to connect to the pure meaning of the character (marriage) instead of being confused about what is or isn't???

It seems you equate "government" with "people" for purpose of this discussion. I do not.

You are correct that people in a society tend to equate permissiveness with morality. That isn't quite what I was aiming at, however. I meant that there are greater benefits to the persons in the society when marriage is properly defended which consequently benefit society as a whole.

[TarkanAttila]

Originally Posted by Robert in SD

You are welcome. But I feel compelled to point out that it's not MY definition of marriage that matters. The nature of marriage is what it is. The issue is whether or not the law will recognize the truth, or try to pass a lie to conform with prevailing social convention.

Peace,
Robert

Yes. The truth of the matter is that marriage has ALWAYS had as a/the main point having children and raising them. So-called "gay marriage" doesn't. In fact, I think a lot of people don't understand that this is the point of marriage. They think it's about two people who love each other so much they get to have sex with each other.

I think the Catholic understanding of marriage combines the best of both of these worlds. The Church agrees that the love of a man and a woman is celebrated in a special way in marriage. It is so special it in fact, produces life, and something which will bind the man and the woman together in love for life.

[Andre1000]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

Glad you're not the one defining legal terms then.

Then you will not like the German government, because they are trying to eliminate the difference between marriage and living together. And they have almost succeeded.