What if the Church did this in response to the same-sex "marriage" debate?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

Hm, I wouldn't say they're alike so much as analogies. Maybe slightly, but they'd only work to a certain extent. But to compare the existence of God to whether or not someone can fly a plane is still absurd. A better analogy, and something that I feel is much more similar, would be to compare the existence of God to something else supernatural or supernormal, such as Bigfoot or magic.

Huh? You believe in Bigfoot? You have to proffer some example in which you believe something with very little evidence, for it to supplant my example.

IOW, RA, the point is that you believe in something with very, very little evidence. You simply get on a plane and make a profession of faith, "I believe, without ever having met this woman, that she can fly this plane."

Now, if you are going to stick by your, "I have no idea whether the pilot can fly this plane,and in fact, it may crash, but I get on the plane anyway!" paradigm, then I sadly must depart from dialogue with you because you are the most illogical atheist I have ever chatted with.

And it's fruitless to dialogue with someone who is not compelled by logic and reason.

So, are you really going to profess that you fly on airplanes with no degree of assurance that this pilot knows what she's doing?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by DrTaffy

Oh get over yourself. All I said was that 'the most incompetent twit' should be able to confirm these facts without any pointers from me. That just says that it is trivial, too trivial to need references, but it says nothing about you - until you pop up to (apparently) assert that you cannot do so. Which does, admittedly, make you look silly (and actually implies that you are worse than 'an incompetent twit' ) but that is all your doing, not mine.

All I did was use a turn of phrase like "any idiot can see that..."

Be careful, Taffy. It would be a shame for you to be banned, for it is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

Using words like "twit" and "idiot", besides betraying an ugly disposition in one's nature, can quickly get folks banned.

[Matilda Bennett]

General Reminder:

This discussion has strayed from its original topic of the definition of marriage. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

[faithweakdesire]

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

As the state adopts the doctrine of demons called "same-sex marriage", what if the Church began to always call marriage between a man and a woman either "sacramental marriage" or "natural marriage" instead of just "marriage" to distinguish marriage as it was in the beginning from newly invented artificial concepts of "marriage"?

There is nothing natural about a man being with another man, sexually. So, to condone it in the Catholic church with allowing a marriage to be performed in wrong. Put whatever label you want on it, it's still wrong in nature and as should be in the church also.

Why do the gays want to have society accept them as being normal, when they are not. First in the laws of nature and in the views of the church?

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

And using the criteria homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, because they're not open to life, as claimed by the poster I was originally responding to, is equally absurd, .....

That was my point.

I agree with you, but the attitude of being "open to life" that is required is actually not one of the impediments. There is a difference between being open to life, and being unable to produce life.

There are no circumstances in which a homosexual couple can unite their bodies to produce life.

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

There's a ton of arguments one could use against homosexual marriage, but claiming they can't naturally have children is about the weakest.

Sarah x

I agree there are many arguments, the one that they cannot naturally have children being only one. But this should not be confused with the attitude of being open to life.

Heterosexual couples are enjoyed by the Church to recieve all fruit from their union as from God. It is not possible for homosexual couples to produce fruit from their union, so it is a moot point.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by guanophore

I agree with you, but the attitude of being "open to life" that is required is actually not one of the impediments. There is a difference between being open to life, and being unable to produce life.

There are no circumstances in which a homosexual couple can unite their bodies to produce life.

Indeed.

While homosexual relations may be sexual, they will never be nuptial. They will never be ordered towards life.

Some married couples (the elderly, post-menopausal women, women post-hysterectomy, etc etc etc) may have sexual relations that are infertile but their acts will always still be ordered towards life. While they have zero chance of conceiving, their marital embrace is still ordered towards the proper end of marriage: procreation and union.

What's the difference, some may ask?

I think this analogy, borrowed from the wickedly funny yet orthodox and trenchant Catholic blogger, Marc Barnes, limns the difference quite well:

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules their play is still ordered toward its proper end.

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the *intent* of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

[DrTaffy]

To get back to the actual topic, I think I have (and indeed had, even before my last response) given enough detail that anyone could easily and quickly verify for themselves my claim that (for example) the word marriage comes from a latin root. That is the touchstone used in both patent law and scientific articles - have you given enough detail for others to easily repeat your results - and I think it is a fair one.

On the other hand, I still have no idea what supports down under's claim that "The New Testament has been proven by the science of textual analysis to be the most accurate historical record of the time" or that "Jesus [I assume in the Gospels - Taffy] perfects our understanding of what marriage is suppose to be very clearly and unambiguously". I can try to guess, but that is not the same is it?

The OP's question "what if the Church did this.." has been answered - the gay and liberal lobby would have no problem, but many in the Catholic (and associated conservative and anti-gay lobbies) would not be happy. But this in turn touches on two disparate questions, or maybe even two clusters of related questions.

a) related to the word marriage. e.g. Do Catholics (and allies) have any ownership of that word? or would they be happy with a solution that did not give them ownership of that word?

b) related to the legal institution of marriage. In other words, more generally, do Catholics (et al), should they find themselves in the democratic majority, have the right to say that same sex couple should not be legally recognised at all, whatever you call it? Maybe even that they should not exist and that the legislature should be used to try to impose that moral judgement on liberals and homosexuals? If so, why should liberals and homosexuals not have the right to reciprocate in kind by imposing their moral judgement on Catholics, should they (liberals) have the majority?

[Peter Plato]

Originally Posted by DrTaffy

...To get back to the actual topic, I think I have (and indeed had, even before my last response) given enough detail that anyone could easily and quickly verify for themselves my claim that (for example) the word marriage comes from a latin root. That is the touchstone used in both patent law and scientific articles - have you given enough detail for others to easily repeat your results - and I think it is a fair one.

This claim of yours remains as specious as ever, simply because coining a word does not give the creator rights to the actual reality being labelled. Being the first to use a word to refer to some reality or other does not, thereby, give anyone anything like patent rights to the reality of the thing being named. If this were the case, then the heirs of Charles Sédillot would retain, in perpetuity, the right to redefine "microbe" to include aardvarks or grass eels in the class of creatures being described.

Originally Posted by DrTaffy

The OP's question "what if the Church did this.." has been answered - the gay and liberal lobby would have no problem, but many in the Catholic (and associated conservative and anti-gay lobbies) would not be happy. But this in turn touches on two disparate questions, or maybe even two clusters of related questions.

a) related to the word marriage. e.g. Do Catholics (and allies) have any ownership of that word? or would they be happy with a solution that did not give them ownership of that word?

Again, the difficulty with this objection of yours is that Catholics do not claim ownership of the word. The claim being made is that the term marriage, or any similar word in any other language, refers to a natural and biological partnership that no human collective has any right to amend. It is you who are attempting to make an appeal to transmission via political hegemony of the right to alter the definition of marriage. However, as in the example of Sédillot, concocting a label does not create anything like patentable rights to the reality being alluded to, since distinguishing or identifying is not the same as inventing.

Originally Posted by DrTaffy

b) related to the legal institution of marriage. In other words, more generally, do Catholics (et al), should they find themselves in the democratic majority, have the right to say that same sex couple should not be legally recognised at all, whatever you call it? Maybe even that they should not exist and that the legislature should be used to try to impose that moral judgement on liberals and homosexuals? If so, why should liberals and homosexuals not have the right to reciprocate in kind by imposing their moral judgement on Catholics, should they (liberals) have the majority?

Your error here is in not recognizing that moral judgements are the only basis upon which any legal institutions can ground policy. That, however, does not mean that it is the majority that determines the nature of moral judgements, but that any immoral legislation cannot be rightfully enforced by any government, democratic or otherwise. The argument here is not what the majority believes to be true, or moral, but what actually is and how that can be demonstrated. Gay marriage either has no justification under the law because it has no objective moral basis for support or it does. To reframe the argument as a Catholic v Modern Secular one is being attempted by you to gain more than "home field advantage." It obviously has surreptitiously been assumed to ensure that your rules are the ones that dictate the terms of how this debate will be waged.

It has never been the "Catholic" argument that marriage is a Catholic institution that Catholics have successfully foisted on humanity in the past and should continue to be. The argument is that marriage is a natural and biological reality that needs to be supported and protected because the future of humanity depends upon marriage as the unique institution by which new human beings are brought into existence, cared for and formed appropriately.

[faithweakdesire]

Peter,
I think what you wrote was pretty good and intelligently presented. My opinion on the part about being forced to knowledge and accept gay marriage/couples is I believe the same.

In recent years the gay society has made it okay to be gay publicly, thats fine with me. Whatever gays want to do and where they want to be acknowledged passively is fine with me. Gays have the right as all people to do, to be themselves.

My problem is when society is being told that I we must allow this choice of life style to be in the main stream of everyday life, especially schools and churches. It is a small part of society that is gay, I m pretty sure. This might sound crazy and maybe a bad example, all the same here it is. In the future society is suppose to accept a 40 year old man marrying a 15 year old boy, with the parental consent? I hope this is not in the future.

I think gays have come a long way in society and acknowledge. There has to be some standards and morals left in society or I think it is doomed. The anything goes has to have limits or should have, being a gay person okay. But if most of society does not care for the life style, we should not be forced to feel that we have to like it or accept it privately or publicly.

[Peter Plato]

Originally Posted by faithweakdesire

My problem is when society is being told that I we must allow this choice of life style to be in the main stream of everyday life, especially schools and churches. It is a small part of society that is gay, I m pretty sure. This might sound crazy and maybe a bad example, all the same here it is. In the future society is suppose to accept a 40 year old man marrying a 15 year old boy, with the parental consent? I hope this is not in the future.

I don't think this is a crazy example precisely because redefining marriage as some kind of nebulous "love relationship" or in terms of loving commitment is fraught with legal peril. Once the definition has been altered, it is open to challenge from all-comers. What exactly is a "loving commitment" and which legal institution is going to define that more precisely and under what limitations?

If a clear, solid, easily identifiable, natural and biological partnership that creates new life, which is what a marriage really is, is not immune from tampering and redefinition by the modern secularists, what makes us convinced that some nebulous definition such as "loving commitment" will not be further revised and vivisected beyond current recognition? Of course it will! All comforting assurances to the contrary should be summarily dismissed with contempt.

Abortion began as a "medically necessary" procedure, scaled to a "safety" issue, then to on demand as a right. Now infanticide is being offered as the next "right" of the "oligarchy of the living." Moral erosion is an insidious phenomenon.

[faithweakdesire]

Peter,

Just a thank you for not calling my thoughts, opinions crazy or out of touch. Again I enjoy
the posting you made because they are very insightful and intelligently expressed to me.

[marymary1975]

Originally Posted by DrTaffy

. You have not specified where or how you think Jesus explicitly defined 'marriage'

etymological definition of 'marriage'[/url], or you might prefer "Ancient Law Its Connection to the History of Early Society" by Henry Sumner Maine for an overview of how Roman law influenced our own.
.

Well if what you need is to know where specifically Jesus defined marriage I can certainly provide that to you: Matthew 19:5 where Jesus says ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” So right there you have it, Jesus specifically addressing and defining marriage and couldn't be clearer than water.

I am, also, curious why you are citing a review of Roman Law. I'd be greatly surprised if you are in the USA because from what I read in your posts I see that you have little knowledge about the US. Roman Law has zero influence in the US Law. What you stating may have influence in other countries but is not relevant at all to any of us living in the US.

[Peter Plato]

Originally Posted by marymary1975

Well if what you need is to know where specifically Jesus defined marriage I can certainly provide that to you: Matthew 19:5 where Jesus says ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” So right there you have it, Jesus specifically addressing and defining marriage and couldn't be clearer than water.

I am, also, curious why you are citing a review of Roman Law. I'd be greatly surprised if you are in the USA because from what I read in your posts I see that you have little knowledge about the US. Roman Law has zero influence in the US Law. What you stating may have influence in other countries but is not relevant at all to any of us living in the US.

Actually, this is not quite true. The American Constitution and the basic principles of the legal system in the US derive from the Roman and Greek concept of natural moral law as filtered through the rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment. In some ways, the US was more heavily influenced by the democratic basis of Roman law grounded in natural moral law than was the legal development of Great Britain which tended to be constrained by monarchical power.

Refer to: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...5&context=iclr. Especially pages 260-261.

Regardless of this, however, the fact remains that knowing when and where a law or legal term originated says nothing about the right to modify the law or term. Any juridical changes need to be vetted according to sound ethical principles, not on the whim of impulse or demand by those with vested interest.

[DrTaffy]

Originally Posted by Peter Plato

This claim of yours remains as specious as ever, simply because coining a word does not give the creator rights to the actual reality being labelled.

You are confusing the reality with the label. At least if you take that last sentence literally.

Noone is (for example) proposing anything that would change your marriage (assuming you are married) in any real way. They are just proposing allowing the legal definition of marriage to embrace the way other faiths (and non-religious people) use it, by removing a restriction imposed, historically, by the Christians.

Further, it is the anti-gay marriage lobby that needs to claim absolute rights to the word 'marriage' in order to make its case. The pro gay lobby just need people who disagree with your definition to do so, legally.

There is a bit of a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument in that if the State does not have the right to 'redefine marriage', then the redefinition imposed by the Christian Roman Emperors is null and void and we revert to a definition that includes same sex marriage. (If the State does have the right to redefine marriage, obviously, that is also a loss for the anti-gay marriage lobby.)

Originally Posted by Peter Plato

Again, the difficulty with this objection of yours is that Catholics do not claim ownership of the word.

Many Catholics can and do argue that others do not have the right to define it differently from them, or even ask why (for examples) homosexuals 'have to use the christian word.'

Calling it 'ownership' is, of course, me highlighting why I think such claims are the specious ones. Catholics don't use that term. But if you are denying others the right to use the term other than how you say it should be used, I think 'ownership' is a perfectly reasonable word for what you are claiming.

Originally Posted by Peter Plato

The claim being made is that the term marriage, or any similar word in any other language, refers to a natural and biological partnership[...]

Well, I've tried to point out before that 'marriage' refers to (at least) three similar but distinct concepts - social, legal and religious. You now seem to be adding a biological one. Could you elaborate? What natural phenomenon would be referred to as 'marriage' (in the nuptial sense)?

In any case, it is the legal term that would be 'redefined' by legislation. No biology will be influenced by any such change in law.

Originally Posted by Peter Plato

Your error here is in not recognizing that moral judgements are the only basis upon which any legal institutions can ground policy.

No. I do disagree, a vast amount of legislation is purely pragmatic and utterly divorced from issues of morality, for example.

But that is irrelevant to the question I asked. Even in cases where moral judgements are the basis for the law, if Catholics claim the right to impose their subjective moral judgements on others (when in the majority), why should others not have the right to do the same when positions are reversed?

[DrTaffy]

Originally Posted by marymary1975

Well if what you need is to know where specifically Jesus defined marriage I can certainly provide that to you: Matthew 19:5 where Jesus says ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” So right there you have it, Jesus specifically addressing and defining marriage and couldn't be clearer than water.

That nowhere defines marriage. Certainly not the english word (for obvious reasons) but not even the institution.

It is compatible with an exclusively heterosexual marital institution, but does not define it. If you tried to read it exclusively (i.e. this is the only correct way to live your life) that would also condemn a chaste single life, e.g. that of Catholic priests.

Originally Posted by marymary1975

I am, also, curious why you are citing a review of Roman Law.

Because I was asked, in short. I originally referenced Roman law as that is both where the english word comes from and where much of our legal tradition comes from.

Originally Posted by marymary1975

I'd be greatly surprised if you are in the USA because from what I read in your posts I see that you have little knowledge about the US. Roman Law has zero influence in the US Law.

Really, so there are no latin terms in US Law according to you?

Sorry, but no. Current US society is very obviously based on the European traditions imported by the colonial powers, which in turn are very obviously based on the Roman Empire.

And even in the USA, the etymology of 'marriage' remains the same. The Native Americans did indeed have their own marital traditions, and no doubt a plethora of words to describe them, but they also included same sex marriages. (At least marriages that included two people who both had block-and-tackle between the legs. I don't want to get into the transgendered vs homosexual discussion)

So going by the Native American traditions, you just bring the date when Christians imposed a redefinition of wedding traditions forward several centuries and make it more obviously imposed by force.