Cool. I am glad we are on the same page. Marriage as a "legal fiction " is the only thing legislation can be concerned with.
I am not saying the positions are equal, or that the opponents are right or have any valid arguments. All I am saying is that Little Nemo’s comment is incorrect. Both sides cannot win. Supporters of Gay Marriage do not want both sides to win. They want Gay Marriage to be allowed.
That that victory does not take anything real away from the opponents does not mean the opponents didn’t lose.
That’s the problem when we call the thing that churches do and the thing that the government is concerned about the same thing. They have different rules. Though I suppose the current standard is reasonably sensible: the government is concerned about it’s rules, but allows religious officiants to be one set of parties that can fill out the paperwork to establish that contract. Those religious officiants are allowed to apply any arbitrary additional rules that do not violate the law (i.e. metaphysical meanings and whatnot). If you don’t like the restrictions of the Catholic Church, go found the Church of England.
The Church of England actually had entirely the same rules about marriage as the Catholic Church until the early 20th century (and didn’t really accept the legitimacy of divorce & remarriage until 2003).
In theory, yes. Even in practice, I can only think of one case in which they applied those rules differently (but it was a doozy).
The equilibrium that developed in the mid-20th century is that while the Church of England would not marry you if you had a living (divorced) spouse, you could get a civil marriage, or go to a Methodist church or something, and then get ‘blessed’ in the Anglican church. This was kind of a split-the-difference halfway house that a lot of people thought was illogical and hypocritical, and that may be why the church changed its policy in 2003. I think it was a mistake- sometimes some measure of inconsistency isn’t a bad thing, and I think the pre-2003 policy had the right balance of tolerance/mercy towards violations of the moral law, while remaining clear that they are violations. Remarriage may sometimes be a kind of tolerable, forgivable adultery, it may even work out for the best for everyone involved, but it’s still, in the technical sense, adultery.
Well, keep in mind that you’re talking to a nonbeliever who tries to be a tolerant nonbeliever. I think all these religious beliefs are made up, and while I’m willing to accept that it’s “technically” adultery in your system, I’m unwilling to apply your system to other religious systems. Since 2003, it’s technically not adultery for Anglicans.
That was kind of a joke, but the point was Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and since the Pope wouldn’t grant him one, he founded his own church that let him have one. That’s the only difference he wanted, so that’s the one he created.
A more generic answer would be find a church that has rules you agree with.
Well, that’s your opinion, and your entitled to have it, but not everyone agrees with you.
… Because it’s a stupid opinion.
When I said “no actual human beings” I should have made more clear that I meant “actual human beings who have actually met my mom face to face, not random internet people”.
Of course there are people who would be willing to say that my mom is still married to my dad, despite the fact that they’ve been divorced for 30 years. Just that none of those people would be willing to say that to my mom’s face. Or even think it, really.
This is one of those beliefs that people hold only in the abstract, and it never seems to come up in the real world when they interact with their friends, family, neighbors or community.
If you know any Christians, I’d suspect rather a lot of them think it. If they don’t, they need to reread the Gospel according to St. Mark.
By “Christian”, you mean “Roman Catholic”, right?
I remember when I was a kid, we were on our way home from mass and we were listening to the news. A story came on about some man getting married for the umpteenth time, making him the record holder. My father had to inform all of us in the car that the man had only been married ONCE and that there was no such thing as “EX-WIVES!”
And yet, he never hesitated for an instant when he met divorced and remarried people. And had you said, “Dad, what’s so-and-so’s wife’s name?” he wouldn’t have given the name of the ex wife. In theory, there were no ex-wives. In reality, he accepted that there were.
On the contrary, I think you need to reread your state laws surrounding marriage. If you really want to read the Gospel According to St. Mark, consider Mark 12:17. Romans 13 may also be instructive.
Exactly. If Hector knew my mom, and she mentioned her husband, he’d never think of my dad, he’d think of her husband. While there are a certain number of Catholics who in theory don’t believe divorce is possible, in practice they accept it without blinking. And in reality almost all actually existing Catholics don’t even bother to pretend to agree with official Catholic teachings on divorce.
Gotta love that Biblical concept of marriage some people talk about. In the Old Testament you can rape your way into a marriage and stone your way out of it. Is that what they were referencing? :dubious:
I grew up in s heavily Roman Catholic community and I don’t know a single Roman Catholic peer of mine who has such a view of divorce. Among American Catholics it’s an out-of-date concept.
I think you need to be a bit more specific. I’m no biblical scholar, but a quick internet search at the Bible Gateway gives this as the discussion on marriage, from Mark 12:
What that says to me is that all marriages are canceled, and no longer valid in heaven. Or the afterlife, or the Resurrection on Earth. It’s all a little fuzzy. It sounds like Jesus is talking about the dead arising on Earth.
Or perhaps you meant 1 Corinthians 7?
In other words, it would be better to not get married, but if you must have that dirty sex stuff, I guess you can get married.
Ditto.
This seems directly on point. The Lord giving a command not to divorce. Amusing that the wife can’t get a divorce, she can only separate.
Sounds like God’s living in the past.
Hi, I’m gay and married (legally!!!eleventy!!!)
The main problem is that at first, people won’t know what a “civil union” is if implemented. It gives the same rights, but would be a new thing, with a new name. It would not have been done before. This leads to confusion in really important areas, like administration of an estate or (more immediately) emergencies where one partner would be taken to the hospital and the other wants to see them or make decisions. Where time is of the essence, you don’t want to have personnel asking “but what’s a civil union?” and “what rights does this give you?” and “Can I see the paperwork?” Whereas, if that same couple could say “We’re married!” everyone knows what that is, is familiar with what that entails, and since the arrangement is socially recognized and historical, will bend over backwards to make sure they can see and decide things for each other.
The other argument is philosophical. I believe my marriage is equal to your (real or hypothetical) marriage, and that they are actually very similar. I bet the married posters here also have stupid arguments, go on “date nights”, nag about the same things, want to raise a family together and be good parents, and spend their days in a similar fashion as we do. I mean, how many of you have debated “The toilet paper roll end goes under!” “No, over!” or said “Why don’t you pick up after yourself?” or said “I love you,” after a long day?
The only appreciable difference, I think, is the exact mechanisms by which we have sex. And that doesn’t define my marriage, so the kind of sex I have shouldn’t be allowed to affect what it’s called, either.
Calling it “marriage” also lets us “join” with society in a new way. It gives a certain integration and social status that a civil union just wouldn’t, since it’s not such a long tradition like marriage is.
Well said.