Originally posted by Merge:
For the record, I would be fine if all legal unions were civil unions... and all "marriages" were performed in a Church.
Although, I am not entirely sure what your goal is there. Not like some protestant church wouldn't marry a gay couple.
Here is my problem with your "sacred" argument... Have you been protesting the state's right to perform the "sacrament" of marriage? Where were you when atheists were married by their town hall? Surely if the state started giving a first communion to all children, you would object. The same as you mentioned with the pizza chain Eucharist. The word has not been a sacred one for many years. Your protest doesn't come due to the sacredness of the word.
That is why I make a big deal out of the fact that meanings change. The sacredness of the word marriage was lost once the state gained the ability to marry non believers. That should be your primary argument.
The reason I am bringing up race is because I view this issue as a civil rights issue and the last major civil rights issue in our country had to do with race.
Lastly, polygamy cannot be legal in the US as shown above from where I cited the supreme court opinion in Davis v. Beason.
Bestiality as well would never be legal due to one party not being able to consent.
Merge:
Have you been protesting the state's right to perform the "sacrament" of marriage? Where were you when atheists were married by their town hall?
The Catholic church assumes that all marriages (between a man and a woman) are valid and binding unless proven otherwise. The 'sacrilege' is not a marriage outside of the Church ---- that has been going on for 10,000 years ---- but a 'union' that intrinsically joins individuals in mortal sin.
Merge:
Surely if the state started giving a first communion to all children, you would object. The same as you mentioned with the pizza chain Eucharist. The word has not been a sacred one for many years. Your protest doesn't come due to the sacredness of the word.
I was striving to find situations conveying a sense of just personal outrage precipitated by third parties which might help you and Tom to understand why public sacrilege ''harms'' Christians. It is not easy. The word ''marriage'' has connoted a Catholic Sacrament for almost 2,000 years. Nothing could be more 'sacred' to us. 'Sacred' matters---even unto death in many instances. How can you possibly know better than I what it is about the word that causes me to protest its 'sacredness'?
Merge:
The sacredness of the word marriage was lost once the state gained the ability to marry non believers. That should be your primary argument.
No, your logic is faulty. To the Christian in general and to the Catholic in particular, marriage is "sacred" because God "made them man and woman" and "what God has joined together let no man put asunder". Basic. Clear. Spoken directly by Jesus. It is this which makes marriage sacred, no matter how or where the vows are exchanged.
Merge:
The reason I am bringing up race is because I view this issue as a civil rights issue and the last major civil rights issue in our country had to do with race.
On what basis is it a civil rights issue? Every human has certain civil rights. IMHO every single person has a right to marry, but IMHO ''marry'' MUST involve two (and only two) people of opposite sexes. That is the way that Hammurabi defined it in 1900 BC. That is the way that both Plato and Aristotle defined it in 400 BC. That is the way Jesus Christ defined it in 30 AD. That is the definition of marriage chosen by EVERY single government in EVERY single land in which marriage was specifically defined for 3,900 years. But, like Indiana and the definition of Pi, no government has the right to redefine a word, even though each government has a right to define its own laws, no matter how evil or inane.
That said, if anyone were to
treat another
person differently based on who they are --- on something innate to their selves --- rather than based on their actions, then that would be a civil rights violation.
Merge:
Lastly, polygamy cannot be legal in the US as shown above from where I cited the supreme court opinion in Davis v. Beason.
LOL, and the Supreme Court has never reversed itself??
The Supreme Court once affirmed separate but equal public facilities for different races. The Supreme Court has made the dismemberment of unborn but self-sustainable humans Constitutional as well. I pray that one changes; I dread the reversal of your citation.
Merge:
Bestiality as well would never be legal due to one party not being able to consent.
Don't bet the ranch, or, ah, the farm!
If there is no absolute law Giver then there can be no absolute truth, i.e. no objectively defensible "right" and "wrong".
This post was edited on 5/22 11:39 PM by Old_alum
