Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Proposition 8 ruled "unconstitutional"; ...sets up Supreme Court battle
Topic Started: Feb 7 2012, 10:09 AM (2,436 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Such attributes will be found in all forms of marriages, including traditional heterosexual marriage now!

Absolutely right, but combinations of two consenting adults are surely less likely to create such imbalances than a father having sex with his child. This is where I draw the line you keep talking about.


How old is the child? Is it wrong for a 50 year old father to have sex with his 25 year old son? What if they want to get married?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Alright, how about 3 men who want to marry each other. Should that be legal? What about 4? 5? Where do you draw the line?

Stated above. 2 consenting adults should about do it. Society may decide otherwise at some point but I have no reason to believe that's coming anytime soon if ever.


Two seems to be an arbitrary number. Why not 3? I have no reason to think that a group of 3 or 4 men who want to enter into a union with each other would lead to abuse anymore than a heterosexual couple.

Also, forget what "society" decides. What do you decide. Would you support the marriage of 3 men to each other? Or do you hold the bigoted position that 3's a crowd?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

That one shocks the conscience, doesn't it. Thanks for providing this. I'll start worrying about their wedding when it becomes something other than the extremely rare one-off. And I'm calling my mom and son momentarily.


The rarity shouldn't matter, why shouldn't these two people who are in love get married to each other and raise a baby?

If you really want to go cross-eyed, think about this...if the grandma and grandson have a son, that son would also be the grandmother's son and great-grandson. And the kid would be the father's son AND uncl. :crazy:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
In fact, if a secular marriage between two non Catholics failed, and one later wanted to marry a Catholic, that original failed marriage would still be subject to examination for a decree of nullity.


That is true. Some years ago a good friend of mine,a nominal Catholic from a French Canadian family, wished to marry a non Catholic divorcee. The local Archdiocese required that her first marriage (a civil marriage) would have to annulled before it would consider marrying them in the Church. The application fee for annulment would be $500.00.

My friend rightly interpreted this as a money grab on the part of the Church.

6 weeks later they were married in their living room in a civil ceremony.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Renauda
Feb 9 2012, 10:57 AM
My friend rightly interpreted this as a money grab on the part of the Church.

Well, how else is the Church going to cover contraceptives and abortions?
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I not aware if those are even issues where I live. Come to think of it, same sex marriage isn't an issue here either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
How old is the child? Is it wrong for a 50 year old father to have sex with his 25 year old son? What if they want to get married?

I think such a union is wrong, but I won't be in their bedroom wagging my finger at them. As for making it legal, would this type of union benefit society so that they deserve special benefits? I don't think so and I think my view is consistent with society's.

Quote:
 
Two seems to be an arbitrary number. Why not 3? I have no reason to think that a group of 3 or 4 men who want to enter into a union with each other would lead to abuse anymore than a heterosexual couple.

Society disagrees with you. Yes, this could change but I have no reason to believe it will. Do you think it will or are you positing the most ridiculous situation to show that my logic is flawed? OK, apply my logic. Is there a special benefit to society to permitting groups of individuals to be married? I don't think so. Do you?

Quote:
 
Also, forget what "society" decides. What do you decide. Would you support the marriage of 3 men to each other? Or do you hold the bigoted position that 3's a crowd?

What possible difference could it make what I decide? Anyway, my thoughts are stated above. No, I do not think that society benefits from multiple person liaisons to the extent that there should be special rights given to these unions. But I will not move a finger to stop people from having any relationship they choose, provided that it's among consenting adults. If that's bigoted, so be it.

Quote:
 
The rarity shouldn't matter

Of course the rarity matters. Why would society confer benefits on things that virtually never occur and virtually no one thinks should occur? Demonstrate the societal good of grandmas marrying their grandsons and having babies together and I may change my mind.

At the risk of repeating myself one too many times, the bottom line, for me, is not if people want to make their relationship legal, but whether making it legal is beneficial enough for society to encourage these sorts of relationships by conferring special status. From this perspective, I do not see the problem with gay marriage.

And now I really have to make a living.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dave Spelvin
Feb 9 2012, 10:32 AM
I'm perfectly happy to let the matter drop here.
I dropped out about two pages ago. We've had this discussion before and it didn't look like anything new was said.

In a few years it will all be moot.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
As far as society goes ...

Why must society "benefit" for anything to be "allowed"?

As long as the society is not harmed by something, that something should be allowed.

That should be the end of what society has to do with whether to allow something.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Ax, that actually sounds very "constitutional".
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dave Spelvin
Feb 9 2012, 10:32 AM
IT:

Based on your understanding of marriage, if it is somehow based on children but there are no children, then how can a childless marriage be a marriage? Such an arrangement would seem to fail by definition.
You are missing what I actually stated. "The reason marriage between people of complimentary sexuality is a legally recognized institution is that it is by nature transgenerational (whether or not every marriage is actually so, is not germane) "

It is natural that man and woman produce children through intercourse, but nature is not always fulfilled, sometimes for natural reasons. (per example, it is natural that humans have four limbs -- being born without a limb, or having one amputated, does not make the human being into a non human.)

Children can be said to make "a family" , but children do not make a marriage. The only requirement (from a Catholic perspective) is being open to children, since children are the natural outcome of sexual intercourse between man and woman, even if not every time. From a secular perspective, the a priori decision to not have children, or the subsequent inability to have children, would just be a private agreement between individuals -- again, would insist on some sort of invasive procreation police to validate marriages? Does this not seem to be a simple and reasonable assumption that society can make without meddling in the personal affairs of others?

Quote:
 

And I don't understand your statement about meddling. What I hope I expressed is that it is not the government's business to meddle in this. However, at present, heterosexual couples enjoy legal rights that homosexual couples do not, and we appear to agree on this, based on your suggestion of corporate substitutes.
Meddling because you were proposing some idea whereby marriages might be retroactively discounted if not fruitful (If marriage by its nature has to do with the procreation and education of children, then require married couples without children to forgo the benefits of marriage.) How would you do that without procreation police to enforce such an absurd policy? The State only has a general interest in persons in so far as they are not working against the social order and the common good, not a specific interest.
Quote:
 

I see what you mean about there being no difference between your marriage and mine (other than that different people are in it, of course) but I'm not sure I buy it. My wife and I are not guided by or subject to your lord's teachings with respect to my marriage, but only by our respective consciences. You and your marriage are subject to your god and his rules. Doesn't it follow that our marriages are not the same in some very basic way?


No, because there is presumably nothing that Jesus or the Catholic Church teaches about marriage that is in anyway opposed to the dictates of reason which inform the conscience. We can only speak experientially and immanently about this -- I assume that the sort of love and commitment and forgiveness and forbearance you receive from your wife, and the sort of love and commitment and forgiveness and forbearance you show her, are the same sort of love and commitment and forgiveness and forbearance within a Christian marriage. (assuming you and your wife have such a profoundly *human* understanding of what marriage entails).

The only difference, which is a matter of faith, might be that a sacramental marriage participates in the grace and salvific and sanctifying action of Christ in a way that a natural marriage does not -- but I think (and the Catholic Church teaches) that all acts of love and service are redemptive and healing and lead us to the source of Love, and that God is not limited by such things, and that you don't have to be a Christian or have a sacramental marriage to have both a great marriage and a truly loving one. (although I need all the help I can get).
Quote:
 

I'm perfectly happy to let the matter drop here. I need to earn a living. Please have the last word if you wish.
Pax, David. That's my last word.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Kincaid
Feb 9 2012, 11:44 AM
In a few years it will all be moot.
We'll be having sex with ents, you mean?

I think in that case I definitely want to give rather than receive. Hrooom hrooom!


Sorry, LOTR dork humour.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Renauda
Feb 9 2012, 10:57 AM
Quote:
 
In fact, if a secular marriage between two non Catholics failed, and one later wanted to marry a Catholic, that original failed marriage would still be subject to examination for a decree of nullity.


That is true. Some years ago a good friend of mine,a nominal Catholic from a French Canadian family, wished to marry a non Catholic divorcee. The local Archdiocese required that her first marriage (a civil marriage) would have to annulled before it would consider marrying them in the Church. The application fee for annulment would be $500.00.

My friend rightly interpreted this as a money grab on the part of the Church.

6 weeks later they were married in their living room in a civil ceremony.
How does $500 even begin to cover the administrative costs of the process?? Good grief. They could also have appealed as a hardship under canon law, and the Church would have simply asked them to give what they could, and processed the investigation without regard to any payment.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Rider
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Feb 9 2012, 08:58 AM
Free Rider
Feb 9 2012, 07:57 AM
Quote:
 
Interesting. Do you apply that generic feel-good statement "just give everybody the chance to have the life they want" to other currently illegal forms of marriage or just same-sex marriage? I'm just trying to figure out if you draw a line anywhere in terms of "allowing people to have the life they want".
uhhh no, just to the same sex marriage issue. Unless of course it's John D'oh and I think he should be able to marry sheep.

Ok, then you disagree with the very quote you posted, correct?
Dude, come on... you know what that quote meant and if you want to parse the phrase "allow everybody to have the life they want" so you and I can nitpick that to death you are missing the point. Deliberately.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Feb 9 2012, 12:13 PM
As far as society goes ...

Why must society "benefit" for anything to be "allowed"?

As long as the society is not harmed by something, that something should be allowed.

That should be the end of what society has to do with whether to allow something.
Right, and society allows for two people of the same gender to live together, have sex, build a life together, enjoy mutual companionship, arrange for rights of survivorship and joint ownership of property.

So your criteria has been met.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Free Rider
Feb 9 2012, 12:30 PM
The 89th Key
Feb 9 2012, 08:58 AM
Free Rider
Feb 9 2012, 07:57 AM
Quote:
 
Interesting. Do you apply that generic feel-good statement "just give everybody the chance to have the life they want" to other currently illegal forms of marriage or just same-sex marriage? I'm just trying to figure out if you draw a line anywhere in terms of "allowing people to have the life they want".
uhhh no, just to the same sex marriage issue. Unless of course it's John D'oh and I think he should be able to marry sheep.

Ok, then you disagree with the very quote you posted, correct?
Dude, come on... you know what that quote meant and if you want to parse the phrase "allow everybody to have the life they want" so you and I can nitpick that to death you are missing the point. Deliberately.

I just thought it was an interesting quote and was curious if you applied it to other forms of illegal marriage, or just same-sex marriage, and you already answered that question. IMO, the quote is too broad and, while it sounds nice, shouldn't be used unless you're open to what the quote is actually saying, and not what you are wanting it to say.

Srsly though, I'm just giving you a hard time. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Dave Spelvin
Feb 9 2012, 11:35 AM
At the risk of repeating myself one too many times, the bottom line, for me, is not if people want to make their relationship legal, but whether making it legal is beneficial enough for society to encourage these sorts of relationships by conferring special status. From this perspective, I do not see the problem with gay marriage.

And now I really have to make a living.
So as not to belabor the point (too late!0, I'll just say that we have very similar points of view, except you are drawing the line after gay marriage and I'm drawing it before it. Otherwise we hold very similar reactions to those questions.

However, I disagree that the reasoning should be "is making this legal beneficial for society?", and should really be the inverse where one is asking "is making this legal, and the precedents it sets, bad for society?".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 9 2012, 12:28 PM
Renauda
Feb 9 2012, 10:57 AM
Quote:
 
In fact, if a secular marriage between two non Catholics failed, and one later wanted to marry a Catholic, that original failed marriage would still be subject to examination for a decree of nullity.


That is true. Some years ago a good friend of mine,a nominal Catholic from a French Canadian family, wished to marry a non Catholic divorcee. The local Archdiocese required that her first marriage (a civil marriage) would have to annulled before it would consider marrying them in the Church. The application fee for annulment would be $500.00.

My friend rightly interpreted this as a money grab on the part of the Church.

6 weeks later they were married in their living room in a civil ceremony.
How does $500 even begin to cover the administrative costs of the process?? Good grief. They could also have appealed as a hardship under canon law, and the Church would have simply asked them to give what they could, and processed the investigation without regard to any payment.
Investigate what? The validity of her Settelment of Divorce? There was nothing to investigate. She, a non Catholic, was legally divorced from another non Catholic and had the notarized paper to prove it. The Church needed no admin or detective work to figure that out.

It was nothing other than a money grab, scam or Church imposed pseudo-tax on practicing and nominal Catholics who wish to marry divorced non Catholics.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dave Spelvin
Feb 9 2012, 10:32 AM
Based on your understanding of marriage, if it is somehow based on children but there are no children, then how can a childless marriage be a marriage?
BTW, just for clarification, marriage is not "based on children" -- as if children were the predicate. Marriage is based on a man and woman freely vowing themselves to each other (permanently, exclusively, etc). The marriage is naturally ordered to children, because of complementary sexuality, and the stable monogamous marriage is the optimal environment to raise children. Hope that helps.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Renauda
Feb 9 2012, 01:40 PM
ivorythumper
Feb 9 2012, 12:28 PM
Renauda
Feb 9 2012, 10:57 AM
Quote:
 
In fact, if a secular marriage between two non Catholics failed, and one later wanted to marry a Catholic, that original failed marriage would still be subject to examination for a decree of nullity.


That is true. Some years ago a good friend of mine,a nominal Catholic from a French Canadian family, wished to marry a non Catholic divorcee. The local Archdiocese required that her first marriage (a civil marriage) would have to annulled before it would consider marrying them in the Church. The application fee for annulment would be $500.00.

My friend rightly interpreted this as a money grab on the part of the Church.

6 weeks later they were married in their living room in a civil ceremony.
How does $500 even begin to cover the administrative costs of the process?? Good grief. They could also have appealed as a hardship under canon law, and the Church would have simply asked them to give what they could, and processed the investigation without regard to any payment.
Investigate what? The validity of her Settelment of Divorce? There was nothing to investigate. She, a non Catholic, was legally divorced from another non Catholic and had the notarized paper to prove it. The Church needed no admin or detective work to figure that out.

It was nothing other than a money grab, scam or Church imposed pseudo-tax on practicing and nominal Catholics who wish to marry divorced non Catholics.




No, there is still a presumption of validity for a natural marriage, and it still has to go through canonical procedure for annulment. You even seemed to agree with me that "that original failed marriage would still be subject to examination for a decree of nullity." All you are talking about is the decree of her civil divorce, which only demonstrates that the courts recognize she is no longer civilly married. But even civil marriages have a natural validity, and the sacrament requires that no impediments of any marriage exist since one can only be sacramentally married to one person while both are alive.

Your friend evidently decided that the money was not worth it -- so we have a good idea how much he valued his faith -- something less than $500.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Feb 9 2012, 10:10 AM
ivorythumper
Feb 9 2012, 10:06 AM
Axtremus
Feb 9 2012, 10:02 AM
Regarding ivorythumper's "domestic corporation" idea ...

Ask him whether he would allow a "domestic corporation" consists of same-sex couple to adopt children.

There's your "separate and not equal" right there. ;)
Of course its separate but equal -- no one or any group has any natural right to adopt a human being -- just like McDonald's can't adopt children.
See?
Q.E.D.
So I'll ask you: would you deny a free love commune of 15 people to have a corporate structure to ensure the same rights to establish a life of mutual companionship and benefit and legal standing as you would give a gay couple? Would you accord that arrangement the name of "marriage"? Would you let such a group adopt a child?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
Pax, David. That's my last word.

Figures it's in fvcking Latin! (j/k) A pleasure doing business with you, IT.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 9 2012, 01:49 PM
Your friend evidently decided that the money was not worth it -- so we have a good idea how much he valued his faith -- something less than $500.
Yeah that's right. He never was much of church goer other than the occasional baptism, weddings and funerals. Like me he really has never been much into the ritualism of faith. He looked at marrying her there for his parent's and relatives' sake. That's all.

In the end it didn't bother mere and pere a bit that he was married by a provincially licensed marriage commissioner.

He used the $500 instead towards a hall party for friends and family. A wise selection over the church in my opinion. Too bad I was working overseas at the time and had to miss it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I'd say he got off pretty cheaply for $500. It cost Henry VIII considerably more than that.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Ren: I feel his pain.

I value my Faith far more than the $600 it will cost me to get remarried in the Church, but I don't value the corruption that allows such highway robbery more than $.01, which is why I probably won't be able to have another Orthodox wedding.

"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Unorthodox weddings are much cooler anyways. You can get hitched scub-diving naked, or recite your vows in Klingon.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Next one will definitely be a Vegas wedding...
Klingon AND Elvis.

Klingvis or Elvlingon?
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply