Q:Holy matrimony is a religious institution. Marriage isn't. The legal ability to marry in the U.S. does not have to do with religion. I understand that you don't want government involvement in marriage, but the fact is that it is involved, so if you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, then oppose homosexual holy matrimony, not marriage. I agree that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry in a Catholic church (or anywhere against it), but in the eyes of the govt, it deserves recognition.
Holy Matrimony is the sacrament in Marriage, not marriage itself. In saying this, marriage is definitely a religious institution and belongs with religions, not the state.
I want the government out of marriage because it has no jurisdiction to 1) regulate or 2) distribute marriage and the fact that it’s in marriage is a gross overreach of government authority, which is why I’m fighting it. We’re not supposed to be content with the government in so many aspects of our lives, we’re supposed to limit government power so it stays out.
Lastly, government-backed marriages of any sort and government marriage certificates are the remnants of an old, racist policy that was meant to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other. So long as government gave out marriage certificates and monopolized who can and cannot legally marry each other, the government can outlaw and punish those who marry interracially as noted by this New York Times article which says:
until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
The enemy of freedom has always been the intrusion of government where it does not belong because it’s all about control True freedom is allowing each religion to dictate marriage and for the government to get its grubby mitts off of it.
Q:"Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else." "A man can marry a woman. A woman can marry a man. A man cannot marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. Where is the discrimination in that? Everyone has equal status." You contradicted yourself so much there, everyone does not have equal status if different people can do different things. If being gay is a choice then when did you decide that you wanted to be straight?
You contradicted yourself so much there, everyone does not have equal status if different people can do different things
This makes little sense. I didn’t contradict myself by proving that there is no discrimination in marriage by men of all sexualities, races, creeds, etc can only, by the natural definition of marriage, marry a woman of all sexualities, races, creeds, etc. So, different people are definitely doing the same thing here.
If being gay is a choice then when did you decide that you wanted to be straight?
1) never said being gay was a choice. Don’t put words in my mouth
2) there is still a choice for all of us to make regardless of sexuality. that choice is of chastity (not to be confused with celibacy).
Q:This is why religion and the bible makes no sense. Removing ovaries is a sin? The biggest reason to remove ovaries is cause of OVARION CANCER. So a woman should die just because some bible says it is a sin?
Removing ovaries for the purpose of sterilization is a sin. Removing ovaries for medical purposes, like ovarian cancer as you pointed out, is not sinful.
P.S. don’t say “religion and the bible.” Not all religions follow the Bible, only Christianity does.
On Marriage and Fecundity
If I a woman has both of her ovaries removed by the age of 25 and then seeks marriage, does she mock and abuse the Sacrament by seeking rights and privileges given to an institution because of its capacity for procreation? If the natural end of marriage is to conceive children, and if the societal privileges associated with marriage are given because of the expectation of procreation, is a sterile woman misusing the Sacrament/institution? Is she a freeloader? If the bottom line purpose of marriage is to “be fruitful and multiply” and the woman is not able to contribute to that purpose, isn’t she misusing marriage, and shouldn’t she be barred from it?
The answer to your question, at least the way you phrase it, would be the same regardless of whether the woman was born barren or whether she had her ovaries removed. Obviously, we recognize that undergoing an operation to remove ovaries is a sin according to the Church, but your question does not regard the nature of that act, but rather that of a woman with no possibility for childbirth to procure a marriage.
The answer to your question is no, a sterile woman may still marry, regardless of whether the sterility was caused by nature or by human act. The reason is that the husband and wife are still ordering their sexual relationship towards procreation, even if procreation is in itself impossible, because the marriage is still a fertile union even if the individual members of the union are not. The union of a man and a woman is a fertile union regardless of the fertility of the individuals in that marriage.
To understand this, perhaps an analogy can help. If software and hardware are the required components of a computer, if you have software and a broken piece of hardware, you still have a computer. It may be a computer that does not function perfectly, but it still is a computer. This is completely different than having two pieces of hardware and no software, or vice-versa, which is not a computer at all.
The proof of this comes from the Church’s acceptance of NFP. If the Church can say that an individual act of sex is still ordered towards procreation even if the couples involved are deliberately trying to reduce the likelihood of having a child by having intercourse during infertile periods, then certainly a sterile woman may be able to order her sexuality towards procreation. If “temporary infertility” is no barrier to intercourse then permanent infertility is not either.
And once she enters marriage, is sex always illicit since there is absolutely no way she could have a freak pregnancy, and therefore she would always be having sex with 100% positivity that she would not conceive and therefore 100% unopenness to life? And if not, what is the logic? Because openness to life is not limited to individual acts but to the attitude of the marriage as a whole? But why are fertile couples not afforded this logic? Is it because openness to life is not about openness specifically to conception? Again, why are fertile couples not afforded this logic?
An openness to life means giving the totality of ourselves over to our spouse, not holding anything, including our fertility, back. But it would be ludicrous to say that a woman (or man) is holding her fertility back because she has none to give. It would be like claiming that a man was being uncharitable because he was not giving money to the poor, when he himself was poor and had no money to give. A woman who suffers from infertility needs our love, not our condemnation.
This is completely different from a couple who is fertile, who uses contraception, because that is not ordering their sexuality towards procreation.
And if she is at all allowed to marry, why? Is it because the procreative aim of marriage applies to the institution as a whole and not to each specific couple? Then why do we treat each and every individual sexual act according to its capacity for procreation, and why do we bar impotent men from marriage?
We bar impotent men from marriage, (not necessarily in all circumstances, I should note, in some circumstances a dispensation might be granted) because impotency prevents the conjugal union, not just procreation. From bloggerpriest: “The pivotal difference between infertility and impotency is that the mechanics of the marital act remain the same. It is still the type of act that naturally can result in children and to which the male and female bodies complement each other. Such cannot be said where male potency has been compromised and oral or digital manipulation is pursued.”
And if the procreative aim and purpose of marriage is a universal truth, why are there apparent exceptions? Is it all relative? Is morality *not* about individual behaviors, but instead about general societal conformity and uniformity?
I hope I have demonstrated how the apparent exceptions are not truly exceptions.
If civil marriage is an institution based on the begetting of children, and not an institution based on the public health and wellness associated with monogamy, mutual support, decreased liability, increased happiness, ease of property ownership and increased wealth and productivity, then why are couples seeking to be civilly married not required by law to sign a document declaring their commitment to giving society children? If that’s what all the benefits and tax write offs are for? And if traditional marriage has always been understood as primarily aimed at providing children, why do traditional marriage vows not reflect this? Why are do our commonly understood definitions of marriage revolve around caring for and supporting one another in good times or bad, and not about teaming up to procreate?
Because for the longest time procreation was seen as a good thing. It was understood that all of what you mentioned would be in addition to procreation. It’s only recently in our culture that procreation is seen as a bad thing and steps have been taken to eliminate it. But, in the Christian tradition there has always been an emphasis on procreation. The bible even says “Be fruitful, and multiply.”
But, what is the primary reason monogamy and mutual support are features of marriage? Because they create the two parent families which are most conducive to raising a family. If no one could determine the parentage of children, and no one felt an obligation to their children or their spouses which is the result of a polygamous and sexually licentious society, these children would not be cared for and society would fall apart. So truly I say to you, even if it is not explicitly stated, procreation and child rearing is still at the centre of civil marriage.
And when your logic falls apart and you see you have to make an exception in one area in order to make another area make sense, like shifting “openness to life” to a broad sweeping concept rather than an individual, instantive one in order to excuse the marriages of the sterile (the logic of which would allow contraception in marriage), and when you realize that history is not on your side and that your sexual prohibitions and marital definitions can’t be found in scripture, do you admit your error? Or is humility one of those matters of “prudential judgment”?
As you can see, I did not shift openness to life to a broad sweeping concept, and I continue to insist that all individual sexual acts must be ordered towards procreation, my arguments do not require me to accept contraception in marriage, and I have maintained a consistent worldview. In Christian love and charity, I humbly submit this response to you, so that you may come to better understand the Church’s teachings on this matter.
Q:Marriage is not a religious institution, it was around a long time before Common Era. As was homosexuality. I have no issue with your faith, but your faith should not affect other people's lives in a negative wat. It's not even just about marriage, it's the principle. If you deny people who aren't heterosexual the rights that heterosexuals have, you are denying them equal status. Where is the agape in homophobia?
Marriage is a religious institution. Religion has existed before Common Era and has actually been established before the state. Marriage is an institution of the religions and that’s where it ought to remain.
My faith doesn’t effect others lives in a negative way. It strives to change them for the good of themselves. Telling people not to act in ways that could be harmful to their spirit or their physical being isn’t negative.
What rights? Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else. Besides, you must look to the individual for rights, not the collective. Rights in this country are made for the individual for it’s the individual that can express rights the greatest. A man can marry a woman. A woman can marry a man. A man cannot marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. Where is the discrimination in that? Everyone has equal status.
I’m not homophobic. I do not fear nor hate those with same-sex attraction. Do not confuse love with “tolerance” for they are surely not the same. How can I love someone while promoting them to do evil? That’s not love. Jesus never told the sinners he ate with to “continue to do what you want.” No, he said “go and sin no more” (John 8:11).
Q:hey bro, you can have a completely legal marriage with only the government and no religion but you cant have a completely legal marriage with only religion and no government.
Q:Sorry but it's not up to you or an imaginary diety to dictate what people should do in their own lives. If people want to get married and not have kids (which I am sure most married couples DON'T have kids then they can do whatever they want to do. This is what i can't stand about religious people like you, you judge and judge and don't learn to mind your own business. You have no right telling people how to live their lives that includes homosexuals having sex and getting married.
You clearly misinterpreted everything I said. Not wanting kids isn’t the same as not being open to kids. Yes, a couple can be married an have no intention of conceiving.
Of course I judge! We all judge! You’re judging me right now! We judge that way we can associate with people we want to associate. To exclude those who act unfavorably and include those who act favorably. We need to judge. This “no judging” mantra is ridiculous, and, in fact, dangerous.
People are coming to me with these questions and answer. I am not mandating through some sort of legislation or people to act, think, and live a certain way. I’m minding my own business
no, I’m not telling anyone what to do. But a two gay men can’t call their agreement a marriage in the same way you can’t call your dog a cat. You can, but you’ll be wrong.-Justin
Q:Wait so marriage is just for having babies? Oh okay so if a woman has uterus cancer or can't procreate or a man can't generate sperm, that means THEY CAN'T GET MARRIED? Just wow, screw marriage then.
Wait so marriage is just for having babies?
No. Openness to procreation is a requirement for marriage. If one is not open to the possibility of children, then one shouldn’t get married.
Also, there are pages of posts about marriage on this blog as this topic has been revisited over and over again. Take a gander. More questions you have may be answered there ;)
Oh okay so if a woman has uterus cancer or can’t procreate or a man can’t generate sperm, that means THEY CAN’T GET MARRIED?
An infertile person can get married.
Just wow, screw marriage then.
Marriage isn’t for everyone.
Q:Well see, you're defining marriage from the christian perspective, when the practice has manifest in many other societies as well. I understand if you want to have a personal conception of marriage, but one religion doesn't have the right to define the practice of marriage in one sense over any other sense. Just like you'll probably accept that the state has no right telling any religious institution whom it should marry.
The thing is there is no “personal conception of marriage.” There is one true marriage and that is a covenant between spouses and God. Marriage is meant to be a lifelong agreement for the good of the spouses and to procreate. What is the point of marriage without openness to procreation? And what is procreation and the act of procreating without some lifelong agreement/commitment? There is a fundamental truth to marriage and it is our duty to seek it. I find the Catholic Church to have the answer. Not just an answer, but the answer. Without the good of the spouses in mind, the procreation and education of offspring, and a life-long covenant between God and the spouses, the identity of marriage and its sanctity are lost.
The state and religions are not comparable, though I will agree to that the state has no right in telling any religious institution whom it should marry or cannot marry. Honestly, if two gay wo/men want to get married, they should go to a religious institution that believes in it. I am aware of many institutions that allow and perform gay marriages, even christian ones. There is no need for state involvement.
Q:Yay! My friend, Jake posted something uber rude about Jesus on Facebook and I was just liek dude not cool and we started talking and long story short, he was mad at God because he got religion, not relationship. SO he started asking me questions about the Bible and such and he gave his life to the Lord three days ago and today, I sent him a package from VA to WA containing an NIV Bible with his name on it ;) note pad and a bunch of other stuff! please pray he's encouraged to start seeking 1/2
2/2 and a relationship with Yeshua! (Jesus!) Also pray for his mom, she was hit by a car five years ago and has never left the hospital and after plenty of failed surgeries, her body accepted a transplant right before x-mas and now they found out she has internal bleeding so shes in ICU (Jake hasn’t seen her in 5 years…) so yeah. YAY :D
I don’t know what’s up with they “yays” but I’ll pray for your friend Jake.
Q:So, since this site has said how gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage, has it affected any of you yet? Was your marriage destroyed by gay people marrying? This site is just homophobic.
you’re combining two topics on marriage into one question that makes little sense.
1. how does gay marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage?
2. how does gay marriage effect you?
For starters, by redefining marriage to satisfy the wants of a small minority is destroying what marriage really is and its holiness. Marriage has become simply a piece of paper and an agreement between two people,which is exactly what it’s not. We need to ask, what is really marriage.
Marriage is a matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership for the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
Being a covenant, not merely a contract (aka piece of paper) it is a sacred agreement between God and the spouses. In this sense, government involvement destroys the sanctity of marriage, but that’s another story. Additionally, making light of marriage as “something one does as an adult” belittles its sanctity. Marriage is also a life-long agreement, not for a few years, so divorce also destroys the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is for procreation and education of offspring. This is where gay “marriage” comes to play. two men or two women cannot marry because they cannot procreate fundamentally. Their anatomy prohibits it. In this way, they cannot fulfill the duties of marriage and thus cannot marry. The definition then goes on to say that marriage between two baptized persons is sacramental, but that’s something else. So, gay “marriage” destroys the sanctity of marriage.
Has gay marriage effected me? Well, no, not me personally, but…
and here’s two more
government backed gay “marriage” tramples all over freedom of religion. I’ll go so far as to abolish government marriage.
We don’t hate gay people.
Q:the only ways to make delivery safer, aren't really natural and are nowhere mentioned in the bible
the bible says, that women should suffer HUGE pain while in labor, just check Genesis 3:16
Genesis 3:16 doesn’t say that women should suffer huge pain of labor, but that women’s punishment for disobeying God will be pain of labor. Bit of a difference.
I also think you’re misinterpreting the point of the Fall of Man, which is to explain the problem of evil and that Pride is the root of all evil.- Justin
We’re still here. Ask us anything you want :)
Well, at least Justin’s still here. I don’t know about the others :/
Q:You DO know that a delivery is much more dangerous to a mother than an abortion, and in her condition she may not have had the strength to do so? The outcome would have been the same, anyway: their child would have died. What's wrong with an abortion then? Everyone medic should know that you should not leave a dying fetus inside of a woman, it is a health risk. As the midwife in the article you quoted says, there were plenty of indicators for a necessary abortion for the survival of the mother.
1) shouldn’t we be working to make delivery much safer rather than priding that abortion is safer than delivery?
2) I still haven’t seen any sources or submissions where anyone got any information. Being that it’s like 4 months after the fact, I’m sure Ireland has had enough time to conduct a thorough investigation about the incident. Surely that will be all over the web.-Justin