1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Catholic Church and the Future of Same-Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Smellincoffee, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,969
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    So the Catholic Church would recognize the relationship between Adam and Steve as a marriage? Interesting.

    Anyway, let's say Adam does not disclose his marriage to Steve to the Church. Adam and Eve get married in a Catholic ceremony in another state. The first state would still not recognize the Catholic marriage, though I suppose the Catholic Church, once it found out the facts, would annul the second marriage in recognition of the validity of the first marriage.
     
  2. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    I see what you did thar, you sneaky deceiver! ;)
     
  3. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The long wait

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    20,069
    He is a slippery snake, that one. Watch yer daughters, mind yer wives!
     
  4. Bulldog Bats

    Bulldog Bats King

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    No, but they do not condone homosexuality, and likely would say that because he had entered into the relationship, the church would not bless the union with Eve. The church does not have to bless every marriage. I would guess that they would say that since he earlier said he was entering into marriage with Steve, he was not fit to be married in the church with Eve.

    Again, also, because the marriage is done in conjunction with the civil marriage, he would likely be ineligible for the civil marriage, and therefore, the church would not conduct the religious ceremony.
     
  5. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,913
    Location:
    the golf course
    I didn't say the interpretation was asinine, only that Jesus rejected the law and punishment under Moses. As for adultery, Jesus asked which among them is without sin - supposedly only He fit that description and he declined punishing the adulteress. Everybody else was a sinner!

    Jews were Christians?

    It protects religion from the state and thats what Jefferson said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.

    What?

    Which means he rejected parts of the Bible

    No law respecting an establishment of religion IS separation of church and state
     
  6. Bulldog Bats

    Bulldog Bats King

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    Wrong. It means that the state cannot establish a religion to be the state religion. Remember, we were breaking away from England, which had a state religion. Other religions, including Christian religions, wanted a place they could worship as they wanted. No where does the Constitution say religion was entirely separate from government.
     
  7. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,913
    Location:
    the golf course
    thats separating church and state
     
  8. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,445
    Name one European government that was under the control of Judaism.

    So protecting a few Baptist pastors proves that the amendment protects religion? And which religion or state was threatening those Baptist? The amendment was not a right. It was keeping religion from forming a control over every one, not just another religion, which is not stated either.

    And the amendment has not been upheld, because the government is creating laws against religion today, so where is that promised protection?

    God killed Moses, even though he was no where close to death and no one knows where the body is. That is why people call it a Myth, because allegedly there is no proof of his existence.

    You say that he rejected the law, but he did not. He even died as the result of every one breaking the law, even though he was not found guilty by Roman law. He did not reject the Sabbath. He said that he was Lord of the Sabbath. Which other parts did Jesus reject?
     
  9. Dralix

    Dralix Killer of threads

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,407
    It means what the Supreme Court says it means. And they've said it means more than that.
     
  10. Bulldog Bats

    Bulldog Bats King

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    Send me the citation to the case to which you are referring. I would be happy to read it.
     
  11. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,969
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    I thought you were a constitutional lawyer. Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Establishment Clause has strayed very far from the concept that it is restricted to "the state cannot establish a religion to be the state religion."
     
  12. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,913
    Location:
    the golf course
    Its strayed closer to the concept of a secular state, but just like a pendulum it swung a bit too far on a few issues and we still need more straying on others. From the dismantling of symbols that make no demands on us (Congress shall make "no law" = no demands) to drug laws that violate our religious freedom.
     
  13. Dralix

    Dralix Killer of threads

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,407
    Well, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and I wasn't referring to any one particular case, but more on the lines of what JR said.

    But how about Engel v. Vitale?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421
     
  14. Bulldog Bats

    Bulldog Bats King

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    I am. It has expanded and interpreted the clause, and will continue to do so. But not to the extent he seems to imply. The court also protects religion and religious freedom. That does not separate the government from religion, as it has the mandate to protect its free worship.
     
  15. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,445
    From the citation that Dralix provided:

    I would tend to think that it would destroy the government before it destroyed religion. But they may have a point. I still insist that to a secularist, it would be better to preserve the government, than worry how any religion was affected.
     
  16. Dralix

    Dralix Killer of threads

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,407

    Not sure who you mean by "he." The only thing I was trying to imply is that separation of church and state means more than "the state cannot establish a religion to be the state religion."
     
  17. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,913
    Location:
    the golf course
    Exactly! It was one of the minority religions in Europe and they paid a heavy price. Yes, Christians didn't get along much either. The Framers were wanting to avoid the strife caused by a marriage between church and state.

    They had religious freedom already, they were concerned about Jefferson for some reason and wanted him to explain his views and he responded with a wall separating church and state to assure them.

    The context of the amendment was a history of religious/state warfare, they didn't want a religion controlling the legislature so "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was their solution. "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" = right.

    Sacrificed by politicians for votes and campaign donations

    I interpret it differently, Moses died at 120 in relatively good shape. It happens to people ~100, it doesn't mean God killed them or him. The part where God commanded him to die is not that different from people today saying the Lord has called upon their loved ones when they die. I'd need another verse with less ambiguity.

    He rejected punishing people for adultery and violating the Sabbath. Those were laws established by Moses. Jesus rejected parts of the Bible, he had 2 laws - love God and love each other.
     
  18. Arachnofiend

    Arachnofiend Perturbed Pugilist

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,950
    The context of the amendment was the Enlightenment Period and the rise of secularism as we know it
     
  19. Jehoshua

    Jehoshua Catholic

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,200
    The Church doesn't recognise "same sex marriage" to be marriage, and so in the eyes of the Church it wouldn't be bigamy if a participant in a sodomitical parody of marriage happened to get actually married.

    That said you are correct that it almost certainly wouldn't permit a person within such a union to get married within the Church. As to number three, the Church in any given country could quite easily disassociate sacramental marriage from the civil process of marriage (presumably if the state becomes hostile to the Church, or the laws regarding marriage become hostile to the sacramental obligations of a Catholic marriage) although at present it doesn't since marriage is juridical, and the recognition of such in law is complimentary to the sacrament.
     
  20. NBAfan

    NBAfan boss

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,351
    removed
     

Share This Page