I believe I was once told by a Catholic woman that if a person knows they are unable to have children they are not supossed to get married in the Catholic church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dena
This is really one of the only few issues I have with Catholics and most Catholics don't agree with it anyway.
really?
and
it is based on what one Catholic woman told you?
it is not true
so
now who are you going to believe?
Being that marriages are suppose to be PRIVATE and PERSONAL, when concerning adults, there is no reason for the state or government to have any jurisdiction in the process.
I think the chief concern is that the government gives preferential treatment to married couples.
This has it at about 1400 laws that benefit married people.
marriage
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
And by Webster you mean Bobby Webster, the nut who lives next door to you?
Here is the actual text:
Definition of MARRIAGE
1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Not that any dictionary has any authority here or in any moral or legal case, it is at best an aggregate of common understanding of terms.
"What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"
Thanks for making my point for me. You can see how the common understanding of a word changes in the "short" span of ~200 years.
Neither the 1828 definition nor the 2012 definition have any sort of authority on definitions. But as times change, and so do words.
Case in point - http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,gay
"What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"
Location: On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
Rep Power: 49665
Christian (Other)
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of your testimony; and love not your life unto death.
Reputation:
February 10th, 2012, 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
The current publisher of Webster's dictionary.
The current publisher would be the Encyclopćdia Britannica.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
Thanks for making my point for me. You can see how the common understanding of a word changes in the "short" span of ~200 years.
Neither the 1828 definition nor the 2012 definition have any sort of authority on definitions. But as times change, and so do words.
Case in point - http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,gay
So your point is that homosexuals have already changed the definition of the word gay, therefore we shouldn't object when they try to change the definition of the word marriage?
So your point is that homosexuals have already changed the definition of the word gay, therefore we shouldn't object when they try to change the definition of the word marriage?
My point is that dictionary definitions change over time, because the word's use is understood differently by the people over time.
Dictionaries follow trends, they don't usually make them.
"What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"
Why are right-wing idiots always making these asinine and mindlessly fear-mongering claims about same sex marriage inevitably leading to the legalization if incest, polygamy, bestialty ,
etc? This is moronic in the extreme. It won't lead to legalizing incest or polygamy and bestiality etc.
There is ZERO chance of this happening. In the past many Americans were outraged at the prospect of allowing blacks to serve with whites in the military, allowing blacks and women to vote etc, and blacks and whites to marry. None of these things did anything to cause the destruction of US society. Much ado about nothing.
Same sex marriage does not interfere in any way with opposite sex couples getting mareried and raising families. Marriage does not need to be "defended". DOMA is a shameful ploy to create mindless hysteria about same sex marriage. It's stupid, highly immoral and totally unconstitutional.
From the link:
* Subsidiaries include Merriam-Webster, Inc., in Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by genuineoriginal
Your point about dictionary definitions changing over time is valid.
My point is that a lot of people do not accept the new definition of "marriage" even though it is becoming more common in use.
If, instead of marriage or even gay marriage, it were called "super-duper-mega-civil-union", and conferred the same rights and privileges as marriage, would that be acceptable to you?
I think the definition is a symptom of the battle, rather than anything essential to it.
"What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"
Location: On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
Rep Power: 49665
Christian (Other)
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of your testimony; and love not your life unto death.
Reputation:
February 10th, 2012, 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horn
Why are right-wing idiots always making these asinine and mindlessly fear-mongering claims about same sex marriage inevitably leading to the legalization if incest, polygamy, bestialty ,
etc? This is moronic in the extreme. It won't lead to legalizing incest or polygamy and bestiality etc.
There is ZERO chance of this happening. In the past many Americans were outraged at the prospect of allowing blacks to serve with whites in the military, allowing blacks and women to vote etc, and blacks and whites to marry. None of these things did anything to cause the destruction of US society. Much ado about nothing.
Same sex marriage does not interfere in any way with opposite sex couples getting mareried and raising families. Marriage does not need to be "defended". DOMA is a shameful ploy to create mindless hysteria about same sex marriage. It's stupid, highly immoral and totally unconstitutional.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying all blacks are perverts?
Location: On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
Rep Power: 49665
Christian (Other)
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of your testimony; and love not your life unto death.
Reputation:
February 10th, 2012, 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
If, instead of marriage or even gay marriage, it were called "super-duper-mega-civil-union", and conferred the same rights and privileges as marriage, would that be acceptable to you?
I think the definition is a symptom of the battle, rather than anything essential to it.
It doesn't matter whether I object to the term "super-duper-mega-civil-union"
Civil Unions
Civil unions are not seen as a replacement for marriage by many in the gay community. "Marriage in the United States is a civil union; but a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage," said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry.
Linear Mode
