Gay Catholics Push for Church Weddings

Lon

Well-known member
So ... IF the church doesn't wish to marry them, go elsewhere. The end.
Yes. The state cannot force a pastor to do this. Some pastors will capitulate and some denominations will capitulate.

In some states the ministers do complete those licenses (in NC this is how it works if I am not mistaken). I guess the alternative is a civil union (if they are available). They are different, but so long as they are equal, right? While we are at it, what is wrong with the back of the bus? They can even have their very own set of booths at restaurants, too!
:nono: There is no legal contract to provide your prescribed service and isn't recognized by the state as such. It'll probably wind up in court at our expense several times, but the government recognizes the independent status of religious belief and practice. This is just wishful thinking. There will never be a ruling from the courts forcing ministers to marry all without discrimination (which is NOT a heinous or bad thing). It isn't ever going to happen unless communists usurp the US constitution.

This would be akin to me demanding a Bar Mitzvah for my non-Jewish 13 year old daughter and NOT converting to Judaism but demanding it anyway. It is simply frivolous and ridiculous to expect it AND a stupid "discrimination" charge to boot. The state doesn't have any vested interest in 13 year old passages, but it doesn't have a vested interest in marriages either. They ONLY thing that is of concern/their business is taxes and property. Because of that, the US Supreme Court overstepped its bounds but only as it relates to marriage. They have a right to rule regarding civil property and taxes. They did not have a right to redefine marriage. They really have no business marrying people at the Justice of the Peace other than as it relates to legal matters.

I think they should call me when this comes back to the Supreme Court, because I believe it calls for a redaction AND reassessment on their part. The July ruling is very problematic legally because it oversteps the bounds and tries to 'define' marriage and thus becomes 'religious' in nature which they cannot do. The only thing they are allowed to be interested in, is property and taxes (perhaps another concern or two). They are not allowed to rule on religious and other 'values.'
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
..... They ONLY thing that is of concern/their business is taxes and property. Because of that, the US Supreme Court overstepped its bounds but only as it relates to marriage. They have a right to rule regarding civil property and taxes. They did not have a right to redefine marriage.

..... The July ruling is very problematic legally because it oversteps the bounds and tries to 'define' marriage and thus becomes 'religious' in nature which they cannot do ..... They are not allowed to rule on religious and other 'values.'
****************************************************************************************************

Types of marriage

Monogamy - a form of marriage in which an individual has only one spouse during their lifetime or at any one time (serial monogamy).
- a strong correlation between intensive plough agriculture, dowry and monogamy

Serial monogamy - governments that support monogamy, may allow divorce.
- in a number of Western countries divorce rates approach 50% and those who remarry do so on average 3 times
- divorce and remarriage can thus result in "serial monogamy", i.e. multiple marriages but only one legal spouse at a time

Polygamy - a marriage which includes more than two partners
- when a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny, and there is no marriage bond between the wives; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry, and there is no marriage bond between the husbands.
- a molecular genetic study of global human genetic diversity argued that sexual polygyny was typical of human reproductive patterns until the shift to sedentary farming communities approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, and more recently in Africa and the Americas
- the majority of Sub-Saharan African societies that practice extensive hoe agriculture show a correlation between "Bride price," and polygamy
- a survey of other cross-cultural samples has confirmed that the absence of the plough was the only predictor of polygamy, although other factors such as high male mortality in warfare (in non-state societies) and pathogen stress (in state societies) had some impact.
- marriages are classified according to the number of legal spouses an individual has where the suffix "-gamy" refers specifically to the number of spouses, as in bi-gamy (two spouses, generally illegal in most nations), and poly-gamy (more than one spouse).
- of 1,231 societies noted in the Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry
- social tolerance for polygamy is different from the practice of polygamy, since it requires wealth to establish multiple households for multiple wives

Polygyny – given the imbalance in the sex ratios, the higher male infant mortality, the shorter life span of males, the loss of males in wartime, etc., women were left without financial support from husbands
- to correct this condition, females had to be killed at birth, remain single, become prostitutes, or be siphoned off into celibate religious orders
- polygynous systems have the advantage that they can promise, as did the Mormons, a home and family for every woman."
-l studies have suggested that the wive's relationship with other women, including co-wives and husband's female kin, are more critical relationships than that with her husband for her productive, reproductive and personal achievement
- in some societies, the co-wives are relatives, usually sisters, a practice called sororal polygyny; the pre-existing relationship between the co-wives is thought to decrease potential tensions within the marriage.[26]
- de facto form of polygyny is found in other parts of the world as well (including some Mormon sects and Muslim families in the United States),
- with the Lovedu of South Africa, or the Nuer of the Sudan an aristocratic women may become female 'husbands' by taking a number of polygamous wives
- these are not lesbian relationships, but a means of legitimately expanding a royal lineage by attaching these wives' children to it
- the relationships are considered polygynous, not polyandrous, because the female husband is in fact assuming masculine gendered political roles
- polygyny is allowed in Islam and Confucianism
- Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism have allowed polygyny in the past, but it is prohibited today

Polyandry - a female with multiple male husbands
- most commonly practiced by 28 societies in the Himalayan Mountains
- most common in egalitarian societies marked by high male mortality or male absenteeism
- associated with partible paternity, the cultural belief that a child can have more than one father
- related to the scarcity of land; the marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife (fraternal polyandry) allows family land to remain intact and undivided
- if every brother married separately and had children, family land would be split into unsustainable small plots
- in Europe, this was prevented through the social practice of impartible inheritance (the dis-inheriting of the younger siblings, some of whom went on to become celibate monks and priests)

Plural marriages - group marriage (also known as multi-lateral marriage) is a form of polyamory in which more than two persons form a family unit, with all the members of the group marriage being considered to be married to all the other members of the group marriage, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage.
- historically it has been practiced by some cultures of Polynesia, Asia, Papua New Guinea and the Americas – as well as in some intentional communities and alternative subcultures such as the Oneida Perfectionists in up-state New York

Child marriages - child marriage is a marriage where one or both spouses are under the age of 18
- child marriages are often arranged between the families of the future bride and groom, sometimes as soon as the girl is born
- child marriage was common throughout history but is today condemned by international human rights organizations ]
- causes of child marriage include poverty, bride price, dowry, laws that allow child marriages, religious and social pressures, regional customs, fear of remaining unmarried, and perceived inability of women to work for money.
- most common in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, with more than half of the girls in some countries in those regions being married before 18

Same-sex and third gender marriages - some cultures include third gender (two-spirited or transgendered) individuals, such as the berdache of the Zuni in New Mexico
- We'wha, one of the most revered Zuni elders (an Ihamana, spiritual leader) served as an emissary of the Zuni to Washington, where he met President Grover Cleveland

Temporary marriages - several cultures have practiced temporary and conditional marriages
- examples include the Celtic practice of handfasting and fixed-term marriages in the Muslim community
- pre-Islamic Arabs practiced a form of temporary marriage that carries on today in the practice of Nikah Mut'ah, a fixed-term marriage contract
- the Islamic prophet Muhammad sanctioned a temporary marriage – sigheh in Iran and muta'a in Iraq – which can provide a legitimizing cover for sex workers The same forms of temporary marriage have been used in Egypt, Lebanon and Iran
- Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah have resulted in the practice being confined mostly to Shi'ite communities
- the matrilineal Mosuo of China practice what they call "walking marriage"
- "walking marriages reflect sweeping changes in Chinese society" and refers to a type of temporary marriage in which male partners live elsewhere and make nightly visits
- a similar arrangement in Saudi Arabia, called misyar marriage, also involves the husband and wife living separately but meeting regularly

Cohabitation - in some jurisdictions cohabitation, in certain circumstances, may constitute a common-law marriage, an unregistered partnership, or otherwise provide the unmarried partners with various rights and responsibilities; and in some countries the laws recognize cohabitation in lieu of institutional marriage for taxation and social security benefits
- cohabitation may be an option pursued as a form of resistance to traditional institutionalized marriage
- some nations reserve the right to define the relationship as marital, or otherwise to regulate the relation, even if the relation has not been registered with the state or a religious institution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
To which of the multiple definitions of marriage is "Lon" referring - given that there is no one universal definition?
 
Last edited:

Quetzal

New member
Yes. The state cannot force a pastor to do this. Some pastors will capitulate and some denominations will capitulate.


:nono: There is no legal contract to provide your prescribed service and isn't recognized by the state as such. It'll probably wind up in court at our expense several times, but the government recognizes the independent status of religious belief and practice. This is just wishful thinking. There will never be a ruling from the courts forcing ministers to marry all without discrimination (which is NOT a heinous or bad thing). It isn't ever going to happen unless communists usurp the US constitution.

This would be akin to me demanding a Bar Mitzvah for my non-Jewish 13 year old daughter and NOT converting to Judaism but demanding it anyway. It is simply frivolous and ridiculous to expect it AND a stupid "discrimination" charge to boot. The state doesn't have any vested interest in 13 year old passages, but it doesn't have a vested interest in marriages either. They ONLY thing that is of concern/their business is taxes and property. Because of that, the US Supreme Court overstepped its bounds but only as it relates to marriage. They have a right to rule regarding civil property and taxes. They did not have a right to redefine marriage. They really have no business marrying people at the Justice of the Peace other than as it relates to legal matters.

I think they should call me when this comes back to the Supreme Court, because I believe it calls for a redaction AND reassessment on their part. The July ruling is very problematic legally because it oversteps the bounds and tries to 'define' marriage and thus becomes 'religious' in nature which they cannot do. The only thing they are allowed to be interested in, is property and taxes (perhaps another concern or two). They are not allowed to rule on religious and other 'values.'
There are legal benefits in addition to the social benefits to marriage. So long as marriage has implications outside of the realm of religion, it will never strictly be separated.
 

Lon

Well-known member
There are legal benefits in addition to the social benefits to marriage. So long as marriage has implications outside of the realm of religion, it will never strictly be separated.
Yes but that IS the separation of church and state.

Again, the government (other people) ONLY are interested in my house and taxes regarding 'my' marriage. Think of it this way: what 'interest' do you legally have in my marriage to my wife?

Answer: ONLY what applies to her and my U.S. rights concerning our property.

It can only even have that interest if there is a problem AND as it pertains to my/our share in community taxes.

There is no other legal interest and I must say butt out. As far as 'providing' me the ability to marry, the state doesn't give that. They only thing that gets involved with the state is the legal matters involved in me being with my wife. They have no concern over anything else, legally.

The good news? It means I have no vested interest in another household either. My concern is when those people come across my life in public places, that we all have a legal and vested interest in. It doesn't mean that we need to go into another's place of worship and dictate anything. It isn't my business to tell you what to do in your home and church and the law treats them that way, rightly.
 

Quetzal

New member
Yes but that IS the separation of church and state.

Again, the government (other people) ONLY are interested in my house and taxes regarding 'my' marriage. Think of it this way: what 'interest' do you legally have in my marriage to my wife?

Answer: ONLY what applies to her and my U.S. rights concerning our property.

It can only even have that interest if there is a problem AND as it pertains to my/our share in community taxes.

There is no other legal interest and I must say butt out. As far as 'providing' me the ability to marry, the state doesn't give that. They only thing that gets involved with the state is the legal matters involved in me being with my wife. They have no concern over anything else, legally.

The good news? It means I have no vested interest in another household either. My concern is when those people come across my life in public places, that we all have a legal and vested interest in. It doesn't mean that we need to go into another's place of worship and dictate anything. It isn't my business to tell you what to do in your home and church and the law treats them that way, rightly.
The only way they can truly separate is to offer those same legal rights given to straight married couples to homosexual couples who want those same legal benefits. If that can be done across the board, without the need of any religious official once so ever, in every single state, regardless of sexuality; then there is nothing left to discuss.
 

Lon

Well-known member
The only way they can truly separate is to offer those same legal rights given to straight married couples to homosexual couples who want those same legal benefits. If that can be done across the board, without the need of any religious official once so ever, in every single state, regardless of sexuality; then there is nothing left to discuss.
It is already that way, UNLESS I want a Bar Mitzvah without becoming a Jew and demanding a Jew perform it. That isn't ever going to happen. I don't have a right to everything. It is not your or the government's job (or right) to try and provide it.
 

Quetzal

New member
It is already that way, UNLESS I want a Bar Mitzvah without becoming a Jew and demanding a Jew perform it. That isn't ever going to happen. I don't have a right to everything. It is not your or the government's job (or right) to try and provide it.
Then we are in agreement. My primary argument is that homosexual couples deserve every legal right that heterosexuals have. Period. As far as demanding the church to marry them, I have my own personal theological views but I also understand why some of the conservative sects won't do it. So, I think we agree.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Then we are in agreement. My primary argument is that homosexual couples deserve every legal right that heterosexuals have. Period. As far as demanding the church to marry them, I have my own personal theological views but I also understand why some of the conservative sects won't do it. So, I think we agree.

Actually, they can have their cake on this one to a degree. There are 'christian' churches that will cater, just not all of them. I suppose there are synagogues that 'would' perform a bar mitzvah for me. Those are simply privileges and accommodations. They aren't our right to demand (legally or otherwise). In this case, it isn't a Catholic homosexual not being allowed to make a binding contract, it is merely denying the religious term 'Catholic' and "Christian" to it (if Catholics decide not to do it).
 

Quetzal

New member
Actually, they can have their cake on this one to a degree. There are 'christian' churches that will cater, just not all of them. I suppose there are synagogues that 'would' perform a bar mitzvah for me. Those are simply privileges and accommodations. They aren't our right to demand (legally or otherwise). In this case, it isn't a Catholic homosexual not being allowed to make a binding contract, it is merely denying the religious term 'Catholic' and "Christian" to it (if Catholics decide not to do it).
Fair enough.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Being a Catholic does bring with it the privilege of invoking "infallibility" when it comes to Church matters!


That wasn't the distinction I was pointing out to you before. You pointed out disciplines that have changed as reasons why the Church ought to change doctrine concerning marriage. Re-read the link; you missed the distinction between doctrine and discipline. The Church will not change its doctrinal teachings on marriage to encompass the current fads.




With all due respect to doctrine, teachings and discipline, the fact still remains that the Catholic Church has declined to marry those of its members in "good-standing" where it is forbidden by secular law.

"Glassjester" has yet to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the Catholic Church has had the moral courage to defy the state (Germany, South Africa, US, etc) and to conduct interracial marriages where they were prohibited by law.


You want me to find the paper trail of a marriage performed secretly without knowledge of the state? Come on.

Look up the Church's teaching on secret marriages. It allows for valid Catholic marriage without permission from government - this exists in the canon law specifically because governments often impede or prohibit two people from being married, when there's no theological reason to not allow them.

r7q9f9.jpg



Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=v...IvcbGvdyCxwIVg44NCh2DJA5S#v=onepage&q&f=false



Will I have access to records of these secret marriages? Nope. They were done secretly for the protection of the married couple, and/or the witnesses and priest.

Do not conflate the actions/inactions (sins of commission/omission) of individual Catholics, with authoritative teaching of the Church. For example, a priest refusing to marry an interracial couple could be an example of an individual sin of omission on the part of the priest (priests are human - they can sin), yet is not indicative of Church doctrine.

Show me the doctrinal teaching of the Church that prohibits interracial marriage. Find it. I'm ready to learn.
 
Last edited:

glassjester

Well-known member
Canon 1116 also accounts for these circumstances:

Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.


So, for example, if no priest will perform the marriage, even secretly, due to the danger it would pose due to the local laws - the couple could still be considered validly married.

That is, assuming there is no doctrinal reason for the Church to not recognize their marriage. Which, of course, excludes same-sex unions but does not exclude interracial marriages.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
How do they know about strangers who are in line for communions?

They don't.

In most cases, only the individual knows whether he is in communion with the Church or not.


1 Cor. 11:27 is relevant here:

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
 

Puppet

BANNED
Banned
They don't.

In most cases, only the individual knows whether he is in communion with the Church or not.


1 Cor. 11:27 is relevant here:

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

I was one of them and that was my last time. I'll never share the same communion cup agian . I debated about that but the catholics claims no ones gets sick from germs on cups like jesus repels germs on cups and yet catholic doctors can't cure cancer cause they dont know the whys of diseases
 

glassjester

Well-known member

Puppet

BANNED
Banned

Cause jesus doesn't whisper in the priests ears to let him know ahead of time that the 13th person in line is contagious with a flu he hasn't yet felt. He catholics thinks its an insult to use plastic cups and grape juice. This shows the Catholic has gone of the deep end of neverreturnland.
Wiping the cup with a cloth ain't gonna do. Go right ahead and tell dentist they don't need to sterilized thier tools to do your teeth.

Why ask why if you want to return back to the OP disccussion? You're just as guilty as I.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Cause jesus doesn't whisper in the priests ears to let him know ahead of time that the 13th person in line is contagious with a flu he hasn't yet felt. He catholics thinks its an insult to use plastic cups and grape juice. This shows the Catholic has gone of the deep end of neverreturnland.
Wiping the cup with a cloth ain't gonna do. Go right ahead and tell dentist they don't need to sterilized thier tools to do your teeth.



And no one's forced to drink from the cup. No one. It's completely voluntary. If an individual Catholic is worried that they'll catch a communicable disease from it, then they simply don't drink from it. And that's perfectly acceptable.




Why ask why if you want to return back to the OP disccussion? You're just as guilty as I.

I didn't say we shouldn't talk about this. I just asked how it's related.

Is that alright with you? :)
 

Jose Fly

New member
They pursue Catholic church weddings for one reason

Because they're Catholics and would like to have their church recognize their marriages.

To prove they can. They always have to win, and won't take 'no' for an answer, no matter that it makes no sense.

What else do you think they can do? They petitioned the church, the church said no. It's done.
 
Top