The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

tommy2bad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Shall we put this point to bed now?

I believe lazygal's marriage is valid. I'm not sure why we are discussing it though.

It is a secular marriage. That doesn't make it any less a marriage.

My only point is that Christians and atheists believe different things about marriage. A Christian marriage is a marriage conducted under a Christian understanding in God's sight. A secular marriage is a marriage conducted without any reference to God by a secular body or a government official.

Quite a few Christians I know have had both a civil and a Christian marriage.

I don't claim that lazygal's marriage is invalid irrespective of what a Pope has said on the issue. I think that is uncharitable and unfair.

However, I was discussing marriage within a church and how churches should see Christian marriage. My answer is that they ought to hold to the Bible.

I have no interest in slighting anyone's marriage or dictating to secular authorities.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

See this is the problem, poor old lazygal asked if her civil marriage was valid in a Christian sense. You say yes, I say no and the pope had doubts about most catholic marriages. Their doesn't seem to be a clear definition of Christian marriage at all. The catholic position is clear to the cannon layers but seemingly not to the lay men and women. The other Christian churches have a selection of definitions and civil marriage is what ever the state that administers it says it is.
I'm just pointing out the fact that for the RCC marriage is a sacrament. A valid sacramental marriage is not the same as a civil marriage.
If lazygal had asked if her civil marriage was as valid as a Christian marriage, I would have said, yes of course, why wouldn't it be? However that's not what was asked.

Absolam

tommy2bad wrote: »

See this is the problem, poor old lazygal asked if her civil marriage was valid in a Christian sense. You say yes, I say no and the pope had doubts about most catholic marriages. Their doesn't seem to be a clear definition of Christian marriage at all. The catholic position is clear to the cannon layers but seemingly not to the lay men and women. The other Christian churches have a selection of definitions and civil marriage is what ever the state that administers it says it is.
I'm just pointing out the fact that for the RCC marriage is a sacrament. A valid sacramental marriage is not the same as a civil marriage.
If lazygal had asked if her civil marriage was as valid as a Christian marriage, I would have said, yes of course, why wouldn't it be? However that's not what was asked.

Perhaps the issue is with Lazygals question then, rather than the answer? What exactly does she think the Christian sense of her marriage is?

Matt Markinson

Of course a civil marriage is a marriage.

If two people get married in any type of ceremony they are married, whatever other people may think.
It's been so since the dawn of time.

Some are spiritually recognised by a religion, and in recent centuries, some legal marriages are legally recognised by some countries, some marriages are merely recognised by the couple and their families. They are all married in some form.

But why on earth would someone think a civil marriage is also a Christian spiritual sacrament ?

The state doesn't consider a Christian sacramental marriage a legal marriage.
The Christian churches also register a civil marriage after the sacramental one.
(And presumably for Christians the civil marriage is just the state's legal paperwork)

On the other hand, if two people just go through the motions of a Christian sacramental marriage, but have no idea of their spirituality and it's spiritual effects/impact, they may be married by the state as well, but are they really spiritually married in the Christian sense ? Who knows. Just as I'm sure the state can later find out some state marriage legally didn't actually take place because the paperwork was never completed correctly.

tommy2bad

Absolam wrote: »

Perhaps the issue is with Lazygals question then, rather than the answer? What exactly does she think the Christian sense of her marriage is?

It is and it isn't, the problem is some share in between. The church has to adhere to its own rules but it also has to maneuver through the range of legal marriages, partnerships and plain good manners of not telling people they are invalidity married. Which create confusion as to what exactly the pope means when he uses the word marriage and when Enda uses the same word.
Yes all marriages are valid, but not all are valid sacraments.

Matt Markinson

I'd like to see the Popes alleged comments in full, correctly translated, and placed in their original unedited context . . . because many things that allegedly come out of the vatican are misquoted and twisted to suit a 1001 other agendas. More often than not it's a quote of quote devoid of it's original context for the purposes of being used as a pretext. And it's not just the wider media that are at fault. The Vatican's own Italian to English translators have been known to put their own spin on things when issuing press releases and incorrectly translating the original language. The Vactican has some vatican civil servants on the inside, both lay and clerical, who do not always have either Christianity or the Churches best interests at heart and have their own agenda's as well. It's a constant battle, and a complicated den of politics, rather like any countries civil service, and large organisation. Then add in some Italian culture and it's quite the recipe. Rather them than me.

Absolam

tommy2bad wrote: »

It is and it isn't, the problem is some share in between. The church has to adhere to its own rules but it also has to maneuver through the range of legal marriages, partnerships and plain good manners of not telling people they are invalidity married. Which create confusion as to what exactly the pope means when he uses the word marriage and when Enda uses the same word.
Yes all marriages are valid, but not all are valid sacraments.

Mmm... there are natural marriages which the Church would consider to be invalid, but it wouldn't consider them to be invalid in a Christian sense, it would consider them to be invalid in natural law. So if Lazygal's marriage was non monogamous, or non hetrosexual, or entered into by children (below 16 and 14) or to a non human, the Church would say it's an invalid marriage. But Lazygal didn't ask if the Church would consider her marriage valid, she asked "Are those who don't have religious marriages married? Are two men or women who get married in a civil or secular ceremony unmarried? Am I not married in a Christian sense? If two men or women marry in a Christian marriage ceremony, are they not married? "
The only real answer to that is there is no 'Christian sense' to it; in the view of the Church she (probably) is married and her marriage is a natural one not a sacramental one.

tommy2bad

Absolam wrote: »

Mmm... there are natural marriages which the Church would consider to be invalid, but it wouldn't consider them to be invalid in a Christian sense, it would consider them to be invalid in natural law. So if Lazygal's marriage was non monogamous, or non hetrosexual, or entered into by children (below 16 and 14) or to a non human, the Church would say it's an invalid marriage. But Lazygal didn't ask if the Church would consider her marriage valid, she asked "Are those who don't have religious marriages married? Are two men or women who get married in a civil or secular ceremony unmarried? Am I not married in a Christian sense? If two men or women marry in a Christian marriage ceremony, are they not married? "
The only real answer to that is there is no 'Christian sense' to it; in the view of the Church she (probably) is married and her marriage is a natural one not a sacramental one.

If so I misunderstood the question. Natural marriage? I suppose if you need to find words to define stuff like that it's as good as any. I'm not comfortable with the notion of natural and sacramental being used though. It has the implication of equating sacramental with natural and implying that the church's sacrament is the natural form enhanced. OK thats exactly what they intend but then all other non monogamous non multi sex marriages are by definition unnatural. I won't give them that concession.
Lets stick with civil and sacramental.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Mmm... there are natural marriages which the Church would consider to be invalid, but it wouldn't consider them to be invalid in a Christian sense, it would consider them to be invalid in natural law. So if Lazygal's marriage was non monogamous, or non hetrosexual, or entered into by children (below 16 and 14) or to a non human, the Church would say it's an invalid marriage. But Lazygal didn't ask if the Church would consider her marriage valid, she asked "Are those who don't have religious marriages married? Are two men or women who get married in a civil or secular ceremony unmarried? Am I not married in a Christian sense? If two men or women marry in a Christian marriage ceremony, are they not married? "
The only real answer to that is there is no 'Christian sense' to it; in the view of the Church she (probably) is married and her marriage is a natural one not a sacramental one.

A marriage to a non-human, really? kind of an odd mention when discussing the various types of inter-human marriage that related to Christianity or the law. I'm not sure where you got that from or why you would even mention marriage of a bestial nature in relation to what the church in it's law, or the Civil Law, would consider legal or christian marriage.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I think in a Christian sense, one is still married provided it conforms to the union of a man and a woman.

When Jesus refers to judgement in Matthew's gospel He says the following about marriages:

Matthew 24:37-38 ESVUK wrote:

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

I think in a Christian sense we can still fully say that secular marriages are valid providing they are between a man and a woman. Christianity obviously has no concept of same-sex marriage on a Biblical level.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

tommy2bad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I think in a Christian sense, one is still married provided it conforms to the union of a man and a woman.

When Jesus refers to judgement in Matthew's gospel He says the following about marriages:


I think in a Christian sense we can still fully say that secular marriages are valid providing they are between a man and a woman. Christianity obviously has no concept of same-sex marriage on a Biblical level.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Woah. Hold on there! Christianity has no concept of same sex marriage on a biblical level? What does that even mean? Theirs no concept of steam engines, the internet or electricity on a biblical level. No concept of democracy or universal suffrage either but the church got on with them, in fact you could argue caused both of them.
Oh and claiming marriages are valid on a biblical level if between a man and woman, on a biblical level marriage is valid between a man and several women, between a rapist and his victim and between a captor and his prisoner. So what? If a biblical level is the measure then its a pretty low bar.
Surely we can do better?

Absolam

tommy2bad wrote: »

If so I misunderstood the question. Natural marriage? I suppose if you need to find words to define stuff like that it's as good as any. I'm not comfortable with the notion of natural and sacramental being used though. It has the implication of equating sacramental with natural and implying that the church's sacrament is the natural form enhanced. OK thats exactly what they intend but then all other non monogamous non multi sex marriages are by definition unnatural. I won't give them that concession.
Lets stick with civil and sacramental.

That's simply the terminology the Church uses to distinguish between it's own sacrament of marriage and other marriages; if you use the term civil, you might be better accompanying it with religious, but the correct term to accompany sacramental would be natural. I don't think it's concessionary to be accurate.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

A marriage to a non-human, really? kind of an odd mention when discussing the various types of inter-human marriage that related to Christianity or the law. I'm not sure where you got that from or why you would even mention marriage of a bestial nature in relation to what the church in it's law, or the Civil Law, would consider legal or christian marriage.

Yes, really. The Church considers a marriage to an animal to not be valid. If you give it some thought, you can probably guess where I might have gotten it from, given the discussion... which includes what marriages the Church considers valid.

Absolam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Woah. Hold on there! Christianity has no concept of same sex marriage on a biblical level? What does that even mean? Theirs no concept of steam engines, the internet or electricity on a biblical level. No concept of democracy or universal suffrage either but the church got on with them, in fact you could argue caused both of them.
Oh and claiming marriages are valid on a biblical level if between a man and woman, on a biblical level marriage is valid between a man and several women, between a rapist and his victim and between a captor and his prisoner. So what? If a biblical level is the measure then its a pretty low bar.
Surely we can do better?

The discussion has been about marriage in Christianity... surely you don't think a Biblical perspective won't be a significant feature?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, really. The Church considers a marriage to an animal to not be valid. If you give it some thought, you can probably guess where I might have gotten it from, given the discussion... which includes what marriages the Church considers valid.

Oh yes, The bible and Genesis, I'm still a bit surprised as the discussion til then was referencing human to human marriage only, not between human and animal. Still, whatever floats your boat when it comes to comparisons in regard to marriage.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Oh yes, The bible and Genesis, I'm still a bit surprised as the discussion til then was referencing human to human marriage only, not between human and animal. Still, whatever floats your boat when it comes to comparisons in regard to marriage.

Well.. no. Genesis is part of the Bible though, so you're probably still in the (very broad) ballpark; definitely Christianity is the direction you should be looking in.

solodeogloria

tommy2bad wrote: »

Woah. Hold on there! Christianity has no concept of same sex marriage on a biblical level? What does that even mean? Theirs no concept of steam engines, the internet or electricity on a biblical level. No concept of democracy or universal suffrage either but the church got on with them, in fact you could argue caused both of them.
Oh and claiming marriages are valid on a biblical level if between a man and woman, on a biblical level marriage is valid between a man and several women, between a rapist and his victim and between a captor and his prisoner. So what? If a biblical level is the measure then its a pretty low bar.
Surely we can do better?

Good morning!

Firstly - there's no concept of same-sex marriage because the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's rather different to being silent on the subject. Nor is the Bible anti-technology.

Secondly - the Bible needs to be read in it's context, particularly the Old Testament law. However, I think the passages that you are referring to don't actually say these things. For example, the Bible does not say that a victim must marry his rapist. In Deuteronomy 22, rape is explicitly prohibited, and was given the death penalty in the Mosaic law. Naturally we need to read this in the light of Christ as Christians but the idea that the Torah supports rape is silly. Moreover, the Torah only permits marriage between captives in war and Israelites. It doesn't mention anything about coercion in the text.

Thirdly, the Bible never actually explicitly approves polygamy. Polygamy occurs, but the Biblical model that God gives from creation it between one man and one woman. (Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 lay this out).

I think God's standard for marriage is far better than what "we" could churn out. Hence why Jesus rebukes the hard hearts of people seeking divorce in Matthew 19, and why marriage is a picture that is meant to reflect Christ's sacrificial love for the church in Ephesians 5:22-33.

So no, I don't agree that "we" could do better than God, because we obviously can't. God's word is spirit and life, and I think we owe it a lot more respect and care than what this post gives it to be honest.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

tommy2bad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Firstly - there's no concept of same-sex marriage because the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's rather different to being silent on the subject. Nor is the Bible anti-technology.

Secondly - the Bible needs to be read in it's context, particularly the Old Testament law. However, I think the passages that you are referring to don't actually say these things. For example, the Bible does not say that a victim must marry his rapist. In Deuteronomy 22, rape is explicitly prohibited, and was given the death penalty in the Mosaic law. Naturally we need to read this in the light of Christ as Christians but the idea that the Torah supports rape is silly. Moreover, the Torah only permits marriage between captives in war and Israelites. It doesn't mention anything about coercion in the text.

Thirdly, the Bible never actually explicitly approves polygamy. Polygamy occurs, but the Biblical model that God gives from creation it between one man and one woman. (Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 lay this out).

I think God's standard for marriage is far better than what "we" could churn out. Hence why Jesus rebukes the hard hearts of people seeking divorce in Matthew 19, and why marriage is a picture that is meant to reflect Christ's sacrificial love for the church in Ephesians 5:22-33.

So no, I don't agree that "we" could do better than God, because we obviously can't. God's word is spirit and life, and I think we owe it a lot more respect and care than what this post gives it to be honest.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Can't you see how you are wriggling your answer from the text? It is just as possible to justify all the things I've mentioned from the same texts and has been.
Here's how you do it, pick the conclusion you want, then find texts to support that conclusion. Any texts that don't fit exactly can be wedged in with some hand waving and cross reference. Any contradictory texts can be explained away with reference to context.

Oh and I didn't say we could do better than God, I said better than the biblical standard. Yes, I get that you see the bible and God as almost the same thing but the word became flesh not the word became typeface!

tommy2bad

Absolam wrote: »

The discussion has been about marriage in Christianity... surely you don't think a Biblical perspective won't be a significant feature?

That's exactly my point. The bible's selection of valid marriages is nothing like what we now consider a valid Christian marriage. I'm not sure its any help in making that decision. Apart from the fact we can read about the development of marriage over time through the working of the spirit.

tommy2bad

Absolam wrote: »

That's simply the terminology the Church uses to distinguish between it's own sacrament of marriage and other marriages; if you use the term civil, you might be better accompanying it with religious, but the correct term to accompany sacramental would be natural. I don't think it's concessionary to be accurate.

Fair enough. However natural is exactly what sacramental is not. If anything a sacramental marriage is supernatural. It happens in a metaphysical sense. Hardly natural in the normal meaning of the word. My point still stands that natural is used to infer unnatural to any other " marriage"

solodeogloria

tommy2bad wrote: »

Can't you see how you are wriggling your answer from the text? It is just as possible to justify all the things I've mentioned from the same texts and has been.
Here's how you do it, pick the conclusion you want, then find texts to support that conclusion. Any texts that don't fit exactly can be wedged in with some hand waving and cross reference. Any contradictory texts can be explained away with reference to context.

Oh and I didn't say we could do better than God, I said better than the biblical standard. Yes, I get that you see the bible and God as almost the same thing but the word became flesh not the word became typeface!

Good morning!

I've stated that your assumptions about the text don't seem to be correct. This is again, another reason why we need to get the Bible out and look at it rather than making broad sweeping claims about it.

I also reject the assumption that all interpretations are valid and you can pluck any interpretation you like after it. No, texts have meanings, and words have meanings. Authors have purposes. Texts have structure and form. You can see what the author has said, you can read it in context. You can see where it fits into the book, and you can see where the book fits into the Bible, and indeed into the overarching theme of the Bible. The Bible isn't a free for all despite what some people insist.

The reality is some interpretations are less valid than others, either they are plucked out of context, or they ignore their place in the Bible, or they don't look to the whole book context (within Genesis or within Numbers or within Deuteronomy) or in light of Jesus in the New Testament.

I don't think reading texts properly is hand waving. All I'm advocating that people do is read the Bible with the same care and attention that they would give to any other book. Then again, I think it should be given more care and attention rather than the same or less.

Divorcing God from His Word in Scripture is problematic. When you do this, God is no longer the God of Christianity who is most supremely revealed in Jesus, but the god of "I like to think of god as ...". The problem with that approach is patently obvious. God is no longer a person who speaks and acts into this world, and we no longer base our opinion of Him on what He has said and what He has done, but rather we base our opinion of Him on our personal whims.

God's word tells me about Him, I can't ignore that or accept that "we" can do better than what God has spoken, because the obvious answer is that "we" can't. That's why Jesus came and died for us.

The crux of this argument, and many others is this:
Are we willing to listen to what God has said, or do we go our own way in utter futility?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've stated that your assumptions about the text don't seem to be correct. This is again, another reason why we need to get the Bible out and look at it rather than making broad sweeping claims about it.

I also reject the assumption that all interpretations are valid and you can pluck any interpretation you like after it. No, texts have meanings, and words have meanings. Authors have purposes. Texts have structure and form. You can see what the author has said, you can read it in context. You can see where it fits into the book, and you can see where the book fits into the Bible, and indeed into the overarching theme of the Bible. The Bible isn't a free for all despite what some people insist.

The reality is some interpretations are less valid than others, either they are plucked out of context, or they ignore their place in the Bible, or they don't look to the whole book context (within Genesis or within Numbers or within Deuteronomy) or in light of Jesus in the New Testament.

I don't think reading texts properly is hand waving. All I'm advocating that people do is read the Bible with the same care and attention that they would give to any other book. Then again, I think it should be given more care and attention rather than the same or less.

Divorcing God from His Word in Scripture is problematic. When you do this, God is no longer the God of Christianity who is most supremely revealed in Jesus, but the god of "I like to think of god as ...". The problem with that approach is patently obvious. God is no longer a person who speaks and acts into this world, and we no longer base our opinion of Him on what He has said and what He has done, but rather we base our opinion of Him on our personal whims.

God's word tells me about Him, I can't ignore that or accept that "we" can do better than what God has spoken, because the obvious answer is that "we" can't. That's why Jesus came and died for us.

The crux of this argument, and many others is this:
Are we willing to listen to what God has said, or do we go our own way in utter futility?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

[absolom: Mmm... there are natural marriages which the Church would consider to be invalid, but it wouldn't consider them to be invalid in a Christian sense, it would consider them to be invalid in natural law. So if Lazygal's marriage was non monogamous, or non hetrosexual, or entered into by children (below 16 and 14) or to a non human, the Church would say it's an invalid marriage. But Lazygal didn't ask if the Church would consider her marriage valid, she asked "Are those who don't have religious marriages married? Are two men or women who get married in a civil or secular ceremony unmarried? Am I not married in a Christian sense? If two men or women marry in a Christian marriage ceremony, are they not married? "
The only real answer to that is there is no 'Christian sense' to it; in the view of the Church she (probably) is married and her marriage is a natural one not a sacramental one.]

What do you think of absolom's including this reference "or to a non human" in his post above when writing an answer about lazygal's question on her marriage, vis a vis the church?

Do you think it's introduction and use by absolom in a debate about marriage is valid in relation to either church/christian marriage OR civil marriage, given that bestial marriage is outside both church/christian/biblical and civil law and such a marriage would be neither valid nor acceptable to either authority?

I know absolom bases the quote on the bible and accept that. It's his use of the reference in relation to, what was up his introduction of "or to a non human", a discussion of inter-human marriage, that my question lies.

solodeogloria

aloyisious wrote: »

[absolom: Mmm... there are natural marriages which the Church would consider to be invalid, but it wouldn't consider them to be invalid in a Christian sense, it would consider them to be invalid in natural law. So if Lazygal's marriage was non monogamous, or non hetrosexual, or entered into by children (below 16 and 14) or to a non human, the Church would say it's an invalid marriage. But Lazygal didn't ask if the Church would consider her marriage valid, she asked "Are those who don't have religious marriages married? Are two men or women who get married in a civil or secular ceremony unmarried? Am I not married in a Christian sense? If two men or women marry in a Christian marriage ceremony, are they not married? "
The only real answer to that is there is no 'Christian sense' to it; in the view of the Church she (probably) is married and her marriage is a natural one not a sacramental one.]

What do you think of absolom's including this reference "or to a non human" in his post above when writing an answer about lazygal's question on her marriage, vis a vis the church?

Do you think it's introduction and use by absolom in a debate about marriage is valid in relation to either church/christian marriage OR civil marriage, given that bestial marriage is outside both church/christian/biblical and civil law and such a marriage would be neither valid nor acceptable to either authority?

I know absolom bases the quote on the bible and accept that. It's his use of the reference in relation to, what was up his introduction of "or to a non human", a discussion of inter-human marriage, that my question lies.

Good afternoon!

I'm here to present my own case, on my own arguments. You can judge my posts on the basis of what I personally have said.

You will notice that my argument has been confined to human relationships and what the Bible says on these issues. Perhaps that will tell you all you need to know.

I'm keen on keeping the tone respectful and gracious, because I believe that honours Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:29, 1 Peter 3:15).

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Absolam

tommy2bad wrote: »

That's exactly my point. The bible's selection of valid marriages is nothing like what we now consider a valid Christian marriage. I'm not sure its any help in making that decision. Apart from the fact we can read about the development of marriage over time through the working of the spirit.

I don't think we're looking at the Bibles selection of valid marriages though are we? Most Churches (and it is very much the case with the Catholic Church) have developed dogma (and, particularly, Canon Law) based on the Bible, but which has developed along with the Church; hence the wonderfully complicated variations of marriage available for consideration in the Catholic Church. These are not a selection from the Bible, but an evolved and evolving perspective on the subject which is Biblically based.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Fair enough. However natural is exactly what sacramental is not. If anything a sacramental marriage is supernatural. It happens in a metaphysical sense. Hardly natural in the normal meaning of the word. My point still stands that natural is used to infer unnatural to any other " marriage"

Yes, I would say it is natural in the very specific to the context meaning of the word, but I think you're looking at it backwards; natural isn't used to infer unnatural to any other " marriage", it's used to demonstrate the lesser nature of other marriages to the supernatural marriage of the Church.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I know absolom bases the quote on the bible and accept that. It's his use of the reference in relation to, what was up his introduction of "or to a non human", a discussion of inter-human marriage, that my question lies.

Actually, you think it's what I based what I said on; you never asked. You just went from not being sure where I got it from to knowing what I based it on all on your own...

It is quite odd that you're so very focused on the fact that a marriage to an animal is an invalid one in the eyes of the Church though. Is there a particular reason for your fascination with the subject that you want to share?

lazygal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'm here to present my own case, on my own arguments. You can judge my posts on the basis of what I personally have said.

You will notice that my argument has been confined to human relationships and what the Bible says on these issues. Perhaps that will tell you all you need to know.

I'm keen on keeping the tone respectful and gracious, because I believe that honours Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:29, 1 Peter 3:15).

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good Afternoon!
Could you answer my question, please? Are two men or women who marry in a Christian marriage ceremony not married, or are me and my husband who married in a civil ceremony not married?
Much thanks.

solodeogloria

lazygal wrote: »

Good Afternoon!
Could you answer my question, please? Are two men or women who marry in a Christian marriage ceremony not married, or are me and my husband who married in a civil ceremony not married?
Much thanks.

Good afternoon!

I've been very clear about your marriage in this post. I won't be discussing it any further because it isn't relevant to this thread.

From a Biblical point of view, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. From a Christian point of view marriage is only between a man and a woman. A minority of churches would disagree, but there is no Biblical basis for their position as far as I can tell.

From a secular point of view, they have conducted a same-sex marriage ceremony which is recognised under the law.

I hold a position where church and State are entirely separated. Churches are fully entitled to disagree with the State in respect to their definition of marriage and vice versa. Moreover, I think that is the way things should be.

I hope that has been clear.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

It is quite odd that you're so very focused on the fact that a marriage to an animal is an invalid one in the eyes of the Church though. Is there a particular reason for your fascination with the subject that you want to share?

Perhaps you might like to let us know why you introduced it into a debate about inter-human marriage, seeing as how it is not human to human?

I admit I am fascinated as to why you don't or can't answer such easy questions easily.

If you think I have a fascination with the subject, perhaps you would like to write what you think it is here for all to see.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Perhaps you might like to let us know why you introduced it into a debate about inter-human marriage, seeing as how it is not human to human? I admit I am fascinated as to why you don't or can't answer such easy questions easily.

Well, I can tell you I introduced it into a discussion on marriage because it is one of grounds on which the Catholic Church considers a natural marriage to be invalid. You introduced the concept of inter-human marriage after I mentioned it, it seems in response to my mention, as if for some reason it was important to you to?

aloyisious wrote: »

If you think I have a fascination with the subject, perhaps you would like to write what you think it is here for all to see.

Sure; every single post you've made on the thread since I mentioned that such a marriage would be considered invalid by the Church has been about marrying animals. I mentioned four grounds, yet non monogamous marriages didn't interest you, non hetrosexual marriages didn't get a mention, marriages entered into by children passed without pause. The only thing you want to talk about is marrying animals; all four of your subsequent posts, just about that. Sounds like a fascination to me...

aloyisious

I was merely interested why you introduced marriage to an animal when the discussion was solely about inter-human marriage. It seemed to me to be non-relevant to the question of inter-human marriage and how the standing of lazygal's marriage would be seen in the eyes of the church; period.

On my understanding of your first para in your's above and you of my second sentence above-immediate, perhaps we should let this debating between us two alone just fade away without further discussion.

tommy2bad

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think we're looking at the Bibles selection of valid marriages though are we? Most Churches (and it is very much the case with the Catholic Church) have developed dogma (and, particularly, Canon Law) based on the Bible, but which has developed along with the Church; hence the wonderfully complicated variations of marriage available for consideration in the Catholic Church. These are not a selection from the Bible, but an evolved and evolving perspective on the subject which is Biblically based.

We were when I posted that. Yes, you are right, we no longer hold the biblical low standards as the final arbitration.
As I said we have developed a consensus on marriage that is very different, its still justifiable in a biblical sense but would be unrecognisable to the people who wrote the bible. The work of the holy spirit or secularisation?

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, I would say it is natural in the very specific to the context meaning of the word, but I think you're looking at it backwards; natural isn't used to infer unnatural to any other " marriage", it's used to demonstrate the lesser nature of other marriages to the supernatural marriage of the Church.

Well that context is canon law, this is a discussion on a public forum. I'm just pointing out how words carry shades of meaning and inference. You may say the people using natural expect everyone to read it in the legal definition they do but I doubt that. I may be far more cynical than is good for me but I suspect they understood well the implications their words carry.