|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The next person I hear...
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, obviously your intimate relationship to a partner does not change as such because the secular state redefines the legal status of the label applied to it. But what does changes is then indeed the meaning of that label, in a legal sense and inevitably (laws have consequences) in a socio-cultural sense. If a gay couple can "marry", then I am not "married" to my wife. Not because somehow my relationship to her has changed, but rather because it has not changed - whereas the label "marriage" then has.
Ingo, I understand your reasoning, but I don't understand why you seem to be suggesting (and my apologies if I am misreading you) that this problem only arises when the state redefines marriage to include gay relationships. You are a Roman Catholic. Your Church does not recognise divorce. AIUI a person who has been divorced by the civil courts remains, in the eyes of your Church, married to their 'former' spouse and all other things being equal cannot therefore contract a valid new marriage while their 'former' spuse remains alive. Am I broadly correct in my understanding of what your Church teaches? Because if I am, there are very many heterosexual couples in Britain and the US and so on whose legally-recognised relationships are defined by the state as marriage, but which are not marriages as your Church understands the term. Yet I have never heard any married Roman Catholic say that if divorcees with living former spouses can "marry", then he or she is not "married" to his or her spouse because the state gives "marriage" a broader meaning than the (RC) Church does.
Or is that something which married Roman Catholics do in fact say?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
As mousethief said, the idea of an official purpose for dicks and cunts is rather amusing, and sort of surreal. It makes me think of a John Lennon drawing, not an actual one, but one he might have done.
I can get the sadness that some of the anti-gay lobby must feel. Heteronormativity has exerted a ferocious hegemony, which must seem 'natural' and unending. (Damn, I told my mother I would never use that sentence).
And now it is ending. I suppose in the UK it is ending with a whimper, partly because secularism has been on the move since 1800, whereas in the US there seems to be more melodrama and hysteria, since more to lose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The question of whether one can have multiple spouses, whether simultaneously as in polygamy and polyandry, or in a temporal sequence staggered by "divorces", is less fundamental than the question who is capable of being a spouse in the first place. In polygamy, for example, we see much the same "social containment" of the procreational sexual act as in the most ideal of RC marriages. We can argue there that the specific form this containment takes is wrong, even that all but the first marriage are not real and are de facto (unintentional) adultery. But one cannot deny that the underlying idea of "having sex that could result in children, which would then be raised together" is the same there as in any "proper" marriage, even if illicitly projected onto multiple women rather than just one.
But in a "gay marriage" one cannot possibly have the same underlying idea. Some gay couples may have the intention of raising children in their "marriage", but even then there remains a necessary disconnect in that relationship between begetting and raising children. And yes, a heterosexual analogue is possible. A heterosexual couple that marries with the firm intention of never having any offspring result from their sexual acts is in the eyes of the RCC not validly married, and the marriage can be annulled. Though obviously it is impossible to know this from the outside, whereas in the case of the homosexual couple unfortunately the best of intentions cannot get past the concrete embodiment.
So the upshot is that modern "sequential" marriage, just like polygamy, is a kind of marriage in the sense of having the right idea if imperfectly executed. Whereas "gay marriage" is simply having the wrong idea entirely, even if some of the factors that would contribute to a successful marriage (a loving relationship, the will to provide a good home for children, etc.) may be in a better shape than for most actual marriages. That's certainly tragic, but that's life...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Just out of interest, Ingo, what's the RCC's line omn marriage between heterosexual people who cannot have children together, because of age or for some other physical reason?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... A heterosexual couple that marries with the firm intention of never having any offspring result from their sexual acts is in the eyes of the RCC not validly married ...
Am I right in thinking that the RCC doesn't recognise the validity of a marriage that takes place anywhere other than the RCC anyway, whether the participants intend to have children or not?
If I am, it leaves an awful lot of us living in sin in your eyes (me included - on both counts).
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A heterosexual couple that marries with the firm intention of never having any offspring result from their sexual acts is in the eyes of the RCC not validly married, and the marriage can be annulled. Though obviously it is impossible to know this from the outside, whereas in the case of the homosexual couple unfortunately the best of intentions cannot get past the concrete embodiment.
A case of 'what the eye doesn't see' then?
Situation normal for the RC, as with contraception.
Go for the easy, visible targets.
Why not?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
IngoB doesn't make me feel angry, although I suppose if I was gay, I might. It's rather like listening to someone a long way away, or looking through the wrong end of a telescope. There is this distant shrunken figure, making noises, which I can discern as through white noise, 'God', 'creating marriage', 'man/woman have kids', and so on, and it's kind of antiquarian for me. What on earth does this have to do with my life?
But I realize that the bigots can become dangerous and very nasty of course, maybe in the US more than the UK, (not IngoB himself). Vigilance therefore, brothers and sisters, beware of the black hundreds.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Well, as he has just stated on the matching Dead Horses thread, Ingo doesn't give a crap about laws, existing or otherwise. In which case, I'm not sure why he even has a horse in the race.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just out of interest, Ingo, what's the RCC's line omn marriage between heterosexual people who cannot have children together, because of age or for some other physical reason?
The RCC has no requirements whatsoever on fertility - you can be entirely sterile and still marry. It requires however at least intermittent potency, i.e., you have to be able to perform vaginal intercourse in some fashion sometimes. If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry. As I've said above, marriage is quite literally considered as the God given social container for the specific sexual act that is designed by God for the procreation of the species in general (the "union of one flesh" between man and woman). The question is whether socially allowed sex is "naturally ordered to procreation", not whether it will in fact result in procreation.
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
Am I right in thinking that the RCC doesn't recognise the validity of a marriage that takes place anywhere other than the RCC anyway, whether the participants intend to have children or not? If I am, it leaves an awful lot of us living in sin in your eyes (me included - on both counts).
No, you are wrong. The RCC recognises all marriages, including say between pagans or atheists, as marriages. Furthermore, the RCC recognises all marriages between Christians as sacramental, and hence as unbreakable by human means once consummated.
The laws of God written on the human heart hold for all. Every human being can know, and can know instinctively if not educated against it, what "marriage" is. Furthermore, what the Lord has commanded His followers is required of all of them. Thus when the Lord revoked the Mosaic accommodations, He did so for everybody claiming to follow Him by virtue of their baptism.
(In general, non-RC Christians can probably get their marriages annulled by claiming that they were not aware of all Divine rules about marriage and hence did not properly contract their marriage. But one should not confuse such "escape clause" accommodation with a general disregard for the sacramentality of marriage in other Christian denominations. Unless challenged by the married couple themselves on such or other grounds, a marriage among say Lutherans will be considered sacramental by default by the RCC.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I find this puzzling. I assume that US law (and English law) don't define marriage as 'transcendent' or 'God-created' or some such, but in totally secular terms. Hence there is no teleology, no 'procreation oriented' or whatever. The civil officials don't enquire if you want to have kids, or pretty much anything else, except are you already married.
Why the protests then? Is it because secular law and religious codes are now diverging dramatically, whereas before there was a semblance or illusion that they run concurrently?
Religion is a private issue, and well, that's it. Theocracy is extinct, except in Iran etc.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just out of interest, Ingo, what's the RCC's line omn marriage between heterosexual people who cannot have children together, because of age or for some other physical reason?
The RCC has no requirements whatsoever on fertility - you can be entirely sterile and still marry. It requires however at least intermittent potency, i.e., you have to be able to perform vaginal intercourse in some fashion sometimes. If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry. As I've said above, marriage is quite literally considered as the God given social container for the specific sexual act that is designed by God for the procreation of the species in general (the "union of one flesh" between man and woman). The question is whether socially allowed sex is "naturally ordered to procreation", not whether it will in fact result in procreation.
I see. So when Gerontius and Gerontia, both Roman Catholics and both widowed, decide at the ages of 87 and 86 respectively that they want to get married, in the absence of any other impediment their marriage can be celebrated, so long as Gerontius can, not to put too fine a point on it, still get it up and in occasionally?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just out of interest, Ingo, what's the RCC's line omn marriage between heterosexual people who cannot have children together, because of age or for some other physical reason?
The RCC has no requirements whatsoever on fertility - you can be entirely sterile and still marry. It requires however at least intermittent potency, i.e., you have to be able to perform vaginal intercourse in some fashion sometimes. If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry. As I've said above, marriage is quite literally considered as the God given social container for the specific sexual act that is designed by God for the procreation of the species in general (the "union of one flesh" between man and woman). The question is whether socially allowed sex is "naturally ordered to procreation", not whether it will in fact result in procreation.
After all, Sarah got pregnant at 90-something, so it's always possible. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Personally, I'm curious as to the dick into vag bit. Is there a periodic survey sent out by one's priest asking about that? Some sort of "Intercourse Inspector" that makes unannounced visits?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A case of 'what the eye doesn't see' then? Situation normal for the RC, as with contraception. Go for the easy, visible targets. Why not?
The basic approach of the RCC, and dare I say of Christianity as a whole, in matters of sin is self-reporting. The Church is there to teach, listen, and on request where possible, heal. It is not tasked with advanced espionage and social control. The Church is God's doctor in the world, not God's snitch. Much of the most unsavoury history of the Church has resulted from forgetting that. However, it is the task of a doctor to stand up in public to decry unhealthy practices, where those systematically endanger his patients. It is also not required of a doctor to play along with just everything their patients come up with, in particular not so if the patient blatantly disregards the advice given personally by the doctor.
There is no conspiracy against the weak here, but simply people doing what they actually can do, and trying to be reasonable about it. Obviously it is not particularly hard to trick a priest into treating you as a RC in good standing, in most cases. This does not mean that there is a tacit acceptance of such trickery.
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Well, as he has just stated on the matching Dead Horses thread, Ingo doesn't give a crap about laws, existing or otherwise.
Why lie? I said nothing of the sort.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Tch, that's what technology is for. No tiresome house calls necessary; just email the authorities a crotch selfie.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Well, as he has just stated on the matching Dead Horses thread, Ingo doesn't give a crap about laws, existing or otherwise.
Why lie? I said nothing of the sort.
When asked to cite laws that define marriage as you think it should be, you say you're not obliged to. I take that to mean that the laws definition of marriage is irrelevant. Which still makes me wonder why you care what the US Supreme Court has to say on the matter. You can call your marriage what you want and poo-poo the others, but don't expect everyone else to agree with you.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just out of interest, Ingo, what's the RCC's line omn marriage between heterosexual people who cannot have children together, because of age or for some other physical reason?
The RCC has no requirements whatsoever on fertility - you can be entirely sterile and still marry. It requires however at least intermittent potency, i.e., you have to be able to perform vaginal intercourse in some fashion sometimes. If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry. As I've said above, marriage is quite literally considered as the God given social container for the specific sexual act that is designed by God for the procreation of the species in general (the "union of one flesh" between man and woman). The question is whether socially allowed sex is "naturally ordered to procreation", not whether it will in fact result in procreation.
Serious question here. How exactly is this even ascertained? If someone wants their marriage annulled on this basis, how is it proven?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So the Catholic (indeed, Christian) position on marriage is based on telos or the natural aim? Is that right?
But secular marriage law would never be based on that, surely. This is one of the curtailments enacted in the Enlightenment, isn't it, that final cause and so on are no longer considered in many areas.
This is why I am puzzled by the shock felt by some anti-gay people. Why do they think that secular law would mimic a religiously couched view of marriage?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, certainly in England and Wales secular law allows for annulment where the marrauige is not consummated- but IIRC if non-consummation continues for any length of time the parties are seen as having accepted the situation so an annulment is no longer available. That was one of the questions that was unanswered when the same sex marriage legislation was going through here- what would count as consummation of a SSM? - and the UK government website simply says that annulment on grounds of non-consummation doesn't apply to same sex couples. Another indicator that SSM isn't quite the same thing as heterosexual marriage- although for reasons I've set out upthread i think it's the lesser of two evils to use the same terminology for both.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Because God, quetzacoatl, because God.
God is gonna get all wrathful and shit because the bible says its icky.
that Christians have enslaved, oppressed and commited genocide are all fine because they're biblical.
But let two men* get married and civilisation is DOOMED!
*Yes just men. Cause men get it on and bible thumpers want to shoot them with a gun. Women do the same and they want to shoot them with a camera.
[ 29. June 2015, 17:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[Crossposted replying to Albertus]
I think they just didn't want the disaster of trying to define it. PinV doesn't guarantee much - really they'd have to go with, "during sexual activity at least one of the spouses must have experienced orgasm for the marriage to be considered to be consummated." Which would have led to a massive row about what constitutes an orgasm, and one seriously surreal debate in parliament.
(You could define by ejaculation - though female ejaculation remains a controversial concept.)
[ 29. June 2015, 17:03: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So when Gerontius and Gerontia, both Roman Catholics and both widowed, decide at the ages of 87 and 86 respectively that they want to get married, in the absence of any other impediment their marriage can be celebrated, so long as Gerontius can, not to put too fine a point on it, still get it up and in occasionally?
Certainly.
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
After all, Sarah got pregnant at 90-something, so it's always possible. :roll eyes:
Indeed. More importantly though, Sarah's pregnancy was preternatural (relatively supernatural) rather than (absolutely) supernatural. It was not beyond her created nature as such to be with child, and it was not beyond the nature of the act of Abraham having sex with her to make her conceive (best we know from no such detail being provided). It was merely that supernatural grace helped nature along to an in principle available conclusion that however would not have occurred otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Personally, I'm curious as to the dick into vag bit. Is there a periodic survey sent out by one's priest asking about that? Some sort of "Intercourse Inspector" that makes unannounced visits?
No, there is in general an assumption of innocence until one accuses oneself out of one's own free will. However, that assumption goes not so far as to ignore the facts before one's eyes in a delusional manner.
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
When asked to cite laws that define marriage as you think it should be, you say you're not obliged to.
I said that I do not feel obliged to quote US legislation, if my comment did not involve US legislation in any way. I also do not feel obliged to talk about bowler hats, among a near infinite number of other things not relevant to my present argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I take that to mean that the laws definition of marriage is irrelevant. Which still makes me wonder why you care what the US Supreme Court has to say on the matter.
The conclusions is as wrong as its premise. And I care about the SCOTUS decisions roughly as I care about the situation in Greece. It's not directly impacting me, but int may well somehow down the track - and anyway, it's one of the few pleasures of the lowly to diss the follies of the mighty.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The odd thing here is that the RCC view expressed by IngoB is that consummation is of less importance than whether the partners are actually fertile and intending to have children.
If true, that's bizarre.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Serious question here. How exactly is this even ascertained? If someone wants their marriage annulled on this basis, how is it proven?
I assume perpetual impotence is something that could be medically diagnosed in most cases. And perhaps in some cases it could be an existing track record of having tried to resolve ongoing impotence through a doctor that would count as evidence. I doubt that a simple "say so" would be enough, though I'm neither a canon lawyer nor do I have deep insight into the process. But IIRC annulment cases have a "Defender of the Bond" whose duty it is to argue that marriage is valid and sacramental before the priest-judge, against the Advocate seeking the annulment. So I expect there is at least some requirement for more objective evidence also in practice.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The odd thing here is that the RCC view expressed by IngoB is that consummation is of less importance than whether the partners are actually fertile and intending to have children.
I think you will find that it is "more", not "less".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But you said that if two people were married but not intending to have children, they would not really be married. Or have I misunderstood you?
Clearly married people can be having intercourse without intending to ever have children.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because God, quetzacoatl, because God.
God is gonna get all wrathful and shit because the bible says its icky.
that Christians have enslaved, oppressed and commited genocide are all fine because they're biblical.
But let two men* get married and civilisation is DOOMED!
*Yes just men. Cause men get it on and bible thumpers want to shoot them with a gun. Women do the same and they want to shoot them with a camera.
OK, (sulkily), I suppose that will have to do. Why should secular law and religious codes be isomorphic? Because God gets in a frightful wax otherwise. Spose so.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But you said that if two people were married but not intending to have children, they would not really be married. Or have I misunderstood you? Clearly married people can be having intercourse without intending to ever have children.
An annulment is not a judgement that a marriage has failed so hard that it should be considered over. An annulment is a judgement that a marriage never happened in the first place. If you are married and have lots of sex while doing everything in your power to avoid having children, then likely you are making a horrible mess of your marriage in God's eyes. That does not make your marriage disappear though. If however at the time when you said your marriage vows it was your firm intention to never have kids, then your vows were false. You lied, basically, to achieve marriage status - for whatever reason. Being open to the possibility of children is a necessary condition for contracting a RC marriage. Hence in this case, no matter how much it may appear that you have had a marriage since, you can insist that your vows were false and that hence your marriage is null.
Basically, it's a technicality in the contract that lets you off the hook. If that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, then that is good. Nobody should be happy with that sort of thing. Still, if you lied and cheated your way into marriage, then the RCC will allow you to weasel out of it as well. Your marriage is only as good as your word was at the time, because it is your word (and that of your spouse) which make the marriage. However, the RCC will always assume that your word was good, unless there is undeniable evidence against that (very rare) or you accuse yourself of perjury. The RCC is not in the business of doubting your word, but you might be.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But you said that if two people were married but not intending to have children, they would not really be married. Or have I misunderstood you? Clearly married people can be having intercourse without intending to ever have children.
An annulment is not a judgement that a marriage has failed so hard that it should be considered over. An annulment is a judgement that a marriage never happened in the first place. If you are married and have lots of sex while doing everything in your power to avoid having children, then likely you are making a horrible mess of your marriage in God's eyes. That does not make your marriage disappear though. If however at the time when you said your marriage vows it was your firm intention to never have kids, then your vows were false. You lied, basically, to achieve marriage status - for whatever reason. Being open to the possibility of children is a necessary condition for contracting a RC marriage. Hence in this case, no matter how much it may appear that you have had a marriage since, you can insist that your vows were false and that hence your marriage is null.
Basically, it's a technicality in the contract that lets you off the hook. If that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, then that is good. Nobody should be happy with that sort of thing. Still, if you lied and cheated your way into marriage, then the RCC will allow you to weasel out of it as well. Your marriage is only as good as your word was at the time, because it is your word (and that of your spouse) which make the marriage. However, the RCC will always assume that your word was good, unless there is undeniable evidence against that (very rare) or you accuse yourself of perjury. The RCC is not in the business of doubting your word, but you might be.
I have reacted with anger, and then deleted the post. The anger is still there, but I'm going to try and put it a little more pointedly.
All I hear in this is a toneless booming. It's the booming of a series of established institutional prejudices, given then label dogma and treated as the unanswerable response to all tenderness, all experience, all openness to love.
As such, it enrages me utterly. I cannot see what it has to do with faith in a living, loving God, only with a heavily structured, institutionalised religion.
I will simply now state my reaction to all of this. It can fuck off.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Not that it is any if your business, but children were not part of the contract I agreed with my wife.
quote:
I declare that I know of no legal reason why I (your name) may not be joined in marriage to (your partner's name).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
I dunno about the rest of you, but I think this pretty much sums how little we should give a fuck about Ingo's views on this subject:
quote:
And I care about the SCOTUS decisions roughly as I care about the situation in Greece. It's not directly impacting me, but int may well somehow down the track - and anyway, it's one of the few pleasures of the lowly to diss the follies of the mighty.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Well, indeed.
Ingo can bang on about what constitutes marriage as much as he likes, but no matter how furiously he states what RCC marriage doctrine is, those of who aren't in the RCC, and haven't contracted our marriages according to the rites of the RCC, are quite at liberty to pat him on the head with the clue bat and tell him to run along and play, because the grown-ups decided a very long time ago that those rules extend exactly as far as the RCC and no further.
He's a silly old cross-patch and just so upset that the world keeps turning without his permission. The rest of us, of course, just think it's fabulous and will ride off into the sunset on our rainbow unicorns, leaving him all red-faced and demarried.
Bless.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I realize that the bigots can become dangerous and very nasty of course, maybe in the US more than the UK, (not IngoB himself).
Such a comical sentence, calling out bigotry in the middle of a making a bigoted statement.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I realize that the bigots can become dangerous and very nasty of course, maybe in the US more than the UK, (not IngoB himself).
Such a comical sentence, calling out bigotry in the middle of a making a bigoted statement.
How exactly is that a bigoted statement?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I realize that the bigots can become dangerous and very nasty of course, maybe in the US more than the UK, (not IngoB himself).
Such a comical sentence, calling out bigotry in the middle of a making a bigoted statement.
Oh fucking bollocks. OK, then, tell me what was bigoted about it. I will fucking regret this.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, indeed.
Ingo can bang on about what constitutes marriage as much as he likes, but no matter how furiously he states what RCC marriage doctrine is, those of who aren't in the RCC, and haven't contracted our marriages according to the rites of the RCC, are quite at liberty to pat him on the head with the clue bat and tell him to run along and play, because the grown-ups decided a very long time ago that those rules extend exactly as far as the RCC and no further.
He's a silly old cross-patch and just so upset that the world keeps turning without his permission. The rest of us, of course, just think it's fabulous and will ride off into the sunset on our rainbow unicorns, leaving him all red-faced and demarried.
Bless.
There's some kind of strange law of compensation here, I think. The more the bigots' world shrinks, and the more exposed and bankrupt it seems, the more they flounce and posture, as if they were the arbiters of morality, life, love, and so on. Narcisssism, envy, revenge, good grief, what a dog's vomit.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...maybe in the US more than the UK...
Twilight can speak for herself when she gets here, but I suspect this might have been what she meant. Of course, since I'm actually from the US I am free to agree with you WITHOUT being a bigot, even without the weaselly "maybe".
The reason I agree is that I think our nutcrackers are more likely to be heavily armed.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I realize that the bigots can become dangerous and very nasty of course, maybe in the US more than the UK, (not IngoB himself).
Such a comical sentence, calling out bigotry in the middle of a making a bigoted statement.
How exactly is that a bigoted statement?
quote:
Oh fucking bollocks. OK, then, tell me what was bigoted about it. I will fucking regret this.
--------------------
Has anti-American bigotry become so standard and reflexive you can't see it in a simple sentence? You really believe it's an absolute fact that there are more dangerous, nasty bigots in American than in the UK? You've never heard an anti-gay remark or seen a fight started about this issue in the UK? I was only there for three years and I saw and heard a depressing amount of it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I realize that the bigots can become dangerous and very nasty of course, maybe in the US more than the UK, (not IngoB himself).
Such a comical sentence, calling out bigotry in the middle of a making a bigoted statement.
How exactly is that a bigoted statement?
quote:
Oh fucking bollocks. OK, then, tell me what was bigoted about it. I will fucking regret this.
--------------------
Has anti-American bigotry become so standard and reflexive you can't see it in a simple sentence? You really believe it's an absolute fact that there are more dangerous, nasty bigots in American than in the UK? You've never heard an anti-gay remark or seen a fight started about this issue in the UK? I was only there for three years and I saw and heard a depressing amount of it.
I'm in the US and I don't see his statement as bigotry. Look at the crime statistics. Look at abortion clinic bombings, black church burnings, etc etc etc. Our rightwing nutjobs are provably more likely to commit violence then those elsewhere in the Western world.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not that it is any if your business, but children were not part of the contract I agreed with my wife.
And if you ever find that you want to annul your marriage before the RCC, that might become relevant somehow.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The rest of us, of course, just think it's fabulous and will ride off into the sunset on our rainbow unicorns, leaving him all red-faced and demarried.
It's waiting for that to happen which is so unnerving. For some fucking reason, no sunset ever seems pretty enough for the exodus of the wicked... Perhaps those rainbow unicorns have their spines crushed when y'all plunk your fat asses on them?
[ 29. June 2015, 21:11: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Oh, I'm ravishing now - my arse is pert through all that running and swimming. You could crack walnuts in my cleft.
And the unicorns, being magical fairy unicorns, will manage the plump as well as the skinny. We'll all be having mousethief coolers just over that hill, celebrating the emancipation of the homonation. You're invited, but well... don't be harshing on our mellow.
Love to Mrs B.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I realize that the bigots can become dangerous and very nasty of course, maybe in the US more than the UK, (not IngoB himself).
Such a comical sentence, calling out bigotry in the middle of a making a bigoted statement.
How exactly is that a bigoted statement?
quote:
Oh fucking bollocks. OK, then, tell me what was bigoted about it. I will fucking regret this.
--------------------
Has anti-American bigotry become so standard and reflexive you can't see it in a simple sentence? You really believe it's an absolute fact that there are more dangerous, nasty bigots in American than in the UK? You've never heard an anti-gay remark or seen a fight started about this issue in the UK? I was only there for three years and I saw and heard a depressing amount of it.
Well, I don't think there are absolute facts. I think in the UK the opposition to ssm was muted, partly because it was introduced by the right-wing government party, (Tories), and partly because the UK is a very secular country, so religious homophobia is low key. Of course, there are nasty people here, no doubt.
Just going off the first few days, the reaction in the US has been more dramatic, not to say, melodramatic. I assume this is partly because the US is a much more Christian country than the UK, and quite a lot of US Christians are homophobic.
I don't see how this is bigoted at all.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
[Crossposted replying to Albertus]
I think they just didn't want the disaster of trying to define it. PinV doesn't guarantee much - really they'd have to go with, "during sexual activity at least one of the spouses must have experienced orgasm for the marriage to be considered to be consummated." Which would have led to a massive row about what constitutes an orgasm, and one seriously surreal debate in parliament.
(You could define by ejaculation - though female ejaculation remains a controversial concept.)
Well, quite. But while I suppose that it might be possible, although difficult, to establish what constitutes consummation in SSM, this does suggest, as I say, that there is actually an ontological difference between SS and heterosexual marriage.
I'm struck, BTW, in discussions both here and elsewhere on this topic, by the astonishing unwillingness to move beyond statements of supposedly self-evident fact, and savage attacks on anyone who does not share precisely their own position, exhibited by many of the supporters of SSM. From many people I suspect that this is an understandable response to years of being crapped upon but it does nobody any credit and I hope that it will subside as soon as possible. The position presented by e.g. Ingo- with which on the whole I disagree- is intellectually respectable and carefully worked out, even if we might disagree with the premises on which it is based, and object to the effects which it has produced.
A lot of my facebook friends, straight ones as well as gay ones, have been rainbowing their profile pictures to celebrate Pride. I'm afraid I can't bring myself to do that, not just because as a straight man I don't want to be seen as bandwaggoning (being English, I wouldn't shade myself green for St Patrick's Day, either) but because in some places out there there's a nasty and rather fascistic triumphalism that I don't want to be associated with. And I'm someone who supports SSM and is excited that our shack will be contributing to the faith tent at our local pride.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Say I'm an footballer, who has just won the world cup. Somebody asks me what I do for a living. I answer "I am a professional sportsman." Whereupon the other persons says "Oh, I am too. I am a grandmaster in chess." If I say now "Well, with all due respect, I do not consider chess to be a sport." am I out of line? I do not mean whether my assertion is correct (whether chess is a sport or not) or whether this is polite. I mean whether it is meaningful as such to discuss whether chess is a sport. Do we have to accept chess as a sport simply because chess players may think it is one? Does nothing of significance happen if we admit chess as one particular kind of sport? Does this not indicate a difference concerning what we mean by "sport", a difference that one could viably consider important? Is it necessarily good enough for me that I can still call football a sport, even if we accept chess as sport? I don't think so.
Whether or not either the chess player, the footballer, or both, or anyone else, agree that chess is a sport, or not, it doesn't change whether football is a sport, does it? Of course, anyone can then split up the definition of sport into 'ball sports' and 'sitting down sports', for your own purposes, but they still both fall into the overall category of 'sports'. Football has not been diminished or changed as a result of someone suggesting - or even a government agency agreeing - that chess is a sport as well. Footballers will still run around kicking a leather ball and fall over occasionally, whether or not other professional sportsmen are pushing wooden figurines around with glad cries of "Knight to KB3, take that you bastard".
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I had to go and check that Bingo had actually said something so monumentally petty as suggesting that classifying chess as a sport somehow diminished the nature of football as a sport, then used it as an analogy for gay marriage (or as we like to call it in these parts, 'marriage').
But he did.
(btw - 'computational neuroscience' = not a proper science. You'll have to call it something else from now on because all us proper scientists feel diminished by you using our science-word)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am puzzled by the shock felt by some anti-gay people. Why do they think that secular law would mimic a religiously couched view of marriage?
The reason is that we still live in a world where Western countries like the UK and the USA posit themselves as 'Christian', despite - or perhaps even because of - secularisation.
I realise that politicians like Obama and Cameron have to be all things to all men, but it must confuse people like the elderly clergyman in the OP when our leaders have evangelical prayer breakfasts or talk about our 'Christian nation' - and then proudly introduce SSM.
IMO our civilisation is in transition. People are distant from religious institutions and priests who tell them what to believe and how to live, but religion still provides a link to our national identity and heritage. Until national identity in our countries completely sheds its religious component our secular politicians will continue to pay lip service to Christianity, and some folk will continue to be confused.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
Meanwhile, back in the real world, where I spent the last couple of Shipless weeks, I enjoyed the company of three couples who happened to have IVF children - clearly not produced by the Biblically prescribed process. One of the couples was of the same sex.
I am baffled by the notion that my marriage could possibly be threatened or diminished by the marriage of same sex couples. Our lives are all enriched by now being able to share this tradition. Whenever I hear the phrase "The Law of God" being hurled at happy people by miserable and angry people, I have to wonder what it is that they hope to achieve. I am damn sure that my gay, married daughter isn't going to hell, and that her delightful child, baptised in a church last week, is as perfect a creation as the writer of Genesis had in mind when he - she? - wrote that God looked at the whole thing he'd just done, and liked it.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If however at the time when you said your marriage vows it was your firm intention to never have kids, then your vows were false. You lied, basically, to achieve marriage status - for whatever reason.
IngoB, can you quote to me the words either MrP or myself said during our wedding ceremony which were knowingly untrue? If not, please apologise for calling us liars.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Joanna
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Why the dickens in a clam is there is this run on diarrhea about what those wacky whacking Romans might think? Are you all suffering from some ass crack idea that they matter if you're not a Roman catholic? FWIW, the local RCs in western Canada are nothing like the dink in twat ones Dinkbo posts about. Here they even (gasp) share their churches with non-Romans to the point of jointly celebrating weddings in their RC churches where one of the couple is RC and the other ain't. Doing it jointly with other denominations' clergy sometimes. Doesn't seem to be an issue. At all. As should be.
Perhaps there's a European stiffness where RCs are all tingly about denominational exclusivity? And a turgid envy of RCs by other denominations? Where you consider them to be the standard by which you judge your own denomination? Like so many rutting elk jousting with antlers, bugling their prowess and peeing clouds of pungent urine, all trying to dominate the harem. Well I don't get it that here. At all. Be happy when people love each other, and ignore the stupidity of those who tell you who to eat fish and popsicles with, and those you tell you a complete meal must always contain both.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just going off the first few days, the reaction in the US has been more dramatic, not to say, melodramatic. I assume this is partly because the US is a much more Christian country than the UK, and quite a lot of US Christians are homophobic.
I don't see how this is bigoted at all.
I am one of the most over-sensitive when it comes to sniffing out slanders against the US, but nothing in what quetzalcoatl said struck me as pond-warrish at all. Sometimes a cigar isn't even a cigar.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
it must confuse people like the elderly clergyman in the OP when our leaders have evangelical prayer breakfasts or talk about our 'Christian nation' - and then proudly introduce SSM.
I support same sex marriage BECAUSE I follow Christ. The two things are hardly contradictory.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because God, quetzacoatl, because God.
God is gonna get all wrathful and shit because the bible says its icky.
that Christians have enslaved, oppressed and commited genocide are all fine because they're biblical.
But let two men* get married and civilisation is DOOMED!
*Yes just men. Cause men get it on and bible thumpers want to shoot them with a gun. Women do the same and they want to shoot them with a camera.
I wish God would hurry up and doom someone. All these other countries wouldn't have gone down the wrong path if God had just destroyed the crap out of the Netherlands.
I've visited the Netherlands, Canada, Iceland, Denmark and France in their post-apocalyptic state (and some parts of the USA as well), and really none of them seemed to be suffering. I've visited Paris twice, once in 2000 and once this year, and frankly the only change I really perceived was that people now seem a little more willing to speak English.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
