Should Homosexual Marriage Be Banned?

[qfnol31]

What are the definitions for natural and Sacrament Marriage?

[Jaime]

Sacramental marriage is an outward sign instituted by Christ to bring about grace.

natural marriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as a husband or wife in a legal consensual and contractual relationship that is recognized and sanctioned by and disolvable only by law.



My stance is natural marriage is a misnomer. The fact that the Church has declared marriage to be a sacrament overrides any other definition.

[StatingTheObvious]

Edited November 7, 2005 by StatingTheObvious

[qfnol31]

I believe that natural marriage says it must be four things:

1) Permanent
2) Heterosexual
3) Exclusive
4) Procreative.

Edited November 7, 2005 by qfnol31

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 6 2005, 04:08 PM']Not to my understanding.  But I'm open to being corrected
[right][snapback]780389[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]This is gonna be good...

[Socrates]

hot stuff, (setting aside your other opinions on marriage and the state) do you agree that Catholics should vote against "gay marriage"?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 6 2005, 09:36 PM']hot stuff, (setting aside your other opinions on marriage and the state) do you agree that Catholics should vote against "gay marriage"?
[right][snapback]780689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes

That wasn't ever in question.

[qfnol31]

The reason I mentioned natural marriage is because that is something that can be legistlated. It falls under natural law. Sacramental Marriage is an efficacious sign of the Covenant, the relation between Christ and His Church.

[jasJis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 6 2005, 09:44 PM']Yes

That wasn't ever in question.
[right][snapback]780702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]What the cr8p? It was in question with your posts saying that the Government shouldn't be involved. Civil aspects of marriage are recognized by the Church and in Cannon law. The Church solely administers the Sacramental nature of marriage and allows the Civil Authorities the role of administering the Civil nature of marriage. Note the BOLD points in the excerpts from Canon Law:

[quote]Can. 1055 ß1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and w[b]hich of its own very nature[/b] is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, [b]has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. [/b]

ß2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptized persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.

Can. 1056 [b]The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility; in Christian marriage they acquire a distinctive firmness by reason of the sacrament[/b].

Can. 1057 ß1 A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power.

ß2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage.

Can. 1058 All can contract marriage who are not prohibited by law.

Can. 1059 The marriage of Catholics, even if only one party is baptized, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, [b]without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage. [/b]

Can. 1060 Marriage enjoys the favor of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1061 ß1 A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

Can. 1134 [b]From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which of its own nature is permanent and exclusive. Moreover, in Christian marriage the spouses are by a special sacrament [/b]strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state.

Can. 1141 A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.

Can. 1143 ß1 In virtue of the Pauline privilege, [b]a marriage entered into by two unapprised persons is dissolved in favor of the faith of the party who received baptism[/b], by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by that same party, provided the unapprised party departs.
[/quote]

Edited November 7, 2005 by jasJis

[StatingTheObvious]

I think hot stuff needs to 'tag' Cam and get out of the ring if he can crawl to the ropes.

[jmjtina]

I'm voting against it here in Texas. and so is my whole parish and family.

Texas is pretty conservative, so I'm not too worried, but we are praying nonetheless.

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 6 2005, 10:11 PM']I think hot stuff needs to 'tag' Cam and get out of the ring if he can crawl to the ropes. 
[right][snapback]780766[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Man I had hoped you had me on the ignore list. *Sigh* Wishful thinking I guess.



Fine Jas, let's go with Canon law for a while (and btw, its about time someone brought canon law into the discussion)

Does Civil law recognize any of these canons? No.

What about two divorced Catholics that remarry civilly?
What about two unbaptised people marrying?


And what part of the Canon law that you've quoted deny the sacramentality of marriage?

[homeschoolmom]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 6 2005, 10:39 PM']Man I had hoped you had me on the ignore list.  *Sigh* Wishful thinking I guess. 
Fine Jas, let's go with Canon law for a while (and btw, its about time someone brought canon law into the discussion) 

Does Civil law recognize any of these canons?  No. 

What about two divorced Catholics that remarry civilly?
What about two unbaptised people marrying?
And what part of the Canon law that you've quoted deny the sacramentality of marriage?
[right][snapback]780800[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do they deny the natural or Sacramental marriage aspect?

[jmjtina]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Nov 6 2005, 09:42 PM']
[right][snapback]780805[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




that's EXACTLY what I was thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!

great minds think alike!

okay back to your regularly scheduled program.

[jasJis]

Canon Law, the Catechism, and Church Teaching DO RECOGNIZE Civil/Natural Law elements of Marriage. Re-read the excerpts from the Catechism and Canon Law, expecially what I highlighted. There is no need to be obtuse.

For example, The 'Pauline privilege' recognizes Civil/Natural marriage, but it is dissolved and superceded when it is validated by Christians after they convert. That is the simplest and clearest example of Civil/Natural marriage being recognized, but that covenant and bond would be superceded by a Sacramental Marriage between two Christians or if one becomes a Christian. That is addressed specifically by Canon Law. Also, the Natural effects of marriage are contrasted with the ADDTIONAL Effects of a Grace-filled (Sacramental) Christian marriage.

Non-Christians do marry. Their marriage covenant recieves limited grace because God created the institute of marriage. Christ chose to elevate Marriage to a Sacrament and provide additional graces to Christians. That did not dissolve all other marriages, it elevated Christian marriage.

How then, can you say that atheists cannot be married? I never denied the Sacramental nature of marriage. The point I make, and you supposedly deny, is the natural law and civil elements of marriage that the Catechism, Canon Law, and St. Paul acknowledge. Based on this, I'll answer your questions.

Two divorced Catholics can marry civilly, and if not done properly within the Church, would not be married Sacramentally and would probably be in a state of grave sin.

Two unbaptised people would be two 'unapprised' people marrying and would have a marriage covenant and would be expected to be faithful, monogamous, and have a life time commitment. Even those outside the Earthly Church are provided the Grace through Natural Law to recoginize good. The Pauline privilege recognizes this bond, but allows it to be dissolved if one becomes a Christian and seeks a Christian life and marriage. That's because a Christian marriage supercedes a natural marriage.

And don't try to bait me with your disingenuous question about what part of Canon Law denies Sacramentality of marriage. I never claimed that, never insinuated that, and I am offended you would infer that I had. Canon Law does acknowledge elements of marriage that are not sacramental is what I said.

Pay attention to the next Catholic Marriage you attend. You will hear the Priest say, "By the power of the Catholic Church and the authority granted by the State of (fill in the blank), I now pronounce you man and wife." That right there recognizes the dual elements of Marriage, which is the point being made. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly claimed that Marriage is ONLY SACRAMENTAL, and no other Authority has any jurisdiction over marriage other than the Church. That is a ludicrous position, and is untenable based on reasonable evaluation of the facts.

[Sinner]

TEXANS ...... it is your duty to vote on this morally important issue.

Bump.

Do it.

[qfnol31]

I dunno if it's a moral necessity...it's not actually an issue for us.

It would be implying powers in the government that aren't there in the first place...(Federalist Papers)

[jasJis]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2005, 03:20 AM']I dunno if it's a moral necessity...it's not actually an issue for us. 

It would be implying powers in the government that aren't there in the first place...(Federalist Papers)
[right][snapback]782308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Catholics should vote as a moral necessity. It is an issue for us. Catholics in America have been graced with the freedom, right, and RESPONSIBILITY to participate in our Government. Since we have the freedom to, the right to, and the responsibility to participate, we are morally obligated to vote, voice our opinion, etc.

[qfnol31]

LoL, I think you misunderstood me.

I mean for Texans it's not an issue right now whether or not gay marriage is banned by the state Constitution. It's not something that needs to be banned because there's nothing that allows it.