Secular Authority

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403996' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:00 PM']It attempts to control who you can marry (it makes decisions about what marriages it will recognize).
It forbids you your first cousin (in about half of the country) even with a dispensation.
The Church has of late even encouraged this interference (gay marriage opposition--the Catholic position always struck me as "it's inconsequential what the state recognizes it can marry no one").[/quote]
"Gay marriages" are not and never can be marriages in any sense, so I really fail to see how the state not recognizing such abominations is some kind of affront to the Church.
This is not a case of the state "interfering" in marriage, but simply not recognizing as marriage something which is not a marriage. Real marriages are not affected in the least.
The Pope himself last year spoke out against the state making homosexual "civil unions" and such equal to marriage between man and woman. (And I trust his words much more than your opinion.)

Marriages have always been legally recognized as only between a man and a woman. (And I certainly can't imagine any of your beloved Catholic monarchies giving any recognition whatever for "gay marriages"!)
Acting like not allowing homosexual "marriages" to be legally recognized is some horrific new modern tyranny is fallacious and absurd.

And there is no good reason why anyone should marry his/her first cousin. What's next, are you going to complain about that awful repressive state not allowing guys to marry their mother?

I hardly think recognizing homosexual "marriages" and incestuous marriages will improve our society in any way.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Socrates

[hyperdulia again]

you would run with the gay marriage thing.

The Church's opposition to Civil Marriage as such was weakened by making common cause with the amendmentists. Undoubtedly other things were strengthened this was weakened.

[hyperdulia again]

Socrates's last post is edited to the point of not being the post I responded to.

Edited October 17, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[hyperdulia again]

And first cousin marriages are not incestuous marriages. And who advocated gay marriage?

Edited October 17, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[hyperdulia again]

And I really think some time in prayer or therapy regarding your unhealthy fixation on homosexuality would be a good idea.

Edited October 17, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[S][N]

You guys banned vegemite! WTH! For shame!

[rkwright]

About the Church and State recognizing marriage.

Under older English common law, marriage (domestic issues) were covered by eccelesastical courts. In the United States, due to the seperation of Church and state, marriages (and other domestic issues) have been thrown to the state courts.

On the issues at hand, the government gets it power from the people, and the people have said they will not recognize marriage of first cousins, and in same states they will not recognize gay marriage.

The government is not excersing any power over you that you did not give to it.

Even in the case of gay marriage, we gave the government those powers through our votes.

I agree with socrates; the state's defination of marriage has no bearing at all on the Church's defination or scramental marriages. Even if the government banned marriages outright, that doesn't change anything on the Church marrying people.

Edited October 17, 2007 by rkwright

[hyperdulia again]

interesting rkwright.

But the Government does exercise plenty of powers over me as an individual I haven't given it permission to exercise. It gives my money to abortionists and to bombing campaigns that kill children, etc.

[rkwright]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1404326' date='Oct 17 2007, 02:31 PM']interesting rkwright.

But the Government does exercise plenty of powers over me as an individual I haven't given it permission to exercise. It gives my money to abortionists and to bombing campaigns that kill children, etc.[/quote]

You have given the power in all those things through your vote. Its just in our country its winner takes all, and you lost the vote. If you wish to change it, you can; if you can get the vote.

You can say you don't like those rules, but after all you gave the government the power to do that in the constitution.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1404061' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:57 PM']Socrates's last post is edited to the point of not being the post I responded to.[/quote]
That's a lie.

It was edited to correct some typos I caught later. (For anyone who's curious, I added a "g" I had left out in the word "recognized," and in the sentence "Acting like not allowing homosexual "marriages" to be legally recognized [b]is[/b] some horrific new modern tyranny is fallacious and absurd." I had at first accidentily typed "as" instead of "is." I'm a terrible typist, but at least I can practice honesty in a debate.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1404062' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:58 PM']And first cousin marriages are not incestuous marriages. And who advocated gay marriage?[/quote]
It was you who brought up opposition to "gay marriage" as an example of encouraging the state's alleged "interference" in marriage.

Again, there's no good reason for one to marry one's first cousin. This inbreeding can be very bad for the children. There is the reason the Church required a special dispensation for such marriages to be performed at all (usually when regarded as political necessity; but such situations do not exist in today's world, and royal inbreeding is definitely not something I think we should aspire to go back to).
And if someone really feels such an overwhelming need to marry his first cousin and inbreed, he can move to one of those states where this is allowed.

Basically, the fact of states not allowing some guy to marry his 12-year-old cousin is not a thought that keeps me up at night with worry.
Yes, there are some abuses of government power that we should worry about, but for me, laws against marrying cousins are pretty much near the bottom of my concerns.
I'd say state-recognized "gay marriages" and such present a much more serious threat to marriage than laws against marrying cousins.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1404063' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:59 PM']And I really think some time in prayer or therapy regarding your unhealthy fixation on homosexuality would be a good idea.[/quote]
Ad hominem.

[hyperdulia again]

I'm done with you strange little man.

And your right I have made an ad hominem attacks on you. Including in this post. I am sorry. I will do my best to resist the urge to engage you in future.

God Bless (and I really do mean it)

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1404322' date='Oct 17 2007, 08:27 PM']About the Church and State recognizing marriage.

Under older English common law, marriage (domestic issues) were covered by eccelesastical courts.[/quote]

Depending on how you look at it that's still the case.

[rkwright]

[quote name='RandomProddy' post='1404787' date='Oct 18 2007, 11:09 AM']Depending on how you look at it that's still the case.[/quote]
Sorry I should clarify. They are no longer the case in the sense that Church "courts" do not award damages for problems. You wouldn't go to a Church court for divorce damages.

[Theoketos]

I would say that a personalistic democracy need not be confessional to be legitimate. But a secular government confesses atheism and so is the worst possible form of government. Its laws, including those about my diet, become as arbitrary as the whim of tyrant.