Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[Ben Kenobi]

Question: is an unconsummated marriage invalid? If your answer is "yes" then you are contradicting canon law, and if your answer is "no" then you're admitting that sex is not a necessary part of marriage. Claiming that sex is a goal in marriage? Okay, I'll buy that, same as home ownership is a goal in marriage; however, a valid marriage need not include sex or home ownership.

You don't understand what Catholics mean by the term valid when it refers to the sacraments. Baptism is valid when done by anybody, not just a priest, but that doesn't mean that you should avoid having a priest do a baptism. Same here. Marriage shouldn't avoid conjugality. Conjugality is a core part of marriage, just like the blessings by the priest are to baptism. If the baptism is not done in accordance to the trinity, in the name of the father and son and the holy spirit, it is invalid. Same for any marriage that is not between a man and a woman, both of whom do not have prior bond, aren't related to prohibited degrees, etc. etc. etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

Pretty much your entire argument is that there can be only one marriage.

I'm arguing that conjugality is a core part of marriage, and without conjugality you have something else, but not marriage.

If you allow for Mary's marriage being subject to other marriage laws

Joseph was betrothed to Mary prior to her having Jesus. She became pregnant wit Jesus and had offered to divorce Mary as was the custom (and his lawful right). He would not have committed a sin by turning Mary away. Just as he did not commit a sin by choosing to marry Mary anyways, despite what had occurred.

then you should be OK for non-catholic marriages to be subject to other laws as well.

That's not what you're arguing though. You're arguing that your values should take priority over everyone else's. So I am simply arguing the same. You insist that your values must prevail. I am arguing that ours should. There's really no resolution to this conflict other than you trying to kill us all. Best of luck with that.

[Ben Kenobi]

They were described as having multiple wives, ergo polygamy is a form of marriage if you accept the Bible as an accurate description of reality. I didn't endorse polygamy.

You're arguing that 'because the biblical patriarchs did it, that makes it moral". Perhaps you miss one of the Bible's core teachings - that man, even the best of us, are sinners and fall into sin. Just because they had 4 wives, doesn't make it moral.

I'm actually intrigued here. Here you're admitting that polygamy should be legal. I'm glad you're doing it because now we're getting on the truth. Instead of mocking us for saying that polygamy was in the on deck circle, you've confirmed this. Thanks Gribbler. Much appreciated here.

[giblets]

You're arguing that 'because the biblical patriarchs did it, that makes it moral".

No, I just explicitly said I don't support polygamy. You claimed Muslims don't have marriage because they have polygamy, which is a bizarre claim to make because there's polygamy in the Bible, you believe the Bible, and the Bible never says Solomon's 700 wives aren't really married to him.

[C0ckney]

That's not what you're arguing though. You're arguing that your values should take priority over everyone else's. So I am simply arguing the same. You insist that your values must prevail. I am arguing that ours should. There's really no resolution to this conflict other than you trying to kill us all. Best of luck with that.

of course there's another way. it's that we, as a society, explicitly and implicitly reject 'your' values and have our values become the legal, social and cultural norms. you know, rather like what has happened in recent years, the subject of this thread being a good example.

[N35t0r]

That's not what you're arguing though. You're arguing that your values should take priority over everyone else's. So I am simply arguing the same. You insist that your values must prevail. I am arguing that ours should. There's really no resolution to this conflict other than you trying to kill us all. Best of luck with that.

No. You want gay people not to be able to marry. Gay people want to get married, but they don't give a **** about whether you get married or not, and what your religion thinks about them. If you seriously think both positions are the same, then you seriously need you head checked.

BK: gay people getting married equals killing all christians

[Uncle Sparky]

... I think we all would rather not have BK marry... because then he would have to reproduce!!!

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I just explicitly said I don't support polygamy. You claimed Muslims don't have marriage because they have polygamy, which is a bizarre claim to make because there's polygamy in the Bible, you believe the Bible, and the Bible never says Solomon's 700 wives aren't really married to him.

Neither do they require consent on the part of the 'wife'. They don't have marriage. They have a facsimile thereof, which I suppose is why you're championing polygamy too.

[Ben Kenobi]

of course there's another way. it's that we, as a society, explicitly and implicitly reject 'your' values and have our values become the legal, social and cultural norms. you know, rather like what has happened in recent years, the subject of this thread being a good example.

Blessed Queen Bess said the same thing herself. The result? Y'all tried to kill us all in order to enforce the society that y'all wanted. This will be the end result here. There really can be only one, and the outcome will be that anyone who publicly challenges you will suffer for it.

I could have stated that plurality will win out, but the attitude here is the exact opposite. After the 50k fine of a Florist who simply refused to do wedding (but didn't refuse selling flowers to gay people), the shot has already been fired. Now we're getting to the point where the folks who do collaborate, but have the temerity to be openly Christian and in business are also being targeted.

The result will be very quickly shown that the goal isn't to accommodate, isn't to tolerate, but to suppress and attack. It's been very quick. Unfortunately, I'm probably just young enough to see the whole end game play out.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. You want gay people not to be able to marry. Gay people want to get married, but they don't give a **** about whether you get married or not, and what your religion thinks about them. If you seriously think both positions are the same, then you seriously need you head checked.

Yeah, they do care. You don't get to claim that plurality is the desire when gay people have already started suing Christians for having public Christian displays in their place of business. Christians, I might add that had already agreed to provide them services.

It was never about toleration, so can we put that naïve statement to bed? It was always about suppressing values that you dislike. That'll be enforced soon enough I'm sure once all the speech codes come down the pike.

Then we'll see the rabid attacks on Catholicism. Poly's a great barometer for the future, fwiw. Stuff that comes up here usually comes out in the real world pretty soon.

[kentonio]

[Ben Kenobi]

Pretty much everything I said would happen in 2005 has.

[kentonio]

Just like when you always have a story about how you've been an astronaut, and in the CIA and how you've wriiten speeches for politicians and blah blah blah. You don't like just being yourself much, do you Mr Munchausen.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just like when you always have a story about how you've been an astronaut, and in the CIA and how you've wriiten speeches for politicians and blah blah blah. You don't like just being yourself much, do you Mr Munchausen.

You're a British conservative, wearing a massive Ted Cruz avatar.

[kentonio]

Ok, we'll add irony to the increasingly long list of things you don't understand.