Catholic Priest Urges Church To Aband...

Catholic Priest Urges Church To Abandon The Word 'Marriage'

There are 31 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Jun 28, 2013, titled Catholic Priest Urges Church To Abandon The Word 'Marriage'. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Following the ruling about the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8, one Catholic priest recommended that the Church use 'holy matrimony' instead of marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#1 Jun 28, 2013
I think it's a good idea. Let the RCC use a word that is exclusive to the RCC only.
Sick of Bigots

San Francisco, CA

#2 Jun 28, 2013
Isn't that what gay people have been saying all along. That marriage is a civil matter. Now all of a sudden the church thinks it's a great ideal After all,it is the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, not Holy Marriage, isn't it. That's why we've been saying that it's time for bigots and the church to get their noses out of the marriage business.
Raven

Harvard, MA

#3 Jun 28, 2013
I think that's a great idea. Let "marriage" be the legal and civil contract, and "holy matrimony" be for the initiates of the religion who wishes to bestow it upon them.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#4 Jun 28, 2013
Raven wrote:
I think that's a great idea. Let "marriage" be the legal and civil contract, and "holy matrimony" be for the initiates of the religion who wishes to bestow it upon them.
I agree.

And so that there IS a "wall of separation between church and state", make it a law in each state that a "civil marriage" CANNOT be performed by a religious leader, but only a government official, since the word "marriage' will be reserved for the civil procedure, and "Holy Matrimony" will be reserved only for the religious procedure.

Can't we all live with that ?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5 Jun 28, 2013
I have been saying as much since my first postings here on TOPIX ...

33,139 posts ago.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 Jun 28, 2013
Sick of Bigots wrote:
Isn't that what gay people have been saying all along. That marriage is a civil matter. Now all of a sudden the church thinks it's a great ideal After all,it is the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, not Holy Marriage, isn't it. That's why we've been saying that it's time for bigots and the church to get their noses out of the marriage business.
It isn't "the church". Just one priest.

But HE gets it.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#7 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't "the church". Just one priest.
But HE gets it.
That's because he's Catholic, and therefore most probably gay.

LOL
Chance

Grove City, PA

#8 Jun 28, 2013
"Marriage" is becoming undefined. It will soon mean nothing at all. I suspect that with time a new word will arise that will mean the union of a man and a woman because one thing is abundantly clear. The union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman will NEVER mean the same thing as the union of a man and a woman, no matter what either type of union is called. It is physically, biologically, culturally, and socially impossible for gays to be joined the way a man and woman are. So, basically gays are stealing the word "marriage" for their own purposes and the boneheads in the government are letting it happen for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#9 Jun 28, 2013
Chance wrote:
"Marriage" is becoming undefined. It will soon mean nothing at all. I suspect that with time a new word will arise that will mean the union of a man and a woman because one thing is abundantly clear. The union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman will NEVER mean the same thing as the union of a man and a woman, no matter what either type of union is called. It is physically, biologically, culturally, and socially impossible for gays to be joined the way a man and woman are. So, basically gays are stealing the word "marriage" for their own purposes and the boneheads in the government are letting it happen for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind.
Let's use the word "boink" instead !:)

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10 Jun 28, 2013
I love the idea. It solves the conflict of "definitions", and withdraws the church's overreach into state affairs.

And hey! Their couples can be "Matrimonied"! And the phrase can become, "Will you Matrimony me?" We'll have to have a whole new national debate and court hearing on whether or not the government will provide benefits for Matrimonies (but somehow I suspect so).

And of course, divorce would only be available for marriages. Holy Matrimony HAS to be til death.
Sick of Bigots

San Francisco, CA

#11 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't "the church". Just one priest.
But HE gets it.
You certainly are named appropriately, straw-splitter. It may be one priest but he's suggesting it to the church and you can be sure they'll jump at it now that they feel "marriage" has been stolen from them when it never belonged to them in the first place.
Sick of Bigots

San Francisco, CA

#12 Jun 28, 2013
Chance wrote:
"Marriage" is becoming undefined. It will soon mean nothing at all. I suspect that with time a new word will arise that will mean the union of a man and a woman because one thing is abundantly clear. The union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman will NEVER mean the same thing as the union of a man and a woman, no matter what either type of union is called. It is physically, biologically, culturally, and socially impossible for gays to be joined the way a man and woman are. So, basically gays are stealing the word "marriage" for their own purposes and the boneheads in the government are letting it happen for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind.
Let's call it "joining in irresponsible overpopulation" then.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13 Jun 28, 2013
Chance wrote:
"Marriage" is becoming undefined. It will soon mean nothing at all. I suspect that with time a new word will arise that will mean the union of a man and a woman because one thing is abundantly clear. The union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman will NEVER mean the same thing as the union of a man and a woman, no matter what either type of union is called. It is physically, biologically, culturally, and socially impossible for gays to be joined the way a man and woman are. So, basically gays are stealing the word "marriage" for their own purposes and the boneheads in the government are letting it happen for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind.
Oh, man, that was off the RAILS! Thanks for the laugh.

Actually, it's because civil unions are made of 64% antifamilium and 22% destroysocietine, so instead of letting gay people use them, the government wants to harvest them to take away guns and force abortions.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#14 Jun 28, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
I love the idea. It solves the conflict of "definitions", and withdraws the church's overreach into state affairs.
And hey! Their couples can be "Matrimonied"! And the phrase can become, "Will you Matrimony me?" We'll have to have a whole new national debate and court hearing on whether or not the government will provide benefits for Matrimonies (but somehow I suspect so).
And of course, divorce would only be available for marriages. Holy Matrimony HAS to be til death.
Actually, the RCC has an "out" from marriage called "annulment".

I only have known one person to get an annulment. Years ago, I worked with this guy named Chris for a long time. He was good-looking, a great personality, and everybody liked him. He was funny and he just had that type of personality that everyone was attracted to.

He had this girlfriend, and they dated steady for 7 years or more, since early in high school. They seemed genuinely in love and devoted to one another, and every once in awhile, Chris would tell me about their sexual times together. When they were both 23 years old, they got married in a Roman Catholic Church as they were both Catholics.(I went to the wedding).

Perhaps a year or so later, there was trouble in the marriage that Chris tried desperately to fix, to no effect. He never told me why, or perhaps he didn't know why, but soon after they were married, having dated for 7 years, and having a great sex life according to Chris, she suddenly refused to have sex with him anymore. Chris told me that she said she wanted to stay married, but no more sex. Chris was devastated, having been with her 8 years or more as a boyfriend and then a husband, and finally he filed for an annulment.

The marriage was annulled, he met another woman, he became a born-again Christian, left the RCC, became a devout Protestant, and he and his second wife have now been married for many years and have a few kids. He is the only person I have known to have their marriage annulled.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#15 Jun 28, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
I think it's a good idea. Let the RCC use a word that is exclusive to the RCC only.
Exactly. If they want to separate themselves further from the rest of society by adopting their own exclusive, non-legally-defined terminology, let 'em.

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#16 Jun 29, 2013
I would like to urge people to abandon the Catholic Church and come live in the 21st century and to use their own brains instead of being told what to think.

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#17 Jun 29, 2013
Chance wrote:
"Marriage" is becoming undefined. It will soon mean nothing at all. I suspect that with time a new word will arise that will mean the union of a man and a woman because one thing is abundantly clear. The union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman will NEVER mean the same thing as the union of a man and a woman, no matter what either type of union is called. It is physically, biologically, culturally, and socially impossible for gays to be joined the way a man and woman are. So, basically gays are stealing the word "marriage" for their own purposes and the boneheads in the government are letting it happen for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind.
You're right - "Marriage" is undefined. It was originally a property contract. "Marriage" is not and never has been an exclusively religious term. "Marriage" is licensed, governed and sanctioned by the state, not any church.

You're also right that two men or two women are not joined the same as a man and a woman. So what! What's your point? Why is that comparison important? Who REQUIRES that they be the same?

And the "nefarious" purpose that seems to elude you is called Equality. The concept that ALL citizens be treated the same under law. Gay people and straight people get married for all the same reason. I simply do not understand why that is such a difficult concept for some of you to grasp.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Jun 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
I love the idea. It solves the conflict of "definitions", and withdraws the church's overreach into state affairs.
And hey! Their couples can be "Matrimonied"! And the phrase can become, "Will you Matrimony me?" We'll have to have a whole new national debate and court hearing on whether or not the government will provide benefits for Matrimonies (but somehow I suspect so).
And of course, divorce would only be available for marriages. Holy Matrimony HAS to be til death.
Matrimony has no legal force whatsoever. If a couple wants the CIVIL benefits of CIVIL Marriage, they can just go down to City Hall and get a CIVIL Marriage License.

I got it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#19 Jun 29, 2013
Sick of Bigots wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly are named appropriately, straw-splitter. It may be one priest but he's suggesting it to the church and you can be sure they'll jump at it now that they feel "marriage" has been stolen from them when it never belonged to them in the first place.
You REALLY don't know the RCC at all, do ya?

More likely he will be called on the carpet and censured. It's possible that he could be silenced (barred from teaching, preaching, publishing or communicating his own ideas by any means). If he shows up in the pulpit sometime soon, only reading other peoples' sermon material, then you'll know that he's been silenced.

That's a minimum result.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#20 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You REALLY don't know the RCC at all, do ya?
More likely he will be called on the carpet and censured. It's possible that he could be silenced (barred from teaching, preaching, publishing or communicating his own ideas by any means). If he shows up in the pulpit sometime soon, only reading other peoples' sermon material, then you'll know that he's been silenced.
That's a minimum result.
But imagine what would have happened to him if he'd taught the alter boys some unusual praying techniques. Then he'd be in REAL trouble, right?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 min River Tam 13,146
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 21 min Ismail 876
News Columbus veteran, ousted for sexual orientation... 43 min Cordwainer Trout 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 55 min EdmondWA 37,378
The Great Gays 1 hr Gremlin 8
News The Latest: Celebrities record tribute to night... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 3
News The Latest: Obama pledges federal support in fl... 3 hr Peter 13
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 5 hr WasteWater 975
More from around the web