Is marriage obsolete?

TTWS(etc.):
“Morality is a necessary tool to practice man’s religion, without the moral inviolable rights to practice one’s religion, viz. "Freedom of Religion”
Once again you quote from the Catholic encyclopedia. That entire set of documents proves nothing, except Catholicism itself.
There are many ‘moral’ cultures and societies that do not require your god’s heavy hand. They are cultures that do not even have much in the way of an active, all powerful deity, yet they thrive socially, and in many cases more civilly than those in enlightened or Christian based societies. Even atheist countries have morals. Sanctions against theft, murder, lying exist everywhere regardless of awareness, knowledge or even recognition of anything like your god.
We in the U.S have established for ourselves a defined morality in the form of legislated laws.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights”
Did you notice, they don’t mention a god either… any god, whatsoever. Unless you guys are going to back your popemobile into THIS garage as well.

“Religion trumps Morality”
I thought you said earlier that The NML was something that didn’t require a specific religious creed be adhered to, that it was there regardless of how you defined god.… wouldn’t that indicate that NML(Morality) actually trumps religion?

TTWS(etc.):
CNTD.

“so Mathew 19:26 isn’t a part of Scripture? What are you using for a Bible, the Communist Manifesto? These are the words of God, not flawed men, and they are infallibly taught by His infallible Church.”
Slow down, think…. You earlier said:
“Matthew 19:26 “And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” Moreover, so that man would have no excuse of not getting things right, He established His Church and endowed it with the gift of infallibility in its teachings and doctrines by sending the Holy Spirit to guard its truths from error.”

You know perfectly well what I was referring to. Matthew 19:26 says : “And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.”
That’s all 19:26 says… your post added “moreover, so that man. . . . to guard its truths from error” Which is NOT in Matthew 19, at all. Everything starting form the word ‘moreover’ in your original post is not scripturally based.

TTWS(etc.):
“Without the first three Commandments, we deny there is a God, consequently we declare there are no inviolable rights, viz. without a transcendental authority, man's rights come under the sole authority of man. What man gives, man can take away. “

That’s not the question I asked. I asked you where in the constitution I could find the 10C’s, NL, NML, etc. You have not answered that question. (other than you previously stated they were ‘implied’. Implied = not really there).

Now lets take it apart.
“Without the first three Commandments, we deny there is a God”
Not necessarily. The first three commandments are the words of a specific god, he even leaves open the possibility that there are other gods. At best you could say that we would not be able to claim that the God of Moses is THE god.

“without a transcendental authority, man's rights come under the sole authority of man”
But I have proven to you that this is exactly the case. In your pinko communist countries, the government does not recognize or respect what you call ‘man’s rights’ and sure enough the freedoms of speech, religion, etc are not rights the people of those countries enjoy. So man DOES have actual, real authority over those rights. Man has given (U.S.) and taken away (N. Korea, Cuba, China.)
You have proved my point.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We, the people,. . . do ordain and establish.

“Whatever isn’t in the Bill of Rights specifically is in the Ninth Amendment”
Which doesn’t A. Say what those rights are. B. Mention anything about NL or NML. This means exactly what it means. That all rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and BoR’s are as the 10 amendment says, left to the states and to the people. A recipe for cookies does not need to list the ingredients that are not part of that recipe.

(Cntd)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)]
GLADERUNNER
MORALITY & RELIGION

IRT:
[Morality and Religion are like man and wife] “And man has dominion over his wife…. Which is the man in this marriage, religion or morality?

ANS:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

As to authority, Religion trumps Morality because it is broader and expansive and more determinate to one’s destiny in life. Both Religion and Morality deals with the behavior of man to society, Religion deals with his final destination; morality is the means to be Religious and to perfect one’s human nature. Religion deals with the journey to eternal happiness; Morality is the means to being religious.

IRT:
“Morality does not require a religion, for anything.”

ANS:
Morality is a necessary tool to practice man’s religion, without the moral inviolable rights to practice one’s religion, viz. "Freedom of Religion," man’s duty to God is frustrated. Morality is a compliment to Religion as woman is to man, with equal dignity, as Philosophy compliments Religion. Since all are from the Divine Wisdom of God, they are not contradictory but complimentary to each. Since both deal with human behavior, they often cross paths.

“Religion, broadly speaking, means the voluntary subjection of oneself to God. It exists in its highest perfection in heaven, where the angels and saints love, praise, and adore God, and live in absolute conformity to His holy will. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.

Religion does not exist at all in hell, where the subordination of rational creatures to their Creator is one not of free will, but of physical necessity. On earth it is practically coextensive with the human race, though, where it has not been elevated to the supernatural plane through Divine revelation, it labors under serious defects.”

The love of God for His own sake, inasmuch as He is the infinitely perfect Being, in whom truth, beauty, and goodness are realized in their highest possible degree. While the prevailing motive in all lower religions is one of self-interest, the infinite desire for happiness, it generally implies to some extent an affectionate as well as reverent attitude towards the deity that is the object of worship.

Thus, in its strictest sense, religion on its subjective side is the disposition to acknowledge our dependence on God, and on the objective side it is the voluntary acknowledgement of that dependence through acts of homage. It calls into play not simply the will, but the intellect, the imagination, and the emotions. Without the conception of personal deity, religion would not exist.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“RIGHTS & THE COMMANDMENTS”

ANS:
Also please point out the 10 commandments in the constitution/bill of rights… especially the first three. Or are they in between the lines as well?

ANS:
Without the first three Commandments, we deny there is a God, consequently we declare there are no inviolable rights, viz. without a transcendental authority, man's rights come under the sole authority of man. What man gives, man can take away.

However, when man attempts to suppress human rights, the Natural Law reciprocates and what ensues are the Four Horsemen—Pestilence, Famine, Death and War. Everywhere you see man’s inviolable rights denounced, on a grand scale, there follows travail and ignominy in crimes against humanity. Today, in America we have forfeited the Right to Life and legalized murder. Today over 52 million unborn have been murdered.

We are redefining Marriage to include Gay Marriage, and we are being plagued with AIDS, HIV, and a multiple number incurable STDs mutants.

"The commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal deceive or make false statements; You shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

"Which commandment in the Law is the greatest?" Jesus replies: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment.

"The second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets.' The Decalogue must be interpreted in light of this twofold yet single commandment of love, the fullness of the Law; this command of Love is the source to achieve world peace.

Whatever isn’t in the Bill of Rights specifically is in the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

IRT;
[It is written Matthew 19:26 “And Jesus beholding, said to them, "With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.] ”Everything after the word ‘moreover’ is not scripturally based, is not immutable, and is not infallible, therefore it is mere speculation, the opinions of flawed men. A lot can get lost on the way to the forum.”

ANS:
Hmmm, including you, so Mathew 19:26 isn’t a part of Scripture? What are you using for a Bible, the Communist Manifesto? These are the words of God, not flawed men, and they are infallibly taught by His infallible Church.

TTWS(etc..):
“Our inalienable rights are ascribed implicitly to the “Ten Commandments,” in the Declaration, and the Bill of Rights.”
Implicitly… In other words, not stated.
There was great debate back in the day as to whether to spell out all the ‘inalienable’ rights or not. It was decided not to. The reason for that decision was that there was much disagreement as to what exactly those rights were. In other words, anything implied in those documents is not specific. It is vague, it is incomplete and not unanimously agreed upon.
“Most are self-evident”
Very few are ‘self-evident’. The few actually spelled out were debated and voted upon, i.e. the pursuit of happiness won out over pursuit of property. Things that are ‘self-evident’ don’t require a vote.
“The Second Vatican Council”
Was little more than a bunch of old white European men self-justifying their relevance. As much as you would like, as much as those dusty, dried up old theocrats would like, V2 had no authority and virtually no relevance whatsoever outside the decaying, archaic Catholic Church.
So the council came out against violence against others… Wow, alert the media! What’s next, a papal proclamation that puppies are cute?
Once again, you’re just backing your car into someone else’s garage.

And once again TTWS, please provide the complete list of N&ML’s. Surely, since they are mostly self-evident, you have a complete list.

TTWS(etc.):
“Finland and Norway are part of the Scandinavia that suffers high rates of suicide and alcoholism”
Wow, what a stretch… suicide rates? That’s the colossal depravity you found?
Norway has about the same rate as the U.S. Norway and Finland, despite the long nights in the winter are prosperous, safe and consistently rated, by the U.N. among the highest quality of living countries in the world. Finland boasts the fourth highest literacy rate in the world. Japan has the worlds longest life expectancy, very low crime rate and very high academic scores.
What a reach, TTWS, quite a reach indeed.
AND I can assure you there is virtually NO Christianity in Japan, never has been. You have to reach back all the way to WWII to find any significant atrocities, and there were very few white hats in the world at that time. Germany for example compared to Japan’s level of brutality, yet it too has become a beacon in the modern world for quality of life.
“They raped and murdered helpless innocent people, destroyed their villages and plundered and massacred the coastal inhabitants with lubricity and impunity.”
As we (the U.S.) did with our slaves and the indigenous population. It’s just a matter of where on the map/calendar you want to poke a pin.

“and they are only succeeding to some degree because of their adherence to the N&ML.”
Show me anywhere Japan’s constitution any mention whatsoever of such a thing. NM&L has never been part of Japanese culture, history, mythology or religions, never.
This has been an absurd attempt by you to find something bad, ANYTHING and support your very weak assertion. Japan has NEVER been even remotely Christian, Norway and Finland have little more than token church attendance, yet they, by just about EVERY measure prosper and offer anything but the depravity you claim should be there.
Then you try to say that they must be adhering to NML since they are prospering. Well, I’ve got news for you, they aren’t. You can’t have it both ways. If they are adhering to NML then why dig out the suicide rates?
You can’t see that your conclusions are just way too convenient. You hate communism, so therefore communist countries must be in gross violation of the NM&L. Any country presented as doing well, you claim it is because they, even without knowing it are following god’s laws.
This silly tactic doesn’t even work in high school debate classes. None of it proves your basic thesis that the NM&L exists in the first place. It’s merely your way of labeling things you like versus the things you don’t, regardless of the complete absence of causative connection.
Nice try, but no biscuit.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“RIGHTS”

IRT:
[Jefferson was a human person, therefore, he was familiar with human rights, all men have some knowledge of them. Which have you denied?] “Just so we’re speaking of the same things, please list all the rights contained in the NML/NL/human rights. I'll address them one at a time.

ANS: “Christmas reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy and dignity that accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfillment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn 16:21)”

Our inalienable rights are ascribed implicitly to the “Ten Commandments,” in the Declaration, and the Bill of Rights. They are further inscribed in Human Nature. They are vindicated in response to Justice, viz. what man is due by virtue of his human nature since they are given to man by his Creator. Most are self-evident, such as the first, a right above all rights, the Right to Life, to Marry, to own property, freedom of Speech, and religion, a right to be free from tyranny.

“Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14), is entrusted to defense of these rights by the Church. Therefore, every threat to human dignity and life must necessarily be felt in the Church's very heart; it cannot but affect her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God, and engage her in her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the world and to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15).

"Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenseless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.

"The Second Vatican Council, in a passage that retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. 'Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind. She opposes attempts to coerce the will itself; against whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed.

They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator" Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life,--His Holiness Pope John Paul II.“

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
“THE GODLESS”

IRT:
[This is evidenced by the depravity of nations that are ruled by atheists and agnostics.} “Please provide examples of depravities in Japan, Norway, Finland.

ANS:
You show me where they don’t recognize inalienable rights such as freedom of speech, and religion, and rights to own property; the Communists deny those things. Nonetheless, Finland and Norway are part of the Scandinavia that suffers high rates of suicide and alcoholism.

It can be said that Scandinavia is a cold dank mundane land that lacks warmth, love, kindness and charity. In a documentary on Scandinavia, it was noted that when walking on the street Scandinavians always look down, never greet one another, not even their neighbors. Scandinavia is a land where the majority of people have no hope for eternal happiness for which they have been created. Thus, hopelessness is the resulting cause of their Alcoholism and Suicide.

Japan is not so much different. For example, in 1998 Japan saw a 34.7% increase in suicide over the previous year. “Japan has one of the world's highest suicide rates, especially amongst industrialized nations, and the Japanese government reported the rate for 2006 as being the ninth highest in the world.” Wikipedia (Suicide)

Do you know what Hari Kari is?

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Seppuku#Seppuku_in_modern_Japan

We had to tame Japan's their unrestained Godlessness with a World War. There invasion into China was a fete of carnal savages. They raped and murdered helpless innocent people, destroyed their villages and plundered and massacred the coastal inhabitants with lubricity and impunity.

Even today, I believe legal disputes still exists for reparation against the Japanese cruelty, their maniacal escapades of lascivious destructive inhumanity against the Chinese during WWII.

Japan never recognized human rights till America conquered them, and they are only succeeding to some degree because of their adherence to the N&ML. Japan had little respect for humanity during WWII. Their reprehensible depravity and sexual morass still reverberates in their culture, and has lingering reservations in Japan's civility. Japan had tour packages to the Chinese coast for visits to sexual brothels and parties of debauchery. This debauchery is evidence of what a moralless life leads to, a.k.a. disrespect for human life, alcoholism and suicide.

http://www.seekjapan.jp/article-1/746/The+Floating+World

As was previously said, the social success of any nation is in proportion to their recognition of the N&ML.

TTWS(etc.):
“This is evidenced by the depravity of nation that are ruled by atheists and agnostics.”
Please provide examples of depravities in Japan, Norway, Finland.

“Jefferson was a human person, therefore, he was familiar with human rights, all men have some knowledge of them. Which have you denied?”
Just so we’re speaking of the same things, please list all the rights contained in the NML/NL/human rights. I'll address them one at a time.
Also please point out the 10 commandments in the constitution/bill of rights… especially the first three. Or are they in between the lines as well?

“It is written Matthew 19:26 “And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” Moreover,”

Everything after the word ‘moreover’ is not scripturally based, is not immutable, and is not infallible, therefore it is mere speculation, the opinions of flawed men. A lot can get lost on the way to the forum.

“Morality and Religion are like man and wife”
And man has dominion over his wife…. Which is the man in this marriage, religion or morality?
Morality does not require a religion, for anything.

TTWS(etc.):
“So who decided what rights we have and what did they base them on if not Human Nature. Jefferson and the boys told you who determined them, God”
Jefferson said no such thing. I’ve covered this, you are reading between the lines again. The FF’s decided together that there were some rights that all people should enjoy. Once again they were not defining god, they were simply declaring that individuals had the right to self-determination. A popularly debated notion at the time, not just within the church.

“and verified by reason”
Reason concludes in deduction, not proof.

“The USSR, China, and N. Korea don’t have inalienable rights”
Sure they do, you said repeatedly that ALL people have universal inalienable rights. These governments simply don’t recognize them right? So where do Koreans and other commies go to get their inalienable rights back? Won’t they have to overthrow their governments? Why if they already have them? This is exactly what I’ve been trying to get across to you, that if a government does not recognize these as rights, then for the people in those nations they don’t actually exist.
A right is only inalienable as long as the presiding government says they are. The actual origin of those rights, whether etched in our guts or merely formulated as a good idea, is not actually relevant if the government does not recognize them.

“Jesus is not explicitly mentioned but since his laws are mentioned, he is implicitly named in the Declaration (a.k.a. God) as the cause of our inalienable rights.”
Wow, you are really keyed up about this! Too bad the FF’s didn’t attribute these notions to Jesus… they could have, you know… but they didn’t. In fact they avoided doing so. The ‘AKA’ is yours, not theirs.
And whether your sky fairy carved them into our spleens, or Aesop wrote about them in a fable, or whether political philosophers debated them for decades, what really mattered, the only thing that actually mattered is that our FF’s incorporated them into our founding documents. They ratified them into reality. Had they not done than then we would likely have no more rights than your typical North Korean. God may have etched them, but it took men to give them any value or meaning.
For many (most) centuries the RCC did not care so much about these inalienable rights, speaking out against the church (or it’s favored monarchs), filing grievances, other religions were all considered heresy and such actions were duly and often brutally punished. Even now the RCC doesn’t grant its own membership the right to speak out against the church. It does not grant women the right to become priests, it doesn’t allow freedom of religion, it doesn’t even allow voting for its own leaders. It denies basic self-determination in its own house. How can the RCC be held up as a model for inalienable rights when it has not ever, and still does not allow such things within its own ranks?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“JEFFERSON & RIGHTS”

IRT:
"How can you say that he enacted all the moral principles when he repeatedly denounced the divinity of Jesus and every one of his miracles (including the resurrection)? He certainly was not catholic; though he could have been had he wanted to be." He was certainly familiar with the RCC, yet he rejected its very basic tenets.

ANS:
He rejected Catholicism’s basic religious tenants, but he did not reject their Moral Laws. If he did name them.

IRT:
Are you seriously implying that god sneakily used a non-believer’s hand to write some stuff into a document that otherwise was completely secular in nature? God as stealthy ghost-writer? Really? You’re really going off the rails now.

ANS:
That’s right God gave man these laws and gave him reason to know them, but man on the way to the forum had a difficult time discerning them. In fact, things got so bad with man trying to do it on his own, God had to send His Beloved Son to straighten man out. Jefferson didn’t believe Jesus was God as you say, but he admired Jesus as a teacher and righteous person.

Nonetheless, that is immaterial. Jefferson never initiated the Bill of Rights, others did. Jefferson and Madison went along to get the Constitution ratified. Again name the Moral Laws espoused by Jesus (namely the 10 Commandments) Jefferson rejected. These are natural laws endowed on all men. Jefferson was a human person, therefore, he was familiar with human rights, all men have some knowledge of them. Which have you denied?

IRT:
[basic principles of right and wrong can be discerned by human reason alone.}
“You’re getting closer. You are saying that religion is not necessary for morality, on that we agree.”

ANS:
Morality and Religion are like man and wife. Religion isn’t necessary to know these right but religion is necessary to keep and protect them. This is evidenced by the depravity of nation that are ruled by atheists and agnostics. Hence, America is becoming a Secularist nation spurning the Truths of Gods Church. Our Court is a mockery of God’s laws, the FF, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It is written Matthew 19:26 “And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” Moreover, so that man would have no excuse of not getting things right, He established His Church and endowed it with the gift of infallibility in its teachings and doctrines by sending the Holy Spirit to guard its truths from error.

“John 14:17: “The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him, because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.

TTWS(etc.):
“Those guys as you depict them were very intelligent people who were thinkers and who sought the truth”
They were smart, I get it. That does not mean they got it all correct. Even Einstein, Edison and Eli Whitney got some big things wrong.
“The society’s metamorphose is internecine, deadly, and transmogrifies with silent stealth”
Do you actually talk like this?

“Constantine the Great did much for children, slaves, and women,. . . “
Ah, yes, Constantine. He was certainly an improvement over his predecessors (at least from a Christian perspective), though really little more than the Church’s henchman / thug. He even allowed the heathen Pagans to continue their worship, though he did rob them blind.

“They did it because these rights are endowed by God. They say so in the "Declaration."
Actually the DoI says ‘Creator’ And they merely said those rights were endowed by a creator, not that that was the only reason for recognizing them. The DoI was a separation decree, not a proof of anything.

“and you haven’t answered why, if there is no God. You can't.”
Sometimes a good idea is just that, a good idea. The notion of government of, by and for the people had been bandied about for a long time.
“That’s what these rights are for.”
Balderdash. The FF’s came form a legacy of monarchy and church-state control over every aspect of a subject’s life. They sought individual liberty in all respects, they sought to create a government where the people were in charge of their own destinies.
“Who but God can design man and endow these rights in human nature.”
You are assuming we are ‘designed’ I see no reason whatsoever to presume such a thing.
“So tell me who's God is it, notwithstanding all the signers believed in God and few were non-Christian.”
They weren’t out to define god. They were in fact, building a nation where ALL religious beliefs were held equal in value, why do that if everyone agreed on only one definition of god?
“Yes, and when I use the formula for a Triangle, I use the Pythagorean Theorem because it works, as does Catholicism”
Hindus, Muslims, Atheists and Buddihsts ALL use Pythagorean’s theorem, because it is testable, repeatable and provable. Only Catholics claim ‘proof’ in Aquinas’ philosophical conclusions. They are not testable, repeatable, or provable with any known physical measure.
“Do you deny there's a right of Freedom of Speech, Religion, to own property, to marry, have children?”
Rights are defined by governments and the people in those governments. Speech and religion is ‘free’ in the U.S. but not everywhere. A right without government recognition of that right is not a right to people in that nation. We may consider it natural, but that doesn’t make it real in practice.
“He created the Universe. And he is by necessity a Christian God”
Poppycock. Aristotle deduced that there was a force (that he called god) outside physical laws that ‘created’ the universe. All else was speculation.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“INALIENABLE RIGHTS”

IRT:
[than who determines one’s rights?]
“In a democracy/ constitutional republic, the people, as it specifically says in the constitution.

ANS:
So who decided what rights we have and what did they base them on if not Human Nature. Jefferson and the boys told you who determined them, God. They are engraved in man’s heart, his soul, his nature, and verified by reason. Nature is the fundamental principles of operation of a being.

The USSR, China, and N. Korea don’t have inalienable rights; they have violable rights that the State gives it people. Man is not created equal to them. There is no freedom of religion, no equal rights, because there is no God for these atheists’ leaders.

These nations are ruled by atheists and agnostics. Stalin and Hitler are said to have worshiped Satan. These people helped murdered over a hundred and twenty million people of their own, notwithstanding the lives in the wars that were lost fighting them. The only life that matters to these dictators is their own.

IRT:
[Nevertheless, Jefferson unconsciously or consciously enacted all the moral principles of the Catholic Church]

“Whoopdeedoo. Jefferson’s ‘religion’ as was common among deists of the day, appreciated certain morality as espoused by certain Christian denominations, but not miracles, authority of priests or the divinity of Jesus.

ANS:
Who said he did? However, you answered your own argument; namely, these rights were espoused by Christian denominations, all Christian denominations.

Miracles don’t have anything to do with inalienable rights, nor do priests; they deal with religion and we are talking about the N&ML, not religion. Jesus is not explicitly mentioned but since his laws are mentioned, he is implicitly named in the Declaration (a.k.a. God) as the cause of our inalienable rights.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
IMBROGLIO

IRT:
[“If they are inalienable, why? Why are they beyond the authority of the government?]

“Because our founders ratified our constitution based on the existence of individual rights that would not be within the jurisdiction of the new government to adjudicate.”

ANS:
No kidding, we know what they did but why did they do it? They did it because these rights are endowed by God. They say so in the "Declaration."

IRT:
"Many political philosophies espoused such things. Our constitution defines its own limitations."

ANS:
They espouse them becaues they are necessary and exists. The Constitution doesn’t define anything; the Founding Fathers (FF) did and you haven’t answered why, if there is no God. You can't.

IRT:
"Our ratified definition of individual liberties."

ANS:
Mumbo jumbo, a chartered stated goal for what? They recognized these rights were natural, inscribed in the nature of man, and if man was to perfect his nature, he must be able to have these rights to act according to his nature. That’s what these rights are for.

IRS:
[Nature’s God means the Creator of Nature or the Nature Law] "But it does not mean explicitly ‘the god of Abraham’. ‘Nature’s god’ does not even imply an omnipotent, omniscient being. It more likely indicates a force that is not described within the laws of nature.

ANS:
That's what God is; He's not part of Nature. Who but God can design man and endow these rights in human nature. The FF recognized God as the Creator and authority over the NL. You know what a Creator is? He created the Universe. And he is by necessity a Christian God.

What God is the Creator and endows man with Freedom of Religion? It's not the Middle East. It's not a the human gods of the Greeks, not the Hindu or Buddhist gods who don’t believe God created the Universe and don’t believe all men are created equal. It’s not a Sun god or a Pagan god who had Temple prostitutes, nor is god present in the animals as in India and surrounding Hindu sects. So tell me who's God is it, notwithstanding all the signers believed in God and few were non-Christian.

IRT:
"When you use NL and NML, you are specifically indicating the Aristotle/Aquinas interpretation of Natural Law, which is not the only notion of definition of natural law or nature’s law."

ANS:
Yes, and when I use the formula for a Triangle, I use the Pythagorean Theorem because it works, as does Catholicism, and the theories of Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s theories do. When I define Natural Law, I use the rational basis of Aristotle and Aquinas and the Catholic Church because they have it right, do not contradict reason and these rights are not disputed.

Do you deny there's a right of Freedom of Speech, Religion, to own property, to marry, have children? Russia, N. Korea, and China believe they give you that right. Now who are these other people who define the Natural Law and show how they prove it is different without God.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
BEFORE CHRISTIANITY

IRT
[The freedom enjoyed by married woman during the empire had as sole result that divorce increased enormously and prostitution was considered a matter of course]

“You do know that prostitution takes 2 people to commit...there were likely as many, if not more MEN engaging prostitutes than women.”

ANS:
I've blamed no one; just stating the facts. Women were emancipated and extolled under the pagans in Rome and became fetishes, and men and woman pagans were transmogrified into an ambience of depravity until the laws of Christianity settled in.

"We have hetaera, highly cultured courtesans for pleasure, concubines for the daily care of the body, and wives for the production of full-blooded children, and as reliable guardians in the house.” The worship of the "virgin Athene" shows probably a dim perception on the part of the Greeks of the exalted position of the virgin independent of man, but led to no practical results favorable to woman. Almost the same is to be said as to the worship of Vesta and of the Vestal virgins among the Romans.

When Christianity appeared, in the Roman Empire, it found woman in the Roman world, and Rome itself was by no means an exception, in a position of deep moral degradation, and under the hard “PATRIA POTESTAS” of man. This “authority” had degenerated into tyranny almost more universally than in China.”

Men ruled Rome, and Rome without Catholicism became degenerated and depraved even though women enjoyed a freedom unrivaled in the Middle East and Asia.

"Constantine the Great did much for children, slaves, and women, those weaker The Christians especially exerted themselves to get possession of such foundlings, and consequently Constantine issued no direct prohibition of exposure, although the Christians regarded exposure as equal to murder. He commanded, instead, that foundlings should belong to the finder, and did not permit the parents to claim the children they had exposed.

Those who took such children were allowed to sell and enslave foundlings, until Justinian prohibited such enslaving under any guise. Even in the time of St. Chrysostom parents mutilated their children for the sake of gain. When suffering from famine or debt, many parents could only obtain relief by selling their children if they did not wish to sell themselves. All later laws against such practices availed as little as those against emasculation and pandering.

St. Ambrose vividly depicts the sad spectacle of children being sold by their fathers, under pressure of creditors, or by the creditors themselves.

All the many forms of institutions for feeding and supporting children and the poor were of little avail. Constantine himself established asylums for foundlings; yet he recognized the right of parents to sell their children, and only excepted older children."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
NATURAL LAW

IRT:
Yes, I would disagree. This was over two hundred years ago. These guys grew up believing in a god, though not necessarily THE god as you define him.

ANS:
Those guys as you depict them were very intelligent people who were thinkers and who sought the truth, the same truths that plague the infidels, heretics, troglodytes, barbarians, philistines, druids, and Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim. They are still looking today and because they have not found the truth, their people suffer and die daily. They live in a cacophony of travail and death..

There are the self-centered narcissistic atheists and agnostics who don’t seek the truth because they think they have it in spite of all the surrounding evidence to the contrary. They have closed their eyes to the truth and their minds to reality.

Every society governed by an anthropocentric ideology morphs into totalitarianism and ends in destroying itself or is destroyed by its neighbors because they pose a threat to all society—Nero, Hitler, Saddam, Idi Amin. Though the deaths of Stalin and Mao may have been composed and serene, their countries were sepulchers marked by death, starvation, pestilence and war.

The Four Horsemen in Revelation are real, exacting, haunting and deadly. They are the avengers of all who violate the Natural Law and are the guardians of man’s inviolable rights. When these rights are consistently violated, the Apocalypse rises as a Phoenix and spreads its ruin.

The destructiveness that evolves from the disregard of man's inviolable rights are sins against human nature. The N&ML's vengeance for this disrespect for Her laws is not instant but torpid, apathetic, and corrosive. The society’s metamorphose is internecine, deadly, and transmogrifies with silent stealth. As time creeps by, the civilization's moral foundation begins to crumble. No one escapes the restitution for the violations of the N&ML.

TTWS(etc.):
“the freedom enjoyed by married woman during the empire had as sole result that divorce increased enormously and prostitution was considered a matter of course”

Wow, almost missed this one…

You do know that prostitution takes 2 people to commit don’t you? Traditionally one male and one female… so wouldn’t one surmise that during this terrific rise of prostitution that there were likely as many, if not more MEN engaging prostitutes than women engaging in prostitution? Yet you see prostitution as being a woman’s fault, a woman’s sin… how very bronze age of you…

TTWS(etc.):
“If they are inalienable, why? Why are they beyond the authority of the government?”
Because our founders ratified our constitution based on the existence of individual rights that would not be within the jurisdiction of the new government to adjudicate.
Many political philosophies espoused such things. Once again, like a bowling league, the rules defined for that organization do not need to spell out or define laws and rules that do not apply to the activities for which the league’s rules are designed. It need not mention football at all other than to say that the rules for the bowling league ONLY apply to the sport of bowling. Our constitution defines its own limitations.
Google’s motto is ‘Don’t be evil’ That does not mean they are NOT evil or never WILL BE evil, or are NOT CAPABLE of being evil. It is their chartered stated goal. As are our inalienable rights. Our ratified definition of individual liberties.

“Nature’s God means the Creator of Nature or the Nature Law”
But it does not mean explicitly ‘the god of Abraham’. ‘Nature’s god’ does not even imply an omnipotent, omniscient being. It more likely indicates a force that is not described within the laws of nature. When you use NL and NML you are specifically indicating the Aristotle/Aquinas interpretation of Natural Law, which is not the only notion of definition of natural law or nature’s law.

“than who determines one’s rights?”
In a democracy/ constitutional republic, the people, as it specifically says in the constitution.

“Nevertheless, Jefferson unconsciously or consciously enacted all the moral principles of the Catholic Church”
Whoopdeedoo. Jefferson’s ‘religion’ as was common among deists of the day, appreciated certain morality as espoused by certain Christian denominations, but not miracles, authority of priests or the divinity of Jesus. How can you say that he enacted all the moral principles when he repeatedly denounced the divinity of Jesus and every one of his miracles?(including the resurrection) He certainly was not catholic; though he could have been had he wanted to be. He was certainly familiar with the RCC, yet he rejected its very basic tenets. Are you seriously implying that god sneakily used a non-believer’s hand to write some stuff into a document that otherwise was completely secular in nature? God as stealthy ghost-writer? Really? You’re really going off the rails now.

“basic principles of right and wrong can be discerned by human reason alone.”
You’re getting closer. You are saying that religion is not necessary for morality, on that we agree.

TTWS(etc.):
“When Christianity appeared it found woman in the Roman world. . .”
Yeah, yeah, we’ve established the fact that you have a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Cutting and pasting from that book proves or establishes nothing other than the fact that you are apparently incapable of your own independent thought or reasoning.
The RCC has a ‘separate but equal’ view of women. Separate but equal is NOT equal. The fact that women, on average, have less upper body strength meant something in ancient times. It meant that they were capable of being beaten into submission. It meant they could be physically dominated. However since the dawn of more modern times this difference is less and less meaningful. It has been properly and amply demonstrated, time and again, that women are not only capable of giving birth to and raising children, but also being quite capable in intellectual/social pursuits.
Your Church, along with a few other nations and institutions still hold to the ‘weaker sex’ mindset, that women can do A, B, and C, but not D, E, or F. That is NOT equality.
You flame back with sports analogies as the proof of defining difference between men/women, when that does nothing but indicate that on average women have less upper body strength than the average male.
On a chess board there is no female starting line, in ‘Trivial Pursuit’ there is no ‘female’ set of questions, in video games there is no female starting point. There are not even separate male/female automobiles or computers. Fighter jets are flown just as capably by either gender. Averages do not define individuals.
The RCC doctrine that forbids women from even pursuing the priesthood is the intellectual equivalent of holding her down and dominating her. The RCC denies that a woman, ANY woman is at all capable of the most meager level of institutional leadership. That is not equality.
Any argument that your or the RCC makes about the equality of women is rendered completely meaningless by this one facet of its doctrine. The RCC is saying that it is simply not possible for ANY woman to do even an adequate job of being a priest. This is nothing more than entrenched, institutionalized patriarchy. Where patriarchy exists, equality cannot be claimed.

“Therefore, the social position of woman remains in Christianity that of subordination to man.”
Yeah, that about sums it up. Where equality is defined as a virtue of a society, ‘subordination’ cannot also exist.
“the woman to be subordinate and obedient . . .obedience given is as honorable as dignified.”
Once again, as ‘a subordinate’, women in the eyes of the church are not equal, as you claim. I could strike out the word ‘woman’ in this quote and replace it with the word ‘negro’ and a mere hundred or so years ago would have also earned raucous approval in some parts of the U.S. Honorable and dignified obedience is not equality, it is subservience.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
NATURAL LAW

IRT:
“I agree that these rights are ‘inalienable”’.

ANS:
If they are inalienable, why? Why are they beyond the authority of the government?

IRT:
"That they thought there was a God, Nature’s god"

ANS:
Nature’s God means the Creator of Nature or the Nature Law.

IRT:
(Why didn’t they just say the father, son and holy spirit?)

ANS:
Because government violates the inalienable right of Freedom of Religion if it stipulates what religion you must believe in. Catholicism teaches that man has a free will. This enables man to choose a religion or choose none. The FF represented a people who fled to America for religious freedom. Jefferson, one of the writers of the Declaration, despised priests; he thought Jesus was a good person but the miracles of Jesus were delusions.

Nevertheless, Jefferson unconsciously or consciously enacted all the moral principles of the Catholic Church, because Christianity was the prevailing force that overshadowed the 13 Colonies. Nearly all the signers were Christian. The N&ML is not only the property of the Catholic Church, neither are the “Ten Commandments.”

The Commandments are part of Catholicism, but also belong to human nature. They proscribe stealing, lying, murder, adultery, and the coveting of one’s spouse or thy neighbor's goods. They are all based on the basic necessities of human nature to exist in an ordered society.

The first three Commandments deal with the relationship between God and man. This is essential less our inalienable rights become under the authority of man. If there is no God, than who determines one’s rights?

The authority for our inalienable rights are from the transitory authority of He who endowed them on humanity when he formed human nature, and that makes them irrevocable unless man himself abuses them.

Moreover when violated, they are enforced by the Natural Law. Namely, the devastation we see when they are suppressed is testimony to their validity of their authority irrespective of government.

The N&ML are the rules for proper human behavior. They are analogues to the manual you get for operating your new car properly. They are implicitly defined in the Commandments. Man can choose what religion he wants to believe but he cannot choose the morality he wishes to live by lest he frustrates and contradicts his own human nature.

“There are certainly moral dimensions to consider, and those moral considerations spring partly from faith, and partly from a rational understanding of the demands of justice because the formal object of both is man.

"Moreover, morality is not something that springs only from religious beliefs; basic principles of right and wrong can be discerned by human reason alone. And wherever there are human decisions and actions, there are - by definition - issues of morality.”

TTWS(etc.):
“It would seem not only do you have a disagreement with me but also with the Founding Fathers (FF) who explicitly claim these rights are inalienable and endowed by God's NL. Moreover, it is not a Hindu, Buddha, Shinto, Pagan, or Muslim god or gods; it is a Christian God”

I agree that these rights are ‘inalienable’. That they thought there was a God, Nature’s god (Why didn’t they just say the father, son and holy spirit?) Yes, I would disagree. This was over two hundred years ago. These guys grew up believing in a god, though not necessarily THE god as you define him. They acknowledged that there was little understanding of the universe and it would be quite natural to assume that nature’s awesome power and forces were in the control of something outside their capability to adequately describe or understand. Some of them believed in a Christian god, some did not. A common denominator, ‘nature’s god’ is much more a deist definition than Christian.
Jefferson himself rejected the notions of miracles, revealed religion, the authority of clergy and the divinity of Jesus. So when he wrote of ‘god’, he may as well have been Hindu, Pagan, or Buddhist, since he certainly wasn’t talking about god as defined or recognized by the RCC.

“"LAWS OF NATURE [NL]”
Once again you’re adding something [NL] that simply is not there.

“Spirit exists whole and entire wherever it exists at all; and though it may fill the space occupied by a human body, let us say, it is whole and entire in every possible part of its existence.”
Once again this is a Catholic-specific definition. You guys made it up. The only thing it ‘proves’ is that you have access to a Catholic encyclopedia.

“I know of plenty of things that are eternal; first, there is God. Aristotle proved that centuries ago and no one has since reputed it”
I think you may mean ‘disputed’. Which is not true, lots of philosophers, scientists and incredibly well educated people have rejected and disputed his conclusions.
Aristotle did not prove god, he merely deduced that he knew of no other possible explanation. And, as we have already agreed, he didn’t prove THE god as you describe him.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“MOTHERHOOD”

“The development of motherhood in the woman is not limited to its physiological aspect. It is rather that this motherly sense and its activity can and should, as the highest development of noble womanhood, precedes marriage, and can exist without it.

As a creature compounded of the spiritual and material, the human being has more than the destiny of continuing his race by generation and birth. It is still more incumbent on him to develop the spiritual and intellectual life by the training that is rightly called the second birth. This training, however, prospers as little without the specific motherly influence, as the bringing of a child into the world without the mother.

The actual task assigned by nature to woman cannot be performed by man, while the reverse is also true. At the same time there is the mixed domain of the earning of a livelihood in which both sexes work, although in so doing neither can deny his or her characteristic qualities.

The perpetuation and development in civilization of mankind always come first as natural duties. Consequently, according to physical law woman should be spared all industrial burdens that impair her most important duty in life.

In the government of the physical world it is observable that the female in point of strength is, in general, inferior to the male. This is the law of Nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated in favor of woman. A degree of physical superiority cannot, therefore, be denied--and it is a noble prerogative!

This extraordinary elevation of woman in His mother Mary by Christ is in sharp contrast to the extraordinary degradation of female dignity before Christianity. In the renewing of all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:10) the restoration of order must be most thorough at that point where the most extreme disorder had prevailed.

In Christianized society, also man was to act as the lawful representative of authority, and the lawful defender of rights, in the family, just as in the civil, national, and religious community.

Therefore, the social position of woman remains in Christianity that of subordination to man, wherever the two sexes by necessity find themselves obliged to supplement each other in common activity. The woman develops her authority, founded in human dignity, in connection with, and subordinate to, the man in domestic society as the mistress of the home.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
WOMEN IN THE WORK FORCE”

“Historically, in the division of work between the sexes the primitive household falls to the woman. But contrary to the natural order, the paternal pre-eminence of the man has developed into unlimited tyranny, and the woman is debased to a slave and drudge without rights who gratifies the lusts of the man.

There are, consequently, male and female persons. On the other hand, there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence, it follows in the first place, woman's claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator.

The word "person" belongs neither to the soul nor to the body alone; it is rather, that the soul informing the body constitutes the full conception of the human personality only in its union with the body. It is in no way, therefore, permissible to limit differences only to the primary and secondary peculiarities of the body.

On the contrary, the indisputable results of anatomical, physiological and psychological research show a difference so far-reaching between man and woman that the following is established as a scientific result: the feminine personality assumes the complete human nature in a different manner from the masculine.

According to the intention of the Creator, therefore, the manifestation of human nature in women necessarily differs from its manifestation in man. The social spheres of interests and callings of the sexes are unlike each other. These Distinctions Can Be Diminished Or Increased By Education And Custom "BUT CANNOT BE COMPLETELY ANNULLED."

From this far-reaching sexual difference there follows, thirdly, the combination of the sexes for the purpose of an organic social union of the human race, which we call humanity. If the two sexes are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation, then the leading position or a social pre-eminence must necessarily fall to one of them. Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up

"The husband is ruler of the family and the head of the wife; the woman to be subordinate and obedient to the husband, not, however, as a hand-maid or slave, but as a companion of such a kind that the obedience given is as honorable as dignified.

The man becomes a father with paternal rights and duties which include the support of the family and, when necessary, their protection. On the other hand, the woman receives with motherhood a series of maternal duties.

The social duties of the woman, therefore, may be designated as motherhood, just as it is the duty of man to be the representative of paternal authority. The completely developed feminine personality is thus to be found in the mother.

IN REPLY TO GLADERUNNER
WOMEN v. MEN

"THE MAN . . . IS THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD; BUT THE WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN" (1 CORINTHIANS 11:7).

"No community has been found where women alone could rule" (Starke, "Die primitive Familie", Leipzig, 1888, 69). Like the "primitive peoples" themselves, who have been especially quoted as proofs of this theory, such conditions show themselves to be degenerations.

When Christianity appeared it found woman in the Roman world, and Rome itself was by no means an exception, in a position of deep moral degradation, and under the hard "patria potestas" of man.

This authority had degenerated into tyranny almost more universally than in China. Originally, Roman law, up to the time of the Antonines, limited the power of the father as regards the life and death of his children, and forbade him to murder the boys and the “first”-born girl.

This elevation of woman centers in Mary the Mother of Jesus, the purest virginity and motherhood, both tender and strong, united in wonderful sublimity. The history of the Catholic Church bears constant testimony of this position of Mary in the history of civilization.

The respect for woman rises and falls with the veneration of the Virgin Mother of God. Consequently, for art also the Virgin has become the highest representation of the noblest womanhood. This extraordinary elevation of woman in Mary by Christ is in sharp contrast to the extraordinary degradation of female dignity before Christianity.

However, the freedom enjoyed by married woman during the empire had as sole result that divorce increased enormously and prostitution was considered a matter of course. After marriage had lost its religious character the women exceeded the men in license, and thus lost even the influence, they had possessed in the early, austerely moral Rome (cf. Donaldson, "Woman, Her Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and Rome and among the Early Christians",

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“INALIENABLE RIGHTS”

IRT:
[...there is a difference between nations who suppress human rights and ignore the Natural & Moral Law...]

“I only reject your categorization of these rights as being what you say they are, inscribed morality from a specific magical god...we actually only disagree on the source of those rights.”

ANS:
If there is no God, there are no inalienable rights.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/15/opinion/la-oe-estrincroddy15-2009dec15

“Research Coverage Of Key Issues & Topics. www.FirstAmendmentCenter.org”

“James Madison and other Federalists opposed adding a bill of rights...granted only limited powers to the national government and that it was therefore unnecessary to enumerate rights "THE NEW GOVERNMENT HAD NO POWER TO ABRIDGE." These rights are beyond man's authority.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
“The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen United States Of America”

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the "LAWS OF NATURE [NL]" and of NATURE'S GOD" entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

It would seem not only do you have a disagreement with me but also with the Founding Fathers (FF) who explicitly claim these rights are inalienable and endowed by God's NL. Moreover, it is not a Hindu, Buddha, Shinto, Pagan, or Muslim god or gods; it is a Christian God.

That should give you pause in face of the heights of America's overwhelming political fulfillment, performance, production, proficiency, and realization, She has become the greatest nation in all History. The FF's Wisdom is vindicated by the fruits of Her works.

Unfortunately, America is violating these rights and subsequently She is in decline. It was said on the US House floor that the epitaph written on America’s tombstone will be “Roe v. Wade.” I would prefer a more suitable epitaph of the self-destructive poison America drank be “Griswold v. Connecticut,” which launched the Sexual Revolution and the Culture of Death.

Over 52 million unborn have been slaughtered by a runaway Court that also believed that inalienable rights don’t exists, viz. that all rights are not endowed by God but by man.

The Court has furthered impugned and undermined Traditional Marriage the fundamental foundation that strengthens and binds the family unity. Destroy the family, the basic unit of civilization, and destroy the society in which the family inhabits.

Further, the Court incredulously banned the traditional morality from being a basis for Civil Law. because it served no legitimate purpose to the State.

IN REPLY TO GLADERUNNER
ETERNITY.

“The agnostic is not justified in saying that we can know nothing and should predicate nothing of God. It is true that, however we conceive Him or in whatever terms we speak of Him, our ideas and terminology are utterly beneath and unworthy of Him. Yet, even while arguing in this way, the agnostic thinks and speaks of Him as really as we do. Nor can he or we do otherwise, compelled as we are to trace things back to their first cause.

Yielding to this necessity, we can but think and speak of Him in the highest and most spiritual terms known to us; not merely as existing, for instance, but as living; correcting at once, as far as we can, the form of our thought and predication, by adding that the Divine life is perfect, free from the least trace of defect.

That is how and why we represent the Divine existence as a life. It is a life, moreover, not only without beginning or end but also without succession —“ tota simul,” that is without past or future; a never-changing instant or "now". It is not so difficult to form some faint notion of a duration that never began and shall never end.

We hope that our own life shall be endless; and materialists have accustomed us to the notion of a series stretching backward without limit in time, to the notion of a material universe that never came into being but was always there. The Divine existence is that and much more; excluding all succession, past and future time-indeed all time, which is succession-and to be conceived as an ever-enduring and unchanging "now".

Spirit exists whole and entire wherever it exists at all; and though it may fill the space occupied by a human body, let us say, it is whole and entire in every possible part of its existence.”

IN REPLY TO
GLADERUNNER
ETERNITY

[There is no "eternal" anything in the world of matter]”
"That you know of. (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)"

ANS:
Eternity is defined by Boetius (De Consol. Phil., V, vi) as "possession, without succession and perfect, of interminable life" (interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio).

I know of plenty of things that are eternal; first, there is God. Aristotle proved that centuries ago and no one has since reputed it; they only ignore it. Second, man’s soul is eternal; it has no composition to decompose; only the man’s body decomposes.

I know you can’t understand that because you are indisposed to understanding the Truth. Sadly, you must live in a box, the Universe, as the real world passes you by, for you have no idea why you were created.

All things that act, act for an end. All things have a purpose. Ordered things act in the same way consistently. Chaos has no consistency. Human Life exists, and is an act and therefore has a purpose and an end for which the act acts.

What is the end of Human Life? What makes Human Life different from all the other creatures in the Universe, or can you even see any differences? ANS: The difference is man has a spiritual soul and no otherworldly creature does. Spirit is the antithesis of matter; it has no dimension, no width, breadth, no height; it can’t be quantified.

We know man’s nature is spiritual because he can think. Thinking is a spiritual operation. Material beings have composition and are corruptible and do not think; they cannot reason. Man’s soul is a non-composite and therefore incorruptible.

Hence, the “idea” has no quantity; it cannot be measured and is therefore spiritual. Thus, a question's answer proves its spirituality, “How many ideas can man have room for?” How many angels (who are spirits) can sit on the head of a pin, namely, an infinite number; spirits are not quantified.

The nemesis that plagues man all his life is the desire for eternally happiness. You are correct to say there is nothing eternal in the Universe but in serious error to claim nothing is eternal. Your error is you cannot escape from the material world because you’ve been disposed to reject God. Thus, you have no true sense of the purpose of human life.

Hence, you can only seek the finite transitory fleeting pleasures of the world to satisfy your infinite desires. Unfortunately, you will never satisfy the infinite desire for eternal happiness for which all men thirst. That desire can only be satisfied by God of infinity whom you don't believe in spite of voluminous evidence around you and your desires that witlessly haunt you. Thus, Augustine writes on the end of human life, “Lord our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Merry Christmas, though you can have no Christmas because you have no God. Hence, you sit without Christmas as the world leaves you in your darkness and blinds you from the eternal light.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
PSEUDEPIGRAPHY

Sorry my friend, you can’t get away with this masquerade. First you frame the questions by making them straw houses. Next you imply that I am making them,. and then you triumphantly attempt to tear them down. Sorry but that dog won’t hunt.

You took a post to DILD and made it look like it was to you, namely, you took it out of context. No one said you didn’t believe in the Natural Law or that there was no “up” or “down.” DILD himself said that, but you made it look like I was accusing you of it. Sorry won't work either.

Next, you make it seem like I believe women are only good for making babies. Again, it's another one of your connivances of straw house fiction. The philosophical property of woman is Motherhood. That means a woman is by her very nature made to be a mother and has the instincts of Motherhood and all that embodies Motherhood emotionally, physically, and psychologically.

It doesn't mean, as you suggested the facetious straw house you manufactured for the sake of emboldening your argument, that I believe such tripe that women should be kept at home, kept ignorant, and become baby makers. No, that’s your facade, not mine.

Then there’s your straw house that tries to prove men aren’t any different than women. You scoffed at the analogy of nurses being woman. Well I have visited many doctor’s offices, six different major hospitals and many clinics over hundreds of times and from all the hundreds of nurses I have seen only one was a male nurse. So your male argument is thin air.

Moreover, you skipped over the fact that Sports recognizes the difference. In such major sports as Golf, Basketball, Football, Tennis, and Boxing, women don’t compete with men. They don't play professional men’s Football, Men’s Basketball, and men’s Hockey, don’t Box with men and don’t compete with men in professional Golf Tournaments because there is a major difference between male and female.

Next you glaze over the number of Catholics worldwide. Namely you say only active Catholics count. So when Catholic priests become pedophiles are they no longer Catholic? Do the courts believe your foolishness? You never answered that did you, because it destroys your point that only active Catholics count, the straw house to prove your point.

You claim there is a NL but God didn’t make it. Well matter has no intelligence except in your Alternate World. If I give you all the raw materials it takes to make a “747” in their natural state like iron ore trees, oil, copper etc. throw them on a pile. How long will it take for these things to form a 747? Answer, never. Order requires intelligence, the Universe required a God who ordered the world.

Further, you misconstrued what was meant by "Materialism" for "Consumerism." Materialism means your life begins and ends in the world, although man's destiny is complete beatitude in eternal paradise.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DENSBTLY
CATHOLIC “PER SE”

IRT:
[The Constitution is not Catholic “per se,” but its rational is based on the Christian concept of the N&ML and a Christian God]

“Per se? (laughing) It was not Catholic AT ALL! The constitution does not even bother mentioning God, Jesus, the Holy See, the bible, the gospel, the ten commandments, not a single shout out to any of these things. Being as most of the FF’s were either raised in, attended or were at least very aware of Christianity, why did they not even bother mentioning ANY of these things in the constitution?”

ANS:
Duhhh! Have you read all of the Declaration recently. It says man is endowed by “GOD” with certain inalienable rights You might make note this God is not Buddha, Shinto, Hindu or Buddha; He is Christian. The authority of the Declaration trumps the Constitution since it gives the citizens not only the right but the duty to overthrow the ruling government if the government “CONSISTENTLY,” violates man’s inalienable rights and they are to replace that government with one that restores those rights.

IRS:
“Maybe an exchange from the stories of Arthur Conan Doyle can help us here.”

ANS:
Try Alex de Tocqueville, and maybe that will help you out.

IRT:
“That the references are not in the constitution IS the answer to the mystery. They were left out intentionally. You’re looking between the lines to find a Christian anchor, missing the obvious entirely, that there is nothing between the lines.”

ANS:
If you knew what is Catholicism is you would know freedom of religion is a principle precept of Catholicism. Thus, leaving out a mention of a particular religion would be Catholic. Moreover Catholicism teaches man is endowed by God with a free will so that man may freely choose to honor and love God, and not be forced to.

Further, religion according to Catholicism is not to force religion on anyone, but the N&ML is not a choice but a moral necessity, and that is what the Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights when it recognized man’s inalienable rights. Thus, the Freedom of Religion clause is pure Catholicism, and is in contrast to the Muslims, Buddhist, and Hindu religions.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DENSBTLY
RIGHTS MAKE MIGHT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

[The success of any society is in direct proportion to their adherence to the N&ML.] “? ”It’s a crock…show a proportional causative relationship between ‘success’ and ‘adherence’ in any one of them.”

ANS:
First, I will presume that since you have no clue to what the Natural Law is, you wouldn’t know what “success”, ”objectivity”, and “adherence” means. You might try the dictionary to solve your dilemma.

Second, it should be obvious to the majority of people that there is a difference between nations who suppress human rights and ignore the Natural & Moral Law than those who recognize these rights. Namely, try contrasting America to N. Korea, or N. Korea to S. Korea, or East Communist Germany to West Germany.

Try taking note of Uganda where there are no human rights while lunatics are destroying complete cities and villages there. The Uganda thugs have no idea of what inalienable rights are. Maybe you can figure out what's causing their industrial unproductiveness, their lack of social order, and success if it’s not the terrorists’ suppression of inalienable rights.

China is stealing Industrial Secrets from American industry because their suppression of intellectual freedom and inalienable rights. Such tyranny is a barrier to free thought. Consequently, they must defer to an espionage network to steal American industrial copyrights, patents, and secrets in research.

Contrary to China or N. Korea, American success is painted in respect to America’s dominance in the fields of medical entrepreneurship, pharmaceuticals, medical research, and space exploration where there is a need for Rocket Scientists. You know what a Rocket Scientist is, don't you?

I recall that Clinton was bribed to permit Laurel Technologies to go to China to show them how to increase their missile firing efficiencies from 25 percent to 80 percent, and improve their missile guidance systems to hit Los Angeles. Give thanks to Bernard Schwartz, the Laurel CEO Democrat campaign fund donor to Clinton's presidency for the bribe.

The reason China is using a spy network in America today is that the Chinese haven't any rights except what the Communist give them. America's ingenuity and entrepreneurship is visible and demonstrative because our inalienable rights aren't being suppressed. Maybe I am assuming too much. Since you do not know what the NL is, that you know what inalienable rights are.

If you can’t see the difference, say between China v. Taiwan or Singapore, I am sure I can’t be of any help enlightening you. Consequently, if you put America under the same Politburo as have the Communist, Socialist, and Fascist done to their countries, and as Obama is attempting to do to ours, you would get the same unproductive creative results that is plaguing China and Russia, and the Middle East. Consequently, unemployment, after Obama Socialism, is nearly 10 percent.

TTWS(etc.):
“there is no "eternal" anything in the world of matter;”
That you know of. (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)

“the infinite is only in the spiritual world, but that is buffoonery to your way of thinking”
You are correct, the buffoonery part.

“The NL is the laws that order the Universe”
According to your religion. (capitalization)

“Order, by necessity, presupposes an intelligence”
Only if ‘order’ is as you describe it, which means only as long as your religious bias leads you to this conclusion.

“Now the only intelligence that can order the Universe is God,”
According to your biased definition. You are presupposing your god’s existence, you are presuming ‘order’.

“If you can explain it any other way, please do”
Sure, lots of ways… open up the texts from the thousands of other religions with creation theories. Or, just open up a non-catholic science book.

“Your desires have been confined to your finite world by your biases”
And your desires are confined to the infinite world by YOUR biases… You see this world as some sort of cosmic SAT test, that your only purpose here is to sacrifice and suffer to earn rewards for an afterlife. What a dismal philosophy. For your sake I hope you are right, otherwise you will have missed a great (and your only) opportunity to enjoy life for its own sake, to celebrate life here and now, at least a little.

TTWS(etc.):
“should be obvious to the majority of people that there is a difference between nations who suppress human rights and ignore the Natural & Moral Law than those who don’t,. Namely, contrast. America to N. Korea or N. Korea to S. Korea, or East Communist Germany to West Germany.”

You’re trying too hard. Of course I can see the differences between the U.S. and these places. I served this country during the cold war, overseas, on the borders. I have seen firsthand the abuses and oppression that you have read about or seen on TV. I suited up and offered up my life to defend our nation, and other nations against the spread of communism.
What I saw in those countries was oppression, tyranny and the near complete lack of basic human rights. I only reject your categorization of these rights as being what you say they are, inscribed morality from a specific magical god.
You and I do not disagree on most human rights, we actually only disagree on the source of those rights.

“I will presume that since you have no clue to what the Natural Law. . . .”
Yes I do know what it is, but you are pretending that you mean a general concept, earlier you sad this:
NATURAL LAW:
“In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature”

If this is how you meant the term, I would be so petty about it. However you capitalized ‘Natural Law.’ Meaning you are actually talking about a very, very specific use of the term. Specifically the entirety of the 5000 + word catholic definition at the newadvent.org link you cited.
I do know what it is, I’m just not buying it.
I do not need to subscribe to the entirety of your dogmatic definition to recognize the difference between men and women, or tyranny, communism and liberty. Yours is hardly the only yardstick in the store. There is no evidence whatsoever that the FF’s were using your unique and expansive definition of Natural Law, or even Creator when they were dipping their quills. It is much more likely they were using the more general term ‘equivalent to the laws of nature’. And there is a difference. As I have said, time and time again, they could have inserted the AKA’s and NML’s as you have, but the fact remains, they did not.

“bonehead”
BTW you are a narrow minded, humorless, self-righteous, delusional, narcissistic zealot. But I don’t mean that as an insult, just an observation of a character flaw that people like you are afflicted with.
;-)

Seriously, do you know any good jokes?

TTWS(etc.):
(Continued)
On matters NOT related to child rearing and physical prowess though, I see very few differences. As far as leadership, for example, where in modern, civilized society leadership is exercised through intellect and decision making capabilities, I see virtually no difference at all between the genders. I’ve had very capable bosses that were women, I’ve seen very admirable heads of state that happened to be female. I’ve seen female bank presidents, CEO’s and even military officers that were just as capable as any man I’ve known.

“Ever wonder why nearly all nurses are women?”
No, not really. I just assumed it was cultural, the remnants of a male dominated society. According to the American Nurses Association: ‘Statistics reported 164,000 male nurses actively practicing. Even more interesting was the fact that this figure represented a 71% increase over a 20-year period.’
http://healthcaretraveler.modernmedicine.com/healthcaretraveler/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=415496

Which to me says that our culture is changing, evolving out of of old-fashioned notions of gender specific careers.

“according to U.S. Labor Department statistics, women had overtaken men in six major job categories: bill collectors, real estate agents and brokers, insurance adjusters, examiners and investigators, photographic process workers, production-line assemblers, and checkers, examiners and inspectors”
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/2010/april/The-Changing-Face-of-the-US-Workforce.html

Hmmm, none of these are exactly ‘nurturing’ jobs.
The point being that yes, women have in the past and still do tend to gravitate to certain job types, but it would be foolish and outright bigoted to see them as ONLY capable of that sort of endeavor. It is far smarter to look at individual skills, accomplishments and merit rather than assume, or require that women are more suited for X and men for Y.

“These questions are as dumb and juvenile as your attempt to make woman equal to man as the radical feminists and gay Marriage advocates do.”
You seem to see men and women as polar (yet equal) opposites. They are not. In many respects they are indeed different, but in many others they are pretty much the same. I can at least look beyond the boobs and look deeper, see a smart, confident and capable individual rather than just a baby factory.
As for my own parents, my father dropped out of school at an early age and spent the rest of his life in manual labor. My mother achieved two graduate degrees and a doctorate and pursued a career in academics and administration. She was also a loving, nurturing mother, the academics/career never competed/clashed with the role of mother. Who was the boss in our house? To be quite honest, I’ve never even thought about it. Sometimes mom decided things, sometimes dad did, mostly it was mutual. It was as far as I know, never an issue of ‘who’s the boss?’

TTWS(etc.):
“There cannot be two leaders that are equal in authority in a family no more than a body should be with two heads”
Are you married? Do you have any idea how a good, sustainable marriage actually works? A marriage is not a ship at sea, it is a relation-ship. No one needs to be appointed ‘the leader’. In a good, sustainable relationship there is negotiation, exchanges of ideas, consensus, agreement, as well as disagreement. There is compromise. When an issue arises there is discussion, sometimes debate, and a decision is reached based on the merits of the debate and (sometimes) compromised conclusion. I don’t win ANY debate or make decisions simply based on the fact that I am male and my wife is female. There are many things my wife knows more about than me, and v/v. There are some things with which I defer to her judgment almost automatically and v/v. None that I can think of have to do solely based on the fact that I have dangly bits and that she has a uterus.
Successful, sustainable equitable marriage requires a partnership, not an autocracy. I’ve seen autocratic marriages, where the man was the decision maker in virtually all things. It takes a certain type of woman to survive in that kind of relationship, and oddly enough, I’ve never found that type of woman the least bit appealing.

“Man is stronger, the leader and protector of the family, the woman is of the weaker body wise, and not equal to the man physically”
Oh boy…. I see why you have problems with ‘feminists’.
I agree that on average men are physically stronger than the average woman. I still can’t figure out why physical strength equals ‘leader’. This is a rather archaic notion. Back when attacks by wolves, pterodactyls and neighboring tribes were fairly common, I suppose the role of males as ‘protector’ was rather clear. But I still don’t equate protector with ‘leader’. That’s the stuff of kings and tribes, where the most gifted warrior achieved leadership status based on how well he personally could fight off the enemy. I don’t know where you live or what your social structure is, but are your leaders still the ones that can defeat all comers in a sword/fist/club fight?
In whatever social structure/government system you live in, are your leaders the most physically adept weight-lifters? Or instead, do they have heightened intellectual and social skills, those that even a quadriplegic, a small person, or heaven forbid, a WOMAN might be just as suited for?
I am certainly aware of the physical differences between men and women. I’ve spent countless hours staring at pictures of women’s physical attributes, I’ve attended a few births. I have also witnessed that many, maybe most women have an instinct for nurturing, but not all of them. (CNTD.)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DENSBTLY
RIGHTS MAKE MIGHT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

[The success of any society is in direct proportion to their adherence to the N&ML.] “Really, you’re trying this again? It’s a crock. You cannot / will not define ‘success’ objectively, nor have you defined ‘adherence.’ You have admitted that ALL societies have had their ups and downs some big, some small, yet you have yet to show a proportional causative relationship between ‘success’ and ‘adherence’ in any one of them.”

ANS:
First, I will presume that since you have no clue to what the Natural Law is you wouldn’t know what “success”, ”objectivity”, and “adherence” means, though it surely is known by the majority of Fifth Graders in this world. You might try the dictionary to solve your dilemma.

Second, it should be obvious to the majority of people that there is a difference between nations who suppress human rights and ignore the Natural & Moral Law than those who don’t,. Namely, contrast. America to N. Korea or N. Korea to S. Korea, or East Communist Germany to West Germany.

Try taking note of Uganda where there are no human rights while lunatics are destroying complete cities and villages there and have no idea of what inalienable rights are. Maybe you can figure out the cause of their unproductiveness and their lack of social order and success.

China is stealing Industrial Secrets from American industry, because their suppression of intellectual freedom and inalienable rights is a barrier to free thought. Consequently they must defer to an espionage network.

The same portrait of American success is painted in respect to America’s dominance in the field of medical entrepreneurship, in pharmaceuticals, medical research, and space exploration where there is a need for Rocket Scientist.

That's why China's network is in America. America's ingenuity, and entrepreneurship is visibly demonstrated because our inalienable rights aren't being suppressed. Maybe I am assuming too much. Since you do not know what the NL is, do you know what inalienable rights are?

If you can’t see the difference, say between China v. Taiwan, I am sure I can’t be of any help to you. Consequently, if you put America under the same Politburo as the Communist, Socialist, and Fascist have done to their countries, and Obama is attempting to do to America, you get the same results that is plaguing China and Russia, and the Middle East.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“THE FINITE v. INFINITE”

IRT:
[…the atheists and agnostics are incarcerated by their materialism] “Yes, I am incarcerated by my materialism. I hoard vast priceless works of art, vast financial wealth and precious metals, vast land holdings, enormous piles of currency, I live in an enormous gilded palace … hold it, no I don’t, I was thinking of the Pope again. I’ve got nothing but a ten year old car, a modest home, a pretty good job, a loving family and a couple of good dogs. That’s enough for me.

ANS:
By materialism is meant that you are trapped in a finite world; it does not mean "consumerism" or an avidity and greed for opulence and wealth. It means you cannot exceed the bounds of the material Universe, in contrast that man is not made for the finite world. The world is just a means to accomplish man’s infinite desires. Your desires have been confined to your finite world by your biases, and you are locked into it though the end of life is to acquire eternal happiness. However, there is no "eternal" anything in the world of matter; the infinite is only in the spiritual world, but that is buffoonery to your way of thinking.

IRT:
[For you, there is no such thing as “up” or “down,” and for you, the NL doesn’t exist.] “There are lots and lots of ups and downs in my world, they just don’t all line up perfectly with those in yours. I don’t disagree with every tenet of ‘Natural Law’ just the premise, the mythology that you purport is the mystical, magical source, and the myth that there is one and only one possible and immutable code of morality.”

ANS:
Again, you’ve taken that quote out of context. It never said "you" had no "up or down"; it said DLD said there was no such thing as “up and down” and no Natural Law (NL).

The NL is the laws that order the Universe. Order, by necessity, presupposes an intelligence whether you want to believe it or not. Now the only intelligence that can order the Universe is God, not man. If you can explain it any other way please do.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
FAMILY

IRT:
[Is it in a fantasy world that the family is the basis for society?] ‘Family’ is an important ingredient in any society. However, what defines a family is what is much less clear. A child, or children, being raised with safety, health, love, and dignity and nurturing is indeed better off than those that are not. What’s that got to do with marriage?

ANS:
If you can’t define the family how do you know it’s important? Family:
A.” a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not: viz. the 'traditional family'.
B.” a social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for, viz.: viz. a 'single-parent family.'"--Dictionary .com That’s not too hard is it?

Marriage is the institution that binds the family together and unifies the accomplishment of the members' purpose in life through this unity. Marriage is the institution that protects the child or children who are the fruit of conjugal love, and children help strengthen the unity of the family.

A family is a social unit bound by a contract of marriage that gives the mutual authority of a man and a woman to each other the mutual exclusive use of their bodies to engage in conjugal love for the purpose of loving each other and producing the fruits of that love, viz. children. Marriage also entails the obligation to nourish, clothe, educate, shelter, and protect those children to the best of the parent’s ability.

IRT:
[Is it a fantasy that God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.] "Yes, that is fantasy. God ‘inscribed’ nothing.”

ANS:
Is there no capacity in man and woman for responsibility, for love and communion, and is it not in all human beings to a varying degree? If it is, than its an identification of human nature if it can be ascribed to all mankind.

Moreover, if there is this capacity, and it is universal, where did it come from if not from God? Of course, the atheist can’t admit to a Universal capacity because he has no God. The agnostic can’t admit to universality, because universalities contradict his ignominious self-centeredness that the Universe revolves around him.

TTWS(etc.):
“It’s called reading between the lines, namely to perceive or detect an obscure or unexpressed meaning”
And there it is.
With scripture we are (allegedly) reading god’s word. With ‘reading between the lines’, we as humans are assuming things that are not revealed directly to us in scripture.
If we start at the beginning we find out that:
‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’
That’s pretty clear.
“Adam was created as a man, he had no learning period, for he had. no childhood to learn, no parents to teach him. That’s not in the Scripture”
No it isn’t. It is a conclusion reached by men, some men, and agreed to by some (not all) men. However it may be untrue. Since god works outside known physics and time/space, and since with god ‘all things are possible’ there are other possibilities. Maybe there was a childhood of sorts, a learning period, maybe there were parents. After all Genesis 1:27 says ‘So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them”
So you assert that Adam had male reproductive parts, and perhaps a belly button, but since there is no scriptural mention either way, you don’t know it to be true.
At any rate the deductions, conclusions, the ASSUMPTIONS of reading between the lines do not hold the same level of infallibility and immutability as the scripture itself. As you very well know, since you also read between the lines of the DoI and constitution, there is room for various interpretations.
Reading between the lines simply does not prove anything, even itself.

“Does being human preclude you from thinking objectively, or of knowing the truth?”
I can and do think objectively, though admittedly filtered through culture, experience, learning and observation. Knowing ‘the truth’ is another thing altogether. There are certain things like gravity, thirst, pain, that seem to be nearly 100% universal. My knowledge and reasoning of these things can be considered ‘truth’ since I have yet to find any serious or blatant exceptions. There are things I just know to be true because to me there once again are no observable exceptions. My love for my family, my enjoyment of a well prepared steak. These are ‘truths’ to me though others may not hold them. Being as I do think objectively, I know the difference between obvious near-universal truths that can be objectively described and are consistent between nearly all humans and those things that I find true, but may not be true for others. If by ‘the truth’ you mean it to include that there is a creator god that etched moral codes into every human, well no, I don’t subscribe to that ‘truth’. It is simply a belief system that cannot be demonstrated, repeated or substantiated. It is a belief system that is very similar to thousands of other possible belief systems. My knowledge of gravity doesn’t require faith, My knowledge of breathing doesn’t require faith, these things are apparent and measurable by all.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“GENDER EQUALITY"
IRT:
[The social pre-eminence must fall on one of them] "That means they are not ‘equal"

ANS:
Women are equal in dignity, and value, and moral responsibility the same as is man. Woman's work is also in itself of equal value with that of a man, as the work performed by both is ennobled by the same human dignity.

Namely, both are made to the image and likeness of God, and are of the same nature. They are different in their physical composition. Man is stronger, the leader and protector of the family, the woman is of the weaker body wise, and not equal to the man physically. Each complement each other’s needs. Both are made by God out of His Love that is equal for both.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm

There cannot be two leaders that are equal in authority in a family no more than a body should be with two heads. One must be designated to make the final decisions. A ship cannot have two Captains of equal authority running the ship, any more than a family has two heads running the family. However, all have input and have an essential part to play in the family's unity. One leader doesn’t detract from the other’s importance. The spouses have the same importance in that one depends on the other to complete each other and the family. Thus, the hand depends on the arm, the arm on the body the body on the head. The head depends on the legs and the legs on the feet to walk.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm

The indisputable results of anatomical, physiological, and psychological research show a difference so far-reaching between man and woman that the following is established as a scientific result: the feminine personality assumes the complete human nature in a different manner from the masculine. According to the intention of the Creator, therefore, the manifestation of human nature in women necessarily differs from its manifestation in man; the social spheres of interests and callings of the sexes are unlike. These distinctions can be diminished or increased by education and custom but cannot be completely annulled.

As an individual woman has the high destiny obligatory upon every human being of acquiring moral perfection. As a member of the human race woman is called in union with man to represent humanity and to develop it on all sides.

In its way the female sex is as strong as the male, namely in endurance and patience, in quiet long-suffering, in short, in all that concerns its real sphere, viz., the inner life" Both tasks are indissolubly united, so that the one cannot be fully accomplished without the other.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“WOMAN v. MAN?”

IRT:
[Adam cried out to God for a partner, and God gave him woman, not another man] “Interesting, I can find no scriptural account where Adam ‘cried out’ for a helper. I do see god saying 'It is not good. . .' which in my contradicts his earlier claims, quite satisfied with his creation. I am curious though. All the animals had been created already, male and female? Did Adam have reproductive organs before Eve was yanked from his ribcage? Just asking”

ANS:
It’s called reading between the lines, namely to perceive or detect an obscure or unexpressed meaning in Adam’s seeing the male and female in animals when naming the animals, could not find a suitable match for himself. Namely, since Adam was created as a man, he had no learning period, for he had. no childhood to learn, no parents to teach him. That’s not in the Scripture either but it is an interpolation from what is said in Scripture.

Therefore Adam was very informed by God who is Omniscient, making Adam to be filled with Wisdom and knowledge that made him wise and very astute. He was infused with knowledge that made him intellectually a complete master of being human. Thus, there was no concupiscence, and Adam and Eve were naked in the garden and they felt no shame. When they sinned, they were filled with shame and covered themselves with fig leaves. God clothed them with animal skins; probably the first fur coat or leather jacket and pants in the world.

Adam was human wasn’t he? Aren’t all normal humans capable of being reproductive? You are a descendent of Adam, have you not inherited a similar body like everyone else has? “He created them male and female and told them to go forth and multiply.” Hence, can we assume that they both were reproductive? They did have children did they not?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“BONEHEADS?”

IRT:
“[What a bonehead, your predispositions are causing you to think through a prism of prejudices] “Of course I have biases and philosophical prejudices. I’m human. Are you saying that you are NOT biased/prejudiced?”

ANS:
Does being human preclude you from thinking objectively, or of knowing the truth? You can't even admit the difference between man and woman.

Prejudice: “A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.” No, I don’t believe so, unless being bias to the truth is prejudice, but being bias to the truth is being objective. You are prejudice because you can’t objectively see things as they are. Consequently, your biases obscure the truth and are an obstacle to your being objective.

IRT:
"As for ‘bonehead’ I’m not really impressed. ‘Nincompoop’ holds as much power over me and insults me about as much, it’s the kind of thing my brother and I called each other until we matured."

ANS:
I don’t view being a bonehead an insult. It is more of a character flaw that all atheists and agnostics are afflicted with and there are many in the world today; so you’re not alone.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“WHO IS A CATHOLIC?”

“I specifically said ‘ACTIVE’ Catholics, the only ones that really matter. Baptizing babies then keeping their names on the membership rolls for life hardly qualifies as active membership. You have used totals only, ignoring my requests to specify how many ‘active’(devout) vs. passive (in name only) were concealed in those numbers. Finally you assert a statistic that favors your position, and lo and behold, you’re only including ‘devout’ Catholics. I know that. You are missing the point. I have, for many days been after you to respond to your church’s numbers as to membership, growth, etc.“

ANS:
We are talking about Catholics not good ones or bad ones. Once baptized properly, one becomes a member of the Church. Now because they do not always act according to the teachings of the Church doesn’t disqualify them as a Catholic; it disqualifies them as being an active Catholic in the sense that in "mortal" sin they can't receive the Sacraments, like Sen. Kerry being pro-abortion. Being sinful doesn’t cease your membership in the Church, nor does not "practicing the Faith." Membership is caused by being properly Baptized. Once that occurs it is for eternity. Just counting “active” Catholics isn’t copasetic. To not count sinners as Catholics is not a realistic standard to measure the number of Catholics.

You don’t have to be a good American to be an American, even a bad Cop is a Cop, and bad Priest are still Priest forever. I am sure an anti- Catholic critic of the Church doesn’t dismiss a pedophile priest, because he sinned, as not being Catholic, and I don’t believe the Court does either. During an election when the media reports the Catholic vote, they don’t distinguish or just count non-sinners or ”active Catholics.” So your standard is not realistic.

However, sinner and saint both matter; they all matter, and I believe those who left the Church to become a Protestant are not counted in the total number, though because they are Baptized they technically remain Catholic because of the Baptism.. Jesus said, "I come to heal sinners; the non-sinner has no need of a physician." The mission of the Church is to save sinners.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
LEPIDOPTERYX :
“TILL DEATH DO WE PART”

IRT:
“To use your hunger comparison, if I'm at a restaurant that only serves veal, and I don't like veal, then I shouldn't have the option of going to another restaurant. I must either learn to like veal, choke down the veal even though I find it vile, or starve.”

ANS:
Yes, but you have a choice, starve, or eat. An animal in hunger would have no choice but to eat, if there were no threats to his life. So what it do you mean that a person should be able to do anything they wish. Isn't that why we are plagued with AIDS, HIV, STDs and the Culture of Death?

Is pleasure not an incentive for eating or sex? Pleasure accompanies the appetite, in hunger and sex, but it's not what sex is all about. It’s not what you like to do, it’s what is proper and real. Gluttons like to eat but it’s detrimental to their health, and not proper. Rapist like sex whether their victim likes it or not. Do we deny them their pleasure. Pleasure is only the icing on the cake, not the cake.

IRT:
Some people don't enjoy hetero penis-vagina sex, but they do enjoy other gender/organ/orifice combinations. Are they simply supposed to live their lives without the other benefits that mutually enjoyable sex offers to human beings - the intimacy, the bonding - simply because they don't enjoy the one kind of sexual pairing that God approves?”

ANS:
Bonding doesn't depend only on sexual encounters; it depends on the body and soul. "All love craves for unity, a moment when separatedness is vanquished and there is a fusion of entities in a center outside of both. Flesh, though a means to unity when united to a soul, is in itself an obstacle, because matter is impenetrable. A block of marble cannot be made one with another block without losing the identity of either."

In America nearly half of Marriages end in divorce. Why? Because half of the people getting married don’t really love one another. They love themselves more than their spouse.

Love is not sex, animals have sex and don’t love each other. Some species bond by instinct not by reason. No one is allowed to do everything they want. If they enjoying illicit sex, then they aren’t enjoying the sex, they are enjoying the pleasure. True sex is conjugal love where each truly love one another and gives themselves fully to each other.

:What zeal is to religion, fidelity and fecundity are to marriage: devotion to the person loved, and the extension of that love in the family. The husband and wife who vie with one another in love; all have understood one of the most beautiful effects of love: its zeal, which makes them fools for one another. 'We are fools for Christ's sake.' (1 Cor. 4:10)

"Love is the cause of everything we do. The subjects we talk about, the persons we hate, the ideals we pursue, the things that make us angry, these are indicators of our hearts. Few realize how much they betray their characters in revealing what their hearts love most. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh." If our loves are wrong, our lives are wrong, as well.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DENSBTLY :
“NATURAL LAW”

IRT:
[AGAIN READ THE DECLARATION: “ENDOWED BY GOD,” A.K.A. His Natural Law.] “Balderdash. The DoI clearly states ‘that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ Your ‘AKA’ does not exist in the DoI. That is you inserting a meaning that simply does not exist. The FF’s knew about God, and NML/NL. I’m sure if that is what they meant they would have said as much.

ANS:
What is the Natural Law? Have any idea? It doesn't seem like it. Try the link below.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

NATURAL LAW:
“In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. The natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
LEPIDOPTERYX :
“TILL DEATH DO WE PART”

IRT:
"I have friends who got married, promising to stay together for as long as they were in love, however long or short a time that might be. That was over a decade ago, and they're still married, still in love."

ANS:
What kind of marriage is it that one of the spouses says, "If things get tough, I am out of here?" Marriage is permanent because it is two becoming one flesh. When there is a breakup the two souls are rent asunder if the bond of love is strong. Both are hurt physically and emotionally especially when one dies, the other is devastated if the union is built on true love, the giving of one’s self wholly to the other. Thus, they become one life instead of two lives going in different directions. The one complements the other in their purpose in life. Consequently in their complement their dependence is on each other.

The Second purpose is to protect the children. Love based on emotions last as long as the emotions last. As said earlier, somewhere around two to five years. Marriage is a commitment to each other under all conditions of sickness, health, rich, poor, and thick or thin. Separation is allowed only when the one or both spouses are lunatics and a danger to each other or the children.

“Marriage founded on sex passion alone lasts only as long as the animal passion lasts. What some people love is not a person, but the experience of being in love. The first is irreplaceable; the second is not. As soon as the glands cease to react with their pristine force, couples who identified emotionalism as love claim they no longer love one another. If such is the case, they never loved the other person in the first place; they only loved being loved, which is the highest form of egotism.

"The sense of emptiness, melancholy, and frustration is a consequence of the failure to find infinite satisfaction in what is carnal and limited. Despair is disappointed hedonism. The most depressed spirits are those who seek God in a false god!

"There is no such thing as giving the body without giving the soul. Those who think they can be faithful in soul to one another, but unfaithful in body, forget that the two are 'inseparable.'”

"Matter is the basis of division; spirit the root of unity. The flesh is a means to unity because it is bound up with a soul in a living person. To the extent that love loses its soul, it loses its unity. When the spirit is gone, there is left only a mere body proximity that bores and fatigues."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
MALE & FEMALE

IRT:
[Thus, man is called by the Creator to be leader; this is personified by his bodily and intellectual make-up. To conclude from man’s physical superiority the degradation of woman to a second rate human being is a contradiction of both reason and logic.] “Man is to be the leader because of his bodily and intellectual make-up. Wow. Man’s physical superiority? Because the average man (not all) has greater upper body strength.”

ANS:
Genesis 3: 16cf: "To the woman also God said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee."

If the truth was a 2X4, and hit you between your two ears, you’d find some incomprehensible and unascribable way to deny it. You know what golf is? They have a woman’s tee and a man’s tee. In basketball, there’s a woman’s three-point line and a man’s three-point line. Ever wonder why women don’t play in Major League Baseball, or there are no women in the NFL or the NBA? Wake up and smell the roses.

A young girl filed suit in Texas claiming she was denied the right to play on the football team because she was a girl. She got to try out and on the first play she was injured and sued the school system for not protecting her from the injury. There is a difference in the physical and psychological makeup of a man and woman even if you can't seem to see the differences.

IRT:
"As for intellectual make-up, I’m not sure I follow, at all. Once again though it is probably a difference in averages, but not a clear sign of 'superiority'. It sounds a lot like societies that sadly still exist today, where girls are not formally educated since they would best serve society just cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the babies.”

ANS:
Women have the intuition of a mother whether they become a mother or not. They have a innate nature to nurture. Ever wonder why nearly all nurses are women? It’s not intellectual superiority, its psychological differences, the masculine touch, and the feminine touch. Some day you’ll learn the difference when you get out of High School or are old enough.

Did you ever live with a Mother and Father? If you did, why couldn’t you tell the difference? Does the concepts of Motherhood and Fatherhood escape your apprehensions? These questions are as dumb and juvenile as your attempt to make woman equal to man as the radical feminists and gay Marriage advocates do.

TTWS(etc.):
You know, the back and forth on this has been enlightening, thought provoking and, dare I say, fun.
Rather than continue the prattle over fine points though, I think I’ll just sum it up.

TTWS, that you believe what you believe so zealously, to the core of your very being, I cannot deny, nor am I interested in convincing you to not believe it. There’s simply no point. The bottom line is just this: You don’t get to make the rules about marriage or anyone else for ANYONE other than yourselves.
As much as the RCC would like to think that we’re still living in the middle ages, we are not. The old, heady days of empirical domain have long since past. Kingdoms and church-states have been dropping like dominoes for well over a century.
Governments are being established little by little all over the world that no longer bow to a religious leader or denomination. Governments are being established that put the needs and rights of people above those of the government.
Governments are being elected by the people themselves, rather than by inheritance or being anointed by corrupt religious tyrants.
Therefore, whatever your religion states as rules, laws, policy or morality are no longer adopted by these new governments blindly, or en masse. They are only adopted, individually after close scrutiny and much debate. It is no longer enough that the Vatican says something, in these new governments no laws are passed without the people being represented and informed in that legislation.
This nation was established by the people and for the people, not beholden to a kingdom or denomination.
This nation established its own laws, of the people and for the people. Once again not beholden to other kingdoms or denominations.
As much as you would like to think that Christianity, more specifically the RCC holds the keys to all knowledge, wisdom and authority, the stark, obvious reality is that it does not.
The United States forbids the rule of any religion to trump the rule of the people.
As much as you like to jump up and down and scream to the contrary, like a spoiled little boy that ad his toys taken from him, the RCC has no authority here unless an individual signs up for membership in your religion, voluntarily. That’s the way it works… Your vitriolic tantrums are useless, powerless.
In all of history, whenever people themselves did not control the power of their states, vile corruption and tyranny did. Whether that state was controlled by church or king, corruption, cruelty and oppression reigned. Our founders, to prevent this from happening in this new nation put the power in the hands of the people themselves. Self determination. This is our strength, this is our might, this is our right. It is not perfect, but it is far better than corrupt religious-state or tyranny.
Rant and rave all you want TTWS, whine and pout, stomp and scream, it will do you no good, right or wrong. You have no authority here in the land of the free. You have only a vote.

TTWS, I have friends who got married, promising to stay together for as long as they were in love, however long or short a time that might be. That was over a decade ago, and they're still married, still in love.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“SIMILAR LAWS”

IRT:
China and others have similar laws.

ANS:
All societies will mirror some of the N&ML because a society must conform to the nature of man of which the N&ML is based. However, laws based on the wiles of man alone always fall short of the requirements for man’s needs.

The obvious contrast between America and N. Korea, or China where there is no liberty shows what happens when these laws are not recognized. China is using espionage to steal the industrial research from US companies because they can’t produce the research and industrial ingenuity in a land of intellectual suppression of the N&ML.

IRT:
[Marriage is monogamic and indissoluble; death alone dissolves the union when consummated, irrespective of the State.]
“Now you’re just being ridiculous. Even your twisted 2% figure shows this to not be true.”

ANS:
Silly? What kind of marriage would it be if one spouse replied to "Do you take (Groom/Bride), to be your (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.?" No! not if she gets sick on me, or runs out of money, and if things get worse, I am gone.

Or, "I, (name), take you, (name), to be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife), my constant friend, my faithful partner and my love from this day forward. In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner BUT NOT in sickness BUT ONLY in health, AND JUST FOR in good times and NOT in bad, and in joy as well BUT NOT in sorrow.

I promise to love you CONDITIONALLY AND NOT unconditionally, to support you in your goals ONLY IF THEIR MINE, to honor and respect you AT TIMES, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live. CROSS LIVE OUT AND REPLACE IT WITH "NOT UNTO DEATH JUST WHILE WE ARE FRIENDS AND AS LONG AS THINGS ARE GOING SWELL, PLUS I LIKE TO HAVE A COUPLE OF GIRL FRIENDS ON THE SIDE JUST IN CASE.

What kind of Marriage would that be? One spouse could never trust the other. How could one raise a family with such absurdity? I believe “silly” is the word that defines a marriage not based on monogamy, and permanency. No marriage should exists if the spouse doesn't consummate it.

I knew a girl who never got married and shacked up. She had three kids, lived in a mansion, and drove a new Cadillac convertible. He threw her out, without warning, the same day after ten years, when he brought another younger girl to take her place.

She could do nothing because she was broke and he had plenty of money to dump her. The new car went to the new girl friend. The N&ML for Marriage mattered to her too late.

TTWS(etc.):
“AGAIN READ THE DECLARATION: “ENDOWED BY GOD,” A.K.A. His Natural Law.”
Balderdash. The DoI clearly states ‘that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’

Your ‘AKA’ does not exist in the DoI. That is you inserting a meaning that simply does not exist. The FF’s knew about God, and NML/NL. I’m sure if that is what they meant they would have said as much.

“The success of any society is in direct proportion to their adherence to the N&ML.”
Really, you’re trying this again? It’s a crock. You cannot / will not define ‘success’ objectively, nor have you defined ‘adherence.’ You have admitted that ALL societies have had their ups and downs, some big, some small, yet you have yet to show a proportional causative relationship between ‘success’ and ‘adherence’ in any one of them. You further say that any nation that ‘failed’ or ‘perished’ proves your point since you can always find something in their history that you claim proves they defied natural law. Some nations failed immediately after the affront, some, centuries later… this is not proof, this is merely self-serving cherry picking.

“The Constitution is not Catholic “per se,” but its rational is based on the Christian concept of the N&ML and a Christian God”
Per se? (laughing) It was not Catholic AT ALL!
The constitution does not even bother mentioning God, Jesus, the Holy See, the bible, the gospel, the ten commandments, not a single shout out to any of these things. Being as most of the FF’s were either raised in, attended or were at least very aware of Christianity, why did they not even bother mentioning ANY of these things in the constitution?
Maybe an exchange from the stories of Arthur Conan Doyle can help us here.
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That WAS the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. ...’

That the references are not in the constitution IS the answer to the mystery. They were left out intentionally. You’re looking between the lines to find a Christian anchor, missing the obvious entirely, that there is nothing between the lines.

TTWS(etc.):

“Dead wrong, you might try reading the “Declaration” some time. Man’s rights (N&ML) are endowed by God in the nature of man. . .”
You are getting silly. I have quoted back to you the exact text of the DoI and shown where you are misquoting it and attributing things to it that simply are not there.
Moreover, I have shown you what the DoI is, a separation decree written to the King of England stating why the colonies were seceding from crown rule. The DoI itself established no laws, the DoI did not establish the new nation.
The Constitution and bill of rights make no mention of god, yours or anyone else’s nor anything about Natural, or Moral laws.
The constitution and bill of rights were written debated and ratified by individuals, for individuals.
In several respects they ratified that there were certain rights held by individuals over which the new government would claim little or no jurisdiction. They made no specific distinction as to the actual origin of those rights, deliberately using the generic word ‘creator’ rather than the judeo-christian term God.
There is no mention of NML, you are simply trying to back your car into someone else’s garage.

“No, God tell man what his rights are. You said it, yet you continue to argue with yourself. “Beyond its jurisdiction" is what the NML is, viz. God's jurisdiction.”
That is about as absurd as it gets.
I said that the inalienable rights were declared beyond the jurisdiction of the new nation. I made no mention of which jurisdiction they are in, there’s no need to, it is irrelevant. Laws of other nations are also beyond U.S. jurisdiction… I need not mention, nor determine which nations any specific law belongs, I’m simply saying that they are not ours to adjudicate.
Rules for a bowling league have no jurisdiction over anything else than that bowling league. Everything else is out of its jurisdiction, including professional football, golf, sewing, growing walnuts or building steampunk spacecraft. Relative to the bowling league, all else is simply beyond its jurisdiction. That does not automatically mean God or NML created the NFL rulebook.
Beyond jurisdiction does not mean god, therefore I am not arguing with myself.

‘the Declaration declares that the citizens, not only have a right, but a duty to overthrow that government”
The DoI is not a list of legally binding laws and instructions. It was a declaration, not a constitution. And you have repeatedly misquoted/amended what it actually says… read my other posts.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
"ANTHROPOCENTRIC v. Theocentric"

“Only 2% of "DEVOUT" Catholic Marriages end in separation.] "That can only be because of the unique way you are defining things again. The research numbers I’ve seen seem to indicate that 25%of ‘catholic’ marriages end in divorce in the U.S. Certainly lower than the national average, but not by near as much as you claim.

ANS:
I gave you the link that shows it. Look it up. TWO PERCENT
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

IRT:
[No, it contradicts the Declaration based on the NL (the supreme authority over the State) that "all men were created equal.]
Show me on any U.S. legally ratified/binding document that says that the state, the nation, is beholden to NL.

AGAIN READ THE DECLARATION: “ENDOWED BY GOD,” A.K.A. His Natural Law. These rights are subsequently elaborated on in the Bill of Rights.

IRT:
Ancient Babylonia had laws against those things as did the Vikings and the Chinese. Couldn’t we just as easily say that since those cultures had such laws that we are therefore beholden to them?

ANS:
Again, all civilizations are either in accord with these universal laws or not. If not they eventually perish The success of any society is in direct proportion to their adherence to the N&ML.

IRT:
U.S. law, including the constitution, was based on the concept of individual liberty, and individual self-determination. NOT NL, or NML,

ANS:
Liberty is part of the N&ML; Liberty is defined by our inalienable rights. Freedom is marginalized by reason that defines human nature. Every Civil Law must be in accord with the N&ML to be licit.

IRT:
"...and certainly not on Catholic or even Anglican doctrine. Regardless of similarities to other culture’s laws, U.S. laws are ratified and of, by and for the people.

ANS:
The Constitution is not Catholic “per se,” but its rational is based on the Christian concept of the N&ML and a Christian God, not a Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Pagan, Sun, Greek, or any other god. Moreover, the American Civil Law originally coincided with the Catholic N&ML that is implicit in the Ten Commandments. The harbinger of the decline of America is that America is turning its face from God, His precepts, and the FF's recognition of those laws.

Hence the Court by fiat has legalized murder, redefined human nature and impugned the traditional institution of Marriage, thus comes two of the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, the Sexual Revolution and the Culture of Death.

Subsequently, over 52 million unborn are dead by Abortion, American divorce has doubled since the Sixties, AIDS, HIV, and STDs threaten the health of the Nation. America elected a Communist Socialist who pays homage to Mao, a brutal dictator of China. It is an omen that the intellectually impoverished on the Left cannot see and are being led by the Pied Piper to oblivion. So vote for the Tea Party who is attempting to prevent America's death.

TTWS, your appetites post runs in circles.

So God made hetero penis-vagina sex pleasant in order to ensure that people would make babies, and it's okay to enjoy that.
Some people don't enjoy hetero penis-vagina sex, but they do enjoy other gender/organ/orifice combinations. Are they simply supposed to live their lives without the other benefits that mutually enjoyable sex offers to human beings - the intimacy, the bonding - simply because they don't enjoy the one kind of sexual pairing that God approves?

To use your hunger comparison, if I'm at a restaurant that only serves veal, and I don't like veal, then I sgouldn't have the option of going to another restaurant. I must either learn to like veal, choke down the veal even though I find it vile, or starve.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
“NATURAL & MORAL LAW”

IRT:
[the Church does not set the laws governing Marriage; God does]
“Try transferring property, taking tax deductions...."

ANS:
These are only administrative regulations so that the state may perform its duty to facilitate the Married couple; they do not define Marriage, they only facilitate the function of a Marriage for the State to assist the family in the family's social community. The State codifies a Marriage for the purpose of the State and its citizen. Hence, it is written, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Moreover, the N&ML governs the definition and duties of Marriage; the State governs the duties of a family to the State. The State cannot define Marriage, but God through man's inalienable right to Justice is the measure of affairs of an unjust State.

IRT:
“The ceremony/vows/rites specific to a church, any church, are only valid within the confines/domain of that church. Once again, if you want people to abide by your rules, you need to convert them first. “

ANS:
Ceremonies are subjective, but the N&ML governs all humanity. You may freely choose your religion if any, but not what moral laws you will obey. Hence, all violations of the Commandments violate the N&ML and if these violations are sanctioned by the Civil Law, they are illicit and are an obstruction to human nature, a.k.a. Abortion and Gay Marriage are illicit examples of acts sanctioned by the government. The former violate the inalienable Right to Life, and the latter violates the sanctity of the inalienable right of Marriage.

Hence, the State must exist for the benefit of man, not man existing for the benefit of the State. Totalitarian governments believe man exist for the good of the State, and devalue human life scandalize its dignity and eventually destroys it under its tyrannical rule.

Marriage has a purpose, the unity of the Family. The N&ML that is implicit in the 10 Commandments is what stabilizes and strengthens the bonds of the Family, and therefore society. The State doesn’t define the purpose of Marriage, it facilitates the N&ML that does. When these precepts are not adhered to, there ensues social discord.

Namely, Marriage was an inalienable right at man's creation, and was designed by God before any State existed. It is based on the exigencies of man's social nature. It’s not my laws or Catholic laws; it's God’s laws imprinted on human nature. To go against the N&ML is to be an obstacle to one’s own human nature.

TTWS:
"Marriage is a matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring"—What is it you disagree with?
*************************************************************************************
I disagree with the procreation and education of offspring part.
My daughter's dad and I procreated and educated her without ever being married. In fact, I found out I was pregnat with her after he and I had broken up.

When my husband and I met, he was sterile and I was heading into menopause. When we got married, he was still sterile, my daughter was pretty much grown and no longer in need of parenting, and I was fully menopausal. Making and raising babies together has never been on our agenda. Even if we were capable of making babies, he has never had any desire to be a parent, quite frankly, isn't parent material, and after having raised one child, I had no desire to do it again. According to your logic, our marriage, which we entered into for no other reason than our love for each other, serves no purpose.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
“NATURAL & MORAL LAW”

IRT:
[These things are beyond the purview of the State and are the providence of the NL's authority.] “Now you’re just being silly. The state determines its own laws. The NL is a religious construct…There is not one document in the U.S.'s pile of laws and regulations that says our laws are subservient to the NL

ANS:
Dead wrong, you might try reading the “Declaration” some time. Man’s rights (N&ML) are endowed by God in the nature of man and are stated in the Bill of Rights.

IRT:
[In "Lawrence v. Texas," the Court claimed the N&ML serves "no legitimate purpose to the State." Further, it claimed the NML is subjective, and cannot be the basis for any Civil Law] I agree, other courts agree, we the people agree”.

ANS:
Do you know what you’re agreeing to? You’ve just denied your human rights are inalienable and contradicted the Founding Fathers in the Declaration and Constitution. Who agrees with that?

IRT:
[…all Civil Laws are based on the N&ML]
“It doesn’t matter what our laws are ‘based’….Once ratified into law in the U.S. those laws are free-standing, detached, and separate from whatever the original source might have been…”

ANS:
Unfortunately, the source is human nature, and it doesn't matter to Communist or Materialist and tyrannical totalitarian and terrorists governments, but it matters to the majority of Americans, excluding you who believes you are a ward of the State when the opposite is true.

Have you not heard that no man is above the law? What law are they talking about. Man who makes laws is above those laws because he makes them, however, he is not above the NML that he doesn't make because God makes them.

IRT:
“The constitution itself guaranties our constitutional rights, it tells us which rights are inalienable (beyond its jurisdiction).”

ANS:
No, God tell man what his rights are. You said it, yet you continue to argue with yourself. “Beyond its jurisdiction" is what the NML is, viz. God's jurisdiction.

IRT:
[So the precepts of Catholic Marriage are no longer in vogue. Marriage is no longer a contract and monogamous, is a dictate of the State and not binding by the Natural Law (NL)?] “That is correct.”

ANS:
So the State has a right to define Marriage? Oh, it can do what it wants by fiat, “Might makes Right.” However, if the State does, it is acting above the law, violating man’s endowed rights given by God. The State can only agree with the N&ML and enforce it. If a State "consistently" violates our inalienable rights, the Declaration declares that the citizens, not only have a right, but a duty to overthrow that government and replace it with one that will restore their human rights. Again read the Declaration, you've just contradicted it.

Washington Post is obsolete. You are dead to me. Will last one to leave please turn off the lights.

Thanks,
SIA

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
“NATURAL & MORAL LAW”

IRT:
[There is no particular brand of morality, there is one Natural & Moral Law (N&ML) that universally governs all licit human behavior.] "If it were actually universal, then we wouldn’t be having this debate."

ANS:
Because you can’t understand it, it doesn’t make the N&ML subjective.
IRT:
"Just claiming something is universal...does not make it so."
ANS:
No it doesn't, but its fruits do.
IRT:
"The very fact that many other cultures do not agree with your church’s concept or definition indicates the NML is one theory among many, no more or less valid than the rest. That you insist that YOURS is the one and only theory makes yours exactly like all the others."
ANS:
Other cultures that don't agree is meaningless. The N&ML doesn't need approval. Would it matter if no one believes in the Law of Gravity. What would ensue for the disbelievers?

The NL is not a Church concept; it’s the laws governing the Universe. Second, no society can ignore its precepts and maintain social order. No society can legalize theft, lying, murder and maintain order. N. Korea does, China does, the USSR did, East Germany did. Idi Amin did, and their lands became coffins, dead societies.
IRT:
[The State does have a right to regulate Marriage] “Absolutely, and also to not be dictated to about that definition of ‘marriage’ from your religion, or any other."
ANS:
It's from God, not man and is unchangeable.

IRT:
"The state definition is decided by the will of the people of the U.S. You may cast your vote, lobby for change, but your vote and voice counts no more than mine.”

ANS:
Any law legislated and opposed to the N&ML is not a law, it's an attempt to make "Right from Might." The fruits of the N&ML vindicate its works. Those societies who deny these precepts end in failure, Example: Communism.

Thus, all Communist, Fascist countries, Buddha and Hindu dominated countries, and the Muslim countries who deny equal rights are in a state of perpetual turmoil. That’s fact.

[The State does not have a right to rescind the fundamental privileges of Marriage or any inalienable right, because Marriage is an inviolable right.] “Sure it does. The legal definition of marriage, like that of theft, and even murder is defined by the legislative processes within the framework of the constitution. It has EVERY right to define marriage for itself in the legal sense.”

ANS:
In your world it does, but legal doesn't make it morally licit, not in the real world. The Constitution is based on the N&ML by the Founding Fathers who said so in the Declaration that trumps the Constitution. The Civil Law C/L cannot change the N&ML but only recognize it and make laws to mirror its basis, not contradict it. If you can’t see that then your hopeless. To allow murder, lying, thievery, and to redefine marriage is unquestionably illicit and disruptive to all societies.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING :

[State Law is Civil Law (C/L) and C/L, to be licit, must be based on the N&ML. Any time a C/L contradicts the N&ML it is illicit and cannot be morally obeyed.] “Like when "C/L" requires the prosecution of pervert priests and His Excellency's "N&ML" says it's ok for them to help themselves to the bodies of little boys.”

ANS:
Ignorance begets ignorance. Try reading what the Natural & Moral Law is before you start speaking about it and embarrassing yourself.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
LEPIDOPTERYX
“THE APPETITES”

IRT:
“So you're saying that God made sex pleasurable just so that people would make babies?”

ANS:
I am saying that the pleasure of an appetite is to entice people to do something. Thus, the pleasure that accompanies eating is to entice one to eat. The pleasure of sex is to entice conjugal love and insure the propagation of the human race.

If sex gave no pleasure, who would do it? If food gave no pleasure, who would eat? If no hunger, who would know when to eat? The primary end of food is health, the incentive to eat is taste. Pleasure is not the primary end of sex, procreation is. The end of an appetite is to insure an activity. Reason is the measure of the activity.

On the animal level, animals have no reason and act according to their natural instinct. They have no rational control over their appetites. Namely, when hungry and food is before them, they must eat, unless they sense eating will harm them. Self-preservation is an animal's natural instinct but not in man. Man is endowed with reason to control his appetites. Though hungry, he can refuse to eat. Animals cannot intentionally commit suicide; man is the only creature in the Universe who can act against his nature because he has a free will.

Since man has reason, he has the power and the duty to reasonably discipline his appetites. Namely he eats properly and not like a glutton. In sex, he accords to the laws of Marriage, if he is rational.

IRT:
“If the main purpose of human sex was to make babies, women would have an estrus cycle, and would only be receptive to advances from men when we were fertile.”

ANS:
The primary purpose of sex is to sustain the human race. That doesn’t mean sex has no other purposes. The amount of children is regulated not by the appetite as in animals, but by man’s reason. Other reasons for sex are intimacy, pleasure, and the bonding of the spouses, the giving of each to the other, spiritually and physically.

When Adam & Eve were in the Garden, they were naked. Reason controlled their will. When expelled from the Garden, they covered themselves. They were in a war with concupiscence. Their sin against God forfeited the virtuous mastery of their appetites.

IRT:
"But we DO get horny at random times, and if we're not ovulating, it's not simply our hormonal thermostat telling us that the oven is ready."

ANS:
Man has the use of "reason" to temper his appetites. Undisciplined eating causes overweight, continuous eating causes gluttony. Uncontrolled drinking leads to alcoholism; laziness causes sloth. Thus, man disciplines himself by the practice of virtue; if not disciplined, he is consumed by vice. Reason is man’s measure of discipline, the controlling thermostat.

TTWS(etc.):
“By being a “DEVOUT” Catholic, the Catholic Marriage is given special supernatural graces from God to aid the spouses in their Marriage”
Wow, the way you talk…
Special supernatural graces? That sounds, to a layman, a lot like ‘double secret probation’.
Getting to the meat of a conversation with you always requires whacking through a whole mountain of superfluous superlatives and minute yet precise degrees of super-high-definition distinction. Minutiae mining.

Back to the numbers though.. Lax vs. Devout.
I assume that one of the requirements for someone to be considered ‘devout’ is that they not only believe in, but actually adhere to the sanctity of life-long marriage.
That screws up the numbers for comparison purposes. You are comparing the divorce rate of a very select number of Catholics against general, unfiltered populations. That’s like comparing the opinions on dog grooming between AKC registered toy poodle breeders and all other people that keep animals. It’s meaningless.
You are essentially saying that among the married couples that you CHOOSE to count on your team vs. everyone else, regardless of their race/creed/culture/thoughts on marriage, you win.
Well, duh!
A more meaningful comparison would be between Catholics that believe and adhere to the sanctity of holy matrimony vs. non-Catholics that believe in and adhere to the sanctimony of marriage. General population vs. a hand-picked, predefined-and-filtered-to-meet-the-requirements super team is always grossly lopsided. If you get to choose WHICH Catholics to count, I should be allowed to choose which non-Catholics to count, I would, of course, count only those that do not believe in divorce, just as you did. Lets be fair.

As for these ‘lax’ Catholics… do you still solicit them for tithes and offerings? Surely not…

This all presumes of course that divorce is the only measure of a failed or bad marriage, another notion I do not subscribe to.

TTWS(etc.):
CNTD-
“will assure you they are also in accord with marriage throughout the world.”
Once again, poppycock! balderdash! Simply because some cultures have traditions and laws that are similar to those espoused by Christianity, and more specifically Catholicism, does not mean that Christianity or Catholicism is the source. You guys in fact were rather late to the game as far as religion and doctrine goes. If anything there’s a pile of historical evidence that Christianity/Judaism and especially Catholicism were cobbled together from more ancient traditions and fables. Even your vaunted notions of Natural Law came form pagans/idol worshippers. However if arrogance were a virtue rather than a sin, then you guys would be heading for colossal reward. Like a spoiled, selfish two year old, you walk into a room and declare everything yours and yours alone. It is not only arrogant, it is wholly ignorant of world history.

“Marriage is a matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring"—What is it you disagree with”
1. Covenant. (if God is part of that agreement, if he’s not going to help take out the trash, he’s not welcome)
2. Whole life. We are partners, two different lives sharing a loving, caring communal lifestyle. I still have my life, she still has hers. We did not become ‘one’ we became two- together.
3. nature ordered. Nature issues no orders.
4. procreation as a prerequisite. My wife and I cannot have children, so I guess it’s off to hell for us! Or does that just mean we’re not really married and that would mean that we are NOT living by the precepts of the NL after all but have just cheated its wrath for 20+ years?

TTWS(etc.):
“you are probably in accord with the principles of Christianity and don’t even know it because you have no idea what they are”
I am in a monogamous relationship because it works for me, and is legally recognized in all 50 states. I might not be if our culture/laws were different, I don’t really know since it is not now, and never has been an option. I’m monogamous for pretty much the same reasons I speak English.
And what good does it do to live according to the principles of a religion if I do not believe in that religion? Will I be rewarded (heavenly) for being in a monogamous relationship and not killing/stealing? Of course not. Because the big commandments, those recognizing your god as the only one, I do not live in accordance with. My marriage works for me, and the society that I live in, that’s all. I speak English because everyone I grew up around spoke English, not because of a cosmic edict, or because it was etched onto my tongue by a magic bearded sky-fairy.

“Thus, is your marriage between a woman and man, a Christian concept; is it monogamous, a Christian concept?”
You actually believe that monogamous marriage is either uniquely or originally a Christian concept?
Once again this is clear evidence that you know very little about the world’s cultures outside your own cloistered existence. Monogamous marriage was in place in many societies well before Christianity, and in some pretty un-Christian places at that. Even the Code of Hammurabi spells it out as a good/virtuous thing.

Continued:

TTWS(etc.):
(CNTD)

“Either he conforms to the NL or doesn’t. If he doesn’t he incurs the wrath of the NL, that is uncompromisable and nondiscriminatory”
Baloney. The wrath of the NL? Can you hear yourself?

“Thus, Civil Law doesn't make these laws, they recognize them because they are ordered by God's NL”
Source please? Show me where in ANY civil law that it says it has been ordered by god, or his wrathful NL.

“Since all legitimate Civil Law must conform to the NL”
This is a false, actually laughable, statement. How do presidential term limits, the post office and annexation of neighboring subdivisions have anything at all to do with your NL?

“man has no choice of morals that he can legitimately choose to live by”
Do you actually believe this stuff?

“Declaration says, when government "consistently" violates these laws, citizens have not only a right to overthrow that government, but a duty to, and replace it with one in accord to the NL.”

Once again, you misquote:
‘That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness’
Repeating the important part: ‘as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness’ oops! they forgot the NL part..

And once again, the DoI is not a binding legal document. It is a statement of beliefs and grievances used to explain the need for the colonies to sever themselves from the British crown rule.

“To the contrary, man does not define Marriage”
Actually he does, in state laws.

“Moreover, those who cannot see the natural difference, both physically and spiritually, between a woman and a man are either mentally blind, insane,”
You are making a case from arrogant ignorance. Of course people can see the difference between men and women.. at least physically… spirituality cannot be seen. I can see the difference, physically between a cat and a dog, but also recognize that it feels mutually nice to pet either one of them. But hey, some people like cats, some like dogs…

“Consequently, Marriage is between a man and a woman, irrespective of what man or government devises.”
According to your religion anyhow, which I don’t have to believe in, because I have an unassailable right to believe in whatever religious creed I choose. For otherwise to be true would be in violation of your Natural Law. (see how absurd and twisty this works?)

TTWS(etc.):
“If man can give you your inalienable rights, he can take them away, and they would be assailable.”
You misunderstand. The FF’s declared ‘certain rights’ unalienable. They didn’t give us those rights per se, they declared them as being beyond the jurisdiction of the government.
Newton didn’t give us gravity, he didn’t invent it, he described it, he declared it to exist.
Man doesn’t necessarily ‘take away’ those rights, they can and do in many places, simply not acknowledge them as being inalienable rights. You may believe that free speech is an unassailable right, but try it in some countries and you will find out that you can be punished quite severely for exercising it.
“Though a State may regulate the rules for Marriage, those regulations cannot hinder man's normal right to marry, but must facilitate it”
As pointed out before, a ‘right’ without earthly legal authority to back it up is almost useless. The right to believe in whatever god I desire is in some cultures/countries essentially meaningless if that culture/nation doesn’t agree.

“Why is the basic standards of Traditional Marriage beyond the jurisdiction of government”
I’m not the one that said marriage was an inalienable right. The state definition of marriage is whatever the state says it is.

“Read the Declaration of Independence; “Man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.””
I did, and you have misquoted it.:
‘that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’
Interesting that you said ‘god’ when that’s not what it says….
Also it doesn’t list ALL the rights, nor does it say that marriage is among them.
AND the bigger point, the DoI is not a binding legal document for U.S. citizens.

“Rites would be only applicable to religion, and man has a right to choose in respects to what he sincerely believes, but man has no licit right to choose whether he obeys the NL”
NL is a construct of the Catholic Church. If I have the ‘right’ to not believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only, I have just as much right to dismiss its doctrines.

“Can man decide he will not obey the Law of Gravity? Can he decide that he has a right to Murder people, or lie on a contract, steal his neighbor’s goods, or violate his neighbor’s wife?“

The law of gravity is a physical law, one cannot ‘choose’ to break a law of physics. Murder is a legal term, defined in most cultures and adjudicated in most cultures according to the man-made laws in those cultures. Same with stealing. Violating a neighbor’s wife is NOT illegal in many/most cultures. Your religion defines adultery, theft and murder as sins. Laws are not about ‘sin’ since ‘sin’ is a religious concept. That we have man-made laws that overlap sin is hardly surprising. A couple of the ten commandments are actually practical in regular society.

Continued -

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
“BONDS OF MARRIAGE”

IRS:
“The fact that non-Christian couples can and do have strong, vibrant, successful marriages indicates that there is more than one way, more than one formula that actually works. In Japan/China for example, the divorce rate is much lower than in the U.S. even though there is virtually NO Christianity, no church services, no monotheistic super-deity whatsoever. There is more than one-way to (even statistically) avoid divorce. There is more than one measure of the success in a marriage or lack thereof.”

ANS:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-18/world/china.divorces_1_divorce-rate-marriage-law-couples?_s=PM:WORLD

Divorce RATE RISES IN CHINA
June 18, 2010
China In 2009, one in five Chinese marriages ended in divorce, according to a report by the Ministry of Civil Affairs. The report said 1.71 million Chinese couples broke up last year -- 160,000 couples, or 10.3 percent, more than the previous year.

DIVORCE RATES IN JAPAN:

http://www.divorcerate.org/divorce-rate-japan.html

Divorce rate is approximately 27%. One in every four marriages ends up to divorce. According to Reuters, The number of divorces annually has almost doubled since 1990, with 264,000 couples formally breaking up in 2000. From 2000 to 2004, there is a small drop in the divorce rate in Japan.

If we compare the Japan divorce rate with the divorce rates of the other countries:

Divorce rate per 1000 couples
Japan: 2.2 SECULAR
USA:4.0 SECULAR
Germany: 2.4 CHRISTIAN
France: 1.9 CHRISTIAN
Italy: 0.7 CHRISTIAN
UK: 2.6 CHRISTIAN
Sweden: 2.4 SECULAR

No it doesn’t mean there are more ways than one way to avoid divorce, around fifty percent of all Marriages in America do not end in divorce. However, you are probably in accord with the principles of Christianity and don’t even know it because you have no idea what they are. They are explained in the link below; read them and find out how much you've kept the moral laws that are ubiquitously based on human nature.

Marriage is based on the NL, viz. Human Nature. Thus, is your marriage between a woman and man, a Christian concept; is it monogamous, a Christian concept? Does your marriage permit adultery that is banned by Christianity? If you have children, does your marriage provide for them, to the best of one’s ability, clothing, food, shelter, and education? Christianity mandate such. These are the Natural Laws all of which are part of a Christian Marriage.

I will assure you they are also in accord with marriage throughout the world.

By being a “DEVOUT” Catholic, the Catholic Marriage is given special supernatural graces from God to aid the spouses in their Marriage. Thus, the statistics of a devout Christian marriage are overwhelmingly in favor of a Catholic Marriage.

WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE?:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

"Marriage is a matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring"—What is it you disagree with?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
“INVIOLABLE RIGHTS”

[Moreover, if man defines Marriage it no longer is an inalienable right]

"Not true. Man (Men) proclaims certain rights as inalienable. All that means is that the men (government) stating such things claim that those certain rights belong to individuals, not to the government."

ANS:
Inviolable: "incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable”

If man can give you your inalienable rights, he can take them away, and they would be assailable. Not only if man gives, he can take away, but what he gives, he has authority over. However, man does not have any authority to rescind the basic fundamental privileges of marriage. Though a State may regulate the rules for Marriage, those regulations cannot hinder man's normal right to marry, but must facilitate it.

IRT:
"They are simply saying that this specific government will not trespass on these rights. It does not mean those rights are magic, holy, or universal, just that they are beyond the jurisdiction of this government."

ANS:
Why is the basic standards of Traditional Marriage beyond the jurisdiction of government? Read the Declaration of Independence; “Man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.” One of them is Marriage. You’re again so negatively disposed that you argue against your very self.

IRT:
[Is it fanaticism that Catholics believe a marriage must be consummated, that both parties must fully consent to the contract?] “Not necessarily fanaticism....It’s fine that Catholics that choose to follow the church’s mandates, rites and codes, but the fanaticism would be in presuming that Catholicism and its rites and rules apply to everyone else.”

ANS:
Rites would be only applicable to religion, and man has a right to choose in respects to what he sincerely believes, but man has no licit right to choose whether he obeys the NL.

Can man decide he will not obey the Law of Gravity? Can he decide that he has a right to Murder people, or lie on a contract, steal his neighbor’s goods, or violate his neighbor’s wife?

These are all violations of the NL. Either he conforms to the NL or doesn’t. If he doesn’t he incurs the wrath of the NL, that is uncompromisable and nondiscriminatory. Thus, Civil Law doesn't make these laws, they recognize them because they are ordered by God's NL

Since all legitimate Civil Law must conform to the NL, man has no choice of morals that he can legitimately choose to live by except those morals contained in the NL Any Civil Law that is opposed to the NL is not licit irrespective of the Court or government.

Hence, the Declaration says, when government "consistently" violates these laws, citizens have not only a right to overthrow that government, but a duty to, and replace it with one in accord to the NL.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
"MAN’S AUTHORITY"

IRT:
[If man defines Marriage, DLD is right] “Then he is right.

ANS:
To the contrary, man does not define Marriage; nor did Adam & Eve define marriage. They recognized it from the command of their Creator. They did what God told them to do, “Go forth and multiply.” God did not create another man to compliment Adam’s loneliness, or for the procreation of mankind. God created a woman for such purposes.

Hence, Gay Marriage, a human creation and an oxymoron, was implicitly proscribed by God as a contradiction of His NL. Moreover, the tradition of the First Parents in Marriage has been in accord throughout History between one man and one woman that was fundamentally defined by God.

Further, the bonds of Marriage were reemphasized in the New Testament by the Son of God. Jesus was consistent with the Creator reiterating that Marriage be monogamous and between a man and woman, and man may not render it asunder.

Moreover, those who cannot see the natural difference, both physically and spiritually, between a woman and a man are either mentally blind, insane, or diabolically and morally deficient. If one be sane and deny these sexual differences, then they are unequivocally irrational, morally reckless, and socially irresponsible.

Furthermore, Fatherhood and Motherhood are defined naturally in human nature by God's NL, and not by man, furthering the validity of the NL. Consequently, Marriage is between a man and a woman, irrespective of what man or government devises.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
"MAN’S AUTHORITY"

IRT:
[If man defines Marriage, DLD is right] “Then he is right.

ANS:
To the contrary, man does not define Marriage; nor did Adam & Eve define marriage. They recognized it from the command of their Creator. They did what God told them to do, “Go forth and multiply.” God did not create another man to compliment Adam’s loneliness, or for the procreation of mankind. God created a woman for such purposes. Hence, Gay Marriage, an oxymoron, was implicitly proscribed by God as a contradiction of His NL.

Further, the bonds of Marriage were reemphasized in the New Testament by the Son of God. Jesus was consistent with the Creator reiterating that Marriage be monogamous and between a man and woman, and man may not render it asunder.

Moreover, those who cannot see the natural difference, both physically and spiritually, between a woman and a man are either mentally blind, insane, or diabolically and morally deficient. If one be sane and deny these sexual differences, then they are unequivocally irrational, morally reckless, and socially irresponsible.

Furthermore, Fatherhood and Motherhood are defined by God's NL, and not by man, furthering the validity of the NL. Consequently, Marriage is between a man and a woman, irrespective of what man or government devises.

TTWS(etc.):
“If Marriage is a human invention, who was the inventor”
Marriage has been defined by various cultures for thousands of years. Some of those cultures were religion-based, many were tradition-based, and recently (the last few hundred years) marriage has been defined by governments. That marriage is quite different in many of these cultures points away from a single point of invention or inventor, more to a conglomeration of evolved cultures, traditions and concepts.

“And were there some pre-existing laws and norms, such as the physiological and psychological characteristics of men, women, and children that such an invention had to take into account?”
In many cultures, yes.

“If there were, than they came from God and were imprinted into human nature, therefore making it a dictate of the Natural Law”
Flawed logical leap. There is no evidence outside Catholic doctrine that NL was etched into our ‘nature’. NL is your answer to questions, not proof of its own existence.

“First, it’s not the Church’s definition; it’s God’s definition speaking to man through His Church.”
That’s only the Catholic definition.

“Further, man has no authority over the NL anymore than he can cause a fish to be a flying elephant, or proscribe the Sun not shine, or command man not to eat”
NL does not exist as you say it does. Once again, NL is merely the answer you give when asked a question, it is not self proving.

“Moreover, when the NL is broken, dire results ensue”
Dire results are likely to ensue regardless of whether NL is violated or not. Good results are just as likely. You can’t prove your point by just saying ‘dire result ensued, therefore NL must have been violated.’ Which is what you tend to do. You do not show actual causative relationships, you merely presume that dire results=violation. The simple fact that bad things happen does not conclusively prove the cause. It is just as likely that my mother has a broken back because I was not 100% diligent in stepping over cracks, or maybe it was because she was rude to a stranger, or didn’t sacrifice a goat correctly. ALL these things can be shown to cause dire results with the same methodology.
This is a just a witch doctor’s /fortune teller’s trick, and not all that sophisticated. This is the very thing that makes your religion more attractive to the illiterate and superstitious than to the educated.
“Note that the NL is not prejudice or discriminating to whom it gives retribution.”
Neither is Odin.

TTWS(etc.):
“Hence, if you want your marriage to strengthen and grow strong and vibrant, become a devout Catholic or Christian”
That’s one way to read the numbers. But not the only way. If divorce is the only measure of failure, then you might be right. However, the lack of a divorce does not directly indicate that that marriage is strong and vibrant. It merely means there is no divorce. It does not even mean that the couple is still living together, talking to each other, or trying to procreate.
There are probably a few couples that because of their ‘devoutness’ merely stay married so as not to run afoul of the church.
My marriage is quite strong, 20+ years with no end in sight. We are atheists, have never prayed together, never belonged to a church, our ‘wedding’ was completely secular. So though statistically speaking Christian devoutness shows a trend for lower divorce rates, the fact that non-Christian couples can and do have strong, vibrant, successful marriages indicates that there is more than one way, more than one formula that actually works. In Japan/China for example, the divorce rate is much lower than in the U.S. even though there is virtually NO Christianity, no church services, no monotheistic super-deity whatsoever. There is more than one way to (even statistically) avoid divorce. There is more than one measure of the success in a marriage or lack thereof.

“A “lax Catholic” is a Catholic who doesn’t act Catholic but acts as a Secularist,”
I know that. You are missing the point. I have, for many days been after you to respond to your church’s numbers as to membership, growth, etc. You have used totals only, ignoring my requests to specify how many ‘active’(devout) vs. passive (in name only) were concealed in those numbers. Finally you assert a statistic that favors your position, and lo and behold, you’re only including ‘devout’ Catholics.

“What a bonehead, your predispositions are causing you to think through a prism of prejudices”
Of course I have biases and philosophical prejudices. I’m human. Are you saying that you are NOT biased/prejudiced? I have had life experiences, successes and failures, pain and joy. I’ve had a good education and live among a diverse population. I’ve lived in many parts of the U.S. and a couple of foreign countries. I’ve mixed with those of different cultures, as equals. I’ve studied them, questioned them and have formed opinions, biases and ideals. Yes I have predispositions, just as you do.
As for ‘bonehead’ I’m not really impressed. ‘Nincompoop’ holds as much power over me and insults me about as much, it’s the kind of thing my brother and I called each other until we matured.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
"FANTASY OR REALITY"

IRT:
[Thus, all my questions are asking what is the fantasy in Marriage taught by the Church.] “That it was created by god, and the precepts of marriage are etched into our being.”

ANS:
“If Marriage is a human invention, who was the inventor? And were there some pre-existing laws and norms, such as the physiological and psychological characteristics of men, women, and children that such an invention had to take into account?” If there were, than they came from God and were imprinted into human nature, therefore making it a dictate of the Natural Law (NL).

IRT:
[Is it a fantasy that Marriage is monogamous, and a contract between a man and woman?] “Some are, some aren’t. It is a fantasy to believe that all marriages subscribe to the Catholic Church’s definition.”

ANS:
No one said all Marriages subscribe to the definition of the Church’s definition anymore than everyone subscribes to the Catholic religion. First, it’s not the Church’s definition; it’s God’s definition speaking to man through His Church.

Second, whether one conforms to God’s laws or not, the definition of Marriage remains until God changes it. Further, man has no authority over the NL anymore than he can cause a fish to be a flying elephant, or proscribe the Sun not shine, or command man not to eat. Moreover, when the NL is broken, dire results ensue. Note that the NL is not prejudice or discriminating to whom it gives retribution. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER:
“PERMANENCY”

IRT:
[...though about 45% of lax Catholics separate, I believe it was a Pew survey that found only two percent of devout Catholic Marriages end in separation.]

"Oh, NOW you segregate between 'devout' and 'lax' Catholics... Numbers please? If you don't wish to pollute your church's statistics with the behaviors of the 'lax' then show me the numbers, how many 'lax' Catholics are there? Is this an official designation or do you only apply it when the total numbers don't suit you?

Number bender."

ANS:
What a bonehead, your predispositions are causing you to think through a prism of prejudices and bias that are obscuring your thought processes. Consequently, you unwittingly distort everything to suit your preconceptions. Think before you leap.

The point is that when the counsel of the Church is ignored, of which lax Catholics do, their marriage is no different from any other irreligious marriage. A “lax Catholic” is a Catholic who doesn’t act Catholic but acts as a Secularist, and therefore has the same results that Secularists have, viz. around the same rate of separations.

Hence, if you want your marriage to strengthen and grow strong and vibrant, become a devout Catholic or Christian, viz. do the will of God who speaks to humanity through His Church. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

"The family that prays together, stays together" is well known. There has been much anecdotal evidence that has led to "unsubstantiated claims that the divorce rate for Christians who attended church regularly, pray together or who meet other conditions is only 1 or 2 percent.

Dr. Tom Ellis, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention's Council on the Family said that for "...born-again Christian couples who marry...in the church after having received premarital counseling...and attend church regularly and pray daily together..." experience only 1 divorce out of nearly 39,000 marriages -- or 0.00256 percent.”

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/frank_pavone/2010/12/marriage_is_a_creation_of_god.html

FATHER PAVONE:
“What, then, of marriage? If it is a human invention, who was the inventor? And were there some pre-existing laws and norms, such as the physiological and psychological characteristics of men, women, and children, that such an invention had to take into account?

“The Catholic Church teaches that marriage, like human life itself, is a creation of God. The Church also points out that the state has a key role in preserving and regulating marriage, but not in redefining it. What, then, of marriage? If it is a human invention, who was the inventor? And were there some pre-existing laws and norms, such as the physiological and psychological characteristics of men, women, and children, that such an invention had to take into account?

"The Catholic Church teaches that marriage, like human life itself, is a creation of God. The Church also points out that the state has a key role in preserving and regulating marriage, but not in redefining it.

"What, then, of marriage? If it is a human invention, who was the inventor? And were there some pre-existing laws and norms, such as the physiological and psychological characteristics of men, women, and children, that such an invention had to take into account?

"The Catholic Church teaches that marriage, like human life itself, is a creation of God. The Church also points out that the state has a key role in preserving and regulating marriage, but not in redefining it."

The Forum said only 11 responses are allowed. This is the 12 and it may not be allowed. Sorry I can't respond till a future time.

TTWS(etc.):
", though about 45% of lax Catholics separate, I believe it was a Pew survey that found only two percent of devout Catholic Marriages end in separation."

Oh, NOW you segregate between 'devout' and 'lax' catholics... Numbers please? If you don't wish to pollute your church's statistics with the behaviors of the 'lax' then show me the numbers, how many 'lax' catholics are there? Is this an official designation or do you only apply it when the total numbers don't suit you?

Number bender.

TTWS(etc.):
“Thus, all my questions are asking what is the fantasy in Marriage that the Church teaches”
That it was created by god, and the precepts of marriage are etched into our being.

“Is it a fantasy that Marriage is monogamous, and a contract between a man and woman?”
Some are, some aren’t. It is a fantasy to believe that all marriages subscribe to the Catholic Church’s definition.

“If man defines Marriage, DLD is right”
Then he is right.

“Moreover, if man defines Marriage it no longer is an inalienable right”
Not true. Man (Men) proclaim certain rights as inalienable. All that means is that the men (government) stating such things claim that those certain rights belong to individuals, not to the government. They are simply saying that this specific government will not trespass on these rights. It does not mean those rights are magic, holy, or universal, just that they are beyond the jurisdiction of this government.

“Is it fanaticism that Catholics believe a marriage must be consummated, that both parties must fully consent to the contract?”
Not necessarily fanaticism, but it is a small piece of a much larger denomination-based code of behavior. It’s fine that Catholics that choose to follow the church’s mandates, rites and codes, but the fanaticism would be in presuming that Catholicism and its rites and rules apply to everyone else.
I agree that all parties must agree to marriage. Marriage is a legal construct for us non-churchy types. It is a partnership contract that must be entered into voluntarily, or not at all. What you wish to call marriage for yourself and others in your denomination is up to you guys.

“Further, is it pure fantasy that Catholic Marriage proscribes adultery or any sex outside of the marriage contract entered into by the spouses because none of these ideas, as DLD say, never work?”
Once again, what you do within the church to or about members of that church is up to you guys. Knock yourself out.

“The proficient efficaciousness and profound Wisdom of Her principles imbued in Her mandates for a licit Marriage are proof they have emanated from our Omniscient Creator”
Who even talks like that? Poppycock! Balderdash! Self-serving drivel!

“Marriage is ordered by the Natural Law whose author is God”
That you believe that, fine. We don’t. We are not asking you to change your religion’s definition of marriage. We only ask that you stop cramming your archaic superstitions down into our legislation.
If you want us to follow your church’s laws, then convert us to your religion first. That’s the way Jesus told you to do it.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
“MARRIAGE”

IRT:
[Is it in a fantasy world that Marriage is created by God and not man?]
"Fantasy."

ANS:
Of course, if you don’t believe in God it will be a fantasy to you. However, Marriage is a universal natural inviolable right endowed by God inscribed in human nature since the creation of Man.. It’s not a happening out of chaos, nor did it evolve from matter, or our supposed ancestors, apes, or the Big Bang; no, Marriage is ordered by the Natural Law whose author is God.

The proficient efficaciousness and profound Wisdom of Her principles imbued in Her mandates for a licit Marriage are proof they have emanated from our Omniscient Creator. Thus, though about 45% of lax Catholics separate, I believe it was a Pew survey that found only two percent of devout Catholic Marriages end in separation. That is opposed to nearly 50% of all US Marriages.

The post you disagree with is a reply to danelinthelionsden (DLD) who claims the precepts of Marriage so postulated by the Catholic Church are fantasy and my explanation of them is not even supported by the Catholic Church.

Moreover, DLD claims there is no such things as "up" and "down," or the Natural Law. He thinks the Church teachings on Marriage are fantasy; apparently you also believe they are.

Unfortunately, you and DLD see the world through a prism that turns everything upside down because you both live in the Alternate World. Thus, DLD writes, “Yes, but, people live in a real world, not a fantasy world. Your ideas simply cannot work in the real world for real people. Even the REAL official Catholic Church does not promote your ideas.”

Consequently, I am asking DLD what is he claiming to be the real world. Moreover, he hasn’t the slightest idea what Catholic Marriage is. Therefore, he was given the link that defines what a Catholic Marriage is so he can refute it.

Thus, all my questions are asking what is the fantasy in Marriage that the Church teaches. Is it a fantasy that Marriage is monogamous, and a contract between a man and woman? He believes in the oxymoron Gay Marriage. If man defines Marriage, DLD is right, but God defines Marriage and he is wrong. Moreover, if man defines Marriage it no longer is an inalienable right. The fantasy is those who deny there is a God who formed the law that dictates Marriage and deny it is a Divine Institution of the NL and an inalienable right.

Is it fanaticism that Catholics believe a marriage must be consummated, that both parties must fully consent to the contract? Further, is it pure fantasy that Catholic Marriage proscribes adultery or any sex outside of the marriage contract entered into by the spouses because none of these ideas, as DLD say, never work?

TTWS(etc.):
“Thus, man is called by the Creator to be leader; this is personified by his bodily and intellectual make-up. To conclude from man’s physical superiority the degradation of woman to a second rate human being is a contradiction of both reason and logic.”

Man is to be the leader because of his bodily and intellectual make-up. Wow.
Man’s physical superiority? Because the average man (not all) has greater upper body strength? That may have been significant in the bronze age when all labor was manual labor. Even then I’m not convinced. I see the fact that on average men have greater upper body strength as a difference, not an indication of superiority.
As for intellectual make-up, I’m not sure I follow, at all. Once again though it is probably a difference in averages, but not a clear sign of 'superiority'.
It sounds a lot like societies that sadly still exit today, where girls are not formally educated since they would best serve society just cooking, cleaning and taking care of the babies.

“Adam cried out to God for a partner, and God gave him woman, not another man”
Interesting, I can find no scriptural account where Adam ‘cried out’ for a helper. I do see god saying 'It is not good. . .' which in my my contradicts his earlier claims, quite satisfied with his creation.
I am curious though. All the animals had been created already, male and female? Did Adam have reproductive organs before Eve was yanked from his ribcage? Just asking.

“The social pre-eminence must fall on one of them”
That means they are not ‘equal’. Why must social pre-eminence be limited to a specific gender? Why must ability to lead, organize and plan be based on the shape/function of reproductive organs? What does one have to do with the other?

“To conclude from man’s physical superiority the degradation of woman to a second rate human being is a contradiction of both reason and logic”
Of course, we need women to bear the children, as many as is humanly possible, like livestock. No need getting them all educated or anything, just make more babies. Women don’t need to be in charge of anything, God made them intellectually perfect for the single task of bearing offspring. That’s what makes them ‘equal’ partners with men. Spread ‘em, wait nine months, push, repeat. I get it now.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
MALE & FEMALE:

IRT:
[Is it in a fantasy world woman and man complement each other?]
"Complement each other? Some men compliment some women, and v/v. What are you actually talking about?"

ANS:
The primitive institution of monogamy is implied in the fact that one woman is created for one man. Eve, as well as Adam, is made the object of a special creative act, a circumstance which indicates her natural equality with him, while on the other hand her being taken from his side implies not only her secondary role in the conjugal state (1 Corinthians 11:9), but also emphasizes the intimate union between husband and wife, and the dependence of the latter on the former.

My dear friend, if you can’t see the obvious and self-evident difference between the feminine and masculine personalities, mother and father, I can’t help you. Adam cried out to God for a partner, and God gave him woman, not another man.

Both sexes have the equal obligation to acquiring moral perfection. As an equal member of the human race, woman is called in union with man to represent humanity and to develop their perfection fully in society.

There is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence, it follows logically woman's claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man. Both have qualities that complement each other.

According to the Creator, the manifestation of human nature in women necessarily differs from its manifestation in man; the social spheres of interests and callings of the sexes differ. These distinctions can be diminished or increased by education and custom but cannot be completely annulled.

Male sex, in itself, represents only half of humanity and the female sex the other half, while one man and one woman together suffice to represent humanity though both are persons in the fullness of human dignity. Consequently, each requires the other for its social complement; a physically complete social equality would nullify this purpose of the Creator and impugn integral sexual differences of both.

The natural differences of man and woman are to force the complemental union of the two sexes. Notwithstanding their equal human dignity, the rights and duties of the woman differ from those of the man in the family and the forms of society that naturally develop from it.

The most manly man and the most feminine woman are the most perfect types of their sexes. Both are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation. The social pre-eminence must fall on one of them. Thus, man is called by the Creator to be leader; this is personified by his bodily and intellectual make-up. To conclude from man’s physical superiority the degradation of woman to a second rate human being is a contradiction of both reason and logic.

TTWS(etc.):
“Is it in a fantasy world woman and man complement each other?”
Compliment each other? Some men compliment some women, and v/v. What are you actually talking about?

“Is it in a fantasy world that man and woman are of equal dignity?”
What’s equal dignity got to do with marriage? Marriage is between individuals, not entire genders.

“Is it in a fantasy world that Marriage created by God and not man?”
Fantasy.

“Is it in a fantasy world that Marriage is an inviolable right?”
Fantasy. Rights are defined by law, by man.

“Is it in a fantasy world that Marriage is only between a man and woman?”
No, that inviolate rule exists, even and especially in most communist and theocratic tyrannies.

“Is it the fantasy world that Marriage requires the free consent of the Spouses?”
No, that happens just about everywhere, even in communist countries.

“Is it in a fantasy world that the primary purpose of sex is not pleasure?”
Sex is pleasurable, sex can produce babies, pretty much everywhere. What’s wrong with pleasure anyhow?

“Is it in a fantasy world that the primary purpose of sex is procreation?”
No, once again you are trying to separate one from the other. Sex is pleasurable AND it can produce babies.

“Is it in a fantasy world that the family is the basis for society?”
‘Family’ is an important ingredient in any society. However, what defines a family is what is much less clear. A child, or children, being raised with safety, health, love, dignity and nurturing is indeed better off than those that are not. What’s that got to do with marriage?

“Is it a fantasy that God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."
Yes, that is fantasy. God ‘inscribed’ nothing.

“where all the atheists and agnostics are incarcerated by their materialism”
Yes, I am incarcerated by my materialism. I hoard vast priceless works of art, vast financial wealth and precious metals, vast land holdings, enormous piles of currency, I live in an enormous gilded palace … hold it, no I don’t, I was thinking of the Pope again…
I’ve got nothing but a ten year old car, a modest home, a pretty good job, a loving family and a couple of good dogs. That’s enough for me.

“For you, there is no such thing as “up” or “down,” and for you, the NL doesn’t exist.”
There are lots and lots of ups and downs in my world, they just don’t all line up perfectly with those in yours. I don’t disagree with every tenet of ‘Natural Law’ just the premise, the mythology that you purport is the mystical, magical source, and the myth that there is one and only one possible and immutable code of morality.

IRT (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN :
“THE REAL WORLD?”

IRT:
“Yes, but, people live in a real world, not a fantasy world. Your ideas simply cannot work in the real world for real people. Even the REAL, official Catholic Church does not promote your ideas.”

ANS:

Is it in a fantasy world woman and man complement each other?
Is it in a fantasy world that man and woman are of equal dignity?
Is it in a fantasy world that Marriage created by God and not man?
Is it in a fantasy world that Marriage is an inviolable right?
Is it in a fantasy world that Marriage is only between a man and woman?
Is it the fantasy world that Marriage requires the free consent of the Spouses?
Is it in a fantasy world that the primary purpose of sex is not pleasure?
Is it in a fantasy world that the primary purpose of sex is procreation?
Is it in a fantasy world that the family is the basis for society?
Is it a fantasy that God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."

Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and be loved, to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, Moral, and Spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

Before there was a society, there was a family. These truths are what the Church believes.

What is your real world? The real world has an “up” and “down” but yours does not. A real world is governed by the Natural Law (NL), but yours doesn’t have a NL. For you, there is no such thing as “up” or “down,” and for you, the NL doesn’t exist.

Your real world is the “Alternate World.” It is a bastille, where all the atheists and agnostics are incarcerated by their materialism. They cannot escape the confines of the world that circumscribes them. It’s the world one sees in a mirror, reality in reverse, where good becomes evil and evil becomes good. It is a finite world they believe will be their sepulcher.

Here’s what the real Catholic Church in the real world supports:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#II
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

Marriage is no more holier than other civilized man made institutions in this world. Religion & the subject of God are also man made institutions even though the claims to the contrary that they are God sent & God ordained are no more than matter of Faith. If God really were One then there would not be so many mutually contradicting religions in the world.Monogamy is widely accepted by almost all religions in the world today. There is no doubt that in the ancient days polygamy or polyandry were not considered a sin or a crime & in fact Kings always had harems full of maidens exclusively for themselves. The fact of the matter is that in those days Kings were considered infallible & divine. So monogamy was a later introduction into religion. It is safe to say politics & religion & civilization of man are spontaneous natural events in the developing dynamic history of mankind. Civilzation demanded law & order to prevent anarchy. Religions & their leaders historically want to enslave the masses in the name of God & they have usurped this institution of marriage which is really just another legal contract. It has no more sanctity than any other legally binding contract. Religious condemnations & ostracisms of violators are meaningless without the strong arm of law. Religion & Morality should remain only a matter of Faith for only Law has teeth for punitive action. All laws are man made & they have been put in place according to the needs of our times & they are only as good as the governments we are under. Decadence of any society is much dependent on its literacy rate than on its religious adherents. Fundamentalist religion based socoeties, cultures & countries deploy inhuman anti-vice squads to enforce their un-Godly, unnatural laws. Human Spirit inherently rejects enslavement even in the name of God.

State Law is Civil Law (C/L) and C/L, to be licit, must be based on the N&ML. Any time a C/L contradicts the N&ML it is illicit and cannot be morally obeyed.

---------------------------------

Like when "C/L" requires the prosecution of pervert priests and His Excellency's "N&ML" says it's ok for them to help themselves to the bodies of little boys.

TTWS(etc.):
“There is no particular brand of morality, there is one Natural & Moral Law (N&ML) that universally governs all licit human behavior.”
If it was actually universal, then we wouldn’t be having this debate. Just claiming something is universal, the one and only, does not make it so. The very fact that many other cultures do not agree with your church’s concept or definition indicates the NML is one theory among many, no more or less valid than the rest. That you insist that YOURS is the one and only theory makes yours exactly like all the others.
“The State does have a right to regulate Marriage in order that it be orderly and not haphazardly engaged in”
Absolutely, and also to not be dictated to about that definition of ‘marriage’ from your religion, or any other. The state definition is decided by the will of the people of the U.S. You may cast your vote, lobby for change, but your vote and voice counts no more than mine.

“State does not have a right to rescind the fundamental privileges of Marriage because Marriage is an inviolable right”
Sure it does. The legal definition of marriage, like that of theft, and even murder is defined by the legislative processes within the framework of the constitution. It has EVERY right to define marriage for itself in the legal sense.

“These things are beyond the purview of the State and are the providence of the NL's authority.”
Now you’re just being silly. The state determines its own laws. The NL is a religious construct that has NO AUTHORITY over the nation’s laws. There is not one document in the U.S.'s pile of laws and regulations that says our laws are subservient to the NL. None. The U.S. does not, for any legal purpose, recognize your interpretation of NL/NML as being the template or goal of U.S. laws, and it never has.

“In "Lawrence v. Texas," the Court claimed the N&ML serves "no legitimate purpose to the State." Further, it claimed the NML is subjective, and cannot be the basis for any Civil Law. . . ”
I agree, other courts agree, we the people agree.

“, even though all Civil Laws are based on the N&ML”
It doesn’t matter what our laws are ‘based’ upon, look like, or are flagrant copies of. Once ratified into law in the U.S. those laws are free-standing, detached and separate from whatever the original source might have been. Just as when other countries base their constitutions on ours, once ratified in their own countries, changes to ours here in the U.S. are not automatically or necessarily applied to the others, they are separated at birth.

“impervious to the fact that they had just lost the Constitutional protection of their inalienable rights.”
The constitution itself guaranties our constitutional rights, it tells us which rights are inalienable (beyond its jurisdiction).

LEPIDOPTERYX :

"So you're saying that God made sex pleasurable just so that people would make babies?"

Basic human motivations must be tied to reproductive success if you understand Darwinism. Squaring that reality with the mystery of hidden estrus and increased female receptivity gets to the basics of what it is to be a human animal.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SARA121
“INVIOLABLE RIGHTS”

IRT:
“Religions can certainly be authoritarian if they wish towards their own adherents, but the US and state governments have no such right. And religions certainly have no such right either towards those that do not subscribe to their particular brand of moralism."

ANS:
There is no particular brand of morality, there is one Natural & Moral Law (N&ML) that universally governs all licit human behavior. Why is it universal? It is universal and therefore objective because it is based on the exigencies of human nature, and therefore, all mankind. The State does have a right to regulate Marriage in order that it be orderly and not haphazardly engaged in.

Moreover, the State has a licit right to determine who is and who isn’t married for the purposes of obligations of the spouses, the welfare of the children, and the rights to property in separation or death. However, the State does not have a right to rescind the fundamental privileges of Marriage because Marriage is an inviolable right.

IRT:
“The only law that applies to everyone regardless of religion is state law, which is why state law cannot be based on religion.”

ANS:
State Law is Civil Law (C/L) and C/L, to be licit, must be based on the N&ML. Any time a C/L contradicts the N&ML it is illicit and cannot be morally obeyed. Thus, the C/L cannot deem that it is illegal for the Sun to shine, or that it is illegal to rain, or for man not to eat, or speak, or to marry. These things are beyond the purview of the State and are the providence of the NL's authority.

Consequently, when the Court, by fiat, legalized the murder of the unborn, it exceeded its authority because it violated the Bill of Rights the Declaration, the Constitution and the inalienable Right to Life. In effect it made all inalienable rights violable at the discretion of the Court. Justice Elina Kagan, said her loyalty was to the Constitution and not the Declaration that the Court contradicted.

Subsequently, State Courts, by virtue of the Supreme Court, have proceeded to intrude on the inviolable right of Marriage by declaring that Gay Marriage, an oxymoron, is licit. Thus, the Court illicitly spurned the authority of God and His N&ML.

In the Court’s act of audacious arrogance, with imperious impudence, immoral plunder, in an undaunted seizure of authority, it abusively declared the despoliation of the basis of our fundamental judicial foundation, the NML. The Court furthered its opprobrious effrontery with vane indiscretion, by pompously and superciliously conceding to the irrational arguments of the antithetical irreligious ACLU.

In "Lawrence v. Texas," the Court claimed the N&ML serves "no legitimate purpose to the State." Further, it claimed the NML is subjective, and cannot be the basis for any Civil Law, even though all Civil Laws are based on the N&ML. The morally blind rejoiced, impervious to the fact that they had just lost the Constitutional protection of their inalienable rights.

TTWS(etc.):
So the precepts of Catholic Marriage are no longer in vogue. Marriage is no longer a contract and monogamous, is a dictate of the State and not binding by the Natural Law (NL)?

That is correct.

“the Church does not set the laws governing Marriage; God does”
Try transferring property, taking tax deductions or taking out insurance on someone without a state certified marriage license. I don’t care how many popes or cardinals sign it or utter words to god, in this country marriage, for purposes of legal affairs, is defined by the states, and is thus subject only to the political process. The ceremony/vows/rites specific to a church, any church, are only valid within the confines/domain of that church.
Once again, if you want people to abide by your rules, you need to convert them first.

“State has an unequivocal duty to conform with the NL less it has no interest in its prodigy, posterity, and its social order.”
The state has no obligation whatsoever to obey what you call NL. The state’s interests are determined by the people.

“Only 2% of Catholic Marriages end in separation”
That can only be because of the unique way you are defining things again. The research numbers I’ve seen seem to indicate that 25% of ‘catholic’ marriages end in divorce in the U.S. Certainly lower than the national average, but not by near as much as you claim.

“No, it contradicts the Declaration based on the NL (the supreme authority over the State) that "all men were created equal."”
Show me on any U.S. legally ratified/binding document that says that the state, the nation, is beholden to NL.
Ancient Babylonia had laws against those things as did the Vikings and the Chinese. Couldn’t we just as easily say that since those cultures had such laws that we are therefore beholden to them?
U.S. law, including the constitution, was based on the concept of individual liberty, and individual self-determination. NOT NL, or NML, and certainly not on Catholic or even Anglican doctrine. Regardless of similarities to other culture’s laws, U.S. laws are ratified and of, by and for the people.
“Marriage is monogamic and indissoluble; death alone dissolves the union when consummated, irrespective of the State.”
Now you’re just being ridiculous. Even your twisted 2% figure shows this to not be true.

“The Catholic Church’s membership in the United States grew at the “robust” rate of about 1.5 percent in 2008,”
I specifically said ‘ACTIVE’ Catholics, the only ones that really matter. Baptizing babies then keeping their names on the membership rolls for life hardly qualifies as active membership.

Is marraige obselete?

Vera Wang, Hollywood wedding romcoms and bitterweet divorce chickflicks should worry if it is.

TTW, So you're saying that God made sex pleasurable just so that people would make babies?
If the main purpose of human sex was to make babies, women would have an estrus cycle, and would only be receptive to advances from men when we were fertile.
We wouldn't get horny when we weren't ovulating, definitely wouldn't get horny during our periods, or when we were pregnant. But we DO get horny at random times, and if we're not ovulating, it's not simply our hormonal thermostat telling us that the oven is ready.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

Yes, but, people live in a real world, not a fantasy world. Your ideas simply cannot work in the real world for real people. Even the REAL, official Catholic Church does not promote your ideas.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SARA121
“INVIOLABLE RIGHTS”

IRT:
“Why would we want them telling us that we HAVE to get married and HAVE to have sex and have kids? Last time I checked, people wanted LESS government control of their lives."

ANS:
The Natural Moral Law (NML) does not tell you that you must marry and have babies; it tells you if you are to have babies, you must marry. That is for the protection of the child and the common good of society.

In chaos there is no freedom; the more something is ordered the more freely one can act. In downtown NY City if there were no traffic lights and no one directing traffic at the rush hour, no one could go anywhere. There would be a traffic jam. Consequently, the ordering of traffic does not impede one’s ability to drive, it facilitates it.

God gives man the NML not to impede man’s life but to embrace and strengthen it, to give it vitality, and to assist man in the accomplishment of his purpose in life, eternal happiness. The Institute of Marriage is to order the married life and to protect and nourish the Family and therefore the society in its prodigies and posterity, the cause of modern civilization.

Thus, the precepts of Marriage are to strengthen the unity of the family and to protect the fruits of marriage, children. The purpose of these precepts are that the child may grow and maturate physically and spiritually in order that he may be in harmony with society for his good, the good of the Family, and the welfare of the State. Consequently the State has a vital interest in Marriage and the Family.

The right to Marry is an inalienable right, whose basic fundamental principles cannot be rescinded by the State. though the State can regulate Marriage for the Common Good. The State or Religion cannot force anyone to marry and have children. Thus, a requirement of Marriage is that Marriage must freely be consented to.

However, the NML requires man not to violate the NL that deems the primary purpose of sex is the procreation in the context of Marriage. The NML does not require anyone to have children; it requires that primary purpose of conjugal love be open to the procreation of children. That’s not the State's or the Church’s requirement but God’s through His N&ML. The N&ML also requires that for Marriage to take place, it must be consummated in order that the union of the spouses be open to the natural purpose intended by Marriage.

If pleasure were the primary purpose of Sex, than prostitution, adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality, orgies, sadistic nefarious sex encounters of every kind of debauchery imaginable would be licit as long as it would give pleasure. Under such a scenario, a society would soon cease to exist, as did Sodom and Gomorrah. No, pleasure is a gift given to man as an incentive to increase and multiply orderly in Marriage.

ok american culture of marriage is different from another country, it's too fast for making relation and break up.
http://xtremenowarnings.com/xtremeno-review-does-xtreme-no-supplement-really-work/

The only reason that this is being discussed at all is because of the sudden rise of interest and support for same-sex marriage. The high divorce rate has been with us for quite a while, and no one ever suggested that it was damaging to marriage. Now all of a sudden, marriage is in peril, because gay people want their rights.

I'm 52 years old, I got married last june to the perfect woman, my wife.
Well, she's more perfect than I am anyway.

And we didn't need and of your santa claus gods to give us permission to do it.

This is really just another last gasp for control of the religious. You people are losing at what you should consider an alarming rate.

New social and cultural practices will and are arising from within us as we grow beyond our primitive, barbaric, religious past. Of course we can't expect those who really believe this crap to go along with it, but so what? They're a dying breed these days, and good riddance.

I fail to understand how marriage has been a pillar of society for thousands of years and we have suddenly evolved beyond it. Homosexuality is not something new. Neither are the problems that couples face. I don't think the Bible would have discussed divorce as much as it does if it was unheard of.

I do agree that there is an erosion of values and a shift in what people see as right and wrong. If you told someone even 50 years ago that killing an animal made you "morally bankrupt" they may have put you in an asylum. I think some of that has to do with becoming a service oriented society and moving away from industrial and agrarian. Service-orientation requires more and more people are growing up in urban and suburban areas and, being insulated from many of the less pleasant parts of living, and thus we have people who have never experienced any of that trying to tell those who have how the world should work.

I find it interesting that, at the same time, books like "A Brave New World" are being questioned as appropriate when it's challenge of the direction in which society is headed has never been more appropriate.

The "sanctity" of marriage is a property issue, to keep the estate in the male line.

The social importance of marriage is to maintain monogamous relationships which are weak imitations of priestly celibacy and which exist to maintain the power of state and church.

That the concept of marriage is losing its luster is a positive thing as it suggests a weakening of the hold of religion. The loss also indicates that the influence of the state on private lives is passe.

Altogether, I should say that people should be free to pursue their interests unfettered, a human version of "free market capitalism.'

For the life of me I cannot understand why the impact upon children that "living together" in lieu of marriage has. Two of my grandchildren (male) have fathered children we have never seen. Nor are we ever likely to see them. Their modestly educated mothers can never support them in the "Two-Parent" household style of Ozzie & Harriet and they will never know their extended family. Indeed genealogy has become a palor game! They are not unusual either! My neighbor has several great grandchildren he and his wife have never seen. Whether you view marriage as a religious rite or as a legal device there is one thing for sure, WOMAN & CHILDREN are the losers in this modern game. Men by nature are polygamous so the opportunity to sleep around without penalty (i.e. Alimony) is serendipity. On the other hand, women need marriage in order to have a provider (security) to raise their young in the proper environment. How sad that young woman today have chosen to ignore such realities. The modern woman hasn't gained her freedom as she often boasts. Instead, women have freed the male of the species to go forth and sleep hither and yon as often as it pleases him without the responsibilities of the ancient institution of marriage. How very sad for the ultimate product of the male- female union........children!

Some of us are materialists and the others are romantics. We have to be giving and receiving to be satisfied. Buy the best material. The romantic is an idealist, one who tries to keep the politics out of politics. They usually need a divorce lawyer to fight over who gets what material. If divorce was obsolete, the kids would have it better. Marriage ends and divorce lasts forever. The other way would be better. Make divorce obsolete, develop better material. Marriage material is affordable and you can't afford a divorce romantic. Living in a material world is living and living is good.

The only modern purpose of "marriage" is to transfer wealth from men to women, Elin Nordegren style. Is such a wealth transferal mechanism obsolete? Hardly.

Only fools disparage marriage!

Because of peak oil I believe marriage will return full force. Peak oil will bring a decline in the American standard of living. Indeed, this has already begun, especially when seen in light of the economic crises, credit bubbles, etc.

People will find they need others. Women, in particular, will feel better in the context of a traditional set up as it is helpful to have a protector, and someone strong.

Now don't get me wrong, sisters, I'm no wuss when it comes to believing, knowing, and living what women are capable of. And I am sure that at this stage of history, looked at through a certain lens, I probably sound retrograde, at best. Insulting at worst. But I don't mean to. I am actually looking at this through a longer lens than just this snap shot in time, the moment we're in.

I believe increasing American decline in prosperity and resources will put us in a position to want to work better as nuclear families (however they are structured) and as communities.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
LEPIDOPTERYX
“LEGAL v. MORAL”

IRT:
Legally adultery is permissible though repugnant it doesn’t automatically void the Marriage.

ANS:
A State blind to illicit sex is committing social suicide because such iniquities are emasculating to the State’s purpose and existence. Man may choose his religion, if any; that is what freedom of religion means, although only a fool would choose a degenerative one and many do.

However, man cannot freely choose the morals he wishes to by. Thus, stealing, lying, murder, and adultery, or any acts that undermine the common good of the State violate the NL and are illicit. The State has a duty to prevent such detrimental nefariousness and base depravities that are detrimental to the common good and therefore society.

IRT:
The state does not require that married couples have sex or procreate….In fact, the state is fine with any sexual activity.

ANS:
Any State that doesn’t promote Traditional Marriage so defined by the NML, and passively promotes sexual debauchery, is a State that undermines its own posterity and promotes social disorder. Hence, we have murdered over 52 million unborn, dignified gay sex to equal conjugal love, and consequently are undermining Traditional Marriage.

Subsequently, the NL has requited with dividends for such iniquity, viz. AIDS, HIV, and STDs. This Sexual Revolution has given us the Culture of Death and plagued society with inordinate Divorce Rates, a Drug Culture, Broken Families, and the proliferation of the Welfare State.

Nearly all of Europe has closed their eyes to such illicit sexual activity and the reciprocity is negative population growth. France, is being overran by foreigners who are destroying their ethnic culture and social standards. France, and Russia, are rewarding women to give birth. Incredulously, Russia has solicited the Catholic Church to assist in the fecundity of births in Siberia. Even China, after a devastating earthquake is revising its laws for the number of births allowed in that area.

If one married and the spouse refused to consummate the Marriage, I think the State would allow that to be grounds for divorce. The act of consummation at least, must be open to the spouses.

Though not explicitly, the State had previously mirrored the Church’s NML, though now we are unfortunately morphing into Secularism and transmogrifying the principles of the NML, a harbinger of social decadence. The NL and its revenge is real, unmerciful, and indiscriminative. Two of its Four Horsemen of Apocalypse have now descended on America, Pestilence, (AIDS, HIV, STDs), and Death, (Abortion & AIDS) as America regrettably contemplates another assault on the unborn with Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

WARNING TO ALL BLOGGERS: TROLL ALERT

The blogger formerly known as CCNL/Yael/Tom, etc., banned from this blog by David Waters, is now blogging as Rambollini-1.

No matter how provocative he becomes, ignore him. It is the only way.

He has already posted homophobic, anti-Islamic, antisemitic drek, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. Better is his being blocked permanently, once again (not a contradiction).

I am emailing ELIZABETH TENETY AGAIN.

I just got married to my sweetheart of 1 year. In Las Vegas. No one attended but the "minister" and a photographer. I'm 55, my wife is 42. Out of the disordered blizzard of our past lives, we have forged a placid sun, and it feels great! It's my first marriage and her second.

We are both mature and experienced. We know what we're doing. Marriage, to us, puts a magnificent seal on our love and trust.

Is marriage obsolete and growing rarer? Let it be. Then I shall savor all the more the special closeness I share with my WIFE.

Another institution being destroyed by the baby boomer generation to which responsibility is inconvenient. The most selfish, greedy and narcissistic ever?

"Marriage" in its current form is nothing more than a degenerate form of the original in which the only thing truly committed in any legal sense is a man's money. Everything else is at-will no fault with no force of law behind it.

Hence any man who gets "married" is a fool and any woman who gets married is looking for a payday -- one way or the other.

DANIEL12:
"Really only a matter of time until laws which operate toward the best genetic examples possible of children being born."

This will only happen in an alternative universe. I could see human self genetic engineering becoming so advanced that many do it so their children can compete but controlling births as you state is not realistic.

RE: LEPIDOPTERYX

Quite so. For all the screaming and yelling about government control of our lives, why would we want them telling us that we HAVE to get married and HAVE to have sex and have kids? Last time I checked, people wanted LESS government control of their lives.

Religions can certainly be authoritarian if they wish towards their own adherents, but the US and state governments have no such right. And religions certainly have no such right either towards those that do not subscribe to their particular brand of moralism.

The only law that applies to everyone regardless of religion is state law, which is why state law cannot be based on religion.

TTWetc: So the precepts of Catholic Marriage are no longer in vogue. Marriage is no longer a contract and monogamous, is a dictate of the State and not binding by the Natural Law (NL)? Hence, Adultery is permissible if the State approves; Marriage need not be consummated as in Catholicism, Marriage's primary purpose is no longer procreation but pleasure, and opposite sexes are no longer required for a morally legitimate Marriage if approved by the State. Marriage as defined by Catholicism as the protector of the Family and Children is no longer a prerequisite of the State?

To the contrary, the Church does not set the laws governing Marriage; God does. She just recognizes them. They are dictated by the NL and the State has no authority over the NL.

**************************************************************************************
The state does not limit its recognition of marriage to those performed by a Catholic priest. It also recognizes marriages performed by Baptist preachers, Unitarian ministers, Wiccan priestesses, and judges. The state does not require that people wiching to marry be Catholics, or even that they practice any religion at all.

Legally speaking, adultery is permissible. It is a crappy way to treat someone you have promised monogamy to, but you can't be arrested for it, nor does it automatically void your marriage license.

The state does not require that married couples have sex in order for their license to remain on file with the court system. Nor does it require that, if they do have sex, that it be procreative. The state has no objections to people, married or not, knocking boots just for the fun of it.
In fact, the state is fine with any sexual activity between or among consenting adults, regardless of their nimber or gender(s).

This question only arises due to our linguistic sloppiness in our use of the word "marriage". (In some cases this sloppiness is deliberate, but in most of us it's simply unthinking.)

We should consider "marriage" to be a word like "bris". A word with particular religious connotations -- not necessarily limited to one religion, as "bris" is -- but clearly set apart from secular use.

In the eyes of the law, all must be equal, with no room for bias based on gender preference. There can be no legal obstacle to civil unions.

My church prefers not to jump the broom or smash a wine glass. But, each to their own. And if there are fewer church weddings ("marriages") overall, and more civil unions overall -- seems to me the issue there is a lot deeper than the so-called "decline of marriage".

And a wide range of choices and options, for those entering into a committed relationship, seems as healthy to me as a wide range of church denominations -- from among which we, as Americans, are free to choose any -- OR NONE. A philosophy which has always been the sustenance of our nation, one which can only strengthen and never weaken us.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
“MARRIAGE”

IRS:
Churches that are growing in this country are the ones that reach out to the needs of people first, that deal with individual families first as friend and counselor just as your Christ himself stopped along roadsides and in marketplaces to reach out to individuals, to touch them, to heal them, one at a time.

ANS:
I still see you’re doing my research. Duhhh! The largest NGO charitable organization in the world is Catholic Charities. Her Dream Program for HIV and AIDS victims generated by disbelievers in the NML. Dream, (the Drug Resource Enhancement against AIDS and Malnutrition) is one of the foremost AIDS treatment program in the world. Mother Theresa was the epitome of the Catholic Charity. In 1962, Mother Teresa received the Philippines-based Ramon Magsaysay Award for International Understanding, given for work in South or East Asia. The citation said that "the Board of Trustees recognizes her merciful cognizance of the abject poor of a foreign land, Pope John XXIII Peace Prize. Her awards are too numerous to post.

The United Kingdom and the United States each repeatedly granted awards, culminating in the Order of Merit in 1983, and honorary citizenship of the United States received on 16 November 1996. Mother Teresa's Albanian homeland granted her the Golden Honor of the Nation in 1994 Her acceptance of this and another honor granted by the Haitian government, the Nobel Peace Prize, "for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty and distress,

“DREAM is an AIDS therapy program promoted by the Catholic Christian Community of Sant'Egidio. It is designed to give access to free ARV treatment with generic HAART drugs to the poor in Africa on a large scale: So far, 5,000 people are receiving ARV treatment, especially in Mozambique, but the program is being built up also in other countries.”—Wikipedia

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=2272

Alexandria, VA—Catholic Charities USA, one of the largest social service networks in the United States, today marked the end of the 2010 hurricane season by reporting data on disaster preparedness and response services provided by its member agencies and affiliates over the past three years.

“Since 2007, Catholic Charities USA Disaster Operations has supported 152 disasters nationwide (40 in 2010) – tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, ice storms, and most recently the 2010 Gulf Coast Oil Spill.

Services range from disaster relief funding to on-the-ground technical support, mitigation, and coalition-building with faith-based and government responders.

Catholic Charities USA has dispersed a total of 271 Disaster Relief Grants equaling $73 million to local Catholic Charities agencies, providing emergency services to more than 1 million people in need regardless of race, religion, or socio-economic status.”

Apparently you're not doing your home work and as usual you're wrong again.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
“MARRIAGE”

IRT:
"The Catholic definition of marriage is not recognized by civil law as having any binding or legal authority in any state in this country. Members of your congregation that wish to subscribe to the archaic and quaint rules of your church are certainly free to do so."

ANS:
So the precepts of Catholic Marriage are no longer in vogue. Marriage is no longer a contract and monogamous, is a dictate of the State and not binding by the Natural Law (NL)? Hence, Adultery is permissible if the State approves; Marriage need not be consummated as in Catholicism, Marriage's primary purpose is no longer procreation but pleasure, and opposite sexes are no longer required for a morally legitimate Marriage if approved by the State. Marriage as defined by Catholicism as the protector of the Family and Children is no longer a prerequisite of the State?

To the contrary, the Church does not set the laws governing Marriage; God does. She just recognizes them. They are dictated by the NL and the State has no authority over the NL.

IRT:
“If you choose to live by that code, then by all means do so. If you wish to make this the one and only valid definition of marriage, then it is not legislation that you need to be pursuing, you need to be witnessing and converting people to your religious doctrine. This is how Jesus would have wanted you to do it.

ANS:
I would say that since Marriage is a ubiquitous social institution created by God and enforced by the NL, and the State has a vital inherent interest in the stability of the Family, the State has an unequivocal duty to conform with the NL less it has no interest in its prodigy, posterity, and its social order.

IRT:
“As the number of ACTIVE Catholics (not just names in baptism books) continues to decline in the U.S. and Western Europe, your task should be quite clear to you. People are losing faith in the Church, they are leaving the Church.” In my opinion, part of the reason can be attributed to the Church’s own ego and actions. Rather than tend to the flock, the Church bullies its way into halls of legislation and the courts to impose its notions of law, morality, and behavior.

ANS:
How would you know what the Church does? If there were only one Catholic, the law would not change. The Church's wisdom is vindicated by Her works. Only 2% of Catholic Marriages end in separation. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

Unfortunately, you’re wrong again. If you have to do all my research, at least get it right.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_church_shows_robust_growth_in_u.s._membership_new_report_says/

"CATHOLIC CHURCH SHOWS ‘ROBUST’ GROWTH IN U.S. MEMBERSHIP, NEW REPORT SAYS"
Washington D.C., Feb 21, 2010 / 07:47 am (CNA).-

"The Catholic Church’s membership in the United States grew at the “robust” rate of about 1.5 percent in 2008, according to National Council of Churches’ (NCC) new 2010 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches. The NCC is a non-Catholic organization."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
“MARRIAGE”

IRT:
[Marriage is that individual union through which man and woman by their reciprocal rights form one principle of generation. It is effected by their mutual consent to give and accept each other for the purpose of propagating the human race, of educating their offspring, of sharing life in common, of supporting each other in undivided conjugal affection by a lasting union.] “The Catholic definition of marriage is not recognized by civil law as having any binding or legal authority in any state in this country.”

ANS:
So as in Catholic Marriage, the State no longer recognizea Marriage as a contract, or monogamous, or only between opposite sexes, and spouses no longer have to assume its obligations unconditionally? Is it no longer defined by NL but by the State? Is it no longer oriented to the procreation of human life but pleasure? Is adultery now morally permissible?

The intimate community of life and love that constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by Him with its own proper laws. God himself is the author of marriage, and not the State. Irrespective of the State, Marriage is enforced by God’s Natural Law (NL} that is binding by God.

If the State says 3+3=5, is it correct because the State made it a law? Slavery was also made legal by the State; was it morally legal? No, it contradicts the Declaration based on the NL (the supreme authority over the State) that "all men were created equal."

Of course, you can’t even admit that because to you there is no God. The State legalized Murder of the Unborn, so does that make it morally permissible? Why shouldn't Murder be legal? Because, it violates the NL.

The State doesn’t define Marriage because it is a precept of the NL; Human Law certainly takes cognizance of marriage, but marriage not having been established by man; it’s essential properties cannot be annulled by such laws. Marriage is monogamic and indissoluble; death alone dissolves the union when consummated, irrespective of the State.

God’s NL makes Marriage an inviolable right. God defined Marriage long before the State existed. The State must facilitate and accommodate Marriage to exist. Moreover, if Marriage were a gift from the State, then it could proscribe Marriage for any reason it deemed suitable. Thus, China, who assumes such authority, determines who may marry and how many children may be born.

Further, the Church holds the bond of Marriage must have mutual consent of the spouses. Mutual consent is an indispensable element that "makes the marriage legal." If consent is lacking there is no marriage. Is that no longer binding?

The spouse’s consummation of the marriage, is essential, and henceforth irrevocable. The consummation gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God's fidelity. The Church or the State cannot contravene these disposition recognized by the Church.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING
HONEST GUYS”

IRT:
“Honestly guys, how many of your married male friends get a little on the side? Out of about 20 I knew, only one was loyal.
The church and women invented marriage because guys are not naturally monogamous reducing "religious" marriage to another hypocritical "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" joke.”

ANS:
Hmmm! So according to you, am I to assume 20 of your best friends are a herd of egomaniacal hypocrites? That they lie and betray their wives and their Marriage vows, of which they don’t take seriously. Can they be any different than animals who have no morals or values and only inherent aptitude to act on instinct like beast do? What kind of society can we expect of such saturnalias debauchery.

No, women didn’t invent Marriage, God did, so man could build a society. But of course, how could a debaucherous atheists whose friends are egotists and hypocrites even know that when they have no sense of God. However, it’s expected of those who deny God’s existence to determine their own morals.

The joke is on the adulterers and the fornicators who think Marriage is a joke, who defile women by using them as objects of pleasure. The pleasure is in the Family, not in a person who thinks only of himself. In Marriage, man's legacy is his love for his wife, and the fruit of his marriage is his children and their loyalty to their family.

"Infidelity in married life is basically the substitution for an infinite succession of finite carnal experiences. The false infinity of succession takes the place of the Infinity of Destiny, which is God.

Marriage founded on sex passion alone lasts only as long as the animal passion lasts. Within two years, the animal attraction for the other may die, and when it does, law comes to its rescue to justify the divorce with the meaningless words "incompatibility," or "mental torture." Animals never have recourse to law courts, because they have no will to love; but man, having reason, feels the need of justifying his irrational behavior when he does wrong.

There are two reasons for the primacy of sex over love in a decadent civilization. One is the decline of reason. As humans give up reason, they resort to their imaginations. The second factor is egotism—demands for self-satisfaction. All sin is self-centeredness, as love is otherness and relatedness. Sin is the infidelity of man to the image of what he ought to be in his eternal vocation as an adopted son of God: the image God sees in Himself when He contemplates His word.

The sense of emptiness, melancholy, and frustration is a consequence of the failure to find infinite satisfaction in what is carnal and limited. Despair is disappointed hedonism. The most depressed spirits are those who seek God in a false god!

Daniel12:
A very concise, articulate and well presented case.
Unfortunately your definition of marriage it is not recognized by any state in the U.S. It is not even agreed upon by many religious organizations.
Yours is a statement of what you’d LIKE marriage to be, what you think the word ought to mean.
If you want your marriage to be defined like this, then by all means, do so. I wish you the very best.

TTWS(etc.):
Same for your definition.
The Catholic definition of marriage is not recognized by civil law as having any binding or legal authority in any state in this country. Members of your congregation that wish to subscribe to the archaic and quaint rules of your church are certainly free to do so. If you choose to live by that code, then by all means do so.
If you wish to make this the one and only valid definition of marriage, then it is not legislation that you need to be pursuing, you need to be witnessing and converting people to your religious doctrine. This is how Jesus would have wanted you to do it.
As the number of ACTIVE Catholics (not just names in baptism books) continues to decline in the U.S. and Western Europe, your task should be quite clear to you. People are losing faith in the Church, they are leaving the Church.
In my opinion, part of the reason can be attributed to the Church’s own ego and actions. Rather than tend to the flock, the Church bullies its way into halls of legislation and the courts to impose its notions of law, morality and behavior.
Churches that are growing in this country are the ones that reach out to the needs of people first, that deal with individual families first as friend and counselor just as your Christ himself stopped along roadsides and in marketplaces to reach out to individuals, to touch them, to heal them, one at a time.
Jesus did not walk up to a grand gilded podium, wearing fancy robes and bright hats, then shout edicts and mandates and dogma at the masses. He stepped out of the throng, took the hands of individuals, lepers, prostitutes, the blind, and the poor, one at a time and spoke quietly, listened quietly. He did not erect massive glass and stone buildings, he did not wave incense over their heads, he did not have them kneel and kiss his ring.
The Church has lost sight of its mission, it has lost its purpose, it has lost its authority, and it has lost God.

Is marriage obsolete?

If marriage is obsolete what we would expect if we are sensible is an improved method of having and raising children. Obviously, historically, marriage has been the coming together of two or more people to have and raise children. And with this definition of marriage in mind, we can see that marriage is marriage whether religious or not, which is to say it makes little sense to speak of marriage being obsolete when people go through the same motions historically of finding partners and having and raising children with them.

What is not marriage is some sort of getting together of two or more people of same or different sex and not having and raising children. That may be a partnership, yes, but it is not marriage in that no responsibility exists of bringing in the future of the human race. Marriage without children is more a narcissistic pledging of two or more people to each other than anything else. What are the benefits to society of a marriage with no intention of having and raising children? That people are operating within certain bounds? There is something pointless and selfish about a partnership which results in no children--unless the couple or larger unit dedicates itself to some sort of social concern such as raising other people's children or is engrossed in some business or artistic or scientific endeavor.

What it comes down to is that people in one way or another should be engrossed in having the best children possible and raising them in the best way possible. This does not necessarily mean having children oneself but being engaged in the "social compact". To that end any number and type of partnerships under this or that religion or no religion at all could prove adequate--but if the main social responsibility of having and raising children is forgotten then whatever partnership is complicit in this loss of "social compact" should be blamed for shirking its duty…Having and correctly raising children is still and probably always will be the foundation of society.

But modern times provides some unique challenges to the concept of marriage, to the task of having and raising children no matter what we might call it. The biggest challenge of course is that of institutions taking over much of what we mean by raising children. Parents might like to believe that they are the dominant influence over the understanding of their children, but the fact is children these days are raised by the whole society more than by parents--the school system of course having great weight in this regard. More and more there is a collective raising of children which allows adults to pursue whatever sexual relationships they prefer and indeed any relationships they prefer…And when the raising of children becomes so collective it really is only a step away to society having the greater weight in determining which kinds of children should biologically be born.

To put it simply, whatever may happen to marriage, however we may define it, broaden or weaken it, society has been taking over the raising of children and the day is not far off when there are laws as to what kind of children should be born. Really only a matter of time until laws which operate toward the best genetic examples possible of children being born. Marriage could very well be obsolete. But who will complain when superior methods of having and raising children exist? On the other hand, if society is not committed toward having and raising the best children possible, and marriage continues to be thrown into confusion in that we have high divorce rates and all sorts of partnerships suggested, and children continue to grow into dysfunctional adults…Well then we have the decline of society and nothing more…

As long as society keeps the main goal in mind of having the best children possible and raising them in the best possible manner we can define marriage any way we like or remove it altogether, but if society does not keep the main goal in mind then altering marriage this way or that is mere degeneration, and we would be better off starting again from scratch and going to the roots of marriage, which amount to lifelong and strong partnerships toward having and raising the best children possible all toward ensuring the future, success and improvement of society.

WHAT IS MARRIAGE? IS IT A CIVIL UNION OR IS IT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION? HOW DO YOU DEFINE IT? IS THERE A MARRIAGE CRISIS IN AMERICA TODAY?

“Marriage is that individual union through which man and woman by their reciprocal rights form one principle of generation. It is effected by their mutual consent to give and accept each other for the purpose of propagating the human race, of educating their offspring, of sharing life in common, of supporting each other in undivided conjugal affection by a lasting union.”

By nature, man is a social being, created to live in a society. The fundamental principle that binds and stabilizes every society that existed or exists is the Family. Marriage is the guardian of the Family. When Marriage is impugned, so too is the Family, and subsequently so is the society in which the institute of Marriage is trivialized, aspersed, and denigrated.

"Marriage is a contract and is by its very nature above human law. It was instituted by God, is subject to the Divine law, and cannot for that reason be rescinded by human law. Those who contract marriage do so indeed by their own free wills, but they must assume the contract and its obligations unconditionally.

Marriage is natural in purpose, but Divine in origin. It is sacred, being intended primarily by the Author of life to perpetuate His creative act and to beget children of God; its secondary ends are mutual society and help, and a lawful remedy for concupiscence.

Human law certainly takes cognizance of marriage, but marriage not having been established by man, its essential properties cannot be annulled by such law. Marriage is monogamic and indissoluble; death alone dissolves the union when consummated.

When men pretend to be the final arbiters of the marriage contract, they base their claim on the assumption that this contract is merely of human institution and is subject to no laws above those of man. But human society, both in its primitive and organized form, originated by marriage, not marriage by human society. Marriage was intended by the Creator for the propagation of the human race and for the mutual help of husband and wife.".

Honestly guys, how many of your married male friends get a little on the side? Out of about 20 I knew, only one was loyal.

The church and women invented marriage because guys are not naturally monogamous reducing "religious" marriage to another hypocritical "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" joke.

The generations of mankind repeat the same patterns over and over again.

And each generation has the hubris to suppose that it is different. But, nope, afraid not; each generation goes through the same experieinces, one human being at a time.

It is the nature of human beings to pair up, mostly male and female, but not always. It is not going to change, because that is how we are made.

Maybe sometimes, divorce will be frowned upon, and people will be more likely to stay together unhappily; maybe at other times, divorce will be easier, but people will still remarry, as they do now.

So what? The pendulum of human behavior swings back and fourth, with a narrow variation. Even though we have a lot of stuff now, and even though we can go places very quickly, and we can get the news from around the world everyday, still we are the same as we have always been, and feel the same, at night, when we lay down to go to sleep, or stay awake, in worry.

So, uh, you christian types, let us in on the secret. Did jebus die as a virgin, I mean he never once boinked one of those hot semitic girls ... do you think he never beat off, never? Was he circumsised, I mean did his holy freaking mother let some strange-o cut off the end of his diск?
What kind of asswipe did they use in those days, did jehebus just use his fingers or maybe wiped himself with a disciple's loincloth, or do you think he always let one of those fools toss his salad?

Really, you people are sick.

Women invented marriage because men are not monogamous.

chaemoondriver: LOL ... Woe is me!!! So when is the world comming to an end?
Which reminds me of something prophetic:

Armaments, chapter two, verses nine through twenty-one.

And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu... And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it. Amen.

It is not only this country but throughout the world the developing countries are showing same pattern of low marriage and birth. This is mainly due to break down of family units from Row vs Wade decision in early 1970s. Since the divorce rate sky rocketed and the children who gew up in these broken family are now in their 40-50s and are scared of getting married after seeing what their parents went through. Also the judeo-christian concept is being gradually affected by atheist and the emphasis of family has been disappearing rapidly among the younger generation. This will put enormous pressure to these countries for they will have great difficulty continuing their culture and economics in the long run.This could be the sign of the end of human era on earth.

Look... throughout the world divorce rates range from 25% to about 50%... to the religious extremists here... IT'S CALLED HUMAN NATURE! Read a science book or two and learn about the human species!

The Christian idea of marriage is based largely on recent, artificially canonized conservative ideas that Jesus Christ never talked about. If anything, Christ warned that following Him could result in the tearing apart of families.

Only 150 years ago in this country, the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman was being violated by Mormons and by Christian slave holders, whose human property were forbidden conventional marriage. Many churches at the time (particularly in the South) vehemently defended their ideas on the basis of holy scripture.

Pious morons like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed define marriage in accordance with their beliefs only, and it has nothing to do with the scriptures they hypocritically claim to uphold and defend.

Marriage needs to reflect the current values of the times.

Religious people are so concerned about the decline of marriage in America and yet they remain the chief obstacle in allowing more than 10% of the nation to marry.

Marriage is a commitment between consenting adults. As far as I am concerned, that is it. Some people choose to have a marriage ceremony in a religious manner while others do not. My wife and I had our wedding in an Irish Pub. For some reason, the government feels the need to endorse marriages and for some even stronger reason, many churches also have that same need. It seems that religion often mistakenly believes that they hold the monopoly on the marriage.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/eTSglm

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

This article is paving the way to destroy the American family. A stable home environment is essential for raising healthy children.

Organized religion has traditionally had a vested interest in promoting marriage. It is a large part of their ritual and ceremonies.

A civil marriage is not the same thing as a religous ceremony. Why do we have civil marriages? Why is the government involved in civil unions at all? Why is the government involved in our sexuality?

Leave marriage to the churches, including the First Church of Athiests and Agnostics or the First Church of Gays and Lesbians.

I think marriage is actually only important for people without children; it is only then that it signifies a true, heartfelt commitment. Once people have offspring it really doesn't matttogether, they are are basically stuck with being connected for the rest of thier lives, whether or not they live together or apart.

I am even shocked at this premise:
It is normal for behaviors to change as our values “evolve.”
Evolve my Arzse!
Don’t you mean “dissolve”?

Or Devolve?

Ok here it is.

1. Don’t get married until you are 32 or older.
2. Don’t have kids until you are married and have co habituated with your partner for 4+ years.
3. Don’t get married if you two frequently cause domestic disturbances.
4. If you cant imagine your future children in your spouse’s eyes. Don’t do it.
5. Your responsibility to your children must be greater than your own needs or wants. - If you do not agree with this statement, go get yourself fixed right now!

I am even shocked at this premise:
It is normal for behaviors to change as our values “evolve.”
Evolve my Arzse!
Don’t you mean “dissolve”?

Or Devolve?

Ok here it is.

1. Don’t get married until you are 32 or older.
2. Don’t have kids until you are married and have co habituated with your partner for 4+ years.
3. Don’t get married if you two frequently cause domestic disturbances.
4. If you cant imagine your future children in your spouse’s eyes. Don’t do it.
5. Your responsibility to your children must be greater than your own needs or wants. - If you do not agree with this statement, go get yourself fixed right now!

Every state has guidelines by which two people can enter into a legal partnership. This partnership gives them rights and obligations between each other as individuals, and rights and obligations between them as a legal unit and society at large. The question is whether there is any sound reason to limit this partnership to two people of different genders. Darned if I can think of any.

Let us not confuse legal marriage with church weddings. All marriages are primarily civil unions. You can be legally married without benefit of clergy - you cannot be legally married without that license from city hall. Any religious ceremony is strictly optional and, by itself, does not make a legal marriage.

All this talk about the sanctity of marriage is ridiculous. Marriage laws are almost comically lax. Here in Alexandria, VA, for example, it is cheaper, easier, and faster to legally marry than to adopt a dog from the local shelter. No, that is not exaggeration.

I do think marriage laws need an overhaul. For one thing, prospective couples should be required to exchange up to date financial statements and credit reports. Also, we must divest clergy of the right to legalize marriage. Theirs should be strictly a spiritual mission - and they should also have the right to decline to perform that mission as they see fit.

Marriage is a social institution - only in the modern era has it been a "religious" one. In most eras, it was regarded as a contract between families; the marriage of a king was a contract also between nations. In medieval times, most marriages took place on the steps of the church, if they wanted a "religious" witness to it, rather than in the church; many took place in the home, without a priest. It was not until the modern era that marriages, more and more, were done in churches - probably as people saw royal weddings done there, and the practice spread through the rising middle classes and into the poorer classes, a result of the "democratization" of the classes. The "giving of the bride" was a remnant of the idea of a "contract;" the "banns," are a left-over from the church's taking over of the state's responsibility to make sure that neither party is already married (not a last chance for someone to run up the aisle and say, "No! She can't marry him! She loves me!"). These vestiges of the past remain in many current ceremonies but, as one person above has said well - it isn't the same today as it was years ago.

Marriage remains popular - that is another finding of the Pew report. People just view it differently. Other cultures than ours - including the one in which Jesus grew up - had people live together for a while before they got married. Jewish culture - as does Arab culture today - allowed for more than one wife, although one wife was the norm, as it is in Arab culture today (an Arab once told me, "two wives is polygamy; one is monotony"). The Jewish prophets saw, in marriage, similarities to God's covenant with his people. Jesus saw marriage as pointing to the realities of the kingdom, which included the tearing down of barriers, and the realization that it is not a divine, but human institution ("there is no marriage in heaven"). Here a woman might need to have a man protect her and assure her of her rights, but in the kingdom, "they are like the angels, coming and going before the throne of God," that is, all are equal, and it is this "equality" that should be represented in Christian marriage. Paul wasn't sure about the institution, because he believed the parousia was imminent - he suggested it for the "weak in the flesh" only - heresy of heresies! He saw it as helpful for sexual gratification! None of these, however, saw it as primarily "religious," but as a social institution, nevertheless created by God (as also other social institutions, like politics), and a gift for the betterment and protection of human relationships; its forms - in line with the gift of creativity given in Genesis (the naming and organization of the human world), was given to humankind to decide how it was to be done. And we have done so ever since.

edbyronadams :

..Assert what you want but data shows otherwise.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/litreview.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't talking about marriage vs. single parenting. I'm talking about a different social structure to raise children. Communal nursery with parents involved to whatever degree they want to be.

First of all, the poll you have posted gives false choices - it allows for no middle ground regarding marriage - that it may be "evolving," but also may remain important to Americans. That is what the Pew research discovered. Unfortunately, we have so-called "evangelicals" (the word derives from "evangel," the word that comes from the same root as "angel," as a "bearer of good tidings," which these people certainly are not!), along with a conservative R.C. heirarchy, who seem to control one end of the discussion, and against whose "unevangelical" form of religion many Americans rightly react negatively to. The alternative, we are told, is "say no to marriage." That is the whole problem, in a nut shell. There are alternatives, and most Americans do not see themselves belonging to either end of the argument, and so feel stuck. But they would rather identify with the idea that marriage is "good news," and a gift - that is what they have been taught - than identify with those on the right who seem to see it as such a burden that it must be borne in only one way - their way.

The church does not help itself, in not having a good theology of marriage. In the fifties, most main-line churches abandoned - rightly so - the idea that marriage is for procreation only (this idea is still being put forward in California as an argument against homosexual marriage, and was never abandoned by the R.C. church); this in light of the population explosion. Protestant churches never really developed an alternative theology, although others have been proposed, so for many, "marriage is what you make it to be."

That is not to say that there is no defense of marriage as an institution; it is, however, to say that any other theology of marriage would include the possibility of homosexual marriage, since the only reason to preclude it would be based on "natural" procreation - a child (not adoptive) produced through the sexual mating (not in vitro) of a man and woman in a "traditional" marriage relationship.

That leaves out a lot of marriages. It leaves out marriages of older people, past child-bearing years, of couples who can't have children, homosexual marriages, couples who adopt or decide not to have children. You could probably think of many more. In short, however, it is not "practical," and therefore not a very good theology - reminding me much more of the practice of the Pharisees of Jesus' time who, while admirable in its keeping of the law, was beyond what was possible for most people. That was why the Gospel Jesus spoke was such good news to them - and it shows the weakness of the approach of these modern-day Pharisees. What they proclaim is not the Gospel. Marriage is important to most people - just not their idea of what it "should" or "must" be.

LIFEBEFOREPRINCIPLE

Assert what you want but data shows otherwise.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/litreview.pdf

"These changes in family structure have caused a great deal, perhaps all, of the
increases in child poverty between the early 1970s and the 1990s (Lerman 1996; Sawhill 1999). In addition, the shift toward single-parent families may have contributed to a higher incidence of other social problems, such as higher rates of school dropouts, of alcohol and drug use, of adolescent pregnancy and childbearing, and of juvenile delinquency (Lang and Zagorsky 2000; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). Family structure has become so important to the well-being of American children that some observers now argue that marriage is replacing race, class, or neighborhood as the greatest source of division in the U.S. (Rector, Johnson, and Fagan 2001; Rauch 2001)"

If it's not obsolete now, just wait a few years, like maybe ten.

I know an awful lot of men that are thinking seriously about never marrying, in light of the way men are routinely demonized and lose children in the process, thanks to ...laws that favor women and are biased in the female direction.

So I advise any man to think twice, three times before committing to a union that, statistically will fail, and statistically is a 50/50 chance that you will have a really bad relationship with your children.

Time doesn't change that, because they (kids) grow up so quickly - a divorce is definitely not in the interests of a man, so why marry when nearly half of them fail?

move on - nothing to see here, no matter how many of you inject botox and entice men with artificially large bewbs.

Not worth the price if it falls apart, or she thinks the fellow needs to somehow "change".

edbyronadams :

For raising successful children, a prerequisite for a successful society, marriage remains the best context. The notion that it has become obsolete is simply a symptom of our increasingly narcissistic society.
-------------------------------
I don't agree. I don't think the nuclear family is the best way to raise children. Raising children in larger family/community groups increases communication and reduces stress among everyone. Narcissism has nothing to do with it.

I bet Glenn Beck sees the societal changes in the structure of marriage as a socialist one-world government conspiracy.

Forget that the idea of marriage ever existed. Have relationships for as long as the parties agree to. No lifelong commitment nonsense.

Marriage isn't a religious institution. At one point, women were chattel,or property. Virginity was for the sole purpose of making sure your child was heir. As for scripture, we aren't all followers of scripture so it doesn't apply. I am respectful of other religions but it doesn't have any bearing on my beliefs anymore than what I believe impacts another religious group.
Today's society does nothing to support marriage-other than to make an industry out of the act of "getting married." We have had to fight to make businesses "marriage friendly" as we are more concerned with making money. Is there a crisis? No, only a changing of the social values of society.

This study also found a corollary with higher education and successful marriages.

Moral of the story: Always continue to pursue your education....

Getting an education generally entails time and gaining life experience. It seems likely that there is a connection to giving yourself that time to mature and learn and being able to find and maintain a stable relationship, which requires certainly requires maturity.

The ironic part is that for all of the BS from the 'protecting marriage' crowd about 'traditional marriage', today's marriage is NOT 'traditional marriage'. It isn't even close to what marriage was 30 years ago. There was a time when even mentioning the 'word' divorce as cause for alarm. Now divorce is seen as an easy out if you hit a rough patch in the relationship. Marriage is the public recognition of the pair-bond, it's as simple as that.

Childless marriage might be becoming obsolete.

Married parenthood is only obsolete among dysfunctional population groups who will celebrate their kids' 21st birthday during Visiting Hours.

I don't know who they surveyed, but I have a lot of young co-workers, friends and relatives in their mid-20s to 40s (I am 43) who are married, having children, and seem very committed to their spouses and families. I certainly don't see marriage becoming obsolete. From where I sit, I see it becoming stronger in the younger generation.

At its core, "marriage" is a civil institution that gives both partners certain legal rights, and confers "legitimacy" and therefore legal inheritance rights on offspring. Remember that the legitimate inheritance issue has been a very big deal throughout history. So no matter how religious groups spin it, the civil / legal aspect of marriage has always been paramount.

Marriage is strengthened by the ritual of exchanging vows and stating your commitment before family and friends, and if it is meaningful to you, before God. So the religious/ritual aspect is very important but secondary to the legal aspect. Lepidopteryx, I like how you expressed this.

For raising successful children, a prerequisite for a successful society, marriage remains the best context. The notion that it has become obsolete is simply a symptom of our increasingly narcissistic society.

I'm fairly confident that there was a time in human history before there was any formal marriage. Obviously we survived that, whew!

Frankly, this is what happens when you make marriage start of with an incredibly expensive, high pressure ceremony where you are told you can never, ever change your mind, and that you have made a binding contract before God. Its a barrier to entry, especially when one can enter into a relationship, move in together, have children together, without the expense and the fear of failure. Frankly, I think its a good thing that communities aren't able to deride people for being born out of wedlock and hound unmarried mothers out of town as scandalous harlots. It never really helped anyone. The only thing I find sad about lower marriage statistics is that it means a lot of good, committed people are missing out on some of their legal rights.

Those nearly 40% are clueless.

Marriage is becoming obsolete is some social circles. It is not becoming obsolete in other social circles and is strong as ever in those places.

Just because everyone you associate with agrees with you that marriage is obsolete does not make it true - it only makes it true in your small intellectual circle.

It would be folly for me to say that "atheism is becoming obsolete" and then to justify it by "everyone I know is Christian." (by the way, I do know plenty of non-Christians, so my statement was hypothetical).

I feel that those claiming marriage is becoming obsolete are so shortsighted that they cannot see beyond their own lives into the very different lives of people they choose not to associate with.

Marriage is a condition where the man believes the woman will never change and the woman believes the man will.

very important thing and to stay safe and sccessful it needs flexibility of all members .
http://www.headsetzone.com

The reason my husband and I wanted to pledge ourselves to each other before our family, our friends, and our gods was that we wanted to make a public declaration and solemnization of our love for each other. That was why we had a wedding ritual in our living room.
Because of our love for each other, we wanted to provide each other with certain legal rights, as well as take on certain legal responsibilities regarding each other. That's why we went to the courthouse after our ritual, bought a license, and had a judge sign it.

There certainly are a lot of married people.

And there certainly are a lot of single people who want to be married.

And there certainly are a lot of weddings going on. Just read "Miss Manners;" about half of the questions she gets involve wedding etiquette.

And just look at all the gay people who want to get married.

And just look at all the straight people who want to stand in the way of gay marriage.

So, it doesn't seem obsolete to me.

Is there a marriage crisis? It depends on what you think marriage is for. If you think the purpose of marriage is to make a prostrating gesture to god, then quite possibly no, as a sizable number of people still think such actions are required of them, and are perfectly happy to get married.

Of course people can also have long happy marriages without attaching any religious significance to them. My parents have been happily married for 33 years and they were married by a justice of the peace, no religious elements whatsoever.

If you think marriage is "for" two people making a commitment together, then no again. Two people can make a commitment without going through the process of a marriage ceremony. There are arguments against this, saying that it discourages people to try and stick it out. Possibly, but then what is dating? Should two people who are dating be required to stick it out if they are unhappy? Long periods of dating or engagement, I think, encourage better choices when two people finally do decide to get married, if that is their choice.

If you think marriage is "for" making babies, I would say maybe no again. People can obviously make babies without getting married, and can obviously get married without making babies. There is an appreciable number of couples, who are married, who are childless by choice. Should they be forced to have children if that is what marriage is "for?"

Marriage is a social institution. It is "for" the wider society. Whatever we might call marriage over the last several thousand years, be they arranged, political, for love, for babies, for whatever, the underlying commonality is that the actual act of a ceremony is a signal to the wider community that the two people involved in the ceremony should be viewed and treated differently, as a single unit, rather than as individuals, with certain privileges, mostly economic and health related, afforded to them as a result of this new arrangement. Such an external commitment to commitment, if you will, gives the wider society confidence that those privileges will not be wasted. This is why divorce can be both socially and economically punitive.

Recognizing that doesn't make it a bad thing. There is no denying the emotional impact of a marriage ceremony (or a divorce for that matter.) on the two people involved, and how they view each other both before and after a ceremony.

If there is any kind of crisis, it is in whether or not we view relationships that don't externally (but do internally) commit to commitment as deserving of those new privileges, and whether or not some couples even need or want them. It doesn't fit into the traditional paradigm, and so is therefore hard for people to think about.

"What is marriage?"

A personal choice.

"Is it a civil union or is it a religious institution?"

It can be neither, either, or both.

"How do you define it?"

I don't.

"Is there a marriage crisis in America today?"

Not that I'm aware of.