Do Christian Parents Abuse their Children?

[GrandizerII]

It's just post-hoc rationalizing nonsense (what Neo posted).

Even if that were true, your comment is still not a refutation.

But I am dropping this thread to pick up the same conversation on another thread.

Yeah, but I did respond to one that was a brief refutation of what you posted.

---

I agree. There can be a civil institution equivalent to marriage without be considered equal to it. For example tea is functionally equivalent to coffee but they are essentially different substances. Civil marriages have an essential character that makes them different from other types of social institutions recognized by the state. They have an objective definition: an on-going legal bond between one man and one woman involving physical intimacy with the potential of producing off-spring. That is what differentiates a marriage from roommates (of any sex), live-in caregivers with power of attorney, business partnerships, casual lovers, kissing cousins, free-love communes, and yes, homosexual unions. It should be noted that many states have so-called common law marriages, automatically conferring marital status to long-time cohabiting heterosexuals who are physically intimate. Apart from a traditional definition we get absurd results like Felix and Oscar becoming common law. This is not a "slippery slope" argument; but rather, an illustration of the unique character of civil marriage as an objectively definable social institution.

As a practical matter, the state generally does not impose fertility tests or automatic dissolution of marriages when a couple is beyond child bearing years. If someone wanted to debate the merits of such policies I would be willing to listen but personally I would consider someone a spoiler for advocating those kinds of tests and measures. Also as a practical matter, the state allows religious leaders to officiate weddings, so that a civil marriage and sacramental marriage occur simultaneously as part of the ceremony. If someone wants to propose that religious leaders not be allowed to officiate civil ceremonies I am open to listening to that as well. Again however, that seems like the stance of someone willing to inconvenience millions just to be a spoiler.

So-called "marriage equality" erases the vital line between civil and sacramental marriages. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or even Swedenborgian weddings are sacraments tacitly accepted, for practical reason, by the state as civil ceremonies. It is not a civil ceremony in-and-of-itself. That is why there are now cases before the courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform sacraments within their sacred spaces. Again, I am open to the idea that the state has a legitimate state interest in legally recognizing homosexual unions as functionally equivalent to marriages, however, the state has no business making people perform religious sacraments against their will or to recognize nontraditional unions as equal, meaning identical, to sacramental ones.

As a Catholic, I agree that a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman is a sacred bond which differentiates itself, in that sense, from other arrangements (such as gay marriage, common law marriage, polygamy, divorcing your wife and remarrying your secretary, etc). 

As far as the law is concerned though, I see "marriage equality" as meaning equal in rights under the law. Hospital visits, tax breaks, etc. I can get behind this, though I would be 100% against the government trying to force churchs to marry anyone.

You can believe that same sex marriage is inferior to your preferred sacramental marriage all you want, but as a non-Catholic, there is nothing divine about marriage between man and woman. Even the traditional marriage is still a social institution originally. So wherever and however same-sex couples choose to marry, I - as a non-Catholic - will regard their marriage at exactly the same level as traditional marriage. There is no meaningful difference between the two.

As for your post on adoption, it shouldn't matter if it's father and mother, or parents of same gender, what's important is how you treat your children. If the would-be parents are both loving and caring and supportive (in an authoritative manner, especially), then they should have the same rights as heterosexual parents to adopt children. Otherwise, it just feels like yet again another case of bigotry.