Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

IE, a divorce which they can try to weasel-word in to claiming isn't actually a divorce, but is in all intents and purposes a divorce.

Symbols do matter, Mel. For religious purposes they've defined marriage one way, and have a different process and name for ending it. I do appreciate that they don't lay exclusive claim to the term and what marriage means, unlike many other Christians.

Seaward wrote:

Shredsmore wrote:Sooner or later these people will be saying the pledge of allegiance discriminates.

The Pledge of Allegiance was just fine until they added "under God" in the 1950s.

And although I'm sure Eisenhower did it out of the good of his heart, his entire attitude towards atheists came across as quite condescending. Then again, at that time, the general attitude towards atheists was, and in many places, still is, quite condescending.

Mannahnin wrote:Symbols do matter, Mel.

I just find it incredibly backwards and dishonest IMO.

"Only people who can have children can marry! Except the ones that can't as long as the man can get it up (the woman's enjoyment is irrelevant)!"

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Yes, as long as they are physically able to consummate the marriage.

So the aformentioend soldier whose junk was cut off wouldn't be allowed to marry cause he isn't physically capable of consummating the marriage?

Traditionally, yes. I can imagine that this will change eventually.

But I don't think anyone would check, so if he kept it to himself ...

Let's say that this junkless soldier does get married and the marriage does not work out. It's possible that the he or the wife might ask that the Church declare the marriage null because there was never any possibility to consummate the marriage.

Interestingly, the Canons themselves refer to marriage as a contract:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

And while the practical effect of ending a marriage, and it never existing might be the same, they can matter for a lot of other reasons, both moral and legal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Symbols do matter, Mel.

I just find it incredibly backwards and dishonest IMO.

"Only people who can have children can marry! Except the ones that can't as long as the man can get it up (the woman's enjoyment is irrelevant)!"

You're not big on nuance, are you?

Manchu wrote:But I don't think anyone would check, so if he kept it to himself ...

So basically they're okay about it as long as he lies?

The impression of dishonesty deepens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:You're not big on nuance, are you?

Some nuances are stupid and pointless.

Well, the catholic church holds that marriage is for creating a family, and with that, the baby making.

The (even theoretical) possibility of babies is required.

Mel, if they're dishonest about it that's between them and their deity. You can't police that.

Polonius wrote:The (even theoretical) possibility of babies is required.

Except when it's not, because only the act of the man getting it up and putting it in the woman is apparently required (IE consummating the marriage), fertility is not.

Melissia wrote:Some nuances are stupid and pointless.

Such observations often say more about the observer than the subject, I'm afraid.

Polonius wrote:Well, the catholic church holds that marriage is for creating a family, and with that, the baby making.

The (even theoretical) possibility of babies is required.

Sorry, so it is a contract, and a couple known to be infertile can't get married after all?

Mannahnin wrote:Mel, if they're dishonest about it that's between them and their deity. You can't police that.

I'm not trying to police anything. Only stating my reactions to it.

Mannahnin wrote:Symbols do matter, Mel. For religious purposes they've defined marriage one way, and have a different process and name for ending it.

Wrong yet again. A declaration of nullity is not the "end of a marriage." No marriage existed that could end.

I think your confusion might be a matter of what the couple itself desires and how they go about it. A married Catholic couple is married both in terms of the law of the state and the law of the Church. If they wish to separate, they have to consider both bodies of law. Regarding the civil law, they can ask the state to annul the marriage or seek a divorce. (As a side note, these two options can have different consequences for the purposes of dividing property.) Most couples opt for divorce because most jurisdictions offer what is called "no fault" divorce which means, among other things, that the parties can file for divorce on the vague ground of "irreconcilable difference" and never have to prove anything in court. To obtain an annullment, by contrast, the filing party must prove that one or more element of marriage under the law was defective. Regarding church law, they may only petition for a declaration of invalidity because there is no such thing as dissoluable marriage in church law. Many couples who seek and obtain civil divorces therefore might also seek a declaration of nullity. This seeming disconnect does not necessarily imply anything about the thoughts of the couple in relation to the validity of the broken marriage. It certainly implies nothing at all with regard to the perspective of the Church.

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, the catholic church holds that marriage is for creating a family, and with that, the baby making.

The (even theoretical) possibility of babies is required.

Sorry, so it is a contract, and a couple known to be infertile can't get married after all?

Fertility isn't a factor.

Impotence is, meaning an inability to perform the sexual act.

The infertile, by age or condition, are not prohibited, as, no joke, miracles happen.

Abraham's wife Sarah gave birth long after menopause in the Bible. Plenty of "infertile" folks eventually conceive.

IE, Manchu, it's a divorce by another name so that they can try to sidestep their own religious laws.

Mannahnin wrote:Sorry, so it is a contract, and a couple known to be infertile can't get married after all?

Infertile people can marry validly in the Church as long as they are physically capable of consummating the marriage -- even if both parties understand themselves to be infertile.

Polonius wrote:Impotence is, meaning an inability to perform the sexual act.

IE, children are irrelevant, only the act of being able to have sex is.

Melissia wrote:IE, Manchu, it's a divorce by another name so that they can try to sidestep their own religious laws.

I definitely agree that for some people might disingenuously seek the declaration. That has no bearing on the Church law, teaching, or practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Impotence is, meaning an inability to perform the sexual act.

IE, children are irrelevant, only the act of being able to have sex is.

Incorrect.

So maybe gay people will one day be able to be married. Miracles do happen.

Melissia wrote:IE, Manchu, it's a divorce by another name so that they can try to sidestep their own religious laws.

In practice it sometimes is, particularly if there's money involved.

But I don't see why it's so off the charts ludicrous for an organization to build in safeguards for a permanent, lifelong covenant.

If not for annulment, than a man could kidnap and drug a woman, have her say yes before a priest, and she'd be stuck.

Sense dictates that agreements based on fraud should be undone.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Symbols do matter, Mel. For religious purposes they've defined marriage one way, and have a different process and name for ending it.

Wrong yet again. A declaration of nullity is not the "end of a marriage." No marriage existed that could end.

It did, until it was retroactively nullified. It never existed for the church. It existed for everything and everyone else.

Mannahnin wrote:So maybe gay people will one day be able to be married. Miracles do happen.

I don't think you understand what miracles are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Symbols do matter, Mel. For religious purposes they've defined marriage one way, and have a different process and name for ending it.

Wrong yet again. A declaration of nullity is not the "end of a marriage." No marriage existed that could end.

It did, until it was retroactively nullified. It never existed for the church. It existed for everything and everyone else.

No it did not. The definition is objective.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Symbols do matter, Mel. For religious purposes they've defined marriage one way, and have a different process and name for ending it.

Wrong yet again. A declaration of nullity is not the "end of a marriage." No marriage existed that could end.

It did, until it was retroactively nullified. It never existed for the church. It existed for everything and everyone else.

Well... it sort of depends, actually. Civil Courts can and do annul marriages. Time is usually a factor there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Impotence is, meaning an inability to perform the sexual act.

IE, children are irrelevant, only the act of being able to have sex is.

Here's the actual canons:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

Polonius wrote:But I don't see why it's so off the charts ludicrous for an organization to build in safeguards for a permanent, lifelong covenant.

If not for annulment, than a man could kidnap and drug a woman, have her say yes before a priest, and she'd be stuck.

Sure, that's a problem. If you've taken divorce off the table. Of course in extreme cases like that, I agree that annulment is more appropriate. She never gave legitimate consent. But when the parties involved did, divorce leaves a more natural option than legalistically pretending the agreement was never made and never existed, especially if it did so for months or years.

Mannahnin wrote:It did, until it was retroactively nullified. It never existed for the church. It existed for everything and everyone else.

Yes, well, the church likes to think that it has control over reality.

@Mannahnin: The passage of considerable time is also taken into account by the tribunal. You seem to have an image in mind of a rubber stamp process that does not correspond to reality. Also, consent is not the only element of marriage.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:So maybe gay people will one day be able to be married. Miracles do happen.

I don't think you understand what miracles are.

I think your religious views are incompatible both with my religious views and my attempts to understand you through a secular lense. And they are beginning to sound unpleasant.

Polonius wrote:Here's the actual canons:
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

As I said, children are irrelevant. You just need to be able to have sex.

Manchu wrote:@Mannahnin: The passage of considerable time is also taken into account by the tribunal. You seem to have an image in mind of a rubber stamp process that does not correspond to reality. Also, consent is not the only element of marriage.

I never said it was, nor do I in any way think the tribunal is a rubber stamp process.