Comments on: Societal collapse, is it the breakdown of the family? http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/09/societal-collapse-is-it-the-breakdown-of-the-family/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/09/societal-collapse-is-it-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1/#comment-290 El Sordo Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:54:07 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/09/societal-collapse-is-it-the-breakdown-of-the-family/#comment-290 I would go further, marriage is not a state of being it is a social contract. There is no discernible difference between a lifelong monogomous couple and a married couple. Likewise between a polyamorous committed unit and a multiple marriage. The only difference is the formalisation of the arrangement in the eyes of the state. Interestingly in sacramental Christian theology there is a discourse on who 'ministers' the sacraments. The 'minister' being the 'channel' through which the divine operates. So in Catholic eucharistic theology the priest is the minister, a deacon, a lay person (ie. not a priest) cannot validly consecrate the host or the chalice. But what about marriage... in Catholic theology the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the marrying couple themselves. Not the priest, not the ceremony, not the words of marriage. It is purely the intent to commit to each other for life. The marriage service is theologically recognised as just a ceremony, a celebration, a witnessing, a sharing with the community, and the social declaration of a contract. So as AC-1 has said any notion of marriage beyond the personal commitment of two persons (in monogamous circumstances) is state or social infringement. I would go further, marriage is not a state of being it is a social contract.

There is no discernible difference between a lifelong monogomous couple and a married couple. Likewise between a polyamorous committed unit and a multiple marriage. The only difference is the formalisation of the arrangement in the eyes of the state.

Interestingly in sacramental Christian theology there is a discourse on who ‘ministers’ the sacraments. The ‘minister’ being the ‘channel’ through which the divine operates. So in Catholic eucharistic theology the priest is the minister, a deacon, a lay person (ie. not a priest) cannot validly consecrate the host or the chalice.
But what about marriage…
in Catholic theology the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the marrying couple themselves. Not the priest, not the ceremony, not the words of marriage. It is purely the intent to commit to each other for life.
The marriage service is theologically recognised as just a ceremony, a celebration, a witnessing, a sharing with the community, and the social declaration of a contract.

So as AC-1 has said any notion of marriage beyond the personal commitment of two persons (in monogamous circumstances) is state or social infringement.

]]> By: Anti Citizen One http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/09/societal-collapse-is-it-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1/#comment-289 Anti Citizen One Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:21:16 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/09/societal-collapse-is-it-the-breakdown-of-the-family/#comment-289 "The Conservatives will bolster their plans for tax breaks for married people with proposals for an overhaul of the benefits system to encourage couples to stay together, party leader David Cameron signalled yesterday." The Guardian But we should remember: “The error of confusing cause and effect.— There is no more dangerous error than that of mistaking the effect for the cause: I call it the real corruption of reason.” Nietzsche What the Tories seem to miss is that couples who are likely to stay together get married. The other way around is just patronizing and state control freakery. AC1 “The Conservatives will bolster their plans for tax breaks for married people with proposals for an overhaul of the benefits system to encourage couples to stay together, party leader David Cameron signalled yesterday.” The Guardian

But we should remember:
“The error of confusing cause and effect.— There is no more dangerous error than that of mistaking the effect for the cause: I call it the real corruption of reason.” Nietzsche

What the Tories seem to miss is that couples who are likely to stay together get married. The other way around is just patronizing and state control freakery.

AC1

]]>