Couples v. Unions

[IcyChain]

What happens when the word "couple" is made the object of a verb?

I consulted the oracle Chat GPT.

Please provide example sentences in which the word "couple" is the object of a verb.

1. Invite:
   • "They decided to invite a couple to join them for dinner, hoping to share good food and conversation with friends."
2. Introduce:
   • "At the party, Sarah took the opportunity to introduce a couple she thought would get along well, sparking an instant connection."
3. Support:
   • "The community rallied together to support a struggling couple, offering assistance in various forms during a challenging time."
4. Counsel:
   • "As marriage counselors, their primary goal was to counsel couples facing difficulties and guide them toward healthier relationships."
5. Photograph:
   • "The photographer captured the essence of love as he photographed a couple sharing a tender moment during their engagement session."
6. Advise:
   • "Jane, an experienced matchmaker, was often asked to advise couples on navigating the complexities of modern dating and relationships."
7. Celebrate:
   • "Friends and family gathered to celebrate the engagement of the couple, showering them with love and well-wishes for their future together."
8. Witness:
   • "Their closest friends were honored to witness the couple exchange vows, pledging their commitment to each other in a heartfelt ceremony."
9. Surprise:
   • "For their anniversary, he decided to surprise his wife by arranging a romantic getaway for the couple, complete with a candlelit dinner and scenic views."
10. Interview:
    • "The journalist had the opportunity to interview a couple who had been married for 50 years, gaining insights into the secrets of a successful and enduring relationship."

Please provide more examples.

1. Visit:
   • "The couple decided to visit a charming bed and breakfast for their weekend getaway, exploring the picturesque town together."
2. Gift:
   • "As a gesture of goodwill, the neighbors decided to gift a couple a homemade meal to welcome them to the neighborhood."
3. Mentor:
   • "The seasoned couple volunteered to mentor younger couples, sharing their experiences and offering guidance on navigating the complexities of marriage."
4. Host:
   • "They volunteered to host a couple from out of town, providing them with a comfortable place to stay and showing them around the city."
5. Teach:
   • "The dance instructor patiently taught the couple the steps of a romantic ballroom dance, ensuring they were well-prepared for their wedding dance."
6. Comfort:
   • "In times of sorrow, friends and family gathered to comfort a grieving couple, offering support and condolences."
7. Challenge:
   • "The adventure-loving couple sought to challenge themselves by embarking on a daring backpacking trip through the rugged mountains."
8. Guide:
   • "The financial advisor took the time to guide the couple in managing their finances, helping them make informed decisions for a secure future."
9. Encourage:
   • "Friends encouraged the couple to pursue their dreams, providing the motivation and support needed to overcome obstacles."
10. Join:
    • "The book club invited the couple to join their discussions, fostering a shared love for literature and creating lasting friendships."

 

[IcyChain]

Invite:

• "They decided to invite a couple to join them for dinner, hoping to share good food and conversation with friends."

I wonder whether their "union" appreciated the dinner invitation. Did their "union" also find the lobster and crabs to be delicious?

 

[zippy2006]

20 examples, zero evidence of non-romantic relationships. You are publishing evidence against your own position. See:

If you really disagreed with me, then you would have given the case of, say, a mother holding her son's hand as they crossed the street, and called them "a couple." But you didn't do this because it would obviously be deeply incongruous. We never describe a mother and her son that way.

...Or Fr. Goring's example of a grandmother and granddaughter.

I wonder whether their "union" appreciated the dinner invitation. Did their "union" also find the lobster and crabs to be delicious?

A couple is not a union. As I have already said, a union is that which unites a couple. To speak of a couple is therefore to speak of two persons united in a romantic relationship or union.

To use some of the examples, unions don't go to dinner parties or take engagement photos or go to marriage counseling. Couples do. Similarly, unions don't make love or procreate or raise children. Couples do.

 

[IcyChain]

20 examples, zero evidence of non-romantic relationships. You are publishing evidence against your own position. See:


Or Fr. Goring's example of a grandmother and granddaughter.

The reason why all of the sentences use "couple" in the sense of "two people romantically involved" is because I purposely primed the oracle with the definition from Merriam Webster: "two persons married, engaged, or otherwise romantically paired". I did that to strong-man the argument and purposefully exclude other types of non-romantic couples.

The point is that in common parlance, making the noun "couple" the object of a verb does not necessitate that the "union" or the "sexual relationship" between the two people forming the couple is the target of the verb (either directly or by way of concomitance). That is, in many instances the sentence pattern "verb article couple" only indicates that verb acts on the two people forming the couple.

Take this sentence:

"The photographer captured the essence of love as he photographed a couple sharing a tender moment during their engagement session."

If the simple argument set forth on Twitter argument holds then "photographing a couple" must equate to "photographing the sexual relations of the couple". No reasonable person would interpret the phrase to mean that.

There is no reason why the same distinction cannot be made with respect to the phrase "bless a couple".

 

[zippy2006]

That is, in many instances the sentence pattern "verb article couple" only indicates that verb acts on the two people forming the couple.

As opposed to it acting on some reified union?

But for me (and for Thomists) a "union" is not reified, nor does it mean "civil union." A union is simply that which unites the couple...

A couple are two, romantically bound, ordered towards marriage. It does not follow that everything a couple does is romantic or sexual.

If the simple argument set forth on Twitter argument holds...

What Twitter argument are you referring to?

 

[zippy2006]

Look at how the document uses "union":

...marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”...

...For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice.

...pastoral prudence and wisdom—avoiding all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful—may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth.

So the question here is: how many non-romantic, non-sexual, non-marital same-sex couples/relationships are loping around? Same-sex couples view themselves as having the same relationship as opposite-sex couples. They think they can get married, get engaged, date, have sex, raise children, etc. They think they have the same romantic coupling that opposite-sex couples have. Then the document comes along and says, "Well we can go ahead and bless these couples as long as they don't pretend to be like opposite-sex couples." Again to my analogy: it's like saying we can go ahead and bless cars as long as they don't have an engine (or, if there is an engine, as long as we are not blessing the engine).

 

[IcyChain]

A couple are two, romantically bound, ordered towards marriage. It does not follow that everything a couple does is romantic or sexual.

I think we are talking past each other again.

I do not disagree with your point above but I think that it is immaterial to the point that I am trying to make.

I am talking about the common use of language. I think you are trying to place the phrase "blessing a couple" into a tight theological or philosophical framework that does not apply (and perhaps making some assumptions about language that do not hold).

My point is that in common parlance, the phrase "bless a couple" need not mean "bless the coupling" or "bless the two people and their sexual relationship". It can simply mean "bless the two people irrespective of their sexual relationship".

What Twitter argument are you referring to?

I am referring to this argument: "And you can use holy water in the blessing, but not holy H2O."

Here, the author seems to imply that the phrase "use holy water" equates to "using two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen" because water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

This type of argument works if we are making a mathematical proof (or perhaps in your case a philosophical proof). Here, a couple (C) is comprised of (A) two people and (B) a sexual relationship between the two people. If we are making a proof we can write:

C = A + B
Thus 2C = 2(A +B)

But langauge itself does not work this way. With language we can have something like this:
C = A + B
Thus 2C = 2A

For example, if I say "I am friends with two couples, John & Jill and Mike & Sally" this implies that John, Jill, Mike and Sally exist; that John and Jill share a sexual relationship; and that Mike and Sally share a sexual relationship.

If I then say "I invited the two couples out for dinner last night and the two couples had lobster and crab" this obviously does not mean that I invited two sexual relationships out for dinner and that two sexual relationships ate lobster and crab. In common parlance "invite the couple" and "the couples had lobster and crab" is simply referring to the people that form the couples. The phrases are obviously not referring to the sexual aspect of their "coupleship".

Nor did I speak imprecisely and should have said "I invited four people out for dinner last night and four people had lobster and crab" instead.

To stick with your car analogy above, people can understand the phrase "start the car" to mean "start the engine". "Start the car" does not have to mean "starting the whole car" (i.e. start the engine, turn on the lights, turn on the A/C and shift the gearbox into first gear).

It is a farily easy dictinction to make in terms of plain language. I don't think we have to impose a theological or philosophical meaning on the phrase "bless a couple" in the document such that the phrase "bless the couple" must mean "bless the coupleship". The term can simply mean to bless the two people without blessing their sexual relationship, or perhaps even blessing the two people, the friendship between them, and any other aspects of thier relationship that does not comprise their "union". In the overall context of the document I do not see why this cannot be the sense in which the phrase "bless a couple" is used. Here, for the most part the document is written in a plain-langauge style without formal definitions or a lot of theological or philosophical terminology. . .

 

[zippy2006]

For example, if I say "I am friends with two couples, John & Jill and Mike & Sally" this implies that John, Jill, Mike and Sally exist; that John and Jill share a sexual relationship; and that Mike and Sally share a sexual relationship.

Right.

If I then say "I invited the two couples out for dinner last night and the two couples had lobster and crab" this obviously does not mean that I invited two sexual relationships out for dinner and that two sexual relationships ate lobster and crab. In common parlance "invite the couple" and "the couples had lobster and crab" is simply referring to the people that form the couples. The phrases are obviously not referring to the sexual aspect of their "coupleship".

I would suggest re-reading my first post, which I edited.

To say that a couple had lobster and crab is to say that two persons in a romantic relationship had lobster and crab. It is not to say that two persons had sexual relations while eating lobster and crab. Similarly, we are talking about blessing two persons in a romantic relationship, not two persons in the act of sex.

It is a farily easy dictinction to make in terms of plain language. I don't think we have to impose a theological or philosophical meaning

Merriam-Webster is not a theological or philosophical dictionary, and yet they understand perfectly what a couple is.

The term can simply mean to bless the two people without blessing their sexual relationship, or perhaps even blessing the two people, the friendship between them, and any other aspects of thier relationship that does not comprise their "union".

The question is whether, in blessing a thing, one is also blessing that upon which the thing intrinsically depends for its existence. The romantic aspect of a couple is not an accidental feature, it is an essential feature. It is what defines a couple. A couple can go for a walk, but failing to walk will not mean they are not a couple. But if two people have no romantic relationship, and no marital or engagement relationship, then they are not a couple.

A better analogy than the car engine would be the human soul. A human being does not exist without her soul, and every time you interact with her you interact with her soul, whether directly or indirectly. Even if you try to interact with her apart from her soul, her soul will still be implicated in the background. And if you neglect, harm, or ignore her soul, then you neglect, harm, or ignore her, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

In the overall context of the document I do not see why this cannot be the sense in which the phrase "bless a couple" is used. Here, for the most part the document is written in a plain-langauge style without formal definitions or a lot of theological or philosophical terminology. . .

In plain language "couple" means a romantically involved pair. There is nothing theological or philosophical about my basic argument. Each of the 20 examples is referring to a romantically involved pair (although I recognize that you seeded the AI). A good question to ask yourself is, "If this AI output falsified my opponent's thesis, then what output would have verified my opponent's thesis?"

The philosophy began when you started trying to find a way for "couple" to mean something out of the ordinary for the sake of interpreting the document in an orthodox manner. I responded to philosophy with philosophy.

 

[zippy2006]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737253312398033211

I am referring to this argument: "And you can use holy water in the blessing, but not holy H2O."

Here, the author seems to imply that the phrase "use holy water" equates to "using two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen" because water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

No, it has nothing to do with math. The point is that water and H2O are inseparable. H2O is the form of water. Similarly, a bachelor is an unmarried man. You can't have one without the other.

When I used the phrase "couple qua couple" to Trent Horn I was being intentionally redundant, pointing to the definition of "couple." The document wants to set the couple to one side and the same-sex-romantically-united-pair to the other side. That's impossible. A same-sex couple is a same-sex romantically-united-pair. In a similar way, it is impossible to separate water from H2O, or a bachelor from an unmarried man, or a woman from her soul.

 

[IcyChain]

To say that a couple had lobster and crab is to say that two persons in a romantic relationship had lobster and crab. It is not to say that two persons had sexual relations while eating lobster and crab. Similarly, we are talking about blessing two persons in a romantic relationship, not two persons in the act of sex.

I totally agree but I am not sure how this helps your argument. It appears to help mine. As you noted, I can also write: To say that a couple was blessed by a priest is to say that two persons in a sexual relationship were blessed by the priest. It is not to say that the two persons had sexual relations while being blessed by the priest.

Here, the object of the blessing is the two people. It is not the romantic relationship. You can logically separate a blessing on two people from their sexual activity.

It is the same thing with the phrase "bless a sinner". Here, most people can understand that the object of the blessing is the person. The fact that the person's sins are a requirement for him to be a "sinner" does not mean that you cannot bless the person without blessing the sins that cause him to be a sinner.

Merriam-Webster is not a theological or philosophical dictionary, and yet they understand perfectly what a couple is.

Again - I accept 100% the definition of "couple" that is set forth in Merriam Webster.

The question is whether, in blessing a thing, one is also blessing that upon which the thing intrinsically depends for its existence. The romantic aspect of a couple is not an accidental feature, it is an essential feature. It is what defines a couple. A couple can go for a walk, but failing to walk will not mean they are not a couple. But if two people have no romantic relationship, and no marital or engagement relationship, then they are not a couple.

I think you may be making too much out of the phrase "bless the couple". I think you are committed to the idea that the phrase "bless the couple" must mean "bless the couple qua couple" (as you put it). But this does not have to be what the phrase means. I posted the various sentences using other verbs to illustrate this point.

The sins that a person commits is what makes him a "sinner". It is also an essential feature. If she (St. Mary) has never committed a sin she cannot be a sinner. Here, when people say "bless the sinner" we all know that the object of the blessing is the person, irrespective of the sins that he has committed. Similarly, the phrase "bless the couple" can mean blessing the persons in the relationship, irrespective of their sexual relationship. If we replace the verb "to bless" with many other verbs that the oracle so graciously provided us, you can easily see that this word-usage is common. You can act on one element of a thing without acting upon the other elements of the thing. If a romantic couple walks on a stage and I write "The crew members pointed a strobe light on the couple" nobody is going to take that phrase and think that it means "The crew members pointed a strobe light on the couple and their sexual relationship." Everyone will know that the phrase simply means "The crew members pointed a strobe light on the physical bodies of the couple."

A better analogy than the car engine would be the human soul. A human being does not exist without her soul, and every time you interact with her you interact with her soul, whether directly or indirectly. Even if you try to interact with her apart from her soul, her soul will still be implicated in the background. And if you neglect, harm, or ignore her soul, then you neglect, harm, or ignore her, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

Let's say I have a car. The car has a broken engine and one of the tires is misaligned. I took the car into the auto shop and got the engine fixed. I ran out of money so I did not get the tire aligned. I am talking with my friend later in the day and I say to him "I took my car into the shop and got it fixed." I said "I got the car fixed" but the intended meaning was "I got one aspect (the engine) of the car fixed." Even though a car requires an engine and a tire, I can operate on one without impacting the other. The engine is fixed but the tire is just as misaligned as it ever was.

I would have to study the specific theology behind the human body/soul but I would image that you can impact one without impacting the other (Matt. 10:28 appears to suggest this, for example). Let's say that tonight I commit adultery and get in a car accident on my way home and hurt my arm. I am describing all of this to my brother and I say "Man, I went to the hospital and got myself fixed". When he hears me say that he is going to understand that I went to the hospital and got a cast put on my arm. Or perhaps he will think that I got some stitches. But he is not going to think that I went to confession, received absolution for my sin, and that now my soul is in a state of grace.

After I tell my brother that I went to the hospital, I tell him that I am going to confession tomorrow to repent and get back in a state of grace. How is my brother going to respond? He wil say "Good man. Go in there and confess. And be sure that you never do that s--- again."

He is not going to respond and say "Well IcyChain. When you said 'I got myself fixed' what you should have said was "I got my arm fixed instead of 'I got myself fixed'". Sure, if we are being overly-technical here that is what I should have said to be precise. But nobody uses language like that. When I said "I got myself fixed up at the hospital" everyone would know exactly what I meant in context.

In plain language "couple" means a romantically involved pair. There is nothing theological or philosophical about my basic argument. Each of the 20 examples is referring to a romantically involved pair (although I recognize that you seeded the AI). A good question to ask yourself is, "If this AI output falsified my opponent's thesis, then what output would have verified my opponent's thesis?"

That is a good question. Let's imagine that there is a sentence in the form of "verb article couple" that people would read and understand it to mean that both (1) the two people and (2) their relationship are acted upon by the verb. If I asked Chat GPT to produce a 100 sentences in the form "verb article couple" and all of the sentences would be understood in that manner, then that would be substantive evidence for your view, although not technically proving it. On the other hand, if I can provide one sentence that does not fall into that category (and I have produced many) then the argument that a phrase in the form of (verb article couple) means that the verb acts on each of the elements that comprise the couple is falsified. If I propose that that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2, I can falsify the proposition by simply by producing three numbers a, b and c that satisfy the proposition.

The philosophy began when you started trying to find a way for "couple" to mean something out of the ordinary for the sake of interpreting the document in an orthodox manner. I responded to philosophy with philosophy.

Well, think that we might be talking past each other here again. Again, I agree 100% that the Merriam Webster definition applies to the word "couple". I am the one that provided the definition from what I recall. I really had no intention of making any type of philosophical argument. The argument that I had in mind was always about the use of language, although perhaps here I have explained my view better than I did previously. Like I wrote previously, I think that perhaps we have a different background or way of looking at text. When you look at the phrase "bless a couple" I think you are looking at each word "bless" and "couple" in isolation and combining the two logically, as if it were a mathematical equation like "function B = bless; c = couple; c = two people (2p) + sexual relationship (r); therefore the B(c) = B(2p + r).

If we are looking at the langauge like that then sure, "bless a couple" means "bless two people and the sexual relationship between them".

But the phrase "bless a couple" is not simply a mathematical application of the verb "bless" to the word "couple". That is the way that math works, but it is not the way that langauge works. If I say "photograph a couple," for example, it means that I am capturing an image of the physical bodies of the two people. It does not mean that I am capturing an image of the phsycial bodies of the two people and also capturing some sort of metaphysical "image" of their sexual relationship. When I say "photograph a couple" most people know that this means that the substantive object of the verb "photograph" is thier physical bodies. Their "sexual relationship" (as distinguished from them performing the act of sex in the instant moment) is not photographed in any manner.

I think we can logically distinguish between acting on the entirety of a thing itself and acting on one element of a thing without impacting the other elements of the thing. In the overall context of the document I think that it is clear that the phrase "bless a couple" is meant in the latter sense. You disagree, of course, but I think that comes down to how the both of us use and interpret language. Hopefully that is something that the Holy See will clarify going forward.

 

[WarriorAngel]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737253312398033211

No, it has nothing to do with math. The point is that water and H2O are inseparable. H2O is the form of water. Similarly, a bachelor is an unmarried man. You can't have one without the other.

When I used the phrase "couple qua couple" to Trent Horn I was being intentionally redundant, pointing to the definition of "couple." The document wants to set the couple to one side and the same-sex-romantically-united-pair to the other side. That's impossible. A same-sex couple is a same-sex romantically-united-pair. In a similar way, it is impossible to separate water from H2O, or a bachelor from an unmarried man, or a woman from her soul.

 

[zippy2006]

Quickly...

I totally agree but I am not sure how this helps your argument. It appears to help mine. As you noted, I can also write: To say that a couple was blessed by a priest is to say that two persons in a sexual relationship were blessed by the priest. It is not to say that the two persons had sexual relations while being blessed by the priest.

Here, the object of the blessing is the two people. It is not the romantic relationship. You can logically separate a blessing on two people from their sexual activity.

Yes, I see what you are saying. I was not saying that the romantic relationship is incidental. I was saying that the romantic relationship is present and on display even though sex is not occurring. The 20 examples presuppose a romantic couple.

When you are baptized your whole life becomes bound up with God and your covenant with him. Nothing you do is able to circumvent this fact, and those who wish to interact with you apart from your relationship with God are attempting the impossible or else transgressing your covenant (or both).

A couple is bound by a covenant in a similar way, but it is not so much that neither person can act independently of the covenant, but rather that the couple cannot act independently of the covenant. This covenant pertains to romance, sex, marriage, children, etc. Just as no one can interact with you apart from your covenant with God, so also no one can interact with a couple apart from their covenant with one another.

The authors of this document would never claim that a married couple could be blessed apart from their marital covenant. This would be logically impossible. But of course the same would hold of a couple in a civil union. To bless the couple is to bless their covenant, for the covenant is what makes them a couple.

Now suppose two same-sex persons in a civil union repent, stop engaging in sexual activity, give up their plans to rear children, etc. The document would say that this is a clear case where a blessing is permissible. But the million-dollar question is this: are they still a couple at that point? This perhaps highlights the equivocation. I would say that priests can bless two people of the same sex so long as they are not a couple. The document, on the other hand, wants to have its cake and eat it, too.

The sins that a person commits is what makes him a "sinner".

We forgive sinners, we do not bless them. I do not know of any phrase, "Bless the sinner." I know only of the phrase, "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

You can act on one element of a thing without acting upon the other elements of the thing.

Not when the element is the essence of the thing itself. Definitions do not define tangential elements.

If a romantic couple walks on a stage and I write "The crew members pointed a strobe light on the couple" nobody is going to take that phrase and think that it means "The crew members pointed a strobe light on the couple and their sexual relationship." Everyone will know that the phrase simply means "The crew members pointed a strobe light on the physical bodies of the couple."

This is where your representation becomes incoherent, for you are claiming that your opponents think a sexual relationship can be the object of physical light. What everyone will know is that the spotlight will be placed on the pair united in a sexual relationship, just as everyone knows that the priest would be blessing the pair (essentially) united by a sexual relationship. There is no couple apart from the thing that binds them together.

From my first post:

To use some of the examples, unions don't go to dinner parties or take engagement photos or go to marriage counseling. Couples do. Similarly, unions don't make love or procreate or raise children. Couples do.​

​

I would have to study the specific theology behind the human body/soul...

I was thinking of soul/person. You do not interact with a person apart from their soul. But your understanding of the soul is problematic so this may not be the best example.

Let's imagine that there is a sentence in the form of "verb article couple" that people would read and understand it to mean that both (1) the two people and (2) their relationship are acted upon by the verb. If I asked Chat GPT to produce a 100 sentences in the form "verb article couple" and all of the sentences would be understood in that manner, then that would be substantive evidence for your view, although not technically proving it.

I asked for examples of output. Presumably if you were wrong then Chat GPT would have said something like, "The literal-physical spotlight shined on the couple's relationship." Your understanding here seems to be the epitome of a strawman.

If I say "photograph a couple," for example, it means that I am capturing an image of the physical bodies of the two people. It does not mean that I am capturing an image of the phsycial bodies of the two people and also capturing some sort of metaphysical "image" of their sexual relationship.

Their "sexual relationship" (as distinguished from them performing the act of sex in the instant moment) is not photographed in any manner.

...lol. This level of ignoratio elenchi is a bit remarkable.

But the interesting thing here is that Chat GPT literally contains the correction to your strange misinterpretation:

• "The photographer captured the essence of love as he photographed a couple sharing a tender moment during their engagement session."

According to Chat GPT it is not merely two physical bodies that are captured. You should think about this for awhile.

 

[zippy2006]

When you look at the phrase "bless a couple" I think you are looking at each word "bless" and "couple" in isolation and combining the two logically, as if it were a mathematical equation like "function B = bless; c = couple; c = two people (2p) + sexual relationship (r); therefore the B(c) = B(2p + r).

I think you are the one influenced by mathematical reasoning (and our age, influenced by the mathematecization of modern philosophy, tends to have a very difficult time with non-mathematical concepts like teleology).

But biologists understand teleology. Rather than cars or souls, think about dogs. Suppose you told me to take care of your dog. You come back from your vacation and I give you the dog. I have clipped its nails and brushed its fur and cleaned its teeth. You say, "My dog is dead!" "Yes, he had a heart attack. But I took good care of him. I clipped his nails and brushed his fur and cleaned his teeth." "You didn't take care of his heart?" "No, but I took good care of his nails, fur, and teeth."

According to the mathematician caring for a dog is an equation: Health(d) = nails(d) + fur(d) + teeth(d) + heart(d). I cared for 3/4 of the components, so I must have done a good job, right? It's not as if any one thing deserves more attention than the others, or is more essential to the health/existence of the dog, right?

If the DDF was blessing a dog it would bless the nails, and the fur, and the teeth. It would not bless the heart. It is pro-dog, anti-heart. ...haha

 

[WarriorAngel]

Union means - unite.
Clearing the air, its basically a unit a oneness.
To be fruitful and multiply and of course, be able to procreate [whether o not healthy] but having the correct functioning organs made for the other.

For a marriage couple does not necessarily know if they have healthy organs, but the correct organs in the event of a miracle.

 

[zippy2006]

Alright, I have to get going. But I appreciate your goodwill, @IcyChain. Good luck with your inquiries.

 

[ralliann]

I wonder whether their "union" appreciated the dinner invitation. Did their "union" also find the lobster and crabs to be delicious?

Oh like "what a couple of knotheads" or "a couple of idiots"
Union is more they invited them to hook up for dinner, and also loved the crab they scored?

 

[IcyChain]

Quickly...

Yes, I see what you are saying. I was not saying that the romantic relationship is incidental. I was saying that the romantic relationship is present and on display even though sex is not occurring. The 20 examples presuppose a romantic couple.

When you are baptized your whole life becomes bound up with God and your covenant with him. Nothing you do is able to circumvent this fact, and those who wish to interact with you apart from your relationship with God are attempting the impossible or else transgressing your covenant (or both).

A couple is bound by a covenant in a similar way, but it is not so much that neither person can act independently of the covenant, but rather that the couple cannot act independently of the covenant. This covenant pertains to romance, sex, marriage, children, etc. Just as no one can interact with you apart from your covenant with God, so also no one can interact with a couple apart from their covenant with one another.

The authors of this document would never claim that a married couple could be blessed apart from their marital covenant. This would be logically impossible. But of course the same would hold of a couple in a civil union. To bless the couple is to bless their covenant, for the covenant is what makes them a couple.

Now suppose two same-sex persons in a civil union repent, stop engaging in sexual activity, give up their plans to rear children, etc. The document would say that this is a clear case where a blessing is permissible. But the million-dollar question is this: are they still a couple at that point? This perhaps highlights the equivocation. I would say that priests can bless two people of the same sex so long as they are not a couple. The document, on the other hand, wants to have its cake and eat it, too.


We forgive sinners, we do not bless them. I do not know of any phrase, "Bless the sinner." I know only of the phrase, "Hate the sin, not the sinner."


Not when the element is the essence of the thing itself. Definitions do not define tangential elements.


This is where your representation becomes incoherent, for you are claiming that your opponents think a sexual relationship can be the object of physical light. What everyone will know is that the spotlight will be placed on the pair united in a sexual relationship, just as everyone knows that the priest would be blessing the pair (essentially) united by a sexual relationship. There is no couple apart from the thing that binds them together.

From my first post:

To use some of the examples, unions don't go to dinner parties or take engagement photos or go to marriage counseling. Couples do. Similarly, unions don't make love or procreate or raise children. Couples do.​

​

I was thinking of soul/person. You do not interact with a person apart from their soul. But your understanding of the soul is problematic so this may not be the best example.


I asked for examples of output. Presumably if you were wrong then Chat GPT would have said something like, "The literal-physical spotlight shined on the couple's relationship." Your understanding here seems to be the epitome of a strawman.



...lol. This level of ignoratio elenchi is a bit remarkable.

But the interesting thing here is that Chat GPT literally contains the correction to your strange misinterpretation:

• "The photographer captured the essence of love as he photographed a couple sharing a tender moment during their engagement session."

According to Chat GPT it is not merely two physical bodies that are captured. You should think about this for awhile.

I will also offer a quick response.

1) I had actually considered the "captured the essence of their love" part of the sentence. I could have just as easily used another sentence but I chose to use that sentence because that presents no problem. An engagment session is a photoshoot in which an engaged couple arranges themeslves in various poses, such as the woman sitting on the man's lap while she stares deeply into his eyes. If the photograph of the couple had been of an unengaged couple and the man had just finished physically assulting the woman (think of the Chris Brown and Rihanna photograph, for example) the caption of the photograph would have been entirely different.

2) Your argument requires one of three things to be an essential (in the sense of design or purpose) element of a couple: (i) a "marriage" between the couple or an orientation towards marraige; (ii) an "engagement" between the couple; or (iii) sexual activity between the two people.

I strong-manned your argument by giving you the most favorable-definition from Merriam-Webster. You have gone to great lengths to contort that definition into making (i), (ii) or (ii) above an essential element of a couple, but that attempt still fails.

The "union" discussed in the document is an attribute of certain couples. It is not an inherent feature of every couple.

Nor has every couple made a covenant that is even remotely analogous to the marriage covenant. There are many couples who choose to live their lives together with no intention of getting married or having children. There are celibate and asexual couples that have romantic feelings towards each other and who choose to live their lives together. And there are many young people in the "hook-up culture" (unfortunately) who have an informal agreement to meet and have sex on a periodic schedule with no other involvement with each other outside of the sex. Very few pepople would refer to them as a "couple" because of that agreement. Just because it is normal for many couples to engage in sexual activity does not imply that this an essential element of what constitutes a "couple" and that the couple no-longer exists when they stop having sex.

As for the Merriam Webster definition ("two persons married, engaged, or otherwise romantically paired") you made the argument that the phrase "otherwise romantically paired" indicates that an unmarried, non-engaged couple has an orientation towards marriage (and thus towards the conjugal act that occurs during marriage). That is incorrect. If "sexual activity" was a strict requirement for a "couple" then the definition itself would include the phrase "sexual activity." The definition could have easily been "two persons, married, engaged, or sexually active with each other". That is your basic problem.

Furthermore, if we look at the definition of "otherwise" it clearly teaches away from what you suggest:

Definition of OTHERWISE

something or anything else : something to the contrary… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

​

: something or anything else : something to the contrary​

: in a different way or manner​

That is, the word "otherwise" before "romantically paired" indicates that the two people are romantically paired in a manner that is contrary to or different than the romantic pairing of a married couple. There is nothing here that remotely suggests that "sexual activity" is an essential element of a "couple" despite your numeous attempts to strong-arm that into the definition.

Happy New Year

 

[IcyChain]

I think you are the one influenced by mathematical reasoning (and our age, influenced by the mathematecization of modern philosophy, tends to have a very difficult time with non-mathematical concepts like teleology).

But biologists understand teleology. Rather than cars or souls, think about dogs. Suppose you told me to take care of your dog. You come back from your vacation and I give you the dog. I have clipped its nails and brushed its fur and cleaned its teeth. You say, "My dog is dead!" "Yes, he had a heart attack. But I took good care of him. I clipped his nails and brushed his fur and cleaned his teeth." "You didn't take care of his heart?" "No, but I took good care of his nails, fur, and teeth."

According to the mathematician caring for a dog is an equation: Health(d) = nails(d) + fur(d) + teeth(d) + heart(d). I cared for 3/4 of the components, so I must have done a good job, right? It's not as if any one thing deserves more attention than the others, or is more essential to the health/existence of the dog, right?

If the DDF was blessing a dog it would bless the nails, and the fur, and the teeth. It would not bless the heart. It is pro-dog, anti-heart. ...haha

Well let's make it a person instead of a dog. I am a heart surgeon and an elderly person with no family has been entrusted to my care. I notice that the elderly person has a severe heart disease that requires me to operate on his heart in order to save him. I suggest the sugery to my patient but he does not believe that the surgery is the best course of action, or perhaps he even distrusts my competence, or believes that I am only suggesting sugery to pad my wallet. Even though I cannot perform heart surgery on this patient, I still care about him and attend to his other needs the best that I can over the course of 1 year. Perhaps I recommend a good diet and exercise for him that lowers his blood presssure. Perhaps I subscribe him a medication that helps to lower his cholesterol. And every day I come by and visit him to see how he is doing and to offer him encouragment.

At the end of that year, the patient realizes that I have his best interest at heart, realizes that surgery is the best option for him, and he allows me to do the surgery, saving his life.

I think you see the point.

Alright, I have to get going. But I appreciate your goodwill, @IcyChain. Good luck with your inquiries.

Thank you. I appreciate your goodwill as well. I hope that you will also inquire into this matter and reconsider the possibility that the DDF could be correct, and that you could be wrong.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Nonsense v. Ridiculous

Pope Francis said he was trying to project this feeling of "inclusiveness", but it's a push for gay marriage to be accepted in the Church.