Any two consenting adults should be able to get married

[mackbrislawn]

Title is the argument. What is a good response?

Why adults? And why two? Why not three or four? And do they have to be humans?

Marriage has always been a privilege, not a right. Down through the ages there have always been impediments to marriage, like being too closely related, already being married, mentally deficient, the wrong age, etc. And, until now, the wrong sex.

If there are no impediments, then a license can be issued for marriage, granting the privilege.

Even given the privilege having been granted, the duty or obligation to marry them should not be imposed. That is, the cleric, or whoever, ought to have the right of refusal.

 

[Pax]

Those debating should start by determining if they agree on what the term marriage means. If they have a different understanding, they will not have a fruitful debate.

Absolutely!..moreover, that is the crux of the problem we face in society today. We are witnessing the redefinition of marriage and it is a seriously flawed path that is being promoted.

Every nation needs to realize that there is an important public interest at stake in how we define marriage. Only the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman serves the public interest of promoting and supporting the irreplaceable relationship between a man and a woman and any children that result from their union. Every child has a natural right and desire to know and to be raised by their biological parents. No other definition of marriage supports that. Moreover, marriage and the family has been under attack for a long time and we have the divorce rates to prove it. All of the fall out from broken marriages is damaging to children and the costs to society are enormous.

There is a serious public interest to be served in the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. I encourage everyone to check out “Catholics for the Common Good” and the marvelous work and message that they are providing on this topic. You find the website at: ccgaction.org/

God bless

 

[DavidFilmer]

Extremely fallacious logic.

If two consenting adults choose to shoot each other in the face then it should be alright and morals have nothing to do with it.

If I’m not mistaken, this is the only thread in which I have been at some variance with the esteemed CM.

And I’m not talking about the “extremely fallacious” and unlikely scenario of mutual murder (given the unlikely possibility of both shooting at the same instant - otherwise one of them comes out alive).

I interpreted the OP’s question to apply to legal recognition of marriage in some country (I presumed the United States). I did not interpret the question as to gauge the morality of such “marriage” according to the Catholic Church (whose position is well established).

I objected to the very idea that the State can regulate a Catholic Sacrament in any way. But I maintain that the State can pass laws that favor (or disfavor) any sort of union, whether it is called (by the State) “marriage” or “civil union,” and whether it involves a man and a woman, or a man and his mare.

 

[Evan]

What is the end of marriage. What is required to marry.

The ends are

1. Procreation and raising the offspring in a stable healthy environment
2. Unity between the spouses

Requirements
3) The spouses must be capable of consummating the marriage

I don’t see 1) or 3) being satisfied in same sex unions. Only 2)

 

[DavidFilmer]

So, based on what you said, it’s not right to oppose gay marriage as long as it’s a state marriage?

I’m saying the two have nothing to do with each other. Marriage is a Sacrament of the Catholic Church.

The State (in the USA) recognizes MANY types of unions. For example, a corporation is a type of union. A limited-liability corporation (LLC) is another. A worker’s union is another. A business partnership is another. A political party is another. The Marine Corps is another.

These unions are all governed by State laws. The rights and responsibilities of these unions are governed by State laws.

The State recognizes “marriage” as a union. The State has laws regarding what types of unions it recognizes. The State does not recognize polygamy. The State does not recognize marriage of close affinity (ie, a brother cannot marry a sister). The State does not recognize marriage below the age of consent (which varies, in the USA, in different jurisdictions).

These restrictions are all favorably disposed to Catholic teaching. But the State is fully capable of changing any of these conditions. If the State passed laws allowing polygamy, it would be fully within its rights to do so (and this is allowed in some (non-American) jurisdictions).

Traditionally, the State (USA) has not recognized homosexual unions. But there is no reason why the State could not do so, any more than the state could not allow polygamy.

WARNING: Once “gay marriage” is the law of the land, polygamy is next.

 

[Mark86]

These restrictions are all favorably disposed to Catholic teaching. But the State is fully capable of changing any of these conditions.

Traditionally, the State (USA) has not recognized homosexual unions. But there is no reason why the State could not do so, any more than the state could not allow polygamy.

Exactly. My state has recognized homosexual unions for over a decade now. The personal opinions of the politicians running for office don’t even affect anymore what the law has determined on this issue. It’s done. It’s over. I can be against it all I want, but the majority has spoken. And the majority will speak again if polygamy ever comes up, just like the majority spoke when they legalized divorce and remarriage and no-fault divorce.

I don’t like how confusing this issue can get. In my opinion, because gay marriage can not be Sacramental, if legalized, it is purely a civil union. In my opinion, this makes it no different than secular state-defined “marriage” in general. In fact, I’d go so far as to say even heterosexual marriage divorced from any Trinitarian Christian context is not even marriage “in the eyes of God” but is merely a civil partnership. Two people partnering up in some way to receive legal benefits from a state that is willing to recognize their partnership (which is actually what gays are doing by getting civil unions) is in no way contrary to Church teaching in principle… so what is the Church complaining about? Are gays not allowed to enter into any civil unions according to the Church? On what grounds? It makes no difference what gay people are claiming their civil unions are, because objectively those unions (according to Church teaching) not only aren’t, but can’t be “Matrimony.” In other words, sometimes it seems the Church is saying it is opposed to gay marriage simply because “gays consider it to be marriage.” What they think doesn’t matter though. Trying to forbid them from seeking civil unions doesn’t make what they’re doing less Sacramental. It already isn’t.

In any case, if we are then opposed to gays getting into civil partnerships (civil unions), which is reasonable especially if they are using them to engage in immoral acts (“sexual immorality”)… then we’re also obligated to be opposed to ANYONE getting into a civil union partnership where they will be using them to engage in other immoral acts (“sexual immorality”)… this would include secular heterosexual people getting married outside the Church and having sex within the partnership. Why? For the same reasons. The gay civil union isn’t “Matrimony” either approved or governed and Sacramentalized by the Church, so any sexual relations between them would be examples of sexual immorality (sodomy/fornication). Likewise, the straight civil unions aren’t “Matrimony” either approved or governed and Sacramentalized by the Church, so any sexual relations between them would also be examples of sexual immorality (fornication). This would involve a large swath of humanity (both gay and straight) participating in sinful practices, though legal, but condemned by the Church.

Likewise, divorce, being legal, would only apply to secular civil unions, which aren’t marriages governed by the Church, so since there was no “marriage” (gay or straight), anyone who sought a civil partnership outside the Church would be free to terminate the partnership, gay or straight. They would also be free to enter into new contracts to share benefits with new parties, gay or straight, and all would be legal in the eyes of the State. Therefore the teaching on the immorality of divorce and remarriage would ONLY apply to people who sought “Matrimony” either within the Catholic Church or who participated in Christian marriage approved by the Catholic Church.

See, the problem I have with all this is if we decide to be civilly against gay “civil unions” because they’re not Sacramental (like we do with civil gay marriages), then we are forced to also be civilly against ANY civil union that is not “Sacramental.” This would mean the actions of a large swath of the population (heterosexuals) who sought out a secular partnership by civil law should be as condemned by the Church as gays who sought one out. If the Church doesn’t do that though, and we say that the Church recognizes heterosexual civil unions as valid in the eyes of God, then we have to condemn the actions of all those who (though not part of the Church) sought to divorce and remarry, just like we do with those married within the Church.

Ironically, such would end up setting up a situation where the Church would approve of gays “divorcing” (being leased from their secular partnerships) simply because they weren’t under any conditions that would preclude them from doing so in the eyes of God. Only gays would have that right in the eyes of God though, because then the Church (accepting all heterosexual marriages as natural law marriages) would have to be as strenuously opposed to DIVORCE as it is to “gay marriage,” not just for Catholics, but for all heterosexual marriages. Thus a situation would be set up where gays would actually end up having more freedoms to make and lease themselves from these civil partnerships than straights would, in the eye of God and the Church.

It basically comes down to whether we want to condemn everyone outside the Church equally or accept everyone outside the Church equally. Since the Church has defined this matter very strictly, then I don’t see another option but to condemn everyone outside the Church equally… understanding of course that “the Church” includes whatever the Church recognizes (ie. Christian marriage outside the Church).

I may be wrong in my analysis and I may be overthinking this, but that’s what I get from this whole debate. It’s very perplexing to me how the Church can navigate the waters that it’s about to navigate as the centuries go forward.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
WARNING: Once “gay marriage” is the law of the land, polygamy is next.

No. Gay adoption then polygamy.

 

[Rau]

…I don’t like how confusing this issue can get. In my opinion, because gay marriage can not be Sacramental, if legalized, it is purely a civil union. In my opinion, this makes it no different than secular state-defined “marriage” in general. In fact, I’d go so far as to say even heterosexual marriage **divorced from any Trinitarian Christian context **is not even marriage “in the eyes of God” but is merely a civil partnership.

As you rightly say, the above is a personal opinion - and stands in opposition to the Church’s position. The Church recognises marriages that are not sacramental (ie. at least one person is not baptised). and consider the couple “married” with all the rights and responsibilities of married persons.

The promises that 2 homosexuals may make to each other are not marriage, regardless of their state of baptism. The legal reality of the ‘rights’ granted by virtue of the States actions are not in doubt.

Two people partnering up in some way to receive legal benefits from a state that is willing to recognize their partnership (which is actually what gays are doing by getting civil unions) is in no way contrary to Church teaching in principle… so what is the Church complaining about?

The Church objects to that arrangement being identified as a “marriage”, which is a thing quite apart from the legal ‘rights’ attached to it. Further, Marriage is a sexual union - hence the Church objects to the State, by terming the said civil union (of same sex persons) “marriage”, endorsing and acclaiming an immoral sexual union.

Are gays not allowed to enter into any civil unions according to the Church? On what grounds?

Of course they are. But what union is the State proposing other than Marriage? Were the State to propose a type of union that met the needs of arbitrary persons to share assets, file joint tax returns, provide mutual care for each other and so forth, I imagine the Church would have no objection at all.

It makes no difference what gay people are claiming their civil unions are, because objectively those unions (according to Church teaching) not only aren’t, but can’t be “Matrimony.”

Agreed. The problem is that the State is claiming and acting otherwise. [By the way - no one talks about “civil unions” anymore - its about “marriage equality” and the State is quick to agree with that goal.]

What they think doesn’t matter though. Trying to forbid them from seeking civil unions doesn’t make what they’re doing less Sacramental.

The essence of marriage is not its potential sacramental nature.

In any case, if we are then opposed to gays getting into civil partnerships (civil unions), which is reasonable especially if they are using them to engage in immoral acts (“sexual immorality”)… then we’re also obligated to be opposed to ANYONE getting into a civil union partnership where they will be using them to engage in other immoral acts (“sexual immorality”)… this would include secular heterosexual people getting married outside the Church and having sex within the partnership.

No - this is simply wrong. The marriages of unbaptised persons are perfectly proper. The Catholic Church does not claim to be the sole venue for valid marriages.

Likewise, the straight civil unions aren’t “Matrimony” either approved or governed and Sacramentalized by the Church, so any sexual relations between them would also be examples of sexual immorality (fornication).

No - this is simply wrong.

See, the problem I have with all this is if we decide to be civilly against gay “civil unions” because they’re not Sacramental (like we do with civil gay marriages), then we are forced to also be civilly against ANY civil union that is not “Sacramental.”

Your premise is wrong. Opposition to gay “marriage” has nothing to do with the distinction you draw between sacramental and non-sacramental. Marriages which are not sacramental are proper, genuine and sexual relations within those unions are moral.

It basically comes down to whether we want to condemn everyone outside the Church equally or accept everyone outside the Church equally.

No. As explained marriages outside the Church are valid. (And, fyi, should the parties later be baptised, the marriage becomes sacramental.)

I may be wrong in my analysis and I may be overthinking this, but that’s what I get from this whole debate. It’s very perplexing to me how the Church can navigate the waters that it’s about to navigate as the centuries go forward.

Yes, you have made some errors in analysis which I have sought to point out and correct above.

 

[DavidFilmer]

No. Gay adoption then polygamy.

In Oregon, we had gay adoption before we had gay marriage.

I cannot imagine what it would have been like to be a child growing up in a gay household (especially if the “parents” were men - as a guy, that really creeps me out).

I think people would assume I was gay. I’m about the least-gay guy in the world.

 

[Mark86]

Of course they are. But what union is the State proposing other than Marriage? Were the State to propose a type of union that met the needs of arbitrary persons to share assets, file joint tax returns, provide mutual care for each other and so forth, I imagine the Church would have no objection at all.

This actually clears up a lot of my confusion. I get now that it’s not so much what it really is but what the State claims it is, that the Church is reacting against. Please forgive me. I’m a new Catholic and I’m coming out of a very “worldly” former life, so I’m trying to understand just how far the Church goes on a number of issues.

I agree with everything, but I still have one question…

The essence of marriage is not its potential sacramental nature.

I get that it’s wrong to think that it is, but I thought that Sacramental marriages were special in some way that these non-Sacramental ones aren’t… which is why the Church only seems to prohibit divorce among Catholics. I’ve even heard priests, among Catholic Answers even, suggest that people outside the Church, who aren’t even Baptized, who are divorced after a secular “marriage” don’t even have to worry about their previous “marriage” when they enter the Church and go to be married in the Sacrament. Maybe I’m wrong again, but that would suggest that the previous “marriage” wasn’t valid in the eyes of God.

The marriages of unbaptised persons are perfectly proper. The Catholic Church does not claim to be the sole venue for valid marriages.

Why are they proper? Why doesn’t the Church claim this? Isn’t marriage (as a Sacrament) unique to Christ’s Church? Why would the Church accept as “valid” these rival secular venues for marriage? I’m just confused.

Your premise is wrong. Opposition to gay “marriage” has nothing to do with the distinction you draw between sacramental and non-sacramental. Marriages which are not sacramental are proper, genuine and sexual relations within those unions are moral.

Why? Let’s say a couple “married” by the state (outside the Church) is using contraception because they don’t adhere to anything the Church teaches about the Sacrament of Matrimony… how could that be genuine, proper, and moral to an extent that the Church would accept such relations as “genuine, proper, and moral”? I guess what I’m asking is, how is a straight couple engaging in sin outside the Church different from a gay couple outside the Church engaging in sin? Does the couple being gender binary make their sin less sinful than the gay couple’s?

No. As explained marriages outside the Church are valid. (And, fyi, should the parties later be baptised, the marriage becomes sacramental.)

You’ve told me that they are valid, but what makes them valid? I understand that they certainly can become valid and Sacramentalized once they enter the Church, but how are they valid even before that?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Any two consenting adults should be able to get married.

I would respond similarly to some others with some caveats. I would ask in return for clarity on the assertion.

• Why two?
• Why adults?
• Why consenting?

Why is that criteria the dogmatic principle by which we must abide? They are merely imposing their religious belief as superior to yours. I would submit eventually such a claimant would end up having to make “natural law” arguments about a human being’s right to this or that–which is why they included “consenting” because they know forced marriage would be a violation against a human person. And then you can get into what is it about being human and into the natural law arguments for why marriage is something that can only occur between one man and one woman.

 

[unstoppable_II]

In Oregon, we had gay adoption before we had gay marriage.

Still, it came before polygamy [a minor point].

I cannot imagine what it would have been like to be a child growing up in a gay household (especially if the “parents” were men - as a guy, that really creeps me out).

The homosexual movement appears to be working for social arrangements that enable a favorable environment for locating sex partners.
Forty-five years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.
After a lengthy court case that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts have caved into homosexual men’s desires to be Scout leaders. DADT has been abolished by the military. [What better place to find new sex partners than the military?] NAMBLA’s goal is to lower the age of consent. NAMBLA means “North American Man-Boy Love Association” for a reason. As I said, soon there will be cries for homosexual adoption to locate new sex partners.

 

[Rau]

…I thought that Sacramental marriages were special in some way that these non-Sacramental ones aren’t… which is why the Church only seems to prohibit divorce among Catholics. I’ve even heard priests, among Catholic Answers even, suggest that people outside the Church, who aren’t even Baptized, who are divorced after a secular “marriage” don’t even have to worry about their previous “marriage” when they enter the Church and go to be married in the Sacrament. Maybe I’m wrong again, but that would suggest that the previous “marriage” wasn’t valid in the eyes of God.

Special yes - but the marriage is not “invalid” because it is not sacramental! The sacrament of Matrimony is only available to the baptised. The baptised persons administer the sacrament to each other, before witnesses. Exceptions aside, a Catholic cannot validly marry except in the presence of a priest. Two non-Catholics may marry before a minister or civil magistrate and they are “genuinely married”. If the two are “unbaptised”, their marriage is called a “natural marriage”. If both non-Catholics are (validly) baptised, their marriage is a sacrament. Sacramental marriages receive graces - sanctifying grace and sacramental grace. Natural marriages may be dissolved, sacramental marriages may not be dissolved (if consummated).

Why would the Church accept as “valid” these rival secular venues for marriage? I’m just confused.

How would denying the non-Catholic world marriage serve God’s purpose?

Let’s say a couple “married” by the state (outside the Church) is using contraception because they don’t adhere to anything the Church teaches about the Sacrament of Matrimony, how could that be genuine, proper, and moral to an extent that the Church would accept such relations as “genuine, proper, and moral”?

The marriage and sexual relations are proper, so long as neither party is Catholic. The sinfulness of contraception is not related to whether the marriage is sacramental. Further - for one to be culpable for the sin of contraception, one must know that it is sinful.

I guess what I’m asking is, how is a straight couple engaging in sin outside the Church different from a gay couple outside the Church engaging in sin? Does the couple being gender binary make their sin less sinful than the gay couple’s?

I understand the question, but don’t see how it is relevant in this context. There are many ways to sin. Two Catholics marrying outside the Church are not married, and their sexual relations are sinful. Two men engaging in sexual acts is sinful.

I understand that they certainly can become -]valid and /-]Sacramentalized once they enter the Church, but how are they valid even before that?

I think I’ve addressed this above - bottom line is that amongst the prerequisites for a valid marriage (“in general”) will NOT be found a requirement to be Catholic, or even to be baptised. Pre-requisites for a valid natural marriage (so this assumes non-Catholics) include:

• consent freely given
• age of participants
• no pre-existing marriage
• no unacceptable familial relationship (eg. father + daughter)
• 1 man + 1 woman
• ability to consummate

 

[Phemie]

Exceptions aside, a Catholic cannot validly marry except in the presence of a priest.

Or a deacon or, in certain circumstances, a lay person appointed by the Bishop.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Or a deacon or, in certain circumstances, a lay person appointed by the Bishop.

Ah, it would appear that we have a Canon Lawyer in our midst. Or, at least, certainly someone who is better versed in Canon Law than most of us on this Forum (who are probably unaware of the layperson provision of Canon Law).

May I ask your opinion on the Western Catholic practice of priests signing marriage licenses (instruments of civil legal authority)?

 

[Phemie]

Ah, it would appear that we have a Canon Lawyer in our midst. Or, at least, certainly someone who is better versed in Canon Law than most of us on this Forum (who are probably unaware of the layperson provision of Canon Law).

May I ask your opinion on the Western Catholic practice of priests signing marriage licenses (instruments of civil legal authority)?

No canon lawyer, I can assure you. But when I was parish secretary I read Canon Law for fun. I am in no way versed in the ins and outs but the lay person provision I’m familiar with because of the many isolated parishes in my diocese – some have had lay persons appointed to witness marriages when no priest could be there for extended periods.

As for the practice of priests signing marriage licenses… I would prefer the practice as it is in many European countries: both a civil and a religious marriage. Those who really care about what the Church teaches about marriage would opt to do both. As far as I can see, lots of couples wouldn’t bother with the Church if they had to have a prior civil marriage, they simply don’t care about the Church and her teachings on marriage. I’ve seen how easily some brides opt for a judge rather than a priest when the priest won’t bend to their every whim – one called off the Church wedding two days before when and went to the Court House because the priest told her they would have to sit for the reading of the Gospel. Unwrinkled dresses were more important than the sacrament of Marriage.

 

[Mark86]

Two non-Catholics may marry before a minister or civil magistrate and they are “genuinely married”. If the two are “unbaptised”, their marriage is called a “natural marriage”. If both non-Catholics are (validly) baptised, their marriage is a sacrament. Sacramental marriages receive graces - sanctifying grace and sacramental grace. Natural marriages may be dissolved, sacramental marriages may not be dissolved (if consummated).

Okay, I think I understand. Thank you for your patience in putting up with my ignorance. It occurred to me that “natural marriage” has been around long before the Christ raised it to a Sacrament, and that even if there are sinful things in it (contraception, legal divorce, adultery…etc), at least the natural marriage itself is “ordered towards” its natural God-desired ends and those sins can be corrected by conversion. On the contrary, a homosexual union posing as a marriage is not ordered toward any God-desired ends and therefore its sinfulness can’t even be “corrected.” It has only to be terminated with its parties separated and in sackcloth for having undertaken it. At least straight marriages, even if sinful, can have their sinful states corrected. Homosexual unions can’t. No matter what they do, it seems they can’t have the blessings that come with married life that are so extolled by the Church. It’s just one more reason why life sucks for them. Instead of the fruits of companionship and progeny, they (literally) have “only Christ” to turn to in their desolation.

 

[Rau]

Okay, I think I understand. Thank you for your patience in putting up with my ignorance. It occurred to me that “natural marriage” has been around long before the Christ raised it to a Sacrament, and that even if there are sinful things in it (contraception, legal divorce, adultery…etc), at least the natural marriage itself is “ordered towards” its natural God-desired ends and those sins can be corrected by conversion. On the contrary, a homosexual union posing as a marriage is not ordered toward any God-desired ends and therefore its sinfulness can’t even be “corrected.” It has only to be terminated with its parties separated and in sackcloth for having undertaken it. At least straight marriages, even if sinful, can have their sinful states corrected. Homosexual unions can’t. No matter what they do, it seems they can’t have the blessings that come with married life that are so extolled by the Church. It’s just one more reason why life sucks for them. Instead of the fruits of companionship and progeny, they (literally) have “only Christ” to turn to in their desolation.

They also have friends.

 

[Ignatius]

Title is the argument. What is a good response?

Why only two? The poly-amorous are people too. Why should an arbitrary choice of only two people shackle us? Shouldn’t people be able to use as many people as they please for their pleasure? After all please is the root of pleasure.

 

[frobert]

Title is the argument. What is a good response?

You question is too general, you need to define the categories. The 3 categories that most frequently appear on CAF are same sex, incest and polygamy. The first is legal though some states ban SS marriage it but there are no legal ramifications for those married in other states other than banning states do not recognize the marriage. That leaves arguments from a religious belief but that has a history of being reject by others with different beliefs. The remaining categories are illegal in all states and could incur legal ramifications. So for those categories it is best to simply say they are illegal. I know a lot of misinformed people claim there is a slippery slope but they need to be reminded that the slippery slope is a fallacy and that each category rests on its own merits or demerits.