Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[FollowChrist34]

Which rather begs the question of why this article is published in a student run Catholic law journal, rather than a journal of sociology or anthropology.

Until you look at the polemical style and the low quality of evidence and argument, at which point it becomes quit obvious. They stop just short of citing someone they met in a pub!

Still, feel free to cite where this student-published monograph proves that the Mohave, for example, did not have same sex marriages. :ehh:

Why has fortune been so cruel to these cultures?

 

[Thorolfr]

Why has fortune been so cruel to these cultures?

Is that an argument for why we should think ourselves superior to them? We could ask other similar questions. Why, for example, was most of the Middle East and North Africa which used to be Christian conquered by Muslims and most of its people converted to Islam? Would that be a good argument for why Islam is superior to Christianity?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Is that an argument for why we should think ourselves superior to them? We could ask other similar questions. Why, for example, was most of the Middle East and North Africa which used to be Christian conquered by Muslims and most of its people converted to Islam? Would that be a good argument for why Islam is superior to Christianity?

Well, aren’t there numerous examples of Christianity conquering Islam? Look at Africa today - In Africa Alone Everyday, 16,000 Muslims Leave Islam - just pulled this statement from the Internet. The conversion rates from Islam to Christianity in Africa are astonishing (and not very well publicized). Can you point me to one example of a lasting, thriving culture with gay marriage? Just as a selling point, if you will.

 

[Thorolfr]

Well, aren’t there numerous examples of Christianity conquering Islam? Look at Africa today - In Africa Alone Everyday, 16,000 Muslims Leave Islam - just pulled this statement from the Internet. The conversion rates from Islam to Christianity in Africa are astonishing (and not very well publicized). Can you point me to one example of a lasting, thriving culture with gay marriage? Just as a selling point, if you will.

Using these kinds of arguments to explain why one kind of culture or religion is better than another are not very convincing. For example:

According to a 2005 paper submitted to a meeting of the American Political Science Association, most of Christianity’s growth has occurred in non-Western countries. The paper concludes that the Pentecostalism movement is the fastest-growing religion worldwide.[48]

The US Department of State estimates that Protestants in Vietnam may have grown by 600% over the last decade.[49] In Nigeria, the percentage of Christians has grown from 21.4% in 1953 to 50.8% in 2010.[50] In South Korea, Christianity has grown from 20.7% in 1985 to 29.3% in 2010.[50]

Evangelical Christian denominations are among the fastest-growing denominations in some Catholic Christian countries, such as Brazil and France.[51][52] In Brazil, the total number of Protestants jumped from 16.2% in 2000[53] to 22.2% in 2010 (for the first time, the percentage of Catholics in Brazil is less than 70%). These cases don’t contribute to a growth of Christianity overall, but rather to a substitution of a brand of Christianity with another one.

The records of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints show that its membership has grown every decade since its beginning in the 1830s,[54] that it is among the top ten largest Christian denominations today,[55] and that it is the fastest growing church in America.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

So if we made judgments about which kind of Christianity is best based on its rate of growth, we would have to conclude that Pentacostalism and Mormonism are the best kinds of Christianity.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Attempts, yes. Nowhere does it prove that any of these civilisations did not have same sex marriages.

Yes, yes…you’ve made your point that ancient cough civilisations had lots of unusual types of cohabitation and sexual activity.

Caligula slept with his sisters and ‘loved’ his horse too.

So what is it? Back to the future?

 

[LisaA]

Yes, yes…you’ve made your point that ancient cough civilisations had lots of unusual types of cohabitation and sexual activity.

Caligula slept with his sisters and ‘loved’ his horse too.

So what is it? Back to the future?

I believe Caligula MARRIED his horse. Definitely a practice to be emulated…

 

[Lion_IRC]

LGBTQI spokespeople scream if you use the “B” word and they go on a rant about the slippery slope fallacy.

But why aren’t they happy to take the credit for breaking down the barriers of intolerance and the stigma associated with animal love?

Who are they to label zoophilia a disgusting abomination?

Seems they only become Puritan moralisers and impose their will on others when THEY decide what is ‘yucky’.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Using these kinds of arguments to explain why one kind of culture or religion is better than another are not very convincing. For example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

So if we made judgments about which kind of Christianity is best on its rate of growth, we would have to conclude that Pentacostalism and Mormonism are the best kind of Christianity.

I’ll take this as a “sorry, no.” *(i.e., I cannot produce an example in the history of the world of a thriving, dominant, successful culture that has allowed gay marriage on a par with heterosexual marriage, so let’s try another argument, and fast). *

Are you implying that a person’s sexuality forms the basis of an identity and shared community is the same manner as a religion?

We can at least agree I hope that pretty much every single culture the world has ever known has practiced some form of religion. These religious cultures have fought wars and struggled with each other for dominance since the beginning of recorded history. At one point in time, one religion or culture ascends, at another, an opposing force.

Every single major established world religion has rejected the practice of homosexuality as unnatural. Religions have served to provide a shared value system and sense of community to humanity, enabling various groups to prosper and expand. Part of the success of these communities is based on their ability to unify individuals into serving the common good. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the foundation of all of these systems, without exception, as you concede.

I am talking Darwin here, not Jesus. I am not worried about what is “better;” I am worried about what will survive, what will withstand the conflicts and opposing forces in the world that, as you rightly point out, every culture has ever faced. What is best for the health and survival of the human race. Surely, this is in our best interests? Over and above directing our culture to fulfillment of individual diversity as its primary good?

 

[Thorolfr]

I’ll take this as a “sorry, no.” *(i.e., I cannot produce an example in the history of the world of a thriving, dominant, successful culture that has allowed gay marriage on a par with heterosexual marriage, so let’s try another argument, and fast). *

Are you implying that a person’s sexuality forms the basis of an identity and shared community is the same manner as a religion?

We can at least agree I hope that pretty much every single culture the world has ever known has practiced some form of religion. These religious cultures have fought wars and struggled with each other for dominance since the beginning of recorded history. At one point in time, one religion or culture ascends, at another, an opposing force.

Every single major established world religion has rejected the practice of homosexuality as unnatural. Religions have served to provide a shared value system and sense of community to humanity, enabling various groups to prosper and expand. Part of the success of these communities is based on their ability to unify individuals into serving the common good. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the foundation of all of these systems, without exception, as you concede.

I am talking Darwin here, not Jesus. I am not worried about what is “better;” I am worried about what will survive, what will withstand the conflicts and opposing forces in the world that, as you rightly point out, every culture has ever faced. What is best for the health and survival of the human race. Surely, this is in our best interests? Over and above directing our culture to fulfillment of individual diversity as its primary good?

What existed in societies in the past is not always a good guide for how things must always be. Before 1920, women could not vote in US national elections and were long considered inferior to men and were often treated like property in most cultures. They still are treated this way in many places in the world. Women still cannot even drive in Saudi Arabia or leave the country without the permission of a male guardian. This seems backwards to people in the west today, but women were not treated all that differently in western countries a few hundred years ago.

 

[FollowChrist34]

What existed in societies in the past is not always a good guide for how things must always be. Before 1920, women could not vote in US national elections and were long considered inferior to men and were often treated like property in most cultures. They still are treated this way in many places in the world. Women still cannot even drive in Saudi Arabia or leave the country without the permission of a male guardian. This seems backwards to people in the west today, but women were not treated all that differently in western countries a few hundred years ago.

Ok. So it is irrelevant to our argument whether the Native Americans (or anyone else in an earlier civilization for that matter) practiced gay marriage as they could have just been “in the dark.” We’re done with that.

Now we are viewing gay marriage as “progress” and a completely novel experiment from a moral and social perspective. I personally prefer this view as I believe it is a little more accurate.

We are now arguing that the changes in the historical, biological and social relationships between the two sexes, men and women, throughout history, with their different functions in the creation and furtherance of the human race, somehow parallel the current proposed changes to the institution of marriage by the very small minority of men and women who practice homosexuality.

Cultural relations between men and women have, I agree, evolved through a wide variety of influences. I believe that the social climate and environmental factors in which a culture is developing also play a role here. For example, in rural, undeveloped areas and parts of the world, women will take on certain roles with the family that they would not necessarily do in a populated, modern environment. Different economic systems and demands play a role. Christianity has a played a major role in furthering human rights in Western culture. While not always consistent, Christian cultures have, generally moved toward wider and wider recognition of women as human beings and not property, sex objects, etc. None of these advancements have changed the fundamental biological role of women as the bearer of the children of the family. The man remains the head of the household in the family unit and plays a supporting role to his wife and children. This remains the basic model and fundamental cornerstone of all societies, in spite of the Western advances of women in terms of social freedom. Ideally, these relationships evolve but continue to adhere and serve the common good of the human race. I do not see a parallel here with the individualistic advancement of the argument of two homosexual persons assuming the role of man and wife in a modern household. The former (when properly applied) seeks to encourage human rights within a stable, nurturing community; the latter seeks to serve individual rights as its primary end. In fact, I see a parallel here with negative** developments, such as the right to abortion. Not all progress is good.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Examples of civilisations that had same sex marriage.

The Arapaho: Alfred L. Kroeber, The Arapaho, 18 Bull. Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 1, 19 (1902)
The Navajo: W.W. Hill, The Status of the Hermaphrodite and Transvestite in Navajo Culture, 37 Am. Anthropologist 273 (1935)
The Mohave: George Devereux, Institutionalized Homosexuality of the Mohave Indians, 9 Hum.
Biology 498 (1937)
Winnebago: Nancy 0. Lurie, Winnebago Berdache, 55 Am. Anthropologist 708 (1953)
The Pima: W.W. Hill, Note on the Pima Berdache, 40 Am. Anthropologist 338 (1938)
Zuni: Elsie C. Parsons, The Zuni La’Mana, 18 Am. Anthropologist 521 (1916)
Matilda C. Stevenson, The Zuni Indians, The Twenty-Third Ann. Rep. Bureau Am. Ethnology 3 (1904)
Will Roscoe, The Zuni Man-Woman 29-52 (1991)
Tahiti: Robert I. Levy, The Community Function of Tahitian Male Transvestitism, 44 Anthropological Q. 12 (1971)

Charles Callender & Lee M. Kochems, The North American Berdache, 24 Current Anthropology 443 (1983)
James S. Thayer, The Berdache of the Northern Plains, 36 J. Anthropological Res. 287 (1980)
Donald G. Forgey, The Institution of Berdache Among the North American Plains Indians, 11 J. Sex Res. 1 (1975)

Francisco Guerra, The Pre-Columbian Mind (1971) :
Cites many contemporary reports of same sex marriage, for example:
Francisco Lopez de Gomara, History of the Indies (1552)
Alvar Cabeza de Vaca , Narrative of the Expeditions and Shipwrecks of Cabeza de Vaca (1542)
Juan de Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana (1615)
Pedro de Magdlhaes, The Histories of Brazil (1576)
Siberia:
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality(1988)

Waldemar Bogoras, The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: The Chukchee 451 (Franz Boas ed., 1904-1909)

Similar traditions in Vietnam, India, Burma, Korea, Nepal, the Austral Islands, New Zealand, and the Cook Islands

Africa:
Ifi Amadiume, Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society 48-49 (1987)
E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Sexual Inversion Among the Azande, 72 Am. Anthropologist 1428-34 (1970)

David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality(1988)

Melville J. Herskovits, A Note on “Woman Marriage” in Dahomey, 10 Africa 335 (1937)
Eileen J. Krige, Note on the Phalaborwa and Their Morula Complex, 11 Bantu Stud. 357 (1937).
E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer 108-09 (1951):

Denise O’Brien, Female Husbands in Southern Bantu Societies, in Sexual Stratification: A Cross-Cultural View 109 (Alice Schlegel ed., 1977)

Egypt:
Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9]

(Supported by burials of male same sex couples with stela depicting them in intimate poses. Including one king, Akhenaten)
See also the Siwa Oasis where same sex marriage traditions persisted into the modern era.
Walter Cline, Notes of the People of Siwah and el Garah in the Libyan Desert (Leslie Spier ed., 1936)
Edmund Leach, Marriage, Legitimacy, Alliance, in Social Anthropology 176, 210 (1982)

Hittite code of law covering male same sex couples:
Ephraim Neufeld, The Hittite Laws 8-11 (1951)

Rome:
Martial, Juvenal and Cicero all mention same sex (male) marriages taking place with the same rites and under the same laws as opposite sex marriages.

Where have we seen this all before? Another thread perhaps…???

“Rome:
Martial, Juvenal and Cicero all mention same sex (male) marriages taking place with the same rites and under the same laws as opposite sex marriages.”

That is simply not true. Some Romans had same sex WEDDINGS but the relationship was never recognized as a MARRIAGE by Roman law. Both ancient Rome and Greece accepted homosexual relations and Greece held such relationships in high esteem. But neither culture recognized same sex relationships as Marriage. Marriage was for procreation and defined that way by both Roman and Greek law.

You brought up the absurd premise:

Originally Posted by DrTaffy View Post
Many many cultures, including many of those existing in the current USA before christians arrived, had definitions of marriage that included same sex cultures…

Your are arguing that marriage should be redefined to include homosexual relationships because uncivilized cultures, with no written history, recognized homosexual relationships.

These simple tribes or cultures had words or signs for unions of people. But they always differentiated between a union of a man and a woman and anything else. This was logical because the tribe or culture depended on the natural union of man and woman for the survival of the tribe (procreation). They could have used the same word (“Union”, for example) to describe any form of living arrangement. However they would modify that term to distinguish between the type of living arrangement (Union).

A tribe might use their term “Union” to describe “all who live in one hut”. But they would add another term (Normal) to describe a union of a man and woman. A “Normal Union”, so to say. In the case of two homosexuals living in one hut, they would probably use the term “weird”. In their language…“Weird Union”. It was always differentiated.

Remember there were many, many ancient cultures that condemned homosexuality. (Islam) I believe the Vikings burned them at the stake. Other cultures exiled or shunned homosexuals.

Would you say those actions by ancient cultures justify the same thing today?

 

[LisaA]

Cultural relations between men and women have, I agree, evolved through a wide variety of influences. I believe that the social climate and environmental factors in which a culture is developing also play a role here. For example, in rural, undeveloped areas and parts of the world, women will take on certain roles with the family that they would not necessarily do in a populated, modern environment. Different economic systems and demands play a role. Christianity has a played a major role in furthering human rights in Western culture. While not always consistent, Christian cultures have, generally moved toward wider and wider recognition of women as human beings and not property, sex objects, etc. None of these advancements have changed the fundamental biological role of women as the bearer of the children of the family. The man remains the head of the household in the family unit and plays a supporting role to his wife and children. This remains the basic model and fundamental cornerstone of all societies, in spite of the Western advances of women in terms of social freedom. Ideally, these relationships evolve but continue to adhere and serve the common good of the human race. I do not see a parallel here with the individualistic advancement of the argument of two homosexual persons assuming the role of man and wife in a modern household. The former (when properly applied) seeks to encourage human rights within a stable, nurturing community; the latter seeks to serve individual rights as its primary end. In fact, I see a parallel here with negative** developments, such as the right to abortion. Not all progress is good.

Nicely put. As you said, depending on circumstances women have assumed roles traditionally held by men…during war, during the settling of our country, women did hard physical work, earned money, planted and harvested crops and other ordinarily male activities. Yet nothing about circumstances can change the fundamental roles of the female as the mother (nor male as the father). Despite the “progress” we’ve made in women’s rights, our fundamental nature doesn’t change. Men and women are different and the complimentary nature has a function both in life and in child rearing.

Further the great irony is that gays and Lesbians reject heterosexuality yet instead of being the best version of who they claim they are, they attempt to be a nickel version of the real thing…gay “weddings” and often one of the couple (gay or Lesbian) assuming the more masculine role/appearance/action while the other takes on the feminine role, they want to acquire children even though biologically impossible…again being a poor version of the real thing.

If you’re so proud of being gay why do you try so hard to pretend to be straight?

 

[estesbob]

If you’re so proud of being gay why do you try so hard to pretend to be straight?

I don’t think they are trying to convince us their relationship is equivalent to a normal one as much as they are trying to convince themselves

 

[edwest2]

Ok. So it is irrelevant to our argument whether the Native Americans (or anyone else in an earlier civilization for that matter) practiced gay marriage as they could have just been “in the dark.” We’re done with that.

Now we are viewing gay marriage as “progress” and a completely novel experiment from a moral and social perspective. I personally prefer this view as I believe it is a little more accurate.

We are now arguing that the changes in the historical, biological and social relationships between the two sexes, men and women, throughout history, with their different functions in the creation and furtherance of the human race, somehow parallel the current proposed changes to the institution of marriage by the very small minority of men and women who practice homosexuality.

Cultural relations between men and women have, I agree, evolved through a wide variety of influences. I believe that the social climate and environmental factors in which a culture is developing also play a role here. For example, in rural, undeveloped areas and parts of the world, women will take on certain roles with the family that they would not necessarily do in a populated, modern environment. Different economic systems and demands play a role. Christianity has a played a major role in furthering human rights in Western culture. While not always consistent, Christian cultures have, generally moved toward wider and wider recognition of women as human beings and not property, sex objects, etc. None of these advancements have changed the fundamental biological role of women as the bearer of the children of the family. The man remains the head of the household in the family unit and plays a supporting role to his wife and children. This remains the basic model and fundamental cornerstone of all societies, in spite of the Western advances of women in terms of social freedom. Ideally, these relationships evolve but continue to adhere and serve the common good of the human race. I do not see a parallel here with the individualistic advancement of the argument of two homosexual persons assuming the role of man and wife in a modern household. The former (when properly applied) seeks to encourage human rights within a stable, nurturing community; the latter seeks to serve individual rights as its primary end. In fact, I see a parallel here with negative** developments, such as the right to abortion. Not all progress is good.

Well said.

Ed

 

[Lion_IRC]

Loving vs Virginia was the court’s recognition of the will of the people regarding citizenship not sexual preference.

All citizens equally must obey the law. And gay people (who are and always have been citizens) are not EXEMPT from obeying the law just because they dont like it or agree with it.

If you want a new law or new amendment to the Constitution specifically for gay people, or polygamists, or consanguineous relationships, and a new definition of marriage, do it democratically.

Yes, nobody is forcing straight people to marry homosexuals, but neither are homosexuals forced to get married.

 

[Demetra2]

I think it should be accepted as the sacrament of matrimony. Realistically, I believe the church will not allow this for a long time, but I think it’s about time that at least the states recognize it.

Who would I be to judge people who are in love?

You seem very confused about the meaning of sacraments in our Holy Catholic Church. Please search out some good catechesis to educate yourself fully about your faith.

 

[Demetra2]

I do not take every word literally. I think that leads to a blind acceptance. “Well, it’s written in the bible that Adam and Eve were the first humans so that must be true.” “The bible says homosexual relationships are wrong, so that must be true.” Some people actually accept every single word in the bible only because they are written in the bible. They don’t ever stop and ask themselves if they actually believe in it, they just assume they should because they have blindly accepted everything. I do not take every word literally. I have determined what I do and do not believe in and I am still working some stuff out. But I believe in God and spread love to everyone, so I figure that if I don’t believe that gay marriage is wrong, I’m not necessarily a bad Catholic or a bad person.

prepares for bashing on my personal opinion

I would advise you in your current state of mind and confusion to just pray for faith even if you don’t understand which you certainly don’t. It is OK to not understand. That gift from God will follow if you Trust in Him who loves you completely. Many people do not understand the faith initially but through trust via obedience and rejecting personal pride you will eventually gain knowledge and understanding. Have faith and love God by doing His will. Even if you don’t want to.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I don’t think they are trying to convince us their relationship is equivalent to a normal one as much as they are trying to convince themselves

Aye!
,

 

[Tomdstone]

I do not take every word literally. I think that leads to a blind acceptance. “Well, it’s written in the bible that Adam and Eve were the first humans so that must be true.”

I think that is right. For example, it says specifically in the Bible to Call no man Father. It also says that women should wear headcovering in Church. And it also says: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.”
So I don’t see anyone taking every word in the Bible literally.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I think that is right. For example, it says specifically in the Bible to Call no man Father. It also says that women should wear headcovering in Church. And it also says: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.”
So I don’t see anyone taking every word in the Bible literally.

Correct, I agree 100%. Reading every passage of the Bible literally will lead to chaos and indescribable confusion. It was written and compiled by a wide variety of different sources over centuries.

Bible study should taken seriously, though, by every Christian. And it is study, reading the text in the context of the historical, political, social, and religious context of its time. I think you need to read it all the way through at least twice, maybe more, plus simultaneously read reliable, high quality commentaries from mainstream religious scholars. (or take a class) Takes years for most of us to get there - no rush; I don’t think you ever stop either, right. Just reading this part or that for the rest of your life.

There is a remarkable coherence when it is taken as whole. The commandments of God do carry from the Old to the New Testament without a hitch. Jesus does reflect his Judaic roots into Christianity. (including the role of sexuality, the topic here ) But there is so much more to the Bible than this subject - no doubt - (glorious stuff) but these teachings are part and parcel of revelation.