Are laws against same sex sexual activity just laws?

[Peter_J]

Essentially it (US State Marriage) is only a contract conferring a range of economic and affine rights and is in fact a generic Civil Union vehicle anyways it seems .

Yes, it does seem that way. And perhaps that’s the important thing to emphasize, moving forward: that a statement by the government that you’re married does not, necessarily, mean that anything more than a civil union exists.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The law will not oppose persons engaging in sexual relations - that is clear. And in deciding this, the State did not change anything about the nature and context of marriage.

Obviously if adultery is illegal then marriage legitimates heterosexual sex.
The moment adultery is decriminalised marriage and sexual obligations have been largely decoupled .

The repeal of fornication laws no doubt faced opposition from some claiming the State was failing to uphold certain virtues, but did the State lessen or fail in its support for those marrying? No.

You don’t seem to understand my point. I am saying the decriminalising of fornication implies that persons do not need to marry to have a legitimate cohabiting sexual relationship. Marriage therefore is no longer the only way to engage in legitimate sex. It is primarily sought for other legal advantages. Sounds like a decoupling of sex from marriage as a legal vehicle to me.

The introduction of SSM is a definitive step which changes the meaning of the thing the State is supporting.

As is clear from above, State marriage rights (if that is what you mean by “meaning” which is all that I am concerned about and not the non-essential overlays culture might additionally add on) have been changing prior to SSM. What’s new? Yes SSM is more directly obvious than those caused by decriminalisation of fornication/adultery.

But given that State marriage has aleady had heterosexual sex rights effectively castrated from the legal rights accorded by olden time State marriage - why would we think this is a direct attempt to legalise gay sex?

It isn’t because decriminalisation of sodomy has already done that - just as adultery and fornication decriminalisation did for heterosexuals.

State marriage law used to support the public sexual union of man and woman. Civil Unions were conceived of to do similar - most often for same sex couples. Neither has to this point ceased to address what we would regard as sexual relationships.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
State Marriage no longer makes any difference to your legal right to have hetero sex.
Yet once it made it legal.

Consequently modern State Marriage is all about gaining other legal rights associated with committed companionship - but legitimation of sex is no longer part of them.

Note: protracted sexual relationship with cohabitation in many jurisdictions are deemed equivalent to marriage eg. “defacto relationship” etc.].

That you would say this means you did not understand me when I said:
“It also seems good for society that those who show long time permanence automatically access the same CU rights as those formally “married” … be they hetero or gay or whatever.”

The State once saw a particular reason to support (this goes beyond “legally legitimising”) the sexual union of “man + woman”. It has now seen reason to support other kinds of sexual relationships, and moreover, to declare them equivalent.

I disagree.
State marriage no longer legitimises any sexual acts - be they gay or hetero.

This is not in dispute. But nothing done legally has operated to remove the presumption of a sexual element.

People have all sorts of romantics accretions they add onto the legal vehicle.
Presumption of virginity I deem unlikely. Most have already been cohabiting or in a sexual relationship before marriage. You are still seeing state marriage as it used to be. In fact it no longer is from a legal perspective and there is no logic in your presuming a couple’s chastity will change just because they got married. Older couples may not even be marrying for sex anyways but for other benefits.

In reality, marriage or CU - these are understood to be sexual relationships.

This makes no sense. Couples who get state marriages cannot be presumed to be changing their sex lives at all .

Given that marriage no longer provides legal rights re sex why would they?
The legal benefits they seek in marriage are obvious - but anything to do with sex is just romance and therefore optional not presumed.

Which is why I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in current US marriage law that must have us presume it is legally legitimising gay sex.
I would not think the Church has any objection to the remaining legal advantages that such marriage does provide to cohabiting gay couples whether sexually active or not.
Such marriages will not change what they are already doing from a sexual point of view

 

[Rau]

Obviously if adultery is illegal then marriage legitimates heterosexual sex.

No - it says the State will sanction you if you break the promise you made to another.

The moment adultery is decriminalised marriage and sexual obligations have been largely decoupled .

No - it says the State concludes there is no merit in pursuing criminal sanction. It clearly does not mean the State concurs that adulterous activities are fine and dandy.

I am saying the decriminalising of fornication implies that persons do not need to marry to have a [legally] legitimate cohabiting sexual relationship. Marriage therefore is no longer the only way to engage in [legally] legitimate sex. It is primarily sought for other legal advantages. Sounds like a decoupling of sex from marriage as a legal vehicle to me.

That is self-evident. But it in no way implies that marriage is not sexual! Think of it in Venn diagram terms.
When fornication/cohabitation was illegal:

• draw 2 circles partially overlapping.
• One circle is Legal relationships, the other is Sexual relationships.
• The Overlap is Marriage. That part of Sexual which does not overlap is Fornication.

Fornication decriminalised:

• Shift the Sexual circle such that it is wholly within Legal;
• Rename fornication to something less ominous;
• Observe that both Marriage and Fornication (renamed now) remain within the Sexual Relationships circle.

Yes SSM is more directly obvious than those caused by decriminalisation of fornication/adultery.

Way more so!

Consequently modern State Marriage is all about gaining other legal rights associated with committed companionship - but legitimation of sex is no longer part of them

Legal legitimisation is clearly not an element of state marriage, but that has no bearing on the presumptive nature of the marriage relationship. [Your remark does leave me wondering why you are not fully on-board with SSM ]

State marriage no longer [legally] legitimises any sexual acts - be they gay or hetero.

Not in debate.

Couples who get state marriages cannot be presumed to be changing their sex lives at all .

Show me where I ever suggested the sex lives of a couple change when they marry? All I have said is that marriage is presumptively sexual. Is it your view that there is no basis to presume that?

Which is why I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in current US marriage law that must have us presume it is legally legitimising gay sex.

As discussed, it is not legally legitimising sex as you yourself have observed in connection with marriage generally. But because marriage is presumptively sexual, one has to question the merits of the State endorsing and acclaiming it (in just the same way it has endorsed and acclaimed traditional marriage).

I would not think the Church has any objection to the remaining legal advantages that such marriage does provide to cohabiting gay couples whether sexually active or not.

The Church is amply on the record as to its position regarding the extension of marriage laws to encompass same sex couples.

 

[Peter_J]

This makes no sense. Couples who get state marriages cannot be presumed to be changing their sex lives at all .

Given that marriage no longer provides legal rights re sex why would they?
The legal benefits they seek in marriage are obvious - but anything to do with sex is just romance and therefore optional not presumed.

Which is why I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in current US marriage law that must have us presume it is legally legitimising gay sex. **
I would not think the Church has any objection to the remaining legal advantages that such marriage does provide to cohabiting gay couples whether sexually active or not**.
Such marriages will not change what they are already doing from a sexual point of view

I have to disagree with (at least) the highlighted sentence: if the government terms it “marriage” then the Church must continue to object.

 

[nodito]

Please, explain this. I’m not sure I understand this.

Do u want same-sax couples banned from having children(how would it work exactly?)? Adopting children? Adopting children of their partners?

So,let,s say there is a gay couple, two women, raising a child together. They do not have relatives. One of them dies. And, as I understood, according to your proposition, the second woman shouldn’t have any right to this child she was raising, taking care of and loved and this child goes into a foster home?

Did I get this right?

A parent is free to entrust his or her child at her death to any capable adult that she’s fit, be it a sister, a friend, a parent, whomever. I would not object to a lesbian woman entrusting her child to the woman who was raising the child with her.

We need to be careful always to consider that the rights of the child (or potential child) supersedes the wants of the adults. This is largely why I object to surrogacy contracts and IVF. These arrangements subvert the rights of children to accommodate the desires of the parents.

I would not object to two men or four women or some combination of people having some sort of living arrangement whereby they are able to legally leave each other property or share hospital visitation rights. But I would NOT want this to mean that adoption agencies have to view these relationships as equivalent to marriage. Since I believe that children deserve both a mother and a father, I believe an agency should be able to look out for the best interests of the child and choose to only place children with heterosexual couples without risk offending people in non-typical relationships or running afoul of the law. This is what I mean when I saw that whatever rights given to people in non-marriages must not include a “right to a child”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No - it says the State will sanction you if you break the promise you made to another.
No - it says the State concludes there is no merit in pursuing criminal sanction. It clearly does not mean the State concurs that adulterous activities are fine and dandy.

That is self-evident. But it in no way implies that marriage is not sexual! Think of it in Venn diagram terms.
When fornication/cohabitation was illegal:

• draw 2 circles partially overlapping.
• One circle is Legal relationships, the other is Sexual relationships.
• The Overlap is Marriage. That part of Sexual which does not overlap is Fornication.

Fornication decriminalised:

• Shift the Sexual circle such that it is wholly within Legal;
• Rename fornication to something less ominous;
• Observe that both Marriage and Fornication (renamed now) remain within the Sexual Relationships circle.

Way more so!

Legal legitimisation is clearly not an element of state marriage, but that has no bearing on the presumptive nature of the marriage relationship. [Your remark does leave me wondering why you are not fully on-board with SSM ]

Not in debate.

Show me where I ever suggested the sex lives of a couple change when they marry? All I have said is that marriage is presumptively sexual. Is it your view that there is no basis to presume that?

As discussed, it is not legally legitimising sex as you yourself have observed in connection with marriage generally. But because marriage is presumptively sexual, one has to question the merits of the State endorsing and acclaiming it (in just the same way it has endorsed and acclaimed traditional marriage).

The Church is amply on the record as to its position regarding the extension of marriage laws to encompass same sex couples.

Well one of us just doesn’t see legal realities as they actually are here but are clouded by custom and romance that is no longer actually legally well founded in State marriage anymore.
If adultery is no longer a legal offence then clearly State marriage has nothing to do with legalising heterosexual sex any longer and sex has largely been decoupled from the rights and obligations of state marriage . Unlike Christian marriage.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No - it says the State will sanction you if you break the promise you made to another.
No - it says the State concludes there is no merit in pursuing criminal sanction. It clearly does not mean the State concurs that adulterous activities are fine and dandy.

That is self-evident. But it in no way implies that marriage is not sexual! Think of it in Venn diagram terms.
When fornication/cohabitation was illegal:

• draw 2 circles partially overlapping.
• One circle is Legal relationships, the other is Sexual relationships.
• The Overlap is Marriage. That part of Sexual which does not overlap is Fornication.

Fornication decriminalised:

• Shift the Sexual circle such that it is wholly within Legal;
• Rename fornication to something less ominous;
• Observe that both Marriage and Fornication (renamed now) remain within the Sexual Relationships circle.

Way more so!

Legal legitimisation is clearly not an element of state marriage, but that has no bearing on the presumptive nature of the marriage relationship. [Your remark does leave me wondering why you are not fully on-board with SSM ]

Not in debate.

Show me where I ever suggested the sex lives of a couple change when they marry? All I have said is that marriage is presumptively sexual. Is it your view that there is no basis to presume that?

As discussed, it is not legally legitimising sex as you yourself have observed in connection with marriage generally. But because marriage is presumptively sexual, one has to question the merits of the State endorsing and acclaiming it (in just the same way it has endorsed and acclaimed traditional marriage).

The Church is amply on the record as to its position regarding the extension of marriage laws to encompass same sex couples.

Timed out, meant to add…

Your circle thing seems somewhat flawed.

There is not only a circle for sexual service rights but their is also one for affine/kinship rights and many others still provided by State marriage also.

You also seem to assume in your second diagram that the sex circle within the legal circle is not only marriage but exhausts the definition. Clearly then Joseph and Mary were not legally married according to your Venn diagram!

May I also note there is still a lot of illegal sex even within marriage so your 2nd diagram has quite a few holes I think. But the point is that if you start out defining marriage as essentially assuming sex then of course your diagrams will seem to prove that point!

The fact that your 2nd Venn diagram is incomplete proves my point that the marriage you speak of no longer exists so far as the State is concerned. It is no longer even close to enshrining Christian marriage values anymore. But like an oil tanker still moving though the engines were turned off long ago many still romance that it is. Future generations will likely see more clearly what it truly has become…merely a contractual vehicle to gain certain State recognised economic and affine rights in addition to the de facto companionship couples, whether SS or DS already possess. A marvellous ceremony may also attach which publicly reveals the committed relationship and the newly acquired affine rights.

 

[Rau]

…If adultery is no longer a legal offence then clearly State marriage has nothing to do with legalising heterosexual sex any longer and sex has largely been decoupled from the rights and obligations of state marriage.

I state [X] and you reject [X’]!! The first part of your statement is correct, not in dispute and irrelevant to my statement that Marriage is presumptively a sexual relationship. That the legality of sexual relations does not depend on marriage does not change that.

As for Venn diagrams, you can draw more circles if you want to depict more subsets. Hey - you can have happy and unhappy marriages if you like. Relationships using contraception and not. Etc. But this would be irrelevant detail and does not change the fact that marriage was a presumptively sexual relationship when adultery and fornication were illegal, did not cease to be that when they were decriminalized, and remains so today.

 

[Rau]

…if you start out defining marriage as essentially assuming sex then of course your diagrams will seem to prove that point!.

Nice try Blue! But You yourself have not disputed that marriage was presumptively sexual when adultery and fornication were illegal. I demonstrated that does not change by virtue of decriminalizing those actions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Nice try Blue! But You yourself have not disputed that marriage was presumptively sexual when adultery and fornication were illegal.

When State marriage formerly allowed sexual rights over the body of the other, or all other avenues to non criminal sex were blocked, then legally presumptive sex is blindingly obvious in marriage (even for Mary and Joseph).

Now that State marriage carries no such legal rights re the presumption you speak of - it is now only prudentially presumptive not legally and intrinsically so.

Sure, as a prudential judgement you are likely going to be right given that State marriage is still going to be the easiest way to acquire affine/kinship and/or child rearing rights and associated legal benefits that permanently cohabiting adults tend to seek.

So your “presumption” still holds but it has lost its substance, it is only incidentally so, accidentally so (to be philosophic), non-essentially so.
In the past (and in current Christian marriages) that presumption is still essentially and intrinsically presumptive.

Hence I view State Marriage as so hollowed out it is just one slightly more sophisticated form of Civil Union among many different possible types. It looks “lesser” enough (compared to Christian marriage) to not intrinsically presume gay sex and is therefore not intrinsically in opposition to Church Teaching on homosexual acts.

We might still see it as immoral to be legislated - but surely on prudential grounds rather than arguments of apriori intrinsic contradiction of Church teaching.

Anyways, sexual rights of SS Unions aside, I still am undecided as to a gay partner automatically acquiring parental/adoptive rights by such a Union.
Requires more thought.

 

[Rau]

…So your “presumption” still holds but it has lost its substance…

I am quite certain that the presumption stands for the vast majority (acting reasonably), and that any tarnish upon that presumption is only detectable by those with powerful microscopes… However, this position you enunciate here seems sufficiently “in the middle” that little more debate is warranted.

Hence I view State Marriage as so hollowed out it is just one slightly more sophisticated form of Civil Union among many different possible types.

I am glad you express this as a personal assessment. To my mind, the introduction of SSM is a step that very materially changes what the State would suggest marriage is about. Those prior steps you mentioned (decriminalising various acts) - in my judgement - caused nearly nobody to perceive much impact on the nature of marriage. If SSM is enacted, then certainly the State draws precious little distinction between marriage and Civil Union.

It looks “lesser” enough (compared to Christian marriage) to not intrinsically presume gay sex and is therefore not intrinsically in opposition to Church Teaching on homosexual acts.

The Church shows no sign of tolerating SSM, and I think while there remains good reason to presume the relationship is a sexual one, that will not change.

Anyways, … I still am undecided as to a gay partner automatically acquiring parental/adoptive rights by such a Union.
Requires more thought.

In my view there is a kind of slippery slope in operation. When you take together various developments in recent times such as:

• anti-discrimination legislation;
• marriage extended to incorporate SSM
• IVR and/or surrogacy arrangements being allowed

it becomes difficult to argue - under the secular framework - to do any these things:

• oppose SS couples treated as “families” for social security and similar purposes;
• oppose adoption / parental rights by SS couples/partners;
• oppose acquisition of a child by SS couples (by surrogacy, sperm donation, or similar);
• oppose the depiction of SS families in the readers used by primary school children;
• defend the rights of persons (eg. Catholics) to refuse cooperation in matters which are morally objectionable (according to their faith/moral beliefs); [This latter point is not a new problem, but the range of situations in which it may arise is expanded.]

 

[Peter_J]

Hence I view State Marriage as so hollowed out it is just one slightly more sophisticated form of Civil Union among many different possible types.

Indeed. Perhaps we could call it a “legal union” – which does not imply that the two are married, nor does it imply that they aren’t.

 

[Rau]

Indeed. Perhaps we could call it a “legal union” – which does not imply that the two are married, nor does it imply that they aren’t.

I used to like the term “domestic partnership”, but it has been used in the past and with inconsistent meaning in various jurisdictions.

Of course, this is all somewhat indulgent opining. The “demand” has been for marriage to be changed to encompass same sex relationships (“marry the one you love…” etc.) and that has been achieved in some jurisdictions and is the current direction in others.

 

[at9009]

Indeed. Perhaps we could call it a “legal union” – which does not imply that the two are married, nor does it imply that they aren’t.

My opinion is that would pretty much receive no support from either extreme side. On one side, only full marriage acceptance is tolerable. Anything less is rejected. On the other side, anything that can be construed to give ‘marriage-like’ rights (which we can debate whether certain things should or are actually only applicable to marriage) thus would reject it as not acceptable. Since both sides are the loudest and are able to drum up hysteria on there prospective bases, no real results will be accomplished. *Yeah I know this sounds incredibly cynical but it’s honestly the direction legislation has been going for a while.

 

[Peter_J]

The Church shows no sign of tolerating SSM,

I would say we are already tolerating it (without agreeing with it of course) in some places like the USA.

 

[nodito]

I would say we are already tolerating it (without agreeing with it of course) in some places like the USA.

What would it look like if the Church were not tolerating SSM?

 

[Peter_J]

What would it look like if the Church were not tolerating SSM?

I’d rather answer the reverse question. See for example, vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html . I suggest reading it all, but this bit is sufficient for the moment:

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

That clearly does not imply agreement with SSM, but is tolerant concerning them as far as I can see.

 

[Peter_J]

My opinion is that would pretty much receive no support from either extreme side. On one side, only full marriage acceptance is tolerable. Anything less is rejected. On the other side, anything that can be construed to give ‘marriage-like’ rights (which we can debate whether certain things should or are actually only applicable to marriage) thus would reject it as not acceptable. Since both sides are the loudest and are able to drum up hysteria on there prospective bases, no real results will be accomplished. *Yeah I know this sounds incredibly cynical but it’s honestly the direction legislation has been going for a while.

No, I don’t think you’re being cynical, just realistic.

I would just chime in that in America I would expect basically no support from the Left for such an approach.

 

[Thorolfr]

No, I don’t think you’re being cynical, just realistic.

I would just chime in that in America I would expect basically no support from the Left for such an approach.

Even on the Right, there is growing support for same-sex marriage, especially among the younger generation. Here’s something from 2015:

More than 300 veteran Republican lawmakers, operatives and consultants have filed a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage late Thursday.

The amicus brief, organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, was filed for the four same-sex marriage cases the Court will hear on April 28 that could legalize the unions nationwide. In 2013, Mehlman marshaled a similar effort for the case that overturned California’s Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Among the signatories are 23 current and former Republicans members of the House of Representatives and Senate and seven current and former Governors. Sens. Susan Collins and Mark Kirk have signed onto the brief, as has Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Other notables include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and billionaire GOP mega-donor David Koch.

time.com/3734626/gay-marriage-supreme-court-republicans/

I think that undoing SSM in the US is a lost cause for those who oppose it.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Thorolf, seems like I haven’t seen you much of late.

Even on the Right, there is growing support for same-sex marriage, especially among the younger generation. Here’s something from 2015:

time.com/3734626/gay-marriage-supreme-court-republicans/

Can’t say I agree with their actions, but I’m still glad that they’re on our side in other matters.