Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

PR, I’ve already done this and I’m reluctant to keep returning to matters regarding my personal relationships as a means to further discussion on gay marriage.

For the last time…it would be a breakdown in the trust that my wife has with me. The relationship between us would have changed and I would consider it a change for the worse.

And then my answer as to how gay marriage harms me is that it is a breakdown on the sacredness of marriage. It changes our understanding of what marriage in society means into something that is simply a governmental registry that recognizes friendship.

 

[Bradski]

And then my answer as to how gay marriage harms me is that it is a breakdown on the sacredness of marriage. It changes our understanding of what marriage in society means into something that is simply a governmental registry that recognizes friendship.

Notice how you went from ‘how gay marriage harms me…’ to 'It changes our understanding…

The first is entirely acceptable and is a good argument why you personally don’t feel it’s acceptable. But you can’t then extrapolate to include everyone else. Your argument only works for you and those who feel the same way as you do.

The same way that my personal views on fidelity have no bearing on how someone else would feel about it in their situation. Just because I can say it’s wrong for me doesn’t give me the right to say it’s wrong for someone else.

And that is obviously on the understanding that no harm comes from it, so no arguments please that suggest that murder or some such evil is wrong for me but could be OK for someone else.

…and thanks for the support.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s make it easy for you…

Do you think that the definition of marriage could include same sex couples who want to commit to a life-long partnership?

Why should it?

They can commit to a life long partnership between themselves. No one is stopping them. Some gay couples have been together for 30 years or longer.

Why does that, on its own, make the partnership a marriage?

Changing the definition of marriage substantively enough to include same sex couples changes it to also include any partnership which has nothing to do with sexual relationships because the only reason sex is important in a redefinition of marriage is because sex is foundational in conjugal marriages. Without sex, the partnership would be no different than lifelong friends or siblings. Yet advocates for SSM know instinctively that sex is foundational to marriage because a conjugal sexual relationship is the distinctive feature of marriage. It is what creates children, expands the marriage to family and ought to provide every member of the family (not merely the initial pair) with the assurance that the “partnership cum family” they had no say in forming but that formed them will not leave them in the lurch when the “partnership” of two goes sour.

Marriage as the basis for family needs all the bolstering it can get because framing “marriage” merely as a “partnership” of two individuals leaves out a key component - that it is a creative partnership that has the potential to being about new human beings who are best served by and have a right to expect a lifelong commitment and love from BOTH biological parents. It is by supporting and promoting a conjugal view of marriage, including all the responsibilities, rewards and unique qualities that the basic unit of every good society will be restored to its due place.

Gay partnerships may be partnerships, but they will never be marriages, because they fundamentally lack, though seek to mimic at the cost of tossing out the essential qualities of what marriages are.

Marriages are not “partnerships” - that is as superficial, trite and insufficient a definition as any. Marriages are and ought to be lifelong conjugal and procreative unions (physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual) between two loving and complementary human beings.

The fact that the past several generations have in great numbers abdicated responsibility for building strong socially stable families does not mean a redefinition is necessary. It means the next generations need to renew and rebuild their commitment to a proper understanding of the importance of strong marriages and families to the future of civil society.

 

[stewstew03]

Let’s make it easy for you…

Why should it?

They can commit to a life long partnership between themselves. No one is stopping them. Some gay couples have been together for 30 years or longer.

Why does that, on its own, make the partnership a marriage?

Changing the definition of marriage substantively enough to include same sex couples changes it to also include any partnership which has nothing to do with sexual relationships because the only reason sex is important in a redefinition of marriage is because sex is foundational in conjugal marriages. Without sex, the partnership would be no different than lifelong friends or siblings. Yet advocates for SSM know instinctively that sex is foundational to marriage because a conjugal sexual relationship is the distinctive feature of marriage. It is what creates children, expands the marriage to family and ought to provide every member of the family (not merely the initial pair) with the assurance that the “partnership cum family” they had no say in forming but that formed them will not leave them in the lurch when the “partnership” of two goes sour.

Marriage as the basis for family needs all the bolstering it can get because framing “marriage” merely as a “partnership” of two individuals leaves out a key component - that it is a creative partnership that has the potential to being about new human beings who are best served by and have a right to expect a lifelong commitment and love from BOTH biological parents. It is by supporting and promoting a conjugal view of marriage, including all the responsibilities, rewards and unique qualities that the basic unit of every good society will be restored to its due place.

Gay partnerships may be partnerships, but they will never be marriages, because they fundamentally lack, though seek to mimic at the cost of tossing out the essential qualities of what marriages are.

Marriages are not “partnerships” - that is as superficial, trite and insufficient a definition as any. Marriages are and ought to be lifelong conjugal and procreative unions (physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual) between two loving and complementary human beings.

The fact that the past several generations have in great numbers abdicated responsibility for building strong socially stable families does not mean a redefinition is necessary. It means the next generations need to renew and rebuild their commitment to a proper understanding of the importance of strong marriages and families to the future of civil society.

Yes – very well done

 

[Bradski]

They can commit to a life long partnership between themselves. No one is stopping them. Some gay couples have been together for 30 years or longer.

Why does that, on its own, make the partnership a marriage?

Changing the definition of marriage substantively enough to include same sex couples changes it to also include any partnership which has nothing to do with sexual relationships because the only reason sex is important in a redefinition of marriage is because sex is foundational in conjugal marriages.

We disagree here on a fundamental point. You include sex as being a requirement in marriage and I don’t. I simply see marriage as a formal agreement between two people who have made a lifetime commitment to each other.

On a personal note, I don’t think it’s required in any case. But if some people want it, gay or otherwise, then I see no reason why it shouldn’t be available.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For the last time…it would be a breakdown in the trust that my wife has with me. The relationship between us would have changed and I would consider it a change for the worse.

What is remarkable here is that you undermine your own position and don’t even seem aware that you are doing so.

Above you seem to be claiming that there would be objective harm to the trust between you and your wife, but below you claim “that no harm comes from it.”

Notice how you went from ‘how gay marriage harms me…’ to 'It changes our understanding…

The first is entirely acceptable and is a good argument why you personally don’t feel it’s acceptable. But you can’t then extrapolate to include everyone else. Your argument only works for you and those who feel the same way as you do.

The same way that my personal views on fidelity have no bearing on how someone else would feel about it in their situation. Just because I can say it’s wrong for me doesn’t give me the right to say it’s wrong for someone else.

And that is obviously on the understanding that no harm comes from it, so no arguments please that suggest that murder or some such evil is wrong for me but could be OK for someone else.

…and thanks for the support.

When you say…

The first is entirely acceptable and is a good argument why you personally don’t feel it’s acceptable. But you can’t then extrapolate to include everyone else. Your argument only works for you and those who feel the same way as you do.

… you actually have things backwards. The reason any such argument works for an individual IS because the individual has abstracted from general experience. It is generally harmful for others to do X, so therefore it will very likely be harmful for me to do X.

Individuals don’t generally treat themselves as special cases. It isn’t true that “Your argument only works for you and those who feel the same way as you do” as if every subjective individual is just daft and necessarily sees reality through skewed lenses. The reality is that most individuals would claim that the argument works for them precisely BECAUSE they have noticed that the argument applies objectively to most or all people and, THEREFORE, it also applies to them.

I would suggest that your response is nonsensical when you say…

…my personal views on fidelity have no bearing on how someone else would feel about it in their situation. Just because I can say it’s wrong for me doesn’t give me the right to say it’s wrong for someone else.

Why would anyone, including you, hold views on fidelity if you honestly didn’t find them to be objectively sound views? If you sincerely thought that you and your wife’s views on fidelity were not objectively sound, but mere idiosyncrasies, wouldn’t you seek to change those slightly odd perspectives to views that were a little more in line with reality?

I would suggest that your guiding principle that “I can say it’s wrong for me doesn’t give me the right to say it’s wrong for someone else” would be more reasonable amended to: “I can say with reasonable certainty that it’s wrong for me if I could make a general statement that it’s wrong for everyone.” Otherwise, why would anyone entertain the thought that something is wrong for them alone, but not for anyone else? Why would they ALONE be obliged by moral rules and others not? Wasn’t Kant quite clear on this?

The problem, it appears to me, stems from a desire to want to be known as “moral” without being obliged by any particular moral injunctions. Leave the back door open just in case you might need to wriggle out of a predicament, which you did by claiming that cheating on your wife would be wrong (for you) because it would be harmful to your relationship, but not really wrong because it would not objectively (only subjectively?) be harmful to your relationship.

If something is morally wrong, by definition, it is morally wrong for all moral agents.

If it is wrong to cheat on your spouse, it is wrong BECAUSE it is wrong for any and every moral agent to do so. That is the meaning of the word “moral.” Otherwise, it is merely an aberration that affects you and no one else, so no moral implications can be drawn.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We disagree here on a fundamental point. You include sex as being a requirement in marriage and I don’t. I simply see marriage as a formal agreement between two people who have made a lifetime commitment to each other.

On a personal note, I don’t think it’s required in any case. But if some people want it, gay or otherwise, then I see no reason why it shouldn’t be available.

So two elderly brothers or sisters ought to be allowed to marry? A mother and daughter, father and son, provided they make a lifelong commitment, ought to be allowed to enter into marriage?

If sex is not a requirement, why only two individuals? Why not 3, 6 or a commune?

What of two avid golfers who simply enjoy playing golf with each other and want to make a lifelong commitment to each other to do so?

You see, Bradski, at some point, the definition becomes untenable because it is incapable of distinguishing relevant from irrelevant differences. If any “lifelong” commitment that can be terminated at will by either party, and thus not be “lifelong,” is the basis for a legal definition then the force of law loses whatever power it had, at the expense of a real biological/psychological/emotional/spiritual relationship which is MOST important as the basic and key means of creating, nurturing and forming new human beings.

 

[Bradski]

If something is morally wrong, by definition, it is morally wrong for all moral agents.

True. And it is morally wrong if harm comes from it.

So two elderly brothers or sisters ought to be allowed to marry? A mother and daughter, father and son, provided they make a lifelong commitment, ought to be allowed to enter into marriage?

If sex is not a requirement, why only two individuals? Why not 3, 6 or a commune?

That lifetime commitment would include a degree of intimacy that would not be accessible by close family members. I thought that would be a given.

Your definition of marriage needs to include a particular type of sex which is carried out for a particular reason. The argument from this side of the fence runs that marriage can be exactly as we have it now (lifetime, loving, no infidelity, no brothers and sisters, aged aunts and pets) but with no specific sexual requirements.

There’s no need to add all these obscure couplings. Nobody is looking for that. Just take out the specific type of sex that you feel is compulsory. It’s not required by most people.

 

[Porknpie]

As far as an “exceptional amount of discussion”–well, I think if you would look at the amount of time the Church spends on it, it’s proportionately rather small.

And, as I said, if you look at my posts as a microcosm of the conversations Catholics are having, attention to homosexuality is rather miniscule.

Finally, if you look at the history of our Church, not much attention was given to homosexuality. (Hah! And of course, we receive criticism for that, too. “Why does the Church pay so much attention to homosexuality?” “Why doesn’t the Church pay enough attention to homosexuality!”). When did discussions become more conspicuous? When a shrill, combative group of folks decided to make homosexuality and gay “rights” their raison d’etre.

So all the conversation has been because of criticism of the Church’s 2000 year teaching on sexuality.

She is simply providing “a reason for the hope that is in her”–1 Peter 3:15

In my 50 years as a Catholic, I have never heard a homily focused on homosexuality and seldom is the topic brought up. If it is, it is almost always in connection with 1) the sin of fornication and which is a weighty heterosexual issue as well and 2) those that want the Church to redefine the word marriage.

All in all the conversation is pretty limited.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I didn’t think that I had written anything that I haven’t said in one form or another previously, so the fact that you have taken offense surprises me. It wasn’t meant as a personal attack on your particular viewpoint but one on general arguments that a lot of other Christians tend to make.

But if you did indeed take offense then I apologise.

I forgive you.

In the future, please don’t imply that I am making a religious argument unless I am. So far as I know, I have not proposed a single religious premise.

 

[stewstew03]

True. And it is morally wrong if harm comes from it.

That lifetime commitment would include a degree of intimacy that would not be accessible by close family members. I thought that would be a given.

Your definition of marriage needs to include a particular type of sex which is carried out for a particular reason. The argument from this side of the fence runs that marriage can be exactly as we have it now (lifetime, loving, no infidelity, no brothers and sisters, aged aunts and pets) but with no specific sexual requirements.

There’s no need to add all these obscure couplings. Nobody is looking for that. Just take out the specific type of sex that you feel is compulsory. It’s not required by most people.

Sex is essential to the conjugal view. It would be like saying “take intercourse out of the definition of sex.” And it seems to be at least a part of your definition as you would exclude consanguinity and zoophilia.

 

[Peter_Plato]

True. And it is morally wrong if harm comes from it.

That lifetime commitment would include a degree of intimacy that would not be accessible by close family members. I thought that would be a given.

Your definition of marriage needs to include a particular type of sex which is carried out for a particular reason. The argument from this side of the fence runs that marriage can be exactly as we have it now (lifetime, loving, no infidelity, no brothers and sisters, aged aunts and pets) but with no specific sexual requirements.

There’s no need to add all these obscure couplings. Nobody is looking for that. Just take out the specific type of sex that you feel is compulsory. It’s not required by most people.

Why would it be true that some form of sexual intimacy is required based upon your definition that marriage is a lifelong committed relationship? It seems a case of having your cake and eating it, too.

You say sex is not a necessary condition for marriage, but then use the other side of your mouth to exclude the possible relationships which do not include sex merely because they don’t.

If sex isn’t a necessary condition for marriage then why exclude relationships that do not engage in any form of it? If it is a necessary condition, why is it? Following a conjugal understanding of marriage, the necessity of sex is clear. Following your definition, the requirement for sex is intentionally left obscure - you claim it isn’t necessary when you wish to dodge some kinds of criticism but it is necessary when trying to avoid others.

Clearly, your definition does not require sex since it is possible to have a lifelong committed relationship without sexual intimacy at all. At best, your definition is inadequate because it does not stipulate why you would exclude some lifelong committed relationships but not others on the basis of an add-on stipulation that is not part of your definition in the first place. Seems to be a ploy, intentionally deceptive or, perhaps, worse.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There’s no need to add all these obscure couplings. Nobody is looking for that. Just take out the specific type of sex that you feel is compulsory. It’s not required by most people.

Up until about twenty years ago, nobody was looking for gay couplings to be added to a definition of marriage, either.

The point being, if you want to redefine the legal term “marriage” it needs to operate as a legal definition. Your definition does nothing to leave out the obscure couplings when and if they will be sought by some people.

If SSM advocates have any case against the conjugal view as discriminatory - which is a silly claim, in my view - the obscure coupling advocates will have a comparatively easy one and will poke large holes in your “lifelong committed relationship” legal definition.

Why shouldn’t two elderly sisters or brothers be entitled to the apparent tax benefits, visitation rights, survivorship entitlements, etc., if two unrelated males or females can be legally granted them on the basis of proclaiming “a lifelong committed relationship” which could be terminated at will by either one.

A ”lifelong committed relationship" that can be dissolved on a whim is a legal joke, and you know it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The argument from this side of the fence runs that marriage can be exactly as we have it now (lifetime, loving, no infidelity, no brothers and sisters, aged aunts and pets) but with no specific sexual requirements.

But how many sides of the fence are there? Really. By your logic (what harm is done?) the siblings who want to marry have as much a case as SSM advocates have. Why knock down their fence and keep the SSM one erect?

 

[PRmerger]

We disagree here on a fundamental point. You include sex as being a requirement in marriage and I don’t. I simply see marriage as a formal agreement between two people who have made a lifetime commitment to each other.

That definition includes fathers and sons living together. Brothers and sisters. Sisters and sisters. Brothers and bothers.

You want the govt to recognize these relationships as marriages?

 

[PRmerger]

Notice how you went from ‘how gay marriage harms me…’ to 'It changes our understanding…

Not sure what the relevance of that is.

If it’s that important then I simply say that gay marriage harms society because it changes our understanding of what marriage is.

Just like your cheating on your wife (note to the alarmists here: this is simply a hypothetical, 'kay?) would harm your relationship even if no actual harm comes to the person of your wife.

The first is entirely acceptable and is a good argument why you personally don’t feel it’s acceptable. But you can’t then extrapolate to include everyone else. Your argument only works for you and those who feel the same way as you do

So you are saying that someone who doesn’t feel like cheating hurts his relationship with his wife doesn’t actually hurt his relationship?

The same way that my personal views on fidelity have no bearing on how someone else would feel about it in their situation. Just because I can say it’s wrong for me doesn’t give me the right to say it’s wrong for someone else

So you wouldn’t say it’s wrong for your wife to cheat on you if you never find out?

And you wouldn’t say it’s wrong for your daughter’s husband to cheat on her if she never finds out?

Really?

You simply cannot say that cheating on your wife is wrong for all marriages? Only for you?

Really?

 

[frobert]

But how many sides of the fence are there? Really. By your logic (what harm is done?) the siblings who want to marry have as much a case as SSM advocates have. Why knock down their fence and keep the SSM one erect?

I think the real question is why are you h*** bent on equating SSM with incest? Those advocating for SSM have one (1) meaning, namely that marriage is between two (2) adults that are legally able to marry. If you are unable to reason without resorting to incest do a search on “who is legally able to marry” for assistance.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the real question is why are you h*** bent on equating SSM with incest? Those advocating for SSM have one (1) meaning, namely that marriage is between two (2) adults that are legally able to marry. If you are unable to reason without resorting to incest do a search on “who is legally able to marry” for assistance.

Because it follows the same principle that is being espoused by the SSM advocates.

Also, we are not talking legal issues here but moral principles.

And if gay sex is ok because, then why can’t incest be ok?

What’s the moral principle that permits one but forbids the other, frobert?

 

[frobert]

Because it follows the same principle that is being espoused by the SSM advocates.

Also, we are not talking legal issues here but moral principles.

And if gay sex is ok because, then why can’t incest be ok?

What’s the moral principle that permits one but forbids the other, frobert?

What you appear to be doing is inserting your own interpretations of what you want to be the intentions of SSM advocates and not something they themselves are advocating.

To my knowledge SSM activists are fighting for legal issues which do not include incest.

“And if gay sex is ok because, then why can’t incest be ok?” is a question from your own interpretation of intent and principle which I don’t share. My interpretation has been clearly stated.

If you are looking for a moral reason, I am sure that the CC has a taboo on incest why not look it up for yourself? I follow the moral principles of the UCC and they have a moral reasons to preclude incest as I believe most other religions and demoninations have.

 

[stewstew03]

I think the real question is why are you h*** bent on equating SSM with incest? Those advocating for SSM have one (1) meaning, namely that marriage is between two (2) adults that are legally able to marry. If you are unable to reason without resorting to incest do a search on “who is legally able to marry” for assistance.

In the same way, SSM is illegal here in Texas, and yet, my guess is that you would like to change that.