Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?

[interestedman]

Marriage has always been between a man and a women, although at times it included multiple women (don’t know if it ever included multiple men). It has NEVER been between two people of the same sex.

I object because it redefines something that has been around for millenia just to placate a small but vocal group.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than the Church has and, even in pagan societies, it didn’t include two people of the same sex so this isn’t only about the Church.

Peace

Tim

Slavery has always been between an owner and slave, although at times it included multiple slaves (don’t know if it ever included multiple owners). It has never been between two slaves.

I object because it redefines something that has been around for millenia just to placate a small but vocal group.

Slavery has been around a lot longer than the church has and, even in pagan societies, it didn’t include two slaves so this isn’t only about the church.

Peace

Perspective

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Also, Judge Walker’s prop 8 decision is a concise explication of this theory. It is readily available, and a quick read. He proceeds from the 1860’s to the present, first establishing that marriage is a civil right, and then advancing his theory, as outlined above, in more detail.

His legal reasoning is premised upon his brand new definition of marriage, that is completely divorced (pardon the pun) from the procreative aspect of marriage. He STARTS by adopting a definition of marriage that predetermines the result of the analysis, because if marriage is solely and exclusively just the formal recognition of a relationship between consenting adults, and is not a relationship that is intrinsically oriented towards procreation, then the equal protection analysis applies.

Thus, Judge Walker’s opinion avoids the issue being debated. It does not address the procreative issue at the definition stage, but instead limits its analysis to parental legal rights which - under California’s DPA - are already equivalent regardless of the gender make-up of the partnership. The opinion does a fine job of redefining marriage to reach the desired result. The question that the Supreme Court must take up in its review is, “What is a marriage?”

Peace,
Robert

 

[interestedman]

I honestly don’t know why I am replying to your intollerant rant, but, well, here I go.

What “right” do I, as a heterosexual male, have that a homosexual male does not regarding marriage?

Peace

Tim

The right to marry your partner.

 

[stanczyk]

My problem is not so much with the traditional meaning of the word, although to name something what it is not is rather Orwellian. War is Peace. Love is hate. My concern is rather with the reality of the institution itself. Marriage is the basis of civilization; it is the means by which the next generation is brought into the world. Marriage implies a marital act, and that is an act which is possible only between opposite sex couples. Same sex couples are inherently incapable of the marital act, incapable of forming the substructure of civilization, incapable of generating the next generation. The term marriage has no applicability to them. It makes about as much sense as saying “my dad is pregnant.”

When a word has been so distorted of meaning as to be used to refer to its opposite, it has become useless.

The Constitution requires equal protection under the law. If you’re going to grant go ernment benefits to a couple and call it “marriage” then the law dictates thAt the benefits be equally available to people of all races and sexes.

Nothing about this distorts the holy sacrament of marriage because that is unrelated to this civil institution with the same name.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Slavery has always been between an owner and slave, although at times it included multiple slaves (don’t know if it ever included multiple owners). It has never been between two slaves.

I object because it redefines something that has been around for millenia just to placate a small but vocal group.

Slavery has been around a lot longer than the church has and, even in pagan societies, it didn’t include two slaves so this isn’t only about the church.

Peace

Perspective

So, is it your opinion that marriage, like slavery, should be abolished? Or are you advocating that the definition of slavery should be changed to include homosexual as well as heterosexual slaves? Or are you saying that any appeal to history to uphold the meaning of a word is invalid because slavery once existed? Please help me understand the logic of your argument?

Keep in mind, however, that the issue is not whether marriage is a good thing. Both sides seem to think it is, right? The issue is whether marriage can be applied to a same sex relationship without changing the nature of the institution into something less than it has been historically. One has to concede that throughout history marriage has been intrinsically intertwined with procreation. So, to apply it to a same sex relationship that by its nature is not oriented towards procreation necessarily involves changing what marriage has always been. It really is no argument to say because slavery existed, it’s okay to change marriage into something it’s never been. It’s a non-sequitur.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Constitution requires equal protection under the law. If you’re going to grant go[v]ernment benefits to a couple and call it “marriage” then the law dictates thAt the benefits be equally available to people of all races and sexes.

It already is. Two people can marry regardless of race. Men and women can marry. The issue is whether marriage - by its nature - can apply to same-sex relationships. If marriage is intrinsically related to procreation, then same sex couples are not similarly situated, and the equal protection clause does not apply. THAT is why the battle is at the definitional level of the word. Why do you think the definition should be changed, so that the institution is no longer intrinsically connected with procreation?

Peace,
Robert

 

[stanczyk]

It already is. Two people can marry regardless of race. Men and women can marry. The issue is whether marriage - by its nature - can apply to same-sex relationships. If marriage is intrinsically related to procreation, then same sex couples are not similarly situated, and the equal protection clause does not apply. THAT is why the battle is at the definitional level of the word. Why do you think the definition should be changed, so that the institution is no longer intrinsically connected with procreation?

Peace,
Robert

Do you really not understand that it is discriminatory to now allow to people of the same sex to marry?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The right to marry your partner.

Not all heterosexual men have that right either. But even assuming, arguendo that they did, why should there be a right to “marry” someone of the same sex, if by definition, the institution of marriage is one that is (and always has been) oriented towards procreation? Why should the historical and cultural definition of marriage change to accommodate a gay man and his male partner?

Peace,
Robert

 

[stanczyk]

Equal protection under the law means precisely that. Even if bigots are impervious to the simple logic at work here, society is not, and thank God it is progressing to allow tolerance and equality for homosexuals.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It would also prevent them from someday enacting the reverse of the current situation—refusal to recognize traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

So, you’re saying if gays got the marriage right they’d try to take away heterosexual marriage?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Do you really not understand that it is discriminatory to now allow to people of the same sex to marry?

You haven’t presented any argument in support of same sex marriage beyond your own opinion. I’ve tried to lay out the historical and cultural reasons why I think the traditional definition of marriage should be upheld for the benefit of everyone (straight and gay). You called my position “childish” but you haven’t done anything to explain why you think this is so. Instead, you feign incredulity at a position that is taken by a majority of the voters in my home state of California (a very progressive state). You’re also completely discounting the heavy majority of voters in those pesky red “flyover” states. If we’re all so wrong, please just tell us why so we can resolve the issue. I promise I will do my utmost to remain sincere and charitable throughout the discussion.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Bill_Martin]

Not all heterosexual men have that right either. But even assuming, arguendo that they did, why should there be a right to “marry” someone of the same sex, if by definition, the institution of marriage is one that is (and always has been) oriented towards procreation? Why should the historical and cultural definition of marriage change to accommodate a gay man and his male partner?

Peace,
Robert

Regarding the definition of marriage, this is another reason why I don’t think the government should be involved in it. If marriage was severed from the government, then a gay couple could enter into a contract and call it whatever they want, but it would have no name recognized by the gov. This would actually protect the Church from being forced to recognize their civil unions as marriage because there would be no legal backing behind the term. The government would only recognize that these two people entered into a contract (necessary for legal reasons), but wouldn’t assign it a name. Therefore, they couldn’t say to the Church or any other organization “We, the US government recognizes this as a marriage and you are required to do so as well” because there would be no such term assigned to it.

Additionally, and perhaps more in line with the original question posed by the thread, this would prevent the Church from being required to recognize any other marriage that it does not condone. The Church would only be obligated to respect the legal contract between them (which they currently do anyway), but would not be forced to call it a marriage.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Equal protection under the law means precisely that. Even if bigots are impervious to the simple logic at work here, society is not, and thank God it is progressing to allow tolerance and equality for homosexuals.

Again, the “simple logic” you rely on is premised upon the redefinition of marriage to exclude its intrinsically procreative nature. And calling someone a bigot just because they see marriage as uniquely oriented towards procreation is the argumentative equivalent of a glitterbomb. It’s flashy and the media sure loves it, but it does nothing to move the discussion forward.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Regarding the definition of marriage, this is another reason why I don’t think the government should be involved in it. If marriage was severed from the government, then a gay couple could enter into a contract and call it whatever they want, but it would have no name recognized by the gov. This would actually protect the Church from being forced to recognize their civil unions as marriage because there would be no legal backing behind the term. The government would only recognize that these two people entered into a contract (necessary for legal reasons), but wouldn’t assign it a name. Therefore, they couldn’t say to the Church or any other organization “We, the US government recognizes this as a marriage and you are required to do so as well” because there would be no such term assigned to it.

Additionally, and perhaps more in line with the original question posed by the thread, this would prevent the Church from being required to recognize any other marriage that it does not condone. The Church would only be obligated to respect the legal contract between them (which they currently do anyway), but would not be forced to call it a marriage.

If only this were so Bill. But the government is involved with the definition of marriage. So it goes.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Bill_Martin]

So, you’re saying if gays got the marriage right they’d try to take away heterosexual marriage?

If a collection of elected officials whose only mission in life is to remain elected is given the authority to define what marriage is, then they could very well define it any way they want to whenever politically expedient—including taking away hetersexual marriage.

And if that seems unlikely today, imagine the shock you would be encountered with if you went back to the year 1800 and told people that same sex marriage would one day be legal. There is no way to predict the future. The best way to protect against problems like this is to remove the capability of the government to create them.

 

[stanczyk]

Again, the “simple logic” you rely on is premised upon the redefinition of marriage to exclude its intrinsically procreative nature. And calling someone a bigot just because they see marriage as uniquely oriented towards procreation is the argumentative equivalent of a glitterbomb. It’s flashy and the media sure loves it, but it does nothing to move the discussion forward.

Peace,
Robert

Your logic fails on its face, since even sacramental marriage is permitted between a man and a woman who are unable to procreate.

Moreover, you fail to address the fact that this is not an issue of mere nomenclature, but also the rights and privileges that he government provides to straight married couples but denies to gay couples who want to marry. That is the crux of the legal issue.

At root this is a legal issue. Not a religious one. The sacrament of marriage Is perfectly safe. Only civil marriage is at issue, and those who oppose extending civil marriage to homosexual couples do so for no rational or legal reason.

 

[JimG]

Do you really not understand that it is discriminatory to now allow to people of the same sex to marry?

Do you really not understand that it is discriminatory to not allow pederasts to marry their boys? That it is discriminatory not to allow mothers to marry their sons? That it is discriminatory not to allow elderly sisters who wish to live with each other not to marry each other? That it is discriminatory to not allow polygamists to marry all their wives? That is discriminatory not to allow business partners to marry and thus obviate the need for numerous partnership documents. It’s all discrimination.

Did the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically authorize same sex marriage? Was that what they intended? Is there any evidence to think that’s what they intended?

 

[stanczyk]

Do you really not understand that it is discriminatory to not allow pederasts to marry their boys? That it is discriminatory not to allow mothers to marry their sons? That it is discriminatory not to allow elderly sisters who wish to live with each other not to marry each other? That it is discriminatory to not allow polygamists to marry all their wives? That is discriminatory not to allow business partners to marry and thus obviate the need for numerous partnership documents. It’s all discrimination.

Did the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically authorize same sex marriage? Was that what they intended? Is there any evidence to think that’s what they intended?

There is no need to debate with someone who beats hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals. Christ commanded us to show compassion for others. Bigotry toward homosexuals flies in the face of Christ’s teachings.

 

[JimG]

There is no need to debate with someone who beats hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals. Christ commanded us to show compassion for others. Bigotry toward homosexuals flies in the face of Christ’s teachings.

I see. This is the left’s argument stopper. If you oppose homosexual marriage, you are a hater and a bigot. Yet I don’t find anything in the scripture to suggest that Christ recommended approval of same sex marriage, or anything in the constitution to suggest that its authors thought they were approving it.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Your logic fails on its face, since even sacramental marriage is permitted between a man and a woman who are unable to procreate.

No. It does not. The fact is that even though anecdotally there are a small number of married couples who cannot procreate, the *institution *of marriage is intrinsically ordered towards procreation. That fact that biology by its very nature will result in men and women of varying degrees of fertility does not change the nature of the institution. Regardless, your argument is the logical equivalent of saying that the definition of democracy is not valid because there are bad politicians. Yes, there are corrupt politicians. That does not mean democracy is a corrupt institution.

stanczyk:

Moreover, you fail to address the fact that this is not an issue of mere nomenclature, but also the rights and privileges that he government provides to straight married couples but denies to gay couples who want to marry. That is the crux of the legal issue.

O contraire. I’m not saying it is mere nomenclature. That’s the position of the gay-marriage supporters. They seek to use a word (marriage) to obtain cultural “approval” for same sex unions. The downside is more than a mere change in what the word means. It is the fundamental change of the institution of marriage that will occur once the definition is changed. It’s not about nomenclature. It’s about the nature of the institution.

stanczyk:

At root this is a legal issue. Not a religious one. The sacrament of marriage Is perfectly safe. Only civil marriage is at issue, and those who oppose extending civil marriage to homosexual couples do so for no rational or legal reason.

I never said it was a religious issue. And I don’t think that the immediate result will be the threatening of the Catholic marital sacrament. The “religious” label is placed on those opposed to gay marriage, to marginalize the position. I think it absolutely is a legal issue. We are agreed on this point.

That simply brings me back to my original question, which you have not answered.

Why should the definition of marriage be changed, so that it is no longer intrinsically connected with procreation?

Peace,
Robert