Celibate Homosexual Civil Marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BananaBread
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BananaBread

Guest
Hello! This is my first time on these forums, so forgive me if I’ve somehow broken format.

Would there be an occurrence of sin between two persons with SSA of the same sex, both of which who have committed to living a life pure of homosexual acts (defined solely as sex between two same sex individuals), to both A) live in the same household and B) obtain a civil marriage (defined as a joining of two individuals in order to obtain a marriage license granting federal rights such as those listed here: Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions – National Organization for Women, I say civil marriage not civil union due to the lack of associated recognition of rights in certain states. This should not be treated as a sacramental marriage)? I believe that if two chaste individuals choose to live a life of celibacy and piety, there should not be an issue (provided they refrain from committing the sin of scandal by maintaining privacy).

For the sake of avoiding redundancy, please refrain from discussing the morality of homosexual acts , the sin of scandal, and the definitions of a Sacramental marriage vs a civil marriage, since they are already dealt with in the context of the question. Please discuss this purely from a doctrinal standpoint, citing your sources clearly.
 
Last edited:
a) they would be putting themselves in an occasion to sin so yes it would be a sin
b)yes they would attempt a marriage that cannot be valid, even though the state may say so, it doesnt matter, Gods moral precepts are binding on everyone
 
Why? Why would two people marry with no intent of physical sexuality?
 
As previously established, this marriage is purely for legal benefit. Keeping in mind the civility, it is purely a legal document establishing certain benefits given to two individuals. Please refrain from changing the terms of my argument.

In addition, on the subject of a potential occasion of sin, what about purely romantic attraction? There are those who may be romantically attracted to the same sex without having sexual attractions.
 
We should not serve mammon. So if they are doing it for material things then it still would be a sin, even more so.

Romantic attraction to someone of the same sex is disordered.
 
Right! Lol, I was thinking the same thing! That’s what this is all about!
 
@BananaBread I think you should wait for a reply from a priest @edward_george1 or a canonist @SerraSemper. SSA is a very polarizing topic in this forum and you will most likely get very different replies from different people.

Correction: Sorry, I previously tagged the wrong person.
 
Last edited:
They can answer by understanding that the people in this situation are not married within the Church and have every wish to remain chaste.
 
Good to know! I look forward to a potential response from a canonist or priest.
 
Mrchatsworth said:
Why? Why would two people marry with no intent of physical sexuality?
Click to expand...
Because civil marriage brings a great many useful civil benefits in many Western societies. For example, tax breaks, probate law benefits, the person can more easily serve as your next of kin for many legal matters such as child custody and medical decisionmaking if you’re unable.

Not to mention, companionship, which is more and more important for many of us as we age and are less excited by the prospect of sex than we were as dewy-eyed 21-year-olds. A lot of people even lose much of their functionality as they age.
 
Last edited:
BananaBread said:
Would there be an occurrence of sin between two persons with SSA of the same sex, both of which who have committed to living a life pure of homosexual acts (defined solely as sex between two same sex individuals), to both A) live in the same household and B) obtain a civil marriage (defined as a joining of two individuals in order to obtain a marriage license granting federal rights such as those listed here: Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions – National Organization for Women, I say civil marriage not civil union due to the lack of associated recognition of rights in certain states.
Click to expand...
What I’d like to know is why can’t a couple of elderly sisters do the same thing?
 
Rau said:
elderly sisters
Click to expand...
If you mean sisters by blood or legal adoption, not religious sisters, incest laws would prevent it and also there’s less motivation to do it as your sibling is already related to you and can more easily be your next of kin or your heir.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Not to mention, companionship, which is more and more important for many of us as we age and are less excited by the prospect of sex than we were as dewy-eyed 21-year-olds. A lot of people even lose much of their functionality as they age.
Click to expand...
Right. But companionship need not be dependent on marriage. Rather various state conferred benefits might be.
 
Rau said:
But companionship need not be dependent on marriage. Rather various state conferred benefits might be.
Click to expand...
This is true. Some people do want to formalize a deep relationship with some type of formal legal commitment, though. I’m a bad one to explain it because I spent most of my life viewing a civil marriage as a “piece of paper from the City Hall” as Joni Mitchell sang, but I have met people who felt it was very important to be married and they weren’t primarily driven by sex.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
incest laws would prevent it and also there’s less motivation to do it as your sibling is already related to you and can more easily be your next of kin or your heir.
Click to expand...
Well sure, but incest can be an entirely academic proposition. The sisters are just after state benefits. Like the folks in the OP. Why does the state need to set up a roadblock for them?
 
Because laws are made pretty broadly to cover general principles, not for unusual situations like two sisters who decide they need an extra tax break.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Because laws are made pretty broadly to cover general principles, not for unusual situations like two sisters who decide they need an extra tax break.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think that explains it. I think it’s simpler - marriage was always understood to be a sexual relationship. If marriage is a simple contract conferring state benefits, incest considerations are no more applicable there than they are in a contract to sell a house.
 
BananaBread said:
I believe that if two chaste individuals choose to live a life of celibacy and piety, there should not be an issue (provided they refrain from committing the sin of scandal by maintaining privacy).
Click to expand...
If they want to live according to the teachings of Christ and his Church, they should not enter into a legal state that calls itself marriage but makes a mockery of the real thing. Additionally, such a “marriage” would be cause for scandal.

If you want to give a good friend legal rights such as hospital visitation rights or healthcare power of attorney, or remember him/her in your will, etc., that is easily done by contacting an attorney. No need to contract a “marriage.”
 
If they want to live according to the teachings of Christ and his Church, they should not enter into a legal state that calls itself marriage but makes a mockery of the real thing. Additionally, such a “marriage” would be cause for scandal.
Click to expand...
Would you mind citing your sources? No need for aggression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top