Church def. of marriage and gov't

[LeafByNiggle]

The whole point is that ‘marriage’ has referred to all sorts of relationships over history.

If the word “marriage” has, at various times, referred to all sorts of relationships, then OK. The word has been so used. But that does not mean those various relationships were all treated the same, even within the same society. So here is a compromise. Let’s go ahead and allow the word marriage to be used for both hetero and homo relationships. But then let’s further go ahead and also recognize the distinction between the two kinds of “marriages” with appropriate adjectives. And then let’s have this distinction ripple through all of civil law so that “hetero” marriage is associated with all the current legal ramifications. And “homo” marriage is a framed certificate that you can hang on the wall and nothing more. No implication about adoption rights. No implication about tax breaks. No implication about anything else. Of course you would not accept such a compromise, but it does at least remove the argument that has been bouncing around here so much regarding the use of a word in history and will focus our attention on the heart of the matter, which is the legal implications of being in one kind of a relationship or another. Any reference to traditions in homosexual marriage would have to address the actual roles these relationships played in the societies referenced, and not just what word they used to describe the generic category.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Motivation is not relevant. Is the evidence there, yes or no?

In this case the evidence is there. Same sex marriage was rare but did exist.

You appear to have no real contrary evidence so you call into doubt the motives of the researchers. You could always go to a good library and read the Theodosian Code for yourself.

rossum

Self-serving motivation is relevant as are ability and opportunity.

The Theodosian Code outlawed what the Emperors Nero and Elegabalus forced on Roman society by the fact that they all had these three elements.

The so called marriages of Roman emperor Nero to two men (one a boy) were mock ceremonies. He was a depraved first-century emperor who wed Pythagoras by putting on a bridal veil that made him the “bride” and Pythagoras the “groom”, complete with marriage bed, torches, and witnesses. In 67 AD, Nero ordered Sporus, a free man, to be castrated and then married to him. He allowed the boy to take the role of “bride” while Nero played the “groom” in extravagant ceremonies, after which they lived as supposed “husband” and “wife.” Nero is known for ordering numerous brutal executions of Christians, even Romans whom he perceived to be his enemies his own mother. He committed suicide in June of 68 AD.

The other emperor, also depraved, Elegabalus (a bisexual who had five wives), forced “marriage” with male subjects, a blond slave and an athlete from Smyrna. His overt indecencies contributed if not led to an inglorious end, murdered by his own guards, who stripped him naked and dragged his body through the streets of Rome.

Roman civilization was served by the subsequent Theodosian Code that outlawed these parodies of marriage, made possible by degenerate leaders such as these two emperors.

Sadly, Western current culture seems to be opening to re-paganization with the legalization of same sex “marriage,” this time by judicial fiat or legislative acts in opposition of the common social good.
,

 

[rossum]

The so called marriages of Roman emperor Nero to two men (one a boy) were mock ceremonies.

What was “so called” about them? He was the Emperor, and his word was literally law. If he said he was married then he was legally married.

If the relevant legal authority, which the Emperor was, declared a same sex couple legally married, then that couple was legally married.

Roman civilization was served by the subsequent Theodosian Code that outlawed these parodies of marriage, made possible by degenerate leaders such as these two emperors.

Which came hundreds of years after Nero, so the marriages mentioned in that code were obviously later, and well post-Neronian. The then Emperor felt the need for such a law, so it is reasonable to understand that such marriages did exist before being made illegal. Otherwise why make the law? Do we need a law making it illegal to own a Tyrannosaurus rex as a pet, without a proper licence?

Sadly, Western current culture seems to be opening to re-paganization with the legalization of same sex “marriage,” this time by judicial fiat or legislative acts in opposition of the common social good.

Since there is no established religion in the US, then “paganization” has no legal weight as an argument there. It might work in a country where there is an established church.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What was “so called” about them? He was the Emperor, and his word was literally law. If he said he was married then he was legally married.

If the relevant legal authority, which the Emperor was, declared a same sex couple legally married, then that couple was legally married.

He may have been Emperor and he may have had the power to declare anything he wanted as law, but that is hardly relevant to the discussion today, where we are debating the merits of treating same sex marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Nero’s relationship, as described by InSearchOfGrace is certainly not like anything we would want to call marriage today, especially in view of the asymmetrical nature of that relationship. If your point was to prove the legal technicality that there was at least one famous same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, then you can consider that point proved. But you have a long way to go to make that point apply to the discussion today, which is more about what we want to call marriage among the general populace, where neither party has the power to dictate a law for his own personal benefit as Nero did.

 

[frobert]

He may have been Emperor and he may have had the power to declare anything he wanted as law, but that is hardly relevant to the discussion today,

100% correct what took place in Rome 2000 years ago is hardly relevant to the discussion today.

where we are debating the merits of treating same sex marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

I don’t believe anyone is talking about them as equivalent, there are obvious differences. You may be talking about something else but others are talking about a civil definition of marriage in the country and state they reside in. No one should have any problem with you telling us what you mean by marriage. You are welcome to influence and lobby your law makers to adopt your meaning and others are equally welcome to assist the lawmakers in their states in addressing the definition of marriage to be between 2 people. Its rather simple once you arranger your priorities.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t believe anyone is talking about them as equivalent, there are obvious differences. You may be talking about something else but others are talking about a civil definition of marriage in the country and state they reside in. No one should have any problem with you telling us what you mean by marriage. You are welcome to influence and lobby your law makers to adopt your meaning and others are equally welcome to assist the lawmakers in their states in addressing the definition of marriage to be between 2 people. Its rather simple once you arranger your priorities.

In the context of this thread, rossum was indeed arguing in favor of equivalence in law of same-sex and hetero marriage, as seen in post #15. And in effort to counter the “tradition” argument against same-sex marriage, rossum and Dr. Taffy continue to cite these examples from ancient Rome, as in post #30. So it is entirely appropriate to “counter the counter argument” by pointing out the inapplicability of Nero’s same-sex marriage to the question at hand, which is what the civil definition of marriage should be now.

 

[rossum]

100% correct what took place in Rome 2000 years ago is hardly relevant to the discussion today.

It is relevant if there are people who claim that there has never been same sex marriage in the past. Such claims are false. Hence, any arguments based on those false claims fail.

rossum

 

[frobert]

It is relevant if there are people who claim that there has never been same sex marriage in the past. Such claims are false. Hence, any arguments based on those false claims fail.

rossum

In the context of this thread, rossum was indeed arguing in favor of equivalence in law of same-sex and hetero marriage, as seen in post #15. And in effort to counter the “tradition” argument against same-sex marriage, rossum and Dr. Taffy continue to cite these examples from ancient Rome, as in post #30. So it is entirely appropriate to “counter the counter argument” by pointing out the inapplicability of Nero’s same-sex marriage to the question at hand, which is what the civil definition of marriage should be now.

Be that as it may. There may be some esoteric relevance but to me Its idle talk and a waste of time and effort.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is relevant if there are people who claim that there has never been same sex marriage in the past. Such claims are false. Hence, any arguments based on those false claims fail.

rossum

Criticizing those arguments on those grounds is akin to finding a typo in their posting. It is not essential to the core argument, which I’m sure you understand. But if you cannot find fault with the core argument and can only attack their typos, then I guess that is your choice. But if you do want to attack the essence of their argument, it is this: Same-sex marriage has never been generally accepted by the society at large as being the same sort of thing as hetero marriage. So tradition is clearly on the side of hetero-only marriage.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are people who support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex so arrogant to think that after thousands of years across every culture and continent marriage has been restricted to male-female but now is the time to redefine it?

I’m not sure that can be stated as a hard fact. Every culture doesn’t necessarily share our etymology and so many of their rituals and customs are at times labeled with the vocabulary from how things are done in our cultures. Take a look at how anthropologist define marriage and you’ll see what I mean. There’s not a single overarching definition that is applied to ever culture and continent over thousands of years.
American Anthropological Association:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies. (source)

 

[DrTaffy]

If the word “marriage” has, at various times, referred to all sorts of relationships, then OK. The word has been so used.

It has. Ergo, any argument that rests on the assumption that it has not, fails. QED.

But that does not mean those various relationships were all treated the same, even within the same society.

Nor does it mean that they have not. So if you want to present a new argument based on the assumption that gay marriage has never been treated the same as heterosexual marriage, you need to prove that assertion.

(You might want to start by looking at some of the many citations I have given)

So here is a compromise.

The time to offer a ‘compromise’ (even a real one, as opposed to this heavily biased one) is before you have lost the battle.

Let’s go ahead and allow the word marriage to be used for both hetero and homo relationships. But then let’s further go ahead and also recognize the distinction between the two kinds of “marriages” with appropriate adjectives. And then let’s have this distinction ripple through all of civil law so that “hetero” marriage is associated with all the current legal ramifications. And “homo” marriage is a framed certificate that you can hang on the wall and nothing more.

Or let’s say that ‘Catholic’ marriage is just “a framed certificate that you can hang on the wall and nothing more” and every other kind of marriage is “associated with all the current legal ramifications”. Seem legit to you?

it does at least remove the argument that has been bouncing around here so much regarding the use of a word in history and will focus our attention on the heart of the matter, which is the legal implications of being in one kind of a relationship or another.

But the liberal side are not the ones making the argument from tradition, it is the anti-gay-marriage lobby who keep claiming that marriage has ‘always’ been solely heterosexual, and that therefore same sex marriage is [an oxymoron/‘redefining’ marriage/ruled out by the argument from tradition]. References to other cultures who did recognise same sex marriages are only used to invalidate those arguments.

Invalidating the premise of an argument is a perfectly legitimate means of invalidating the argument.

 

[DrTaffy]

It is relevant if there are people who claim that there has never been same sex marriage in the past. Such claims are false. Hence, any arguments based on those false claims fail.

Such as this:

Marriage has been male-female before Christianity and Judaism. Marriage has been male-female in all civilizations, why do we think now they had it wrong and we have it right?
Homosexual activity has existed true, however, no culture has ever left trace of themselves marrying homosexuals.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nor does it mean that they have not. So if you want to present a new argument based on the assumption that gay marriage has never been treated the same as heterosexual marriage, you need to prove that assertion.

But your argument depends on those relationships being treated the same by society, and not merely being called by the same term. It would seem that since you are the one who is positing that gay marriage was treated the same as hetero marriage by society in the past, it would be your job to offer some support of that claim. It seems that good evidence has already been presented by others in this thread that such “marriages” were not treated the same.

Or let’s say that ‘Catholic’ marriage is just “a framed certificate that you can hang on the wall and nothing more” and every other kind of marriage is “associated with all the current legal ramifications”. Seem legit to you?

That would be quite a departure from tradition. To paraphrase Marcello Truzzi and Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary changes require extraordinary justifications”.

But the liberal side are not the ones making the argument from tradition, it is the anti-gay-marriage lobby who keep claiming that marriage has ‘always’ been solely heterosexual, and that therefore same sex marriage is [an oxymoron/‘redefining’ marriage/ruled out by the argument from tradition]. References to other cultures who did recognise same sex marriages are only used to invalidate those arguments.

I understand. Both sides are making claims about tradition. One side claims tradition has always been this way. The other side claims that it has not. But that argument itself has become sidetracked (by both sides) through the inordinate focus on which words are used. I am just calling for a refocusing by both sides with regard to this tradition argument or the refutation of it. We should be focusing on how the past societies did or did not treat homosexual relationships as similar to hetero marriages in the way that is being called for today.

 

[epan]

thank you for your thoughts Rossum.
It helps me better understand my husband as well as my own opinion.
I realize it’s a bit off topic and I don’t mean in any way to be argumentative.
I hope this comes out the way i intend it to.
I wonder, why does something have to be harmful to me in order for my opinion or belief to be justified?
For example;Starvation and AIDS in Africa. Human trafficking. Mass shootings.
None of these things are harmful to me. They have not even affected me or anyone I know. But, I do have a moral responsibility to humankind.
I realize I went extreme on the comparisons of gay marriage with these examples. But i’m trying to get across that things don’t necessarily have to harm us personally to take a stance.
thank you!

So far, the “moral” argument which posits harm to society has not proved true. As for child welfare, numerous studies have shown no ill effects attributable to parenting by same sex parents. As we understand the issue better, that is as more marriages are formed, we come to see many of the “moral” arguments merely to be rationalizations for bigotry.

Yes, the church is entitled to its view of marriage, which has differed from the legal view for many years.

As for “moral” arguments, we also have the social justice issue to address. This is where catholic doctrine has failed to find relevancy. Since you bring up AIDS, it is necessary to recognize a similar problem regarding condom use to reduce the risk of STD infection. Church teaching in this regard has failed to find relevancy, and is therefore disregarded by many. Many do find the policy as morally evil, which degrades credibility on other questions related to sexuality.

In a pluralistic world, we don’t always get our own way to manage the lives of others with values differing from our own. This is how it should be. I would say that this is a higher moral order. In thus context, the Church should support gay marriage, as many predominantly catholic countries do. As Francis has pointed out, the previous obsession with the issue did not serve anyone, other than to ill effect.

Are you also saying that SSM is somehow related to human trafficking, and mass shootings? Why do you raise those examples, other than to cast an uncharitable odor about?

The Church has not opposed money lending for some centuries. So, we do have this and other examples of church teaching changing over time as to what comprises sin. Unfortunately for the church, attitudes on sexual behavior have advanced faster than with many other contentious issues. As social change accelerates, the challenges to large bureaucracies to adapt are large.

 

[DrTaffy]

But your argument depends on those relationships being treated the same by society, and not merely being called by the same term.

Show me where I have made a argument that relies on “those relationships being treated the same by society”?

I have, as far as I can tell, only refuted those who try to make arguments based on the unsupported assertion that marriage has always been solely heterosexual.

It seems that good evidence has already been presented by others in this thread that such “marriages” were not treated the same.

Where? Do you mean InSearchofGrace making a lot of unsupported assertions about Nero and Elagabalus? How is that even ‘good evidence’ even in the single case of Ancient Rome?

That would be quite a departure from tradition.

Argument from Tradition. i.e. a fallacy.

But I think my point is made - there is no reason why you should not be treated as you wish to treat homosexuals.

I understand. Both sides are making claims about tradition. One side claims tradition has always been this way. The other side claims that it has not.

But only one side (yours) tries to build an argument on the assertion that marriage has always been solely heterosexual. My side, as far as I can tell, merely refutes that claim, based on the actual history.

If you want to see an end to these discussions, tell your co-religionists to stop claiming that marriage has never included same sex couples.

We should be focusing on how the past societies did or did not treat homosexual relationships as similar to hetero marriages in the way that is being called for today.

Why? The argument from tradition is a fallacy.

Oh, and many societies treated same sex marriages as, if anything, more prestigious than heterosexual ones. But I mention this, again, not as an argument for same sex marriage, but to show how this whole family of arguments against same sex marriage are built on quicksand.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Show me where I have made a argument that relies on “those relationships being treated the same by society”?

I am so happy to hear you abandoning that claim. So you will have no trouble accepting unequal treatment now.

 

[DrTaffy]

I am so happy to hear you abandoning that claim. So you will have no trouble accepting unequal treatment now.

No, show me where I have ever made an argument that relies on “those relationships being treated the same by society” in the past?

You asserted that I made such an argument. So show me, or withdraw the assertion, please.

If you want the state to discriminate against homosexuals on your behalf, you still need to provide positive objective reasons.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Do you mean InSearchofGrace making a lot of unsupported assertions about Nero and Elagabalus? How is that even ‘good evidence’ even in the single case of Ancient Rome.
…

Ahem. So, let’s first discuss Nero, who reigned 54 to 68 AD. At a later time, we can talk about Elegabalus who reigned 150 years later.

Even in decadent pagan Rome, according to the annals of historian Tacitus (as your own research will indicate), Roman subjects opposed same sex “marriage”, which Emperor Nero briefly legalised. In Annals 15.37, Tacitus noted Nero went through a formal wedding ceremony with Pythagoras and later with Sporus, both of lower social class. Nero’s imperial acts in “marrying” said males were seen as outside the context of legitimate marriage by Roman general public. The events added to the general public disgust with Nero which eventually led to his forced suicide.

The most anti-Christian city in the world opposed gay marriage (remember, these were the people who threw Christians to the lions). It is therefore false to say opposition to same-sex marriage is a religious issue. In fact, first century Rome viewed same sex “marriage”, initiated by the whimsical and depraved Nero, as illegitimate and deliberately subversive of the traditional social institution of marriage.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. You can read the impressive academic writings by Professor Bruce W. Frier on Classics and Roman Law. His published books include Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome, The Rise of the Roman Jurists, A Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict, A Casebook on Roman Family Law, and The Modern Law of Contracts.

If you wish to take the abbreviated and no expense route, you can read the newsletter by him on Roman Same Sex Weddings from a Legal Perspective available online. I provided the link for you.

By the way, since you bellyache a lot in this forum about Catholics disagreeing with civil homosexual “marriages”, given to exaggeration that we are imposing our beliefs on non-Catholics, what do you think of Muslims in the UK, comprising 2% of the population, but committing 25% of anti-gay crimes there? Catholic teaching does not promote harm on homosexuals, whereas you can not say the same of Quranic teaching. Do you and rossum direct any time or effort to convince the non-native but growing culture there that homosexuality is normal, that gay “marriage” is already legal so just get over it?
,

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, show me where I have ever made an argument that relies on “those relationships being treated the same by society” in the past?

I would be happy to show you where you made that argument implicitly. Recall that you wanted to refute the tradition argument against same-sex marriage. The tradition argument that you directly refuted is the one that says that same-sex marriage was never ever ever legit. That particular argument you did refute with Nero et. al. But there is another tradition argument that I assume you also want to refute. That argument says same-sex marriage was not ever treated the same as hetero marriage by the society at large. Therefore doing so now (treating it the same by the society at large) represents a departure from tradition, and would reasonably require extraordinary justification for such a social experiment. Am I correct that you wish to refute that form of the tradition argument as well? I will consider both cases separately:

1. You do wish to refute the weaker claim. If that is true (as I assumed it was implicitly) you would have to establish that “those relationships were treated the same by society”. QED.
2. You do not wish to refute the weaker claim. In that case the second tradition argument (the one based on the weaker claim) stands.

If you want the state to discriminate against homosexuals on your behalf, you still need to provide positive objective reasons.

I addressed this fallacious point a week ago in this posting.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12102623:

No, show me where I have ever made an argument that relies

on “those relationships being treated the same by society” in the past?
I would be happy to show you where you made that argument implicitly.

So that would be a “no”, then? In which case please stop asserting that I made such an argument. Stick to what I have said, not strawman arguments you wish to put in my mouth.

Recall that you wanted to refute the tradition argument against same-sex marriage. The tradition argument that you directly refuted is the one that says that same-sex marriage was never ever ever legit. That particular argument you did refute with Nero et. al.

There you go then.

But there is another tradition argument that I assume you also want to refute. That argument says same-sex marriage was not ever treated the same as hetero marriage by the society at large. Therefore doing so now (treating it the same by the society at large) represents a departure from tradition, and would reasonably require extraordinary justification for such a social experiment. Am I correct that you wish to refute that form of the tradition argument as well?

If you wish to make it, in detail, I will certainly consider it.

But I assume that I would be allowed to make my own argument against it? So far you seem to be assuming that my argument against the stronger assertion is also my argument against this new assertion.

Specifically, what society or societies are you asserting did not treat same sex marriages the same as opposite sex ones, what evidence do you have for that assertion, and what logical argument do you use to get from that to (I assume) the conclusion that we, today, should discriminate against same sex couples?

1. You do wish to refute the weaker claim. If that is true (as I assumed it was implicitly) you would have to establish that “those relationships were treated the same by society”. QED.

No, you would have to establish the premises of your argument. Otherwise you are making the argument from ignorance. A classic example follows:

1. You do not wish to refute the weaker claim. In that case the second tradition argument (the one based on the weaker claim) stands.

So you have offered neither argument nor evidence, but you think that your assertion ‘stands’ unless I explicitly show it ot be false?

I addressed this fallacious point a week ago in this posting.

Answered there. But in short, if you think that you don’t need to give objective evidence to justify discrimination against others, then others don’t need to give objective evidence to justify discrimination against you. You happy with that?