Defending Traditional Marriage Without Alienating?

[bmaj]

Does anyone have suggestions on how to defend traditional marriage between one man and one woman without thoroughly alienating all those who are defending the right of homosexuals to marry? It feels like there must be a caring way to do this. Seems like so many in society (even some Catholics!) believe that if you don’t endorse same-sex marriage you must be horribly prejudiced against homosexuals - and perhaps even other races/creeds as well. I don’t feel that’s true at all. I strive to love my neighbor and avoid prejudice in any form, but I cannot condone same-sex marriage. This has become a difficult issue for discussion among my friends, and even some relatives.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, especially in this charged political climate leading up to November! Thanks.

 

[Ohana]

No answers here! Maybe having compassion is the key while being honest about ones thoughts about this issue.

For myself, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. But in caring for some of our brothers and sisters who are oriented differently, and are not ready to live a chaste life, I am glad that civil unions at least are possible. I do not deny for a moment that their love for one another can be as great as between two traditionally married people. There is something healthier about openly committed unions as opposed to having an alienated sub-culture.

There are economic concerns having to do with partner benefits, but even more so for issues of inheritance, and care decisions during illness. We can pray that our brothers and sisters become clearer in their understanding and commitment to Christ, as in fact, we can pray for all our friends.

I think we solve very little through alienation.

 

[Corki]

No answers here! Maybe having compassion is the key while being honest about ones thoughts about this issue. For myself, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. But in caring for some of our brothers and sisters who are oriented differently, and are not ready to live a chaste life, I am glad that civil unions at least are possible. I do not deny for a moment that their love for one another can be as great as between two traditionally married people. There are economic concerns having to do with partner benefits, but even more so for issues of inheritance, and care decisions during illness. We can pray that they become clearer in their understanding and commitment to Christ, as in fact, we can pray for all our friends. I think we solver very little through alienation.

I think the OP was looking for ways to support **the Church’s **teaching. What you have posted here would not be in line with that. It’s **easy **to avoid alienating if you also avoid Catholic teaching.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I had a good response from a pro “gay marriage” friend when I tried to explain to her that in Catholic theology, we believe the male and female genders are self-evidently compatible. In their nature, it is this union which bears fruit. Anything other than this results in sterility, it is ineffective. Thus the outward world reveals that which is unseen - in other words, just as potency can only occur with one man and one woman, so too are they compatible spiritually and sacramentally. There is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” In a gay “marriage” the necessary ingredients do not exist, thus there is no marriage. To “decide” that gay marriage exists is tantamount to man “deciding” that water can now also be 2 parts carbon, 1 part tin. But to say so doesn’t make it so. We’re not opposed to “gay marriage” because we don’t want two people to have loving relationships. We are rather recognizing that such a “marital” union is an impossibility, just as water is not water unless it’s H20. She was not convinced, but she said she respected my reasoning.

 

[Joe_5859]

I had a good response from a pro “gay marriage” friend when I tried to explain to her that in Catholic theology, we believe the male and female genders are self-evidently compatible. In their nature, it is this union which bears fruit. Anything other than this results in sterility, it is ineffective. Thus the outward world reveals that which is unseen - in other words, just as potency can only occur with one man and one woman, so too are they compatible spiritually and sacramentally. There is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” In a gay “marriage” the necessary ingredients do not exist, thus there is no marriage. To “decide” that gay marriage exists is tantamount to man “deciding” that water can now also be 2 parts carbon, 1 part tin. But to say so doesn’t make it so. We’re not opposed to “gay marriage” because we don’t want two people to have loving relationships. We are rather recognizing that such a “marital” union is an impossibility, just as water is not water unless it’s H20. She was not convinced, but she said she respected my reasoning.

I think that’s the best approach. It’s not because we think it’s “icky” It’s not because we want to oppress those we disagree with. It’s about what marriage is. Marriage really is something and that definition is completely independent of us. We really need to take the positive approach of articulating what marriage is rather than simply condemning homosexuality.

If we can get the same-sex marriage advocates to at least respect our reasoning instead of assuming we’re homophobic bigots, we would move forward by leaps and bounds.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I had a good response from a pro “gay marriage” friend when I tried to explain to her that in Catholic theology, we believe the male and female genders are self-evidently compatible. In their nature, it is this union which bears fruit. Anything other than this results in sterility, it is ineffective. Thus the outward world reveals that which is unseen - in other words, just as potency can only occur with one man and one woman, so too are they compatible spiritually and sacramentally. There is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” In a gay “marriage” the necessary ingredients do not exist, thus there is no marriage. To “decide” that gay marriage exists is tantamount to man “deciding” that water can now also be 2 parts carbon, 1 part tin. But to say so doesn’t make it so. We’re not opposed to “gay marriage” because we don’t want two people to have loving relationships. We are rather recognizing that such a “marital” union is an impossibility, just as water is not water unless it’s H20. She was not convinced, but she said she respected my reasoning.

That is an awesome response, thank you for sharing it.

 

[PJH_74]

First MarcoPolo, a very nicely cosidered response.

I think the OP was looking for ways to support **the Church’s **teaching. What you have posted here would not be in line with that. It’s **easy **to avoid alienating if you also avoid Catholic teaching.

The Church also teaches respect for Gays and Lesbians. The point being that Marco’s post embodied a deep respect for the humanity of the people he may not agree with on a very personal topic for them.

 

[Corki]

First MarcoPolo, a very nicely cosidered response.

The Church also teaches respect for Gays and Lesbians. The point being that Marco’s post embodied a deep respect for the humanity of the people he may not agree with on a very personal topic for them.

I wasn’t responding to Marco’s post but to ohana’s.

 

[JimG]

I had a good response from a pro “gay marriage” friend when I tried to explain to her that in Catholic theology, we believe the male and female genders are self-evidently compatible. In their nature, it is this union which bears fruit. Anything other than this results in sterility, it is ineffective. Thus the outward world reveals that which is unseen - in other words, just as potency can only occur with one man and one woman, so too are they compatible spiritually and sacramentally. There is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” In a gay “marriage” the necessary ingredients do not exist, thus there is no marriage. To “decide” that gay marriage exists is tantamount to man “deciding” that water can now also be 2 parts carbon, 1 part tin. But to say so doesn’t make it so. We’re not opposed to “gay marriage” because we don’t want two people to have loving relationships. We are rather recognizing that such a “marital” union is an impossibility, just as water is not water unless it’s H20. She was not convinced, but she said she respected my reasoning.

This is a good approach. The fact is that marriage is conjugal. It involves conjugal relations. When conjugal relations are impossible, marriage is impossible. The Church recognizes this fact in that permanent and incurable inability to engage in marital relations is an impediment to marriage. Same sex couples of course have no capacity to engage in conjugal relations, thus no marriage is possible.

 

[PJH_74]

I wasn’t responding to Marco’s post but to ohana’s.

Sorry…I some how lost track of the reply order.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think that it is worthwhile to acknowledge the legitimate sorts of things that adults taking care of each other might need and that society as a whole might benefit from granting them * even if they were not having a sexual relationship*. IOW, we would not have any problem if secular society essentially made it possible to establish independent monastic communities, even just between two people. If you are willing to do that, then you are going to knock the legs off of all the arguments in favor of “gay marriage”.

When you have established that you’re not hostile to the idea that people other than married couples might have reason to share health insurance, give each other property and inheritance rights, keep up a common household, and so on, it is easier to take the position that defends marriage as an institution that is particular to the unique relationship between heterosexual couples.

Then I have pointed out that it is a bit rich when homosexuals argue that they are being discriminated against for not being given something when they don’t want the same thing to apply to couples who *don’t *have a sexual relationship, which is what happened here in Oregon during one of the debates over civil union! That just proved to me that the whole gay marriage push is in actuality an effort to deny that there any difference between gay sex and straight sex. Once you point out that adults can care for each other for a lifetime and accomplish common goals together for a lifetime without ever having sex with each other, while sexual partners can have sex with the express intention of never seeing each other again, that is a mighty thick pair of blinders to pretend to wear.

If a person claims that they cannot differentiate in any meaningful way between gay sex and straight sex, then trust me, that person is going to be very hard-pressed to say why on earth society at large has any interest at all in whether or not couples have a sexual relationship or not. If sex is totally divorced from the remotest possibility of mutual fecundity–remember, even from a secular view, a couple doesn’t have to have sex with each other in order to employ a surrogate or to have one of them inseminated by someone else!–then sex becomes an entirely private matter. There is really no getting around that. Take the possibility of reproduction out of the definition of marriage, and there is no reason sex needs to be part of the definition, either. Civil society doesn’t have the least bit of a dog in that fight, not if it means* excluding* people who are taking care of each other but choose not to have a sexual relationship. That would be discriminatory.

On that account, I think it would be the best if any definition of marriage that doesn’t have the possibility of reproduction as its raison d’être must also be pushed to its logical end, which is to take sex out of the definition entirely. If a lifelong mutual commitment to one’s biological family is not the reason for marriage, it would be unnecessarily prejudicial to involve sex at all, because marriage would become an institution of mutual care. Mutual care does not require sex. Therefore, either marriage ought to be heterosexual, or else civil marriage ought not be sexual at all. In that case, it seems reasonable to call it what it is, which is a civil union or a domestic partnership.

That may be the way we are forced to go: That is, to accept that civil society might substitute legal contracts that have nothing to do with fecundity for the concept of marriage. As long as society doesn’t enshrine obvious logical fallacies into law, such as a definition of “marriage” that recognizes none of the obvious differences between gays and straights, it may be that this cannot be helped.

 

[Ohana]

I think the OP was looking for ways to support **the Church’s **teaching. What you have posted here would not be in line with that. It’s **easy **to avoid alienating if you also avoid Catholic teaching.

Well I understood that. In what way is being compassionate while not condoning same sex marriage being against church teaching? Partners may at some time choose to live chastely, but that does not necessarily deny their bond. If having a civil union supports stability it is not necessarily a bad thing. Besides, I am not one to go casting stones - I have my own struggles, areas of sinfulness.

 

[Corki]

Well I understood that. In what way is being compassionate while not condoning same sex marriage being against church teaching? Partners may at some time choose to live chastely, but that does not necessarily deny their bond. If having a civil union supports stability it is not necessarily a bad thing. Besides, I am not one to go casting stones - I have my own struggles, areas of sinfulness.

Support for same-sex civil unions is against Church teaching. I am not saying that your position is not compassionate but only that it does not correspond to the teachings of the Church.

 

[EasterJoy]

Support for same-sex civil unions is against Church teaching. I am not saying that your position is not compassionate but only that it does not correspond to the teachings of the Church.

Support for civil domestic partnerships other than marriage is permissible if such legal partnerships are open to all adults who cannot marry–that is, if the civil recognition explicitly does not presuppose a sexual relationship.

 

[Corki]

Support for civil domestic partnerships other than marriage is permissible if such legal partnerships are open to all adults who cannot marry–that is, if the civil recognition explicitly does not presuppose a sexual relationship.

Only if those unions were not created to give rights to other partnerships that are on the same level as marriage.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[fpt]

Does anyone have suggestions on how to defend traditional marriage between one man and one woman without thoroughly alienating all those who are defending the right of homosexuals to marry? It feels like there must be a caring way to do this. Seems like so many in society (even some Catholics!) believe that if you don’t endorse same-sex marriage you must be horribly prejudiced against homosexuals - and perhaps even other races/creeds as well. I don’t feel that’s true at all. I strive to love my neighbor and avoid prejudice in any form, but I cannot condone same-sex marriage. This has become a difficult issue for discussion among my friends, and even some relatives.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, especially in this charged political climate leading up to November! Thanks.

In my opinion, we do not have to fall in the trap of the intellectual approach of modern philosophies (relativism, modernism, the theory of gender) concerning the definition of the human nature. Therefore, for respecting the duality and the alterity of the human nature with their corollaries, we have to claim that the marriage is a sexed and sexual institution, and a sexed and sexual contract, only between one male and one female. In consequence, the word of marriage is only for that, it means that the words of " traditional marriage " is already a sign of weakness in favor of these wrong ideologies and these bad mentalities. Marriage is marriage, it is not negotiable.

The homosexuality is a disorder: a mental disorder, a behavioral disoder, a moral disorder, a disorder social, a emotional disorder, a lover disorder…etc. And it is going against the natural moral law and it is immoral. The homosexuality is an evil, a social evil, a spiritual evil , an existential evil.
We have to be very honnest and direct without prudishness (the prudism is wrong).

In concusion, I am not okay with the words of " traditional marriage": Marriage is marriage. The conjugal love is only between one male and one female.

In addition, the word " homosexuality " is also a philosophical sign of weakness, that is bad, too. In the holy bible the words are…!!! Indeed, it is easy to talk and to write like that, but it is not very good for the human intelligence.

 

[EasterJoy]

Only if those unions were not created to give rights to other partnerships that are on the same level as marriage.

Yes. Essentially, if the state sets something up so that two ladies with no husbands can use one civil agreement to easily give each other the rights necessary to care for each other it does not need to be the concern of the state to find out whether the two are sisters, cousins, just friends, if one or both are consecrated virgins, or if they are lesbian lovers. Justice does not require the state to figure out a way to preclude the possibility that those two might have an illicit side to their relationship.

 

[EasterJoy]

In my opinion, we do not have to fall in the trap of the intellectual approach of modern philosophies (relativism, modernism, the theory of gender) concerning the definition of the human nature. Therefore, for respecting the duality and the alterity of the human nature with their corollaries, we have to claim that the marriage is a sexed and sexual institution, and a sexed and sexual contract, only between one male and one female. In consequence, the word of marriage is only for that, it means that the words of " traditional marriage " is already a sign of weakness in favor of these wrong ideologies and these bad mentalities. Marriage is marriage, it is not negotiable.

The homosexuality is a disorder: a mental disorder, a behavioral disoder, a moral disorder, a disorder social, a emotional disorder, a lover disorder…etc. And it is going against the natural moral law and it is immoral. The homosexuality is an evil, a social evil, a spiritual evil , an existential evil.
We have to be very honest and direct without prudishness (the prudism is wrong).

In concusion, I am not okay with the words of " traditional marriage": Marriage is marriage. The conjugal love is only between one male and one female.

In addition, the word " homosexuality " is also a philosophical sign of weakness, that is bad, too. In the holy bible the words are…!!! Indeed, it is easy to talk and to write like that, but it is not very good for the human intelligence.

I have to disagree with regards to the word “homosexuality”. The Bible forbids behaviors, not orientation. The Church recognizes that the particular orientation does exist, rather than just a temptation towards a behavior. It is appropriate to have differing words for the two.

As nearly as I can tell, the Greeks and the Romans were in some eras permissive of the *behaviors *in males–that is, they permitted those behaviors forbidden in the Bible–but were not accepting of the orientation, which they thought betrayed a shameful lack of masculinity, something not acceptable in a full-grown man. Among the Greeks, formal male-male relationships ended when the young man turned 17. These were held to be mentoring in nature, and nothing like a marriage.

Other than a few Roman higher ups who took liberties for themselves that were not widely approved of, the Greeks and Romans did not ever equate same-sex relationships with marriage, even long-standing domestic homosexual relationships, which did exist. Nero may have pretended he couldn’t tell a boy from a girl, but apparently this was not a form of delusion that was ever widespread in the ancient world.

 

[bmaj]

My approach (not always successful) is to avoid bringing up homosexuality altogether. I will simply say that the definition of marriage will now be defined as “between people that care about one another” and that is a huge change!

Nothing is to prevent a brother and sister from getting married, a father and daughter or three or four people. Once the only requirement is that you simply want to get married there are no limits. It is my understanding there is already a case in Brazil where three people are married and why not???

You may not convince anyone but at least it might open their minds to the slippery slope this is. This is not about gay-bashing it is about the definition of marriage as one-man-one-woman for a reason otherwise we could have anyone marry anyone at any time for any reason and any number.

Good point about the slippery slope, Monicad… thanks for sharing.

 

[bmaj]

I had a good response from a pro “gay marriage” friend when I tried to explain to her that in Catholic theology, we believe the male and female genders are self-evidently compatible. In their nature, it is this union which bears fruit. Anything other than this results in sterility, it is ineffective. Thus the outward world reveals that which is unseen - in other words, just as potency can only occur with one man and one woman, so too are they compatible spiritually and sacramentally. There is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” In a gay “marriage” the necessary ingredients do not exist, thus there is no marriage. To “decide” that gay marriage exists is tantamount to man “deciding” that water can now also be 2 parts carbon, 1 part tin. But to say so doesn’t make it so. We’re not opposed to “gay marriage” because we don’t want two people to have loving relationships. We are rather recognizing that such a “marital” union is an impossibility, just as water is not water unless it’s H20. She was not convinced, but she said she respected my reasoning.

Sounds like excellent reasons, MarcoPolo. Glad she respected it, anyway, although she wasn’t convinced. Will have to try it.