Family defined by human adult association in a household rather than marriage

[meltzerboy]

I propose a different legal perspective on gay marriage. Instead of using the term marriage, why not legally define a gay couple as a family in terms of a strictly human association of two adults living together in one household, definitionally independent of sexual relations, who are permitted to raise children if they wish? Thus we are not talking about marriage or sex, so incest and human-animal relations are irrelevant. Polygamy may be considered in the future, but for now let’s limit this human association to two adults and their family. The gay couple would be entitled to all the legal benefits of married people who have children according to this definition of family as a human adult association within a household, except this relationship would not be a Church sanctioned marriage. It is somewhat similar to a common-law marriage between a man and a woman, also not defined by means of a religious ceremony, except that the couple is same-sex. But it offers more rights than a civil-union partnership because the family has been redefined to include an association of two gay adults who are the heads of the household. If you can suspend moral judgments for the moment, would this make sense as a legal construct in itself that does not interfere with the definition of marriage, and is sufficiently different from both marriage and civil unions to warrant legal consideration as a family?

 

[svid2]

When God suspends moral judgement, then we may do so.

Until then, Scripture is clear.

 

[mark_a]

I propose a different legal perspective on gay marriage. Instead of using the term marriage, why not legally define a gay couple as a family in terms of a strictly human association of two adults living together in one household, definitionally independent of sexual relations, who are permitted to raise children if they wish? Thus we are not talking about marriage or sex, so incest and human-animal relations are irrelevant. Polygamy may be considered in the future, but for now let’s limit this human association to two adults and their family. The gay couple would be entitled to all the legal benefits of married people who have children according to this definition of family as a human adult association within a household, except this relationship would not be a Church sanctioned marriage. It is somewhat similar to a common-law marriage between a man and a woman, also not defined by means of a religious ceremony, except that the couple is same-sex. But it offers more rights than a civil-union partnership because the family has been redefined to include an association of two gay adults who are the heads of the household. If you can suspend moral judgments for the moment, would this make sense as a legal construct in itself that does not interfere with the definition of marriage, and is sufficiently different from both marriage and civil unions to warrant legal consideration as a family?

I believe morality laws should promote the ideal situation (ie marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising a family, the fundamental unit of society). I see no need for morality laws to promote less than ideal situations. They have always and will always exist.

 

[Netty1]

This debate about “marriage” is a hot one in the UK at the moment, with all kinds of guesses about what the government may do and how religious groups will react ( I say “religious” because this affects more than just Christians).

(For those not aware, this is the current position in the UK en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom )

My question is this: knowing that the more othodox/traditional ends of most the major religions will define marriage as being between one man and one woman, why would two gay people want to get married in a traditional church/mosque/temple anyway, knowing that their beliefs are out of tune with those traditionalists? If their beliefs were in tune with the traditionalists, then they would not be seeking a gay marriage in an orthodox foundation (othodox with a small “c”)

There are some liberal sections of religions which welcome sexually-active gay people, and already sanction and perform rites which may (or will) be called “marriage”, if a union called “marriage” is what they desire.

The more traditional quarters want to continue to adhere to what they believe is the spirit of scripture, as well as the text of the scripture, and see such as union as something fundamentally different in nature from marriage as a God-given sacrament.

Why insist on rocking up to a Catholic Church, which is in compliance with the Magisterium, and insist that they be married there?

Is it just a blow for what they believe is a freedom of expression and freedom of living one’s life a certain way?

Or is it an effort to subjugate the more traditional elements of various religions to what His Holiness calls relativism.

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires,” 2005

"When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that, instead, an abstract, negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow. That is then seemingly freedom – for the sole reason that it is liberation from the previous situation.

In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished; this is a real threat we face. The danger is that reason – so-called Western reason – claims that it has now really recognized what is right and thus makes a claim to totality that is inimical to freedom. I believe that we must very emphatically delineate this danger. No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the “new religion” as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind." 2010

 

[Befink]

I’ve been asking a lot of questions about “what’s wrong with” gays can only obtain two official doctrines of the church that apply:

1. Marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman based on the ability to procreate and create a family unit.
2. Homosexuality is not a choice but because it is disordered, they must abstain from sexual activity, therefore remaining chase their whole lives.

It is actually within Catholic teaching to live together with someone you love as long as you aren’t committing sexual sin. In fact it would be quite virtuous if a gay couple did that since it is so hard to do.

The main reason the church is fighting these political battles is they worry about giving the impression about encouraging a disordered lifestyle. That seems to be why they’re against anything “gay”. This seems strange to me. How do you encourage that which is not a choice?

I continue to question their political approach for the exact reasons you said. Why shouldn’t the virtuous gay couple be allowed legal rights as long as the term “marriage” is considered religious only? Having said that, only God knows the gay couple’s story. We should not pass laws assuming they are committing the sinful act.

Also their concerns about children being raised in gay households are unfounded. It’s been happening for years and they are no worse off than other kids. One could argue that it’s better for kids to have straight parents but then why isn’t the church arguing to make parenting by divorced parents illegal? Or divorce itself (which is part of our doctrine)? There is a clear double standard here.

Gays get far more wrath from religious organizations than other sinners. We’re casting stones at them because God gave them same sex tendency. We don’t even know if they’re committing the sin. We’re then surprised that they lash out at us. The real shame is that we push them away from God.

You said you are Jewish. I’m wondering how your relgion approaches this issue.

 

[mark_a]

This debate about “marriage” is a hot one in the UK at the moment, with all kinds of guesses about what the government may do and how religious groups will react ( I say “religious” because this affects more than just Christians).

(For those not aware, this is the current position in the UK en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom )

My question is this: knowing that the more othodox/traditional ends of most the major religions will define marriage as being between one man and one woman, why would two gay people want to get married in a traditional church/mosque/temple anyway, knowing that their beliefs are out of tune with those traditionalists? If their beliefs were in tune with the traditionalists, then they would not be seeking a gay marriage in an orthodox foundation (othodox with a small “c”)

There are some liberal sections of religions which welcome sexually-active gay people, and already sanction and perform rites which may (or will) be called “marriage”, if a union called “marriage” is what they desire.

The more traditional quarters want to continue to adhere to what they believe is the spirit of scripture, as well as the text of the scripture, and see such as union as something fundamentally different in nature from marriage as a God-given sacrament.

Why insist on rocking up to a Catholic Church, which is in compliance with the Magisterium, and insist that they be married there?

Is it just a blow for what they believe is a freedom of expression and freedom of living one’s life a certain way?

Or is it an effort to subjugate the more traditional elements of various religions to what His Holiness calls relativism.

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires,” 2005

"When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that, instead, an abstract, negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow. That is then seemingly freedom – for the sole reason that it is liberation from the previous situation.

In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished; this is a real threat we face. The danger is that reason – so-called Western reason – claims that it has now really recognized what is right and thus makes a claim to totality that is inimical to freedom. I believe that we must very emphatically delineate this danger. No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the “new religion” as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind." 2010

You have some great observations and questions here.

The bottom line answer is, of course, that homosexuals want their (sterile) sex to be just as acceptable to the culture as it is for (contracepting) heterosexuals. And 90+% of the sexually active hetero population really doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on when refusing “equality” to this one group.

 

[mark_a]

How do you encourage that which is not a choice?

Sexual activity is always a choice. Be it hetero, gay, lesbian, beastiality, rape, etc.

Also their concerns about children being raised in gay households are unfounded.

Could you give us a source with real data and not just an opinion?

It’s been happening for years and they are no worse off than other kids.

“No worse off”? I wouldn’t call today’s “average” kid anything to idealize.

One could argue that it’s better for kids to have straight parents but then why isn’t the church arguing to make parenting by divorced parents illegal? Or divorce itself (which is part of our doctrine)? There is a clear double standard here.

The Church argues that the ideal situation is for a child to be raised in a loving home with her/his mother and father.

Gays get far more wrath from religious organizations than other sinners.

I have to agree here, its the pot calling the kettle black.

We’re casting stones at them because God gave them same sex tendency.

Untrue. We cast no stones at tendency.

The real shame is that we push them away from God.

Again, I agree.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’ve been asking a lot of questions about “what’s wrong with” gays can only obtain two official doctrines of the church that apply:

1. Marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman based on the ability to procreate and create a family unit.
2. Homosexuality is not a choice but because it is disordered, they must abstain from sexual activity, therefore remaining chase their whole lives.

It is actually within Catholic teaching to live together with someone you love as long as you aren’t committing sexual sin. In fact it would be quite virtuous if a gay couple did that since it is so hard to do.

The main reason the church is fighting these political battles is they worry about giving the impression about encouraging a disordered lifestyle. That seems to be why they’re against anything “gay”. This seems strange to me. How do you encourage that which is not a choice?

I continue to question their political approach for the exact reasons you said. Why shouldn’t the virtuous gay couple be allowed legal rights as long as the term “marriage” is considered religious only? Having said that, only God knows the gay couple’s story. We should not pass laws assuming they are committing the sinful act.

Also their concerns about children being raised in gay households are unfounded. It’s been happening for years and they are no worse off than other kids. One could argue that it’s better for kids to have straight parents but then why isn’t the church arguing to make parenting by divorced parents illegal? Or divorce itself (which is part of our doctrine)? There is a clear double standard here.

Gays get far more wrath from religious organizations than other sinners. We’re casting stones at them because God gave them same sex tendency. We don’t even know if they’re committing the sin. We’re then surprised that they lash out at us. The real shame is that we push them away from God.

You said you are Jewish. I’m wondering how your relgion approaches this issue.

My religion has different views among its branches, as it does on other issues. Orthodox Judaism, similar to Catholicism, condemns homosexual behavior but not same-sex attraction. Interestingly, the Torah mentions and condemns only male homosexual behavior, not female homosexuality, at least not directly. However, Orthodox Judaism still forbids both. Conservative Judaism is pretty much in accord with this, for the most part, although individual rabbis may differ, based on a different interpretation of the relevant passages in the Torah portion of the Hebrew Bible. Reform Judaism, on the other hand, tolerates homosexuality and some Reform rabbis will even marry gay couples, since Reform Judaism does not, by and large, accept the entire Torah as divinely inspired. Of course, Orthodox Judaism sees both Conservative and Reform Judaism as heresies, and not really Judaism at all.

Thank you for your observations.

 

[meltzerboy]

I believe morality laws should promote the ideal situation (ie marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising a family, the fundamental unit of society). I see no need for morality laws to promote less than ideal situations. They have always and will always exist.

I guess moral law, which often is the foundation of civil law, cannot be extricated. Thank you for your comments.

 

[meltzerboy]

This debate about “marriage” is a hot one in the UK at the moment, with all kinds of guesses about what the government may do and how religious groups will react ( I say “religious” because this affects more than just Christians).

(For those not aware, this is the current position in the UK en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom )

My question is this: knowing that the more othodox/traditional ends of most the major religions will define marriage as being between one man and one woman, why would two gay people want to get married in a traditional church/mosque/temple anyway, knowing that their beliefs are out of tune with those traditionalists? If their beliefs were in tune with the traditionalists, then they would not be seeking a gay marriage in an orthodox foundation (othodox with a small “c”)

There are some liberal sections of religions which welcome sexually-active gay people, and already sanction and perform rites which may (or will) be called “marriage”, if a union called “marriage” is what they desire.

The more traditional quarters want to continue to adhere to what they believe is the spirit of scripture, as well as the text of the scripture, and see such as union as something fundamentally different in nature from marriage as a God-given sacrament.

Why insist on rocking up to a Catholic Church, which is in compliance with the Magisterium, and insist that they be married there?

Is it just a blow for what they believe is a freedom of expression and freedom of living one’s life a certain way?

Or is it an effort to subjugate the more traditional elements of various religions to what His Holiness calls relativism.

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires,” 2005

"When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that, instead, an abstract, negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow. That is then seemingly freedom – for the sole reason that it is liberation from the previous situation.

In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished; this is a real threat we face. The danger is that reason – so-called Western reason – claims that it has now really recognized what is right and thus makes a claim to totality that is inimical to freedom. I believe that we must very emphatically delineate this danger. No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the “new religion” as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind." 2010

I agree with you that gay people have no right to be married in a church, if contrary to the church’s moral principles. My initial question attempted to focus on the legal definition and aspects of family and bypass the whole issue of church marriage and sexual relations.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[meltzerboy]

When God suspends moral judgement, then we may do so.

Until then, Scripture is clear.

Succinct and to the point. Thanks for your comment.

 

[Netty1]

I agree with you that gay people have no right to be married in a church, if contrary to the church’s moral principles. My initial question attempted to focus on the legal definition and aspects of family and bypass the whole issue of church marriage and sexual relations.

Thank you for your thoughts.

As a Catholic, when I think “legal” I automatically think of the Catechism first (which codifies and enshrines Christ’s commands), canon law second and civil law bringing up the rear.

I guess that’s why my reply did not answer your questions. My mind automatically went off in another direction.

 

[Befink]

Hi Mark,

Good thoughts. Here are my replies.

Again my question about the act vs. the tendency. Our political stance punishes the tendency without knowledge of the act.

Here’s one source: latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html

If you google ‘children of gay parents statistics’ there are a number of links. To be fair, some from conservative sources tell different stories than what I said. One of those is concerned about the higher divorce/separation rate among gay couples.

I had a conservative Mormon friend comment that it’s less ideal for parents to be gay than straight, however, that is only one aspect of the parent. What’s bizarre from my point of view is that we are against gay adoption which does not compare to straight parents but to kids in the foster system. I would have to believe a child is far better off with gay parents than growing up in the foster system. I once saw a government source showing how often kids out of the foster system have very high incidents of fornication, abortion, delinquency etc. I can probably find the link if you want it.

I have a few former Catholic gay friends who basically knew they would never find peace in our Church. After going through very tough high school years they had to accept themselves for who they are. They felt the church didn’t understand what they were going through and couldn’t accept them. They often become bitter at organized religion. A few of them end up at a gay church after a while. At least it’s better than nothing.

There really isn’t much of an olive branch from us since we are against everything gay. I’d think we’d have better luck if we focused on the act only and left these other issues alone (still wonder if they’re part of doctrine). Along with that, we have to assume they are in compliance with our values when they come to church (even though they probably are not). It’s not ideal but then again we do this with the vast majority of other Catholics whose sins are less obvious. I noticed that I was one of a few not to step up for communion on Christmas thinking to myself “yeah right. I’m here every week and never see these people, and they’re ALL worthy of communion” . It’s not up to me, it’s between them and God.

 

[jilly4ski]

I think we first must discuss why the state has recognized “marriage” for certain benefits and restrictions, and why those who do not fulfill the actual function of a marriage want to be recognized as such.

As to the first question, there are a number of reasons. The state saw something inherently good in marriage, Marriage bestowed a benefit on society and thus the state, that the state wanted to encourage, namely women and children being taken care of and educated. Giving people a tie to the land and their area and community. Also people were already entering into these ‘contractual’ relationships through religion, the state saw a benefit in recognizing the contract at the religious level (at least in the US), and upholding and enforcing these agreements.

I cannot answer the second question. I do not have enough ties to the movement or individuals who actually want to get married. I do have some questions to pose. Marriage does confer some benefits, but almost all the benefits can be gained through other legal documents besides a marriage contract. Those that cannot, like social security death benefits, usually are trying to fulfill the very narrow goals of the government, to protect widows or children. So what are those asking for a broader definition of marriage really asking for? It doesn’t seem to be about the benefits (unless they are uninformed about what the law actually says). But rather it seems as they want the definition broadened in order to gain social acceptance.

As to your new family definition, I don’t think it really makes legal sense, and I don’t see how it would grant more rights than a civil union. The reason why the state gives those rights to married couples is because they more or less make a contractual agreement. The make promises to stay together etc. The state enforces these promises and makes people go through a legal process to end these obligations. Something similar would have to happen with homosexual couples or any couple who wants these benefits. (Your common law marriage analogy doesn’t really work because only a handful of states recognize common law marriage and there is usually a 10 year waiting period of living like and presenting as a married couple, and you would have to get a court judgement to acknowledge the marriage before you could receive benefits).

 

[meltzerboy]

I think we first must discuss why the state has recognized “marriage” for certain benefits and restrictions, and why those who do not fulfill the actual function of a marriage want to be recognized as such.

As to the first question, there are a number of reasons. The state saw something inherently good in marriage, Marriage bestowed a benefit on society and thus the state, that the state wanted to encourage, namely women and children being taken care of and educated. Giving people a tie to the land and their area and community. Also people were already entering into these ‘contractual’ relationships through religion, the state saw a benefit in recognizing the contract at the religious level (at least in the US), and upholding and enforcing these agreements.

I cannot answer the second question. I do not have enough ties to the movement or individuals who actually want to get married. I do have some questions to pose. Marriage does confer some benefits, but almost all the benefits can be gained through other legal documents besides a marriage contract. Those that cannot, like social security death benefits, usually are trying to fulfill the very narrow goals of the government, to protect widows or children. So what are those asking for a broader definition of marriage really asking for? It doesn’t seem to be about the benefits (unless they are uninformed about what the law actually says). But rather it seems as they want the definition broadened in order to gain social acceptance.

As to your new family definition, I don’t think it really makes legal sense, and I don’t see how it would grant more rights than a civil union. The reason why the state gives those rights to married couples is because they more or less make a contractual agreement. The make promises to stay together etc. The state enforces these promises and makes people go through a legal process to end these obligations. Something similar would have to happen with homosexual couples or any couple who wants these benefits. (Your common law marriage analogy doesn’t really work because only a handful of states recognize common law marriage and there is usually a 10 year waiting period of living like and presenting as a married couple, and you would have to get a court judgement to acknowledge the marriage before you could receive benefits).

Thank you, Jilly, for your helpful and thoughtful information.

 

[mark_a]

I had a conservative Mormon friend comment that it’s less ideal for parents to be gay than straight, however, that is only one aspect of the parent. What’s bizarre from my point of view is that we are against gay adoption which does not compare to straight parents but to kids in the foster system.

These kids are in a super tough situation, but what our society needs long term is for their parents to have a Catholic understanding of marriage and the offspring the marriage act produces and the parents responsibility to their offspring.

I have a few former Catholic gay friends who basically knew they would never find peace in our Church. After going through very tough high school years they had to accept themselves for who they are. They felt the church didn’t understand what they were going through and couldn’t accept them. They often become bitter at organized religion.

Gay Catholics are probably just as uninformed about Catholic teaching concerning homosexuality as Catholic gay bashers.

A few of them end up at a gay church after a while. At least it’s better than nothing.

I don’t know that any church that denies any sinful act, no matter how compassionate it may seem, is beneficial to anyone. And if denying sin is beneficial, why don’t we have churches that accept beastiality? After all, it is sex where only the procreative aspect has been jettisoned.

There really isn’t much of an olive branch from us since we are against everything gay. I’d think we’d have better luck if we focused on the act only and left these other issues alone (still wonder if they’re part of doctrine).

This seems contradictory to me. Why would we need better luck if homosexuality is not sinful and harmful to society?

Along with that, we have to assume they are in compliance with our values when they come to church (even though they probably are not). It’s not ideal but then again we do this with the vast majority of other Catholics whose sins are less obvious. I noticed that I was one of a few not to step up for communion on Christmas thinking to myself “yeah right. I’m here every week and never see these people, and they’re ALL worthy of communion” . It’s not up to me, it’s between them and God.

The situation you describe is sad, but I believe there are more ignorant Catholics than defiant Catholics receiving the body and blood of Christ.