For those who favor extending the legal marriage contract to romantically involved homosexuals

[fix]

Where does Church teaching tell us we must impose our position on the consenting and consensual views and actions of others who don’t share our faith?

Our Lord’s teaching was much more radical - rather than resisting evil (Matthew 5:39) we are simply to be the light on top of the hill (Matthew 5:14). Our Lord led the way on the cross. Our faith is not one seeking Earthly political power - it’s a faith that is a light to shine in the darkness. We should be looking to make our own marriages, our own family, our own communities, that light.

Anyway, that’s just my view. I respect that others differ.

There are several Vatican documents that clearly state Catholics are obligated to oppose homosexual unions.

First children have rights. We must protect children. As for imposing that is being done by the relativists and hedonists that use “consent” as a license to destroy the very basic cell of society. Our Lord does not want us to affirm sin or allow our culture to be destroyed.

 

[Brendan]

No, in both cases the government is/was arbitrarily fencing off a group of people and requiring saying “if you desire a spouse, you must choose within this particular, arbitrarily selected, group”.

Sort of like what is happening now when the government bans marriage to farm animals or inanimate objects?

 

[aemcpa]

No, in both cases the government is/was arbitrarily fencing off a group of people and requiring saying “if you desire a spouse, you must choose within this particular, arbitrarily selected, group”.

Except that a White man could choose from group A and a Black man could choose from group B. In this case, a heterosexual man and a homosexual man are allowed to choose from the same group, so there are equal rights. What there is not is an equal desire to exercise the equal rights, but that isn’t something that the government can remedy by changing the law.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi thewanderer

When I read scripture the one thing I don’t find is an instruction for the faithful to regulate the lives of the non-faithful. Rather, it seems, we are simply to a beacon atop the hill; drawing in people to God by example rather than by force of legislation.

So long as governments respect our view of marriage, and don’t try to impose a secular view onto our church system of marriage then I am personally OK with non-Christians having their own view of marriage so long as people are free and mature enough to be able to give consent.

Personally I don’t feel a secular marriage of two people of the same sex who love each other intrudes on my Christian marriage to my wife.

I’m afraid I don’t really go along with your argument that extending the scope of civil marriage will lead to governments restriction of who may be romantically involved with each other. I believe it does the opposite, that it relaxes governmental control over committed relationships.

Michael,

Then your reading of Scripture should be coupled with a formation of Conscience that the Catechism instructs us includes Church teaching. Do that, rethink this and get back to me.

 

[BillP]

Sort of like what is happening now when the government bans marriage to farm animals or inanimate objects?

No as neither farm animals nor inanimate objects are capable of giving consent.

 

[BillP]

Except that a White man could choose from group A and a Black man could choose from group B. In this case, a heterosexual man and a homosexual man are allowed to choose from the same group, so there are equal rights. What there is not is an equal desire to exercise the equal rights, but that isn’t something that the government can remedy by changing the law.

In order for the government to legitimately restrict personal freedom it must have a compelling reason for doing so, otherwise the restriction is unjust. There was no compelling reason for government to limit Blacks and Whites to marriage partners of the same race so doing so was an injustice. Similarly, there is no compelling reason for the government to restrict homosexuals to marriage partners of the opposite sex, so such a restriction is unjust.

 

[Brendan]

No as neither farm animals nor inanimate objects are capable of giving consent.

But consent would also be an arbitrary criteria then too. Or do you consider some criteria to be essential to the definition of marriage and the government should enforce those criteria. Is that what I am hearing?

 

[BillP]

But consent would also be an arbitrary criteria then too.

Now you’re being facetious. Consent is the very bedrock, the sine qua non, of marriage. Two people voluntarily choosing to join together is what DEFINES a marriage.

Or do you consider some criteria to be essential to the definition of marriage and the government should enforce those criteria. Is that what I am hearing?

In the words of the sage philosopher, Homer Simpson: “D’oh!”

 

[Brendan]

Now you’re being facetious. Consent is the very bedrock, the sine qua non, of marriage. Two people voluntarily choosing to join together is what DEFINES a marriage.

Yes, as long as those two people are male and female and bound to no other

In the words of the sage philosopher, Homer Simpson: “D’oh!”

 

[Publisher]

In other words, how can a person who supports same-sex marriage be OK with prohibiting two brothers from marrying each other?

Probably the same reasons that heterosexual marriage does not preclude one must be ok for brother and sister to marrry.

 

[thewanderer]

ok, a whole bunch of replies, guess I should’ve expected it because I know its a hot button topic.

I’m not opposed to opening it up to everyone, its already opened up to everyone except homosexuals now. All same sex civil marriage does is give homosexuals the same legal and civil rights that heterosexual people have now.

“Romantic relationships” are neither here nor there, they are irrelevant when considering whether or not civil marriage should be recognized.

Actually, thats not true. If by opened up to everyone you mean that everyone is given the same requirements for a marriage partner that is true, but then that would not exclude homosexuals. However, as it is now, a brother and a sister cannot enter a legal married. Neither can a mother and her son. So, no, it is not already opened up to everyone except homosexuals. thats why I’m asking for some insight into why people fight for homosexuals but not for siblings and parent/grown child.

Well, you’ll have to excuse me looking to scripture for guidance. I would rather hope that on a Catholic discussion forum responses based on scripture were encouraged.

I’m sorry if I came across as rude. I know that this is a Catholic forum, however, I started this thread for a very specific purpose, and quoting scripture/church teaching/ whatever else is not going to help with that. I am not trying to be rude or snarky, its just that with such a controversial topic I know it would be easy for it to get derailed. I just wanted to help make it clear as early as possible that that is not what I am looking for, I am not looking for Catholic or even Christian reasons, I am trying to understand the logic and position of people who desire for the legal contract of marriage to be extended to homosexuals but don’t seem to care at all about extending it to siblings and parents/grown children.

Governments already legislate marriage (and divorce). It’s not as if you are going from a position where there is not government control of marriage (in the eyes of the state) to a position where the government must now approve marriage - it has always been thus. I really don’t see how you see a broadening of civil marriage as being more restrictive.

In the UK often one ceremony can be for both the Church and the civil marriage. I would favour separating those two so it’s clear that civil and Church marriage are two separate things and do not share all the same values.

I think you are missing a couple of distinctions. One being that the legal contract of marriage does not equal actual marriage. All it is is a legal contract that two consenting parties make in a binding way before the govt. It is not at all the same as natural or sacramental marriage. From this, one can then start to try and seperate legal marriage from all the connotations that one normally associates with actual marriage, and instead work on figuring out what is the purpose of the legal contract. The govt has gotten involved for some reason. So what is the reason the govt is involved? Is it a) to control your sex lives and your deeply personal unconditional commitments to other people b) to ensure there is a sufficient number of healthy well adjusted productive future citizens so that the state will continue to exist, c) simply to deal with the logistics that accompany the sharing and/or seperation of two lives. While it is true that the govt has a legal contract of marriage, it is in no way a given that this legal contract exists for the sake of controling or legislating about peoples sex lives and deep personal commitments. Does this make it a little more clear where I am coming from?

 

[thewanderer]

As for everybody else, I really don’t want to seem rude, but starting debates with the few people who end up being willing to answer my actual question is not going to help me understand this, so I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from doing that on this thread. There have been and will be, plenty of other threads about the legal contract of marriage and whether or not to extend it to homosexuals and if you really want to get into a debate about it you can go join them, or even start a new thread, you can even link it to this thread if there is something somebody said that you really just feel is absolutely necessary for you to respond to, but I really would appreciate it if you would not derail my thread. Thank you.

ETA: Of course, if your questions are actually related to my opening question then feel free to join in the conversation.

 

[aemcpa]

Probably the same reasons that heterosexual marriage does not preclude one must be ok for brother and sister to marrry.

No, because the traditional prohibition on incest has to do with conceiving a child. For two brothers that is impossible, so why can’t they marry?

 

[Michael_Allen]

No, because the traditional prohibition on incest has to do with conceiving a child. For two brothers that is impossible, so why can’t they marry?

Indeed. A better parallel might be whether a state should allow polygamy for those (such as some Muslims and Mormons) who wish to commit to a legally binding union of more than two.

 

[BillP]

Actually, thats not true. If by opened up to everyone you mean that everyone is given the same requirements for a marriage partner that is true, but then that would not exclude homosexuals. However, as it is now, a brother and a sister cannot enter a legal married. Neither can a mother and her son. So, no, it is not already opened up to everyone except homosexuals. thats why I’m asking for some insight into why people fight for homosexuals but not for siblings and parent/grown child. … I am not looking for Catholic or even Christian reasons, I am trying to understand the logic and position of people who desire for the legal contract of marriage to be extended to homosexuals but don’t seem to care at all about extending it to siblings and parents/grown children.

I’m "fighting’ for homosexuals because they asked me to. In principle, I have no objection no ANY two (or more) people, who have the capacity to give effective consent, entering a civil marriage. If an organization of brothers & sisters or parents and siblings campaigned for the right to marry each other in the eyes of the government, I would support it.

contract. The govt has gotten involved for some reason. So what is the reason the govt is involved? Is it a) to control your sex lives and your deeply personal unconditional commitments to other people b) to ensure there is a sufficient number of healthy well adjusted productive future citizens so that the state will continue to exist, c) simply to deal with the logistics that accompany the sharing and/or seperation of two lives. While it is true that the govt has a legal contract of marriage, it is in no way a given that this legal contract exists for the sake of controling or legislating about peoples sex lives and deep personal commitments. Does this make it a little more clear where I am coming from?

I don’t get your point here. Any attempt to assert that the government supports marriage primarily for the promotion of child welfare must fail because marriages aren’t limited to those with the inclination and ability to have children. Your other two reasons apply equally to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m "fighting’ for homosexuals because they asked me to. In principle, I have no objection no ANY two (or more) people, who have the capacity to give effective consent, entering a civil marriage. If an organization of brothers & sisters or parents and siblings campaigned for the right to marry each other in the eyes of the government, I would support it.

I’m just curious, I trying to get a better understanding of where you are coming from. Since you realize that the new law you are fighting for is still just as prejudiced as the current one (it still prohibits people from marrying and so is discriminatory etc) will you now start pushing for, or even just spreadng awareness of the discriminatory nature of the law you and others are fighting for? Or will you just ignore this issue because nobody has made a big deal about it yet?

I don’t get your point here. Any attempt to assert that the government supports marriage primarily for the promotion of child welfare must fail because marriages aren’t limited to those with the inclination and ability to have children. Your other two reasons apply equally to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

I am not trying to say that current laws are perfectly ordered towards kids, but the fact that it is restricted to male and female, the genders necessary for procreation and the fact that the absolute best environment for kids to grow up in is a stable marriage (as currently defined) between their biological parents. We know that marriage, as it currently exists, is good for kids and is the best environment for them. But thats a little besides the point. I’m not trying to get into an argument as to whether or not marriage is currently aimed at, the point is that one can give a reason for restricting marriage to two people of opposite sexes that rests on something other than the romantic relationship itself. What argument can one possibly give to restrict marriage to romantically involved homosexual or heteresexual couples besides that of the romantic relationship itself?

 

[BillP]

I’m just curious, I trying to get a better understanding of where you are coming from. Since you realize that the new law you are fighting for is still just as prejudiced as the current one (it still prohibits people from marrying and so is discriminatory etc) will you now start pushing for, or even just spreadng awareness of the discriminatory nature of the law you and others are fighting for? Or will you just ignore this issue because nobody has made a big deal about it yet?

I will ignore it until someone makes a big deal about it. I don’t know of one single person who wants to marry a close relative being prohibited from doing so. On the other hand, I know dozens of homosexuals who are in committed relationships who wish to marry. I even know of a few homosexual couple who have been grievously damaged by their inability to get married because of healthcare and inheritance issues.

What argument can one possibly give to restrict marriage to romantically involved homosexual or heteresexual couples besides that of the romantic relationship itself?

But no one is arguing that marriage should be restricted to “romantically involved” couples. Its not so-restricted now, people marry for all sorts of economic and emotional reasons. How would you police such a restriction? How could you tell if two people applying for a marriage license were actually “romantically involved”?

 

[thewanderer]

I will ignore it until someone makes a big deal about it. I don’t know of one single person who wants to marry a close relative being prohibited from doing so. On the other hand, I know dozens of homosexuals who are in committed relationships who wish to marry. I even know of a few homosexual couple who have been grievously damaged by their inability to get married because of healthcare and inheritance issues.

ok, thats interesting, so you of the opinion that having a prejudiced and discriminatory law is totally fine until a big public outcry occurs about it and only then its time to work on changing it. Is that right? How do you know that there aren’t others who would like the legal benefits of marriage who just haven’t made a big national deal out of it? It seems a very odd position to take, in my opinion, that the discriminatory laws are aok until the public outcry against them gets loud enough because that suffer silently because of the discriminatory laws aren’t important, but perhaps thats why I am having such a hard time understanding this way of thinking.

But no one is arguing that marriage should be restricted to “romantically involved” couples. Its not so-restricted now, people marry for all sorts of economic and emotional reasons. How would you police such a restriction? How could you tell if two people applying for a marriage license were actually “romantically involved”?

Thats not my point, no law is going to be perfect. You didn’tanswer my question. Lets put it this way, what reason can you give for the law which people are currently trying to put into effect which is that any two people can marry, unless they are too closely related. Why restrict this to two people and why exclude siblings and parent/children relationships? What is the reasoning behind this besides just blind prejudice and discrimination?

 

[thewanderer]

Ok, I’m going to try and put this another way.

I can understand and respect the following opinions

1. The govt should not in any way be involved in “marriage”
2. The govt should allow any people who wish to share their lives together to form a legal contract through which property issues can be settled.
3. The govt should allow any people who wish to share their lives together to form a legal contract through which property issues can be settled and which will grant them certain privileges by virtue of the fact that people who share their lives together should no longer be considered as entirely seperate individuals, (joint filing etc)
4. The govt should have a legal contract for those who can procreate so which encourages them not only to procreate but also to remain with each other to ensure that their children will be raised in a loving and stable environment, thus producing good, healthy, and productive citizens.

or even

1. The govt should allow only those people who are romantically involved with each other to enter into a legal contract to share their lives with each other and recieve benefits of shared living.
   (I remain convinced that the vast majority of americans would be extremely opposed to the necessary implication, that the govt has any right or authority to make laws that are specifically based on the romantic aspect of someones relationship, but I could still understand such an opinion as it is consistent)

or any combination of the above ( there should be a contract for shared living and another contract for producing and raising children, etc)

What I cannot understand is people who hold the following opinion

I think that the current approach to this govt instituted contract is discriminatory, therefore I am going to introduce/fight for/promote etc another version of this contract which still happens to be discriminatory.

 

[BillP]

ok, thats interesting, so you of the opinion that having a prejudiced and discriminatory law is totally fine until a big public outcry occurs about it and only then its time to work on changing it. Is that right? How do you know that there aren’t others who would like the legal benefits of marriage who just haven’t made a big national deal out of it? It seems a very odd position to take, in my opinion, that the discriminatory laws are aok until the public outcry against them gets loud enough because that suffer silently because of the discriminatory laws aren’t important, but perhaps thats why I am having such a hard time understanding this way of thinking.

There are essentially two answers to that. First, there literally aren’t enough hours in the day to make everything perfect. I prioritize my efforts towards the things that are the biggest problem at the moment. Think of it as “triage” At this moment, homosexual marriage seems to me to be a bigger issue that consanguinity marriage. However, once we fix homosexual marriage, perhaps that will change.

The second thing is that we have a democratically based form of government (not a true democracy, but democratically based) therefore as the mores and opinions of the electorate changes, the laws follow. For example, not too long ago, many states had laws that were manifestly unjust such as racial discrimination laws (Jim Crow), gender discrimination laws (women weren’t permitted to vote or hold property) and there were no child welfare or labor laws. But because we lived under a democratically based government, these laws couldn’t effectively change until a certain “critical mass” of society changed. I believe we’ve reached that point with marriage laws.