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

[thewanderer]

Please understand that this is an honest and legitimate question. Also, I am not looking for those who are against instituting a legal contract of hoosexual marriage to come in here and make generalizations as to what they think is the reason. I am looking for people who actually support such a legal contract.

Honestly, I don’t get it. To me it seems that they ought to be seeking not just permssion for homosexuals, but for any two people who wish to live together and comit their lives to each other. This would include, platonic as well as romantic relationships.

The reason I see it this way is because if the govt is involved by having a legal contract, then it is clearly being admitted that the govt has a right to be involved.

Now, there are three possible aspects of a relationship which could be the point oflegal marriage and so what we are admitting the govt has a right to be involved in.

1. Ensuring healthy and well–adjusted future citizens
2. Handling the merging and seperating of property of those who merge their lives toggether
3. Making decisions as to who is and is not permitted to be involved in a romantic relationship.

So, depending on your view of what kind (if any) of legal marriage the state should be involved in you will implicitly be stating that the govt has a right to be involved in one of the above three things.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with the govt being involved in either of the first two, but I have a huge problem with the govt being involved in the third.

Now, here’s the thing. If the point is #1, then it makes sense to exclude those who cannot have children. If the point is #2, then it would be unjust to exclude any two people who wish to share their lives with each other, whether they are in a romantic relationship or not. Extending the legal contract of marriage to homosexual romantic couples, however, would mean that the legal contract of marriage would no longer fit either #1 or #2. In other words, if someone wishes to extend the definition to include only romantically involved homosexuals then they are implicitly stating that the govt has a right to make decisions as to who may and may not be romantically involved with each other

It doesn’t matter whether or not they intend to say this, it is implicit in what they are supporting. If someone supports extending the legal contract of marriage to homosexual couples and only to homosexual couples as oppoosed to any two adults (such as siblings, parent and child, etc) then they are automatically telling the govt that is has the authority to make decisions as to who can and cannot be involved in a romantic relationship with each other. This is a principle which to me seems to be abhorrent to the general populace of America, so why in the world do those who support extending the legal contract of marriage to include romantically involved homosexual couples not extend their cause to** all **adults, instead of arguing for something which rests on a premise which they themselves find abhorrent?

 

[BillP]

You’ve answered your own question here:

…

So, depending on your view of what kind (if any) of legal marriage the state should be involved in you will implicitly be stating that the govt has a right to be involved in one of the above three things.
…
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the govt being involved in either of the first two, but I have a huge problem with the govt being involved in the third.

There’s no need for the government to be involved with the third thing as long as at least one of the first two applies.

I would also point out that even now, there is no requirement for individuals seeking marriage to be involved in a “romantic relationship” to be married. In LAW, inability to consummate is not a bar to marriage (as it is in the Church).

Civil marriage is about two people agreeing to be treated as one unit legally. Nothing more, nothing less. Religious marriage is a whole nother thing. There are any number of people who are currently legally permitted to marry who are totally ineligible to be married in the Catholic Church. For example, divorced people, men with untreatable ED, anyone who has taken Holy Orders, unbaptized people, etc. The Church doesn’t seem to care whether those people (with the exception of those who’ve taken Holy Orders) engage in legal marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

You’ve answered your own question here:

There’s no need for the government to be involved with the third thing as long as at least one of the first two applies.

I would also point out that even now, there is no requirement for individuals seeking marriage to be involved in a “romantic relationship” to be married. In LAW, inability to consummate is not a bar to marriage (as it is in the Church).

**Civil marriage is about two people agreeing to be treated as one unit legally. Nothing more, nothing less. **Religious marriage is a whole nother thing. There are any number of people who are currently legally permitted to marry who are totally ineligible to be married in the Catholic Church. For example, divorced people, men with untreatable ED, anyone who has taken Holy Orders, unbaptized people, etc. The Church doesn’t seem to care whether those people (with the exception of those who’ve taken Holy Orders) engage in legal marriage.

But I guess here’s what I don’t get, by vocally calling for it to be opened up to homosexuals as opposed to being opened up to everyone you are implicitly saying that the govt has the right and authority to get involved with private romantic relationships precisely with respect to the fact that they are romantic. I mean, the arguments for opening it up for homosexuals are the exact same as those for opening it up to everybody, so why in the world would somebody push for one without pushing for the full thing, especially when pushing only for homosexuals implicitly tells the govt that it has the authority to get involved in private romantic relationships. I really don’t get it.

 

[aemcpa]

But I guess here’s what I don’t get, by vocally calling for it to be opened up to homosexuals as opposed to being opened up to everyone you are implicitly saying that the govt has the right and authority to get involved with private romantic relationships precisely with respect to the fact that they are romantic. I mean, the arguments for opening it up for homosexuals are the exact same as those for opening it up to everybody, so why in the world would somebody push for one without pushing for the full thing, especially when pushing only for homosexuals implicitly tells the govt that it has the authority to get involved in private romantic relationships. I really don’t get it.

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

 

[Michael_Allen]

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.

 

[thewanderer]

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

Yeah, I guess it boils down to that. As far as I can see its either tell the govt that you think the govt should have permission to intrude in the most personal aspects of ones relationships, tell the govt it only has authority with respect to people sharing their lives together but that certain people (such as siblings or parents and children) don’t have the same rights with respect to sharing their lives together, or else push for everybody to be included, not just homosexuals. I don’t really see how anybody can take either of the first two positions, so I don’t really understand why there is so little outcry to extend legal marriage to include siblings when there is such an outcry to extend it to couples not capable of reproducing.

 

[thewanderer]

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 really not sure why you are bringing this up as it has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am not basing anything I am saying off of scripture or off of what some religion or Church says. I am talking simply about what premises are implicitly included in what laws and trying to understand why people are willing to implicitly accept such premises when it seems like one of the last things people in this society would want to accept.

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.

I’m not at all saying that it will lead to further restrictions necessarily, but that it implicitly says that the govt has the right and authority to legislate about that topic.

The way to say that the govt should have absolutely no involvement in such a relationship for any reason would be to forbid the govt from ever having any legal contracts such as either marriage or domestic partnership, not by extending it to include more people. When you tell the govt you want it to make special laws that only apply to people in a romantic relationship specifically because they are in a romantic relationship then you are telling the govt that it has the right and the authority to make laws specifically about the most private aspect of a relationship conceivable, the romantic aspect. You might also be telling the govt that you want them to allow anyone at all to have such a private relationship, but you are still telling the govt that it has the authority to legislate about such a private aspect of a relationship.

I’m sorry if I come across as though I am not listening or as though I am just beating you over the head with this point, but I honestly cannot see it any other way and I find it very confusing.

 

[fix]

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.

How do you reconcile your position with Church teaching?

 

[BillP]

But I guess here’s what I don’t get, by vocally calling for it to be opened up to homosexuals as opposed to being opened up to everyone you are implicitly saying that the govt has the right and authority to get involved with private romantic relationships precisely with respect to the fact that they are romantic. I mean, the arguments for opening it up for homosexuals are the exact same as those for opening it up to everybody, so why in the world would somebody push for one without pushing for the full thing, especially when pushing only for homosexuals implicitly tells the govt that it has the authority to get involved in private romantic relationships. I really don’t get it.

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.

 

[BillP]

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

I’m not. As long as both brothers have reached the age of consent mandated legally, I’m okay with the law recognizing their “marriage”. Same thing with any group of consenting adults; two men & one woman or three women & one man or seven women & twenty-three men, I don’t care.

As long as the government doesn’t try to tell Churches who THEY have to marry, I’m good with it. Sort of “render unto Caesar”…

 

[aemcpa]

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.

A homosexual man is permitted to marry right now. He is permitted to marry any woman who is free to marry and who consents to marry him. That is the same rule that applies to me or any other heterosexual man. So there are equal rights under the current law. What you propose is not allowing some people to get married who cannot currently get married, but rather expanding the pool of who each person is allowed to marry. Under your rules, I as a heterosexual man would be allowed to marry another heterosexual man. Why should I not be allowed to marry my heterosexual biological brother?

 

[aemcpa]

I’m not. As long as both brothers have reached the age of consent mandated legally, I’m okay with the law recognizing their “marriage”. Same thing with any group of consenting adults; two men & one woman or three women & one man or seven women & twenty-three men, I don’t care.

As long as the government doesn’t try to tell Churches who THEY have to marry, I’m good with it. Sort of “render unto Caesar”…

Fair enough.

 

[Monkey1976]

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.

Incorrect. Same-sex couples in California already had those legal rights under “civil unions”. All Prop. 8 did was restrict the term “marriage” to male/female couples. Regarding restrictions on marriage, homosexuals have the same legal right to marry that heterosexuals do, provided they are willing to abide by the terms currently set by law. Namely:

• The two parties are not closely related
• Neither party is currently married
• Both parties are willing and able to give full consent freely
• One party is male and the other party is female

These limitations apply to everyone equally, regardless of sexual orientation.

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

If “Romantic relationships are neither here nor there”, then what exactly is the basis for a same-sex couple to demand legal recognition of a relationship that can - for them - only ever be defined as purely romantic?

 

[Michael_Allen]

I’m really not sure why you are bringing this up as it has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am not basing anything I am saying off of scripture or off of what some religion or Church says.

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.

 

[Michael_Allen]

How do you reconcile your position with Church teaching?

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.

 

[Michael_Allen]

but you are still telling the govt that it has the authority to legislate about such a private aspect of a relationship.

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.

 

[BillP]

A homosexual man is permitted to marry right now. He is permitted to marry any woman who is free to marry and who consents to marry him. That is the same rule that applies to me or any other heterosexual man. So there are equal rights under the current law. What you propose is not allowing some people to get married who cannot currently get married, but rather expanding the pool of who each person is allowed to marry. Under your rules, I as a heterosexual man would be allowed to marry another heterosexual man. Why should I not be allowed to marry my heterosexual biological brother?

So presumably you were okay with anti-miscegenation statutes in the Jim Crow era when Blacks were not permitted to marry Whites, because they were perfectly free to marry other Blacks just like Whites were perfectly free to marry other Whites?

 

[BillP]

Incorrect. Same-sex couples in California already had those legal rights under “civil unions”. All Prop. 8 did was restrict the term “marriage” to male/female couples.

Which is exactly the point. Are you actually trying to make a “seperate but equal” argument in this day and age? And make no mistake, “civil unions” are NOT equivalent to “marriages” the indefinable difference between them is why you’re arguing to restrict them to such “second class” statuses.

If “Romantic relationships are neither here nor there”, then what exactly is the basis for a same-sex couple to demand legal recognition of a relationship that can - for them - only ever be defined as purely romantic?

I don’t see your point here. Heterosexual couples aren’t limited to marriages based on romance. Heterosexual couples marry for all sorts of economic and emotional reasons beyond kids and romance homosexuals should have the civil rights.

 

[aemcpa]

So presumably you were okay with anti-miscegenation statutes in the Jim Crow era when Blacks were not permitted to marry Whites, because they were perfectly free to marry other Blacks just like Whites were perfectly free to marry other Whites?

The pools were different in that case. A Black man could not marry a White woman, whereas a White man could.

 

[BillP]

The pools were different in that case. A Black man could not marry a White woman, whereas a White man could.

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”.