Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[markeverett49]

Marriage has always meant different things to different groups of people.rossum

Humans are a sexually reproducing species. Human children remain helpless for a long time after birth. Societies of all sorts have recognized that marriage is different than, say, friendship or collegiality, and a large reason is this is that the conjugal act may produce children and that those children will require extensive care and supervision for years. This is why marriage matters to society. (On the revisionist view, that marriage is geared toward the emotional and sexual satisfaction of adults, there is no reason for the state to regulate marriage anymore than friendship or affairs.)

Same-sex relations do not and cannot form the natural union that males and females do in coitus. (One need not be religious to think this way. Evolutionary biologists, for example, think this way. That a) only the union of a male and female may lead to offspring and b) without sufficient offspring, a species dies out, though for humans, societies would die first, explains why the state cares about marriage in the first place.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I have no “relativist agenda”, I have a truthist agenda. Marriage has changed over time, or was what Solomon had not marriage?

Taxation, inheritance rights, social recognition, residence rights for foreign born spouses for starters. Basically the same as the reasons a lot of heterosexuals get married.

Does marriage in the US have no value because the law in Texas is not the same as the law in New Hampshire? There is no “clear cut” definition of marriage in the USA. There is not even a “clear cut” definition of Christian marriage because many Protestants disagree with Catholics over the treatment of divorce and remarriage after divorce. Does that disagreement invalidate all Christian marriages?

Marriage has always meant different things to different groups of people.

rossum

‘Truthist’ agenda or personally advantageous agenda? Homosexuals having the same basic reasons as heterosexuals in wanting to get married?

Marriage has always been more than just for individual benefit, but importantly for community, social and public benefit as well.

You disregard homosexual relations lacking the natural ability to procreate which remains a basic reason providing incentive to the state to maintain its interest in marriages of its eligible citizens as a matter of public policy.

Raising the exception of accidental or intentionally sterile couples, the no-longer acceptable polygamous marriages in this age at least in most civilized countries, and the failure of marriages ending in legal divorce are not good arguments but justifications for selfish individual reasons to redefine marriage.

Same sex partners can never have the one-man-one-woman formula to naturally bring forth children into the world which remains a basic configuration, hence a definition, of marriage.

Are not freedom of open association and all legal protections to same sex partnerships still not enough for gay activists?
,

 

[rossum]

You disregard homosexual relations lacking the natural ability to procreate which remains a basic reason providing incentive to the state to maintain its interest in marriages of its eligible citizens as a matter of public policy.

And you disregard the inability of post-menopausal women, and various other infertile people to legally marry, and to marry in the Catholic Church. The ability to have children is not currently a requirement for marriage either legally or theologically.

Raising the exception of accidental or intentionally sterile couples, the no-longer acceptable polygamous marriages in this age at least in most civilized countries, and the failure of marriages ending in legal divorce are not good arguments but justifications for selfish individual reasons to redefine marriage.

“Apart from the evidence showing his innocence, the defendant is guilty.” Those exceptions do exist, and if your theory of marriage does not include those exceptions, then your theory does not correspond to reality. Post-menopausal women do get married. Would you prevent them? If not then you have to drop the “must be able to have children” criterion.

Are not freedom of open association and all legal protections to same sex partnerships still not enough for gay activists?

They seem to be too much for Catholic Bishops, who have campaigned against Civil Partnerships in the UK. Are gays in the US allowed to bring their partners into the country to live legally in the same way as married heterosexuals can bring in their spouses? What about treatment for inheritance tax? In the UK there is legal equality between Civil Partnerships and marriage on those issues. What are the options in the US for same sex partners?

Until there is equality, then there is a reasonable argument for legal change.

rossum

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Personally I don’t think it should. I agree with you. But some people would like an event where they could make a committment to each other before friends and family. Followed by an afternoon and evening of Bachanalia of course.

I don’t see why that couple couldn’t then fill in some sort of form as you do when you make a will so that legal matters could be covered. No need for any secular or religious organisation to get involved, although churches could get involved if they wanted to. But no compulsion.

That would solve the gay marriage problem, wouldn’t it?

I believe this is already the case and has been. Advocates of SSM are just hung up on the fact that its not called “marriage”, even though their rights are intact. This was never about a battle of rights, its much deeper than that.

 

[Slavonic]

Societies of all sorts have recognized that marriage is different than, say, friendship or collegiality, and a large reason is this is that the conjugal act may produce children and that those children will require extensive care and supervision for years. This is why marriage matters to society. (On the revisionist view, that marriage is geared toward the emotional and sexual satisfaction of adults, there is no reason for the state to regulate marriage anymore than friendship or affairs.)

Same-sex relations do not and cannot form the natural union that males and females do in coitus. (One need not be religious to think this way. Evolutionary biologists, for example, think this way. That a) only the union of a male and female may lead to offspring and b) without sufficient offspring, a species dies out, though for humans, societies would die first, explains why the state cares about marriage in the first place.

Same-sex couples can also create relationships that are beyond that of friendship and collegiality and I hope opposite-sex couples who are married do so as well, so except for the physical parts involved, there is no difference between these relationships.

Regarding these parts, a man and woman who are so particularly inclined may put these parts to use and may produce offspring from that encounter. This can occur without a marriage. This can occur without any long-term relationship between the partners. So my question is, how can the distinct aspect of an opposite-sex marriage, procreation, be called a distinct aspect when it can occur outside of a marriage? Any male and female of appropriate condition and age, biologically speaking, can produce offspring. One can take any male and any female of appropriate condition and age and any person, scientist or not, will say “Yes, the woman could potentially get pregnant and have a baby by that man.” No one will be able to say if that same man and woman could unite in marriage. Not just any male and not just any female can make a marriage as any male and any female can produce offspring. The difference lies in the relationship between the spouses. So a marriage should be based on the relationship between the partners. That is really what it special and unique.

If we take this beyond conception and view procreation as the raising and rearing of the next generation. It is more important that the partners, if a couple is raising a child, have a relationship. A deep, long-lasting relationship beyond friendship and collegiality and one that is beyond the conjugal act that produced that offspring. I see nothing demeaning in this “revisionist” view of marriage by emphasizing the emotional bond between the partners and argue that it is also beneficial to society.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

And you disregard the inability of post-menopausal women, and various other infertile people to legally marry, and to marry in the Catholic Church. The ability to have children is not currently a requirement for marriage either legally or theologically.

False. Where do you get this? Post-menopausal women and infertile people are able to marry in the Catholic Church as they are able to marry civilly. The disqualifier is impotence and the intention of not being open to life, should it be the result of marital sex. Please stop repeating a falsity.

“Apart from the evidence showing his innocence, the defendant is guilty.” Those exceptions do exist, and if your theory of marriage does not include those exceptions, then your theory does not correspond to reality. Post-menopausal women do get married. Would you prevent them? If not then you have to drop the “must be able to have children” criterion.

If a post-menopausal woman is not wanting to marry another woman, her brother, a young male below the age of consent, or has a living husband, why should anyone object to or prevent her marrying a man? In the same vein, a man without a pre-existing and permanent impotency problem should not be prevented from marrying a woman who is not otherwise barred from entering a marriage.

Being open to life is the criterion Catholics are talking about, which is of course dependent on the ability to perform the marital act, not the requirement to have a child. You are engaging in inappropriate dichotomies.

Homosexual unions are inherently closed to life, which is the biggest most basic stumbling block in why there is no reconciliation with the arguments advanced in the idea of same sex partners in marriage, even as some states have allowed it, a mistake by legislators and judges who made it possible.

The reality is that marriage is a profoundly social institution. The civil institution part of it first and foremost serves the serves the well being of children, which homosexual unions cannot biologically produce. The institution helps and protects the next generation and the good of society. It is not designed to just provide tax benefits to parents, immigration of foreign born partners, and all the individualist theories and exceptions with the incorrect reasoning you attach to said exceptions.

They seem to be too much for Catholic Bishops, who have campaigned against Civil Partnerships in the UK. Are gays in the US allowed to bring their partners into the country to live legally in the same way as married heterosexuals can bring in their spouses? What about treatment for inheritance tax? In the UK there is legal equality between Civil Partnerships and marriage on those issues. What are the options in the US for same sex partners?

Until there is equality, then there is a reasonable argument for legal change.

rossum

The part of my post above addresses this in part.

Regardless of the position of Catholic Bishops, in the UK where you are, homosexuals have the same and identical rights as heterosexuals in marriage. The gays there do not have any less rights than their gay counterparts. As far as financial benefits like inheritance tax, gays in America in legal marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships have legal remedies to solve that.

Being in the UK, why do you bellyache about financial benefits and immigration of foreign born partners affecting U.S. nationals? What is being envisioned here, a world order where all nations bow to the homosexual agenda now?

Your idea of equality is not a reasonable argument for legal change that enshrines gay ‘marriage’ anywhere, much less across nations, which you would like to see, it would seem. It is a recipe for further social and economic disorder.
,

 

[RobbyS]

Same-sex couples can also create relationships that are beyond that of friendship and collegiality and I hope opposite-sex couples who are married do so as well, so except for the physical parts involved, there is no difference between these relationships.

Regarding these parts, a man and woman who are so particularly inclined may put these parts to use and may produce offspring from that encounter. This can occur without a marriage. This can occur without any long-term relationship between the partners. So my question is, how can the distinct aspect of an opposite-sex marriage, procreation, be called a distinct aspect when it can occur outside of a marriage? Any male and female of appropriate condition and age, biologically speaking, can produce offspring. One can take any male and any female of appropriate condition and age and any person, scientist or not, will say “Yes, the woman could potentially get pregnant and have a baby by that man.” No one will be able to say if that same man and woman could unite in marriage. Not just any male and not just any female can make a marriage as any male and any female can produce offspring. The difference lies in the relationship between the spouses. So a marriage should be based on the relationship between the partners. That is really what it special and unique.

If we take this beyond conception and view procreation as the raising and rearing of the next generation. It is more important that the partners, if a couple is raising a child, have a relationship. A deep, long-lasting relationship beyond friendship and collegiality and one that is beyond the conjugal act that produced that offspring. I see nothing demeaning in this “revisionist” view of marriage by emphasizing the emotional bond between the partners and argue that it is also beneficial to society.

The state has an interest in this relationship because it(potentially) produces children. It discourages bastardy because that creates a charge on the public for their care. So far as Christian marriage is concerned, what distinguishes it is the charge on each person to help bring the other to heaven, they and their off-spring. As for relations between two persons of the same sex, or even between two unmarried persons of opposite sex, that obligation applies with no necessity for sexual intercourse. As everyone knows “******” is not the same as “love,” nor even sympathy. In fact, it is often the opposite.

 

[rossum]

False.

Agreed. I meant to say “ability” rather than “inability”, but made a typo. Thus I ended up saying the opposite of what I actually meant. Thank you for pointing out my error.

If a post-menopausal woman is not wanting to marry another woman, her brother, a young male below the age of consent, or has a living husband, why should anyone object to or prevent her marrying a man? In the same vein, a man without a pre-existing and permanent impotency problem should not be prevented from marrying a woman who is not otherwise barred from entering a marriage.

We agree. The inability to have children is not a bar to marriage. Hence the inability to have children cannot be used as an argument to bar same sex marriage.

Regardless of the position of Catholic Bishops, in the UK where you are, homosexuals have the same and identical rights as heterosexuals in marriage.

No. They do not have the right to marry someone of the sex they are attracted to, at least not everywhere.

The gays there do not have any less rights than their gay counterparts. As far as financial benefits like inheritance tax, gays in America in legal marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships have legal remedies to solve that.

And what of gays in America who are living in states that do not recognise SSM or Civil Partnerships? Those legal remedies are not available to everyone. Are some US citizens not equal to other US citizens in law?

Being in the UK, why do you bellyache about financial benefits and immigration of foreign born partners affecting U.S. nationals?

Because some on the anti-SSM side are arguing that there is no real disadvantage for gays in not allowing SSM. I was giving examples of situations where there is a real difference between being in a legally recognised relationship and not being in such a relationship.

rossum

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Agreed. I meant to say “ability” rather than “inability”, but made a typo. Thus I ended up saying the opposite of what I actually meant. Thank you for pointing out my error.

We agree. The inability to have children is not a bar to marriage. Hence the inability to have children cannot be used as an argument to bar same sex marriage.

The problem with your argument is that it takes the exception (of inability to have children) in opposite sexed couples, the configuration being an element, then applies it to same sexed partners, as if it is a given that opposite sexed configuration in procreation and rearing of children is equal and no different from a same sexed configuration. All in the pursuit of so called “equality.” How is equal treatment of unequal configurations valid?

To repeat, the reality is that marriage is a profoundly socialist institution. Gay activists want to change the rules, opportunists in using heterosexual failures in their marriages and their contracepting and aborting practices as justification for selfish individualist theories.

 

[rossum]

To repeat, the reality is that marriage is a profoundly socialist institution. Gay activists want to change the rules, opportunists in using heterosexual failures in their marriages and their contracepting and aborting practices as justification for selfish individualist theories.

The rules on civil marriage often change. Witness changes to the laws on divorce, married women’s property rights and miscegenation in the last hundred years. SSM is another proposed changed, which has its supporters and opponents, and is enacted in some places, but not in others. Hence it is a hot topic at the moment.

Laws on contraception and abortion are separate from laws on marriage, and are not directly relevant to this discussion.

(and did you really mean “socialist”?)

rossum

 

[markeverett49]

The rules on civil marriage often change. Witness changes to the laws on divorce, married women’s property rights and miscegenation in the last hundred years.rossum

None of these changes attempted to re-define what a marriage is. (Even anti-miscegenation laws, which a) were abhorrent and b) proof positive that changes in marriage law can be BAD, did not attempt to redefine what marriage is. They tried to dis-allow certain couples TO marry. The problem with same-sex ‘marriage’ is that it isn’t a marriage at all. As Malcolm X put it, “A cat may have kittens in the oven but that don’t make 'em biscuits!”)

 

[StevenFrancis]

I think you should care, however not for political reasons. I think you should care from a loving spiritual perspective.

Take another topic: it is against church teaching to have sex outside of marriage and with multple partners. It is also against church teaching to photograph or film those events. So now I ask you: should you be concerned over your non-Catholic neighbor that has multiple sex partners and is making pornography all of which are perfectly LEGAL. Well yes, you should.

You should be concerned for the souls of others, even if their sins do not seem to impact you they really do, we are all one body. I know this is not the primary topic brought up on the news, but bottom line as someone’s brother or sister in Christ you should be praying for them and be concerned for their sins. Living a life in pornography and multiple partners is sad and destructive. It is not part of God’s beautiful design for our lives! The exact same thing can be said for our brothers and sisters that have same-sex-attraction. We are to love them but are not to encourage them in their sins.

If gay marriage were legal there would be far reaching implications for many. Kindergarteners will be regularly reading fairy tales about how a “prince marries another prince.” This is already taking place and children are not allowed to “opt out” of the program. Does that bother you in any way? Catholic wedding photographers being sued because they would not take photos for a same-sex wedding. Christian caterers being sued because they didn’t want to make dinners for a same-sex wedding.

The actions of our secular brothers and sisters most certainly impact us. I do not doubt in any way that the way this movement is growing we will soon see our churches labeled as places of “hate crime” since they will refuse to marry same-gender people. God help us.

This pretty much sums up the whole thing in a nutshell. Great post.

 

[Slavonic]

None of these changes attempted to re-define what a marriage is. (Even anti-miscegenation laws, which a) were abhorrent and b) proof positive that changes in marriage law can be BAD, did not attempt to redefine what marriage is. They tried to dis-allow certain couples TO marry. The problem with same-sex ‘marriage’ is that it isn’t a marriage at all. As Malcolm X put it, “A cat may have kittens in the oven but that don’t make 'em biscuits!”)

I have a hard time believing that marriage is being redefined. I think of it as a correction. If the same feeling and bonds between the partners are the same, why should the gender of the partners matter? And they do disallow certain couples to marry to this very day. Some deserve it some don’t, but same-sex couples do not deserve to be excluded nor are they similar to the other couples that are banned from marriage. It’s interesting that bestial, incestuous, and marriages to children are not banned by constitutional amendments nor is anyone suggesting it. Same-sex marriages are. But I digress…

The state has an interest in this relationship because it(potentially) produces children.

What relationship? Marriage? Yes, a male/female married couple can produce children. But so can any other male and female. A male and female who met five minutes beforehand can potentially produce a child. I’m not trying to be outrageous but makes me wonder if I should take this further to imply that the government should be certifying and approving of all intercourse between men and women. Because intercourse between any male and female of appropriate condition can result in children, not just those who are married to each other.

 

[rossum]

None of these changes attempted to re-define what a marriage is.

All of those laws change what marriage is. Civil marriage is whatever it is defined to be by civil law. If the law changes, then the definition of marriage changes. Religious marriage is a different animal. Civil marriage currently allows for divorce while Catholic marriage does not.

Change is change. I am not an essentialist where civil marriage is concerned. Civil marriage is a human construct based on human made laws.

They tried to dis-allow certain couples TO marry.

The laws against same sex marriage also disallow certain couples to marry. Nehemiah 13:25 also disallows certain couples to marry. Disallowing certain people to marry has been around for a very long time.

rossum

 

[markeverett49]

I have a hard time believing that marriage is being redefined. I think of it as a correction. If the same feeling and bonds between the partners are the same, why should the gender of the partners matter? And they do disallow certain couples to marry to this very day. Some deserve it some don’t, but same-sex couples do not deserve to be excluded nor are they similar to the other couples that are banned from marriage. It’s interesting that bestial, incestuous, and marriages to children are not banned by constitutional amendments nor is anyone suggesting it. Same-sex marriages are. But I digress…

For starters, and I know this is an unpopular opinion in many quarters, gender matters. It’s curious—and much remarked on outside the US—that what are called “sex differences” everywhere else in the English-speaking world must be called “gender differences here,” and the gloss on that is that there really ARE no differences between males and females EXCEPT those that are culturally-conditioned. To say the least, this makes a mockery of biology.

I spent several years in a seminary and met a lot of gay men. Every time one said there was no difference between two men marrying and a man and a woman marrying, I asked, “if there is no difference, why do you only want to sleep with men???” I never heard a good answer to that one.

Yes, a man and a woman who just met five minutes ago could have sex and a child could result. This is why they should NOT have sex! That homosexual acts are inherently barren is not a point in their favor, either morally or biologically.

I know it’s been said before but it bears repeating: homosexuals CAN marry, just not another person of the same sex! (IWhere same-sex marriage is allowed, it cannot be restricted to homosexuals! There’s no sexual-orientation test when one applies for a marriage license. The problem with same-sex marriage is NOT that the parties may be gay but that are of the same sex and therefore CANNOT marry.
.

 

[Slavonic]

Yes, gender matters and there are gender differences. I, however, was talking about relationships i.e. the relationship between a husband and wife and the relationship of two members of the same sex who have the same feeling and bonds as the husband and wife.

Yes, I understand why people who met five minutes beforehand should not have sex. But to say sex and procreation should occur within marriage and that marriage is about procreation are two different things. And I have difficulty with the latter and my reasons are in my previous posts.

Your last point on the difference between gay marriage and same-sex marriage is interesting. I never considered it and thank you for sharing your insight. But is the state to leave out gay people of the same sex who have the same bonds and feelings as a heterosexual married couple just because it does not want straight people of the same sex entering into marriage contracts?

 

[markeverett49]

All of those laws change what marriage is. Civil marriage is whatever it is defined to be by civil law. If the law changes, then the definition of marriage changes. Religious marriage is a different animal. Civil marriage currently allows for divorce while Catholic marriage does not.

Change is change. I am not an essentialist where civil marriage is concerned. Civil marriage is a human construct based on human made laws.

This does not follow. Gun laws change but this doesn’t change what a gun is. Voting laws change but this doesn’t change what voting is. Whatever government declares that same-sex unions are “marriages” will be just as wrong as governments that defined blacks as “property” or fetuses as “non-persons.” Governments can get things wrong.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, gender matters and there are gender differences. I, however, was talking about relationships i.e. the relationship between a husband and wife and the relationship of two members of the same sex who have the same feeling and bonds as the husband and wife.

Yes, I understand why people who met five minutes beforehand should not have sex. But to say sex and procreation should occur within marriage and that marriage is about procreation are two different things. And I have difficulty with the latter and my reasons are in my previous posts.

Your last point on the difference between gay marriage and same-sex marriage is interesting. I never considered it and thank you for sharing your insight. But is the state to leave out gay people of the same sex who have the same bonds and feelings as a heterosexual married couple just because it does not want straight people of the same sex entering into marriage contracts?

Slavonic,

Other than a burning in your bosom how is it you conclude that two men yearning for each other have the same bonds and feelings as a man and woman yearning for each other? What is the basis for your certainty that they are equivalent?

 

[CopticChristian]

I have a hard time believing that marriage is being redefined. I think of it as a correction. If the same feeling and bonds between the partners are the same, why should the gender of the partners matter? And they do disallow certain couples to marry to this very day. Some deserve it some don’t, but same-sex couples do not deserve to be excluded nor are they similar to the other couples that are banned from marriage. It’s interesting that bestial, incestuous, and marriages to children are not banned by constitutional amendments nor is anyone suggesting it. Same-sex marriages are. But I digress…

What relationship? Marriage? Yes, a male/female married couple can produce children. But so can any other male and female. A male and female who met five minutes beforehand can potentially produce a child. I’m not trying to be outrageous but makes me wonder if I should take this further to imply that the government should be certifying and approving of all intercourse between men and women. Because intercourse between any male and female of appropriate condition can result in children, not just those who are married to each other.

Slavonic,

Here again with certainty you say the feelings and bonds are the same. What is your proof for this other than a burning in your bosom?

 

[CopticChristian]

**Slavonic:
QUOTE]Same-sex couples can also create relationships that are beyond that of friendship and collegiality and I hope opposite-sex couples who are married do so as well, so except for the physical parts involved, there is no difference between these relationships.

Regarding these parts, a man and woman who are so particularly inclined may put these parts to use and may produce offspring from that encounter. This can occur without a marriage. This can occur without any long-term relationship between the partners. So my question is, how can the distinct aspect of an opposite-sex marriage, procreation, be called a distinct aspect when it can occur outside of a marriage? Any male and female of appropriate condition and age, biologically speaking, can produce offspring. One can take any male and any female of appropriate condition and age and any person, scientist or not, will say “Yes, the woman could potentially get pregnant and have a baby by that man.” No one will be able to say if that same man and woman could unite in marriage. Not just any male and not just any female can make a marriage as any male and any female can produce offspring. The difference lies in the relationship between the spouses. So a marriage should be based on the relationship between the partners. That is really what it special and unique.

If we take this beyond conception and view procreation as the raising and rearing of the next generation. It is more important that the partners, if a couple is raising a child, have a relationship. A deep, long-lasting relationship beyond friendship and collegiality and one that is beyond the conjugal act that produced that offspring.** I see nothing demeaning in this “revisionist” view of marriage by emphasizing the emotional bond between the partners and argue that it is also beneficial to society./**QUOTE]
Slavonic,

I see this as demeaning and contrary to Byzantine or any Catholic teaching and wonder why you propose such sin?