Gay marriage, sexual morality and the media

[rossum]

So 1+1 = 3 if enough people say its so?

If we agree that the symbol “3” means the same as Peanos S(S((0)) then yes. Different languages write the symbols for the digits differently. Arabic, Devanagari and Chinese all use different symbols. The Arabic for “0” looks like “.”, the Arabic for “5” looks like “0”, the Chinese for “2” looks like “=”, the Chinese for “4” looks like “+”.

The digits are symbols with commonly agreed meanings, just like words.

The commonly agreed, secular, meaning of the word “marriage” is in the process of changing.

rossum

 

[Ben_Carmine]

That doesn’t change the orange’s identity though, just what people call it. A tomato is the ovary, with seeds, of a flowering plant. That makes it undeniably a fruit by botanical standards. People called it a vegetable for years and many still do. That didn’t magically make the tomato stop being a fruit; people were just wrong.

Different situation there. That’s the classification of what it is biologically, you’re not comparing apples and oranges there you’re comparing fruits and vegetables. That’s also not a situation of everyone calling a tomato a vegetable; everyone called it a fruit.

When it comes down to it too the analogy doesn’t work simply because it’s comparing a legal matter with a tomato.

But yeah if everyone started calling a fruit an apple then it would be an apple. If the government passed a law that allowed two people of the same sexes union to be recognised as marriage then it would be a marriage.

 

[shockerfan]

If we agree that the symbol “3” means the same as Peanos S(S((0)) then yes. Different languages write the symbols for the digits differently. Arabic, Devanagari and Chinese all use different symbols. The Arabic for “0” looks like “.”, the Arabic for “5” looks like “0”, the Chinese for “2” looks like “=”, the Chinese for “4” looks like “+”.

The digits are symbols with commonly agreed meanings, just like words.

The commonly agreed, secular, meaning of the word “marriage” is in the process of changing.

rossum

So does the same thing apply to “moral truths”? Can something that is commonly called a “moral evil”, simply be declared “good” because language can change? In other words, and to get to the point, is there objective truth or is truth relative to the “winds of the day”?

 

[Rau]

The commonly agreed, secular, meaning of the word “marriage” is in the process of changing.

This may be so, and it is within the Stare’s power to make such a change if the majority allow it. But between you and me, it is an absurdity to equate two arrangements (“Marriage” and a union of 2 arbitrary persons) which are so evidently distinct by giving them the same name

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I posted this in another thread, but it’s relevant here:

There are words, and then there are the things that these words represent. Words themselves are of no significance; if we had always called the color blue “woozit”, then woozit would be that color’s name.

But suppose we said there was a color – rue – that included all and only the pigments that we ordinarily call blue and the pigments we ordinarily call red. In other words, suppose that we said that there was no fundamental ontological distinction between blue and red.

Could we communicate that way? Of course we could. If you asked for me to pass the “rue cup”, I could probably tell which cup you meant, in most scenarios.

However, there is something inferior about this language – we are dividing up the world incorrectly. Far more incorrect would be a world where we had the same word (say, “blour”) to describe all groups of things which are either entirely blue or which contain four objects. In that world, it would be meaningful to say that the Beatles had blour members, but nevertheless it would be a strange sort of statement about the world.

It makes perfect sense to say that people with gay marriages are “married”. We can stipulate whatever definitions of words we want to, so if our language uses “marriage” to denote “any love-based relationship of commitment between two adults”, there is no linguistic or semantic problem here.

But suppose that we think that traditional male/female marriage is a natural category in the universe itself, just like “blue” is. Surely there is no natural category that denotes both gay marriage and marriage – indeed, there is very little the two things have in common except the word “marriage”.

And this is my own view, and the Church’s view I think, that there is a genuine thing that we refer to as “matrimony”, and that “gay marriage” has nothing in common with that thing. It might be easiest to describe it with recourse to Plato’s Forms – we believe that there is a Form of Marriage.

Now, personally, I don’t care to fight about syllables, so I don’t care all that much if gay couplings get the term “marriage” applied to them. But we do need a new word, then, to denote the thing – the Form – that exists in nature as the fundamental unit of familial love and education in the world. It’s too bad that we’ve been forced to retreat from the old word, but it’s hardly reason to give up!

 

[rossum]

So does the same thing apply to “moral truths”?

Civil marriage is a matter of civil law, not of “moral truth”. The Bible condemns eating prawns, it also allows some men to marry many wives. It seems to me that people pick and choose from the Bible what they want to find there. In the 1850s both sides were quoting the Bible for and against slavery. That issue was not decided by the Bible, but by people deciding which parts of the Bible to follow and which parts to ignore.

Can something that is commonly called a “moral evil”, simply be declared “good” because language can change? In other words, and to get to the point, is there objective truth or is truth relative to the “winds of the day”?

Eating prawns is declared to be an “abomination”, Leviticus 11:9-12. Since then many people have decided that it is not actually an abomination after all, and have come up with lots of reasons to justify the change. Is eating prawns a “moral evil”, or are abominations not actually moral evils?

rossum

 

[delmo]

Eating prawns is declared to be an “abomination”, Leviticus 11:9-12. Since then many people have decided that it is not actually an abomination after all, and have come up with lots of reasons to justify the change. Is eating prawns a “moral evil”, or are abominations not actually moral evils?

The Old Testament had different types of law - civil, ceremonial, and moral. The civil and ceremonial laws were laws to separate the nation of Israel as God’s people from the other groups around them. Those, upon the coming of Jesus, are no longer required to be followed as we are no longer a single nation, but everyone is invited into the faith. Moral laws still must be followed, however. Eating prawns is not a moral law and thus no longer required to be followed.

 

[rossum]

The Old Testament had different types of law - civil, ceremonial, and moral.

A lot of people tell me that, yet when I ask them for the passages which explicitly state which laws fall into which category, they fail to answer me. It appears to me that those categories are added to the Bible by later commentators.

Was slavery part of the moral law? Where is the Bible passage explicitly stating that it was ceremonial or civil. Is usury a moral law? Where is the Bible passage explicitly categorising it as civil, ceremonial or moral?

If we are discussing marriage, then there is a case for assigning marriage to civil law, as with David’s wives, and so same sex marriage does not count as part of moral law.

rossum

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A lot of people tell me that, yet when I ask them for the passages which explicitly state which laws fall into which category, they fail to answer me. It appears to me that those categories are added to the Bible by later commentators.

Was slavery part of the moral law? Where is the Bible passage explicitly stating that it was ceremonial or civil. Is usury a moral law? Where is the Bible passage explicitly categorising it as civil, ceremonial or moral?

If we are discussing marriage, then there is a case for assigning marriage to civil law, as with David’s wives, and so same sex marriage does not count as part of moral law.

rossum

This is all irrelevant. Jesus clearly didn’t consider teachings on sexual morality equivalent to teachings about eating shrimp. Nor did Paul. The New Testament very clearly indicates that injunctions about marriage and sexuality regard personal integrity in a very meaningful and central way, and that they do not regard ritual cleanliness.

 

[Madmaxepic]

I don’t think gay marriage should be illegal. I don’t believe this conflicts with my beliefs, because I don’t think two people being ‘married’ at a desk by a man in a suit constitutes holy matrimony. So it is simply irrelevant to me.

 

[rossum]

This is all irrelevant. Jesus clearly didn’t consider teachings on sexual morality equivalent to teachings about eating shrimp. Nor did Paul. The New Testament very clearly indicates that injunctions about marriage and sexuality regard personal integrity in a very meaningful and central way, and that they do not regard ritual cleanliness.

So, like everyone else, you cannot provide passages which explicitly define what laws fall into the moral, civil and ceremonial categories. Like everyone else, you have your particular interpretation of which Biblical rules fall into which category.

The Catholic Church has one classification, other Churches have different classifications. Civil Law does not use the Biblical classifications at all.

I suspect we will have to disagree on this one.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I don’t think gay marriage should be illegal. I don’t believe this conflicts with my beliefs, because I don’t think two people being ‘married’ at a desk by a man in a suit constitutes holy matrimony. So it is simply irrelevant to me.

I suspect that is how this issue will end up. Rather like the current situation with divorce. Civil Law recognises divorce, while Catholic Law does not. The same will probably happen with same sex marriage; Civil Law will recognise it while Catholic Law will not.

$0.02

rossum

 

[SMGS127]

I suspect that is how this issue will end up. Rather like the current situation with divorce. Civil Law recognises divorce, while Catholic Law does not. The same will probably happen with same sex marriage; Civil Law will recognise it while Catholic Law will not.

$0.02

rossum

To be fair though, civil divorce can be licit and allowed by the Church, just not as a means of divorce. It can provide a way to legally recognize a Church annulment, and it can provide a way for a wife to get legal protection from an abusive husband, off the top of my head.

While same-sex civil unions could theoretically have licit Church uses (but only in the case where it is done to provide some extraneous purpose such as hospital rights currently reserved to the married, not to recognize a relationship), a same-sex civil marriage has no uses in the Church because it doesn’t exist.

 

[Rau]

While same-sex civil unions could theoretically have licit Church uses (but only in the case where it is done to provide some extraneous purpose such as hospital rights currently reserved to the married, not to recognize a relationship), a same-sex civil marriage has no uses in the Church because it doesn’t exist.

I don’t understand what you mean by a ‘licit Church use’.

Civil Unions (of arbitrary persons) would be absolutely fine with the Church were they not caste as “marriage equivalents”. Were such unions defined to provide for the mutual care and support of the members of the union, by providing the relevant legal obligations and benefits, well and good!

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t understand what you mean by a ‘licit Church use’.

Civil Unions (of arbitrary persons) would be absolutely fine with the Church were they not caste as “marriage equivalents”. Were such unions defined to provide for the mutual care and support of the members of the union, by providing the relevant legal obligations and benefits, well and good!

What I mean is that, in the case of divorce, obviously the Church vehemently disagrees with the legal definition of a divorce (e.g. the “dissolution” of a marriage). But it still takes advantages of it when it can do so in a licit manner (such as to help provide legal protection for a battered wife). This does not represent, by any means, an acknowledgement of a divorce, but the Church still allows for (and in abuse cases encourages) the usage of legal divorce in certain instances.

Similarly, while a same-sex civil union might be legally represented as an institution meant to be marriage-like, I could see, down the line when tempers weren’t as high, the Church using it in certain, rare cases for instances unintended by a civil union law, such as the necessary [legal and otherwise] caretaking of a same-sex best friend or what have you. Unfortunately, I find it highly doubtful they would do so with a same-sex “marriage” due to the much higher risk of scandal someone would be associated with. It’s one thing to say “we entered into a civil union so I could provide medical help to my friend who was paralyzed in a car accident;” it’s quite another to say “we got married so I could provide medical help to my friend who was paralyzed in a car accident.” The “we got married” part just sounds like capitulation by the Church, when in fact no capitulation would truly exist in either scenario. But the risk of scandal is too great with the legal term “marriage.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

a) Because our religion is between us and god. b) One being Catholic does not affect one who is an atheist, or a Baptist, or Jewish. c) In that same vein, the government allowing same-sex couples to enter in to a marriage “contract” does not affect those who do not wish to enter into said contract.

a) No, not completely.

b) And YIKES, sure it does! I hope it does!!! And yes, the Jews and Baptists and atheists in my community do affect me because I am a fleshy human being, part of a community, and not some floaty idea out in space thoughtland somewhere where I can be comfortably isolated from everything else. b) betrays a lack of understanding of the human person and human relationships.

c) It most certainly does. One of the worst aspects of modern thought is a certain petulant and asinine insistence that “what I do only affects me me me” and whoever else I enter into the activity with. In a very real way it is anti-incarnational and denies the organic bonds between communities at large and, indeed, between all people. What you’ve done here is actually denied a fundamental aspect of marriage (see second-to-last clause of this paragraph). If gay “marriage” only affects John and Andy then why don’t they stop blabbing and demanding that somebody please recognize it? And please don’t say, “Oh, they don’t need your approval;” marriage is an inherently public thing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Rau]

What I mean is that, in the case of divorce, obviously the Church vehemently disagrees with the legal definition of a divorce (e.g. the “dissolution” of a marriage). But it still takes advantages of it when it can do so in a licit manner (such as to help provide legal protection for a battered wife). This does not represent, by any means, an acknowledgement of a divorce, but the Church still allows for (and in abuse cases encourages) the usage of legal divorce in certain instances.

Similarly, while a same-sex civil union might be legally represented as an institution meant to be marriage-like, I could see, down the line when tempers weren’t as high, the Church using it in certain, rare cases for instances unintended by a civil union law, such as the necessary [legal and otherwise] caretaking of a same-sex best friend or what have you. Unfortunately, I find it highly doubtful they would do so with a same-sex “marriage” due to the much higher risk of scandal someone would be associated with. It’s one thing to say “we entered into a civil union so I could provide medical help to my friend who was paralyzed in a car accident;” it’s quite another to say “we got married so I could provide medical help to my friend who was paralyzed in a car accident.” The “we got married” part just sounds like capitulation by the Church, when in fact no capitulation would truly exist in either scenario. But the risk of scandal is too great with the legal term “marriage.”

Civil unions would always be a purely legal arrangement (in my preferred view of it), and could never attract the label of “marriage”. Marriage is the only intrinsically sexual institution that the State ought to have an interest in, given its obvious society building role.

 

[shockerfan]

Civil marriage is a matter of civil law, not of “moral truth”. The Bible condemns eating prawns, it also allows some men to marry many wives. It seems to me that people pick and choose from the Bible what they want to find there. In the 1850s both sides were quoting the Bible for and against slavery. That issue was not decided by the Bible, but by people deciding which parts of the Bible to follow and which parts to ignore.

Eating prawns is declared to be an “abomination”, Leviticus 11:9-12. Since then many people have decided that it is not actually an abomination after all, and have come up with lots of reasons to justify the change. Is eating prawns a “moral evil”, or are abominations not actually moral evils?

rossum

Rossum,

You condemn others of picking and choosing Bible verses by picking and choosing Bible verses!

Also, you did not answer my questions. So I will ask again:

So does the same thing apply to “moral truths”? Can something that is commonly called a “moral evil”, simply be declared “good” because language can change? In other words, and to get to the point, is there objective truth or is truth relative to the “winds of the day”?

Shockerfan
p.s. You are on a website that has a plethora of answers to common objections like the one you posed…might I suggest this response:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

 

[ringil]

Though gay rights advocates said they didn’t want to change the definition of marriage, change it they did.

Gay activists proudly and brazenly hacking the word “marriage” in dictionaries …Hack marriage

Simple, but effective, eh? Words have power, so control the language. Kirk and Madsen had the same marketing strategy in their objective of normalizing homosexual sex,
,

Kind of like my favorite new term. . . . homosexualists. . . .

 

[delmo]

So, like everyone else, you cannot provide passages which explicitly define what laws fall into the moral, civil and ceremonial categories.

The Catholic Church does not teach sola scriptura. Just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly say, “and this is a civil, not moral law,” doesn’t mean it’s an invalid teaching.