Gay Marriage

[PJH_74]

Hi all. I read a few posts pointing to a concept of marriage as an institution from the mists of time. This is true, but what’s beyond memory is that this institution was more a property transfer than what we recognize as a wholesome marriage. I doubt any of us paid or had a paid a dowry as part of our marriage. I also sincerely doubt any man here views his wife as property. A lot of what I’ve read in the bible equates her virginity to her worth in society, not really a modern concept…even theologically.

Look I’m OK if a church wants to regard marriage as a rite between a man and a woman; I appreciate the beauty of my own marriage before God. But the threat to marriage is not two people of the same sex wanting to live a permanent life together. It lays in cynicism about the value of marriage, people who can’t make the commitment to working through what separates them, a fascination with the value of one’s personal needs, and impatience. Why don’t we focus our energies on strengthening what marriages exist and supporting the value of being married to those who don’t understand what it means to draw a line in the sand and say we will become and live as one no matter what it takes?

 

[Dawnia]

Of course, the issue is how these issues would be handled between married people if the government had no part in marriage. :tiphat:

If there was no state sponsored marriage everyone would be treated as if they weren’t married.

I don’t see that ever happening though. Too many of our laws are built on the foundation of marriage. Doing away with marriage would cause just as much chaos as allowing ssm.

 

[sedonaman]

Hi all. I read a few posts pointing to a concept of marriage as an institution from the mists of time. This is true, but what’s beyond memory is that this institution was more a property transfer than what we recognize as a wholesome marriage. I doubt any of us paid or had a paid a dowry as part of our marriage. I also sincerely doubt any man here views his wife as property. A lot of what I’ve read in the bible equates her virginity to her worth in society, not really a modern concept…even theologically.
…

As far as property transfer is concerned, you are forgetting about inheritance. Men generally don’t want another man’s children inheriting his property. The public purpose of marriage is to tie children to their parents and their parents to one another. If it were not for children, marriage would not exist.

 

[Catholic80]

Want to start off by saying I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong and gay marriage is wrong but I hold the position that government shouldn’t even involve itself in marriage. Marriage should be an issue left to the church. I don’t support government involvement in any marriage. Just wanted to hear what some fellow Catholics think.
God Bless

So then the question is, “why did the government get involved with marriage to begin with?” There’s a reason we need to sign a legal document to get married, even if we are married in the eyes of the Church.

The #1 reason the government gets involved is because it’s profitable to have married couples in society. Married couples produce children who become the next generation. That next generation will sustain the economy and support the elderly. That next generation will make advances in technology, science, research, environment, etc.
Married couples benefit society.

A legally married couple can get tax breaks, and other benefits in order to raise healthy, successful, children. By being a legal institution, the government can also regulate things such as preventing polygamy.

Here’s a good resource on the matter: marylandmarriagealliance.com/why/

 

[sedonaman]

…
The #1 reason the government gets involved is because it’s profitable to have married couples in society. Married couples produce children who become the next generation. …

The self-absorbed generations the since the '60s can’t understand this argument. That’s why they keep asking “why not” instead of researching it out. They don’t even want the “burden” of proof of what they want. It’s a waste of time to use it.

---

“Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” ~ Old African proverb

 

[PJH_74]

As far as property transfer is concerned, you are forgetting about inheritance. Men generally don’t want another man’s children inheriting his property. The public purpose of marriage is to tie children to their parents and their parents to one another. If it were not for children, marriage would not exist.

Property wise it’s more than just children, property transfer to surviving spouses with or without children is another issue. It’s also a large reason the gay and lesbian population is pushing of some sort of legal formalization. Like their lifestyle or not, from a civil stand point, protection of property and inheritance intent of the individual is a very American idea.

 

[sedonaman]

Property wise it’s more than just children, property transfer to surviving spouses with or without children is another issue. It’s also a large reason the gay and lesbian population is pushing of some sort of legal formalization. Like their lifestyle or not, from a civil stand point, protection of property and inheritance intent of the individual is a very American idea.

That’s just not a problem under the current laws. There was a fellow in the service who filled out a beneficiary form for the payment of his cash death benefits. He was single at the time, so he put down the name of his Korean girl friend. Time went by, and he got married to someone else. He never filed a new beneficiary form. Some time later, he died, and the government had no alternative than to pay his Korean girl friend. His wife got nothing. The problem, therefore with homosexuals and property transfer is they fail to make out a will, or some other legal mechanism to ensure their estate goes to the one they want. Like typical liberals, they want government to do everything for them.

 

[Deinceps]

Property wise it’s more than just children, property transfer to surviving spouses with or without children is another issue. It’s also a large reason the gay and lesbian population is pushing of some sort of legal formalization. Like their lifestyle or not, from a civil stand point, protection of property and inheritance intent of the individual is a very American idea.

If it is really a question of property transfer to some important person (to us) with whom we have spent our lives, that concern should extend equally to asexual or non-sexual friends who live together, as well as relatives or siblings who in their old age live together (as my grandmother and great aunt did). This should be resolved by a different kind of legal contract which recognizes the existence of relationships other than marriage which result in a shared household and should have similar protections of property and inheritance, as well as visitation.

A person’s right to those legal protections should not depend on whether they are sexually active with the partner or not, otherwise we have solved too little of the problem. Whatever people who have chosen to share their lives in this way do in the bedroom is immaterial to these considerations.

And what do they decide to do in the bedroom? What baffles me is how readily most everyone has accepted homosexual liaisons as basically equivalent to intercourse between a man and a woman. This has a lot to do with the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable sexual activity being drawn not on the basis of the natural law, but rather the maturity and consent of the partners. In the case of the definition of marriage, however, the analogy is usually drawn between an infertile couple and a homosexual couple, since that seems to overcome one of the major objections to homosexual unions, and since believers of most stripes will bless a marriage between an infertile couple (who can complete intercourse) but not between homosexuals.

But as apparent as it is that both the homosexual and infertile heterosexual acts will not result in children, only one of these acts is the kind of act that does result in children. It also achieves real biological union between the spouses, as they work together as organic parts ordered towards a greater whole, even if that particular act fails to achieve that goal, even consistently. Suggesting that because marital rights are extended to couples who engage in intercourse but are disabled in some way, they should be extended to couples who do not engage in the same kind of thing at all, does not follow.

This is in fact quite plain:

just because

1. X does not result in Y
   and
2. Z does not result in Y
   we cannot conclude that
3. X = Z.

To illustrate further, that we extend rights to a disabled human who cannot walk (who is still of the same kind as fully functional humans to whom rights are extended on account of human nature) does not mean that the same rights must be extended to all other things which cannot walk, such as snakes, and fish, and eels, and other such creatures, since they are not the same kind of thing as the disabled man, and their inhibited ambulation is not privation of their nature but part of it (and this difference is one of the ways we can know that they in fact have a different nature).

And it should at least occur to us, at least those of us who see more than adaption and mutation in the forms of natural things, that, as regards the question of adoption, children might be intended to exist and be raised in the kind of relationship which naturally results in them.

 

[buffalo]

Property wise it’s more than just children, property transfer to surviving spouses with or without children is another issue. It’s also a large reason the gay and lesbian population is pushing of some sort of legal formalization. Like their lifestyle or not, from a civil stand point, protection of property and inheritance intent of the individual is a very American idea.

They can make a will for $35.00 and will it to whomever they wish.

 

[sedonaman]

They can make a will for $35.00 and will it to whomever they wish.

They can do it for the price of a blank sheet of paper and a ten-cent ball-point pen. Like the “hospital visitation” issue, this one just doesn’t hold water.

 

[PJH_74]

If it is really a question of property transfer to some important person (to us) with whom we have spent our lives, that concern should extend equally to asexual or non-sexual friends who live together, as well as relatives or siblings who in their old age live together (as my grandmother and great aunt did). This should be resolved by a different kind of legal contract which recognizes the existence of relationships other than marriage which result in a shared household and should have similar protections of property and inheritance, as well as visitation.

A person’s right to those legal protections should not depend on whether they are sexually active with the partner or not, otherwise we have solved too little of the problem. Whatever people who have chosen to share their lives in this way do in the bedroom is immaterial to these considerations.

Though I really don’t follow you all the way out on your disabled argument, I think a generalized legal status allowing joined households no matter the nature of the relationship is a good idea. We have two female friends in London who own a house together, but are not sexual partners. They would certainly benefit from such a law. Wills are vulnerable in court.

 

[Deinceps]

The disability argument simply means to point out that two things which fail to achieve something by a similar means are not necessarily the same kind of thing. Heterosexual sex between infertile people does not result in conception because of some disability in the spouses; under ideal conditions it would result in procreation. Homosexual sex, under the most ideal conditions and between the healthiest spouses, will never result in conception. The one is an act naturally ordered towards procreation but inhibited by some disability. The other is an act which is not naturally ordered towards procreation.

So too, a lame man has a human nature, and should naturally be able to walk. It is because of a disability that he cannot walk, but we still treat him as a man. Likewise, someone who is in a persistent vegetative state still has a rational soul, but is inhibited by some disability from in fact reasoning, or perhaps only from expressing that he does reason. Nevertheless, we still treat him as a man, despite the ability to reason being in fact the specific difference of man. A snake which cannot walk is not disabled; it is by virtue of being a snake that it cannot walk; we don’t treat a snake as a disabled man. Likewise, a dog which is irrational is not disabled; it is natural to dogs to be irrational; we don’t treat it as a disabled man. So too, a homosexual couple which is infertile is not disabled; it is natural that homosexual relations do not procreate; we shouldn’t be goaded by that fact into treating them like a married heterosexual couple suffering from a disability.

Hence there is no analogy between the marriage of infertile couples and homosexual unions.

 

[buffalo]

Hence there is no analogy between the marriage of infertile couples and homosexual unions.

Yeah - but they keep trying to argue it.

It is deviant and will always be deviant.

 

[Deinceps]

It’s a strange argument, though. In its strongest form it amounts to little more than, “We enjoy using our sex faculties this way, you enjoy using them that way. Why can’t we use ours the way you like, if you can use yours the way you like?”

It has always reminded me of Psalm 111(112).

“Beatus vir qui timet Dominum, in mandatis ejus volet nimis,” Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, whose desire is exceedingly in His commands.

The just man wants what God wills, his desires are the Lord’s. The psalmist then enumerates the blessings of the just man (one of which, topically, is that his offspring will be powerful on earth), and says that “in aeternum non commovebitur,” he will not be moved from the possession of his desires forever.

But the psalmist concludes thus:

“Peccator videbit et irascetur,” the wicked man will see and will grow angry, “dentibus suis fremet et tabescet,” he will gnash his teeth and waste away out of envy. Why is the sinner angry and envious when he sees the righteous man? The answer, “desiderium peccatorum peribit,” the desire of sinners will perish.

The sinner wants his desire to be as real as the righteous man’s. He desires fantasies and dreams, strange imaginings and evils, all of which in the end amount to nothing; they will burn away as hay and stubble. He wants to attain his desires and possess them forever, but that can never be, since what he desires does not actually exist, but is an illusion, an apparent good, a passing fancy.

The righteous man. on the other hand, has desired what is the Lord’s, and so has desired the Lord Himself, and he will have his possession thereof forever and ever.

I think this Psalm sheds a lot of light on the spiritual reality of the situation. We here have a very alluring sin, which hides itself under the veil of such real values as love, companionship, and affection, and we have a group of people who see these values as they exist in matrimony and have grown collectively envious of that real good, wanting to possess it without abandoning their sinful desires. They don’t see why the just man should get what he wants (for he wants what the Lord commands) and they should not get what they want, or only have it for a short time and at peril of their soul.

 

[PJH_74]

I understood what you mean. Despite Catholic teaching and the fact that I have a son, I don’t fixate on the purpose of my marriage being to procreate. Therefore I don’t fixate on that fact for other couples. I do think a good marriage should be open to have a kid, but I see little difference between having and adopting a kid to that end.

 

[Deinceps]

Procreation isn’t the sole purpose of marriage. But it is an integral part of marriage, part of what makes it the kind of relationship it is. It is not perhaps always the primary motivation for having relations, but it can never be entirely dispensed with.

Indeed, the first motivation for entering into marriage which the Roman Catechism lists is, “First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age,” not procreation.

The procrative end is not simply the rearing of children but the having of them. Adoption is not procreation, as the children adopted have got to come from somewhere.

 

[PJH_74]

Procreation isn’t the sole purpose of marriage. But it is an integral part of marriage, part of what makes it the kind of relationship it is. It is not perhaps always the primary motivation for having relations, but it can never be entirely dispensed with.

…]

The procrative end is not simply the rearing of children but the having of them. Adoption is not procreation, as the children adopted have got to come from somewhere.

Yes, I understand marriage is more than procreation in Catholic teaching. Raising a child is a real commitment; producing one does not necessarily require any. In the end I see the Christian good in raising a child well, maybe even more so if adoption rescues a child from a poor rearing situation. This is the source of my lack of major distinction between adoption and procreation.

 

[livingwordunity]

Want to start off by saying I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong and gay marriage is wrong but I hold the position that government shouldn’t even involve itself in marriage. Marriage should be an issue left to the church. I don’t support government involvement in any marriage. Just wanted to hear what some fellow Catholics think.
God Bless

The problem with that is that marriage proceeded both the government and the church as the natural union of one man and one woman. The ceremony for marriage was originally when a man and a woman had sexual intercourse with each other. Later, God became man and elevated natural marriage to the supernatural reality of a sacrament. But natural (non-sacramental) marriage still exists and the Church still recognizes the existence of it. And it’s been proven through social studies that, although it’s possible for a child to be raised with only a mother or only a father, having both a mother and a father is best for the child. Unless one of the parents is extremely abusive, a child of divorce will tell you that they miss their mother or their father and that they wish both would be together. In this debate about marriage, people neglect to ask the children what they want.

 

[fix]

Want to start off by saying I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong and gay marriage is wrong but I hold the position that government shouldn’t even involve itself in marriage. Marriage should be an issue left to the church. I don’t support government involvement in any marriage. Just wanted to hear what some fellow Catholics think.
God Bless

Liberals say the same thing about abortion. The problem is both issues are central to society and must be addressed by the government. Marriage and life need protection.