Gay Marriage

[InSearchofGrace]

…

But as for whether there are two potential Catholic views on gay marriage, I don’t know if I agree with you. **I think it is possible to believe, for example, that current marriage laws are discriminatory against gays while still being Catholic. ** It’s going against the grain, and it’s puzzling, but it’s possible. As to whether it’s possible to think that Holy Matrimony can be extended to gay couples and still be a Catholic in good standing – that’s a tougher issue.

I find your equivocating or fence sitting to be confusing, specifically the part I bolded above. According to authentic Catholic view, a man-woman pairing is not discriminatory in the sense that marriage has always been understood, as a covenant, open to any free man and free woman to enter. For Catholics, gay “marriage” does not have validity in front of God, the same with divorce, notwithstanding that both now have legal status in society.

Other churches that bless or “marry” gay couples do not dispense holy matrimony as Catholics understand it.

I thought I read your position elsewhere but maybe I am wrong, that you do not support gay “marriage.” Do you or don’t you?

Here’s the test I run in my head to test these things: I imagine a priest who held the view, and I ask whether he should be defrocked. It seems to me that a Catholic priest who believed in legalizing gay marriage, on a purely social level, would not necessarily be anathema.

On a purely social level.

Marriage is necessarily public and has social implications. A priest who believes in legalizing gay “marriage” will find it hard, as he should, to maintain his position as Catholic clergy. He might as well move to New Ways Ministry.
,

 

[Rau]

I find your equivocating or fence sitting to be confusing…I thought I read your position elsewhere but maybe I am wrong, that you do not support gay “marriage.” Do you or don’t you?

Prodigal is not referring to **his **view of Gay Marriage, but to the theoretical question of whether believing that civil marriage law is discriminatory puts a Catholic at odds with his faith - see Prodigal’s earlier Post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11959200&postcount=438

For my part, I think viewing the absence of gay marriage as discriminatory would be a somewhat “bold” position for a Catholic to take. To the extent that we would wish our beliefs and moral principles to grow in adoption, one would think we would discourage the State from taking “marriage” further away from our ideal. To do so sends a message to young people that is contrary to the moral teaching of the Church. [And we have a right to express our opinion to the State, like everyone else.]

I note there may be an injustice done to those who are not eligible for Marriage, but wish to access a similar set of legal provisions (shared assets, next of kin status, etc.). That injustice can be corrected without redefining Marriage.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I note there may be an injustice done to those who are not eligible for Marriage, but wish to access a similar set of legal provisions (shared assets, next of kin status, etc.). That injustice can be corrected without redefining Marriage.

This is what puzzles me about the “gay marriage” position.

What if two lifelong friends who are not gay, but have had a deep and abiding friendship? Should these two not be accorded a “similar set of provisions” as you claim those “not eligible for marriage” ought to entitled?

If this is an injustice, then it is not an injustice merely because they happen to indulge each other’s sexual proclivities. They have no interest in being “married,” but they do have an interest in sharing assets, next of kin status, etc., but do not qualify because they are not eligible for marriage, nor are they interested in it. They are being just as unjustly treated as the gay “couple,” but will have no resort to a redefinition of marriage to promote their interests.

Yet, the reason shared assets and tax benefits were originally accorded to married couples had to do with the fact that expanding the relationship to more members (biological children) was a distinct and natural probability, not merely because the couple was in a relationship.

The bigger social question is not one about marriage, but about WHO ought to qualify for tangible benefits and WHY.

 

[Rau]

This is what puzzles me about the “gay marriage” position.

What if two lifelong friends who are not gay, but have had a deep and abiding friendship? Should these two not be accorded a “similar set of provisions” as you claim those “not eligible for marriage” ought to entitled?

If this is an injustice, then it is not an injustice merely because they happen to indulge each other’s sexual proclivities. They have no interest in being “married,” but they do have an interest in sharing assets, next of kin status, etc., but do not qualify because they are not eligible for marriage, nor are they interested in it. They are being just as unjustly treated as the gay “couple,” but will have no resort to a redefinition of marriage to promote their interests.

Yet, the reason shared assets and tax benefits were originally accorded to married couples had to do with the fact that expanding the relationship to more members (biological children) was a distinct and natural probability, not merely because the couple was in a relationship.

The bigger social question is not one about marriage, but about WHO ought to qualify for tangible benefits and WHY.

Yes, that’s right. Those I’m referring to (to whom perhaps an injustice is done) need not have a sexual relationship at all - that’s irrelevant.

That such legal arrangements have been rejected by spokespersons for the gay community indicates that mere civil benefits is not the totality of what is desired - but rather that plus an acceptance of “equivalence” is wanted. I guess it reflects the fullness of “acceptance” that is desired. I can well understand the sentiment, and sympathise, but reality is reality.

To your last point - some of the benefits accorded to married people don’t make sense to me. Eg. why is joint tax filing (which is financially beneficial) available to a married couple in the USA? I would have thought such financial benefits are more logically attached to the presence of children in the family (and other countries operate on this more sensible basis).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, that’s right. Those I’m referring to (to whom perhaps an injustice is done) need not have a sexual relationship at all - that’s irrelevant.

That such legal arrangements have been rejected by spokespersons for the gay community indicates that mere civil benefits is not the totality of what is desired - but rather that plus an acceptance of “equivalence” is wanted. I guess it reflects the fullness of “acceptance” that is desired. I can well understand the sentiment, and sympathise, but reality is reality.

To your last point - some of the benefits accorded to married people don’t make sense to me.

What people want to marry doesn’t make sense to me.

metro.co.uk/2010/03/09/man-marries-pillow-154906/
telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5972632/Woman-getting-married-to-fairground-ride.html?fb
thechronicle.com.au/news/man-marrys-dog-city-first-toowoomba/710538/
m-francis.livejournal.com/83149.html
newstalk.ie/Seans-Opening-Story:-Man-to-marry-his-pet-goat
blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/07/02/woman-who-married-warehouse-now-engaged-to-neighborhood/#2773101=0
reuters.com/article/2010/10/22/us-taiwan-wedding-odd-idUSTRE69L3H720101022

Mr. Hitchens has it essentially correct…
hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/05/theyve-killed-off-marriage-and-our-hopes-of-a-happy-life.html

 

[Rau]

What people want to marry doesn’t make sense to me.

metro.co.uk/2010/03/09/man-marries-pillow-154906/
telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5972632/Woman-getting-married-to-fairground-ride.html?fb
thechronicle.com.au/news/man-marrys-dog-city-first-toowoomba/710538/
m-francis.livejournal.com/83149.html
newstalk.ie/Seans-Opening-Story:-Man-to-marry-his-pet-goat
blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/07/02/woman-who-married-warehouse-now-engaged-to-neighborhood/#2773101=0
reuters.com/article/2010/10/22/us-taiwan-wedding-odd-idUSTRE69L3H720101022

Mr. Hitchens has it essentially correct…
hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/05/theyve-killed-off-marriage-and-our-hopes-of-a-happy-life.html

Well those “marriages” definitely will challenge the legal system!

As for divorce, does Mr Hitchens propose there be no such thing? That blame must be apportioned, or something else? Neither of those options makes any sense to me.

And as for cohabitating couples being deemed married (after a suitable time period), I am unaware of the UK specifics, but such a couple is commonly deemed to be a “defacto couple” in many jurisdictions - this makes the legal rights and obligations pretty much the same as a married couple (as I understand it). The intention is to protect (to a degree) one partner from a subsequent abandonment by the other.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hi InSearchofGrace,

First of all, I don’t think you’re getting the perspective that I come from. I am a Catholic academic, and, as an academic, I believe that everything can be questioned, in order to demonstrate its truth and authenticity. For me, anytime someone says “you can’t question X,” it immediately raises up a red flag. The Scriptures say to test everything, and to cling to what is good. Now, it is vital that this questioning be done in humility, with a willingness to go where the evidence truly leads. If the deposit of faith is true, the evidence will lead to the Church’s teachings.

I find your equivocating or fence sitting to be confusing, specifically the part I bolded above. According to authentic Catholic view, a man-woman pairing is not discriminatory in the sense that marriage has always been understood, as a covenant, open to any free man and free woman to enter. For Catholics, gay “marriage” does not have validity in front of God, the same with divorce, notwithstanding that both now have legal status in society.

But what do state marriages have in common with the authentic Catholic view? State marriages have no binding nature, no exclusivity, no permanency, no nothing. They are often civil arrangements done because of a desire for good feelings and financial gain. They have nothing to do with having children, in many cases.

Since there is nothing *nuptial *about what the state calls “marriage”, I can understand an argument that says that the state is discriminating against gay couples, since there’s no reason to deny gay couples good feelings and financial gain. I personally agree that there’s no reason to deny gay couples good feelings and financial gain, but I do not agree with the argument I’ve described in this paragraph.

I do, however, believe that a Catholic can be in full submission to the Church and advance the argument above.

And yes, I believe that a priest could be in full submission, and advance the argument. In fact, I have heard priests say exactly what I wrote above, though they haven’t drawn the conclusion above, but have simply bemoaned the state of our culture.

I thought I read your position elsewhere but maybe I am wrong, that you do not support gay “marriage.” Do you or don’t you?

I do not. I don’t think I’ve been unclear on this point.

Marriage is necessarily public and has social implications. A priest who believes in legalizing gay “marriage” will find it hard, as he should, to maintain his position as Catholic clergy. He might as well move to New Ways Ministry.
,

The word “marriage” is the sticking point here. My own position is that we should not spend all our energy fighting over two syllables. At a certain point, we should get out of the business of state marriages, and have our own system – they do this in Germany, e.g. (There is a debate about this going on in the magazine First Things).

It is confusing to teach about all this. But I think, if we have people who clarify the concepts for us, it is possible to teach about it. There are a lot of philosophers working on clarifying the concepts.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is what puzzles me about the “gay marriage” position.

What if two lifelong friends who are not gay, but have had a deep and abiding friendship? Should these two not be accorded a “similar set of provisions” as you claim those “not eligible for marriage” ought to entitled?

If I were not a Christian, and I was in college, I would totally join up with a friend and get “married”, so that we could get state benefits of marriage. We wouldn’t live together unless we had to, probably, we certainly wouldn’t have sex, and we’d get divorced whenever one of us wanted to actually marry someone.

And then, if polygamy gets legalized, entire frat houses could get “married”!

 

[Rau]

If I were not a Christian, and I was in college, I would totally join up with a friend and get “married”, so that we could get state benefits of marriage. We wouldn’t live together unless we had to, probably, we certainly wouldn’t have sex, and we’d get divorced whenever one of us wanted to actually marry someone.

And then, if polygamy gets legalized, entire frat houses could get “married”!

How dumb is the law that reduces the tax take for two people because they are married? Isn’t that an injustice to every non-married person? Do Americans ever wonder about that? By all means, provide a tax break if there are children, but otherwise, why?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If I were not a Christian, and I was in college, I would totally join up with a friend and get “married”, so that we could get state benefits of marriage. We wouldn’t live together unless we had to, probably, we certainly wouldn’t have sex, and we’d get divorced whenever one of us wanted to actually marry someone.

And then, if polygamy gets legalized, entire frat houses could get “married”!

This is precisely why the state should have an interest in keeping those three syllables, “marriages” distinct from these other liaisons and “relationships.” When the legal reality is watered down to mean nothing, it will mean nothing to those in nuptial relationships, as well. At least holding on to a traditional legal definition will mean it is an ideal to be aimed for and not a meaningless term from which anyone can easily walk to the detriment of any children that have been brought into being. If anything, the process and requirements for obtaining a marriage license ought to be strengthened, not weakened, even if other social relationships are permitted legally. This will demarcate the ideal as one important pillar upon which society is founded from the more fluid forms of relationships that individuals may want to enter and formalize legally, but which do little (or at least less than marriages do) for society as a whole.

Have you read Girgis, Anderson and George’s book, *What is Marriage? *. If not, you ought to because it is a well-argued defense of conjugal marriage. A shorter, pre-pub version resides here:

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf

 

[Peter_Plato]

How dumb is the law that reduces the tax take for two people because they are married? Isn’t that an injustice to every non-married person? Do Americans ever wonder about that? By all means, provide a tax break if there are children, but otherwise, why?

I would suggest that newly married couples are presumed to be “setting up” for children and merit breaks to assist them in preparation for the growth of their family. It is an inducement to produce children, as well. The “break” increases in proportion to the number of children. Older couples who have raised their family also have succeeding generations to which they are responsible, often financially.

The problem here is that you seem to have been convinced by the revisionist arguments to accept pair bonding as ultimate, and families, including multi-generational ones, as irrelevant to the couple. It is a clear misrepresentation of family structure that predominates in the mindset of our culture, which is decidedly anti-family in many respects.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Have you read Girgis, Anderson and George’s book, *What is Marriage? *. If not, you ought to because it is a well-argued defense of conjugal marriage. A shorter, pre-pub version resides here:

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf

I haven’t read the book, but I’ve read reviews on it, and I’m familiar with the authors. A question about it, though: do they subscribe to the “definitional” argument – the argument that it is literally impossible for us to redefine the word “marriage”? I find this argument silly, and based on a false understanding of the philosophy of language.

The meanings of words change. But there is a real object in nature – call it “matrimony” – that does not change, whether or not we have a word that indicates it. Matrimony cannot exist between two people of the same sex.

 

[Rau]

I would suggest that newly married couples are presumed to be “setting up” for children and merit breaks to assist them in preparation for the growth of their family. It is an inducement to produce children, as well. The “break” increases in proportion to the number of children. Older couples who have raised their family also have succeeding generations to which they are responsible, often financially.

The problem here is that you seem to have been convinced by the revisionist arguments to accept pair bonding as ultimate, and families, including multi-generational ones, as irrelevant to the couple. It is a clear misrepresentation of family structure that predominates in the mindset of our culture, which is decidedly anti-family in many respects.

No, you misread me in your last para.

Financial assistance to assist with children can await the arrival of the first child. Providing the financial assistance when there are no children is not itself an inducement to have children, just an inducement to sham marriage!! By all means, provide more assistance for more children, but zero children don’t warrant financial assistance!

And a nice side-effect of fixing this feature of US tax law is that the gay marriage proponents can stop complaining about the financial benefits denied to them

 

[Rau]

…
The meanings of words change. But there is a real object in nature – call it “matrimony” – that does not change, whether or not we have a word that indicates it. Matrimony cannot exist between two people of the same sex.

Agreed, though I don’t find that observation highly useful.

I react to the “gay marriage” terminology debate this way: The “idea” for which the descriptor “marriage” has been used exists and is well understood. The gay marriage proponent has a new idea, and wants it labelled with the existing word. Such an appropriation is a bit disruptive if the old idea continues to be significant in its own right. [To me, it is patently obvious that it continues to be significant and unique.] Now, if the original idea does indeed fade and morph into “new idea”, then it’s reasonable for the meaning of the word to evolve accordingly.

Of course, the gay marriage proponent argues (tenuously) that the original idea was always flawed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Agreed, though I don’t find that observation highly useful.

I react to the “gay marriage” terminology debate this way: The “idea” for which the descriptor “marriage” has been used exists and is well understood. The gay marriage proponent has a new idea, and wants it labelled with the existing word. Such an appropriation is a bit disruptive if the old idea continues to be significant in its own right. [To me, it is patently obvious that it continues to be significant and unique.] Now, if the original idea does indeed fade and morph into “new idea”, then it’s reasonable for the meaning of the word to evolve accordingly.

Of course, the gay marriage proponent argues (tenuously) that the original idea was always flawed.

I don’t agree that the (traditional) idea of marriage still exists in common parlance. When people talk about marriage nowadays, they talk about a relationship of convenience characterized by romantic love and companionship. That has very little in common with the traditional idea of marriage.

If marriage is “a relationship of convenience characterized by romantic love and companionship”, then there’s no reason not to allow gay people such couplings.

But there is a reason to hang onto the slightest thread of the old idea of marriage, which is why I oppose legal gay marriage. But this certainly isn’t the hill I’m going to die on.

 

[DrTaffy]

If I were not a Christian, and I was in college, I would totally join up with a friend and get “married”, so that we could get state benefits of marriage. We wouldn’t live together unless we had to, probably, we certainly wouldn’t have sex, and we’d get divorced whenever one of us wanted to actually marry someone.

…at which point your ‘friend’ would entitled to take half your fortune and alimony!

 

[Rau]

I don’t agree that the (traditional) idea of marriage still exists in common parlance. When people talk about marriage nowadays, they talk about a relationship of convenience characterized by romantic love and companionship. That has very little in common with the traditional idea of marriage.

If marriage is “a relationship of convenience characterized by romantic love and companionship”, then there’s no reason not to allow gay people such couplings.

But there is a reason to hang onto the slightest thread of the old idea of marriage, which is why I oppose legal gay marriage. But this certainly isn’t the hill I’m going to die on.

Perhaps there were a spectrum of ideas, all overlapping to some degree, and it was agreed all would be referred to as marriage. Gay marriage was outside the spectrum.

 

[Nacho45]

From everything I have heard and read, because I have yet to read it myself but have full intention to do so, for those who do not think love is a necessary component of marriage, read Theology of the Body and go to the corresponding website.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I haven’t read the book, but I’ve read reviews on it, and I’m familiar with the authors. A question about it, though: do they subscribe to the “definitional” argument – the argument that it is literally impossible for us to redefine the word “marriage”? I find this argument silly, and based on a false understanding of the philosophy of language.

The meanings of words change. But there is a real object in nature – call it “matrimony” – that does not change, whether or not we have a word that indicates it. Matrimony cannot exist between two people of the same sex.

Theirs is not a “definitional” argument. They do, indeed, argue that marriage is a distinct “object in nature,” (they refer to it as a ‘human good’) a reality which, by any name, would be recognizable to any rational being.

Before I set down my rather inept summary of the argument in the book, a disclaimer is in order. The extent to which the authors support and augment their thesis is very important to truly grasp how cogent their statement of the argument really is.

The central argument is that there exists in the nature of humanity and reality itself an undeniable “good” for human beings. That “good” is a uniquely integral state or manner of human existence commonly called “marriage” which can only be realized by a heterosexual pair of human beings. This “state” is conjugal in essence and differs from other relationships such as friendships, sibling relationships, parent-child relationships, golf-buddies, sports teams, and, in short, any other kind of relationships that human beings can become a part of.

Conjugal marriages are unique in that these involve the “coming together” of two distinct but compatible human persons along physical, psychological, spiritual and social “planes” for an intended end - to further the physical, psychological, spiritual and social relationship of the conjugal pair in space and time. The pair becomes “expansive” in its relationship by its unique ability to create new embodiments of their relationship in real space and time. No other human relationship can do this, which is why conjugal marriage is unique and one of the reasons why it ought to be treated uniquely under the law.

The authors deal with all the standard objections to the “conjugal” view of marriage and reply effectively to the typical “revisionist” arguments. This book should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand what a redefinition of marriage entails and why it will ultimately fail - at least in any society that seeks its own survival and continuance.

 

[SMGS127]

From everything I have heard and read, because I have yet to read it myself but have full intention to do so, for those who do not think love is a necessary component of marriage, read Theology of the Body and go to the corresponding website.

Romantic love is absolutely not required for marriage. There should be a DEVOTIONAL love, of course. However, they are not the same type of love, and the colloquial term of “love” as romantic is most definitely not required.