Her "wife"

[Rau]

The problem with comparing how many animals devour their young including rats, prairie dogs, insects, fish, reptiles, etc. to the chimpanzee social/sexual behavior I described above is that the devouring of the young is obviously a very primitive and instinctual type of behavior common to most animals whereas the chimpanzee sexual behavior is a more complex social behavior just as humans also have more complex social behaviors. That complexity is one of the things that truly distinguishes great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and humans) from behaviorally less complex animals and is one of the things from which our own humanity arises.

Another way that great apes (including humans) are different from, say, insects, is that we have culture,and even chimpanzees have primitive culture, behaviors that are learned and passed on from one chimp to another and are not based on instinct or biology. For example, in his book, The Real Planet of the Apes (Princeton Univeristy Press, 2016), David Begun points out that chimpanzees from one area or place can make primitive tools or have their own specific way of doing something like cracking nuts that other chimpanzees from a different area don’t have or do differently. That is because these are learned behaviors specific to one group of chimpanzees and is part of that group’s own culture (primitive as it might be). And culture is one of the things that also sets humans apart from most other animals.

The point is that the behaviour of animals is not a guide to the proper behaviour of God’s people.

And the thing that sets humans far, far apart from chimpanzees - further than the chimpanzee is from the amoeba - is that we enjoy a special relationship with God. That relationship obligates us to a higher plane of behaviour - one not comparable with any animal.

 

[pnewton]

The problem with comparing how many animals devour their young including rats, prairie dogs, insects, fish, reptiles, etc. to the chimpanzee social/sexual behavior I described above is that the devouring of the young is obviously a very primitive and instinctual type of behavior common to most animals whereas the chimpanzee sexual behavior is a more complex social behavior just as humans also have more complex social behaviors. .

Comparing sexual behavior in animals to parenting behavior in animals is a far, far, far better comparison that the lame attempt at comparing the behavior, biology and morality in human beings with animals, where in the gap is insurmountable.

I find it ironic that you criticize the comparison of sexual behavior and eating/parenting behavior when you used a much worse comparison. At least this demonstrates why we should approach everything, science, theology, psychology, etc., within the context of revealed Truth, as the two will not contradict. It prevents erroneous conclusions, false patterns and poor analogies.

 

[Finite]

I’ve worked with people who’ve been attracted to the same sex and they all referred to their bed partners as “room mates.” Now I work in a new job and a new team lead is a woman who has a “wife” and they have a son together. (It’s kind of funny because she revealed her “wife” gave birth to “their” son yet my co-workers keep asking if he has any of her traits. LOL I want to say he’s not biologically related to her but I don’t know if it’s my place.)

My question is: what term to do I use to refer to the woman who is her “wife?” I don’t want to say “wife” because a real marriage cannot exist between two women and I don’t want to pretend it can.

Also, do you have any recommendations on how I can witness to her?

Thanks.

It’s not her “wife”. It is, legally, her wife. It’s not “their” child. It’s their child.

How about minding ones business? It doesn’t appear this woman and her family are doing anything to you that would warrant you butting into their lives.

The amount of disrespect I see here is ironic considering how “pro family” everyone claims to be.

 

[Bookcat]

It’s not her “wife”. It is, legally, her wife. It’s not “their” child. It’s their child.

How about minding ones business? It doesn’t appear this woman and her family are doing anything to you that would warrant you butting into their lives.

The amount of disrespect I see here is ironic considering how “pro family” everyone claims to be.

The OP was asking what is the way to address them - this a a moral theology forum and the person was asking how they can address them. It is NOT about butting into anyone’s lives…or not minding ones business.

She is not her wife (cannot be) so the person would simply not use that term - but say chose to use her name “Sally” etc.

The OP is not to be required to act against his conscience and so was looking for a good way to not do that.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not her “wife”. It is, legally, her wife. It’s not “their” child. It’s their child.

How about minding ones business? It doesn’t appear this woman and her family are doing anything to you that would warrant you butting into their lives.

The amount of disrespect I see here is ironic considering how “pro family” everyone claims to be.

We are also pro reality, even if that reality is in conflict with the current law. You are only correct if the person used the word “legally” which he did not. As it is your observation is not an absolute, but only applies in the sphere of civil law. There is not objective, licit, sacramentally sound marriage, which is what the Catholic Church refers to as “marriage”. As this is a Catholic site, I consider it rather intolerant to criticize posters for posting in the context of Catholic teaching.

We are pro-family, but not pro-child abuse. The Holy Father has said that child has a right to a father and a mother, as opposed to a mother and her live-in lover.

The poster should not be rude, but neither should she support legalized illusion.

But thank you for such a clear illustration of the intolerance we have come to expect from homosexual promotion, coming on to a Catholic site to suggest we are not truly pro-family for refusing to accept this sort of abusive behavior.

 

[Finite]

Out of interest, does anybody actually say: “I now pronounce you wife and wife” ?

At my sons wedding, they were pronounced “spouses for life”. I’ve never heard anyone be pronounced husband and husband/ wife and wife, but I have heard “I pronounce you husbands” or “wives”.

 

[Bookcat]

We are also pro reality, even if that reality is in conflict with the current law.

 

[rossum]

We are also pro reality, even if that reality is in conflict with the current law.

The current law is part of reality. It conflicts with the Catholic ideal of what reality should be, but that does not mean that the law as it stands is not a part of reality.

The couples in question get the tax treatment, hospital visiting rights etc in reality. Their civil marriage is a real civil marriage.

rossum

 

[Bookcat]

The current law is part of reality. It conflicts with the Catholic ideal of what reality should be, but that does not mean that the law as it stands is not a part of reality.

Yes like other unjust laws - they are a “legal reality”.

There is no “reality” of marriage present though.

 

[rossum]

Yes like other unjust laws - they are a “legal reality”.

There is no “reality” of marriage present though.

We have already had this discussion I think. You are reifying marriage; I am not.

rossum

 

[Finite]

The OP was asking what is the way to address them - this a a moral theology forum and the person was asking how they can address them. It is NOT about butting into anyone’s lives…or not minding ones business.

She is not her wife (cannot be) so the person would simply not use that term - but say chose to use her name “Sally” etc.

The OP is not to be required to act against his conscience and so was looking for a good way to not do that.

I agree that everyone should have freedom of conscious. But I think the OP is making a mountain out of an ant hill. I think your suggestion of referring to the coworkers wife by name only is a perfectly reasonable way to go about this.

However, it was said elsewhere on this thread (don’t think it was by you; I read the whole thing so forgive me for not remembering who posted what) that it would be acceptable to say “wife”/“their” child/“married” if communicating in writing and the topic of her marriage/family came up. I don’t think putting those things in quotes, directed TO the person, would be appropriate. Freedom of conscious does not mean freedom to go out of ones way to offend and be condescending.

The current law is part of reality. It conflicts with the Catholic ideal of what reality should be, but that does not mean that the law as it stands is not a part of reality.

The couples in question get the tax treatment, hospital visiting rights etc in reality. Their civil marriage is a real civil marriage.

rossum

Bingo.

I don’t think anyone is arguing whether or not marriages like those that my son is in are or should be recognized by the CC. The Church has made it explicitly clear what (their view of) marriage is. Granted, their view, to them, is also, coincidentally, the ONLY “real” kind of marriage, but that’s to be expected. All religions think their view is the official view.

I believe it was Rossum who pointed out how marriage has evolved over the course of human history. Modern society’s view on marriage isn’t the same as X-years ago. Someone else pointed out “but they all have male/female in common!”. Sure, but what exactly does that demonstrate other than the colossal difference of how we understand homosexuality now versus then?

Even fifty years ago, many people equated homosexuality with pedophilia (some still do), out of fear and a lack of understanding. It also didn’t help that gay people largely stayed out of sight. Today we see that they are simply people who are attracted to the same sex. That’s it. And with this understanding, more and more gay people have chosen to settle down with one person, get married, perhaps start a family.

As for whether or not they’re really married, I suppose it depends who you ask. If you ask someone on this forum, they would likely believe my son does NOT have a husband, their children are being “abused”, and they’re “hurting” each other (I can use quotes, too).

If you ask me, US Law, or the majority of Americans, they’re a married couple raising a beautiful family.

Marriage is just a word, folks. If you want to believe a married gay couple isn’t “really” married, that’s your right as a human being with your own set of beliefs. But pick any random gay person and guess what? They too are a human being with their own set of beliefs. If a gay couple says they’re married and they’ve got a marriage certificate, they most certainly are married in the eyes of the law and themselves. You don’t have to like it. In fact, I don’t think most care if you do.

As for the OP, I again agree that if you can’t bring yourself to refer to her spouse as her wife, just use her name. Everybody wins!

 

[pnewton]

We have already had this discussion I think. You are reifying marriage; I am not.

rossum

Yes, there are two (or more) contexts in which marriage can be seen. If we were discussing civil law and the proper response one should have legally, then the responses here would reflect that context. This is a Catholic forum asking for a proper personal response to someone based on one’s conscience. In this context, the spiritual reality determines the response.

Glance back and see my initial reaction was to the statement that the Catholic response is at odds with a pro-family stance. I hope you can see that at least from a Catholic point of view, it is internally consistent.

 

[Rau]

…The Church has made it explicitly clear what (their view of) marriage is.

The State is expressing a view - indeed, an arbitrary view based on the demands of people - for what marriage ought to be. The Church has a far simpler method - it looks at the reality of male and female, and at the nature and workings of sexuality, and concludes what marriage is. Religious considerations (unsurprisingly) concur with , and yes, prompt, this clear-eyed picture.

Even fifty years ago, many people equated homosexuality with pedophilia (some still do), out of fear and a lack of understanding. … Today we see that they are simply people who are attracted to the same sex. That’s it.

OK, but what is the upshot of that?

And with this understanding, more and more gay people have chosen to settle down with one person, get married, perhaps start a family.

Sorry - what understanding? An understanding that they experience attractions to persons of the same sex? How does that experience validate these actions?

 

[Thorolfr]

Sorry - what understanding? An understanding that they experience attractions to persons of the same sex? How does that experience validate these actions?

An understanding that being gay is normal for some people?

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree that everyone should have freedom of conscious. But I think the OP is making a mountain out of an ant hill. I think your suggestion of referring to the coworkers wife by name only is a perfectly reasonable way to go about this.

However, it was said elsewhere on this thread (don’t think it was by you; I read the whole thing so forgive me for not remembering who posted what) that it would be acceptable to say “wife”/“their” child/“married” if communicating in writing and the topic of her marriage/family came up. I don’t think putting those things in quotes, directed TO the person, would be appropriate. Freedom of conscious does not mean freedom to go out of ones way to offend and be condescending.

Bingo.

I don’t think anyone is arguing whether or not marriages like those that my son is in are or should be recognized by the CC. The Church has made it explicitly clear what (their view of) marriage is. Granted, their view, to them, is also, coincidentally, the ONLY “real” kind of marriage, but that’s to be expected. All religions think their view is the official view.

I believe it was Rossum who pointed out how marriage has evolved over the course of human history. Modern society’s view on marriage isn’t the same as X-years ago. Someone else pointed out “but they all have male/female in common!”. Sure, but what exactly does that demonstrate other than the colossal difference of how we understand homosexuality now versus then?

Even fifty years ago, many people equated homosexuality with pedophilia (some still do), out of fear and a lack of understanding. It also didn’t help that gay people largely stayed out of sight. Today we see that they are simply people who are attracted to the same sex. That’s it. And with this understanding, more and more gay people have chosen to settle down with one person, get married, perhaps start a family.

As for whether or not they’re really married, I suppose it depends who you ask. If you ask someone on this forum, they would likely believe my son does NOT have a husband, their children are being “abused”, and they’re “hurting” each other (I can use quotes, too).

If you ask me, US Law, or the majority of Americans, they’re a married couple raising a beautiful family.

Marriage is just a word, folks. If you want to believe a married gay couple isn’t “really” married, that’s your right as a human being with your own set of beliefs. But pick any random gay person and guess what? They too are a human being with their own set of beliefs. If a gay couple says they’re married and they’ve got a marriage certificate, they most certainly are married in the eyes of the law and themselves. You don’t have to like it. In fact, I don’t think most care if you do.

As for the OP, I again agree that if you can’t bring yourself to refer to her spouse as her wife, just use her name. Everybody wins!

Well stated. However, you should not expect conformity to this worldview on a religious forum, whether Catholic, (Orthodox) Jewish, Muslim, etc.

 

[Rau]

An understanding that being gay is normal for some people?

No…I don’t see that. It may be their reality, but in what sense is it “normal”? Further, the fact of a desire for something does not validate the acts one desires.

An obese person, one desirous of consuming food far in excess of bodily requirements, knows such a desire is not normal. Their brain ought to be “turning off” the hunger signals. Persons desirous of sexual contact with young children know objectively that such is not “normal” - children are not ready for such encounters. And I cannot see it as “normal” for a man to desire sexual acts with another man, given the very nature of sexual acts. The act culminates in the delivery of gametes together with pleasure. The “normal” venue for such an act is plain to see.