Homosexual civil unions

[z0wb13]

Persons of complementary sex but different race are not inherently incapable of the marital act.
Persons of the same sex are inherently incapable of the marital act.
A marriage without the possibility of the marital act is a contradiction in terms.

I’m not arguing before the court, but if the court cannot see that, it misunderstands thousands of years of history.

Persons of the same sex living together and engaging in activities which are not the marital act is simply not marriage.

what is the “marital act” that you keep talking about? let me assume you mean sex. if that’s the case, i would argue that there is a lot more to marriage than just sex.

and conversely, just having sex isn’t a necessary component, legally or otherwise, of a marriage. if two 90-year-olds want to get married, you can’t say they shouldn’t because they aren’t going to consummate enough. if a person is paralyzed, or has some other disablilty that precludes sex, they are still entitled to marriage.

 

[JimG]

what is the “marital act” that you keep talking about? let me assume you mean sex. if that’s the case, i would argue that there is a lot more to marriage than just sex.

and conversely, just having sex isn’t a necessary component, legally or otherwise, of a marriage. if two 90-year-olds want to get married, you can’t say they shouldn’t because they aren’t going to consummate enough. if a person is paralyzed, or has some other disablilty that precludes sex, they are still entitled to marriage.

I don’t know if impotence constitutes a bar to marriage under civil law; it does under Catholic canon law. Permanent, irreversible, and antecedent impotence is a bar to marriage. Infertility is not.

Sex is certainly not all of marriage, but the ability to engage in actual marital intercourse is a precondition.

And, as Orson Scott Card notes in his essay, homosexuals and lesbians are not barred from marriage. They have exactly the same marriage rights as anyone else. If a homosexual can persuade a woman to marry him, he has every right to marriage. It is no way apparent that homosexuals are incapable of completing the marital act with an opposite sex person. Many have done so.

Of course, if opposite sex couples can “marry,” age restrictions would still be in place to prevent a 50 year old pederast from marrying his 16 year old lover. He would have to wait till age 18. But age of consent laws are legal constructs. There will surely be moves to lower them.

And there is no inherent reason, if opposite sex couples can marry, that polygamists should not be allowed to marry. If we’re changing the definition of marriage, why exclude anybody? In fact, not just polygamists, and pederasts, but perhaps groups of mixed gender couples who all want to live together under the umbrella of marriage.

 

[rossum]

Persons of complementary sex but different race are not inherently incapable of the marital act.
Persons of the same sex are inherently incapable of the marital act.
A marriage without the possibility of the marital act is a contradiction in terms.

So, you are saying that a military veteran with an unfortunate injury cannot get married? A quadriplegic or a hemiplegic cannot get married? What about women past the menopause? It seems to me that you are not correctly describing the current situation here.

I’m not arguing before the court, but if the court cannot see that, it misunderstands thousands of years of history.

How many wives did Solomon have? You are not arguing for Old Testament style polygamy here I assume. History covers a great deal more types of marriage than you seem to think it does.

Persons of the same sex living together and engaging in activities which are not the marital act is simply not marriage.

Legal marriage does not depend on the performance of certain actions within the marriage. If two people marry and remain celibate then that marriage is legally valid.

rossum

 

[z0wb13]

I’ve referenced this article before, but I’ll do it again.

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization, by Orson Scott Card

“Whom the gods would destroy the first make mad,” Euripedes said. Perhaps the same might be applied to civilizations.

these quotes are from the article you linked

Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody’s.

this is in reference to gay marriage. but the author does nothing to back this claim up. it’s one of the largest legal hurdles for those against gay marriage, in that you can’t prove how it will damage anybody. so, just because he said it, it doesn’t make it so, and he doesn’t argue the point at all, which is to say unconvincingly.

But you have to be in gross denial not to know that children would almost always rather have grown up with Dad and Mom in their proper places at home.

this sounds great, and the implication is that somehow children would be less happy or well-adjusted if they had two moms or two dads. the problem is that there is no evidence that supports the claim. children raised by gay couples are just the same as other children. i will agree that two-parent households tend to fare better than single-parent households, but i think this is more of a function of the amount of time that a parent can spend with their kid.

here’s another thing, what if a kid was brought up by their grandparents? the kid would probably turn out pretty normal, even though their biological parents weren’t there. the same may be said about adoptive parents.

In fact, it will do harm. Nowhere near as much harm as we have already done through divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing. But it’s another nail in the coffin. Maybe the last nail, precisely because it is the most obvious and outrageous attack on what is left of marriage in America.

the author does not support the claim that gay marriage will harm children. he does go on at length discussing how divorce is bad for kids, but doesn’t that prove the opposite of his point? if marriage is the foundation for a stable family, how does denying marriage to gay people help children of gay people?

i don’t know, i just don’t see the connection. if marriage is good for children and families, then it should be good for all children, regardless of the kind of parents they have. but the author goes on and on about how divorce harms children, and then takes a logical leap that gay marriage will also harm children, when there is zero evidence to support this.

 

[JimG]

So, you are saying that a military veteran with an unfortunate injury cannot get married? A quadriplegic or a hemiplegic cannot get married? What about women past the menopause? It seems to me that you are not correctly describing the current situation here.

How many wives did Solomon have? You are not arguing for Old Testament style polygamy here I assume. History covers a great deal more types of marriage than you seem to think it does.

Legal marriage does not depend on the performance of certain actions within the marriage. If two people marry and remain celibate then that marriage is legally valid.

rossum

Yes, Solomon had a thousand wives and none of them were male. Polygamy was recognized, not homosexual marriage. History may have a lot of types of marriage, but not homosexual marriage.

I am looking at the matter from a Catholic perspective. A person who is incurably impotent prior to marriage cannot be validly married under canon law. A woman past menopause is still capable of completing the marital act, as are older couples generally.

 

[z0wb13]

And there is no inherent reason, if opposite sex couples can marry, that polygamists should not be allowed to marry. If we’re changing the definition of marriage, why exclude anybody? In fact, not just polygamists, and pederasts, but perhaps groups of mixed gender couples who all want to live together under the umbrella of marriage.

this is a slippery slope argument. why not people marrying animals is the next illogical step down this progression. and gay people are not always, or even often, polygamists or pederasts, so the point is moot.

the inherent differences should be rather self evident, and i said it once before, but let’s put it to bed. marriage is between two people, so polygamy is excluded. marriage is between adults, so children are excluded.

but please (and thanks;p) stop using the above argument, because it is logically unsound and i don’t want to get stuck in some endless loop explaining why it is unsound.

that you said, you could attack my position saying the interpretation is too broad, by allowing gay couples, and i could say yours is too narrow by disallowing them. but whatever, i know i won’t convince you and i don’t want to. just don’t use that illogical and meaningless argument anymore, please, because bad logic makes my head hurt.

 

[JimG]

this is a slippery slope argument. why not people marrying animals is the next illogical step down this progression. and gay people are not always, or even often, polygamists or pederasts, so the point is moot.

the inherent differences should be rather self evident, and i said it once before, but let’s put it to bed. marriage is between two people, so polygamy is excluded. marriage is between adults, so children are excluded.

but please (and thanks;p) stop using the above argument, because it is logically unsound and i don’t want to get stuck in some endless loop explaining why it is unsound.

that you said, you could attack my position saying the interpretation is too broad, by allowing gay couples, and i could say yours is too narrow by disallowing them. but whatever, i know i won’t convince you and i don’t want to. just don’t use that illogical and meaningless argument anymore.

Well yes, my definition of marriage is certainly narrower than yours. My contention is that if it is broad enough to encompass gay marriage then it should be broad enough to encompass other forms of marriage which are currently not allowable.

Marriage is between two persons. OK, I’ll agree with that. But if we are to exclude the traditionally basic complementarity of the sexes, which has been an aspect of the institution for thousands of years, then the numerical limitation seems purely arbitrary.

As to the slippery slope argument. Homosexuals are not polygamists or pederasts, but why do we extend the right of marriage to them and not the others? In many cultures, age limits for marriage are nearly coterminous with puberty. Can NAMBLA argue that a 16 or 17 year old is equally capable of adult decision as an 18 year old? Maybe.

And in destroying the definition of marriage as between persons of complementary sexes, we say that this word, which for thousands of years has meant one thing to married couples, now means something else entirely. Perhaps couples in traditional marriages should get a new word to apply to them, since the meaning of the old word will have been destroyed.

 

[z0wb13]

…
I am looking at the matter from a Catholic perspective. A person who is incurably impotent prior to marriage cannot be validly married under canon law. A woman past menopause is still capable of completing the marital act, as are older couples generally.

i see your point. and i respect your position, that catholic marriages must adhere to certain obligations.

i don’t think that catholics should have to allow gay marriages. so let’s agree here.

the point is that marriage, regardless of where and when it came from, is now a legally recognized right in the USA. there are many court cases affirming this right.

let’s agree on something else, incurable impotence excludes a person from a catholic marriages, but it would not exclude them from a legal marriage, right? they could still go to a courthouse and apply for a marriage license, and get it.

if the incurably impotent person was refused a marriage license, it would have to be on religious grounds, not legal grounds. and here, 1st amendment protections would come into play.

anyway, the point that i’m slowly getting to is that marriage can well be a religious sacrament for some people, but there are other reasons, legally protected, that people may want to get married for. if irreligious people want to get married, they can.

i don’t even know what my point is anymore. i will point out that gay people don’t necessarily want approval from catholic, or any other religious, groups. they want equal rights, and marriage has been defined as a fundamental right by the courts. the arguments against gay marriage are generally from a religious perspective, but the point of the bill of rights is to protect minorities.

anyway, i still don’t understand how gay marriage would harm any other marriage. if that connection could be credibly made, then there might be legal standing against gay marriage.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve referenced this article before, but I’ll do it again.

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization, by Orson Scott Card

“Whom the gods would destroy the first make mad,” Euripedes said. Perhaps the same might be applied to civilizations.

What an excellent article. I hadn’t seen it before. Catholics must eliminate all media that is bad. Period. We can observe it from a distance. And we need to understand the harm it has done and continues to do. We must look to reliable Catholic media for the Catholic perspective.

Like Communist Russia, the Dictatorship of Relativism wishes to take control. But like Communist Russia, which fell, our Churches and our priests and bishops will continue to give us the guidance we need. Quietly - not forced - and lacking in the fanfare the media currently provides to causes like this. I don’t care if my neighbors are homosexuals. I do care that marriage is being redefined by the imposition of courts and lawmakers.

Peace,
Ed

 

[z0wb13]

Well yes, my definition of marriage is certainly narrower than yours. My contention is that if it is broad enough to encompass gay marriage then it should be broad enough to encompass other forms of marriage which are currently not allowable.

i’m not trying to be insulting, but please stop repeating the same fallacious argument. it is unconvincing and disingenuous.

from wikipedia:
“The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn’t a slippery slope fallacy.”

you are not providing any evidence that gay marriage would lead to anything. the logic you are probably using is that gay marriage is bad, polygamy is bad, pedophilia is bad. which is fine to think, but one does not necessarily lead to the other.

Marriage is between two persons. OK, I’ll agree with that. But if we are to exclude the traditionally basic complementarity of the sexes, which has been an aspect of the institution for thousands of years, then the numerical limitation seems purely arbitrary.

i would just point out that gender is not so cut and dry. you can look to the animal kingdom and find many instances of hermaphrodism, such as banana slugs. there are cases of hermaphrodites in the human case as well. so your claim of “basic complementarity of the sexes” isn’t a black and white issue. it is traditional, but this is an appeal to tradition, which is another logical fallacy (traditionally, people thought the earth was flat).

As to the slippery slope argument. Homosexuals are not polygamists or pederasts, but why do we extend the right of marriage to them and not the others? In many cultures, age limits for marriage are nearly coterminous with puberty. Can NAMBLA argue that a 16 or 17 year old is equally capable of adult decision as an 18 year old? Maybe.

courts have drawn a bright line at the age of 18 between childhood and adulthood. nambla could argue about this, but i don’t think they could convince a court.

but the comparison between nambla, which exploits children, and gay people, who exploit no one, is unfair and i find it, personally, insulting. so you can think what you want, but i don’t know if i would consider this topic for polite conversation.

And in destroying the definition of marriage as between persons of complementary sexes, we say that this word, which for thousands of years has meant one thing to married couples, now means something else entirely. Perhaps couples in traditional marriages should get a new word to apply to them, since the meaning of the old word will have been destroyed.

i don’t think people in more traditional marriages should have to get a new word. but i honestly fail to see your point. are you saying that theses marriages are harmed somehow, because they feel this word is being confiscated? i really don’t see the problem here, and yet i do see the harm done to gay people by relegating them to second class citizenship. it is dehumanizing.

 

[rossum]

Yes, Solomon had a thousand wives and none of them were male. Polygamy was recognized, not homosexual marriage. History may have a lot of types of marriage, but not homosexual marriage.

Solomon was in a marriage with 700 wives and 300 concubines. I think you will find that all the wives were of the same sex and that all the concubines were of the same sex as well. That sounds a lot like homosexual marriage to me.

I am looking at the matter from a Catholic perspective. A person who is incurably impotent prior to marriage cannot be validly married under canon law. A woman past menopause is still capable of completing the marital act, as are older couples generally.

Canon law is for the Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that. Civil law is for the state and that already differs from Canon law, as with recognising divorce and remarriage. This thread is about “Homosexual civil unions”, not “Homosexual canon unions”. Civil law is more relevant here.

You failed to answer my question about war veterans and quadriplegics who cannot complete the marital act. I see from your answer on the post-menopausal woman that it is the act itself you see as important, not the potential to conceive. What of people who, for whatever reason, cannot physically complete the marital act?

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

Solomon was in a marriage with 700 wives and 300 concubines. I think you will find that all the wives were of the same sex and that all the concubines were of the same sex as well. That sounds a lot like homosexual marriage to me.

Except for the teeny tiny detail that the concubines of the same sex, and the wives of the same sex, were not cavorting with each other or “married” to each other. Doesn’t sound sound a lot like homosexual marriage to me.

 

[rossum]

What an excellent article. I hadn’t seen it before. Catholics must eliminate all media that is bad. Period. We can observe it from a distance. And we need to understand the harm it has done and continues to do. We must look to reliable Catholic media for the Catholic perspective.

Orson Scott Card is not “reliable Catholic media”, he is a Mormon. Looks like he is one of those you want to “eliminate” as unreliable.

Do you have any idea of just how bad that sort of language sounds Ed? “All publications must be vetted by the Ministry of Truth before being published.”

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Orson Scott Card is not “reliable Catholic media”, he is a Mormon. Looks like he is one of those you want to “eliminate” as unreliable.

Do you have any idea of just how bad that sort of language sounds Ed? “All publications must be vetted by the Ministry of Truth before being published.”

rossum

Since I work in the media, I understand precisely what he’s saying. What sounds bad is a President giving up on defending marriage as it is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

You failed to answer my question about war veterans and quadriplegics who cannot complete the marital act. I see from your answer on the post-menopausal woman that it is the act itself you see as important, not the potential to conceive. What of people who, for whatever reason, cannot physically complete the marital act?

For the complete document by Prof. Robert George, see the Homosexuals and Celibacy thread for the link. Here is an excerpt, in response to your retort to someone else:

Marriage is a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled18 by the bearing, rearing, and education of children. The procreative‐type act distinctively seals or completes a procreative‐type union. Again, this is not to say that the marriages of infertile couples are not true marriages. Consider this analogy: A baseball team has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to winning games; it involves developing and sharing one’s athletic skills in the way best suited for honorably winning (among other things, with assiduous practice and good sportsmanship). But such development and sharing are possible and inherently valuable for teammates even when they lose their games. Just so, marriage has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to procreation; it involves developing and sharing one’s body and whole self in the way best suited for honorable parenthood—among other things, permanently and exclusively. But such development and sharing, including the bodily union of the generative act, are possible and inherently valuable for spouses even when they do not conceive children.19 Therefore, people who can unite bodily can be spouses without children, just as people who can practice baseball can be teammates without victories on the field. Although marriage is a social practice that has its basic structure by nature whereas baseball is wholly conventional, the analogy highlights a crucial point: Infertile couples and winless baseball teams both meet the basic requirements for participating in the practice (conjugal union; practicing and playing the game) and retain their basic orientation to the fulfillment of that practice (bearing and rearing children; winning games), even if that fulfillment is never reached. On the other hand, same‐sex partnerships, whatever their moral status, cannot be marriages because they lack any essential orientation to children: They cannot be sealed by the generative act. Indeed, in the common law tradition, only coitus (not anal or oral sex even between legally wed spouses) has been recognized as consummating a marriage.20 Given the marital relationship’s natural orientation to children, it is not surprising that, according to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other relevant factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared inintact homes fare best on the following indices:21

Educational achievement: literacy and graduation rates;
Emotional health: rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide;
Familial and sexual development: strong sense of identity, timing of onset of puberty, rates of teen and out‐of‐wedlock pregnancy, and rates of sexual abuse; and

---

for Matrimony, commanding Solemnization, Cohabitation, Consummation
and Tractation as becometh Man and Wife to have.” Id. In more modern usage,
“consummation of marriage” is still regarded in family law as “[t]he first postmarital
act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
359 (9th ed. 2009).
18. That is, made even richer as the kind of reality it is.
19. For more on this point, see infra Part I.D.
20. For more on the difference between infertile and same‐sex couples, see infra
Part I.D.
21. For the relevant studies, see Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good,
signed by some seventy scholars, which corroborates the philosophical case for
marriage with extensive evidence from the social sciences about the welfare of
children and adults. THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE, MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC
GOOD: TEN PRINCIPLES 9–19 (2008), available at winst.org/
family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf.

 

[JimG]

Solomon was in a marriage with 700 wives and 300 concubines. I think you will find that all the wives were of the same sex and that all the concubines were of the same sex as well. That sounds a lot like homosexual marriage to me.

This may open a whole new area for biblical scholars, particularly those who are unaware that Solomon married a harem of lesbians.

Canon law is for the Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that. Civil law is for the state and that already differs from Canon law, as with recognising divorce and remarriage. This thread is about “Homosexual civil unions”, not “Homosexual canon unions”. Civil law is more relevant here.

I’m sure the civil law varies by state. But I believe that in some states a marriage which is unconsummated may be reason for annulment rather than divorce.

You failed to answer my question about war veterans and quadriplegics who cannot complete the marital act. I see from your answer on the post-menopausal woman that it is the act itself you see as important, not the potential to conceive. What of people who, for whatever reason, cannot physically complete the marital act?

rossum

If a person is already married before being rendered impotent, the marriage remains valid. But if a person is permanently and incurably incapable of completing the marital act prior to marriage, that marriage could not occur, and would be invalid under Canon law.

I don’t argue that further expanding the bounds of marriage is inevitable if gay marriage is approved (the slippery slope argument.) But I do argue that abandoning the idea of marriage as between a man and a woman does open the possibility of further widening it.

The slippery slope cannot be shown as impossible except in the way things actually turn out. I won’t live long enough to watch the devolution of society which follows the devolution of marriage. Well, maybe I will–we have already seen a great deal of it. But that answer will work itself out in history.

It’s not so much that homosexual marriage is unwise, though it is. It is, rather, impossible. It is impossible by nature.

If my sister wants me to refer to her as my brother in the interest of equality, I suppose that I could humor her. But it would change nothing about the nature of brotherhood or sisterhood. It would be only a confusing attempt to rewrite the language.

 

[rossum]

For the complete document by Prof. Robert George, see the Homosexuals and Celibacy thread for the link. Here is an excerpt, in response to your retort to someone else:

Thanks for your response, however I’m afraid that does not answer my question. To quote from your source:Therefore, people who can unite bodily can be spouses without children, just as people who can practice baseball can be teammates without victories on the field.
My question concerned people who cannot “unite bodily” for whatever reason.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Since I work in the media, I understand precisely what he’s saying. What sounds bad is a President giving up on defending marriage as it is.

On the contrary, the President is defending marriage as it is. As it is in Massachusetts, as it is in Connecticut, as it is in Iowa, as it is in Vermont and as it is in New Hampshire.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This may open a whole new area for biblical scholars, particularly those who are unaware that Solomon married a harem of lesbians.

In a group of 1,000 women some are going to be some lesbians. Also in any population that size there will be some who turn to their own sex as second best in the absence of the opposite sex. Solomon didn’t have viagra to help him back then, and with 1000 women to satisfy…

If a person is already married before being rendered impotent, the marriage remains valid. But if a person is permanently and incurably incapable of completing the marital act prior to marriage, that marriage could not occur, and would be invalid under Canon law.

Thank you for your answer. This is obviously another case where civil law and canon law differ.

I don’t argue that further expanding the bounds of marriage is inevitable if gay marriage is approved (the slippery slope argument.) But I do argue that abandoning the idea of marriage as between a man and a woman does open the possibility of further widening it.

Historically ‘marriage’ has covered many different possible arrangements. Muslims and Fundamentalist Mormons for example. A no time in the history of the planet has one man and one woman been the only form of marriage.

It’s not so much that homosexual marriage is unwise, though it is. It is, rather, impossible. It is impossible by nature.

In canon law you are correct. In civil law marriage can be whatever the state defines it to be. In Saudi Arabia a man can marry four wives at once. In America he can still marry four wives as long as he divorces each one before he marries the next: serial polygamy. This thread is about civil law, and already there are some states where gay marriage is legal.

rossum

 

[RobbyS]

i think that DOMA is probably on it’s way out. here’s the reasoning:

the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. various court cases (loving v virginia, turner v safley) have ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right. so while the idea of gay marriage might be unpopular now (just as interracial marriage was once unpopular), in thirty years people will look back at this debate and wonder what all the noise was about.

the other big legal problem for people advocating against gay marriage is that it’s impossible to prove standing. it’s impossible to say that gay marriage is going to damage anybody else.

The basic problem is that some judges have claimed that marriage has no natural basis. It seems not to matter that biologically, psychologically and in almost every respect, males and females are materially distinct and that marriage is a reflection of that fact.