How do supporters of so-called "same-sex marriage" define marriage?

[Stephen168]

My definition of marriage would be rejected…so why go down that path with you?

Here is A Quaker definition…or a stance…

Quaker marriage
Quakers strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage but also recognise the value of non-marital relationships and the single life.
Their weddings are very informal compared to those from other traditions and there is no priest or minister to lead the couple as they make their vows.
When a Quaker couple decide to marry, they make a commitment to each other in the presence of God, their family and friends.
Quakers believe that no one but God can join a couple in matrimony. They see marriage as more than a legal contract - it is a religious commitment.

“The right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priest’s or magistrate’s; for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s…we marry none; it is the Lord’s work, and we are but witnesses.”
George Fox, 1669

The couple promise to be loving companions and take each other as lifelong partners in a spirit of freedom and equality.

The conversation you jumped into the middle of was started but this post:

What about someone who can’t have kids for some biological reason? They can’t get married according to your definition?

I then explained reproductive “biological reason,” and how heterosexual couples are the reproductive class while same sex and pedophile couples are not. I then concluded that if one of the notes of marriage is reproduction, it would be irrational to include same sex couples and exclude pedophile couples. To claim that reproduction is not a note of marriage doesn’t change the randomness of the claim but it does create an additional question: Why does a person’s marital status matter to the state?
My point being that supporters of same-sex “marriage” do so by emotion and not reason; and to claim that the people they disagree with are irrational, homophobes, and bigots is hypocritical.

 

[Publisher]

My point being that supporters of same-sex “marriage” do so by emotion and not reason; and to claim that the people they disagree with are irrational, homophobes, and bigots is hypocritical.

And claiming that those who support same sex marriage do so by emotion without any “reason” is false and lacking in relaying the full truth of the matter as to the reasons “Why”…our reasons not based on YOUR religious beliefs does not mean they are purely “emotional” nor are they not reasoned out…you just don’t feel the “reasons” we have made our decision are valid.

 

[Stephen168]

And claiming that those who support same sex marriage do so by emotion without any “reason” is false and lacking in relaying the full truth of the matter as to the reasons “Why”…our reasons not based on YOUR religious beliefs does not mean they are purely “emotional” nor are they not reasoned out…you just don’t feel the “reasons” we have made our decision are valid.

My definition of marriage is based on biology, anthropology, and reason. My religion embraces most all of my definition with a few extras. Because I have a reason that same-sex marriage is a fiction created by the state, I assumed that supporters would have a reason, also. But I have found that not to be true. The reason that support for same-sex marriage is based on emotion is based on 1) avoiding a presentation of their definition and reasoning for marriage 2) the quick withdrawal from any conversation to support any definition that might be presented 3) the quick use of name calling (homophobe, bigot) to shut the conversation down to achieve 1&2.
I contrast that with other threads on CAF where Catholics present their definition and reason for marriage; and then stand to defend it. I’ve never had the opportunity to do this in person because of 3 listed above.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

On the basis that God is present in each and every individual…on the basis that the prohibitions embraced by the more conservative Christians are based on societal/cultural/historical preconceptions of human sexuality divorced from a much greater understanding of human sexuality and it’s complexities than before was believed…on the basis that homosexuality is one variation of human sexuality and completely normal and natural…and many years of discussion…prayer…meditation on where our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters fit into the life of the Meeting.

“Male and female created He them…”…yes…the diversity of God’s creation in all it’s variations and expressions.

Now…I do not expect you to accept my position…that too is part of the sacred diversity displayed in humans…it is my religious belief that same sex marriage is good and right before God…just as you believe the opposite.

If based on the religious beliefs your eccleial community embraces, same sex marriage is not permitted…base on the beliefs of my ecclesial community it is…but the discussion of same sex marriage as defined by the State does not necessarily take into account either of our religious beliefs…but is a matter of the State’s definition as they are the one’s that are in the process of making it part of our national policy…neither of us has the right to prevent the exercise of the State defined civil rights of same sex couples.

The State is not God, nor does it has authority higher than God. History points to several occasions when direction by the State led to evil consequences, when the wrong but politically strong on behalf of the State takes the reign in government.

The change by the Friends and other Protestant denominations to honor gay unions pulled away from God’s natural design in the sacred perpetuation of His highest creation. The change accomodates the earthly personal happiness of individuals but does not serve true social good.
,

 

[Publisher]

The State is not God, nor does it has authority higher than God. History points to several occasions when direction by the State led to evil consequences, when the wrong but politically strong on behalf of the State takes the reign in government.

The change by the Friends and other Protestant denominations to honor gay unions pulled away from God’s natural design in the sacred perpetuation of His highest creation. The change accomodates the earthly personal happiness of individuals but does not serve true social good.
,

Yes you are correct…but God isn’t issuing marriage licenses…the State is.

I understand you believe “Friends and other Protestant denominations” have “pulled away” from God’s natural design…we disagree as we see we are NOW fully embracing the astounding diversity of God’s highest creation.

We disagree concerning the true social good…that is the sticking point between us…and one being “fought” out within our society…I beleive it is for the good of our society to embrace our gay brothers and sisters and honor their commitments…even celebrate them…you believe other wise…thankfully…so far…we have been able to be free to exercise our God given agency without the retribution of a church body seeking to enforce it’s policy on the populace that does not embrace such beliefs.

I may not live so long as to see same sex marriage allowed in all 50 states…but I believe my nieces and nephews will…if not their children.

 

[livingwordunity]

Yes you are correct…but God isn’t issuing marriage licenses…the State is.

And as citizens, people who have religious beliefs have just as much a right as anyone else to vote on this issue of how marriage should and should not be defined by the state.

 

[Publisher]

And as citizens, people who have religious beliefs have just as much a right as anyone else to vote on this issue of how marriage should and should not be defined by the state.

In as much as the State defines marriage as a civil right…civil rights of minorities are not decided by popular vote of the majority.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes you are correct…but God isn’t issuing marriage licenses…the State is.

I understand you believe “Friends and other Protestant denominations” have “pulled away” from God’s natural design…we disagree as we see we are NOW fully embracing the astounding diversity of God’s highest creation.

We disagree concerning the true social good…that is the sticking point between us…and one being “fought” out within our society…I feel for the good…you believe other wise…thankfully…so far…we have been able to be free to exercise our God given agency without the retribution of a church body seeking to enforce it’s policy on the populace that does not embrace such beliefs.

I may not live so long as to see same sex marriage allowed in all 50 states…but I believe my nieces and nephews will…if not their children.

… and I pity mine, nieces and nephews, the children of my children, who will live in such a world, if all 50 states see the reality of SS’M’, as you predict. A world not astounding at all, not in accordance with the order as He laid out for man and man’s spiritual path back to Him.

But then, hope springs eternal for those on this side praying for the opposite of your and Quaker prayers.
,

 

[scipio337]

Who said that I relied on the state? Everyone keeps talking about “traditional marriage” around here but traditional in what culture? Should we adopt the marriage of ancient Rome? Maybe ancient sumaria? India? China? Mesopotamia?’

Perhaps you can point out to the culture that considered same sex marriage “traditional”? Even the early to mid Empire period for Rome, with homosexuality being widely accepted, Nero was deriding for suggesting such.

Roman law didn’t recognize same sex “marriage”. Period.

Our “matrimony” comes from the Latin “matrimonium”, the legally recognized Roman marriage. The etymology is from mater = “mother”, and “monium” = suffix for “action or state of”.

“Matrimonium” in Roman law was the “action or state of motherhood”.

Perhaps the definition of marriage should be “anything that feels good”? And why should we limit it to just two consenting adults?

 

[scipio337]

In as much as the State defines marriage as a civil right…civil rights of minorities are not decided by popular vote of the majority.

False analogy. And since when is sexual behavior a protected class?

 

[scipio337]

Yes you are correct…but God isn’t issuing marriage licenses…the State is…

The state has already provided "equal protection’ under the law, but it’s never been enough. California had domestic partnerships over 10 years ago.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes you are correct…but God isn’t issuing marriage licenses…the State is.

I understand you believe “Friends and other Protestant denominations” have “pulled away” from God’s natural design…we disagree as we see we are NOW fully embracing the astounding diversity of God’s highest creation.

We disagree concerning the true social good…that is the sticking point between us…and one being “fought” out within our society…I beleive it is for the good of our society to embrace our gay brothers and sisters and honor their commitments…even celebrate them…you believe other wise…thankfully…so far…we have been able to be free to exercise our God given agency without the retribution of a church body seeking to enforce it’s policy on the populace that does not embrace such beliefs.

I may not live so long as to see same sex marriage allowed in all 50 states…but I believe my nieces and nephews will…if not their children.

Yes, the State is issuing licenses and should continue to do so to have society benefit with good fruit of unions that naturally produce the next generation of citizens. Not contrived unions to placate a group that makes unreasonable demands on the rest of society.

For the part I bolded in your quote, you seem to indirectly impute something on the Catholic Church that is not true. What earthly punishment or corporal retribution does the Church place on disbelieving Catholics on the doctrine on homosexual acts? Or on non-Catholics who do not share the value of matrimony between a man and a woman, who want to open marriage to other configurations? The Church does not lobby for the return of anti-sodomy laws or incarceration of same sex couples who ‘marry.’
,

 

[TracerBullet]

And as citizens, people who have religious beliefs have just as much a right as anyone else to vote on this issue of how marriage should and should not be defined by the state.

And at one time or another 41 states had laws on their books defining marriage as only occurring between two people of the same skin color.

That fact aside rights are guaranteed by the constitution. We don’t vote on people’s rights.

 

[TracerBullet]

Perhaps you can point out to the culture that considered same sex marriage “traditional”? Even the early to mid Empire period for Rome, with homosexuality being widely accepted, Nero was deriding for suggesting such.

Roman law didn’t recognize same sex “marriage”. Period.

Our “matrimony” comes from the Latin “matrimonium”, the legally recognized Roman marriage. The etymology is from mater = “mother”, and “monium” = suffix for “action or state of”.

“Matrimonium” in Roman law was the “action or state of motherhood”.

Perhaps the definition of marriage should be “anything that feels good”? And why should we limit it to just two consenting adults?

An appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy. If we followed your line of reasoning we would still have slaves, women and children would be property and diseases would be cured by bloodletting

 

[TracerBullet]

False analogy. And since when is sexual behavior a protected class?

Trying to define a minority based on a sex act is pretty nasty. It usually stems from an attempt to dehumanize that minority, associate them with animalistic forces and therefore make them sub human. Consider history’s attempts to marginalize blacks (better hide the white women) as people driven solely by lust and incapable of higher emotions.

Would you accept being describes only by your sexual acts?

 

[TracerBullet]

The state has already provided "equal protection’ under the law, but it’s never been enough. California had domestic partnerships over 10 years ago.

Domestic partnership or civil unions are not marriage and do not carry the legal rights and protections marriage does.

 

[TracerBullet]

Yes, the State is issuing licenses and should continue to do so to have society benefit with good fruit of unions that naturally produce the next generation of citizens. Not contrived unions to placate a group that makes unreasonable demands on the rest of society.

For the part I bolded in your quote, you seem to indirectly impute something on the Catholic Church that is not true. What earthly punishment or corporal retribution does the Church place on disbelieving Catholics on the doctrine on homosexual acts? Or on non-Catholics who do not share the value of matrimony between a man and a woman, who want to open marriage to other configurations? The Church does not lobby for the return of anti-sodomy laws or incarceration of same sex couples who ‘marry.’
,

What “unreasonable demands” are you talking about?

Since when is equality unreasonable?

 

[Stephen168]

In as much as the State defines marriage as a civil right…civil rights of minorities are not decided by popular vote of the majority.

So far the State claims we all have a right to procreate which is why the eugenics laws were repealed, and from that the State claims we have a right to procreate with whoever we want which is why the racial marriage laws were repealed. The State has not yet claimed married is something else that same-sex couples have a right to. Maybe someday but not yet

 

[Publisher]

So far the State claims we all have a right to procreate which is why the eugenics laws were repealed, and from that the State claims we have a right to procreate with whoever we want which is why the racial marriage laws were repealed. The State has not yet claimed married is something else that same-sex couples have a right to. Maybe someday but not yet

Perhaps…but unless the state legislatures of those states in which same sex marriage is legal know something about procreation which the rest of us don’t…marriage is a civil right WITHOUT the requirement of procreation.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

What “unreasonable demands” are you talking about?

Since when is equality unreasonable?

Among others, these are what are considered unreasonable demands on society as a result of same sex ‘marriage’ or legal unions:

Forcing Catholic run institutions to place children for adoption by same sex couples. It was always an exchange of tax benefits for a valued social service, with previous acceptance of the state of religious principles followed by Catholic Charities. No longer, as we see from the closure of Catholic Charities in Illinois.

Forcing Catholic parish halls to rent to gay ‘wedding’ partes. For actual reports, kindly do your own research.

Labelling of discussion of Church doctrine on wrongfulness of homosexual acts as bigotry or homophobia, and efforts to limit freedom of speech in this regard.

The beginning of indoctrination of school children, like SB49 in public grade school with no opt out for parents in classes teaching gay history and contribution of gay culture to society, etc., all in the name of normalizing homosexuality.

Equality or the desire to have equal rights is not unreasonable. However I object to its use in the phrase ‘marriage equality.’ Marriage equality is a term of gay advocacy.

Marriage pre-dated the Church and all governments. It developed as a public institution with social impact through the generation of children, forming a family which is the very basic and irreducible unit of society. Individuals have identical liberties, rights and privileges. Man-woman configuration in marriage is equal to another man-woman pairing in marriage. The novel and relatively recent man-man or woman-woman configuration in a contrived ‘marriage’ is different. Any child or children by adoption by gay couples or as a result of ‘creative’ IVF / egg-sperm donation, use of wombs-for-hire type of applied technology, will not benefit from the necessary mother-father modelling by opposite sexed parents.

Yet, advocates of SS’M’ want the same treatment on a clearly different pairing which would not have the same outcome in raising of children. Certainly, there are families formed in previous heterosexual marriages where the partner or partners switched to homosexual partnerships, but this is not what I am addressing here.

In a post that I directed to you in a related thread now closed, I asked you what do you hope to achieve as a self identified Catholic in this forum, in advocating for gay rights. One other poster provided the full Catholic teaching on homosexuality, homosexual acts, and Church position on SS’M’ for you, as a matter of fact. Do you seek that Catholic doctrine on the matter be changed? As a Catholic, do you think that it is appropriate? If so, why? I would appreciate an honest answer. Thank you.
,