Illegality of gay marriage

[inocente]

Approval of civil union here in Spain was simply to add one sentence to the civil code. Since the law was changed in 2005, around 2% of unions are same-sex. Possibly the most famous was between the anti-terrorism judge Fernando Grande-Marlaska and his partner.

The debate preceding the change was about the greater good. There was never any question of the Church or any other religion having to change their own rules but the opposition, supported by the Church, argued that it would weaken family values generally.

Our president, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, replied with this:

Aware that some people and institutions *** profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society. [The suffering presumably of not being allowed to have a recognized monogamous relationship and subsequent prejudice/alienation.]

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the faiths.

That’s basically the dilemma – which does the most good and least harm to society - and arguments to make or keep it illegal haven’t worked so good up to now.*

 

[royal_archer]

However, how does a legally recognised union between two persons of the same gender affect our understanding of the sacrament of marriage? What impact does it actually have on marriage since it isn’t actually marriage that these two same-gender people can contract between each other? (At least, it’s not what we call sacramental marriage)

Is it just that same-sex couples wish to co-opt the word ‘marriage’? What difference does it make to our beliefs and our religion if the Government chooses to legislate for certain groups of people with whom we have nothing in common?

This is what I refer to as the watering down of the deffinition. There are also other cases of outsiders taking one of our terms and misapplying it and watering down it’s meaning. Just look at non catholics who call themselves christian even though they are in open opposition to Christ’s church. I am just not convinced that using legislation is the right answer to that problem.

 

[royal_archer]

The social data bearing on this issue of same-sex “marriage” strike me as meager: as the US Bishops say, we don’t know what will happen if the definition of marriage is added to (Marriage and Same-Sex Unions, question 7).

Given that the data simply aren’t there, opinions on this matter, for the time being, can only be justified on the basis of principle. The side in favor has a pretty good case, since it seems reasonable to believe that same-sex “marriage” will make society more equal and will contribute to a social atmosphere in which LGBT persons are no longer thought of as vicious extra-terrestrials.

What does the side in opposition to same-sex “marriage” have to offer, aside from scare quotes and rhetoric? As Marc Anthony points out, if you ask someone why he or she thinks same-sex unions should not be recognized by the law, you will be told that such unions are “wrong.” But to get from “wrong” to “not recognized by the law,” you need a premise that says, at the very least, that all things being equal, anything wrong (in the same way that same-sex unions are wrong) should never be recognized by the law.

How plausible is that premise? I won’t argue for it. I will say, however, that while its validity depends critically on the meaning of “wrong,” it is not trivially false (thanks to the all-things-being-equal clause), and it draws some weak support from the common reasons people have for exclaiming “There ought to be a law against that!”

The arguements for same sex unions strike me as meager and those who support it only offer scare quotes and rhetoric. Same sex unions by deffinition are not marriages. Where is it in societies best interest to grant legal status to lies?

 

[chrysostim83]

The arguements for same sex unions strike me as meager and those who support it only offer scare quotes and rhetoric. Same sex unions by deffinition are not marriages. Where is it in societies best interest to grant legal status to lies?

Jonathan Rauch and John Corvino, to name only two writers, both have arguments in favor of same-sex “marriage” which amount to more than scare quotes and rhetoric. (Rauch is actually well worth reading since he questions the notion that romantic attachment is what makes marriage socially significant.)

In any case, it is well to sympathize with the desire for equality that drives many gay activists’ case for gay “marriage,” first because equality is genuinely desirable and second because without such sympathy it is easy to give the impression that you think LGBT persons are inferior to the rest of us and undeserving of “a shot at happy.”

Finally, about the law recognizing lies, I can’t help wondering if society hasn’t already served the common good by sometimes doing precisely that.

 

[mardukm]

The legality or illegality of something has always been based on its social impact - is it good for society or not.

I think the argument that allowing gays legal marriage status promotes a social mentality of justice and fairness is absolutely ludicrous.

Whether a person is married or not has absolutely no bearing on modern society’s notions of justice and fairness. That may have been the case in a more victorian age, but western society does not think that way anymore, nor does it (especially through the media) promote such mental attitudes. So the liberal school are just hypocrites in proposing this argument.

I think the greatest impact on society is the effect it will have on future generations - generations that will be more and more immersed in the nonsensical, hypocritical confusion of liberal thinking, where there will no longer be any objective moral Truth.

Blessings

 

[iArrogance]

The legality or illegality of something has always been based on its social impact - is it good for society or not.

I think the argument that allowing gays legal marriage status promotes a social mentality of justice and fairness is absolutely ludicrous.

Whether a person is married or not has absolutely no bearing on modern society’s notions of justice and fairness. That may have been the case in a more victorian age, but western society does not think that way anymore, nor does it (especially through the media) promote such mental attitudes. So the liberal school are just hypocrites in proposing this argument.

I think the greatest impact on society is the effect it will have on future generations - generations that will be more and more immersed in the nonsensical, hypocritical confusion of liberal thinking, where there will no longer be any objective moral Truth.

Blessings

How is denying two people the right to marry moral? If anything, teaching that gay marriage is wrong is only spreading hypocrisy, violent tendencies, and hate, despite that preachers and authorities in the religion might say “having a homosexual orientation is not wrong”. Withholding rights from human beings will have a negative effect on future generations.

Racism works the same way. When rights to African-Americans were withheld for so long, it promoted the tenancy for children to be brought up in a racist demeanor, thinking that those humans were not worth as much as other humans. Are not all humans born the same way with the same rights?

 

[royal_archer]

Jonathan Rauch and John Corvino, to name only two writers, both have arguments in favor of same-sex “marriage” which amount to more than scare quotes and rhetoric. (Rauch is actually well worth reading since he questions the notion that romantic attachment is what makes marriage socially significant.)

In any case, it is well to sympathize with the desire for equality that drives many gay activists’ case for gay “marriage,” first because equality is genuinely desirable and second because without such sympathy it is easy to give the impression that you think LGBT persons are inferior to the rest of us and undeserving of “a shot at happy.”

Finally, about the law recognizing lies, I can’t help wondering if society hasn’t already served the common good by sometimes doing precisely that.

Equity is being able to do the same thing, not doing something different and calling it the same thing because you do not like the deffinition. Gay men are allowed to marry women and gay women are allowed to marry men. So they are getting equal treatment; there is no inequity. They are also entitled for a shot at happiness. Not everyone is able to marry the person of their dreams. We all have to settle for someone. If two desireable women take themselves off the market by forming a domestic partnership, aren’t they denying two men a shot at happiness?

 

[royal_archer]

How is denying two people the right to marry moral? If anything, teaching that gay marriage is wrong is only spreading hypocrisy, violent tendencies, and hate, despite that preachers and authorities in the religion might say “having a homosexual orientation is not wrong”. Withholding rights from human beings will have a negative effect on future generations.

Racism works the same way. When rights to African-Americans were withheld for so long, it promoted the tenancy for children to be brought up in a racist demeanor, thinking that those humans were not worth as much as other humans. Are not all humans born the same way with the same rights?

No one is trying to deny gays rights. The only arguement comes when they try to define a gay relationship as something it is not. and then try to use government to force others to recognize something that is immoral.

Even the church states that it is not a sin to have same sex attraction. What is imorral is when someone acts on it. What is wrong in a secular setting is when those engaged in that lifestyle want to force that lifestyle on others via exposure to it.

 

[Benadam]

The state can’t add or change laws that operate before it and from which it recieved it’s form. A bond is a law. Animals form pair bonds that modify their behavior so that they will make babies instead of kell each other. It provides a safe environment for reproduction and raising of young. It’s a law that pre-exists the state.

The marital bond is the law that created a safe eneough environment for human society to develop governing bodies to serve it’s needs. To serve the needs of society structured on law that binds men and women in matrimony is the purpose of the state because it that society in which it finds it’s origin

 

[mardukm]

How is denying two people the right to marry moral? If anything, teaching that gay marriage is wrong is only spreading hypocrisy, violent tendencies, and hate, despite that preachers and authorities in the religion might say “having a homosexual orientation is not wrong”. Withholding rights from human beings will have a negative effect on future generations.

Exactly what “right to marry” are you talking about? I’ve never heard of a “right to marry” for two men or two women. A right has to exist first for it to be denied. You can’t just arbitrarily create a nonsensical right out of thin air and then claim it is being denied.

Racism works the same way. When rights to African-Americans were withheld for so long, it promoted the tenancy for children to be brought up in a racist demeanor, thinking that those humans were not worth as much as other humans. Are not all humans born the same way with the same rights?

That’s a non-sequitur. Africans had human rights in African society that were not recognized by some Western white societies within that white society. It was a matter of ensuring basic and established human rights no matter what societal setting a person of any race found themselves in. As already mentioned, unless you can show the existence of the right to marry for two men or two women in the past, then it is absolute nonsense to argue that gays are being “denied rights.”

A more appropriate comparison is if I urinate in public, get arrested, and then complain, “I have a right to urinate in public!!! My rights have been denied!!!” I then start a public campaign to convince people that I had this made-up right in the first place. The liberal argument is simply ludicrous.

Blessings

 

[fuse81110]

I might be the only one here, but I’m personally for Gay Marriage, if it’s done in the civil court. Same Sex marraige in churches would be one thing, but I don’t have a problem with two people in love, wanting to get married by the state.

 

[inocente]

I think the greatest impact on society is the effect it will have on future generations - generations that will be more and more immersed in the nonsensical, hypocritical confusion of liberal thinking, where there will no longer be any objective moral Truth.

The Church’s case against (here), approved by John Paul II with Cardinal Ratzinger as prefect, contains your argument in III.6 – ‘Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.’

Here are some of the counter arguments:

1. 
   *]Youngsters are exposed to materialism, drug pushers, a daily diet of violence on TV and in video games and so on. These are far worse than any possible impact of recognizing homosexual unions.
   *]The institution of marriage is already badly devalued. Many people now treat it as a convenience or don’t even bother in the first place. One of the root causes is a promiscuous lifestyle, which is promoted by denying union to homosexuals. Legalizing homosexual unions strengthens, not weakens, the institution.
   *]Civil laws certainly influence patterns of thought and behavior, and laws that isolate a group of citizens without just cause are divisive. The just cause in this case appears to be the questionable claim (even for heteros) that the main purpose of marriage is “procreation and raising children” (III.8).
   *]It isn’t immediately obvious which moral values would be obscured, or how.
   *]Earlier in III.6 there is a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell argument (“one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law”). Then the claim that it “would result in changes to the entire organization of society” is protesting too much, an apocalypse now exaggeration to frighten the horses.
   
   Whatever you think of these counter arguments, the current Spanish government (see my post #21) was voted into office by an overwhelmingly Catholic electorate even though it promised to legalize homosexual unions, and after the change two thirds of citizens said they approved - the Church prepared its case well in advance but did not manage to convince the majority of Catholics here.

 

[mardukm]

I might be the only one here, but I’m personally for Gay Marriage, if it’s done in the civil court. Same Sex marraige in churches would be one thing, but I don’t have a problem with two people in love, wanting to get married by the state.

That’s a dangerous slippery slope. Divorcing state law from religious morals has resulted in the murder of millions of unborn children, and the euthanising of individuals which certain societies/countries have deemed to be “useless.” While what you’re saying seems sensible, I simply can’t agree with actions that push society further along down the slope of moral relativism and degradation.

Blessings

 

[royal_archer]

I might be the only one here, but I’m personally for Gay Marriage, if it’s done in the civil court. Same Sex marraige in churches would be one thing, but I don’t have a problem with two people in love, wanting to get married by the state.

Do you believe individual Christians Jews and Muslims should be forced by law to recognize that , union with all the respect they would grant to a real marriage?

 

[Benadam]

Do you believe individual Christians Jews and Muslims should be forced by law to recognize that , union with all the respect they would grant to a real marriage?

That’s the thing. There is such a thing as a matrimonial bond. it doesn’t require ‘falling in love’, In fact love isn’t the defining factor of any human bond since love is supposed to characterize all human relationships.

Our culture has adopted llifestyles that leave the intellect unexercised. The natural law that it is able to apprehend is increasingly enveloped in the dark of unconsciouness. Enabling the enmotional needs of people who want their bond to be more than what it can be only serves tio submerge the real thing, something that’s real and vital to human nature. That’s the real problem too. Most people are completely unaware that there is such a thing as the matrimonial bond. Why would they demy any two that wish their experience of attatchement be called a marriage.

 

[royal_archer]

That’s the thing. There is such a thing as a matrimonial bond. it doesn’t require ‘falling in love’, In fact love isn’t the defining factor of any human bond since love is supposed to characterize all human relationships.

Our culture has adopted llifestyles that leave the intellect unexercised. The natural law that it is able to apprehend is increasingly enveloped in the dark of unconsciouness. Enabling the enmotional needs of people who want their bond to be more than what it can be only serves tio submerge the real thing, something that’s real and vital to human nature. That’s the real problem too. Most people are completely unaware that there is such a thing as the matrimonial bond. Why would they demy any two that wish their experience of attatchement be called a marriage.

But you didn’t answer the question. Should those of the major western religions be forced to recognize a relation that they feel is immoral and not a marriage?

 

[Benadam]

But you didn’t answer the question. Should those of the major western religions be forced to recognize a relation that they feel is immoral and not a marriage?

Since they can’t recognize a bond that doesn’t exist. No.

 

[rossum]

Do you believe individual Christians Jews and Muslims should be forced by law to recognize that , union with all the respect they would grant to a real marriage?

This is not a new problem. Catholics do not recognise divorce, while civil marriage does. Two divorced people who have a civil marriage are recognised as married by law but are not so recognised by the Catholic Church.

If a Catholic worked for a secular company that offered discounts to married people, then that worker would reasonably be expected to offer those discounts to two legally remarried divorcees. This despite that fact that s/he may not consider those two people properly married for religious purposes. They are married in law, but not in church. In civil matters they are considered as married.

How does this situation differ from a legally recognised same-sex marriage that is not recognised by the Catholic Church? In both cases Civil Law differs from Church Law. The issue is one that is already dealt with on a daily basis by many Catholics.

rossum

 

[royal_archer]

This is not a new problem. Catholics do not recognise divorce, while civil marriage does. Two divorced people who have a civil marriage are recognised as married by law but are not so recognised by the Catholic Church.

If a Catholic worked for a secular company that offered discounts to married people, then that worker would reasonably be expected to offer those discounts to two legally remarried divorcees. This despite that fact that s/he may not consider those two people properly married for religious purposes. They are married in law, but not in church. In civil matters they are considered as married.

How does this situation differ from a legally recognised same-sex marriage that is not recognised by the Catholic Church? In both cases Civil Law differs from Church Law. The issue is one that is already dealt with on a daily basis by many Catholics.

rossum

Two wrongs do not make a right. Moral people should not be forced to recognize any immoral marriage. If I want to have a company and give bennefits to legitimate spouses, it is my right to not give equal bennefits to non married couples regardless of what paper they have. The problem is that Gays are using the government to violate my rights by calling their union something it is not.

 

[rossum]

Moral people should not be forced to recognize any immoral marriage.

There are very many immoral marriages out there now, many more than just the same sex marriages. If you are claiming to treat all immoral marriages the same then why is there not an even bigger outcry over divorced people remarrying than over same sex marriage? Where are the Catholic campaigns against Britney Spears or Rush Limbaugh for the bad example they are setting with their unashamed immoral marriages?

If I want to have a company and give bennefits to legitimate spouses, it is my right to not give equal bennefits to non married couples regardless of what paper they have.

And if you are just an employee? How many Catholics work for companies that give benefits to improperly married couples?

The problem is that Gays are using the government to violate my rights by calling their union something it is not.

Two points. Firstly, what about Fundamentalist Mormons’ rights to define marriage their way? You are violating their rights be not allowing them multiple wives. You are guilty of the same thing.

Secondly, this argument is not about the word ‘marriage’ itself. In the UK marriage is for heterosexuals while homosexuals have ‘Civil Partnerships’. Despite this our Catholic bishops still speak out against Civil Partnerships. This argument is not about the meaning of a word that has had, and still has, many different meanings:* Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.

• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religions and by different legal entities.

rossum