Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I wasn’t talking about marriage at all but the fact that some things like a joint health plan are sometimes only available to married couples. That doesn’t relate to marriage but if two adult siblings wanted to share a health plan to save cosrs it is not really possible. That’d what I meant by some things that have been artificially tied to couples and marriage that kind of shouldn’t be.These restrictions on who can marry make clear first and foremost the accepted nature of marriage. Siblings can’t marry becsuse of the nature of marriage. Nothing to do with legal rights.
Ok, but I guess that’s a bit tangential!Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I wasn’t talking about marriage at all but the fact that some things like a joint health plan are sometimes only available to married couples. That doesn’t relate to marriage but if two adult siblings wanted to share a health plan to save cosrs it is not really possible. That’d what I meant by some things that have been artificially tied to couples and marriage that kind of shouldn’t be.
I have never claimed that civil marriage was not predated by or did not come about out of an effort to legally protect an existing institution. Why you are attempting to refute a contention I’ve never made, I don’t know, but I think it’s time to put this straw man to bed.The legal protections followed the realisation of the value of the institution - they are not the reason for it!
Actually, a qualifier is needed. Civil marriage and religious or sacramental marriage are separate entities that operate independently of each other. A couple can be married in the eyes of the law, but not the Church, as divorced Catholics well know.Marriage (which needs no qualifier) is a sexual institution upon which society builds itself through the establishment of families. It began long before Christian religion and the invention of legal protections for it.
This is really a big issue, is it? Is there a big need or push for legal rights and protections currently being denied to sibling relationships that I’m unaware of?Were “civil marriage” as you call it merely a set of legal provisions, it would be more widely available. It would not be denied to siblings, as an example, yet it is explicitly denied to siblings by statute, almost everywhere.
Interesting to whom? Quite frankly, this piece is not only so full of logical fallacies that I would hardly know where to begin, but it is also incredibly insulting in its evaluation of the nature of the human male and his apparent all consuming, wide ranging, unchecked desire for penetration. This is not just my opinion. I showed this article to my husband and he was appalled by it.Here is an interesting read on a closely related subject:
orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php
I am not. Your term “civil marriage” is not a “new institution”. It is a framework society agreed to attach to that which predated (to use your word) it. Just as marriage for centuries has historically been understood to be the coming together of man and woman, as nature intends and encourages, so the societal legal framework (“civil marriage”) has for almost all of its existence been applied within that very same context. Now, why would that be, were “civil marriage” actually just some new institution for bestowing some rights and responsibilities on persons not even to marry (as that term was understood for centuries)? You merely wish to “redefine” how “civil marriage” is understood to align with the current trend to redefine “marriage”.I have never claimed that civil marriage was not predated by or did not come about out of an effort to legally protect an existing institution. Why you are attempting to refute a contention I’ve never made, I don’t know, but I think it’s time to put this straw man to bed.
This distinction is valid but irrelevant to the discussion (I’ve not mentioned the religious ceremony / sacramental marriage at all). What you call “civil marriage” is a framework to support "marriage" (note I don’t write “sacramental marriage” - only you used that term). The framework of “civil marriage” was not created for any other purpose. It exists to codify rights and obligations that society wishes to establish as applying to those who enter “marriage”.Actually, a qualifier is needed. Civil marriage and religious or sacramental marriage are separate entities that operate independently of each other. A couple can be married in the eyes of the law, but not the Church, as divorced Catholics well know.
I suspect very little, but in asking this question, you miss the point entirely, or seek to deflect attention from it! The fact that the legal framework for marriage specifically excludes “related parties” (eg. siblings) makes *explicit *the true nature of the relationship of marriage. It makes clear that it is not merely a legal arrangement!…Is there a big need or push for legal rights and protections currently being denied to sibling relationships that I’m unaware of?
The article says no such thing and makes no generalised criticism of “human males”. The article quotes research by a distinguished professor about the nature of sexuality in ancient times:Interesting to whom? Quite frankly, this piece is … incredibly insulting in its evaluation of the nature of the human male and his apparent all consuming, wide ranging, unchecked desire for penetration.
Actually, that’s precisely what CIVIL Marriage does. It confers legal rights and responsibilities by means of a civil contract, which is legally enforceable. There are important distinctions to be made between civil and sacramental marriage, between legal and religious. You fail to acknowledge any such distinction when discussing marriage. That’s the problem.
I should add to this that, to the faithful Catholic, there is no true distinction between a “civil” marriage and a “sacramental” marriage, when it comes to the baptized. If there exists a true marriage, then it’s also a sacramental marriage. But if the sacrament is excluded, there exists no true marriage whatsoever. Every true marriage among Christians is a sacrament. Leave out the sacrament, and there’s no marriage. Cf. Leo XIII, Arcanum. In other words, the difference between civil and sacramental marriages is really superfluous; there only exists “marriage”, and a couple is either married or not.Marriage (which needs no qualifier) is a sexual institution upon which society builds itself through the establishment of families. It began long before Christian religion and the invention of legal protections for it. The legal protections followed the realisation of the value of the institution - they are not the reason for it!
Were “civil marriage” as you call it merely a set of legal provisions, it would be more widely available. It would not be denied to siblings, as an example, yet it is explicitly denied to siblings by statute, almost everywhere.
Here is an interesting read on a closely related subject:
orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php
Legal benefits are not owed to those who are, in reality, moral criminals. Seeking legal protection for what is morally execrable is not a legitimate motivation for any movement whatsoever. Hence the argument fails.Sorry, but you’re completely wrong, You are obviously trying to downplay the legal benefits of marriage in an attempt to discredit the need for legal protections as a legitimate motivation behind the fight for marriage equality. The problem is you’re making false claims in order to do so.
As valuable as that might be, I think much of it is *tangential *to the main point. Legal frameworks were instituted to support “marriage” - not to define something new. The idea to “define something new”, or to “redefine marriage”, is an extraordinarily recent one, just some decades old.Seeing all of these responses, I can’t help but think that a little exposition of Catholic doctrine might go a long way here, which I will do below.
Definition of Marriage: The lawful and life-long union of man and woman, instituted by God for the begetting and upbringing of children, as well as the mutual support and friendship of the spouses.
Primary Purpose of Marriage: The primary purpose of marriage is the begetting and upbringing of children.
Other Purposes of Marriage: Other purposes of marriage are the mutual friendship of the spouses, the support for one another as they grow old, and as a remedy for concupiscence.
Goods of Marriage: There are three goods of marriage: offspring, fidelity, and sacrament.
Sacramental Nature of Marriage: Marriage is one of the seven sacraments of the New Law. Every true marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament.
Matter of the Sacrament: The matter of this sacrament is the marriage contract itself.
Form of this Sacrament: The form of this sacrament is that which is laid down by the legitimate authority for contracting and solemnizing marriage.
Impediments to Marriage: Impediments to marriage arise either out of the nature of marriage (intrinsic impediments), or those imposed by the legitimate authority (extrinsic impediments). These impediments can be broken down into what were traditionally called diriment impediments, which render a marriage null, and so-called impeding impediments (redundant, I know), which render a marriage illicit, but not null. Furthermore, impediments can be distinguished as remote impediments, when the impediment is with who is contracting, and proximate impediments, when the impediment is with what is contracted. The three remote impediments of the natural law that render a marriage null are lack of the use of reason (violates the contractual nature of marriage), perpetual and antecedent impotence (physical inability to consummate the marriage; renders the fulfillment of the debt contracted impossible), and existing marriage (violates the properties of monogamy and indissolubility. The proximate impediments arising out of the natural law which nullify a marriage are: refusal to have children (violates the first good), intention to marry another (violates the second good), intention of not remaining married till death (violates the third good). Other impediments have been added by the legitimate authority. [Note: The distinction between remote and proximate impediments is my own, and does not belong to the corpus of canon law or Sacred Doctrine. Nevertheless, I have found it useful to distinguish thus.]
Legitimate Authority Concerning Marriage: Since marriage is a sacrament, the Church has the sole and exclusive right of regulating marriage between Christians, or at least Catholics.
This is the Catholic doctrine concerning marriage, both in itself and as a sacrament.
I hope this helps,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
I don’t know why you think I’m redefining it here. I’m just giving a definition here that’s fully in accord with traditional Catholic teaching. I understand it’s tangential in a way, but given that there seems to be some confusion on the other side as to what the true doctrine concerning marriage is, I thought I should make it painfully obvious.As valuable as that might be, I think much of it is *tangential *to the main point. Legal frameworks were instituted to support “marriage” - not to define something new. The idea to “define something new”, or to “redefine marriage”, is an extraordinarily recent one, just some decades old.
I didn’t say you were. Modern society is hard at work to redefine it. Read the recent dialogue between me and Sarah…I don’t know why you think I’m redefining it here.
So what? Post-menopausal women cannot procreate. Do they get an automatic annulment from the Church because they cannot procreate? Some severely injured veterans cannot procreate because of their injuries, do they have to divorce their wives?No, but pointing out that queers cannot procreate is, from whichever sex they come from.
Inability to procreate is not the definitive issue. Post 31 and 32 addressed this.So what? Post-menopausal women cannot procreate. Do they get an automatic annulment from the Church because they cannot procreate? Some severely injured veterans cannot procreate because of their injuries, do they have to divorce their wives?
Your argument fails because the “cannot procreate” group includes a large number of non-homosexuals.
Of course, many homosexuals are capable of procreating – they are fertile – but choose not to.
rossum
What an odd statement! I expect almost all are capable of playing their part in procreation, it’s just that as a couple in a sexual relationship, absolutely none are able to procreate!…Of course, many homosexuals are capable of procreating – they are fertile – but choose not to.
That is the correct answer, in a nutshell.No, but pointing out that queers cannot procreate is, from whichever sex they come from.
Post-menopausal women cannot procreate either. Do they all have to get an annulment? Can they no longer have marital relations with their husbands?That is the correct answer, in a nutshell.
First of all, “civil marriage” is not my term, as you say. And I have never referred to it as a “new institution.” Those are your words. All I have pointed out is that it is distinct from religious marriage in that it functions independently of it. Challenges to its restrictions are rightly addressed on a legal basis by our judicial system. If tradition dictated the constraints of civil marriage, we would not have inter-racial marriage today.I am not. Your term “civil marriage” is not a “new institution”. It is a framework society agreed to attach to that which predated (to use your word) it. Just as marriage for centuries has historically been understood to be the coming together of man and woman, as nature intends and encourages, so the societal legal framework (“civil marriage”) has for almost all of its existence been applied within that very same context. Now, why would that be, were “civil marriage” actually just some new institution for bestowing some rights and responsibilities on persons not even to marry (as that term was understood for centuries)? You merely wish to “redefine” how “civil marriage” is understood to align with the current trend to redefine “marriage”.
It doesn’t surprise me, given your point of view, that you haven’t talked about religious ceremony or sacramental marriage. I don’t see how that is at all significant other than to highlight your desire to obscure any distinction between religious and civil marriage. What you fail to acknowledge is that marriage has been redefined time and time again, and drastically. The marriage laws we have today that treat husband and wife as equal partners in marriage has never existed before. It is a completely novel concept. When you say that marriage has only ever been recognized as the union of a man and woman, you’re being very myopic in your evaluation, as it has been altered in almost every other respect.This distinction is valid but irrelevant to the discussion (I’ve not mentioned the religious ceremony / sacramental marriage at all). What you call “civil marriage” is a framework to support “marriage” (note I don’t write “sacramental marriage” - only you used that term). The framework of “civil marriage” was not created for any other purpose. It exists to codify rights and obligations that society wishes to establish as applying to those who enter “marriage”.
It’s rather ironic that you acknowledge civil marriage as existing solely to serve an existing institution and thus an existing need, but accuse me of deflecting attention away from a legal concern that doesn’t really exist. On the other hand, the need for legal rights and protections has been a real and pressing need for gay couples who have found themselves completely unprotected by existing law, and thus suffering the adverse consequences. Have you suggested any alternative to address these needs, or is it of any concern to you?I suspect very little, but in asking this question, you miss the point entirely, or seek to deflect attention from it! The fact that the legal framework for marriage specifically excludes “related parties” (eg. siblings) makes explicit the true nature of the relationship of marriage. It makes clear that it is not merely a legal arrangement!
The article says no such thing and makes no generalised criticism of “human males”. The article quotes research by a distinguished professor about the nature of sexuality in ancient times: "As Martha Nussbaum, professor of philosophy at Brown University, recently wrote, the ancients were no more concerned with people’s gender preference than people today are with others’ eating preferences:
**Ancient categories of sexual experience differed considerably from our own… The central distinction in sexual morality was the distinction between active and passive roles. The gender of the object… is [was] not in itself morally problematic. Boys and women are very often treated interchangeably as objects of [male] desire. What is socially important is [was] to penetrate rather than to be penetrated. Sex is [was] understood fundamentally not as interaction, but as a doing of some thing to someone…"
It then goes on to describe how Judaism changed all that (and Christianity maintained that change).**
Let’s not pretend this article is a mere anthology of the research on sexual mores of the ancient world that leads one to certain unmistakable conclusions, based on the evidence. This is an opinion piece by Dennis Prager who utilizes the research in an attempt to support a very particular point of view.
You claim that he makes no generalizations about male sexuality. The fourth paragraph of the article states the following:
Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals.
It goes on, but only gets worse from there. I would say he is very clear in expressing his opinion. Male sexuality must be channeled through and sublimated in marriage or civilized society could not exist. What does that say about the nature of male sexuality? And quite oddly this focus makes the concern for the conception of and nurture of children a secondary concern of marriage. It seems the main point of marriage, according to Mr. Prager is to control/channel/sublimate the sexual appetite of men.
And in pointing out the distinction in ceremonies and form (which are obvious), you conveniently forget the fundamental - both are about “marriage”.… All I have pointed out is that it is distinct from religious marriage in that it functions independently of it. Challenges to its restrictions are rightly addressed on a legal basis by our judicial system…
I kind of think “man + woman” is a pretty basic characteristic of marriage don’t you think? For centuries, society modified the legal and social framework, but left the defining element alone.…When you say that marriage has only ever been recognized as the union of a man and woman, you’re being very myopic in your evaluation, as it has been altered in almost every other respect.
Yes, on many occasions. owever, pretending to “marry” or “redefining the fundamental meaning of marriage” is not something I’d suggest. Persons ineligible to marry require a legal framework to provide relevant legal rights, that might go to issues such as sharing assets, mutual care and the like, I would be entirely open to that. Such an arrangement of course is not specific to “gay couples”.…On the other hand, the need for legal rights and protections has been a real and pressing need for gay couples who have found themselves completely unprotected by existing law, and thus suffering the adverse consequences. Have you suggested any alternative to address these needs, or is it of any concern to you?
Sarah - it’s off-putting, but not untrue.Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals.
Does the Church not teach that the proper and only place for ALL sexual relations is marriage? That seems to be in the best interests of individuals, families and for the upbringing of children. It seems entirely consistent with the proper direction of the development of society.…sexuality must be channeled through and sublimated in marriage or civilized society could not exist.
This is a specifically Catholic viewpoint which is not shared by all Christians. Lutherans, for example, do not consider marriage to be a sacrament. We only have two or possibly three sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper) and possibly penance or confession.Every true marriage among Christians is a sacrament. Leave out the sacrament, and there’s no marriage. Cf. Leo XIII, Arcanum. In other words, the difference between civil and sacramental marriages is really superfluous; there only exists “marriage”, and a couple is either married or not.
Your questions have been answered in earlier posts, 73 and 74 to name a couple, ie, about 2 posts before yours, so it shouldn’t be too hard to find for you.Post-menopausal women cannot procreate either. Do they all have to get an annulment? Can they no longer have marital relations with their husbands?
This thread is looking for a “good argument”. That is not a good argument.
rossum