Marriage has *always* been changing

[catholic1seeks]

Having same-sex attraction as an inherit condition changes nothing whatsoever in so far as whether or not it is metaphysically possible for same sex people to be wedded, or whether homosexual relations are moral or immoral. I could sit here and make a 10-page list of inherit temptations that would not promote the benefit of the self or of mankind. The Church does not use guttural urges as its compass for determining morality, but the actions & habits that are necessary in order to fulfill mankind’s destiny and meaning of life, which is fidelity & union with her Creator.

I disagree. Having an innate inclination to sin does not justify sin or tell us that the act to which the inclination is ordered to is thereby good. Of course. However, I think that the Church’s past doctrinal development was greatly influenced by assumptions and what it was aware of. Kind of like the Galileo incident; the Earth was the center of the Universe until proven otherwise. Now we have more information, which I think is good reason for us to scratch out heads and really wonder how well the Church’s traditional sexual morality and anthropology fits reality.

 

[TK421]

I disagree. Having an innate inclination to sin does not justify sin or tell us that the act to which the inclination is ordered to is thereby good. Of course. However, I think that the Church’s past doctrinal development was greatly influenced by assumptions and what it was aware of. Kind of like the Galileo incident; the Earth was the center of the Universe until proven otherwise. Now we have more information, which I think is good reason for us to scratch out heads and really wonder how well the Church’s traditional sexual morality and anthropology fits reality.

Pastorally, I would say that you are perfectly correct. Morally, when you have a heterosexual population that is fornicating and contracepting and divorcing and remarrying, and then you have a much smaller community of homosexuals who are treated with contempt, does that really make any sense? Isn’t that hypocrisy? What authority do we have to glance over the one but look at the other with special contempt? We don’t, and the Church understands this today in a way that she didn’t understand it in past centuries. So, she is increasingly approaching the issue of same-sex attraction differently than what she did in the past. But approaching something differently does not at all mean that doctrine is changing.

The secular liberal world’s answer to this hypocrisy would be to allow, and maybe even encourage, both. The Catholic Church’s answer is to fall back on her teachings of human sexuality and continue to defend the sanctity of marriage. Roe vs Wade didn’t end the battle over abortion and this most recent ruling by the court certainly isn’t going to end the battle over marriage. It will continue.

 

[pianistclare]

No we look to the teachings of Jesus and His Church, the Catholic Church. God does not change.

That’s it. Plain and simple.
We cannot re-write theology to suit the times.
God ordained it one way.
All the rest is posturing and justification.

 

[john_ennis]

Re-reading the original post, it is a peculiar kind of logic. Marriage has varied in many ways, it says. But it has always been male-female. Therefore it’s logical to assume that the male-female aspect is superficial.

In fact, the variability in ways marriage has been understood, suggests that the very thing which has not varied is probably fundamental to it.

In other words, if homosexuality were not fundamentally at odds with true marriage, certainly some cultures, over the millennia, would have had homosexual marriage. After all, the idea that no others ever tolerated same-sex relationships as we do, is untrue.

 

[Operalan]

[That’s it. Plain and simple.
We cannot re-write theology to suit the times.
God ordained it one way.
All the rest is posturing and justification.]

AMEN!

 

[Operalan]

It’s really quite simple. Only a Male and a Female can produce children. Marriage, in the eye of the Church is partially for this purpose. Man with man or woman with woman can not change this. It goes against natural law. Marriage and the fostering of the human species, is between man and woman. Children have a natural right to having a mother and a father.

And, I’m still waiting for proof that we all are attracted to our own sex as was proposed much earlier on in this thread.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hmm I am a little dismayed by some of the responses so far, and they cause me to wonder whether or not my initial post was read in full. Simply referring to marriage as always male and female or referring to church teaching is highlighting some of the things I was concerned about in my post. I think we look at the past and what marriage is too simplistically when we say it has always been the same for all places and times. The male and female aspect is obviously explained by the fact that most people are heterosexual. A heterosexual male is not going to marry a man in the first place.

Most people still are heterosexual. Only like 2% are not. Yet, even so, it does not change the fact that marriage was always male female. Even in pagan Rome were homosexuality was more common and accepted and celebrated than our current culture, even there marriage was male female.

Marriage has a definition. It pertains to a male female commitment for stability of children and forming of family.

The definition has been redefined.

It’s no different than changing the definition of any other word.

For example: the definition of pizza is a round dough with toppings, traditionally cheese, sauce and meats and vegetables. If we now want ice cream to be called pizza too, then pizza still exists it just is now confusing as to what it is and what it refers to.

 

[GratefulFred]

The reproductive organs are ordered to male-female union, not SSA.

The Bible is the Bible because we accept it as the inspired word of God. It is how God has revealed Himself to us and states what He expects of us. Both the Old and New Testaments talk in terms of traditional marriage. And both condemn, prohibit SS actions. It is not St Paul commenting on the society he knew (if he only knew what we know) but rather St Paul wrote what God - the Holy Spirit - inspired him to write.

The 4th Commandment is “Honor Thy Father and Mother.” It is not Honor thy father and father. The traditional family is the basic foundation of society. Damage or destroy enough traditional families and we damage or destroy society.

We all struggle with temptations of all sorts. Quite often it is a hard struggle. Desires are hard to discipline so that we can live in accordance with the Bible. BUT, we are charged to try our best, to not give up. Christ gave us the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist to encourage us to keep trying to live by His standards.

For many reasons, a good number of men and women have given up trying to live up to God’s expectations throughout history. We often want God’s expectations lowered so we do not feel so guilty. We want approval of our behavior.

Many want to rewrite God’s rules to please themselves. The Episcopal Church in America just did. Many fail to accept God’s rules and to fail teach them to the following generations who then find it easier to ignore God’s rules. We do NOT accept personal “rewrites” in math even if 10 million people agree that 2+2 should now equal 5. Well, the old 2+2=4 crowd can continue, but the majority now say 2+2=5 is the new rule.

Perhaps the basic issue is whether we truly believe that there is a God. That we have an immortal soul. That Jesus Christ is the Living Son of God. That we will be judged by our effort to follow Christ. That we risk eternal damnation when we see Christ and choose to follow man instead.

We cannot judge each other. All we can do is try to explain why we do our best to follow Christ. That others in history failed to follow Christ as well as they might have is no justification for us to give up trying. The Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist are key to our struggle.

See 2 Timothy 4: 1-5.

 

[pianistclare]

[That’s it. Plain and simple.
We cannot re-write theology to suit the times.
God ordained it one way.
All the rest is posturing and justification.]

AMEN!

Yes. We conform to God. God does not to conform to us.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Pastorally, I would say that you are perfectly correct. Morally, when you have a heterosexual population that is fornicating and contracepting and divorcing and remarrying, and then you have a much smaller community of homosexuals who are treated with contempt, does that really make any sense? Isn’t that hypocrisy? What authority do we have to glance over the one but look at the other with special contempt? We don’t, and the Church understands this today in a way that she didn’t understand it in past centuries. So, she is increasingly approaching the issue of same-sex attraction differently than what she did in the past. But approaching something differently does not at all mean that doctrine is changing.

The secular liberal world’s answer to this hypocrisy would be to allow, and maybe even encourage, both. The Catholic Church’s answer is to fall back on her teachings of human sexuality and continue to defend the sanctity of marriage. Roe vs Wade didn’t end the battle over abortion and this most recent ruling by the court certainly isn’t going to end the battle over marriage. It will continue.

I wish that everyone in the Church who maintains that homosexuality is sinful saw it like this. Because the Church (church) could sure be a lot more pastoral.

 

[catholic1seeks]

That’s it. Plain and simple.
We cannot re-write theology to suit the times.
God ordained it one way.
All the rest is posturing and justification.

Not *that *simple. I am not talking about the doctrine of marriage in itself but the arguments and language used.The subject of this thread is dealing with those arguments about marriage concerning its universality throughout human history.

 

[catholic1seeks]

And, I’m still waiting for proof that we all are attracted to our own sex as was proposed much earlier on in this thread.

You won’t find any proof for this because not everyone is attracted to their own sex. Most people are heterosexual. Hence, marriage as we know it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Most people still are heterosexual. Only like 2% are not. Yet, even so, it does not change the fact that marriage was always male female. Even in pagan Rome were homosexuality was more common and accepted and celebrated than our current culture, even there marriage was male female.

Marriage has a definition. It pertains to a male female commitment for stability of children and forming of family.

The definition has been redefined.

It’s no different than changing the definition of any other word.

For example: the definition of pizza is a round dough with toppings, traditionally cheese, sauce and meats and vegetables. If we now want ice cream to be called pizza too, then pizza still exists it just is now confusing as to what it is and what it refers to.

The idea is that marriage has been male-female because, as you pointed out, the vast majority of people are heterosexual. Evolutionary and biologically, we can say that people are attracted to the opposite sex so that they will want to have sex and continue the human population. Marriage has been understood differently in various cultures; the common denominator has been the basic familial structure that every marriage is able to form. But I would say that if 50% of the human population were to be homosexual, at any given time, then marriage would be understood differently simply because of the numbers.

One might say that such an arrangement would not matter because marriage as one man - one woman is a divine establishment from the get-go. But that is the assumption one brings to this conversation, even if founded on church teaching or your interpretation of the Scriptures.

 

[jmcrae]

Has it not?

Not really, no.

Certainly, the secular experience of marriage is malleable (although it never involved people of the same sex before now, and it has never, up to this point, ever involved differing species, although I’m sure that’s coming soon, if man-boy marriage doesn’t get there first).

Jesus explains it very clearly - marriage was intended from the beginning to be between one man and one woman, for life. The purpose was to establish a family and provide a safe place for children to grow up and become well-adjusted citizens.

The fact that in some cultures people were polygamous, or that in some cultures it was about power, or love, or something other than what God created it for, doesn’t mean that God has ever changed His mind about what marriage is for - or who it is for.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Not really, no.

Jesus explains it very clearly - marriage was intended from the beginning to be between one man and one woman, for life. The purpose was to establish a family and provide a safe place for children to grow up and become well-adjusted citizens.

Now I don’t think Jesus necessarily said all that. If he did, his audience would have well known the male-female aspect of marriage, and that would not have needed to be emphasized. If I remember correctly, Jesus was responding to a question about divorce.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The idea is that marriage has been male-female because, as you pointed out, the vast majority of people are heterosexual. Evolutionary and biologically, we can say that people are attracted to the opposite sex so that they will want to have sex and continue the human population. Marriage has been understood differently in various cultures; the common denominator has been the basic familial structure that every marriage is able to form. But I would say that if 50% of the human population were to be homosexual, at any given time, then marriage would be understood differently simply because of the numbers.

One might say that such an arrangement would not matter because marriage as one man - one woman is a divine establishment from the get-go. But that is the assumption one brings to this conversation, even if founded on church teaching or your interpretation of the Scriptures.

We could say what ifs all day long… what if 100% of people were gay…well then I guess there would be no marriage at all.

The facts are the facts. Definitions to words exist to explain reality. In this case Marriage is a word that means something.

It means a male female union.

The court has no authority to say it means something else.

The reality is, that marriage is ordered toward children and any other definition is an injustice to the children.

You in your argument, and our culture describe a purely relational model for marriage with no thought of children. That is the root problem.

Perhaps this article could be helpful to you.

www.trenthorn.com/2013/02/22/same-sex-marriage-our-agreements-resolve-our-disagreement/

 

[pianistclare]

Not *that *simple. I am not talking about the doctrine of marriage in itself but the arguments and language used.The subject of this thread is dealing with those arguments about marriage concerning its universality throughout human history.

Well, it’s pretty clear what it’s about throughout human history. You don’t’ seem to want to believe or accept it.
Just because a society tears down a historic belief, doesn’t make it justifiable. Many cultures thought they could re-write morals. Think “Roman Empire”. Look what happened to them. And they had plenty of dissenting opinions about marriage and sexual exploits.
I wasn’t talking about doctrine either, BTW.

 

[DanielJT]

I’m curious as to what the OP catholic1seeks considers to be marriage?

Reading through the posts I see a theme that stresses the idea of “whomever I am attracted to, that is my marriage”?

I think that you are almost there when you note that throughout the ages most people have been heterosexual and thus society formed around the idea that marriage should be heterosexual. Certainly, society was built on and around the family.

Where I would disagree with you is that so called “homosexual marriage” gives nothing for society to form around at all. It is true marriage, natural marriage that is ordered towards procreation which builds society. It acts as a sort of cornerstone around which the rest gathers. The father sticks with the pregnant mother and the two rear the children together, coming up with various laws and protections for the good of the family. Where you would say that society grew around this idea as a matter of majority, I would say that society grew around this idea as a matter of necessity.

One might argue that families form outside of the marital bond. For instance a child that has been orphaned for some reason may find a home in another family’s house, be picked up and reared by an individual, etc. but I would say these “opportunistic” families happen only POST-society. Actual marriage and the rearing of children, being the cornerstone of society itself, come PRE-socity.

To say that two men are “married” is a misnomer and considered sinful for the very reason that it confuses what a stable society is built around, that being the natural family.

Where I think your true concern is coming from is the fact that those with same-sex attraction are still human and deserving of a place within the Church where Christ died for us all. And this is correct. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (not my words, but His) and though none are deserving, He still wants us all there. There are people that have sex outside of marriage, get divorced and remarried, and it seems like the Church does not bat an eye at those.

But in actuality, the Church does speak out against these things. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that these things have been so normalized by our culture that the Church, when it does speak, gets brushed aside and muffled out by the culture giant that is this world. And this is the what we need to pay attention to. The world is attempting to normalize same-sex attraction, because as soon as the culture giant of this world take it in it becomes very difficult to evangelize against it.

But the truth is that same-sex attraction, whether genetic or not, is disordered towards what it means to be a truly stable human family and community.

 

[Operalan]

You won’t find any proof for this because not everyone is attracted to their own sex. Most people are heterosexual. Hence, marriage as we know it.

My apologies—I had misread the earlier post and thought that it stated that all people were attracted to people of the SAME sex. Tired eyes, I guess, with all these threads. Again, my apologies.

 

[Rau]

Hmm I am a little dismayed by some of the responses so far, and they cause me to wonder whether or not my initial post was read in full. Simply referring to marriage as always male and female or referring to church teaching is highlighting some of the things I was concerned about in my post. I think we look at the past and what marriage is too simplistically when we say it has always been the same for all places and times. The male and female aspect is obviously explained by the fact that most people are heterosexual. A heterosexual male is not going to marry a man in the first place.

Is marriage a sexual institution? I think so. As far as I know, the nature and function of our sexual organs has changed little over the millennia. It always comes down to this, because that is what distinguishes marriage from friendships - however deep.