More same-sex marriage, but with a twist this time!

[Nevarlander]

(sorry I’ve been gone, final papers coming up )

What if you met a man you really wanted to marry?

I’m a lesbian, and she has problems with men that I’m not sure she can resolve anytime soon. To be quite honest that’s the main thing holding me back from taking the issue further right now: if we’re together so much, and she already trusts me, she might not feel like she needs to fix those trust issues. A few years with her teaching in town and me in school on the other side of the state might help her out. I’m 22 and she’s 21, so we’re probably a little young for this anyway.

So I’m realizing that in my case the answer ought to be no, don’t get married.

The problem I’m having here is the wider picture: the distinction between valid sacramental and simply “legal” marriages. Seeing as marriage in the eyes of the state is a financial/governmental matter, not at all sacramental*, and seeing as the only place it would show up in the cases of people who want to get married “for the insurance”, but maintain their separate lives, would be on the insurance forms and the clerk of court’s office, I have difficulty understanding how that would cause scandal, or how it’s “living a lie”, since it’s not a sacramental marriage that’s trying to image the Trinity.

It’s like going to the grocery store and buying condoms for whatever legitimate reason you might have (you’re using them as sheaths for a gun muzzle or something, idk). Does the dude checking out your groceries know, or care, that you’re Catholic? Well, he might if you’re wearing a massive crucifix. But as far as I can tell, the sin there isn’t buying them, but giving Grocery Boy the impression that you’re a good Catholic doing bad things, since people assume that the only reason someone buys condoms is to go and have sex and not get AIDS.

If this is a bad analogy let me know.

• To be honest I don’t think the state should be in the business of marrying people, I think that if, say, a mother and daughter live together like my grandmother and aunt did before they died, the two should have the legal rights a husband and wife do. But that’s neither here nor there, we’re talking about how things are.

 

[nmoerbeek]

(sorry I’ve been gone, final papers coming up )

I’m a lesbian, and she has problems with men that I’m not sure she can resolve anytime soon.

I would encourage you to not live with her anymore if you are a lesbian, it would definitely be an occasion of sin.

I would expect you to call me out on the same if I was living with a women who was just a friend.

 

[Nevarlander]

I would encourage you to not live with her anymore if you are a lesbian, it would definitely be an occasion of sin.

I would expect you to call me out on the same if I was living with a women who was just a friend.

I think it’s unfair to assume that if someone’s gay, that means they automatically want to have sex with everyone of their sex that comes along. As I said in that same post, I realized it would be a bad idea for other reasons relating to her maturity. Can we get back to the actual discussion of whether this is good on general grounds?

Sorry pot’s calling kettle and I keep bringing up my specific case, this is the last time.

 

[nmoerbeek]

I think it’s unfair to assume that if someone’s gay, that means they automatically want to have sex with everyone of their sex that comes along. As I said in that same post, I realized it would be a bad idea for other reasons relating to her maturity. Can we get back to the actual discussion of whether this is good on general grounds?

Sorry pot’s calling kettle and I keep bringing up my specific case, this is the last time.

There is no goodness at all in a marriage between two people of the same sex, period. If it is just a facade then it would be a lie, it it was genuine it would be a perversion.

It may be unfair but you are already in the sin of scandal if what you say is true the mere fact that you are a lesbian and you are living with another women it is the sin of scandal to the other women’s reputation. Remember you have brought this into the conversation and if I say nothing I will be complicit in the sin.

Also we love each other as a community here and we don’t want any of us to go to hell. So lets not dance on the edge of a cliff that could cause our souls to perish.

God Bless!

 

[gardenswithkids]

…* To be honest I don’t think the state should be in the business of marrying people, I think that if, say, a mother and daughter live together like my grandmother and aunt did before they died, the two should have the legal rights a husband and wife do. But that’s neither here nor there, we’re talking about how things are.

This might be the reason why you would even consider such an arrangement–because you don’t understand the reason why the state has an interest in marriage.

Marriage serves people beyond merely the husband and wife. Marriage helps create stable homes for the offspring of marriage: children. Children generally do best when living in a stable home with mother and father. Children are the future of the society and it is in society’s best interest that we do what we can to promote stable homes for children. It’s not only in the best interest of the children but it’s in the interest of all of us. Statistics show prison inmates are much more likely to come from homes without a father–and the prison populations seems to be growing as the illegitimacy rate grows. Society has not done a great job of that in recent years of promoting stable homes for children. Divorce is generally not good for children. I think the no-fault divorce laws largely started the re-defination of marriage when marriage no longer lasted a liftime, but that’s a different topic…

---

Speaking of different topics, you mentioned the situation of your grandmother and aunt. A similar scenario occured to me when I read your first post and I thought of the fundamental unfairness that our society would consider providing benefits to same-sex romantic relationships that adult family members do not have. Why would society provide benefits relationships based on a type of sexual behavior that cannot physically produce members of society (aka biological children) while leaving family members without a beneficial arrangement? I think it would be far more in society’s interest to provide some type of advantage for your grandmother and aunt rather than other same-sex relationship of two unrelated persons like you and your roommate. Of course what your grandmother and aunt had was not marriage either–but they were clearly family. I’ve had roomates and I have family. No matter how close or how well roommates get along, roommates are not family. In anycase, as you wrote that is off-topic…

 

[mangy_dog]

So one of my friends and I (we’re both women) are close enough that we’d be glad to live together for the rest of our lives once I’m finished with school. I suppose you could call it a “Boston marriage”, if they called it that these days

Imagining we settled down in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages or “domestic partnerships”, would it be all right that we get married to take advantage of the legal conveniences? We wouldn’t be going out and trying to pretend we had a sacramental marriage (we’re both Catholic), just having our “live in the same house, each other’s legal primary point of contact etc.” arrangement down on legal papers for our own safety.

I saw this on an episode of “Boston Legal”

 

[mesurman]

So one of my friends and I (we’re both women) are close enough that we’d be glad to live together for the rest of our lives once I’m finished with school. I suppose you could call it a “Boston marriage”, if they called it that these days

Imagining we settled down in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages or “domestic partnerships”, would it be all right that we get married to take advantage of the legal conveniences? We wouldn’t be going out and trying to pretend we had a sacramental marriage (we’re both Catholic), just having our “live in the same house, each other’s legal primary point of contact etc.” arrangement down on legal papers for our own safety.

Come on. Is this a joke. Are you Catholic? No you can’t live together.

 

[Wowbagger]

It seems to me that civil marriage and religious marriage no longer have anything to do with one another. As long as you (1) have no sex, (2) swear no oaths, and (3) cause no scandal (i.e. keep it private), I see no moral reason why you should not do this for the legal conveniences. This is clearly a minority opinion in this thread, but I think that’s only because the majority is still thinking of civil marriage has having something to do with sex, the family, God, and the body of Christ (the Church)–which, in reality, it no longer does.

In fact, in a time of increasing religious discrimination against Catholic institutions like convents, same-sex legal “marriage” contracting may be a convenient way to protect nuns and priests. Plus, it’s a great way to mock the pathetic shadow of nuptiality that now passes for civil “marriage” in this country.

There are prudential reasons why this could be wrong: if you or your friend are given to homosexual tendencies, then you definitely should not tempt yourself like this. And, if you ever want to get really married, a prior same-sex marriage could be legally troubling. But I see no absolute reason why this action should be objectively wrong.

Open to differing opinions.

 

[Schluns]

It seems to me that civil marriage and religious marriage no longer have anything to do with one another. As long as you (1) have no sex, (2) swear no oaths, and (3) cause no scandal (i.e. keep it private), I see no moral reason why you should not do this for the legal conveniences. This is clearly a minority opinion in this thread, but I think that’s only because the majority is still thinking of civil marriage has having something to do with sex, the family, God, and the body of Christ (the Church)–which, in reality, it no longer does.

In fact, in a time of increasing religious discrimination against Catholic institutions like convents, same-sex legal “marriage” contracting may be a convenient way to protect nuns and priests. Plus, it’s a great way to mock the pathetic shadow of nuptiality that now passes for civil “marriage” in this country.

There are prudential reasons why this could be wrong: if you or your friend are given to homosexual tendencies, then you definitely should not tempt yourself like this. And, if you ever want to get really married, a prior same-sex marriage could be legally troubling. But I see no absolute reason why this action should be objectively wrong.

Open to differing opinions.

Even Civil Marriage has connotations to it. However, entering into a legal contract is something completely different. Done properly by a good attorney, the only benefit the latter would not receive is an insurance benefit, and if that is the only reason for entering into a marriage contract of any type is violating the marriage contract, both in the Religious and civil definitions.

 

[ladybri77]

It seems to me that civil marriage and religious marriage no longer have anything to do with one another. As long as you (1) have no sex, (2) swear no oaths, and (3) cause no scandal (i.e. keep it private), I see no moral reason why you should not do this for the legal conveniences. This is clearly a minority opinion in this thread, but I think that’s only because the majority is still thinking of civil marriage has having something to do with sex, the family, God, and the body of Christ (the Church)–which, in reality, it no longer does.

In fact, in a time of increasing religious discrimination against Catholic institutions like convents, same-sex legal “marriage” contracting may be a convenient way to protect nuns and priests. Plus, it’s a great way to mock the pathetic shadow of nuptiality that now passes for civil “marriage” in this country.

There are prudential reasons why this could be wrong: if you or your friend are given to homosexual tendencies, then you definitely should not tempt yourself like this. And, if you ever want to get really married, a prior same-sex marriage could be legally troubling. But I see no absolute reason why this action should be objectively wrong.

Open to differing opinions.

Then they should call it something else. Everyone is trying to change the definition of what marriage should be these days.

 

[nmoerbeek]

I
Open to differing opinions.

No its not. Explain to me in one way how this action Loves God with all your heart, mind and soul.

 

[Wowbagger]

No its not.

I’m not open to differing opinions? I beg to differ!

Explain to me in one way how this action Loves God with all your heart, mind and soul.

I don’t think it has to. What civil law terms “marriage” in the modern era has nothing to do with actual marriage, with Christian marriage. They share the same name and a few cultural connotations, but everything about true marriage–vows, fidelity, heterosexuality, fertility, consummation–all of this has been abandoned by the civil order, especially in these states. All of it is now considered “optional” by the state. No truthful Christian can any longer apply the word “marriage” in the Christian sense to an interpersonal contract-union blessed only by our present secular state. To compare civil marriage and actual marriage is like comparing a drawing of a woman to an actual woman. To give any serious credence to a civil marriage would be like taking a group of atheist materialist anti-christians who wanted to call themselves “Christians” (for the purposes of societal recognition and equal rights, no doubt!) and letting them get away with it.

We have to get over this idea that just because these two institutions share the same name and have worked hand-in-hand with one another for thousands and thousands of years that they have anything to do with one another anymore. That kind of thinking leads to mass confusion, needlessly difficult apologetics, and confused posts like the one I’m responding to that treat a purely secular legal contract in the same way as a holy Christian sacrament instituted by God Himself.

IMHO.

 

[nmoerbeek]

I’m not open to differing opinions? I beg to differ!

I don’t think it has to. What civil law terms “marriage” in the modern era has nothing to do with actual marriage, with Christian marriage. They share the same name and a few cultural connotations, but everything about true marriage–vows, fidelity, heterosexuality, fertility, consummation–all of this has been abandoned by the civil order, especially in these states. All of it is now considered “optional” by the state. No truthful Christian can any longer apply the word “marriage” in the Christian sense to an interpersonal contract-union blessed only by our present secular state. To compare civil marriage and actual marriage is like comparing a drawing of a woman to an actual woman. To give any serious credence to a civil marriage would be like taking a group of atheist materialist anti-christians who wanted to call themselves “Christians” (for the purposes of societal recognition and equal rights, no doubt!) and letting them get away with it.

We have to get over this idea that just because these two institutions share the same name and have worked hand-in-hand with one another for thousands and thousands of years that they have anything to do with one another anymore. That kind of thinking leads to mass confusion, needlessly difficult apologetics, and confused posts like the one I’m responding to that treat a purely secular legal contract in the same way as a holy Christian sacrament instituted by God Himself.

IMHO.

Unfortunately your argument is the one leading to confusion. What you are suggesting is that we have two as opposed to one definition of marriage. I have heard this position before and it is contrary to the baptismal promises that a Catholic makes

Celebrant: Do you reject Satan?

Response: I do.

Celebrant: And all his works?

Response: I do.

Celebrant: And all his empty promises?

Response: I do.

If we are to live up to our baptismal promises we cannot use the justifications of the laws of the world or partake in their works our empty promises. This contract is not an imitation of the divine institution of marriage it is a mockery of it. Thus their cannot be two opinions on it. Only one truth

The truth is that a catholic can have NO PART of a homosexual union because by our mere presence at even a ceremony we would be giving approval to a union (or “contract”)
which in effect is a mockery of a divine institution, a celebration of satan’s work and an exchange empty promises.

But** if your arguments premise is that I or others here must step into darkness **of the world and start viewing things from a point of view other than that of the divine then your argument proves the point that in order to participate in this marriage would be to step into darkness.

Edit fixed grammar

 

[gardenswithkids]

What civil law terms “marriage” in the modern era has nothing to do with actual marriage, with Christian marriage. They share the same name and a few cultural connotations, but everything about true marriage–vows, fidelity, heterosexuality, fertility, consummation–all of this has been abandoned by the civil order, especially in these states. All of it is now considered “optional” by the state. No truthful Christian can any longer apply the word “marriage” in the Christian sense to an interpersonal contract-union blessed only by our present secular state. To compare civil marriage and actual marriage is like comparing a drawing of a woman to an actual woman. To give any serious credence to a civil marriage would be like taking a group of atheist materialist anti-christians who wanted to call themselves “Christians” (for the purposes of societal recognition and equal rights, no doubt!) and letting them get away with it.

We have to get over this idea that just because these two institutions share the same name and* have worked hand-in-hand with one another for thousands and thousands of years* that they have anything to do with one another anymore. That kind of thinking leads to mass confusion, needlessly difficult apologetics, and confused posts like the one I’m responding to that treat a purely secular legal contract in the same way as a holy Christian sacrament instituted by God Himself.

I understand what you are saying, but don’t fully agree. As you point out, our culture already redefined marriage from the Christian understanding of a Sacramental marriage, but the Christian understanding of marriage is different and more advanced than what was around for thousands of years before Christianity.

Non-Sacramental civil marriage between a man and a woman still relate to ancient marriage traditions. For example: second marriages that follow divorce–this is just a modern version of polygamy. Standard polygamy was practiced by several of the Old Testament patriarch and it still exists in some cultures today. Contraception? While its use may be more wide spread in the modern era, ancient cultures used herbs, withdrawal and other things to avoid pregnancy. Martin Luther preached against this which indicates such practices were going on within some Christian marriages in the 16th century. Fidelity? God needed to give us a commandment against adultery, and the Old Testament shows even King David with his many wives had problems following it. Such practices may be more widespread again, but sin in marriage has been around sin Eve enticed Adam to take a bite of the fruit.

When Jesus spoke of marriage and answered “no” to the question of divorce and linking it with adultery, Jesus sighted how God intended marriage back in the beginning before the Fall. Our culture deviated from that Christian understanding of marriage when it permitted “no-fault” divorce and contraception–redefining marriage at that point back to a more pagan understanding of marriage. Civil marriages between opposite sexes may not always meet with our Catholic definition of a Sacramental marriage, yet they relate to ancient definitions of marriage involved both male and female.

Same-sex relationship seeking to call themselves “marriage” don’t simply deviate from our Sacramental understanding of marriage, they deviate from every culture’s understanding of marriage.

 

[Contarini]

So one of my friends and I (we’re both women) are close enough that we’d be glad to live together for the rest of our lives once I’m finished with school. I suppose you could call it a “Boston marriage”, if they called it that these days

Imagining we settled down in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages or “domestic partnerships”, would it be all right that we get married to take advantage of the legal conveniences? We wouldn’t be going out and trying to pretend we had a sacramental marriage (we’re both Catholic), just having our “live in the same house, each other’s legal primary point of contact etc.” arrangement down on legal papers for our own safety.

This is why I support civil unions and not same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage makes a mockery of the meaning of the sacrament and creates huge confusion. Civil unions allow people who want to share their lives with each other to set up legal and financial arrangements to facilitate this. Legalizing such unions does not imply that sex is (or is not) going on. That is not the government’s business. People like you and your friend would benefit from such unions (as of course would gay couples), and by not calling them “marriage” we avoid the embarrassing (to you) and false (in your case) implication that you are having sex with each other, which is what marriage usually (though not always) involves.

Edwin

 

[Wowbagger]

The truth is that a catholic can have NO PART of a homosexual union because by our mere presence at even a ceremony we would be giving approval to a union

I agree. The whole point of this post, however, is that it is not homosexual. The hypothetical living arrangement given by the OP is non-sexual. It’s roommates with tax benefits, not a union of persons in any sense of the word.

It is… an exchange empty promises.

If any promises are exchanged, then I agree that it would be wrong and “Satan’s work” and all that. However, a civil “marriage” no longer requires vows of any kind. All you need is a marriage license, a competent clerk, and witnesses willing to sign.

Like I said–this is a situation where two roommates go before a judge, sign a paper saying that they’re roommates, and, voila, instant tax benefits. There’s no “darkness” here.

I’m a hardcore, faithful Catholic who believes in and evangelizes about all the official teachings on homosexual sex, homosexual unions, and marriage within the civil law. It simply appears to me that the OP’s hypothetical, if done properly, non-sexually, non-scandalously, and without vows, violates no Church teachings in any way.

gardens, I largely concur: marriage is fundamentally a natural institution, which has been included in every civil institution since the dawn of time. Christian marriage builds on the basic natural understanding of marriage known to all, but civil marriage rooted in a natural law tradition still has all the most important characteristics of a sacramental union and must be treated as sacred and inviolable.

However, the government in these jurisdictions has firmly and finally uprooted civil marriage from any understanding of the natural law. Civil marriage, in such places, is worthy of no respect as marriages except insofar as the attributes of the particular unions are coincident with natural marriage. But this sharing of characteristics, while still common, is now entirely coincidental. To wit: Although many civil marriages should be treated as true marriages for other reasons, a civil marriage qua civil marriage merits no inherent respect whatever. That’s what I’m really trying to say.

Hope that was somewhat clear.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…gardens, I largely concur: marriage is fundamentally a natural institution, which has been included in every civil institution since the dawn of time. Christian marriage builds on the basic natural understanding of marriage known to all, but civil marriage rooted in a natural law tradition still has all the most important characteristics of a sacramental union and must be treated as sacred and inviolable.

However, the government in these jurisdictions has firmly and finally uprooted civil marriage from any understanding of the natural law. Civil marriage, in such places, is worthy of no respect as marriages except insofar as the attributes of the particular unions are coincident with natural marriage. But this sharing of characteristics, while still common, is now entirely coincidental. To wit: Although many civil marriages should be treated as true marriages for other reasons, a civil marriage qua civil marriage merits no inherent respect whatever. That’s what I’m really trying to say…

As I understand marriage, it is a divine institution, established by God at the dawn of time with the creation of Adam and Eve. On a small scale it reflects the relationship between God and humanity. Through the gift of sexuality that belongs within marriage, God shares with us the power to create human life. The fact that every civilization recognizes the marriage union in some form throughout the world supports my understanding that it is not just natural but also divine in it’s origin. Some spiritual truths are deeply ingrained in our nature, what we might call “natural law”. The CCC in point 1955 on the natural law quotes for St. Thomas Aquinas, “The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God.…”

I realize that many hetero-sexuals have made a mockery of marriage, but how sad that you have lost respect for civil marriage. It is in society’s interest that we promote stable marriages, if not for the sake of the couple than for the sake of their children. Rather than promoting society to do better than it is currently doing, you have given up and are willing to allow our culture to do worse.

 

[ladybri77]

As I understand marriage, it is a divine institution, established by God at the dawn of time with the creation of Adam and Eve. On a small scale it reflects the relationship between God and humanity. Through the gift of sexuality that belongs within marriage, God shares with us the power to create human life. The fact that every civilization recognizes the marriage union in some form throughout the world supports my understanding that it is not just natural but also divine in it’s origin. Some spiritual truths are deeply ingrained in our nature, what we might call “natural law”. The CCC in point 1955 on the natural law quotes for St. Thomas Aquinas, “The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God.…”

I realize that many hetero-sexuals have made a mockery of marriage, but how sad that you have lost respect for civil marriage. It is in society’s interest that we promote stable marriages, if not for the sake of the couple than for the sake of their children. Rather than promoting society to do better than it is currently doing, you have given up and are willing to allow our culture to do worse.

In a civil marriage, the name of God is not used. It is a legal contract binding two people with all the rights and benefits of marriage, but is a nonspiritual form of it. For instance, I would consider myself not really married if I were married by a justice of the peace and did not use God’s name. On the other hand, if I had a formal wedding in the Catholic church, then I would be definitely married. It’s not the same for everyone, but the state recognizes it as legal. But I agree, even that kind of marriage should not be distorted as two of the same sex since the meaning of it since the begining of time and handed down by God was one man and one woman.

Then there are civil unions for homosexuals which give them some of the rights of marriage but perhaps not all which is why they want to be “married”. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) They want their cake and eat it too I suppose.

 

[daughteroftruth]

"You cannot serve God and mammon."

These are the words of Christ. He is **never **wrong.

To give the appearance of sin is to cause scandal, and Christ - God - also says that those who cause scandal are better off being drowned in the sea. The wickedness of giving the occasion (or appearance of) sin in order to “serve mammon” is obvious, or it should be to a *practicing *Catholic.

You cannot call yourself a faithful Catholic (or a Catholic without the faithful, for that matter) and justify sin, or the appearance of sin - scandal. To do that, you take part in their sin and will be held accountable to God, thus saith the Lord, and thus reiterates the Church.

This issue is not a matter of opinion. God says it’s sinful, and any participation in sin is wrong (again, the Lord and the Church both say this), no matter how minute your involvement.

 

[a_cermak]

This is why I support civil unions and not same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage makes a mockery of the meaning of the sacrament and creates huge confusion. Civil unions allow people who want to share their lives with each other to set up legal and financial arrangements to facilitate this. Legalizing such unions does not imply that sex is (or is not) going on. That is not the government’s business. People like you and your friend would benefit from such unions (as of course would gay couples), and by not calling them “marriage” we avoid the embarrassing (to you) and false (in your case) implication that you are having sex with each other, which is what marriage usually (though not always) involves.

Edwin

This is why I support civil unions for EVERYONE wanting to get married civilly regardless of the gender composition of the couple involved. In fact, I would support a 2 stage operation where a couple does the civil union thing to get the bennies of the state and then does the religious thing, if they want, to get the sacred aspect of it all. Officially decoupling the civil and the sacred would have the affect of some couples choosing just the civil, most couples pursuing both, and some couples just pursuing the sacred. That’s done now (religious only marriages) but it’s a somewhat underground movement. Usually it’s to safeguard survivor’s benefits of one of the couple. Having a formal decoupling would allow these latter couples to have more aboveboard weddings and sacramental lives.