Same Sex Marriage - 10 Reasons Why You Should Oppose It

[Rau]

I agree that a man-woman unions are “unique” - I simply disagree that they are, in principle, better.

Why is it necessary to take a position on “better”. Is single better than married?

A homosexual union is “unique” in all the same ways that heterosexual union is.

I think he refers to the “class” of unions, not to individual unions. In this regard, I think it is reasonable to say that “man+woman” is unique. It is certainly special (as a class) - the one that creates life, sustains the species, etc.

The fact is, when the government denies a right or a privilege to a group of people without an objectively good reason, it implies (if not outright states), that this group of people is “less than” others who do receive the right or privilege.

Agreed.

This is why “civil unions” never sold as carrying equal status to “marriages.” You could’ve legalized civil unions and granted gay couples all the benefits given to married couples - but it would not have removed the stink that comes with cordoning off a minority from the majority - even while telling them that they’re all “equal.”

What does “equal status” mean, and does it follow that all sorts of unions should be “equal”? Relevant unions might be equal in terms of entitlements, but without being intrinsically equivalent. This may be upsetting to some. Calling all unions marriages spreads other falsehoods.

 

[AyJSimon]

Why is it necessary to take a position on “better”.

My side of this argument doesn’t. Your side does, as a matter of principle.

I think he refers to the “class” of unions, not to individual unions. In this regard, I think it is reasonable to say that “man+woman” is unique. It is certainly special (as a class) - the one that creates life, sustains the species, etc.

And gay/lesbian unions are also unique, by definition. I fail to see the force of this argument. Unique doesn’t mean “better” - it means “unlike anything else.”

Agreed.

What does “equal status” mean, and does it follow that all sorts of unions should be “equal”? Relevant unions might be equal in terms of entitlements, but without being intrinsically equivalent. This may be upsetting to some. Calling all unions marriages spreads other falsehoods.

“Equal status” means equal social status - which is a standard the government can fail to meet even while affirming equal legal status. The government can affirm equal legal rights across the board to gay and straight couples, but it cannot ignore the social inequality that’s existed historically between straight people and gay people. Just like there was a social inequality that existed historically between white people and black people. The government realized that even if you could, in practice, make educational facilities “separate, but equal,” that they were segregated at all would allow the social inequality to perpetuate itself.

 

[Rau]

My side of this argument doesn’t. Your side does, as a matter of principle.

Your reference to “your side of the argument” amounts to verballing me.

And gay/lesbian unions are also unique, by definition. I fail to see the force of this argument. Unique doesn’t mean “better” - it means “unlike anything else.”

You are fixated on “better”. I’m OK with “different”. Boys are different from girls. Companies are different from Trusts. Marriages are different from same sex unions. [all IMHO] I think that is all he was saying, and on that basis, suggests applying “marriage” to entirely different unions is unwise.

“Equal status” means equal social status - which is a standard the government can fail to meet even while affirming equal legal status.

How on earth does the Government bestow “social status”? How does the social status of a doctor compare with a teacher, or a mechanic and how was that decided? Ditto two brothers. Ditto 2 men with a sexual relationship. Ditto a man and woman in a defacto (living as married, though not formally) relationship. Ditto a married man+woman. Who is controlling social status here?

The government can affirm equal legal rights across the board to gay and straight couples, but it cannot ignore the social inequality that’s existed historically between straight people and gay people. Just like there was a social inequality that existed historically between white people and black people. The government realized that even if you could, in practice, make educational facilities “separate, but equal,” that they were segregated at all would allow the social inequality to perpetuate itself.

The solution to social injustices is not necessarily to declare things to be the same that are not. That too can create further injustice. For example: Deeming 2 men eligible for marriage requires everyone in society to view 2 men (or 2 women) entering into a **sexual relationship **as a natural societal unit. And calling it marriage is to require us to view it as a normal means of family formation, identical to the man+woman union intrinsic to our nature. It requires us to acknowledge it to be just the same as man+woman, and failure to acknowledge it as such may be grounds to be prosecuted!

The reference to “social inequality” (assuming you’re not referring to violence and ill treatment of persons) seems almost to assume the answer to the very matter in debate. Was recognising that 2 men are not eligible to marry a “social inequality” or a recognition of the nature of marriage?

I don’t see any parallels between segregation and recognising that man+woman is fundamentally different to the other forms of union one can contemplate.

 

[AyJSimon]

You are fixated on “better”. I’m OK with “different”. Boys are different from girls. Companies are different from Trusts. Marriages are different from same sex unions. [all IMHO] I think that is all he was saying, and on that basis, suggests applying “marriage” to entirely different unions is unwise.

I’m simply pointing out your side’s fixation on the idea that one type of union is inherently better than the other. Because whether you are keen to admit it or not, that is at the foundation of your argument. Nobody who just thinks that heterosexual unions are “different” than homosexual unions (but not better or worse) burns this much fuel worrying about the Government’s (not Christianity’s or the Catholic Church’s) definition of what a marriage is. Nobody fights this hard to protect the meaning of a word from being changed by someone else, for their own purposes unless they saw a moral component to it.

 

[Rau]

I’m simply pointing out your side’s fixation on the idea that one type of union is inherently better than the other.

You verbal me again! I don’t speak for anyone’s “side”. I express my views on the matter.

…Nobody who just thinks that heterosexual unions are “different” than homosexual unions (but not better or worse) burns this much fuel worrying about the Government’s (not Christianity’s or the Catholic Church’s) definition of what a marriage is. Nobody fights this hard to protect the meaning of a word from being changed by someone else, for their own purposes unless they saw a moral component to it.

The concern is not some esoteric debate over an entry in a dictionary. But about the lie that is told - and which the State is asked to endorse - about the nature of man and the nature of sexuality. My previous post addressed the further matter of the injustice associated with SSM.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The solution to social injustices is not necessarily to declare things to be the same that are not. That too can create further injustice. For example: Deeming 2 men eligible for marriage requires everyone in society to view 2 men (or 2 women) entering into a **sexual relationship **as a natural societal unit. And calling it marriage is to require us to view it as a normal means of family formation, identical to the man+woman union intrinsic to our nature. It requires us to acknowledge it to be just the same as man+woman, and failure to acknowledge it as such may be grounds to be prosecuted!

What’s often forgotten in these discussions is a very very basic thing: difference is only discernible against a backdrop of similarity (or, as Aristotle might put it: One and the same is knowledge of opposites). We speak of apples and oranges as being different, but we do so while recognizing their intrinsic similarity: both fruit, both round, both seed-bearing, etc. It wouldn’t occur to us to enumerate the differences between an automobile and a grapefruit because they don’t actually belong to the same category of thing. We can do it if we have to, but it’s a bit of an absurd exercise.

The debate between “traditional” marriage advocates and same-sex marriage advocates is predicated along similar lines: the debate is only comprehensible because a similarity between the two has already been granted implicitly by both sides. As such, the “traditional” marriage advocates are in a tough position, made to list (or invent) differences that a same-sex marriage advocate might readily grant as differences…but given that the whole debate of difference is predicated on a recognition of similarity, all differences the TM camp can come up with will be dismissed by the SSM camp as extraneous to the fundamental reality in which SSM and TM participate. What the SSM camp argues for is a recognition of equal dignity between SSM and TM–a seed is still a seed whether its an apple seed or a grapefruit seed. What the TM camp argues for is a recognition of distinction based on a perception of teleological difference (an apple seed and a grapefruit seed are different kinds of seed). But even this TM argument is predicated on an assumption of initial similarity–the difference is in the what-for, not the what. So the SSM people can grant the teleological differences (but only provisionally, for the most part) while writing them off as immaterial to the what.

I say only provisionally because, in the end, the SSM camp does not generally go in for teleological arguments. They’re more interested in possibilities. Is it the case that a same-sex couple can procreate? No, that’s impossible. But is it the case that a same-sex couple’s marriage can be a loving matrix from which and in which children can be raised? Yes, that’s quite possible. Is it inevitable? No. Is it inevitable in the case of TM? No, it’s only possible there, too. So the difference in terms of telos is: no procreation in an SSM. But this assumes that procreation, as opposed to the nurture of children, is the end of TM and should likewise be the end of SSM. But is it necessary for a couple in a TM to produce children in order for their marriage to be a marriage? No, that’s not really the case. So while procreation is possible in a TM, it isn’t necessary or inevitable, which means (to an SSM inclined person): procreation or its possibility may not, in fact, be what defines marriage.

But shouldn’t people procreate, and isn’t it the case that SSM is against nature in that SSMs are not procreative? While it may be the case that people in general should procreate, it is not the case that anyone (or any couple) in particular should or must. Procreation or its capacity is not determinative of human value, nor is it determinative of the value of human relationships: procreative relationships do not mean more than non-procreative ones, nor are they more natural. But isn’t that what men (qua men) and women (qua women) are for? Doesn’t SSM deny, on some basic level, the realities of human sex (gender being a different story altogether)? Only if human sex is intrinsically linked with human vocation–which is to say, only if our sex determines what we’re for. But not all of us are for procreation. The SSM sort of person might continue: human sexedness is indicative of a capacity, not a teleology, not a demand from nature. It conditions (and it’s expression is conditioned by) ways of being in relationship with the world and with others, but it does not necessarily and in itself rigidly determine those ways. Human sexedness is therefore capable of a variety of expression and is not strictly determinative of human vocation or individual human identity. I.e., I’m a male. I’m not called to be a male, my maleness is a given. My maleness conditions my relationship to the world as conditioned by the world with which I am in relationship. My maleness does not demand that I procreate: that’s not what my maleness is for. My maleness is for a way of being in the world, but that way of being in the world is not isolated from the world. However, it is not necessary for me to get married. It is not necessary for me to procreate (within or without marriage).

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

Anyway, from the SSM-supporting POV, this leaves marriage looking like a structure or framework within which certain capacities and possibilities of human relationship can be lived out or pursued within the context of a changing culture in a changing world. Not every relationship requires such a framework–it could even be said that those relationships that are marked by marriage nonetheless do not require this marking in order to continue to be what they fundamentally are. As a structure that is culturally, socially and legally conditioned, it accommodates cultural, social and legal change. Marriage, in other words, like any structure, is not prior to nor is it coterminus with human culture (it is not prior, for instance, to language), but it arises within human culture to meet a variety of that culture’s needs. As the needs change, so will the structure. History shows that this is the case–marriage and it’s function changes with shifts in culture/language. These changes have altered the “definition” of marriage neither more nor less than a conception of marriage that includes SSM. What this structure is for is determined by the culture of which it is a part–it is not eternal, nor is it immutable. What has remained relatively constant, however, is this: human culture provides a structure (called marriage) within which certain capacities and possibilities of human relationship can be lived out or pursued. The understanding of those capacities and possibilities may change, but the structure itself (and, to be honest, the structure itself may be little more than a linguistic one–i.e., the word may be more important as a structuring construct than the thing to which the word points) answers a particular human need to distinguish relationships of a certain quality (as opposed to a certain usefulness).

Which is all just to say: “traditional” marriage does not exhaust the meaning of marriage because it does not exhaust marriage’s capacities as a social structure.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[clem456]

I agree that a man-woman unions are “unique” - I simply disagree that they are, in principle, better
That’s why I asked the question outside of value judgments, for the sake of discussion and common ground. I am not talking at all about what is “better”…

You agree that man/woman is unique.
What does that word unique mean? Deo Volente would like to make the word unique almost meaningless in his post. Using the analogy of two seeds of different species is not even remotely applicable to our issue. The seeds simply produce different fruit, they both exist for the same reason.

So, what does it mean that something is unique? Can the word unique be used interchangeable with “different”?

Some unions are, in practice, better than others, but that depends entirely on the behavior of the people involved. I’m sure you’ve undoubtedly met gay couples who manage their relationships far better than some straight couples. (If you haven’t, I would suggest you get out more). Being “unique” carries no weight in this conversation, regardless - not if we’re using that word to mean what it actually means. A homosexual union is “unique” in all the same ways that heterosexual union is.

 

[clem456]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

Anyway, from the SSM-supporting POV, this leaves marriage looking like a structure or framework within which certain capacities and possibilities of human relationship can be lived out or pursued within the context of a changing culture in a changing world. Not every relationship requires such a framework–it could even be said that those relationships that are marked by marriage nonetheless do not require this marking in order to continue to be what they fundamentally are. As a structure that is culturally, socially and legally conditioned, it accommodates cultural, social and legal change. Marriage, in other words, like any structure, is not prior to nor is it coterminus with human culture (it is not prior, for instance, to language), but it arises within human culture to meet a variety of that culture’s needs. As the needs change, so will the structure. History shows that this is the case–marriage and it’s function changes with shifts in culture/language. These changes have altered the “definition” of marriage neither more nor less than a conception of marriage that includes SSM. What this structure is for is determined by the culture of which it is a part–it is not eternal, nor is it immutable. What has remained relatively constant, however, is this: human culture provides a structure (called marriage) within which certain capacities and possibilities of human relationship can be lived out or pursued. The understanding of those capacities and possibilities may change, but the structure itself (and, to be honest, the structure itself may be little more than a linguistic one–i.e., the word may be more important as a structuring construct than the thing to which the word points) answers a particular human need to distinguish relationships of a certain quality (as opposed to a certain usefulness).

Which is all just to say: “traditional” marriage does not exhaust the meaning of marriage because it does not exhaust marriage’s capacities as a social structure.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

There is a sentence in your post that illustrates well the profound absurdity of this position.

Marriage, in other words, like any structure, is not prior to nor is it coterminus with human culture (it is not prior, for instance, to language), but it arises within human culture to meet a variety of that culture’s needs.

Think for a second about what you have said here… about marriage of man/woman not being prior to human culture. Do you see the problem here?

This is a very eloquent dance around the unique nature of man/woman, while at the same time denying that uniqueness has any meaning whatsoever.

Does it mean something, or does it not, that your very life and breath requires the union of a man and a woman? Or is that existential reality just another facet of relationships among many, which is what you are reducing it to?

Comparing the two ideas of marriage is nothing like comparing two seeds producing different fruit.

 

[AyJSimon]

You agree that man/woman is unique.
What does that word unique mean? Deo Volente would like to make the word unique almost meaningless in his post. Using the analogy of two seeds of different species is not even remotely applicable to our issue. The seeds simply produce different fruit, they both exist for the same reason.

So, what does it mean that something is unique? Can the word unique be used interchangeable with “different”?

Really? You will have to explain that to me.
Again, what does it mean that man/woman is a unique type of relationship?

Unique simply means “unlike anything else.” It doesn’t mean “better than” and it doesn’t mean “worse than.” Just the word “original” doesn’t mean something is inherently better or worse than something that isn’t original. Companies successfully market laundry detergent based peoples’ inability to understand what these words actually mean.

 

[Rau]

…Anyway, **from the SSM-supporting POV, this leaves marriage looking like a structure or framework **within which certain capacities and possibilities of human relationship can be lived out or pursued within the context of a changing culture in a changing world. Not every relationship requires such a framework–it could even be said that those relationships that are marked by marriage nonetheless do not require this marking in order to continue to be what they fundamentally are. As a structure that is culturally, socially and legally conditioned, it accommodates cultural, social and legal change. Marriage, in other words, like any structure, is not prior to nor is it coterminus with human culture (it is not prior, for instance, to language), but it arises within human culture to meet a variety of that culture’s needs. As the needs change, so will the structure. History shows that this is the case–marriage and it’s function changes with shifts in culture/language. These changes have altered the “definition” of marriage neither more nor less than a conception of marriage that includes SSM. What this structure is for is determined by the culture of which it is a part–it is not eternal, nor is it immutable. What has remained relatively constant, however, is this: human culture provides a structure (called marriage) within which certain capacities and possibilities of human relationship can be lived out or pursued. The understanding of those capacities and possibilities may change, but the structure itself (and, to be honest, the structure itself may be little more than a linguistic one–i.e., the word may be more important as a structuring construct than the thing to which the word points) answers a particular human need to distinguish relationships of a certain quality (as opposed to a certain usefulness).

Which is all just to say: “traditional” marriage does not exhaust the meaning of marriage because it does not exhaust marriage’s capacities as a social structure.

Mark, nice to hear from you…

As you say, this is all predicated on the SSM-supporting POV. As such, it “sees” the similarities and ignores the differences. But it is wrong reasoning to declare simply that a thing(s) the unions have in common is that which makes the newly proposed coupling a Marriage too, and the things that distinguish them are irrelevant.

Were we talking about a relationship that was not sexual, then we would not be having this discussion. **But marriage is sexual **and as such relies on the complementarity of the sexes.

In the above discussion, you view the “marriage” as the “framework”, and allow that to overshadow in your mind the marriage itself.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Think for a second about what you have said here… about marriage of man/woman not being prior to human culture. Do you see the problem here?

This is a very eloquent dance around the unique nature of man/woman, while at the same time denying that uniqueness has any meaning whatsoever.

Does it mean something, or does it not, that your very life and breath requires the union of a man and a woman? Or is that existential reality just another facet of relationships among many, which is what you are reducing it to?

Clem, I’m afraid you’re confusing marriage and sex. I imagine fertile heterosexuals can manage to produce offspring without being concerned with whether or not they’re married…

Comparing the two ideas of marriage is nothing like comparing two seeds producing different fruit.

Your assertion here is merely that: an assertion.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark, nice to hear from you…

Thanks, Rau. Am not able to post with any real frequency these days, but sometimes it seems like it might be a fun thing to do, so…

Were we talking about a relationship that was not sexual, then we would not be having this discussion. **But marriage is sexual **and as such relies on the complementarity of the sexes.

I won’t deny that marriage is sexual insofar as it is a social construction that conditions and is conditioned by human sexuality. But marriage is not a sexual act, nor is it reducible to a sexual act.

In the above discussion, you view the “marriage” as the “framework”, and allow that to overshadow in your mind the marriage itself.

What is an individual marriage but an instance of a larger cultural idea? Without the cultural/linguistic structure of marriage, how could we speak of anyone actually being married?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[clem456]

Grace & Peace!

Clem, I’m afraid you’re confusing marriage and sex. I imagine fertile heterosexuals can manage to produce offspring without being concerned with whether or not they’re married…

No not confusing marriage and sex.
Does the fact that some gay couples are promiscuous and/or mistreat their partners diminish the aspects of gay relationships that are good? That’s the logic you are using…

Your assertion here is merely that: an assertion.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

It’s not an assertion. It’s a common sense observation.
You attempted to compare two seeds to the issue at hand, in order to diminish the uniqueness of marriage. In you seed analogy, both seeds produce fruit. They have differences but neither of them can do anything inherently unique that the other cannot do.

The union of a man and woman on the other hand gives us human existence. A gay union cannot do that. Whatever else good we might say about the union of same sex partners, (and no one can deny there can be good aspects of gay relationships), they cannot give us human existence.

Do you acknowledge that the union of a man and woman is necessary for human existence, or is that up for debate?
If you do acknowledge it’s necessity, do you think it is any more important than any other union, or is it inherently the same as a same sex union in your opinion?

 

[clem456]

I won’t deny that marriage is sexual insofar as it is a social construction that conditions and is conditioned by human sexuality. But marriage is not a sexual act, nor is it reducible to a sexual act.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Which comes first, social construction or human existence? Is there a society that has no human beings in it??? I would be interested in seeing that.

And how can you say that marriage is not a sexual act? It is you who are reducing the essence of sexuality to the usage of parts.
Human beings have bodies. Our bodies are part of the full expression of who we are. We cannot be human beings without bodies. We are a unity of body and soul. Our bodies are not “accidental” to our existence., they are integral and necessary.
How are we made? How do we come to be? Who are we? Isn’t this the question humanity is always asking?

Who are we…
We are a unity of body and soul. Sexuality is an integral part of the full expression and meaning of what it means to be human. Sexuality is not just about the parts and how they work.

And so, how is it that we are made? We are not a-sexual beings, we are made specifically male and female. (and no the fact that some people don’t have sex does not negate our sexuality). The body is an expression of our deepest human realities, and ultimately reflects the inner life of the Trinity. The Trinity is a fertile communion of life and love among persons. Love is never sterile. Marriage reflects this Trinitarian reality uniquely, as no other relationship can do. Marriage is the primordial sign (sacrament) of who God is, and who human beings made in his image are.

To deny this fact detracts from our humanity.
The consequences are always tragic.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Does the fact that some gay couples are promiscuous and/or mistreat their partners diminish the aspects of gay relationships that are good? That’s the logic you are using…

That’s a bit of a non sequitur.

You attempted to compare two seeds to the issue at hand, in order to diminish the uniqueness of marriage.

I didn’t introduce the analogy “in order to diminish the uniqueness of marriage.” I introduced it in order to illustrate that sameness is the backdrop of distinguishing difference.

In you seed analogy, both seeds produce fruit. They have differences but neither of them can do anything inherently unique that the other cannot do.

Of course they each can do something unique, one in relation to the other: the one produces an apple tree, the other a grapefruit tree.

The union of a man and woman on the other hand gives us human existence.

“Gives us human existence” is a bold claim. Perpetuates human existence might be more accurate. At any rate, the sexual union of a man and woman can perpetuate human existence, though it needn’t all the time or in any specific instance.

A gay union cannot do that.

No. And a heterosexual sexual union needn’t. But both are instances of human relationship and both may benefit from marriage.

Do you acknowledge that the union of a man and woman is necessary for human existence, or is that up for debate?

I acknowledge that fertile men and women, regardless of their sexual orientation, have a capacity to procreate with one another, but not a duty to do so.

If you do acknowledge it’s necessity, do you think it is any more important than any other union, or is it inherently the same as a same sex union in your opinion?

The capacity for procreation is one of the marks of difference between a heterosexual sexual relationship and a homosexual one. Is it a significant difference? Sure, at least insofar as any difference is bound to be significant. Does it’s significance necessarily constitute a negative valuation of homosexual relationships (sexual or not)? No, not necessarily–just as the appleness of an apple is not a value judgement on the grapefruitness of a grapefruit (though an individual’s preference for apples might lead them to believe otherwise).

I understand what your saying, clem: fertile heterosexual couples can make babies. Okay! They don’t need marriage for that, though. Homosexual couples can’t make babies. Okay! But that’s not any new information is it?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Rau]

…I won’t deny that marriage is sexual insofar as it is a social construction that conditions and is conditioned by human sexuality. But marriage is not a sexual act, nor is it reducible to a sexual act.

And I won’t deny that a proper understanding of marriage requires a proper understanding of human sexuality and its place in our lives.

 

[Rau]

…both are instances of human relationship and both may benefit from marriage…

There is a sense in which that sentiment may indeed be correct, as in a person may benefit truly from any number of inappropriate or wrong acts (eg. the proceeds of a bank heist ).

The problem is the foundation - the sexual relationship. For marriage, it is a given. The SSM debate is really a debate about sexual relationships. The anti-SSM troop does not seek to outlaw homosexual (sexual) relationships, but believes they are not for the individual or common good, and so objects to their positive endorsement by the State through “marriage”. Fair enough. The pro-SSM troop takes an altogether different view on the nature and ends of sexual relationships, and everyone’s right to partake, and so unsurprisingly concludes marriage ought be for them too. Given that premise, their conclusion on SSM is also fair enough.

But both sides can’t have a correct premise.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Which comes first, social construction or human existence? Is there a society that has no human beings in it??? I would be interested in seeing that.

Human existence, of course. And, yes, sex between men and women perpetuates that (see above). But social structures then begin to order that existence according to the priorities and needs of the culture/society. Marriage is one such structure.

And how can you say that marriage is not a sexual act?

By virtue of getting married, the spouses are not having sex. Moreover, spouses are not continually having sex every moment of their lives in which they continue to be married. Marriage is not a sex act. As I wrote to Rau, however, that does not deny a sexual dimension to marriage.

It is you who are reducing the essence of sexuality to the usage of parts.

It would be lovely if you could explain your reasoning here…(what follows doesn’t quite flow from this assertion).

Human beings have bodies. Our bodies are part of the full expression of who we are. We cannot be human beings without bodies. We are a unity of body and soul. Our bodies are not “accidental” to our existence., they are integral and necessary.

I didn’t say otherwise. You’ll recall that earlier I wrote:

…]human sexedness is indicative of a capacity, not a teleology, not a demand from nature. It conditions (and it’s expression is conditioned by) ways of being in relationship with the world and with others, but it does not necessarily and in itself rigidly determine those ways. Human sexedness is therefore capable of a variety of expression and is not strictly determinative of human vocation or individual human identity.

How are we made? How do we come to be? Who are we? Isn’t this the question humanity is always asking?

I don’t know: it’s not a question I’m always asking…

We are a unity of body and soul. Sexuality is an integral part of the full expression and meaning of what it means to be human. Sexuality is not just about the parts and how they work.

Nor is sexuality (by which I assume you mean human sexedness) a rigid vocation. As I wrote earlier and quoted above, it’s a conditioned and conditioning capacity for relationship.

…]The Trinity is a fertile communion of life and love among persons. Love is never sterile.

Indeed, love is not sterile. But we mustn’t confuse sterility with sexual non-procreativity. Love between two people can, indeed, be life-giving (both to the couple and to the people around the couple) without being procreative.

Marriage reflects this Trinitarian reality uniquely, as no other relationship can do.

I don’t necessarily disagree, particularly given what I just wrote.

Marriage is the primordial sign (sacrament) of who God is, and who human beings made in his image are.

Not sure about marriage being the primordial sign, nor am I sure that it’s always been understood as such. The basic fact that people are made for each other (which is to say, made to be in relation with each other) seems to be a more fundamental/primordial reality of which marriage is a particular sign.

To deny this fact detracts from our humanity.

Marriage, like culture, like language follows humanity, not the other way around.

The consequences are always tragic.

This just sounds like rhetoric to me.

Have you historical examples of tragedy being necessarily related to a specific understanding or misunderstanding of the sacramental nature of marriage? I.e., in cultures in which marriage had no sacramental valence (which is to say, most, if not all, ancient cultures–and here we must be careful to distinguish a consciously sacramental valence from the capacity of marriage to carry metaphorical or poetic valence), did it produce tragedy? Under what circumstances?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Rau]

Mark - have you changed your religion, or its description? It’s not what I remember from previous posts…