Same Sex Marriage - 10 Reasons Why You Should Oppose It

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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

I wouldn’t make that denial either. Of course, all hinges on how we understand the word “proper.”

The problem is the foundation - the sexual relationship. For marriage, it is a given.

I wouldn’t say it’s a given as much as it’s a possibility.

The SSM debate is really a debate about sexual relationships.

I don’t think I agree. I know that how you characterize it here is how it’s often seen, but I feel that’s an overly reductive (and hence not overly useful) take on things. See immediately below.

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.

Fair enough, I suppose. But what you’re asking (or assuming) of the anti-SSM folks is a lot, morally speaking: to recognize something they take to be an evil (i.e., something they believe contrary to the common good) and not seek to eliminate it or redress it. A spirit of tolerance is lovely where something that is not considered a moral evil is concerned. Where a moral evil* is* concerned, tolerance can easily be seen (and rightly so, following the dictates of conscience) as complicity or collusion.

This is why I think the debate is not actually moral but cultural. Because for the most part, the supposed evils of homosexual sex constitute a rhetorical trope: it points to a series of socio-cultural positions primarily, and only (and rarely) secondarily to a series of constructively held moral positions. It doesn’t actually produce moral action. If it did, there would be a lot less “tolerance” going around these days.

I’m not complaining or justifying or condemning, just pointing out: culturally speaking and morally speaking, a whole fleet of ships have already sailed. And they’re not coming back to port any time soon. (Though speaking of ships coming back to port, an argument could be made that the pro-SSM camp has internalized a morally conservative marriage narrative in which they wish to participate precisely because it is a morally conservative marriage narrative. I.e., I know of some gay folks who find SSM an example of internalized homophobia because they read it as a bid for a kind of proxy heteronormativity. It’s an interesting critique, and one that should be taken more seriously among gay folks, I think, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.)

So my suspicion is that the marriage debate is about who controls culture/language, not who is being more moral. The difficulty is, however: neither side gets to control culture/language. They just get to react to the shifts that occur and thereby participate in the inevitable changes.

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.

True…and the correct premise may in fact be neither of these.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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

Not changed religion, just description. Trying to be more clear. We’ll see how that works. I think previously it was “Anglican in the Anglo-Catholic tradition” or something like that. But “Anglican” (outside of some very specific contexts) can be a fuzzy, even loaded, word, and I’d not yet realized that when I wrote it originally. Ah, youth. I still use “Anglican” to describe myself, but only in certain crowds. (Of course, “Episcopalian” is not less loaded, nor less fuzzy, though I’ll grant you it’s often just a different sort of fuzziness…)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Rau]

I wouldn’t say it’s a given as much as it’s a possibility.

To suggest that sexual acts are merely a “possibility” in marriage is a stretch. Marriage is inherently a sexual relationship, which is not to deny that rare exceptions may occur. When booking or visiting a restaurant, one would not state that the consumption of food or drink is a “possibility”.

But what you’re asking (or assuming) of the anti-SSM folks is a lot, morally speaking: to recognize something they take to be an evil (i.e., something they believe contrary to the common good) and not seek to eliminate it or redress it. A spirit of tolerance is lovely where something that is not considered a moral evil is concerned. Where a moral evil* is* concerned, tolerance can easily be seen (and rightly so, following the dictates of conscience) as complicity or collusion.

Here you refer to same sex sexual acts among willing adult participants. I’m not asking anything of the anti-SSM folks, just stating what “is” (IMHO). It is logically wrong that failing to actively pursue elimination is the same as collusion, though it may appear so. But regardless, I wonder what you have in mind that one might do to actually seek to eliminate it? How one does that is a matter of prudential judgement. Participating on this site can serve to promote or encourage the elimination of certain behaviours through persuasion. The way one votes may. How one teaches one’s children. Etc. Calling for the law to forbid same sex sexual acts might be another way, but not one I think has merit. Putting that single means aside can in no way be considered as complicit or collusion as you suggest.

This is why I think the debate is not actually moral but cultural. Because for the most part, the supposed evils of homosexual sex constitute a rhetorical trope: it points to a series of socio-cultural positions primarily, and only (and rarely) secondarily to a series of constructively held moral positions. It doesn’t actually produce moral action. If it did, there would be a lot less “tolerance” going around these days.

I suppose the debate exists on many levels - philosophical, moral, cultural. But one could deem all manner of issues “purely cultural”, which tends to be a bit too relativistic for my liking.

…an argument could be made that the pro-SSM camp has internalized a morally conservative marriage narrative in which they wish to participate precisely because it is a morally conservative marriage narrative. I.e., I know of some gay folks who find SSM an example of internalized homophobia because they read it as a bid for a kind of proxy heteronormativity. It’s an interesting critique, and one that should be taken more seriously among gay folks, I think, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.

My own assessment is that the underlying driver of the demand for SSM is essentially what I have bolded. The further twist you suggest that it may be seen by some gay people as homophobic (a mind-bending proposition…) might arise in those who start from an appropriate place in their thinking about human nature, morality and the like.

…the correct premise may in fact be neither of these.

If you have a further take on the “correct” premise, please offer it! Otherwise, this is just an “assertion”, indeed, it is FUD.

 

[clem456]

Grace & Peace!

That’s a bit of a non sequitur.

Yes, it’s your non-sequitur. You claim that because not all man/woman relationships are marriages that marriage is somehow reduced in stature. This is your own logic casting the behavior of some as a blanket to nullify the underlying good.
So we can assume then, by your own logic, that there is nothing good underlying gay unions. ( I am most sure that is not what you intend, but it is what it is. I happen to disagree with you )

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 human beings and human relationships, there is no such thing as “sameness”. Every human being is unique. There are similarities and differences between human beings. Respect for the uniqueness of human beings is the fundamental groundwork for respect for human dignity.
The union of a man and woman is not *the same as *a gay union. There are similarities in regards to emotional involvement and passion etc…But that’s about it.
But objectively speaking, considering the whole of a person, we look at a human beings as a unity of body and soul… (we do consider the whole of a human being when considering them, right? Not just the pieces we would like to consider? Do we have share this assumption or not? Or do you believe a human beings can be defined by his passions and emotions, apart from his body???)
…the union of man/woman involves a complementarity of *the whole persons *that gay unions can not have. Sexuality is not merely about the parts. Sexuality, by Christian definition, must involve the whole person. Denying this is denying our full humanity. Denying our full humanity is what allows human beings to ignore the hungry, forget the imprisoned, walk by the homeless, because,
“my feelings are in a different place right now and my neighbors stomach is not really bloated, his stomach is the same as mine and I do not feel his unique hunger, I have my own feelings and they trump the reality that his stomach is bloated”.

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.

They are both fruitful.
Surely you are not going to persist in this ineffectual analogy?

“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.

Observing common sense is a “bold claim”? Truly I am LOL. “The sun rises in the east” is a bold claim then.
So you claim that human beings come into existence through some other way than the union of a man and woman?
I am really interested in hearing the full details. Take your time for a clear explanation cause I am slow to learn sometimes.

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

Again, your assertion that because a hetero union doesn’t produce a child with every kiss, the fundamental nature of the hetero union can be put into a blender and made into a meaningless “sameness” milkshake on a par with all other sorts of relationships.

Let me ask you, Christ did not hang on the cross his whole life, right?. At the moments in time Christ was not dying for his people, was he still uniquely Christ, in love with his Church? Or, because for most of his life, he “merely” assembled houses and ate lunch and hung with his disciples, is he* not *uniquely Christ in love with his Church? (Ephesians 5). His whole life is ordered to a full giving of himself. The union of a man woman is ordered to emulate and enter into this sacrificial mystery. The union of a gay couple, whatever good it does have, cannot do this in “sameness” with a hetero couple.

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)?

Morality is never about the negative. There are negative precepts in morality but morality always points us to the good. Morality does not detract from a human being. So while tragically there is plenty of judgmentalism to go around in the Christian community in regards to our gay brothers and sisters, the morality which is based in Christ only points to the good of all people. Tragically you are the one negating the value of marriage. Please note, I have not said one negative thing about gay relationships. It’s not necessary to do so in order to point one to the good of marriage.

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).

The God given vocation (marriage) that cooperates with his desire to bring us into existence is a merely an individual preference for you. I get it.

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?

No, it’s not new information. See Mark 19.
Again you reduce procreation merely to the act of making babies, while glossing over God’s call to every human being, in the first place, to exist.
Wow. Just wow.

 

[clem456]

The problem with this agenda is detailed in Romans 1:

They have exchanged the truth for a lie

While Paul discusses various specific issues, this is the underlying problem: deception, which is the abdication of common sense and reason.

If God reveals himself to us, then we are called to respond in common sense. What does it mean to have sense?

It means to be open to God, to what he reveals to us, and to sense it, to receive God’s revelation for it’s own sake, as he reveals it. To see, to hear, to touch, to taste. And then to respond, not in violation of what we observe, but with common sense and reason. Our faith is not faith if it is divorced from sensus fidei and reason. We are called to affirm what God reveals.

What is unique about Christianity is, God comes to us in-the-flesh. He shows us what it is like to be fully human, body and soul. Christ repeatedly in the Gospel calls us to see him and ourselves, to have eyes to see, ears to hear, to touch, to heal. We are called to love one another as he loved us. How did he love us? In the flesh, in person.

When did we *see you *hungry Lord?

Because human beings are called to love one another as Christ loves us, and because hungry human beings have aching stomachs, and because we are called to see Christ in each other, we are called to feed the hungry. We are not called to feed the hungry when we feel like it. Our service to the hungry is based on the common sense observation of a hungry person’s full humanity, which includes his swollen stomach, as designed by God and revealed to us.

I hope I am somehow wrong, but the “blind eye” approach being applied to our human nature in the gay marriage debate will have tragic consequences for humanity, not because same sex couples have sex with one another and get benefits, but because we are being asked to turn our heads, deny our commonly revealed human nature, and water down that good with a deception.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To suggest that sexual acts are merely a “possibility” in marriage is a stretch.

It is not necessary that any sexual act occur in a marriage for it to be a marriage. It is not necessary for procreation to occur as a result of any specific sexual act in order for a marriage to be a marriage.

That thinks are possible doesn’t make them necessary. That they are highly probable also does not make them necessary. You can argue that a greater probability indicates a sense if increased inevitability…but even then, you cannot say that all instances of the inevitable are also instances of the necessary.

Marriage is inherently a sexual relationship, which is not to deny that rare exceptions may occur.

Marriage is indeed sexual, but it need not involve any particular sexual act (including any particular act of procreation) in order to be legitimately marriage.

When booking or visiting a restaurant, one would not state that the consumption of food or drink is a “possibility”.

Depends on if you’re on a diet, or just aren’t hungry! I’ve been to restaurants with groups of friends, one or more of whom were just along for the company. By not consuming food, they weren’t challenging the restaurantness of the restaurant.

Calling for the law to forbid same sex sexual acts might be another way, but not one I think has merit. Putting that single means aside can in no way be considered as complicit or collusion as you suggest.

To me, it’s an indication that the ships have sailed.

I suppose the debate exists on many levels - philosophical, moral, cultural. But one could deem all manner of issues “purely cultural”, which tends to be a bit too relativistic for my liking.

I don’t say it to be relativistic (which itself is a word that points to specific cultural debates that use a particular kind of morality and of moral rhetoric as markers of cultural identification). To say that the debate these days is more cultural than moral is to say that the moral has been completely bulldozed over by issues of identity and culture: those are the real values that are being debated and that are viewed as important by contestants in the public sphere. It’s not to say that there is no moral dimension, just that in terms of the public conversation, it’s no longer a central or living part: it’s a rhetorical tool.

My own assessment is that the underlying driver of the demand for SSM is essentially what I have bolded.

I disagree in part (though likely not in whole) that the issue is one of validation. I think what’s at play is much less conscious than validation: it has to do with cultural conditioning and an intuition of cultural expectations regarding love and relationships that remain in the midst of a culture that is changing with regard to its understanding of sexuality.

The further twist you suggest that it may be seen by some gay people as homophobic (a mind-bending proposition…) might arise in those who start from an appropriate place in their thinking about human nature, morality and the like.

I’m not sure the place is particularly “appropriate.” The critique implicit in the rejection of SSM by many queer folks is that marriage, as a heteronormative institution, is a fundamentally repressive and oppressive institution, such that gay folks who want to get married are victims of a cultural Stockholm Syndrome: they identify with and fetishize their jailers and oppressors (heterosexual folks). In this way of seeing things, it’s incumbent on gay folks to reject heteronormativity in all of its forms as indicative of systems of oppression; incumbent on gay folks not to subject their sexuality to heterosexual norms or expectations; incumbent on gay folks to insist on their queerness as a mark of absolute distinction between gay folks and straight folks. Speaking as a gay man, I find a lot of value in this critique. There’s also plenty with which I disagree.

If you have a further take on the “correct” premise, please offer it! Otherwise, this is just an “assertion”, indeed, it is FUD.

If I can figure it out, I’ll let you know! I just have a distrust of arguments and rhetoric that can be reduced to binaries. Are binaries convenient? Sure. Are they often misleading? Sure. There’s often a third (or fourth or fifth) option just around the corner that binary argument tends to obscure. That’s not really FUD stuff. Though it does speak to a value in uncertainty. It’s a cautious rejection of certainty as a value in itself; an understanding that certainties and binaries have their limits.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[JimG]

Although normally expected, it is not a requirement for conjugal relations to occur in order for marriage to be marriage. The possibility of conjugal relations, however, is required. Thus, for example, impotence but not infertility is an impediment to marriage. A marriage might never be consummated, but the conjugal act must be possible. And that requirs sexual complementarity. Conjugal relations are not a possibility between persons of the same sex, so marriage is impossible to them.

 

[clem456]

Grace & Peace!

It is not necessary that any sexual act occur in a marriage for it to be a marriage. It is not necessary for procreation to occur as a result of any specific sexual act in order for a marriage to be a marriage.

The vision of a minimalist God.

Jesus was not required to die for us either. But God is love. Christ fulfills the covenant by his complete giving of self. *The whole of his life *is ordered to this complete self giving.

Christ becomes flesh. Why did he do that? Why was it necessary to have a definitive physical presence? He could have waved his hand. He was not required to endure a human life.

But he lives a life, just like ours in it’s humanity. His incarnation is the sign of the extent of God’s commitment to his covenant. The incarnation is a sign of his desire to pour himself out in complete giving. The gift is not just the moment of crucifixion. By God’s own desire and will, a physical presence and life is essential, and has profound meaning in this complete giving. Form is not accidental for us.

Marriage is the image and sign of this complete giving. It is a total commitment, body and soul, to the same gift.
Whether of not we conceive a child every day (I think you can see the argument is silly) is not the point.

 

[clem456]

We lose sight of the fact that marriage is a vocation.
It is not a civil right inherent to every human being for the claiming, although if persons are called to the vocation our civil laws should support it.
There is a difference.
A person has a civil right to support one’s self through work. A person does not have a right to join an NBA team if God has not called that person with height and speed etc…
A person has a civil right to congregate and associate. A person does not have a right to congregate at 3am when others are sleeping etc…

What is a vocation? At it’s heart a vocation is a call from God. It is not something that a person merely claims for one’s self, although a personal response is called for when one is called.
The vocation to marriage is a unique one in that God calls us to participate in his existence, he calls us to be through the complete mutual giving of man and woman.
When God calls persons to this vocation of marriage he gives us the full humanity to respond. God always gives us the tools to fulfill our vocation. That full humanity means to have a body and a soul. The vocation to marriage asks for our full response, body and soul. In the debate over marriage the physical side of this vocation is denied or minimized. The bodies that God has given us to participate in this vocation are seen as accidental to “marriage”. The vocation is taken from God and made to fit a distorted vision based on merely the desires and emotions that people have for one another. (I’m not saying those are bad things, but of themselves they do not constitute marriage.)

So, our bodies, in their male and female-ness, signify the call to this vocation,and enable us to follow this vocation. While not everyone marries, and not everyone procreates, before all else, God has imprinted in our bodies this form, this sign of his primordial call to exist. If you look at how human beings are made, it is observable to any sane person that our bodies, in their complementarity, are a sign of a much deeper reality that God calls us into.

This vocation is not just about results. If we judge this vocation merely by the number of children we have, the vocation is removed from God’s providence and co-opted by our own rules and abilities. We minimize God’s vocation in this way, and make marriage more of a contract to be fulfilled than a covenant.

The vocation is there, and God gives us the means to answer. We cooperate as best we can and allow God to be God.

 

[clem456]

The Catechism expresses this idea of vocation:

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 1
MAN: THE IMAGE OF GOD

1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings to light his exalted vocation."2 It is in Christ, "the image of the invisible God,"3 that man *has been created *“in the image and likeness” of the Creator

Man is called to exist in God’s image.

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the *likeness of **the unity of ***the divine persons among themselves

Human beings must be a person, not simply an idea. Persons have bodies. Bodies mean something.They are not accidental to our existence and vocation. The image of God is one of unification, which points to marriage.

I. MARRIAGE IN GOD’S PLAN

1602 Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of “the wedding-feast of the Lamb.”

Marriage in the order of creation
Marriage as a permanent vocation.
1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is *not a purely human institution *despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. “The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.”

Marriage is universally necessary, enduring.

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.

It’s difficult to add to that or make it any simpler.

Interesting to note that not much is said here specifically about morality or scripture, which are the common knee-jerk objections to marriage.
“Your morality is an invention of so and so…”
“Just because it says so and so in the bible doesn’t mean…”
The observations above do assume a creator, and observe what is created. It observes how we are.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Grace & Peace!

It is not necessary that any sexual act occur in a marriage for it to be a marriage. It is not necessary for procreation to occur as a result of any specific sexual act in order for a marriage to be a marriage.

Marriage is indeed sexual, but it need not involve any particular sexual act (including any particular act of procreation) in order to be legitimately marriage.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Consummation has traditionally (though, perhaps, not universally) been recognized by civil as well as religious authorities as an essential element of marriage. Pre-existing, incurable physical defects and incapacities which render a party unable to consummate the marriage, are, under most statutes, grounds for annulment.

The law, in its rules regarding consummation, embodies an important insight into the nature of marriage as a bodily – no less than spiritual and emotional – union that is actualized in reproductive-type acts.