Same-sex marriage: where does my objection go wrong?

[livingwordunity]

But the fact is that sex has a moral component. Sexual activity with another human being is not neutral morally.

Yep. That’s why rape isn’t morally neutral.

 

[spencelo]

So are you saying you have a problem with pedophiles marrying? If so, based on what standard for morality? One that can be changed to allow it when someone thinks it should be ok?

You keep wanting to move away from the subject of the OP. From now on, if your responses will not address the subject of the OP, I will ignore them.

 

[iloveangels]

You keep wanting to move away from the subject of the OP. From now on, if your responses will not address the subject of the OP, I will ignore them.

Right. You just want what you want and that’s what you want. There is no reason that will sway you because you don’t have any except you want what you want.

 

[spencelo]

There’s more to marriage than legality.

Certainly, but the debate over SSM is only about civil marriage.

Something I wrote in my last reply bears repeating: If you ever wonder why people on my side think you’re bigoted and hateful, re-read what you just wrote [regarding the conflation of same-sex relationships and pedophilia].

 

[surritter]

I don’t see why I need to. My point is I don’t see why the “ordered towards procreation” requirement, which is a distinctly Catholic concept, should be adopted by the secular State.

Sorry, but you most certainly need to define marriage. All you’ve done is ignored everyone’s calls for you to do so. How about gaming up and telling us what we should really believe?

First, other Catholics have told me that impotent couples (e.g., parapelegics) are NOT ordered towards procreation because they can’t perform penis-vagina sex.

I’m sorry that they misinformed you. A couple where impotence is involved still have bodies that are ordered toward procreation. But they have an impediment that makes it impossible for them to act upon it. And this is why they would not be able to get married.
For couples where impotence is not an issue, but sterility is, they can get married because they can act upon what nature calls them to do (thus they have given themselves to each other), but there is a downstream defect that prevents the full biological course from taking effect.

[T]he inability of a couple to perform penis-vagina sex has never been a barrier to a marriage license (and yes, Catholics have told me that penis-vagina sex = ordered towards procreation). Again, the focus is on civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Great … let’s keep the focus on civil marriage. Please provide a definition of marriage. If it is one that isn’t based on some sort of procreative aspect, then be prepared to answer why it must be limited to just two people.

 

[iloveangels]

Certainly, but the debate over SSM is only about civil marriage.

NO, IT’S NOT. That’s the point.

You don’t understand the concept of marriage at all.

It sounds to me like you want a piece of paper whether or not the full social & theological import of marriage stands behind it or not. That’s what the state of NY, for instance, can give you, and that’s all they can give you.

 

[bri89]

But the fact is that sex has a moral component. Sexual activity with another human being is not neutral morally.

Yes. I would say that sexual activity should take place within the context of a loving committed relationship, where ideally, lust is absent. In the context of two people who put the other’s well being above their own. That is love, self-giving and commitment to another, homosexuals can meet that. I think sexual activity within that context is moral.

 

[livingwordunity]

You keep wanting to move away from the subject of the OP. From now on, if your responses will not address the subject of the OP, I will ignore them.

Your OP statement misrepresents why we can’t accept so-called “same-sex marriage”. Your OP is about marriage. You are being very dishonest, and it’s hypocritical for you to criticize us for limiting the definition of marriage when you are placing your own limits on it.

 

[iloveangels]

Yes. I would say that sexual activity should take place within the context of a loving committed relationship, where ideally, lust is absent. In the context of two people who put the other’s well being above their own. That is love, self-giving and commitment to another, homosexuals can meet that. I think sexual activity within that context is moral.

But that’s not what Specelo’s talking about, either. He’s talking about civil marriage.

[And indirectly because of his reasons for wanting homosexual civil marriage, civil marriage of any other arrangement that uses the same reasoning. Aka the right to marry a mighty fine John Deere tractor.]

 

[spencelo]

Great … let’s keep the focus on civil marriage. Please provide a definition of marriage. If it is one that isn’t based on some sort of procreative aspect, then be prepared to answer why it must be limited to just two people.

First, I don’t need to provide a definition because we’re merely talking about civil marriage, and the issue of civil marriage is whether same-sex couples have a legal right to marry.

Second, I don’t see why I need to provide a definition that must limit civil marriage between just two people. Polygamy should be assessed on its own terms, and in this thread, I’m not debating polygamy.

 

[iloveangels]

First, I don’t need to provide a definition because we’re merely talking about civil marriage, and the issue of civil marriage is whether same-sex couples have a legal right to marry.

Second, I don’t see why I need to provide a definition that must limit civil marriage between just two people. Polygamy should be assessed on its own terms, and in this thread, I’m not debating polygamy.

OK, now this is getting somewhere. You just want the paperwork. YOu don’t want the machinery that goes behind the paperwork necessarily. You just want a certificate from NY or someplace. TO YOU, that’s a civil marriage.

And you think that just because you feel entitled to a certificate, that it’s a good reason for you to get it. Kinda like that guy who really loves that mighty fine John Deere tractor that I was just talking about. But of course, you don’t want to talk about that because it’s not what you personally want, therefore it’s not on the table, regardless of the fact that it uses the same reasoning you do. [Because, of course, only what you want matters. Doh!]

 

[spencelo]

OK, now this is getting somewhere. You just want the paperwork. YOu don’t want the machinery that goes behind the paperwork necessarily. You just want a certificate from NY or someplace.

And you think that just because you feel entitled to a certificate, that it’s a good reason for you to get it. Kinda like that guy who really loves that mighty fine JOhn Deere tractor that I was just talking about.

Your problem seems to be a continued inability to separate civil marriage from religious marriage.

 

[livingwordunity]

First, I don’t need to provide a definition because we’re merely talking about civil marriage

The government doesn’t know what marriage is anymore and is starting to reject a truth that goes back to the very first humans. “Civil marriage” has become a joke. But that doesn’t make it right.

 

[iloveangels]

Your problem seems to be a continued inability to separate civil marriage from religious marriage.

That’s because I understand Western culture and realize that these two things overlap and have for 2000 years.

Perhaps they’d ought to create a special exception certificate for you that doesn’t have anything to do with the classical term “marriage.” The term “marriage” carries all kinds of overlap in Western culture.

If you just want some kind of gay recognition that you’re living in the same house, but you’re not really "married’ in the true Western classical sense, well why don’t you just say so? It’s not marriage, it’s something else.

It’s a gay cohabitation certificate or something like that.

 

[livingwordunity]

Your problem seems to be a continued inability to separate civil marriage from religious marriage.

Marriage is a fact of natural law. Our religion recognizes the fact of what already had existed from the beginning. The government has no right to redefine Natural Law. So any law made by government that goes against Natural Law is objectively an invalid law.

 

[spencelo]

That’s because I understand Western culture and realize that these two things overlap and have for 2000 years.

But there isn’t much overlap in America – civil marriage is very different from religious marriage. People who can’t get married in Churches (because their union won’t be recognized) can nevertheless get married at the county clerk’s office.

 

[iloveangels]

Marriage is a fact of natural law. Our religion recognizes the fact of what already had existed from the beginning. The government has no right to redefine natural law.

Correct. Homosexual behavior cannot constitute a marriage. It’s not that kind of arrangement.

 

[bri89]

But that’s not what Specelo’s talking about, either. He’s talking about civil marriage.

[And indirectly because of his reasons for wanting homosexual civil marriage, civil marriage of any other arrangement that uses the same reasoning. Aka the right to marry a mighty fine John Deere tractor.]

I was simply addressing homosexuality, not civil marriage, so nevermind.

 

[spencelo]

Marriage is a fact of natural law. Our religion recognizes the fact of what already had existed from the beginning. The government has no right to redefine Natural Law. So any law made by government that goes against Natural Law is objectively an invalid law.

In our democracy, what’s considered invalid according to Catholic doctrine isn’t necessarily invalid according to secular law. In NY, same-sex marriage is valid. Objections from the Catholic church that such unions are invalid hold absolutely no weight in a court of law.

 

[iloveangels]

But there isn’t much overlap in America – civil marriage is very different from religious marriage. People who can’t get married in Churches (because their union won’t be recognized) can nevertheless get married at the county clerk’s office.

That’s not true. The term “marriage” is a very old one and encompasses all the unions between men and women that have been solemnized AS well as all the religious marriages.

I mean, if anyone can lay claim to the word “marriage,” it’s Catholics who were recognizing it as a sacrament before the USA was even here in existence!!

It’s been co-opted by the society and is commonly understood to have a lot of content so there is this enormous overlap.