Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[Vonsalza]

I don’t recall saying anything about making the state do anything.

I do humbly beg your pardon. I thought your statement of “We still have to uphold Catholic teaching f we’re Catholic.” meant that “We cannot uphold views on marriage that define it differently than the Catholic Church for non-church contexts”.

But If I’m wrong in my interpretation (which is fully possible), I’m not sure I understand your posts. They seem, to me, to espouse traditionalism in all contexts pertaining to marriage. If I’m wrong, mea culpa.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t think it’s easy, fun or cool and if you’ve been around any actual gay people struggling with this as Catholics or Christians, you’d know they’re not having a high old time. I realize everyone will continue to think exactly what they want, regardless.

 

[JimG]

I think where you run afoul here is that most of the folks on the other side don’t identify marriage as a dominantly sexual institution. It’s more about love, rather than what organ corresponds to what orifice.

Moreover, they have no obligation to see it the way you do; the simultaneous glory and tragedy of democracy, I suppose.

It’s true, they have no obligation to recognize reality, or 4,000 years of human history, or the reality of the human body, or the reason for conjugal relations in the first place. A society can pretend that marriage is not marital. It can then be any combination of people who wish to live together for any reason. To limit it to a man and woman, two men, or two women, is equally discriminatory to those who wish other combinations. It is all equally discriminatory and equally corrosive to civilization.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t think it’s easy, fun or cool and if you’ve been around any actual gay people struggling with this as Catholics or Christians, you’d know they’re not having a high old time.

Still going off of antecodotal evidence, Tis?

I’ve already mentioned two famous gays who are having a hard time, just not for the reasons you say…

And really, don’t act like you’re the only one who knows GLBT people.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I do humbly beg your pardon. I thought your statement of “We still have to uphold Catholic teaching f we’re Catholic.” meant that “We cannot uphold views on marriage that define it differently than the Catholic Church for non-church contexts”.

That’s basically correct. Otherwise, people become scandalized.

Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously at a spirituallly fundamental level if you said “I believe in XYZ, but I believe in the government not doing XYZ or even taking a neutral stance”.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I think where you run afoul here is that most of the folks on the other side don’t identify marriage as a dominantly sexual institution. It’s more about love, rather than what organ corresponds to what orifice.

Moreover, they have no obligation to see it the way you do; the simultaneous glory and tragedy of democracy, I suppose.

It’s true, they have no obligation to recognize reality, or 4,000 years of human history, or the reality of the human body, or the reason for conjugal relations in the first place.

I think they do. It’s just that in their recognition, they draw a different conclusion. Your argument here is, basically, “Hey you! You need to see this MY way!” They’re just saying “no”.

A society can pretend that marriage is not marital. It can then…

Is a circle circular?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I do humbly beg your pardon. I thought your statement of “We still have to uphold Catholic teaching f we’re Catholic.” meant that “We cannot uphold views on marriage that define it differently than the Catholic Church for non-church contexts”.

Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously at a spirituallly fundamental level if you said “I believe in XYZ, but I believe in the government not doing XYZ or even taking a neutral stance”.

For you, this might be the crux issue.

For those that dissent from your view, it’s not a spiritual issue. At all. As such, your rhetoric doesn’t mean anything to them.

 

[SuperLuigi]

In the context of using the power of the state, it should. People who have to run to the government to make their case for special rights and entitlements have already lost.

 

[JimG]

I think they do. It’s just that in their recognition, they draw a different conclusion. Your argument here is, basically, “Hey you! You need to see this MY way!” They’re just saying “no”.

No, I’m saying it’s better to recognize human nature for what it is rather than try to change it or pretend that it doesn’t exist. It’s always better to recognize reality rather than to live by fantasy.

 

[BW1980]

Robert,
The types of interactions that occur as a result of the SSA are one of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. The Flood and Sodom & Gomorrah were directly because of SSA and the sins to which it gives rise. The Flood didn’t occur until marriage between a man and a man and a man and an animal were codified.

 

[theCardinalbird]

No, I’m saying it’s better to recognize human nature for what it is rather than try to change it or pretend that it doesn’t exist. It’s always better to recognize reality rather than to live by fantasy.

So would you say that two men having sexual relations is human nature?

 

[JimG]

So would you say that two men having sexual relations is human nature?

No, I would say that two men having sexual relations is impossible because they are not sexually complementary. They may engage in sodomy or other acts involving the genitals, but those are opposed to human nature rather than in accord with it.

 

[Jamie5]

I believe it’s definitely more human nature than say staring at a cell phone for 8 hours a day. This is where things get really “murky” when you try to define human nature in all it’s contradictory and unique per case glory. Plus the one response that completely shuts down any argument is the very valid: “It’s none of your business what 2 consenting adults, married or not, do in their bedrooms.”

 

[Rau]

I think where you run afoul here is that most of the folks on the other side don’t identify marriage as a dominantly sexual institution. It’s more about love, rather than what organ corresponds to what orifice.

Moreover, they have no obligation to see it the way you do; the simultaneous glory and tragedy of democracy, I suppose.

Not “dominantly” sexual, but rather “inherently” sexual. We love our best friends too, but the one we choose to marry is unique; and the only sexual relationship we contemplate. Claims to “see it a different way” are disingenuous.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I think they do. It’s just that in their recognition, they draw a different conclusion. Your argument here is, basically, “Hey you! You need to see this MY way!” They’re just saying “no”.

No, I’m saying it’s better to recognize human nature for what it is rather than try to change it or pretend that it doesn’t exist. It’s always better to recognize reality rather than to live by fantasy.

As charitably as I can, they “recognize human nature for what it is” in a different way than you do. That’s the fundamental issue.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I think where you run afoul here is that most of the folks on the other side don’t identify marriage as a dominantly sexual institution. It’s more about love, rather than what organ corresponds to what orifice.

Moreover, they have no obligation to see it the way you do; the simultaneous glory and tragedy of democracy, I suppose.

Not “dominantly” sexual, but rather “inherently” sexual. We love our best friends too, but the one we choose to marry is unique; and the only sexual relationship we contemplate. Claims to “see it a different way” are disingenuous.

“I think you’re wrong!” (grandstanding ensues)
"Well, I think you’re wrong! (contrary grandstanding ensues).

We reject each others base axioms as to what marriage entails and we are powerless to force the other side to accept what we accept as basic requirements of marriage. This is inherent to “axiom” as a concept.

And since this is their America too, we have the on-going problem.

 

[Rau]

Where we disagree is your implicit assumption that we must make the state define marriage in the same way the Church defines marriage.

When the State asks its people (unfortunately the US is a case where you were not asked) How should this marriage arrangement operate - the people get to express their opinions. I know marriage to be inherently sexual and on that basis wish it to be between a man and a woman.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Where we disagree is your implicit assumption that we must make the state define marriage in the same way the Church defines marriage.

When the State asks its people (unfortunately the US is a case where you were not asked) How should this marriage arrangement operate - the people get to express their opinions. I know marriage to be inherently sexual and on that basis wish it to be between a man and a woman.

Personally, I agree. I just also understand that my view isn’t inherently binding on any other person. I can make vague gestures to “human nature” in defense of my view, but all they have to do is reject it with something like “marriage isn’t doing for me exactly what it does for you”. And if I’m honest, the best reply I have is “Well… ok…”

 

[Rau]

Showing any kind of support for gay anything in today’s Church takes courage. The people who disagree will shout very loud.

Not sure what you have in mind by “gay anything”. Does it include same sex sexual relationships?

 

[Rau]

Plus the one response that completely shuts down any argument is the very valid: “It’s none of your business what 2 consenting adults, married or not, do in their bedrooms.”

Marriage is a public, not a private, institution. Thus what it is claimed to be - as opposed to what goes on in someone’s bedroom - is our business.