Secular argument against gay marriage

[LightFromLight]

I can see nothing wrong in “same sex behavior”, no one can choose their sexual orientation.

But what exactly is “same sex behavior” and why should I be bothered? Around 97% of us are not homosexual, we’re heterosexual, and there are married heterosexuals who engage in wife-swapping (a sort of drive-thru polygamy) and all kinds of fetishes and perversions, you wouldn’t believe some of the things they get up to. They far outnumber homosexuals yet there are no protests, no marches, no anguished threads, it’s as quiet as the grave. Apparently none of them are harming the institution of marriage, while when gays want to get married and live a quiet, normal life together there’s uproar.

What a strange world, you couldn’t make it up could you?

Interesting how you give examples of people who break their marriages vows as reason to give the married title to homosexuals.

 

[inocente]

The reason it seems to you that his reasoning implies that marriage is only about anatomy in the bedroom is because of a confusion in your logic. Logically speaking it is quite right to claim that an issue is necessarily about a particular aspect without claiming it is only about that aspect. Josh can consistently be claiming that marriage is necessarily about procreation without being held to the implication that it is only about procreation.

Either you are aware of that distinction and are making an unwarranted point or you need to reconsider your own thinking on this issue.

Au contraire, monsieur. Civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Dictionary definitions don’t mention procreation. Procreation is never mentioned in the ceremony. The spouses don’t make any vows to procreate. There’s nothing about procreation on the certificate. The State never checks up a year or so later and cancels the marriage if procreation hasn’t taken place. Some couples get married without any intention of procreating. Some couples can’t procreate. Civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

 

[inocente]

And why? If the basis of sexual complimentarity and openness of the marital union to procreation does not hold true, then these other attributes of marriage are not founded and are thus mere personal preference. For you to deny the anthropological truth that marriage is based upon is to change marriage’s meaning and conflate it with companionship.

You may have a hard time convincing people that the marriage vows have nothing to do with the basis of marriage, and that something which isn’t in the vows and is never mentioned in the ceremony is the basis of marriage!

Jesus already dealt with divorce, if you read the context. He’s talking about the institution of marriage, its nature and its purpose here.

I think you’re alone in that interpretation. For instance here’s Matthew Henry’s commentary, a thousand words or more which explain verses 1-12 in detail.

*This is not a question of preference, this is a question of correctly labeling the distinct relationship of marriage, and not attempting to change its meaning. Same sex unions are not marriages and two people of the same sex could not have a marital relationship, it’s a nominal impossibility, like a square circle.

Sure, we encourage faithfulness in relationship and and so forth, but practicing those virtues is not unique to a marital relationship, so calling something a marriage and revising its meaning to encourage faithfulness, and exclusivity, and other martial norms, is a prime instance of consequentialism, and an ineffective strategy (we see in the European countries that unstigmatized and normalized “married” same sex unions have much higher rates of and tendencies towards open relationships and infidelity) as well as an extremely harmful redefinition of the institution of marriage.*

You’re trying to change the meaning of marriage to make it have nothing to do with the promises the partners make to each other. In reality it is all about those vows, all about publicly committing to each other.

I take it you wouldn’t argue that being a Catholic has nothing to do with being able to profess the Apostle’s Creed. In the same way, you can’t divorce (pun) the meaning of marriage from the vows.

 

[inocente]

Interesting how you give examples of people who break their marriages vows as reason to give the married title to homosexuals.

That wasn’t my reasoning at all. I was saying it’s bizarre to get all hot and bothered about something which may happen in a homosexual relationship while totally overlooking the much larger numbers of heterosexuals who do the same things.

 

[JontheMaronite]

You may have a hard time convincing people that the marriage vows have nothing to do with the basis of marriage, and that something which isn’t in the vows and is never mentioned in the ceremony is the basis of marriage!

I didn’t say marriage vows have nothing to do with the basis of marriage. That is dishonestly putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say.

What I do say is that marriage vows commit and confirm a particular union, the union of husband and wife – the only kind or type of union and human relationship in this world that is naturally open and possible for the bearing of human offspring. The marriage ceremony solemnizes this union, and the marital procreative act consummates and validates the union.

I think you’re alone in that interpretation. For instance here’s Matthew Henry’s commentary, a thousand words or more which explain verses 1-12 in detail.

So, you say “He is teaching about divorce here, not trying to lay down rules about who can and can’t get married.” And then you deny that Jesus talks about the institution and what constitutes a marital union, to explain why divorce is wrong and to clarify what the definition and nature of marriage is? It’s pretty basic highschool reading comprehension. To paraphrase it simply, Jesus says “because your hearts were hard Moses wrote this law”. But here’s the real scoop about marriage, genesis says that it’s between man and women, based on the anthropological truth about the distinction between male and female, they leave their families and come together, and their unitive act “becomes one flesh” (which can be symbolic for offspring, or symbolic of the reproductive organs of each individual coming together to co-ordinate in the process and complete the whole of the reproductive system and process.) And the nature of this one flesh union which God joins together and blesses is what keeps them together, and what no man shall break apart. Hence, divorce is morally wrong, and a remarriage would be adultery."

Perhaps, try St Paul, as he reaffirmes the nature and definition of marriage as union between man and woman. (Eph 5:25-33, Galatians 3:28, 1 Cor 7) I suggest you reexamine your study and research in this area if you think I’m alone in this interpretation, even Matthew Henry agrees with me in part.

You’re trying to change the meaning of marriage to make it have nothing to do with the promises the partners make to each other. In reality it is all about those vows, all about publicly committing to each other.

I take it you wouldn’t argue that being a Catholic has nothing to do with being able to profess the Apostle’s Creed. In the same way, you can’t divorce (pun) the meaning of marriage from the vows.

No, I’m not saying the meaning of marriage has nothing to do with the promises the partners make to each other, and again you are putting words in my mouth. The promises that the husband and wife (why are you saying partners?) make publicly in the marriage ceremony are part of it and great, but not all. The marital act of coitus is another form of the promise and commitment that is actually the consummation of the marriage that validates the vow in many laws and in the eyes of God and each other. Historically, legally and philosophically, we’ve seen it to be the most important promise and act of commitment in the marital union, hence it has been called the marital act.

I indeed would argue that the identity of being a Catholic certainly has to do with his affirmation in professing his belief in the Church and Her creed, but the identity of a Catholic is based on far more than than nominal affirmation, it is validated by living out and acting upon that belief and following that creed.

 

[josh987654321]

You seem to think that marriage is only about anatomy in the bedroom, but to most people it’s much much more, it’s to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

If anatomy in the bedroom no longer matters for a marriage, than why would people be against other kinds of really perverce unions that I wont go into detail on?

See comments below (and those aren’t entirely His own words, Jesus is quoting Genesis).

Do you think Jesus quoted old testiment scripture that he didn’t agree with or thought was incorrect?

I certainly wouldn’t quote something that I disagreed with, it’s obvious that the creater made them male and female and for the two to be united to one another and become like one flesh in marriage, I am left thinking that you must know this truth, so why are you choosing to ignore it?

The Quakers and the Unitarians also perform same.sex marriages, don’t know if there are others.

But your opinion on what Christians should and shouldn’t do is off-topic again, the thread’s about secular arguments.

Christ’s teachings do not conform to popular demand.

Didn’t you get taught to read the whole book and not take verses out of context? Jesus never does confusing asides, He always sticks to the subject in hand, and He is teaching about divorce here, not trying to lay down rules about who can and can’t get married.

I didn’t take it completely out of context, in context he is speaking about divorce, but he also goes into detail on what entails a marriage, all of which is evident that it does not include a homosexual union.

I don’t know anything about IVF or the medical ethics of who it’s offered to. We’re getting off-topic again, the thread is about gay marriage.

It is on topic though, you say that a homosexual union and a heterosexual union should be treated equally in marriage, I have pointed out that when it comes to IVF they definatly should not be treated equally, you think these things wont happen when same sex marriage, equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality are legalised?

Obviously in certain areas the two different unions should not be treated equally.

Promiscuity is casual sex with multiple partners, so I think you’d probably prefer marriage to promiscuity.

Thank you for defining promiscuity for me.

How about celibacy? I am an unmaried heterosexual and I am not promiscuous, I live a celibate life, because I know I would not like to find out later on when/if I am/get married that my wife had been promiscuous and slept around with multiple guys before she met me, so why would I do it to her? do you think marriage is the only solution to promiscuity? if they are promiscuous, what are the chances of being faithful in marriage? they obviously don’t care much whether they save themselves for one person to give themselves fully to.

Promiscuity is the exact attitude that so many young people have, there is no longer any sexual morality and you think same sex marriage will reverse this culture? you would be wrong, it will instead intensify it, I mean if two/three or more are consenting what is wrong with it, right?

It’s like saying they are going to sin anyway, so why bother telling them it’s a sin, if they cannot fall over the bar than why not lower it.

No, I can’t see it would make any difference.

I think it would make a huge difference, as it’s obvious that the creater made male and female, so that the two were compatible in marriage in such a way that two men or two women are not.

And same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, and given the sexual anatomy of a male and female and their compatibility with one another, this is far from accurate wouldn’t you agree?

That’s not a rational argument though, just your opinion, and I think it’s a bit of a strange opinion at that - do you really believe that the homosexual Catholic sitting in the pew next to you can’t experience love, or experiences it less deeply than you? How can you possibly know that?

This is where you don’t understand, I think your understanding of love is warped.

As Ricmat say’s: The matter at hand is not whether homosexuals should be allowed to “love” each other. Of course they should, as should we all. And a marriage “certificate” is not required to do that.

Sexual desires are not always acts of love, those who look toward their sexual desires for love are mistaken about love.

If your opinion is that homosexuals can’t experience love then you would only see them as robot-like and/or depraved, but that doesn’t say anything about what they’re really like, only about your opinion.

Of course homosexuals can experience love, but to argue for same sex marriage, means to be looking for love in the wrong places, appeasing sexual desires is not true love.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

**Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.

The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.

It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.

The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.

Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.

Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.

Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.**

Josh can consistently be claiming that marriage is necessarily about procreation without being held to the implication that it is only about procreation.

Exactly Thank you Peter Plato.

Genesis says that it’s between man and woman, based on the **anthropological truth **about the distinction between male and female, they leave their families and come together, and their unitive act “becomes one flesh” (which can be symbolic for offspring, or symbolic of the reproductive organs of each individual coming together to co-ordinate in the process and complete the whole of the reproductive system and process.) And the nature of this one flesh union which God joins together and blesses is what keeps them together, and what no man shall break apart. Hence, divorce is morally wrong, and a remarriage would be adultery."

I think you’re alone in that interpretation.

I think you are along in your interpretation of it being only about divorce.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

No, I’m making clear that this is the path you have chosen: sex is meaningless in and of itself, which means homosexual sex is too. You think that having it branded as equivalent to heterosexual sex will make people respect it more but this is backward: they won’t have any more respect for it than for any other kind.

I think there IS a meaning to the marital act, which is why I oppose same-sex marriage.

I think it might prove salutary for you to read what many current advocates for same-sex marriage were saying AGAINST marriage two decades ago: oppressive, regressive, dying, dead, moribund, a relic, and so on.

Why do you want to reduce marriage to sex? If marriage was about sex then it would be oppressive and dying, and rightly so, there would by no point whatsoever in getting married. But for most of us marriage isn’t about sex at all, it’s about love, the bond between spouses, it’s about trust and obligation, there’s something fine and very human about it.

 

[inocente]

I will still reply to your previous post if you wish, but I would like to share this with you along with my previous post directed toward you to contemplate, thank you.

Yes, please reply where you have something to say.

As for the bible, my impression is you’re reading it by yourself, which is fine but a bible-reading class or discussion group would help you get more out of it. For instance in Matt 5:31-32 Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 24, which at that time was being interpreted as allowing very easy divorce, but Jesus says no, and ties it back to what he was just saying about committing adultery of the heart (as Henry calls it, see his commentary). We can read it as being about what it truly means to be faithful.

Then in Matt 19:4-6 the Pharisees try to trip Jesus up over this teaching, but he argues that he is not changing the Law of Moses, rather they are at fault for interpreting it far too liberally - he simply quotes from Genesis, where God joined Adam with Eve, and says “what God has joined together, let no one separate”.

See here for various commentaries. The only specifically Catholic online commentary I know of is Haydock, but to me he’s very dry. We don’t have to agree with any of them of course, but they can help us understand what’s going on in the text, which is often more than meets the eye.

The following is from this link provided to me on a different thread by edwest2- catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html

Sure, we should be intolerant of injustice, glad you agree.

This is my point of view, please contemplate it and if you still feel that I am incorrect or have a warped view of love to be in opposition to same sex marriage and acts of homosexuality than please let me know, thank you.

I don’t think you’re warped or anything, I think the problem is that we have different moralities on this subject and it’s really hard for us to understand each other. For instance I’ve no comprehension of (a) why anyone is bothered about what consenting adults do in private or (b) what that has to do with marriage or the gospel anyway.

 

[cwltexas]

If one dispassionately looks at current events in the US, the social and legal trend of gay marriage, what has happened with the whole subject of legal gay relationships within the US in the last 13 years, there can be little doubt and debate that full gay marriage is going to happen, with nationwide recognition, within the next handful of years and quite possibly in June with the two US Supreme Court decisions.

Arguments for or against it will be totally moot then, it will simply be a reality.

Perhaps the USCCB position paper on Correctly Forming A Moral Conscience and it’s lesser of two evils should have been applied to Domestic Partnerships back in the 1980s?

 

[inocente]

I didn’t say marriage vows have nothing to do with the basis of marriage. That is dishonestly putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say.

What I do say is that marriage vows commit and confirm a particular union, the union of husband and wife – the only kind or type of union and human relationship in this world that is naturally open and possible for the bearing of human offspring. The marriage ceremony solemnizes this union, and the marital procreative act consummates and validates the union.

Now hang on there. You said " If the basis of sexual complimentarity and openness of the marital union to procreation does not hold true, then these other attributes of marriage are not founded and are thus mere personal preference" yet the vows don’t mention sex or procreation or gender.

*So, you say “He is teaching about divorce here, not trying to lay down rules about who can and can’t get married.” And then you deny that Jesus talks about the institution and what constitutes a marital union, to explain why divorce is wrong and to clarify what the definition and nature of marriage is? It’s pretty basic highschool reading comprehension. To paraphrase it simply, Jesus says “because your hearts were hard Moses wrote this law”. But here’s the real scoop about marriage, genesis says that it’s between man and women, based on the anthropological truth about the distinction between male and female, they leave their families and come together, and their unitive act “becomes one flesh” (which can be symbolic for offspring, or symbolic of the reproductive organs of each individual coming together to co-ordinate in the process and complete the whole of the reproductive system and process.) And the nature of this one flesh union which God joins together and blesses is what keeps them together, and what no man shall break apart. Hence, divorce is morally wrong, and a remarriage would be adultery."

Perhaps, try St Paul, as he reaffirmes the nature and definition of marriage as union between man and woman. (Eph 5:25-33, Galatians 3:28, 1 Cor 7) I suggest you reexamine your study and research in this area if you think I’m alone in this interpretation, even Matthew Henry agrees with me in part.*

No, Jesus is using “one flesh” to mean “what God has joined together”. We can bounce around the bible for ever and a day, perhaps we will on another thread, but (a) Jesus is talking to an audience for whom, at that time and in that culture, marriage was between a man and a woman and made before God, whereas we’re discussing civil marriage; and (b) the thread is about secular arguments, and how we interpret holy books isn’t a secular argument.

No, I’m not saying the meaning of marriage has nothing to do with the promises the partners make to each other, and again you are putting words in my mouth. The promises that the husband and wife (why are you saying partners?) make publicly in the marriage ceremony are part of it and great, but not all. The marital act of coitus is another form of the promise and commitment that is actually the consummation of the marriage that validates the vow in many laws and in the eyes of God and each other. Historically, legally and philosophically, we’ve seen it to be the most important promise and act of commitment in the marital union, hence it has been called the marital act.

Surely this is circular though, since it assumes marriage is about procreation, whereas civil marriage isn’t. These days a large proportion of people don’t wait to get married to consummate their relationship, so for all those at least marriage has nothing to do with the “marital act”. It’s also hard to see why there should necessarily be any difference in the meaning of the “marital act” for straights and for gays.

 

[josh987654321]

Yes, please reply where you have something to say.

Okay, thank you.

p.s. I have not read the links you have provided in your previous post yet, as it’s currently very late, but tomorrow I will try and get around to reading them, thank you.

Sure, we should be intolerant of injustice, glad you agree.

Im glad we agree there too, I find that “love is not tolerance” link to be very good.

I don’t think you’re warped or anything, I think the problem is that we have different moralities on this subject and it’s really hard for us to understand each other. For instance I’ve no comprehension of (a) why anyone is bothered about what consenting adults do in private or (b) what that has to do with marriage or the gospel anyway.

(a) sometime I feel like that, but as the “love is not tolerance” says, love is not a mild philosphy of live and let live, love wants what is best for the other even if they don’t or refuse to see it, it is not love to encourage others to condemn themselves or commit harm towards themselves when you know better, which is how I feel with same sex marriage.

(b) when it comes to marriage, as I believe the acts of homosexuality as being acts of grave depravity, I cannot in good concience support the acts of homosexuality in any way which includes same sex marriage.

With same sex marriage, it will confirm a culture in which already lacks a great deal in sexual morality, as people are currently viewing homosexual sexual acts as acts of love, when they are far from it, because they see sex as harmless fun, that if the parties involved are of consent than there is nothing wrong with it, which is incorrect, I think people are confusing real love with appeasing sexual desires.

In it’s most simplest terms my view is this, God created them male and female, to be untied to one another in a way that is only capable of a man and a woman given their physical make up, two men or two women cannot be united to one another in such a way, you might feel as if we are denying homosexuals the unity of marriage, but the fact is that they cannot have the same unity that a male and female does, as the physical compatability just isn’t there, as God did not create men to be united to one another and he didn’t create women to be untied to one another, he created man and woman to be united to one another.

Given that he created male and female, the sexual relations between two men or two women, is a miss use of his creation, as the very nature of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for, this is why we say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful and acts of grave depravity.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why do you want to reduce marriage to sex? If marriage was about sex then it would be oppressive and dying, and rightly so, there would by no point whatsoever in getting married. But for most of us marriage isn’t about sex at all, it’s about love, the bond between spouses, it’s about trust and obligation, there’s something fine and very human about it.

I find this an interesting but self-refuting rebuttal on your part.

First of all, to say marriage is about procreation or creation of new life is not taking a position that marriage is only about sex. It is to take the position that the capacity and responsibility for the creation of new human beings is one that ought to be distinguished from all other roles in life as the most important. There are all manner of vocations that involve creativity - making money, making crafts, making art, making music, making manufactured goods, etc. for many of these, special expertise is required to engage publicly in the creative enterprise. However, for the creation and care of new human individuals, this endeavor is merely rubber stamped with a certificate of marriage and certainly does not require any proof of ability or commitment by the state. The Church goes beyond that and does require that the couple go through marriage preparation.

What you seem to be claiming is that there is absolutely nothing about the responsibility of creating new human beings that makes it in any way distinguishable from other human relationships so it ought not be given any special status.

In reality, it is you who are claiming that marriage is only about sex because human relationships involving life long commitment, trust and obligation have been around as long as humans have been. Friendship, fraternal relationships, parental relationships, even occupations, participation in sports and public service positions require all of those features, but never have we claimed any of them should be enshrined with a marriage certificate. We might say some people are married to their work, but never would we suggest that this work relationship should be made official with a marriage license because marriage shouldn’t only be about sex. That would be a silly proposition precisely because we do recognize that the relationship of sex to creation of new life is critical even though we (but apparently not you) do not reduce marriage merely to sex.

Why would anyone advocate same sex marriage unless they subscribed to the belief that marriage is only about sex, as you do? Why would a gay couple want their relationship to be enshrined in marriage and not be content with their long term, committed friendship unless they believed their sexual relationship was equal to that of a couple in a heterosexual marriage?

Since they cannot procreate as a heterosexual couple can, then to them marriage cannot be about procreation.
Since they want something more than a committed loving friendship then they must believe marriage is only about having a sexual relationship or else they would be advocating for all committed, loving relationships that do not involve sex to also be included in the definition of marriage. This position simply makes no logical sense unless you are of the opinion that marriage is only about having a long term sexual relationship.

In short, any advocate of same sex marriage must be, like you, surreptitiously advocating that marriage is only about having a sexual relationship, which is the only criteria that distinguishes it from other loving committed relationships.

Before you begin to aim barbs at others on this forum, perhaps you might want to reflect on what your own position entails. Eating crow can be a messy business.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Au contraire, monsieur. Civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

I would suggest to you that if this is true then the state has no legitimate reason to be involved in legislating concerning who should be married and should stay out of redefining the term completely.

 

[markeverett49]

Au contraire, monsieur. Civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

If this were so, then when civil marriages end in divorce, family courts would not to be involved (-to settle custody suits, establish visitation rights) but they are. Many heterosexual couples have children and when those couples divorce, the state takes a great interest in what becomes of the children.

 

[inocente]

(a) sometime I feel like that, but as the “love is not tolerance” says, love is not a mild philosphy of live and let live, love wants what is best for the other even if they don’t or refuse to see it, it is not love to encourage others to condemn themselves or commit harm towards themselves when you know better, which is how I feel with same sex marriage.

That doesn’t sound like love, that sounds like a desire to dominate others.

(b) when it comes to marriage, as I believe the acts of homosexuality as being acts of grave depravity, I cannot in good concience support the acts of homosexuality in any way which includes same sex marriage.

Fair enough if you protest just as loudly at the much greater numbers of heterosexuals who get married and commit acts of grave depravity.

With same sex marriage, it will confirm a culture in which already lacks a great deal in sexual morality, as people are currently viewing homosexual sexual acts as acts of love, when they are far from it, because they see sex as harmless fun, that if the parties involved are of consent than there is nothing wrong with it, which is incorrect, I think people are confusing real love with appeasing sexual desires.

There are far greater numbers of sexually immoral heterosexuals than homosexuals yet you seem fine with that. That manages to go unmentioned, there are no marches in the streets, no horrified threads. How come that’s tolerated then? What love is it that is completely tolerant of one but completely intolerant of the other?

*In it’s most simplest terms my view is this, God created them male and female, to be untied to one another in a way that is only capable of a man and a woman given their physical make up, two men or two women cannot be united to one another in such a way, you might feel as if we are denying homosexuals the unity of marriage, but the fact is that they cannot have the same unity that a male and female does, as the physical compatability just isn’t there, as God did not create men to be united to one another and he didn’t create women to be untied to one another, he created man and woman to be united to one another.

Given that he created male and female, the sexual relations between two men or two women, is a miss use of his creation, as the very nature of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for, this is why we say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful and acts of grave depravity.
*

God created homosexuals too, and with around 3% of the world population of 7 billion that makes 210 million homosexuals currently alive, everyone of them created by God. So it seems God doesn’t share your view.

And of course, it’s not a secular argument.

 

[inocente]

First of all, to say marriage is about procreation or creation of new life is not taking a position that marriage is only about sex. It is to take the position that the capacity and responsibility for the creation of new human beings is one that ought to be distinguished from all other roles in life as the most important. There are all manner of vocations that involve creativity - making money, making crafts, making art, making music, making manufactured goods, etc. for many of these, special expertise is required to engage publicly in the creative enterprise. However, for the creation and care of new human individuals, this endeavor is merely rubber stamped with a certificate of marriage and certainly does not require any proof of ability or commitment by the state. The Church goes beyond that and does require that the couple go through marriage preparation.

What you seem to be claiming is that there is absolutely nothing about the responsibility of creating new human beings that makes it in any way distinguishable from other human relationships so it ought not be given any special status.

I understand your view but disagree profoundly. I’m currently re-reading H G Wells A Modern Utopia, where amongst other things which raised eyebrows at the time he proposes the State cancels any marriage which is still childless after two or three years, and punishes the spouses. This is one of the logical conclusions of the State dictating how best to produce and raise children. Civil marriage is, thankfully, free of this socialist agenda. I think it would be a big mistake to go down that road.

*In reality, it is you who are claiming that marriage is only about sex because human relationships involving life long commitment, trust and obligation have been around as long as humans have been. Friendship, fraternal relationships, parental relationships, even occupations, participation in sports and public service positions require all of those features, but never have we claimed any of them should be enshrined with a marriage certificate. We might say some people are married to their work, but never would we suggest that this work relationship should be made official with a marriage license because marriage shouldn’t only be about sex. That would be a silly proposition precisely because we do recognize that the relationship of sex to creation of new life is critical even though we (but apparently not you) do not reduce marriage merely to sex.

Why would anyone advocate same sex marriage unless they subscribed to the belief that marriage is only about sex, as you do? Why would a gay couple want their relationship to be enshrined in marriage and not be content with their long term, committed friendship unless they believed their sexual relationship was equal to that of a couple in a heterosexual marriage?

Since they cannot procreate as a heterosexual couple can, then to them marriage cannot be about procreation.

Since they want something more than a committed loving friendship then they must believe marriage is only about having a sexual relationship or else they would be advocating for all committed, loving relationships that do not involve sex to also be included in the definition of marriage. This position simply makes no logical sense unless you are of the opinion that marriage is only about having a long term sexual relationship. *

You are ignoring romantic love. Civil marriage is primarily about love, we expect the spouses to be in love, otherwise we’re unhappy about it and call it a marriage of convenience or an arranged marriage, or say that he got a trophy wife or she’s a gold digger and so on.

As the old song has it: Love and marriage, love and marriage / Go together like a horse and carriage / This I tell ya, brother, you can’t have one without the other.

In short, any advocate of same sex marriage must be, like you, surreptitiously advocating that marriage is only about having a sexual relationship, which is the only criteria that distinguishes it from other loving committed relationships.

Before you begin to aim barbs at others on this forum, perhaps you might want to reflect on what your own position entails. Eating crow can be a messy business.

Indeed. And since you forgot all about love in marriage, you better put on your bib.

 

[inocente]

I would suggest to you that if this is true then the state has no legitimate reason to be involved in legislating concerning who should be married and should stay out of redefining the term completely.

There is a view that it would be better if the State wasn’t in the marriage business at all, which would also treat all citizens equally and so would be an alternative to legalizing gay marriage, but I think most people value the institution too much to end it.

 

[inocente]

Au contraire, monsieur. Civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation.
markeverett49;10677771:

If this were so, then when civil marriages end in divorce, family courts would not to be involved (-to settle custody suits, establish visitation rights) but they are. Many heterosexual couples have children and when those couples divorce, the state takes a great interest in what becomes of the children.

Au contraire, monsieur. You would have a point if family courts and the State didn’t get involved in child custody, etc., when unmarried couples split up. But they care just as much when unmarried couples separate, which adds weight to my argument that civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes I did - see post #286.

The fact that many children are in single-parent families does not imply that the traditional concept of marriage is defective.

How is civil marriage “a sacred institution”?

“But from the beginning of the world it was not thus; for then God only formed one man and one woman, that they might be exclusively and invariably attached to each other.
7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. Hence it is written, (Gen. ii. 24, and Matt. xix. 5.) A man shall leave father and mother, and adhere to his wife.”

How is civil marriage anything other than a human institution?

It is only a human institution for those who believe man is the measure of all things - which is not the case for many agnostics, let alone believers. There are even atheists who believe some things are sacred…