M
MT1926
Guest
I guess I better put another coat of wax on my skis. I wasn’t keeping up to the pack on this slippery slope we are traveling down.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
Marriage cannot be reduced to a civil construct, or right. Marriage between a man and woman is existential to humanity. Can you see the quicksand we fall into if you reduce an existential part of humanity to a civil right? Humanity is then subject to political whim rather than objective truth. It is never healthy for human beings to redefine fundamental aspects of what it means to be human. Rights need to support what is true, they do not define truth.
A Jewish person is a human being, objectively, non-negotiably
A black person is a human being, objectively, non-negotiably.
If a society redefined the humanity of these people by taking away their civil right to life, have they changed the reality?
No.
Human realities are larger than civil rights.
Civil rights should protect what is good and true, not simply endorse people’s desires. Civil rights protect things that people desire, but the desire is not the basis for protecting the right. If a right to marriage is dependent on the desires of people, then you must admit some difficult circumstances will have to be allowed. And you will be forced to provide a reason why those circumstances are not allowed when
“you are violating the civil rights of me and my two wives”.
Examples:
I have a right to provide for a family, to work.
I do not have a right to this any way I desire.
I desire to play pro basketball for a living. I cannot dunk a basketball. I do not have a right to be employed in the NBA.
I also do not have a right to sell marijuana on the street corner, even though it has the appearances of some of the goods the right to employment is ordered to, like providing resources for a family.
Society may call the union of any two people a marriage, but it is not the same thing as the union of a man and woman, by nature.
What do we have, when we call a thing something it is not?
A lie.
When has it ever been good for human beings to lie to themselves?
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Discrimination, thanks to purposeful muddling, has become a dirty word but it is not. We discriminate all the time, what food is proper to eat, what people we wish to speak to or associate with, what values we want to teach our children, etc. Society should protect children to the extent that marriage outside monogamous man/woman is not recognized as such. Otherwise, we are giving them bad example.
Discrimination in the social sphere has become inverted, people demanding rights and services that they force on others who should have the freedom to choose or discern according to their beliefs or conscience.
E
exnihilo
Guest
No, we should not support same sex marriage because it isn’t marriage. What is marriage? Marriage is the natural institution that precedes all other institutions including the state. Marriage is the institution that springs forth from the biological fact that men and women have babies when they have sex. The mother is unable to adequately care for herself during the pregnancy and after birth. The baby requires the coming together of the father and mother in order to ensure his survival.
The state is the product of many marriages. In the earliest days humanity was a patriarchy, which rested on marriage. As the number of people increased and humanity spread geographically various patriarchies came together to form larger groups. These governments were what we might consider tribal. As humanity grew further you began to have different forms of government including monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies. But in the earliest days there was still the recognition that the state was an conglomeration of many families or patriarchies. The father and even mother had certain rights over their children which the state could not intrude upon.
As we approach the modern age things change. The state became more powerful. The state began to interfere with the family in order ostensibly to protect the family. But what has really happened is it has destroyed the family. It has created a society of atomistic individuals. These individuals owe their allegiance primarily to the state and not to their clan or their family. The family having been thoroughly thrashed the next thing to fall is marriage itself. This is the point in history we are at.
We can accept same sex marriage only because the family has been destroyed. This has happened through divorce and remarriage. This has happened through promotion of the individual above the family. When the family isn’t really a family anymore only then can something like same sex marriage make sense. Such a thing would never exist in nature and could only be the product of a modern state.
Yes we are taught very forcibly that we shouldn’t discriminate against others. But this isn’t exactly true. There is nothing wrong with discrimination itself. What is wrong is unjust discrimination. To discriminate means to observe and respect differences. To have discriminating tastes is a compliment. It is good to discriminate between things that are different. And same sex marriage is different. It is not marriage. It can never be marriage because the two parties don’t fulfill the most basic requirement of marriage, they can’t have children.
It is not wrong to deny a right if a man does not have a right to those rights. Anyone can be married. But marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Homosexuals pushing for same sex marriage have every right to be married if that marriage is between a man and a woman. What they are pushing for is a right that no one has which is to have marriages between two members of the opposite sex.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
Thank you everyone for your posts and opinions, it has given me a great deal to think and pray about.
I think that most of my struggle with this just boils down to the word “marriage”. I see marriage in the Church as a sacrament and something that should never be changed or modified. But under civil law alone I see it as just a contract between two people. With the rate of divorce and everything else in civil marriage, I just don’t see how it can be considered the same as a true marriage. I feel like there are certain rights that we give to people automatically via civil marriage that we should not be denying to same sex couples just because they are same sex, but I also see the problem in calling it marriage.
Like I said, this has given me a lot to think and pray about.
I think that most of my struggle with this just boils down to the word “marriage”. I see marriage in the Church as a sacrament and something that should never be changed or modified. But under civil law alone I see it as just a contract between two people. With the rate of divorce and everything else in civil marriage, I just don’t see how it can be considered the same as a true marriage. I feel like there are certain rights that we give to people automatically via civil marriage that we should not be denying to same sex couples just because they are same sex, but I also see the problem in calling it marriage.
Like I said, this has given me a lot to think and pray about.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I think it helps to recognize that there are valid marriages and there are sacramental marriages. There is a distinction between the two, but not a total separation. All sacramental marriages are valid, but not all valid marriages are sacramental.
Marriage is the foundation of the family. A man and woman come together and their love begets another human being— a person who needs to be raised and cared for and who has both a right and an instinctual desire to know and be loved by his mother and father. All of the human race rests on this foundation because it is how each one of us came into existence.
This is why marriage can never be limited to only Catholics or Christians or religious people. It never has been limited in that way and it never will be.
Now, when Jesus came along, He recognized the foundational nature of marriage and the importance and necessity of grace to live out such a lifetime commitment. And so He raised marriage to the level of a sacrament for the faithful. But—since Baptism is the gateway to the sacramental life—only baptized people can enter into a sacramental marriage.
So what of the other 5 billion people on the planet who are not baptized? Marriage did not suddenly become a non-option for them. It has not been placed out of their reach or reduced to a mere contractual obligation as though it were for them merely an exchange of goods and services rather than an exchange of persons. Marriage remains the foundation of the family and the vehicle through which children are welcomed into the world and given a stable environment to be raised and loved by the man and woman who created them.
Yes, we speak separately of valid sacramental marriages and valid non-sacramental marriages. But they are not two distinct, totally different realities. They all share validity in common. Sacramental marriages just come with extra grace. Which is very helpful.
S
spiderweb
Guest
Lots of good responses, I’ll just add my view. Marriage is conferred by the two people wedding each other and the Church or the State is merely the witness of those vows. It is an exchange of persons that through the wedding vows essentially says “I am yours….You are mine”. It is a covenant in an exchange of persons for life, and not merely a contract in exchange of things or goods. It goes to every aspect of the persons joined together including their very DNA, which is part of that exchange, where new life may be formed. Same-sex couples can never complete the entire exchange of persons because there is a lack in the giving of the individual’s whole self, and therefore there is a lack in the covenant because it is an incomplete “I am yours”.
Same-sex unions can never be a total and complete exchange of persons, and therefore can never be a covenantal union. In redefining marriage for the sake of “equality”, instead of “equalizing” same- sex marriage they have actually brought down true marriage from an exchange of persons in a covenant to a lower level of a contract. The majority of society doesn’t understand the covenantal nature of marriage in an exchange of persons, which can only be for life, which is why divorces, single parents, objectification, etc. is rampant. We know beyond a doubt that none of those things are good for society. Promoting a contractual view of marriage (same-sex marriage cannot be anything other than a contractual view) will further add to those societal ailments and therefore cannot be endorsed as a “good” even from a purely secular view.
To make it short, heterosexual marriage provides an intrinsic benefit to society (namely in the form of providing, and providing for, a future population), and in recognition of that, the State helps them in that by providing them with benefits that promote the unity and well being of the family structure. Two people living together in a non sexual context do not provide the same intrinsic benefit to society, therefore the State does not provide them with benefits. They are denied and on their own. Two same- sex partners do not provide the same intrinsic benefit to society, so should they receive the benefits that some do? Or should they not receive the benefits like others do not?
Same-sex unions can never be a total and complete exchange of persons, and therefore can never be a covenantal union. In redefining marriage for the sake of “equality”, instead of “equalizing” same- sex marriage they have actually brought down true marriage from an exchange of persons in a covenant to a lower level of a contract. The majority of society doesn’t understand the covenantal nature of marriage in an exchange of persons, which can only be for life, which is why divorces, single parents, objectification, etc. is rampant. We know beyond a doubt that none of those things are good for society. Promoting a contractual view of marriage (same-sex marriage cannot be anything other than a contractual view) will further add to those societal ailments and therefore cannot be endorsed as a “good” even from a purely secular view.
It is not wrong to want people to have these benefits, but redefining marriage was never necessary to provide those same benefits, and it continues to leave out many people who would have possibly a stronger “right” to having those benefits. What about two brothers or sisters who live together? Brothers and sisters would be denied both marriage and civil union benefits. I could be mistaken, but without power of attorney, they would also be unable to make end of life decisions as well. What about just two old friends who never married and simply live together for companionship in a non sexual manner? A single child living with and taking care of an aging parent? Or any number of variations that could apply?
To make it short, heterosexual marriage provides an intrinsic benefit to society (namely in the form of providing, and providing for, a future population), and in recognition of that, the State helps them in that by providing them with benefits that promote the unity and well being of the family structure. Two people living together in a non sexual context do not provide the same intrinsic benefit to society, therefore the State does not provide them with benefits. They are denied and on their own. Two same- sex partners do not provide the same intrinsic benefit to society, so should they receive the benefits that some do? Or should they not receive the benefits like others do not?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.
If Caesar wants to allow civil marriages that enable same-sex couples to get the same tax breaks and other benefits of Caesar’s laws as traditional couple get, that is Caesar’s right.
My wife and I have been sacramentally married for 27 years, and Catholics would alter the discussion by extolling the purposes and advantages of marriage that includes God.
F
FrankLJ
Guest
I had a question about Caesar: what should the State recognize as a marriage? There is my view, that marriage is, by definition, one man and one woman for life (death freeing the survivor for another go). Why is the State obliged to recognize this? This is not a hostile question, I am genuinely uncertain of the rationale.
Similarly, why does the State not recognize plural marriages? Ours, I mean; there are those States that do.
Similarly, why does the State not recognize plural marriages? Ours, I mean; there are those States that do.
S
Stephen_says
Guest
Because, like it or not, civil laws are arbitrary and based on the whims and fancies of those in power.
J
jschwartz
Guest
The Old Testament does say that male-on-male penetrative intercourse is sinful. But other than that, the Bible mentions little about homosexuality. Likewise, the Church’s understanding of marriage has changed over time. Paul didn’t believe in marriage, because they thought the end was near. Paul also does say that it’s better for a person to settle down with one partner than to stay in a state of sin and lust. When one takes these factors into account, as well as other factors affirming human dignity and equality, I don’t see why the love of a gay couple shouldn’t be affirmed in the Presence of God.
M
MT1926
Guest
Before I get into your examples I was curious how do these factors equate to your final statement? Even you stated in the first statement that male homosexuality was sinful. Are you taking this to mean only male homosexuality is sinful?
How did you come to the conclusion that Paul didn’t believe in marriage? I must be missing something in his writings, could you please lead me to some verses to study?
The verses I read on marriage are in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul goes into the directions concerning marriage. I think that is proof alone that he believed in marriage. Unless you are speaking of verse 7 that states “I wish that all were as I myself am.” He is just pointing out to people, see verse 6, “I say this by way of concession, not of command.” that in his opinion celibacy was the more perfect state. He is pointing out that the unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife" (1 Cor. 7:32–33). I don’t think there is anything anti-marriage in his words.
In regards to your statement “Paul also does say that it’s better for a person to settle down with one partner than to stay in a state of sin and lust.” The only way it would be possible to take this verse of scripture as evidence that homosexual marriage is permitted, would be to not only take it out of context but to also remove it entirely from the Bible. The old testament already shows “homosexuality” as a sin, regardless of the fact that it only specifically speaks of male homosexuality. Even more so, in the context of 1 Corinthians Paul specifically states “man and woman” as well as “husband and wife”. He never says “one partner”.
I hope this helps clear things up a little.
God Bless
J
jschwartz
Guest
The bible says sodomy is a sin. Not all men who like men have anal sex.
M
MT1926
Guest
Not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. If you would like to expand on your thoughts I am more than willing to take the time to dialogue with you. But the definition of sodomy is not anal sex. It means something more along the lines of immoral. A quick google search brings up wkipedia:
A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be “unnatural” or immoral.[1] Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.[2][3][4] In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples.[5]
God Bless
J
jschwartz
Guest
The Torah definition of sodomy is anal sex. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source to understanding Scripture. Assuming that the Levitical law against sodomy still applies to Christians, how is recognizing a gay couple akin to sanctioning one particular sexual act that is forbidden for both gay and straight couples, arguably? (God didn’t give the anus for sex, but for defecation).
The sin of Sodom referenced in Genesis 19 is about hospitality, not sexuality. The narrative in this passage turns on whether certain visitors to Sodom will be received graciously and hospitably by the city’s inhabitants or instead will be exploited and even raped. The sin of Sodom’s citizens thus refers explicitly to the codes of hospitality in the
ancient Near East rather than to same-sex sexual relations. Ezekiel says “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49).31 Jesus evokes the story of Sodom not to teach about sexual ethics but in the context of sending out his disciples to minister. Those who do not receive his disciples, he promises, will suffer a fate worse than the citizens of Sodom (Matthew 10:15). The threat underscores the centrality of hospitality in that ancient story. Jude 7 is sometimes cited as well, yet that verse does not describe “sexual immorality” precisely (it could refer to rape, for example); the “unnatural lust” of Sodom’s inhabitants could also mean that the strangers sent to Sodom were actually angels (see Genesis 6:4).
Patristic writers viewed hospitality as central. See, for example, Origen, Homilia V in Genesim (PG 12:188-89): “Hear this, you who close your homes to guests! Hear this, you who shun the traveler as an enemy! Lot lived among the Sodomites. We do not read of any other good deeds of his … [save] he opened his home to guests”; Ambrose of Milan, De Abrahamo 1:6:52 (PL 14:440): Lot “placed the hospitality of his house—sacred even among a barbarous people— above the modesty [of his daughters].”
Sodomy, as we think of it, doesn’t appear anywhere in Scripture, and it’s a term that appears more in modern jurisprudence than in any religious texts.
The sin of Sodom referenced in Genesis 19 is about hospitality, not sexuality. The narrative in this passage turns on whether certain visitors to Sodom will be received graciously and hospitably by the city’s inhabitants or instead will be exploited and even raped. The sin of Sodom’s citizens thus refers explicitly to the codes of hospitality in the
ancient Near East rather than to same-sex sexual relations. Ezekiel says “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49).31 Jesus evokes the story of Sodom not to teach about sexual ethics but in the context of sending out his disciples to minister. Those who do not receive his disciples, he promises, will suffer a fate worse than the citizens of Sodom (Matthew 10:15). The threat underscores the centrality of hospitality in that ancient story. Jude 7 is sometimes cited as well, yet that verse does not describe “sexual immorality” precisely (it could refer to rape, for example); the “unnatural lust” of Sodom’s inhabitants could also mean that the strangers sent to Sodom were actually angels (see Genesis 6:4).
Patristic writers viewed hospitality as central. See, for example, Origen, Homilia V in Genesim (PG 12:188-89): “Hear this, you who close your homes to guests! Hear this, you who shun the traveler as an enemy! Lot lived among the Sodomites. We do not read of any other good deeds of his … [save] he opened his home to guests”; Ambrose of Milan, De Abrahamo 1:6:52 (PL 14:440): Lot “placed the hospitality of his house—sacred even among a barbarous people— above the modesty [of his daughters].”
Sodomy, as we think of it, doesn’t appear anywhere in Scripture, and it’s a term that appears more in modern jurisprudence than in any religious texts.
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Sodomy comes from the city, Sodom. One would expect the term to come later, not concurrently in the Bible and it doesn’t connote lack of hospitality. So what is your point? Or do you want to dissect deviant sexuality?
There is no need to go into creepy detail.
J
jschwartz
Guest
It does connote lack of hospitality. And why the angry tone? Not very charitable.
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Where does Sodomy connote lack of hospitality? I happen to think that some things are better not said in polite society. Sodomy is a pretty inclusive term without going into detail.
J
jschwartz
Guest
See the scriptures and church fathers referenced above.
- Status