Struggling with where I stand on the gay "marriage" debate

[zamyrabyrd]

See the scriptures and church fathers referenced above.

I already know the Scriptures in question and the context in which they are to be understood.
A friend of mine once said that everything in the Bible is important. I pondered that given the often tiresome lists of who begat whom. But it all makes sense when taken as a whole starting from the first male and female in Genesis. This coupling is the source of history and pillar of society. What social engineering is trying to do is sever the connection with our forebears and ultimately from history. It is all connected, hence the proscription on anything deviant not only from Scripture but natural law that supports it.

 

[pnewton]

The Torah definition of sodomy is anal sex. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source to understanding Scripture. .

Neither is the Torah. That is why we have the Catholic Church, so we all do not have just words to interpret what they mean for themselves. (BTW- the Torah does not contain a glossary)

 

[pnewton]

Rights need to support what is true, they do not define truth.

I have heard it said that wrong has no rights. However, I also bear in mind that the Catholic Church also now acknowledges the advantage of religious freedom and no longer teaches that a Catholic theocracy is the only acceptable form of government. There is some prudence in having a pluralistic society. Homosexual marriage is not the only pseudomatrimony we allow in society. We also have civil marriage by a Justice of the Peace. We also have no-fault divorce. We also have repeated marriage based on nothing but the above civil divorce. These are often no more or *less *immoral homosexual marriage. Besides this, adultery is legal. Pre-marital sex, even between children, is legal.

Of course homosexual marriage is wrong and has no legal right to be allowed, but neither do the above. This tells me the question could be viewed as one of prudence. In a pluralistic society, might it be prudent to allow this practice to protect other practices, or rights? I think it is debatable. That being said, our mandate is clear, if we are to listen to our bishops. At this time, the is the issue we are to draw the line on, just like some of the above issues were fought, and lost, in earlier decades.

 

[MT1926]

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.

I am no church scholar but I do know how to find the best answer. You are not incorrect but there is more to the story than what you are focusing on. So here is a tract with answers to your exact questions.

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

 

[Rau]

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.

I am not sure you are listening to what is being said.

You claim that to deny marriage is to deny certain legal rights. That suggests those rights are intrinsically unique to marriage - but they are not. If the form of contract law to which you refer is owed to everyone who seeks it, then offer it to everyone. And that means that the restrictions that apply to marriage, such as requiring the participants not be siblings or close relatives will not be needed.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Speaking of marriage as a “right” is misleading and confusing. A red herring. Because marriage itself is not a right, but a privilege. That is why you need a license to marry, and certain conditions must be met before a license, that is permission, to marry is granted.

It is similar to driving. When you go to get a driver’s license that is what you are told: it is not a right but a privilege, and certain conditions must be met before permission, or license, to drive is granted.

Heretofore one of the conditions to be met was that the prospective partners be of the opposite sex. Should that condition be changed? Which is a more proper way to frame the question.

 

[Joe_5859]

Speaking of marriage as a “right” is misleading and confusing. A red herring. Because marriage itself is not a right, but a privilege. That is why you need a license to marry, and certain conditions must be met before a license, that is permission, to marry is granted.

It is similar to driving. When you go to get a driver’s license that is what you are told: it is not a right but a privilege, and certain conditions must be met before permission, or license, to drive is granted.

Heretofore one of the conditions to be met was that the prospective partners be of the opposite sex. Should that condition be changed? Which is a more proper way to frame the question.

Marriage is a right according to the Holy See’s Charter of the Rights of the Family:

a) Every man and every woman, having reached marriageable age and having the necessary capacity, has the right to marry and establish a family without any discrimination whatsoever; legal restrictions to the exercise of this right, whether they be of a permanent or temporary nature, can be introduced only when they are required by grave and objective demands of the institution of marriage itself and its social and public significance; they must respect in all cases the dignity and the fundamental rights of the person.

If it is a “privilege”, then who grants the privilege? The Church? But what of non-Catholics? The State? That is giving the State power over the family rather than at the service of the family.

Yes, there are marriage licenses in order to regulate the legal aspects (e.g. ensure that either party is not already legally married, etc.). That doesn’t mean the State has power over the process. They cannot refuse to grant the license because you didn’t pass a test as with a driver’s license. That would be encroaching on the right to marry.

Of course, the right extends to entering into marriage as marriage is in reality. That is not the same thing as the right to enter into whatever relationship we want to and call it a marriage.

 

[clem456]

Marriage is a vocation.

Civil rights should support vocations. The Church urges societies to support the “call of God” with civil laws, or expressions of rights.

Marriage does not have it’s significance because it is codified in rights, the right takes it’s significance from the vocation.

A society can codify any sort of “rights” it wishes. I’d like the right to play pro basketball. A society might codify that as a right, but that doesn’t make it “true” in the eyes of God. At the end of the day, I still can’t jump, despite my “right”.

What is a vocation?
big topic…

 

[mackbrislawn]

Marriage is a right according to the Holy See’s Charter of the Rights of the Family:

a) Every man and every woman, having reached marriageable age and having the necessary capacity, has the right to marry and establish a family without any discrimination whatsoever; legal restrictions to the exercise of this right, whether they be of a permanent or temporary nature, can be introduced only when they are required by grave and objective demands of the institution of marriage itself and its social and public significance; they must respect in all cases the dignity and the fundamental rights of the person.

If it is a “privilege”, then who grants the privilege? The Church? But what of non-Catholics? The State? That is giving the State power over the family rather than at the service of the family.

Yes, there are marriage licenses in order to regulate the legal aspects (e.g. ensure that either party is not already legally married, etc.). That doesn’t mean the State has power over the process. They cannot refuse to grant the license because you didn’t pass a test as with a driver’s license. That would be encroaching on the right to marry.

Of course, the right extends to entering into marriage as marriage is in reality. That is not the same thing as the right to enter into whatever relationship we want to and call it a marriage.

The debate as I see it is primarily about civil marriages, not ecclesiastical marriages, so what the Holy See says is not really relevant to that debate.

The question was asked, if marriage is a privilege, then who grants the privilege? An odd question, because it is self-answering. When you go to get a marriage license where do you go? You go to the court house of course, to the State. So it is the State that grants the privilege of marrying.

Does the state have the power to refuse to grant the license? Of course they do. Can they not grant the license if certain tests are not passed? Certainly. What about blood tests? What if the couple are of the wrong age? Too closely related? Not of sound mind? Already married? And, ahem, of the proper genders. But yes, after these tests are passed, then the State cannot arbitrarily refuse the license. So, in a sense, then the couple do have the, uh, “right” to marry. that is, permission, and a duly authorized minister of the State may now legally marry them.

Going back to the Holy See. We notice that the Holy See’s statement also contains a number of caveats regarding a couple’s “right” to marry, such as being man and woman and having reached marriageable age and the necessary capacity…and so on. But, having the necessary capacity and so on, the Church cannot whimsically refuse to marry them. Why? Because God has given them that right. Not privilege, but right.

And this is an important point. Where do rights come from? From the State? No. From the Church? No. Rights come from God, from the Creator. Even the preamble of the U.S. Constitution acknowledges that.

Does God give the right for brother and sister to marry? For father and daughter? For two people of the same gender? For three people? What do you think?

 

[Joe_5859]

The debate as I see it is primarily about civil marriages, not ecclesiastical marriages, so what the Holy See says is not really relevant to that debate.

The question was asked, if marriage is a privilege, then who grants the privilege? An odd question, because it is self-answering. When you go to get a marriage license where do you go? You go to the court house of course, to the State. So it is the State that grants the privilege of marrying.

Does the state have the power to refuse to grant the license? Of course they do. Can they not grant the license if certain tests are not passed? Certainly. What about blood tests? What if the couple are of the wrong age? Too closely related? Not of sound mind? Already married? And, ahem, of the proper genders. But yes, after these tests are passed, then the State cannot arbitrarily refuse the license. So, in a sense, then the couple do have the, uh, “right” to marry. that is, permission, and a duly authorized minister of the State may now legally marry them.

Going back to the Holy See. We notice that the Holy See’s statement also contains a number of caveats regarding a couple’s “right” to marry, such as having reached marriageable age and the necessary capacity…and so on. But, having the necessary capacity and so on, the Church cannot whimsically refuse to marry them. Why? Because God has given them that right. Not privilege, but right.

And this is an important point. Where do rights come from? From the State? No. From the Church? No. Rights come from God, from the Creator. Even the preamble of the U.S. Constitution acknowledges that.

Does God give the right for brother and sister to marry? For father and daughter? For two people of the same gender? For three people? What do you think?

My point in asking about privilege is to evoke considerations as to what authority we surrender to the State. I sure as heck don’t think the State had any authority whatsoever to deny my right to marry my wife. I shudder to think of the State having that much authority over me or anyone else.

I don’t understand your distinction between civil marriages and ecclesiastical marriages. A marriage is either valid or invalid. If both parties are baptized, then their valid marriage is also a sacramental marriage. What the Church says about marriage extends beyond sacramentality because marriage has been around since the beginning of the human race and the nature of what marriage is can be discerned through reason alone.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the right to marry means that people have a right to enter into what marriage actually is. Marriage between two people of the same gender is not marriage. Marriage between three people is not marriage. Thus, there is no right to enter into such unions. Yes, there are limitations with regards to blood relation (as you noted and as the document I cited alludes to), but that doesn’t negate the right nor turn it into a privilege rather than a right. It just means the right is not absolute.

I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything. You stepped in to say that saying marriage is a “right” is confusing and it is better to speak of it as a “privilege”. Church documents don’t support that assertion. Since this is a Catholic forum, I thought it would be good to point that out. I once took a class on human rights as articulated in U.S., international, and Canon Law. So I guess I’m sensitive to how the word “rights” gets used.

 

[clem456]

My point in asking about privilege is to evoke considerations as to what authority we surrender to the State. I sure as heck don’t think the State had any authority whatsoever to deny my right to marry my wife. I shudder to think of the State having that much authority over me or anyone else.

I don’t understand your distinction between civil marriages and ecclesiastical marriages. A marriage is either valid or invalid. If both parties are baptized, then their valid marriage is also a sacramental marriage. What the Church says about marriage extends beyond sacramentality because marriage has been around since the beginning of the human race and the nature of what marriage is can be discerned through reason alone.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the right to marry means that people have a right to enter into what marriage actually is. Marriage between two people of the same gender is not marriage. Marriage between three people is not marriage. Thus, there is no right to enter into such unions. Yes, there are limitations with regards to blood relation (as you noted and as the document I cited alludes to), but that doesn’t negate the right nor turn it into a privilege rather than a right. It just means the right is not absolute.

I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything. You stepped in to say that saying marriage is a “right” is confusing and it is better to speak of it as a “privilege”. Church documents don’t support that assertion. Since this is a Catholic forum, I thought it would be good to point that out. I once took a class on human rights as articulated in U.S., international, and Canon Law. So I guess I’m sensitive to how the word “rights” gets used.

In the academic setting you reference, do they speak about the sources or foundations of rights?

 

[Joe_5859]

In the academic setting you reference, do they speak about the sources or foundations of rights?

God and our human dignity as being made in His image and likeness.

 

[mackbrislawn]

My point in asking about privilege is to evoke considerations as to what authority we surrender to the State. I sure as heck don’t think the State had any authority whatsoever to deny my right to marry my wife. I shudder to think of the State having that much authority over me or anyone else.

I don’t understand your distinction between civil marriages and ecclesiastical marriages. A marriage is either valid or invalid. If both parties are baptized, then their valid marriage is also a sacramental marriage. What the Church says about marriage extends beyond sacramentality because marriage has been around since the beginning of the human race and the nature of what marriage is can be discerned through reason alone.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the right to marry means that people have a right to enter into what marriage actually is. Marriage between two people of the same gender is not marriage. Marriage between three people is not marriage. Thus, there is no right to enter into such unions. Yes, there are limitations with regards to blood relation (as you noted and as the document I cited alludes to), but that doesn’t negate the right nor turn it into a privilege rather than a right. It just means the right is not absolute.

I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything. You stepped in to say that saying marriage is a “right” is confusing and it is better to speak of it as a “privilege”. Church documents don’t support that assertion. Since this is a Catholic forum, I thought it would be good to point that out. I once took a class on human rights as articulated in U.S., international, and Canon Law. So I guess I’m sensitive to how the word “rights” gets used.

Hmm…I believe we are actually thinking along the same lines.

Yes, in this country, and those with English customs, the distinction between civil, or secular, marriage and ecclesiastical, or religious, marriage is often forgotten. But in countries like Mexico or France it is quite distinct. In France when you get married, you get married twice, one civil ceremony and one church ceremony. First you go to the magistrate for the legal wedding so you are married in the eyes of the state, and then, if you want, you can to to church and get married in the eyes of the Church. The church marriage will be a sacramental marriage, while the civil one is not. Civil marriages, in this country, or any other, are not sacramental marriages. They are not valid in the view of the Church, while church marriages are not valid in the view of the state. In this country, a religious minister usually fulfills both functions, as a duly authorized minister of the state, and also authorized by the church, so one ceremony suffices to marry a couple both legally and religiously.

In the Holy See’s document you quoted, it says, “…legal restrictions to the exercise of this right…” It says legal restrictions, and I’m not sure what that is getting at. The term legal would seem to me that secular authorities cannot prevent a valid couple from marrying (except under grave and temporary circumstances). The reason the State cannot prevent their marrying because they have the God-given right to do so. The idea is that no secular authority can take away God-given rights.

Is that your take on it? I don’t know what the whole context of the document is or what it is in response to. You said the State doesn’t have the right deny you the right to marry your wife–well, I think that is what the Holy See’s document is getting at. (Although I don’t know how a civil government could prevent a couple from doing a religious ceremony.) ??

On the other hand, is civil marriage a service the State provides to us? Is the State obligated to marry anyone who comes along? Does the State have the right not to marry those who do not fulfill its requirements? Does the State even have the right to set requirements?

You said people have a right to marry into what marriage actually is. Yes, definitely. And since marriage isn’t between three people or those of the same gender, they do not have the right to marry. As a Catholic, I agree.

But, there are those who say they do have the right to marry, anyway. They do so by trying to equate it with the civil rights movement, to raise it to the same level. But I do not accept the civil rights argument as valid. Because, since civil rights are God-given rights, and there is no God-given right for those of the same sex to marry each other, gay marriage cannot be compared to civil rights.

That is the purpose of distinguishing between rights and privileges. God gives rights, but the State can only give privileges, or take rights away. Secular marriage is not a right, but only a privilege. Why, because you need a license to do so! A license that can be refused, if the State set requirements are not met. Requirements that the State has a right to determine.

So, should the State keep the requirement that the prospective couple be of the opposite sex? That is the question.

You took a class on human rights…I wonder how “rights” were defined there. Because I think the term “rights” gets abused very often. “Rights” gets applied to a host of different ideas. We need adjectives to distinguish between them, and many times the adjectives get left off, sometimes deliberately.

,

 

[Rau]

Yes, in this country, and those with English customs, the distinction between civil, or secular, marriage and ecclesiastical, or religious, marriage is often forgotten. But in countries like Mexico or France it is quite distinct. In France when you get married, you get married twice, one civil ceremony and one church ceremony. First you go to the magistrate for the legal wedding so you are married in the eyes of the state, and then, if you want, you can to to church and get married in the eyes of the Church. The church marriage will be a sacramental marriage, while the civil one is not. Civil marriages, in this country, or any other, are not sacramental marriages.

In this statement, I think you focus to excess on differences in process, while overlooking the common subject matter.

They [civil marriages] are not valid in the view of the Church, while church marriages are not valid in the view of the state.

This is not entirely correct. The Church does not in general deem the civil marriage process as invalid - it in general recognises persons who take that route as married. The issue arises when the party to the civil process is Catholic. Church Law requires a different form than provided by the Civil process. Two non-Catholics, eligible to marry, who marry “civilly” are married.

In this country, a religious minister usually fulfills both functions, as a duly authorized minister of the state, and also authorized by the church, so one ceremony suffices to marry a couple both legally and religiously.

The legal formalities are right and proper in themselves, for they lend support and protection to the marriage.

On the other hand, is civil marriage a service the State provides to us? Is the State obligated to marry anyone who comes along? Does the State have the right not to marry those who do not fulfill its requirements? Does the State even have the right to set requirements?

The civilly provided legal framework accompanying marriage is certainly a service provided by the State (though nothing obligated States in the first place to offer it). Given that it exists, then it is a right to all those who seek it and are eligible for it. One must be eligible in the eyes of the State to receive that framework, just as one must be eligible under Church Law. Indeed, the eligibility criteria share many similarities - Not already married, of suitable age, not closely related, and so forth.

Secular marriage is not a right, but only a privilege. Why, because you need a license to do so! A license that can be refused, if the State set requirements are not met. Requirements that the State has a right to determine.

It is a beneficial thing that the State offers recognition and the various legal protections it does. The fact of a licence is not so much evidence that this a privilege - what makes it that is that there is no God-given right to the legal protections involved, though one might argue that there is good moral justification. The State (ie. the community) has simply done a good thing in establishing legal support for marriage. Now, in the exercise of granting a licence, the State does not act with any degree of capriciousness, nor does it act in any kind of judgemental nature - it simply applies pragmatic rules. I have no reason to feel any gratitude to the State for granting ME a licence - but I should be pleased that States have historically seen fit to introduce legal recognitions and protections for marriage.

So, should the State keep the requirement that the prospective couple be of the opposite sex?

If it is marriage that the State is recognising and supporting, then it seems evident to me that the eligibility criteria involve opposite sexes. But that’s because my understanding of “marriage” (and there is no need for any qualifier) is such that it can only be between man and woman.

 

[mackbrislawn]

In this statement, I think you focus to excess on differences in process, while overlooking the common subject matter.

The purpose is to explain (to those who do not realize there is a difference) the difference between civil and sacramental marriage. (Perhaps I over-explained.) The difference is that a civil marriage is not sacramental, a church marriage between two Catholics is. That is the difference in subject matter.

This is not entirely correct. The Church does not in general deem the civil marriage process as invalid - it in general recognises persons who take that route as married. The issue arises when the party to the civil process is Catholic. Church Law requires a different form than provided by the Civil process. Two non-Catholics, eligible to marry, who marry “civilly” are married.

The context we are referring to is marriage between two Catholics. Certainly the Church recognizes two non-Catholics to be married if married civilly or by some other marriage ceremony according to their tradition. And, you bet Church law requires a different form than provided by Civil process! Because two Catholics who are only married civilly would be living in sin if not married again in the Church. Without having their marriage ‘blessed’ so to speak.

The legal formalities are right and proper in themselves, for they lend support and protection to the marriage.

Of course.

The civilly provided legal framework accompanying marriage is certainly a service provided by the State (though nothing obligated States in the first place to offer it). Given that it exists, then it is a right to all those who seek it and are eligible for it. One must be eligible in the eyes of the State to receive that framework, just as one must be eligible under Church Law. Indeed, the eligibility criteria share many similarities - Not already married, of suitable age, not closely related, and so forth.
**
Yes, it is a right only for those who are eligible. If not eligible, obviously not a right.**

It is a beneficial thing that the State offers recognition and the various legal protections it does. The fact of a licence is not so much evidence that this a privilege - what makes it that is that there is no God-given right to the legal protections involved, though one might argue that there is good moral justification. The State (ie. the community) has simply done a good thing in establishing legal support for marriage. Now, in the exercise of granting a licence, the State does not act with any degree of capriciousness, nor does it act in any kind of judgemental nature - it simply applies pragmatic rules. I have no reason to feel any gratitude to the State for granting ME a licence - but I should be pleased that States have historically seen fit to introduce legal recognitions and protections for marriage.

Indeed. Now, by whimsy or capriciousness we understand that it is not the State itself, but of the clerk at the courthouse who issues the license who can be arbitrary. That happened recently as we recall, even if we may agree with her.

If it is marriage that the State is recognising and supporting, then it seems evident to me that the eligibility criteria involve opposite sexes. But that’s because my understanding of “marriage” (and there is no need for any qualifier) is such that it can only be between man and woman.

**I agree. **

 

[Rau]

Indeed. Now, by whimsy or capriciousness we understand that it is not the State itself, but of the clerk at the courthouse who issues the license who can be arbitrary. That happened recently as we recall, even if we may agree with her

The famous (or Infamous) clerk at the courthouse acts in the place of the State and if unable to do so, ought seek to move to another job. But such events are unconnected to my post.

The purpose is to explain (to those who do not realize there is a difference) the difference between civil and sacramental marriage. (Perhaps I over-explained.) The difference is that a civil marriage is not sacramental, a church marriage between two Catholics is. That is the difference in subject matter.

Yes, but this difference offers no basis to create divergent paths where one of the paths can legitimately see 2 men (say) marry. That can only happen when one forgets what marriage (no qualifiers required) is.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The famous (or Infamous) clerk at the courthouse acts in the place of the State and if unable to do so, ought seek to move to another job. But such events are unconnected to my post.

She acted according to her conscience, but not according to her duty according to the state. The state required her to issue a marriage license to two men, and she refused, illegally, or capriciously. Yep, maybe she should have quit and sought another job rather than go to jail.
In my previous posts I had talked about whimsy and arbitrariness, and you had mention capriciousness in your post, so that is the connection. I was explaining what that meant.

Yes, but this difference offers no basis to create divergent paths where one of the paths can legitimately see 2 men (say) marry. That can only happen when one forgets what marriage (no qualifiers required) is.

****I don’t quite follow your train of thought here. What do “divergent paths” mean? How can one path legitimately marry two men?
The poster I was replying to said he didn’t understand the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical marriages, and so I explained it to him. Did I explain it wrong?

---