F
fnr
Guest
What is the moral theology of such a scenario? How does that differ from a chaste man and woman seeking a civil marriage?
- Status
G
Glennford
Guest
Well, since it makes absolutely no sense at all, since another man is just about as appropriate a mating partner as a sheep or a dishwasher, it would at very least be a source of confusion and scandal and Catholics shouildn’t be involved.
F
fnr
Guest
Actually, there many men who due to trauma or disease lose their sexual organs or their use for traumatic ot physiological reasons. I just recently read a Men’s Health magazine in which it talked about “intimate” injuries inflicted by IEDs. Those men still deserve companionship, right? Most are straight, but some may be gay. If companionship is enough to keep a couple together (as is the case for many married couples), is that sufficient ethically?
S
SaintPatrick333
Guest
They can seek companionship but since the soldiers you mention who suffered “intimate” injuries I assume that means sex is wasted on them. Which means there’s no sense for them to marry. Nothing is stopping them from living together as companions if nothing sexual is going on. It is possible to live a happy life in this world without sex. believe it or not!
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Having companionship (even a committed one) isn’t equal to marriage. Plenty of animals will have companions, plenty of people have companionship with animals, like a dog or cat. Marriage is a structured kind of companionship with both social and religious functions that are specifically for a relationship between a male and female. If you try and change the way in which this functions, it loses its structure and its meaning. The rise of “free love” mentality and the secular view of marriage now-a-days (even among heterosexual couples thinking “we can always get a divorce if things don’t work out”) has already weakened the structure of this delicate machine. If this keeps up, marriage will mean nothing except a tax break to the rest of the world.
G
Glennford
Guest
Did that makes sense in your head before you posted it? Because it doens’t make sense out here.
What? No. Man + woman, marriage. Man + Man (no matter who has what working body parts), not marriage.
And, as before, man + sheep or man + dishwasher also not marriage.
Maybe don’t read Men’s Health Magazine if it gives you bizarro ideas like that.
N
Nate13
Guest
You are making this harder because your bringing in the legal aspects to it. The reason the Church has a problem with applying legal marriage to gay couples right now is because legal marriage is still seen as a recognition of a sexual relationship and of love between two people by the government. That fact is apparent just by looking at how the law is applied. If “legal marriage” was just some rights any two people no matter their relationship applied to get then the Church wouldn’t have a problem with it except maybe for the fact that its being called marriage. That is not the case currently. The check for that is that two people who are brother and sister cannot get “civilly married” currently. I also cannot “civilly marry” my mother. It might be handy for a son to be able to “marry” his mother so that he could put her under his health insurance for instance.
That however is not how the current system works. Civil marriage is still a recognition of conjugal love between spouses and as such cannot morally be applied to a gay couple as it is currently be applied by law. If the law changed and civil “marriage” no longer had any tie to conjugal love then it could be sought after by two men, two women, brother and sister, mother and son, a couple friends, etc…
That however is not how the current system works. Civil marriage is still a recognition of conjugal love between spouses and as such cannot morally be applied to a gay couple as it is currently be applied by law. If the law changed and civil “marriage” no longer had any tie to conjugal love then it could be sought after by two men, two women, brother and sister, mother and son, a couple friends, etc…
G
Glennford
Guest
Old man mode on
The kids don’t even know what “marriage” is anymore. The young men and women WON’T get married to each other, but they think men should marry men and women should marry women. It’s the end, I tell ya.
/Old man
The kids don’t even know what “marriage” is anymore. The young men and women WON’T get married to each other, but they think men should marry men and women should marry women. It’s the end, I tell ya.
/Old man
N
Nate13
Guest
yeah it all kind of ties together. People seemed to have forgotten what marriage was all about and thus stopped seeking it themselves. The fact that they don’t know what it means anymore leads them to not understand why gay couples cannot get married along with the rest of most of the sexual morality the Church teaches.
D
Dickie_Bush
Guest
‘’ Marriage is not a purely human institution…’'Catechism of The Catholic Church.Marriage from the beginning of time and in all cultures is between man and woman. Marriage has a foundation in the continuation of the species and as such has a co-creative nature between God , man and woman. There is no other marriage.
N
Nate13
Guest
Exactly, and if what I was describing above occurred and civil “marriage” was allowed regardless of the nature of the relationship between two people (i.e just friends, relatives, in love, just looking to save a buck or two…) it would then cease to be marriage. Its when the government attempts to specifically extend marriage benefits to gay couples because they are “in love” that a moral problem occurs which cannot in good faith be supported by a Catholic.
I mean if people are going to throw a fit about a gay couple not being able to be covered under each others insurance coverage, why not also complain that a son who is taking care of his ailing mother day and night can’t get his mother covered under his own health insurance policy? In other words why are only specific types of dependents able to get health coverage via their benefactor?
C
Crescentinus
Guest
I’m not an old man, but I completely agree with you!
Sadly, the Western mainstream media is further complicating things as well.
M
minkymurph
Guest
To me, that problem lies with insurance companies - not marriage - and one a civil marriage would not solve. I say no one should have to marry someone to get health insurance. Health care is a basic human right.
I don’t know how health insurance works in your part of the world, but private health insurance here covers family members (wife/children). I think it’s disgraceful if they can’t - but that’s insurance companies for you.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
You don’t have to be married to get healthcare. But some do provide discounts for those who are married, and for those who have kids because they have more people to take care of.To me, that problem lies with insurance companies - not marriage - and one a civil marriage would not solve. I say no one should have to marry someone to get health insurance. Health care is a basic human right.
I don’t know how health insurance works in your part of the world, but private health insurance here covers family members (wife/children). I think it’s disgraceful if they can’t - but that’s insurance companies for you.
F
fnr
Guest
OK, I appreciate the replies here, but really, nothing so far is answering my question.
The replies so far have pretty much responded by defining marriage as one man and one woman. That, largely speaking, is what the public discourse on “gay marriage amendments” have been, presumably because any one religion’s moral theology can’t be the basis for law.
However, my question isn’t “what is marriage, and does this fall under the definition,” it’s “what does Catholic moral theology say about this situation.” This is a Catholic discussion forum, so I’m asking a question
I’ll put forward these bits of Catechism, because here is where I see the confusion:
"2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents* homosexual acts** as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. **Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.*"
I’m asking what moral theology says about legal marriage between two chaste individuals, both of whom are the same sex.
The replies so far have pretty much responded by defining marriage as one man and one woman. That, largely speaking, is what the public discourse on “gay marriage amendments” have been, presumably because any one religion’s moral theology can’t be the basis for law.
However, my question isn’t “what is marriage, and does this fall under the definition,” it’s “what does Catholic moral theology say about this situation.” This is a Catholic discussion forum, so I’m asking a question
I’ll put forward these bits of Catechism, because here is where I see the confusion:
"2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents* homosexual acts** as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. **Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.*"
I’m asking what moral theology says about legal marriage between two chaste individuals, both of whom are the same sex.
M
minkymurph
Guest
So, in relation to another’s poster’s response concerning a son and his mother, would a son be able to put his mother on his healthcare policy, or just his wife and kids?
B
bzkoss236
Guest
The way the health insurance works over here, you have policy holders and dependents. The policy holder is the one who has the insurance in their name. A dependent is someone who legally falls under their care. And there are certain criteria for one to be able to be claimed as an dependent, because it is all business over here, and insurance companies like to try to screw people over if they are legally able to (not with every company, but there are a number out there). I don’t know what these qualifications are, but typically a spouse and children easily qualify as dependents. But since I don’t know all the qualifications that have to be met, I’m not sure if a parent can be covered by one’s health insurance. This isn’t to say that people don’t get healthcare. There are systems in place for those who truly cannot afford insurance to get healthcare. However, these government run systems are often misused and abused by people. This is because (IMO) these systems were set up too quickly and weren’t well thought out, and now it is too late to change them without people getting really mad, and the government can’t have people getting mad at them… sigh…
M
minkymurph
Guest
I see.
Your right about government systems being abused by people, and your right about insurance companies.
- Status