Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[The_Bucket]

As someone who does not support gay marriage or even gay adoption… I have to say what Stephen168 said is an even greater fiction than what he was espousing.

Adoption does not create a “legal fiction” for who someone’s actual parents are. Adoption is an extremely charitable thing to do and we need more of it in this country. Adoptive parents are real parents and to imply otherwise is pretty wrong.

 

[fix]

How is the state abusing its authority in defining what constitutes civil marriage? It’s a civil contract.

Because they have no authority to redefine a natural institution. Words have meanings. Marriage cannot be contracted between two same sex persons. It is a fiction.

And for that matter, what would be the difference if we had “marriage” as being two people of the opposite sex and “domestic partnership” for either opposite sex or same-sex couples… and the legal rights were exactly the same?

As the Church has said the law is a teacher. Once you teach these legal devices mimic marriage you have distorted what marriage intends and is.

Nothing. In fact, that’s why you’re going courts where where civil unions are legal and materially the same as marriage are going to throw out the separation entirely. And they’re absolutely right to do it. The only difference is a label and the only reason for the label is to make one group feel superior to the other.

The Church disagrees with you.

One thing I’ve never understood is the whole “the state can’t redefine marriage” bit. I mean, yes it absolutely can. Your point that it’s “not really a marriage” is well taken by me. I totally agree. But you know what also isn’t a marriage? Two heterosexuals who got divorced three times, never annulled their previous marriages and then went off to Vegas one night and got hitched. That’s not a real marriage and yet it’s absolutely and perfectly legal. So the state pretty clearly has changed the definition of marriage over the years and it’s nothing close to what the Church teaches.

Two wrongs make a right? No, that marriage has been dented in no way means it must be abolished. Divorce can be wrong, but it is not always a moral offense. Same sex marriage is worse and is always a grave offense. The affects on children alone would be devastating. Worse than what we now have.

 

[rossum]

That is an abuse of the law. Does not make it a marriage.

That is perfectly legal in the jurisdictions involved, and it makes same sex marriage a legal civil marriage in those jurisdictions.

You seem to believe that there is only one definition of marriage, your “true marriage”, and that all the others are not marriage. I differ. There are many different versions of marriage. In particular, Catholic marriage differs from civil marriage on the allowability of divorce; that is at least two different definitions. I am pointing out that there is more than one definition of marriage and that in the case of civil marriage it is up to the relevant civil authorities to define what they consider to be a legal marriage.

The State can abuse its authority but that does not make it a marriage.

But it does make it a legal civil marriage.

It is true only heterosexuals can produce children.

It is false that only heterosexuals can produce children. A bisexual can produce children. A raped lesbian can produce children. A male homosexual who donates to a sperm bank can produce children. I have already pointed out your error here once. Why do you persist in your error?

Two homosexuals can never produce children. Nothing was moved I assumed you could follow a point.

False. A gay man and a lesbian could if they wished produce children. Do you not bother to think things through before posting. I have already referred to “lavender marriages” here. Why do you think Rock Hudson got married?

Not an error my friend. Homosexual relations cannot produce children. If you want to play these games I can too.

You are shifting the goalposts again. You are equivocating between “homosexuals” and “homosexual relations”. They are two different things, and to try to confuse the two is an error. I have never said that homosexual relations can produce children. I have said that non-heterosexuals (bisexuals and homosexuals) can produce children.

Better to admit your initial mistake and be more careful in future.

rossum

 

[JimG]

How is the state abusing its authority in defining what constitutes civil marriage? It’s a civil contract.

And for that matter, what would be the difference if we had “marriage” as being two people of the opposite sex and “domestic partnership” for either opposite sex or same-sex couples… and the legal rights were exactly the same? Nothing. In fact, that’s why you’re going courts where where civil unions are legal and materially the same as marriage are going to throw out the separation entirely. And they’re absolutely right to do it. The only difference is a label and the only reason for the label is to make one group feel superior to the other.

One thing I’ve never understood is the whole “the state can’t redefine marriage” bit. I mean, yes it absolutely can. Your point that it’s “not really a marriage” is well taken by me. I totally agree. But you know what also isn’t a marriage? Two heterosexuals who got divorced three times, never annulled their previous marriages and then went off to Vegas one night and got hitched. That’s not a real marriage and yet it’s absolutely and perfectly legal. So the state pretty clearly has changed the definition of marriage over the years and it’s nothing close to what the Church teaches.

The state can attempt to redefine words, but it cannot redefine reality. If the state legislates that the term “father” shall henceforth include what were formerly known as “mothers,” reality is unchanged. We just end up with a word stripped of its meaning.

 

[The_Bucket]

Because they have no authority to redefine a natural institution. Words have meanings. Marriage cannot be contracted between two same sex persons. It is a fiction.

No-fault divorce is a moral fiction. It’s also the law. Refusing to believe the civil law is a real thing is quite the dangerous mindset. I totally acknowledge that no-fault divorce is real and so is gay marriage in a number of states and countries. That it is a moral fiction is something I absolutely accept.

As the Church has said the law is a teacher. Once you teach these legal devices mimic marriage you have distorted what marriage intends and is.

The law is a teacher but the Church is not the one to hand out the lesson plan and force civil authorities to read from it. We have protections against religious teachings being the law and thank God for that. After all, you support actual criminal penalties for people who engage in sexual sin. I can’t imagine that would be productive. Or Constitutional.

Two wrongs make a right? No, that marriage has been dented in no way means it must be abolished. Divorce can be wrong, but it is not always a moral offense. Same sex marriage is worse and is always a grave offense. The affects on children alone would be devastating. Worse than what we now have.

The effects on children are drastically, drastically overblown. Children simply need love and structure and yes, homosexual couples are capable of providing that. I’d rather a child grow up with two parents of the same sex than with, say, a promiscuous and/or neglectful single parent. Or even in a home with married parents were there is physical and/or mental abuse.

I don’t advocate for gay marriage. I do not support it. I think it is absolutely and unequivocally morally wrong. I also don’t think it’s the end of the world. We’d do well to focus our social justice efforts on caring for the poor and defending the lives of the unborn. Not to say that we can’t also support sacramental marriage, but we’d do a better job of that if we just went around promoting sacramental marriage. Having a positive sacramental marriage message as opposed to a merely anti-gay-marriage message is something that can and will resonate.

 

[fix]

That is perfectly legal in the jurisdictions involved, and it makes same sex marriage a legal civil marriage in those jurisdictions.

Just like owning a slave was once legal or abortion is legal. All an abuse.

You seem to believe that there is only one definition of marriage, your “true marriage”, and that all the others are not marriage. I differ. There are many different versions of marriage. In particular, Catholic marriage differs from civil marriage on the allowability of divorce; that is at least two different definitions. I am pointing out that there is more than one definition of marriage and that in the case of civil marriage it is up to the relevant civil authorities to define what they consider to be a legal marriage.

All definitions authentic of marriage start with man and woman. Sure, there are deviations but those are deviations not the rule.

But it does make it a legal civil marriage.

As i said so was slave owning and so is abortion. All an abuse.

It is false that only heterosexuals can produce children. A bisexual can produce children. A raped lesbian can produce children. A male homosexual who donates to a sperm bank can produce children. I have already pointed out your error here once. Why do you persist in your error?

No errors. A “married” homosexual couple cannot produce children. They can go through strained procedures to procure a child but it is quite impossible for them to produce a child through this faux union. Only heterosexuals can do such things.

False. A gay man and a lesbian could if they wished produce children. Do you not bother to think things through before posting. I have already referred to “lavender marriages” here. Why do you think Rock Hudson got married?

Why bring up all this nonsense? We are comparing true heterosexual unions with false homosexual unions. Only the heterosexuals can produce children. The other set of persons cannot produce a child thru that false union. They need some outside help.

You are shifting the goalposts again. You are equivocating between “homosexuals” and “homosexual relations”. They are two different things, and to try to confuse the two is an error. I have never said that homosexual relations can produce children. I have said that non-heterosexuals (bisexuals and homosexuals) can produce children.

How is that relevant here? Please see above.

Better to admit your initial mistake and be more careful in future.

rossum

My only mistake was trying to get you to be honest.

 

[The_Bucket]

The state can attempt to redefine words, but it cannot redefine reality. If the state legislates that the term “father” shall henceforth include what were formerly known as “mothers,” reality is unchanged. We just end up with a word stripped of its meaning.

So an adoptive mothers and fathers are not really mothers and fathers? Because that was the argument being made.

 

[rossum]

How is the state abusing its authority in defining what constitutes civil marriage? It’s a civil contract.

And for that matter, what would be the difference if we had “marriage” as being two people of the opposite sex and “domestic partnership” for either opposite sex or same-sex couples… and the legal rights were exactly the same? Nothing. In fact, that’s why you’re going courts where where civil unions are legal and materially the same as marriage are going to throw out the separation entirely. And they’re absolutely right to do it. The only difference is a label and the only reason for the label is to make one group feel superior to the other.

One thing I’ve never understood is the whole “the state can’t redefine marriage” bit. I mean, yes it absolutely can. Your point that it’s “not really a marriage” is well taken by me. I totally agree. But you know what also isn’t a marriage? Two heterosexuals who got divorced three times, never annulled their previous marriages and then went off to Vegas one night and got hitched. That’s not a real marriage and yet it’s absolutely and perfectly legal. So the state pretty clearly has changed the definition of marriage over the years and it’s nothing close to what the Church teaches.

I suspect that we would disagree on many things, but you are right on this. There are different versions of marriage defined by the Church, various states, other religions (Islam for example) and in history (Solomon for example).

It is obvious that any attempt to argue on the basis that there is only one allowed form of marriage is doomed to fail.

rossum

 

[The_Bucket]

I suspect that we would disagree on many things, but you are right on this. There are different versions of marriage defined by the Church, various states, other religions (Islam for example) and in history (Solomon for example).

It is obvious that any attempt to argue on the basis that there is only one allowed form of marriage is doomed to fail.

Yes, civil marriage has been defined and re-defined over the course of history. That’s a certifiable fact. It’s also true that I can’t recall many societies that codified homosexual relationships. Most of those societies that tolerated or even promoted them were more informal. (Athens, Sparta, etc). There was not usually something on a piece of paper. And those relationships were NOT the same as heterosexual marriage. They were not intended to create stable family units.

But men have defined and re-defined Truth over the millenia as well. That doesn’t change the unchangeable and eternal Truth that is God. Neither does a change to recognize gay marriage change what marriage really is. It simply redefines what it means in our changeable, temporal societies that will one day be dust.

 

[fix]

No-fault divorce is a moral fiction. It’s also the law. Refusing to believe the civil law is a real thing is quite the dangerous mindset. I totally acknowledge that no-fault divorce is real and so is gay marriage in a number of states and countries. That it is a moral fiction is something I absolutely accept.

Huh? So you support unjust laws then? That a law exists is not evidence of its authenticity. The Church says unjust laws should not be obeyed. An unjust law is no law.

The law is a teacher but the Church is not the one to hand out the lesson plan and force civil authorities to read from it. We have protections against religious teachings being the law and thank God for that. After all, you support actual criminal penalties for people who engage in sexual sin. I can’t imagine that would be productive. Or Constitutional.

Ah, so your faith must not inform the law? Is that your dogma? BTW, one does not need faith to grasp homosexual unions are wrong.

The effects on children are drastically, drastically overblown. Children simply need love and structure and yes, homosexual couples are capable of providing that. I’d rather a child grow up with two parents of the same sex than with, say, a promiscuous and/or neglectful single parent. Or even in a home with married parents were there is physical and/or mental abuse.

The Church disagrees with you, again. The false choices here are gay propaganda tools. Children have rights. They ought never be subjected to faux “gay” parents.

I don’t advocate for gay marriage. I do not support it. I think it is absolutely and unequivocally morally wrong. I also don’t think it’s the end of the world. We’d do well to focus our social justice efforts on caring for the poor and defending the lives of the unborn. Not to say that we can’t also support sacramental marriage, but we’d do a better job of that if we just went around promoting sacramental marriage. Having a positive sacramental marriage message as opposed to a merely anti-gay-marriage message is something that can and will resonate.

The Church does not agree with you. Fake homosexual marriage is a terrible thing to do to our society and especially our children.

 

[fix]

So an adoptive mothers and fathers are not really mothers and fathers? Because that was the argument being made.

The other poster was referring to homosexual adoptive parents.

 

[The_Bucket]

Ah, so your faith must not inform the law? Is that your dogma? BTW, one does not need faith to grasp homosexual unions are wrong.

Faith always informs law. It’s impossible to compartmentalize the two. But we have protections built in to our Constitution here in America to allow for the freedom of worship, freedom of speech and certain amounts of privacy.

The Church disagrees with you, again. The false choices here are gay propaganda tools. Children have rights. They ought ever be subjected to faux “gay” parents.

I’m not giving false choices. I’m not saying that the choice is always between two people of the same sex who, while committing sexual sin, are otherwise very kind and loving people or two people of the opposite sex who, while not committing sexual sin, are otherwise horrible and abusive people. I’m saying that in such a scenario I’d take the former over the latter.

Ideally all children in need of adoption would go to two loving parents who are married to one another. Sadly, the ideal does not always exist. We are all human after all.

The Church does not agree with you. Fake homosexual marriage is a terrible thing to do to our society and especially our children.

What about single parenthood? What about shacking up between heterosexuals? I mean, I do not understand the viciousness that is leveled at homosexuals. These people are desperately in need of love and we Christians should be the ones delivering that message of love! Using terms like “faux parents,” “homosexual agenda” etc just delivers the message that you do not see homosexuals as people. It does not matter whether you believe that in your heart or not. That’s what they will hear. That’s what they HAVE been hearing for so long.

The false wisdom of the world today says that we need to condone and even support everything everyone does or else we are bigots. The false wisdom of the world 100 years ago said we should publicly shame everyone who commits sexual sin. The false wisdom of the world 2,000 years ago said we should stone people to death who are caught in sexual sin.

True wisdom comes from Christ who told those who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then refused to condemn her but told her to go and sin no more. That is Wisdom. That is the model that we should follow.

 

[Stephen168]

As someone who does not support gay marriage or even gay adoption… I have to say what Stephen168 said is an even greater fiction than what he was espousing.

Adoption does not create a “legal fiction” for who someone’s actual parents are. Adoption is an extremely charitable thing to do and we need more of it in this country. Adoptive parents are real parents and to imply otherwise is pretty wrong.

A "legal fiction’ is morally neutral. Adoption is a wonderful thing but it still is a legal fiction. Adoptive parents are not the people who created the child, they are the parents because the government says so.

Same sex unions as marriage is a legal fiction, so is corporate personhood.

 

[fix]

The state can attempt to redefine words, but it cannot redefine reality. If the state legislates that the term “father” shall henceforth include what were formerly known as “mothers,” reality is unchanged. We just end up with a word stripped of its meaning.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg. There is an effort to redefine reality here. That is no small item. When these issues are brought up notice how the deflection starts. They say hey wait what about divorce? Well yes that is bad but how does that compare to redefining what a mother is or what a father is. The last Pope called this a new ideology of evil. It really is.

 

[Stephen168]

So an adoptive mothers and fathers are not really mothers and fathers? Because that was the argument being made.

Depends on what you mean by ‘really’. Are they ‘really’ mother and father to the child because they created it, no.
Are they ‘really’ mother and father because the government said so, yes.

There are many legal fictions created in law. Legal fictions are created as a work around to ‘real’ or ‘civil’ problematic situations. A child without parents would be one of these situations, but I don’t see the problem being solved by creating the legal fiction of same sex unions as marriage.

 

[fix]

Faith always informs law. It’s impossible to compartmentalize the two. But we have protections built in to our Constitution here in America to allow for the freedom of worship, freedom of speech and certain amounts of privacy.

There is no “freedom” to so called gay marriage.

I’m not giving false choices. I’m not saying that the choice is always between two people of the same sex who, while committing sexual sin, are otherwise very kind and loving people or two people of the opposite sex who, while not committing sexual sin, are otherwise horrible and abusive people. I’m saying that in such a scenario I’d take the former over the latter.

The scenario only exists because the state allows it to exist. There is no such real choice.

Ideally all children in need of adoption would go to two loving parents who are married to one another. Sadly, the ideal does not always exist. We are all human after all.

Yes, so what is the point? We subject children to strange experiments? No way.

What about single parenthood? What about shacking up between heterosexuals? I mean, I do not understand the viciousness that is leveled at homosexuals.

Viciousness? You mean pointing out the serious evil of these situations is vicious? The two examples you give are not as bad. Two men acting like father and mother is much worse. A single parent is not adopting two roles that are contrary to nature and the cohabiting couple is not doing that either.

These people are desperately in need of love and we Christians should be the ones delivering that message of love! Using terms like “faux parents,” “homosexual agenda” etc just delivers the message that you do not see homosexuals as people. It does not matter whether you believe that in your heart or not. That’s what they will hear. That’s what they HAVE been hearing for so long.

What about the children? Where is your love for them? Is the truth determined by how a political group claims to hear it? There is nothing unloving in pointing out the grave seriousness of these really terrible things.

The false wisdom of the world today says that we need to condone and even support everything everyone does or else we are bigots. The false wisdom of the world 100 years ago said we should publicly shame everyone who commits sexual sin. The false wisdom of the world 2,000 years ago said we should stone people to death who are caught in sexual sin.

Not buying that for one minute. The pan sexuality of today demands acceptance and assent. The libertarianism of today demands that any characterization of these acts is “hate”.

True wisdom comes from Christ who told those who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then refused to condemn her but told her to go and sin no more. That is Wisdom. That is the model that we should follow.

Please do not rip out one sentience from the bible and place against the entire bible and all of Church teaching. All must be reconciled.

 

[JimG]

So an adoptive mothers and fathers are not really mothers and fathers? Because that was the argument being made.

No, that was not the argument being made. Adoptive mothers and fathers become mothers and fathers by adoption. But a woman cannot become a man by a change of definition. Nor can a man become a woman by a change of definition. Nor can marriage be deprived of its conjugal meaning by a change of definition. Nor can sexual non-complementarity be changed into sexual complementarity by a change of definition. Nor can same sex couples engage in marital relations by a change of words. The reality of sexual complementarity is needed.

 

[Stephen168]

Railing against same-sex marriage is only going to get me labeled as a bigot.

The Catholic Church has a very reasoned argument on why same-sex unions are not marriage. We know we are not bigots. We are only labeled bigots by the people who disagree and can not refute our argument. I’d rather stand up for the truth than run away to avoid name calling bullies.

 

[The_Bucket]

No, that was not the argument being made. Adoptive mothers and fathers become mothers and fathers by adoption. But a woman cannot become a man by a change of definition. Nor can a man become a woman by a change of definition. Nor can marriage be deprived of its conjugal meaning by a change of definition. Nor can sexual non-complementarity be changed into sexual complementarity by a change of definition. Nor can same sex couples engage in marital relations by a change of words. The reality of sexual complementarity is needed.

I’m not arguing about the moral reality Jim. We really and truly are on the same page with it. As I said, I voted against gay marriage and specifically to have it constitutionally banned in Florida. I’d do it again. But I’m not going to get into a semantical game about what is or is not “real” the way fix is doing. Redefining civil marriage is not “redefining reality.” It’s simply redefining a civil contract and changing contract and property law. Civil marriage never made any moral judgment; except maybe when it banned interracial couples from marrying, which was also a grave evil. Otherwise, civil marriage is simply contract law. It is not an outward sign of an inward reality. That’s sacramental marriage.

And fix, yes, yes there is a right to gay marriage. Well actually, let me clarify. I don’t think there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. But I absolutely think the state has the right to change marriage law because it can change contract law. And that’s all that civil marriage is. It’s contract and property law. Period.

The state would not create a choice between gay adoptive parents and abusive parents. Sin does. Plain and simple. The reason that not every child has a loving mother and father in his life is due to sin. It’s not the state’s fault.

As for strange experiments, we’ve already done that. We’ve done that with no-fault divorce. We’ve done that with co-habitation. We did centuries ago with polygamy. We did it when we abandoned children at abusive orphanages. We are constantly experimenting with society and frequently falling flat on our faces. The notion that somehow we had it “right” once and don’t today is fallacious. We’ve never had it right and never will because we’re all sinful people.

 

[The_Bucket]

The Catholic Church has a very reasoned argument on why same-sex unions are not marriage. We know we are not bigots. We are only labeled bigots by the people who disagree and can not refute our argument. I’d rather stand up for the truth than run away to avoid name calling bullies.

I know it does. I’m saying that pushing an anti-gay marriage message is going to get drowned out in a sea of condemnation. Few people would condemn a positive pro-sacramental marriage message. It would get through to more people and still constitutes a firm defense of Church teaching. Isn’t that what we want in the end? The conversion of more souls to Christ?