Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[down_under]

It is true given a certain assumption. In the absence of that assumption it is not true. Hence it is not absolutely true because it is not true in all circumstances.

Here is a hint: “There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don’t.”

Any attempt to state a truth inevitably has certain assumptions built in. Hence any statement can only ever be relatively true because it depends on those underlying assumptions.

rossum

funny my course conveners don’t mark that way. Strange that these intelligent university educated people can’t understand that they are making assumptions about my grade based on some silly thing like a standard.

by the way your wrong my truth is different. You state these things based on your assumptions which I do not hold to be true. So your wrong.

 

[The_Bucket]

So there is no difference between your marriage and that of a same sex union? They are the same thing to you?

If I were to move into a state that supported same-sex marriage then, legally speaking, no, there is no difference. They would be the same thing. Sacramentally, on the other hand, they’re quite different. Then again, my marriage is also different from two heterosexuals “shacking up” or even married heterosexuals who are divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity.

That sacramental reality, by the way, does not make me a better person than anyone else. It just makes my marriage different.

As for knowing what a legal fiction means, I understand it perfectly. My point about adoptive parents is still, however, salient. While yes, those who give birth to a child are forever the “birth parents,” the adoptive parents have legal parental rights and moral responsibilities to that child. There’s more to it than mere acts of the law to change formal guardianship. There’s a moral assumption of responsibilities.

And I really don’t think you have the right to assume what I do or do not know about the Church’s teaching on marriage. I absolutely understand it and further understand why the Church makes the distinction between absolute impotence and infertility when determining who is free to marry. Infertility does not keep sexual acts from unitive and procreative in nature, even if they are not procreative in fact. This goes to my point that marriage is about the two becoming one flesh. It is literally about sex. It is not strictly about children.

Civil marriage carried with it certain rights and privileges because it fostered stable family units in which the next generation could be raised. Governments do indeed have a vested interest both from societal and economic standpoints in ensuring that there is a next generation and that the next generation is as well taken care of as possible in their childhoods. Civil marriage doesn’t care a lick about the joining of two people as one flesh except for the creation of legitimate children. Sacramental marriage is not the same.

 

[PastorBonus]

I am for civil union. This same-sex marriage thing has been going for too long. Legally if two people are consenting adults, no one can tell them what or what not to do. Furthermore I do believe in case of terminal illness or impending death this can allow one of the partner to visit the other or inherit insurance money.

However I’m against gay adoption. A mom and a dad is needed to help the child to beeter understanding of both genders

 

[Stephen168]

If I were to move into a state that supported same-sex marriage then, legally speaking, no, there is no difference. They would be the same thing. Sacramentally, on the other hand, they’re quite different. Then again, my marriage is also different from two heterosexuals “shacking up” or even married heterosexuals who are divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity.

That sacramental reality, by the way, does not make me a better person than anyone else. It just makes my marriage different.

As for knowing what a legal fiction means, I understand it perfectly. My point about adoptive parents is still, however, salient. While yes, those who give birth to a child are forever the “birth parents,” the adoptive parents have legal parental rights and moral responsibilities to that child. There’s more to it than mere acts of the law to change formal guardianship. There’s a moral assumption of responsibilities.

And I really don’t think you have the right to assume what I do or do not know about the Church’s teaching on marriage. I absolutely understand it and further understand why the Church makes the distinction between absolute impotence and infertility when determining who is free to marry. Infertility does not keep sexual acts from unitive and procreative in nature, even if they are not procreative in fact. This goes to my point that marriage is about the two becoming one flesh. It is literally about sex. It is not strictly about children.

Civil marriage carried with it certain rights and privileges because it fostered stable family units in which the next generation could be raised. Governments do indeed have a vested interest both from societal and economic standpoints in ensuring that there is a next generation and that the next generation is as well taken care of as possible in their childhoods. Civil marriage doesn’t care a lick about the joining of two people as one flesh except for the creation of legitimate children. Sacramental marriage is not the same.

There is no difference between your marriage and that of a same sex union? They are the same thing to you?

Yes or No

 

[down_under]

therefore the statement there is no ultimate truth can only ever be relatively true because it depends on those underlying assumptions. There fore there must be SOME ultimate truth and the question becomes can we know it with certainty. The statement “you cannot know truth with certainty” is only relatively true because it depends on those underlying assumptions and therefore is a false statement as well.

therefore logically as you have stated so clearly for us there must be some ultimate truth and we have to know what at least some of it is. Thank you for clearing this up. You were such a great help. and you have a nice day now.

 

[Stephen168]

As for knowing what a legal fiction means, I understand it perfectly.

Then you would know that this:

My point about adoptive parents is still, however, salient. While yes, those who give birth to a child are forever the “birth parents,” the adoptive parents have legal parental rights and moral responsibilities to that child. There’s more to it than mere acts of the law to change formal guardianship. There’s a moral assumption of responsibilities.

And this:

Slavery was real even though it was an abhorrent thing. The moral fact that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God did not make slavery less real.

Have nothing to do with it. No, I don’t think you understand it at all

 

[rossum]

Should I bother pointing out that stating “There is no ultimate truth” is itself asserting an ultimate truth?

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[The_Bucket]

There is no difference between your marriage and that of a same sex union? They are the same thing to you?

Yes or No

I’m not splitting hairs when I say that context matters. Gay marriage is banned in my state. If I was in a state where there is gay marriage, however, then my marriage from a legal point of view would be exactly the same as one between homosexuals. I don’t think I can be any clearer than that.

My marriage would, however, be different in that it is sacramental. The sacramental aspect is what makes my marriage “real.” It is an outward sign of an inward reality of grace.

I suppose I could turn around and ask you: Is your marriage the same as a thrice-divorced man marrying a thrice-divorced woman with no annulments involved?

 

[Stephen168]

. Furthermore I do believe in case of terminal illness or impending death this can allow one of the partner to visit the other or inherit insurance money.

If my son and daughter-in-law die, I get their insurance money because they put my name on the document; I don’t have to “marry” them. Before they were married by son had to spend some time in the hospital, she spent the night there not married to him. We could visit all we wanted and didn’t have to marry him.

 

[The_Bucket]

No, I don’t think you understand it at all

Yes I do. I understand what you mean when you say corporate personhood is a legal fiction. Corporations are not actually people but we have laws that treat them as such. Those laws are in place to allow for a limited amount of rights on the part of the corporation that one would normally see usually applied to individuals.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not splitting hairs when I say that context matters.

I’ll take that as a Yes. You don’t believe your marriage is any different that a same sex union.

I suppose I could turn around and ask you: Is your marriage the same as a thrice-divorced man marrying a thrice-divorced woman with no annulments involved?

As a Catholic, you mean do I think my marriage is the same as a two people living together? No, because I am married and they are pretending to be, just like same sex couples. Words mean things and the Catholic Church is very rational once you understand it.

 

[rossum]

The only valid marriage in the Catholic church is between a Man and a Women who can consummate the marriage.

Agreed. However this thread is about civil marriage, not Catholic marriage.

Civil Union is just another argument for SSM, it doesn’t benefit society and you know it.

It does benefit society and I know it. It increases happiness among the couples who marry. It tends to increase the length of their relationship given the legal implications of divorce. It means that the state can save money on caring for the aged because more of them will have a partner to look after them in their old age. There are more couples available to adopt children from orphanages.

Your arguments are false teaching of the Catholic Church

I am not arguing about the teachings of the Catholic Church, I am arguing about civil marriage, which is certainly not a teaching of the Catholic Church because it allows divorce and remarriage.

rossum

 

[down_under]

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

If you really believe this you cannot function in a logical society. You could never know with certainty the truth or falseness of anything. This idea violates the very notion of truth and therefore must be discarded as false. It is a break down in language. Not in logic. This is gibberish and if you believe it you could never really know anything. It violates everything we know about our lives and how we live them.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Well said.

I can’t wrap my head around how I can expect other people to live to all of my religious beliefs, but not expect them to have the same rights (making me live by their beliefs).

If I believe, purely because of religious reasons, that two men living together or two women living together as spouses is wrong, then I won’t live my life that way. My religion doesn’t tell me that I need to dress modestly to the point of wearing a burka, but there are religions where my dressing the way that I do is considered wrong and immoral and detrimental to society. I don’t expect people who believe that to force that opinion on me (make that the law), because that’s not in line with my religion.

If someone is accepting of gay marriage in their religion (or lack of religion), then I don’t see how I can justify standing in their way.

I hate to be terribly long winded, but I legitimately struggle to understand this opinion/stance. Why is gay marriage the topic of so much debate and such heated opinions while heterosexual marriages that lack any devotion are left alone? Not just celebrity weddings, but how many marriages are entered into without proper respect and consideration before? How many end in divorce, because that’s seen as easier than working through problems? And why isn’t everyone up in arms about these situations instead of focusing so much time and energy on gay marriage - especially considering that many of those people have been in respectful and committed relationships with each other for years, even decades?

I’m not trying to be offensive, and forgive me if my questions have gotten off topic on this.

I am always amazed when people ask why the Church focuses so much attention on the issue of homosexuality and not other sins. Aside the inrtinsic seriousness of the movement as countrary to God’s original plan for creation, quite simply, it is because no one is spending their time trying to justify or legitimize their sins. There are no mass pro-adultery parades. No one is having “come out and admit you support pornography” days. No one is yet pushing for marriage between man and beast.

Gay marriage is at the forefront because homosexuals make it so. Gay pride Parades, major announcements when celebrities come out, etc.

The Church didn’t go looking to start a battle. Any deviant lifestyle that has as much sway the the homosexual movement that attempts to legitimize itself and thus, according to God and our Church’s precepts, erode society will be fought.

Each sin we commit affects all of humanity. There is no private sin. And we have an obligation to help one another, and to serve God first and foremost. Asking why we care what others do is not loving thy neighbors. If your neighbor or friend made repeated attempts at suicide, would you say “doesn’t affect me…”?

We know as Catholics homosexuality is harmful and dangerous to individuals and to society’s contiuance. We also know the same thing about abortion. Both are grave matters. As a man, why should I care a if a woman aborts her child? It doesn’t affect me.

I think the difference is in the perceived seriousness of the sin. One is tangibly seen as murder, or ending a life. The other is easily ignored, by brushing it off as “it’s just sex, no big deal.”

By definition, both are grave, and are extremely big deals.

Since the Church has spoken, none of our opinions really matter in the end. We have oru marching orders, and civil unions are as much of a no go as are “marriages.” Once you try and rationalize your beliefs contrary to that teaching, you can quickly justify believing anything that is contrary to the Church, and the whole concept of Church teaching unravels. We are not called to understand necessarily, but we are called to obey completely.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes I do. I understand what you mean when you say corporate personhood is a legal fiction.

Yet, you don’t understand what a legal fiction is. Words mean things.

 

[The_Bucket]

I’ll take that as a Yes. You don’t believe your marriage is any different that a same sex union.

That is absolute nonsense and quite contrary to what I said. I said that legally speaking there is no difference. Why? Because, simply, there isn’t! What would make my marriage different? Homosexual married couples would have the same rights and privileges as it pertains to contract, property and tax laws. I’m not going to deny the legal realities. Using the term legal fiction is again, semantics. What’s real is real in terms of civil law. What’s real in terms of moral law is quite different.

As a Catholic, you mean do I think my marriage is the same as a two people living together? No, because I am married and they are pretending to be, just like same sex couples. Words mean things and the Catholic Church is very rational once you understand it.

Well then we agree that sacramental marriage is different than civil marriage. What’s your specific objection to my argument? That I think the state can change whatever the heck it wants when it comes to civil and even criminal law? That’s a reality. That’s a fact. Marriage has been changed. Interracial marriage was banned and there were laws criminalizing even heterosexual relations between people of different races. Were those laws unjust? Certainly. Were they real? Yes. If you think otherwise, there’s a stack full of case law to prove you wrong.

 

[The_Bucket]

I should also note that, if you want to be super-technical, that civil marriage as a whole is a legal fiction. Tax laws that allow for people to file jointly is fictitious because there are clearly still two people. Civil laws that allow for two people to be treated as a single entity are fictions in and of themselves. The concept that there is a “Mr. and Mrs. Husband’s First and Last Name” who are treated as a single person is a fiction. And yet there’s no objection to that.

If civil marriage as a whole is a fiction, why are you so bothered by the story changing? I’m never going to support it but I’m more or less going to ignore what society tells me is real and not real and focus instead on what the Church says is real.

 

[rossum]

It violates everything we know about our lives and how we live them.

We are getting OT for this thread.

Nagarjuna challenges certain very common assumptions we make about our lives. One of his major points is that they are just assumptions, and cannot be proved. The problem is that those assumptions are incorrect.

The primary incorrect assumption is that the models we all build within our heads are the same as external reality. This is wrong because what is true of the model is not always true of external reality and vice versa. The models are reasonably good, otherwise we could not function well, but the models are not perfect. They contain errors. The task of the Buddhist is to clearly differentiate between our models and reality and hence to correct, as far as possible, the errors in our models. The models and reality are different things.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

That is absolute nonsense and quite contrary to what I said.

No, I think that was what you said. Of course you could not seem to answer a yes/no question with a yes or no. Let me ask you again just to give you a third chance: So there is no difference between your marriage and that of a same sex union? They are the same thing to you?

Well then we agree that sacramental marriage is different than civil marriage. What’s your specific objection to my argument?

There may or may not be a different between marriage and civil marriage. It depends on what the requirements for civil marriage are. Same sex unions are not marriage…ever. If the government calls it a marriage it is a legal fiction, just like adoption is a legal fiction.

 

[Stephen168]

I should also note that, if you want to be super-technical, that civil marriage as a whole is a legal fiction.

I never said that.

Tax laws that allow for people to file jointly is fictitious because there are clearly still two people.

When I fill out my tax form I’m required to put the number 2 in the box. The government has not declared us one person. If they did, that would be a legal fiction, like adoption and called same sex unions marriage.