Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[JimG]

As Orson Scott Card notes in his 2004 essay, Civilization Watch, we are two generations into the systematic destruction of the institution of marriage. Our schools have been turned into propaganda outlets.

He writes: “Now huge numbers of Americans know that the schools are places where their children are indoctrinated in anti-family values. Trust is not just going – for them it’s gone.”

Children have been deprived of two parent homes as a result of public policies that discourage marriage and encourage divorce.

The essay outlines a number of deleterious effects following on same sex marriage.

If you haven’t read the essay before, it’s worth reading:

ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

As to whether legalization of same sex marriage will ultimately enable further assaults on religious liberty, Cardinal Francis George has said this:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

 

[fix]

As Orson Scott Card notes in his 2004 essay, Civilization Watch, we are two generations into the systematic destruction of the institution of marriage. Our schools have been turned into propaganda outlets.

He writes: “Now huge numbers of Americans know that the schools are places where their children are indoctrinated in anti-family values. Trust is not just going – for them it’s gone.”

Children have been deprived of two parent homes as a result of public policies that discourage marriage and encourage divorce.

The essay outlines a number of deleterious effects following on same sex marriage.

If you haven’t read the essay before, it’s worth reading:

ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

As to whether legalization of same sex marriage will ultimately enable further assaults on religious liberty, Cardinal Francis George has said this:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

As an aside I do not understand the arument, that is invoked often, that claims because marriage has been assaulted for years by divorce and such it is unfair and unwarranted to address same sex “marriage”. At first glance it is childish. Like saying it is unfair to defend against SSM because one does not perceive equal effort to stop divorce. Even if it were true how is that a valid moral argument?

Among other things the fact is children will be harmed greater and more often if they are exposed to this artificial family structure. With all the talk about “equality” and “compassion” I never hear about the rights of children. This is an ideology. It is not about fairness, equality, compassion, or another such misdirected thinking.

 

[JimG]

As an aside I do not understand the arument, that is invoked often, that claims because marriage has been assaulted for years by divorce and such it is unfair and unwarranted to address same sex “marriage”. At first glance it is childish. Like saying it is unfair to defend against SSM because one does not perceive equal effort to stop divorce. Even if it were true how is that a valid moral argument?

Among other things the fact is children will be harmed greater and more often if they are exposed to this artificial family structure. With all the talk about “equality” and “compassion” I never hear about the rights of children. This is an ideology. It is not about fairness, equality, compassion, or another such misdirected thinking.

Yes, the argument is rather like saying “gosh, this car has already been run into the ditch. But instead of towing it out, well, as long as it’s in there, lets just try drag racing down the dry riverbed.”

 

[The_Bucket]

As an aside I do not understand the arument, that is invoked often, that claims because marriage has been assaulted for years by divorce and such it is unfair and unwarranted to address same sex “marriage”. At first glance it is childish. Like saying it is unfair to defend against SSM because one does not perceive equal effort to stop divorce. Even if it were true how is that a valid moral argument?

Among other things the fact is children will be harmed greater and more often if they are exposed to this artificial family structure. With all the talk about “equality” and “compassion” I never hear about the rights of children. This is an ideology. It is not about fairness, equality, compassion, or another such misdirected thinking.

While I concur with both you and Jim that there is a logical disconnect as it pertains to SSM supporters pointing out that no one is going after no-fault divorce, I have to disagree with the latter portion here. Or at least say that there is no conclusive evidence of it.

Children are indeed the victims of parental selfishness that accompanies no-fault divorce and single parenthood. But I don’t really see equivalent harm when it comes to same-sex marriage. Mind you, I still see harm. There’s no way that those children are going to understand that same-sex relations is wrong or, if they come to learn it and believe it, their relationships with their parents is going to be very, very difficult.

But it’s not like homosexuals, even active ones, are incapable of demonstrating Christian love elsewhere in their lives. To me, it’s more like a situation where you’ve got unmarried but committed heterosexuals raising children as opposed to divorced or, say, promiscuous and/or neglectful single parent situations.

 

[The_Bucket]

Fan though I am of Cardinal Francis George, I think the idea that we’re going to see faithful Catholics murdered in the public square 50 years from now to be a radical exaggeration. Will they be social pariahs? Sure. We’re almost there already. We don’t know how good we had it in this country from the 1950s until about two or three years ago. But before we curse our luck or cry out lamentations over our woes, keep in mind that our earliest ancestors in this country were treated far worse. And the fathers of our faith were indeed killed in the public square.

To me, it’s a bit unfair that we never really had to suffer while those giants of their faith did.

 

[Stephen168]

As an aside I do not understand the arument, that is invoked often, that claims because marriage has been assaulted for years by divorce and such it is unfair and unwarranted to address same sex “marriage”.

And my other favorite:
Because the Church doesn’t try to ban:
birth control
large cars
divorce
littering
bad karma
etc
etc

Why do they making a big deal about same-sex marriage?

 

[JimG]

Fan though I am of Cardinal Francis George, I think the idea that we’re going to see faithful Catholics murdered in the public square 50 years from now to be a radical exaggeration. Will they be social pariahs? Sure. We’re almost there already. We don’t know how good we had it in this country from the 1950s until about two or three years ago. But before we curse our luck or cry out lamentations over our woes, keep in mind that our earliest ancestors in this country were treated far worse. And the fathers of our faith were indeed killed in the public square.

To me, it’s a bit unfair that we never really had to suffer while those giants of their faith did.

I think it may not take 50 years. I agree we have been spoiled. I worry for the upcoming generations who will live through these changes with little preparation.

 

[fix]

While I concur with both you and Jim that there is a logical disconnect as it pertains to SSM supporters pointing out that no one is going after no-fault divorce, I have to disagree with the latter portion here. Or at least say that there is no conclusive evidence of it.

Children are indeed the victims of parental selfishness that accompanies no-fault divorce and single parenthood. But I don’t really see equivalent harm when it comes to same-sex marriage. Mind you, I still see harm. There’s no way that those children are going to understand that same-sex relations is wrong or, if they come to learn it and believe it, their relationships with their parents is going to be very, very difficult.

But it’s not like homosexuals, even active ones, are incapable of demonstrating Christian love elsewhere in their lives. To me, it’s more like a situation where you’ve got unmarried but committed heterosexuals raising children as opposed to divorced or, say, promiscuous and/or neglectful single parent situations.

We have been over this before. Two men or women or more than two acting as father and mother is a crime. A moral crime and it should be a civil crime. The bumper sticker theology that proclaims: all it takes is love to make a family is a lie.

Children have rights. To subject them to this cruel experiment is unchristian.

 

[fix]

And my other favorite:
Because the Church doesn’t try to ban:
birth control
large cars
divorce
littering
bad karma
etc
etc

Why do they making a big deal about same-sex marriage?

People hold this view because they form their conscience through popular culture. Justice and charity are novel notions in some dusty book. They perceive equality as some sort of master ideology that must be obeyed. Anything perceived as unequal must be the gravest of all sins.

 

[The_Bucket]

You use language like that and you still seriously believe that the only reason we’re losing the cultural battle is because of everyone else? It’s all other people’s fault? None of the harsh words used by our side could have possibly helped to alienate people who might have been brought back into the fold had we shown more compassion?

Or could it possibly be a combination of both? Relativism is certainly running rampant but it’s not like relativism is something new.

The lack of charity in your diction is not going to win over anyone’s heart. Our Holy Father was quite right to call for this Year of Faith and a new evangelization across the globe. The societal order is changing and once powerful institutions have decayed and rotted. Even our own Church has been infected with great evil to which many of our leaders, to my horror, turned a blind eye or at least did not expose to the world for fear that it might be a blight on the faith.

We must be bold and courageous and profess the truth to the world. But we must do so with as close to as perfect charity as possible. The world does not want to hear our message right now. Partly because of its own desire to live in a world where truth is whatever they make it, but also partly because of the hypocrisy on our Church’s part. Even though we in the rank and file are not responsible for those grave sins and terrible missteps in covering up those sins, we are responsible for helping clean up the mess and bring the message of Christ to the world.

When choosing your words, think about whether what you say is going to help win souls to Christ or simply make you feel self righteous. Right though you are about the morality of same sex marriage, declaring that homosexual parentage should be a “civil crime” ranks right up there with your declarations in another thread that we should criminally prosecute people engaged in sodomy. It’s not helpful in actually winning people to the Church.

We absolutely should not dilute the doctrine, but the message should be less fire and brimstone and more, well, Christlike.

 

[RevDon]

We have been over this before. Two men or women or more than two acting as father and mother is a crime. A moral crime and it should be a civil crime. The bumper sticker theology that proclaims: all it takes is love to make a family is a lie.

Children have rights. To subject them to this cruel experiment is unchristian.

One side of this discussion proclaims that same sex marriage is morally wrong, and clings to that label, using the decision that it is morally wrong to justify villifying it and its proponents. They cite evils such as, children reared in a same-sex parented household will think that something that is morally wrong is good, and use this as a reason to justify calling same-sex marriage morally wrong.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is a circular argument and the first premise is not proved. Appealing to the usual authorities of scripture and tradition don’t really help in defining the morality of same sex marriage, because neither of those really addressed same sex marriage. They were aimed at promiscuity, idol worship or violence expressed in sexual abuse.

A less specific means of making a moral judgment on this issue, yet one that might be more strongly rooted in Christian tradition, might be found in Jesus’ words, “by their fruit you will know them.” When actual, living marriages of two persons of the same sex are examined (and I’m not talking about aberrations of relationships such as equally exist in heterosexual “marriages”), do they have qualities that can be seen as good? Are they good for the partners? Are they good for any children involved (especially considering that in most instances those children were adopted and otherwise would have been in orphanages or the foster care system)? Are they good for the community? Are they good for the church?

Likewise what are the evil outcomes of those relationships? Are those evils greater than what is seen in heterosexual relationships (without resorting to the argument “It’s just evil.”)?

We are being asked to look at something that the world has not seen before in the light of day. Since time began, there have been enduring, loving relationships between people of the same sex, but they were essentially invisible, and the participante lived without the support, protection or benefits of the culture. Rather, they lived in fear of discovery, yet the partners risked that discovery and the sometimes harsh penalties for the sale of a communion of life and love. If we carefully examine the realities of the relationships of same sex couples and weigh them according to their fruits, we may make a break from earlier judgments without discontinuity, since that kind of examination was never used in forming the judgment that prevailed then. Let’s be sure we know what we are condemning or approving before we form our judgment, know it, not in the abstract, but in the lived reality.

 

[Monkey1976]

One side of this discussion proclaims that same sex marriage is morally wrong, and clings to that label, using the decision that it is morally wrong to justify villifying it and its proponents. They cite evils such as, children reared in a same-sex parented household will think that something that is morally wrong is good, and use this as a reason to justify calling same-sex marriage morally wrong.

How about a 100% secular look at why same-sex “marriage” is wrong? tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is a circular argument and the first premise is not proved. Appealing to the usual authorities of scripture and tradition don’t really help in defining the morality of same sex marriage, because neither of those really addressed same sex marriage. They were aimed at promiscuity, idol worship or violence expressed in sexual abuse.

Are you honestly claiming that Scripture doesn’t address homosexual activity?

A less specific means of making a moral judgment on this issue, yet one that might be more strongly rooted in Christian tradition, might be found in Jesus’ words, “by their fruit you will know them.” When actual, living marriages of two persons of the same sex are examined (and I’m not talking about aberrations of relationships such as equally exist in heterosexual “marriages”), do they have qualities that can be seen as good? Are they good for the partners?

No, because it puts the souls of both in danger of hell.

Are they good for any children involved (especially considering that in most instances those children were adopted and otherwise would have been in orphanages or the foster care system)?

No, because it teaches the children to see immoral activities as moral.

Are they good for the community? Are they good for the church?

No. Look to the multiple suits being brought against people who exercised their right to oppose same-sex “marriage” by refusing to participate in farcical ceremonies.

Likewise what are the evil outcomes of those relationships? Are those evils greater than what is seen in heterosexual relationships (without resorting to the argument “It’s just evil.”)?

Sodom ring a bell?

We are being asked to look at something that the world has not seen before in the light of day. Since time began, there have been enduring, loving relationships between people of the same sex, but they were essentially invisible, and the participante lived without the support, protection or benefits of the culture. Rather, they lived in fear of discovery, yet the partners risked that discovery and the sometimes harsh penalties for the sale of a communion of life and love. If we carefully examine the realities of the relationships of same sex couples and weigh them according to their fruits, we may make a break from earlier judgments without discontinuity, since that kind of examination was never used in forming the judgment that prevailed then. Let’s be sure we know what we are condemning or approving before we form our judgment, know it, not in the abstract, but in the lived reality.

Even in cultures where “enduring, loving relationships between people of the same sex” were actively encouraged by the government (This is SPARTAAAAAAAA!), marriage was something set entirely apart as something that could only exist between man and woman. This “invisibility” argument is demonstrably false.

 

[fix]

You use language like that and you still seriously believe that the only reason we’re losing the cultural battle is because of everyone else? It’s all other people’s fault? None of the harsh words used by our side could have possibly helped to alienate people who might have been brought back into the fold had we shown more compassion?

If you dislike the words it is because it is so true. People rebel against the truth mostly because accepting the truth means stopping what one is doing.

Or could it possibly be a combination of both? Relativism is certainly running rampant but it’s not like relativism is something new.

The lack of charity in your diction is not going to win over anyone’s heart. Our Holy Father was quite right to call for this Year of Faith and a new evangelization across the globe. The societal order is changing and once powerful institutions have decayed and rotted. Even our own Church has been infected with great evil to which many of our leaders, to my horror, turned a blind eye or at least did not expose to the world for fear that it might be a blight on the faith.

We must be bold and courageous and profess the truth to the world. But we must do so with as close to as perfect charity as possible. The world does not want to hear our message right now. Partly because of its own desire to live in a world where truth is whatever they make it, but also partly because of the hypocrisy on our Church’s part. Even though we in the rank and file are not responsible for those grave sins and terrible missteps in covering up those sins, we are responsible for helping clean up the mess and bring the message of Christ to the world.

When choosing your words, think about whether what you say is going to help win souls to Christ or simply make you feel self righteous. Right though you are about the morality of same sex marriage, declaring that homosexual parentage should be a “civil crime” ranks right up there with your declarations in another thread that we should criminally prosecute people engaged in sodomy. It’s not helpful in actually winning people to the Church.

We absolutely should not dilute the doctrine, but the message should be less fire and brimstone and more, well, Christlike.

You do not like the truth. Address the arguments if you can. Deflection is not an argument.

 

[fix]

One side of this discussion proclaims that same sex marriage is morally wrong, and clings to that label, using the decision that it is morally wrong to justify villifying it and its proponents. They cite evils such as, children reared in a same-sex parented household will think that something that is morally wrong is good, and use this as a reason to justify calling same-sex marriage morally wrong.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is a circular argument and the first premise is not proved. Appealing to the usual authorities of scripture and tradition don’t really help in defining the morality of same sex marriage, because neither of those really addressed same sex marriage. They were aimed at promiscuity, idol worship or violence expressed in sexual abuse.

A less specific means of making a moral judgment on this issue, yet one that might be more strongly rooted in Christian tradition, might be found in Jesus’ words, “by their fruit you will know them.” When actual, living marriages of two persons of the same sex are examined (and I’m not talking about aberrations of relationships such as equally exist in heterosexual “marriages”), do they have qualities that can be seen as good? Are they good for the partners? Are they good for any children involved (especially considering that in most instances those children were adopted and otherwise would have been in orphanages or the foster care system)? Are they good for the community? Are they good for the church?

Likewise what are the evil outcomes of those relationships? Are those evils greater than what is seen in heterosexual relationships (without resorting to the argument “It’s just evil.”)?

We are being asked to look at something that the world has not seen before in the light of day. Since time began, there have been enduring, loving relationships between people of the same sex, but they were essentially invisible, and the participante lived without the support, protection or benefits of the culture. Rather, they lived in fear of discovery, yet the partners risked that discovery and the sometimes harsh penalties for the sale of a communion of life and love. If we carefully examine the realities of the relationships of same sex couples and weigh them according to their fruits, we may make a break from earlier judgments without discontinuity, since that kind of examination was never used in forming the judgment that prevailed then. Let’s be sure we know what we are condemning or approving before we form our judgment, know it, not in the abstract, but in the lived reality.

So if I can follow your point your think inventing new type of marriage is moral because your authority is? What exactly?

 

[fix]

And my other favorite:
Because the Church doesn’t try to ban:
birth control
large cars
divorce
littering
bad karma
etc
etc

Why do they making a big deal about same-sex marriage?

Basically, they do not see it for the serious evil it is.

 

[RevDon]

How about a 100% secular look at why same-sex “marriage” is wrong? tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

This is the fertility argument. It would not be difficult to argue that children born to poor couples place a burden on society, so poor people should not be allowed to marry.

Are you honestly claiming that Scripture doesn’t address homosexual activity?
No, but I do claim that the intention of those passages has nothing to do with the kind of relationships SSM advocates are talking about, and I think that’s an important distinction.

No, because it puts the souls of both in danger of hell. No, because it teaches the children to see immoral activities as moral. No. Look to the multiple suits being brought against people who exercised their right to oppose same-sex “marriage” by refusing to participate in farcical ceremonies.
This is a circular argument: same sex marriage is immoral because it teaches children that it is moral. The morality itself is what is in question.

Sodom ring a bell?
Get a good commentary. The issue is not homosexuality it’s violence-rape. The same “homosexuals” who were anxious to have their way with the heavenly visitors were just as eager to have Lot’s daughters.

Even in cultures where “enduring, loving relationships between people of the same sex” were actively encouraged by the government (This is SPARTAAAAAAAA!), marriage was something set entirely apart as something that could only exist between man and woman. This “invisibility” argument is demonstrably false.

Then please give some evidence to demonstrate it.

In Sparta, as in every culture, the terms under which the title marriage is used are defined by the society. The recognition of it and benefits derived from that recognition are granted as society chooses, because society has a vested interest. The interests of earlier society were heavily weighted toward enlarging the population (especially pre-mechanization agricultural societies and societies like Sparta and ancient Israel, where warfare claimed a large portion of the male population.

In today’s world we have an obligation to weigh the benefits of the structures of our society and make changes as we deem necessary for the benefit of its members. Our American society holds some values like individual liberty in greater esteem than earlier societies, hence we should feel free to apply our values to the judgments we make, not disregarding those of former times, but not necessarily imitating them and holding ourselves to live by them. We find that particularly easy to see as we apply that principle to some Arab countries in their treatment of women. Can we not be open to that principle as it applies to ourselves?

 

[Stephen168]

Basically, they do not see it for the serious evil it is.

I think they agree with the evil.

 

[fix]

I think they agree with the evil.

In some cases that is true.

 

[Stephen168]

A question in an Aquinas form

Is a same sex union marriage?
Objection 1. It seems it is marriage. For marriage is between two people in love.
Objection 2. Further, sterile unions of opposite sexes are called marriage.
Objection 3. Further marriage is a civil right to marry whoever one chooses.

On the contrary; marriage is a union of male and female for the purpose of raising the children they create. By its design a same sex union is not capable of creating children, so the union will never have children to raise. Therefore, same sex unions are not marriage.

I answer that, The two most basic needs of all living beings are nutrition and reproduction. We can reason from nature the telos of sex is the act of producing offspring. Men have reproductive organs and women have complimentary reproductive organs. The first purpose of these organs is to reproduce. We would not need these organs to perform any of their other function; which makes these other functions secondary.
The institution of marriage is a product of the natural law. Only human beings can produce more children than a mother is able to rear. Non-human babies are almost full grown before their mother could possible produce another baby. A human baby is born extremely under developed. Even in the most primitive societies a human would reach the age of fourteen before they could truly care for themselves. In those fourteen years, a mother could have 13 more children. Non-human females are moving around quit well, as are the new babies, within minutes of birth. A human mother is almost helpless for a week or two after child birth. She needs help. Children also have a human right to their father and mother to teach them the skills required to take care of themselves. By observing nature we can reason the purpose of marriage. Just as the telos of the eye is to see, the telos of marriage is to create and raise children.

Reply to Objection 1. There are many forms of love—between fathers and sons, brothers and sisters and the best of friends—that are unquestionably deep, and none of them are diminished by the fact that it is not formally expressed by a sexual union. Therefore marriage is more than people in love.

Reply to Objection 2. Sex is not merely an expression of love or of the commitment of two human beings to one another. It is also a reproductive act. Therefore, the complementarity of the male and female reproductive organs are required for marriage just as an eye is required for sight. Sadly some people are born blind, but this does not mean their eyes are not for seeing. We can not claim that fingers are eyes because they see as well as a blind eye. Because some people are born sterile, it does not void their marriage; a blind eye is still an eye. Therefore, a sterile complementary union is still marriage.

Reply to Objection 3. Civil rights are rights owned and given by the government. Marriage is a human right to be able to reproduce with whoever you choose. It has been owned by mankind from the beginning and has been regulated by custom/government as to age, close relatives, and number. These regulations are designed to give the best chance for the creation and raising of healthy children. No one has ever been allowed to marry whoever and how many they choose. People who have an attraction to the same sex are free to marry but like everyone else; not whoever they choose. Therefore, this is not a civil rights issue. Equal treatment: It is true that society and by extension government does not treat single people the same as married people. When blacks and women were not treated the same as whites and men we worked to change the laws to treat them the same. We did not try to pass laws which declared women to be men or blacks to be white as a solution. If society believes that couples taxed with the mission of raising the next generation should be treated the same as people who cannot, the solution is to work toward treating single people the same as married people, not to create a legal fiction.

 

[edwest2]

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed