Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[rossum]

It absolutely is not. What would you have the government do, test everyone who wished to get married for fertility?

That is the point. Civil marriage does not require a fertility test. Since civil marriage is allowed for post-menopausal women it is obvious that the government does not think that fertility is of great importance with respect to marriage.

Since civil marriage does not require fertility, then the fertility argument is extremely weak when arguing against same sex civil marriage.

Where the government does want to support fertility then it can offer benefits based on the number of children. Those benefits are available where there are children and not available where there are no children.

rossum

 

[JimG]

Fertile or not, same sex couples are incapable of marital relations by their very nature. Whatever one wants to call such a relationship, it’s not marriage.

 

[The_Bucket]

That is the point. Civil marriage does not require a fertility test. Since civil marriage is allowed for post-menopausal women it is obvious that the government does not think that fertility is of great importance with respect to marriage.

That’s nonsense. You’re referring to the exceptions rather than the rule. It’s a certifiable fact that marriage has historically been about the creation of new children. Especially civil marriage.

Since civil marriage does not require fertility, then the fertility argument is extremely weak when arguing against same sex civil marriage.

That civil marriage does not require fertility is not the same thing as civil marriage not being intended to foster the use of fertility.

Where the government does want to support fertility then it can offer benefits based on the number of children. Those benefits are available where there are children and not available where there are no children.

As you well know, the government does indeed do this in various countries. Here in the U.S., we have the child tax credit. This credit is available to both married and single individuals. However, the child tax credit is not an incentive to create children. It merely provides a little break for those people who have already created children.

Marriage is not merely about the creation of children but of their raising in a stable family unit which thus fosters civic virtue and a stable society.

 

[The_Bucket]

Fertile or not, same sex couples are incapable of marital relations by their very nature. Whatever one wants to call such a relationship, it’s not marriage.

While we agree in terms of what marriage is intended to be, I think even you would concede that given the definition of what marriage is considered today… such a relationship could be considered marriage. Homosexuals in a relationship are absolutely capable of romantic love and even self-sacrificial love.

Since marriage is now merely about romantic love and not about the generation of children through natural means, it actually does line up.

 

[RevDon]

The Church has not changed Her teaching on sex being a marital duty even when one spouse does not want it. Sex is absolutely still a duty of marriage. In fact, refusing to consummate the marriage makes even a valid marriage dissoluble by the Holy Father. The Church has only changed the tone of the message to arrive at something I think makes Her teaching more understandable in the minds of the rank-and-file.

I think you’re trying to get at the idea that Mary would somehow be “degraded” if she and St. Joseph had been physically intimate. This is not the case.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/marriage/the-meaning-of-catholic-marriage/

"The preparation of [the book] Marriage actually began in 1923 when my husband gave a lecture on marriage at a Congress of the Catholic Academic Association in Ulm, Germany. The lecture was a resounding success.

In the lecture he argued that one should distinguish between the meaning of marriage (i.e., love) and its purpose (i.e., procreation). He portrayed marriage as a community of love, which, according to an admirable divine economy, finds its end in procreation.

Even though official Catholic teaching had until then [1923] put an almost exclusive stress on the importance of procreation as the purpose of marriage, the practice of the Church had always implicitly recognized love as the meaning of marriage. She had always approved the marriage of those who, because of age or other impediments, could not enjoy the blessings of children.
But conscious that he was breaking new ground in making so explicit the distinction between the purpose and the meaning of marriage, my husband sought the approval of Church authority. So he [the article author’s husband, who wrote Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love ] turned to His Eminence Cardinal Pacelli, then the Papal Nuncio in Munich. To this future pope (Pius XII), my husband expounded his views, and to his joy, received from the future Pontiff a full endorsement of his position.

Cardinal Pacelli’s approval coupled with the success of the lecture on marriage encouraged my husband to expand and develop the lecture into the small volume which you now have in your hands."

I in no way wish to disparage Mary, my point is that sex has not always been a prerequisite of the Church to make marriage licit or sacramental. On the other hand, in my time working in the diocesan marriage tribunal, I am aware of marriages for which an annulment was granted on the grounds of non-consummation.

 

[The_Bucket]

Marriages become valid when the vows are spoken (provided there is no impediment). They do not become indissoluble until consummation. The Pope can dissolve valid marriages between two Catholics on the grounds of a lack of consummation.

That Josephite marriages exist does not undermine it. Mary and Joseph were, as far as we know, capable of marital relations. That they chose not to does not undermine the perquisite that both spouses be physically able to have relations.

The Church teaches that while Josephite marriages are allowed, if one spouse wants to change the nature of the relationship, the other should yield to that desire.

 

[Monkey1976]

That is the point. Civil marriage does not require a fertility test. Since civil marriage is allowed for post-menopausal women it is obvious that the government does not think that fertility is of great importance with respect to marriage.

Or the government has determined that asking a woman if she is post-menopausal would be excessively intrusive, and has chosen to ignore these exceptions to the rule. Given the current state of biotechnology, I’m not sure that even menopause would render a woman incapable of being the biological mother of a child.

However, the government has already determined that it is entirely reasonable to ask an individual their sex, thus eliminating couplings that are obviously, inherently, and irrevocably infertile.

Since civil marriage does not require fertility, then the fertility argument is extremely weak when arguing against same sex civil marriage.

Fertility in marriage is assumed, because 100% infertile heterosexual couples are an extremely rare case. As stated multiple times, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to be fertile.

Where the government does want to support fertility then it can offer benefits based on the number of children. Those benefits are available where there are children and not available where there are no children.

rossum

Tax breaks are attached to marriage with the intention of giving couples financial space to prepare for children. As children are born, additional tax breaks activate with each child.

 

[JimG]

While we agree in terms of what marriage is intended to be, I think even you would concede that given the definition of what marriage is considered today… such a relationship could be considered marriage. Homosexuals in a relationship are absolutely capable of romantic love and even self-sacrificial love.

Since marriage is now merely about romantic love and not about the generation of children through natural means, it actually does line up.

Marriage is the union of man and woman and has been since the dawn of civilization. It wasn’t based on somebody’s definition, but on how men and women are designed. I can love many people but I can only marry a woman. Homosexual relationships are not and are incapable of being marriage. They are not and can never be marital. They are not and can never be conjugal. It’s a contradiction in terms, a denial of reality. We can pretend that it is marriage, but it can never be.

 

[RevDon]

Or the government has determined that asking a woman if she is post-menopausal would be excessively intrusive, and has chosen to ignore these exceptions to the rule. Given the current state of biotechnology, I’m not sure that even menopause would render a woman incapable of being the biological mother of a child.

However, the government has already determined that it is entirely reasonable to ask an individual their sex, thus eliminating couplings that are obviously, inherently, and irrevocably infertile.

Fertility in marriage is assumed, because 100% infertile heterosexual couples are an extremely rare case. As stated multiple times, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to be fertile.

Tax breaks are attached to marriage with the intention of giving couples financial space to prepare for children. As children are born, additional tax breaks activate with each child.

Yes, some financial benefits are for the sake of child rearing.

 

[The_Bucket]

Marriage is the union of man and woman and has been since the dawn of civilization. It wasn’t based on somebody’s definition, but on how men and women are designed. I can love many people but I can only marry a woman. Homosexual relationships are not and are incapable of being marriage. They are not and can never be marital. They are not and can never be conjugal. It’s a contradiction in terms, a denial of reality. We can pretend that it is marriage, but it can never be.

If it’s any consolation, it’s not like this is the first time we’ve changed the definition of marriage. Polygamy was allowed in ancient times. It’s still allowed in Islam today. But you and I agree and for anyone who thinks Christ said nothing about marriage…

"At the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Mosaic law was wrong to allow divorce. Many kings and prominent members of Israel were wrong to have multiple wives. Islam is wrong to permit polygamy. The Lord created marriage for one man and one woman. But let’s not kid ourselves that we’ve never screwed that up before.

 

[RevDon]

In all seriousness RevDon, why should they get tax benefits? I’m not talking about visitation and inheritance and joint property. That’s all fine with me to be honest.

But the benefits of marriage are all about the expected creation of children. Married couples get certain benefits because they are expected to create children and raise them with some modicum of civic virtue. The creation of new citizens is a pretty important thing.

While it is indeed possible for homosexuals to parent children, they cannot create them on their own. There’s no way for the DNA of two homosexuals to create a new child. Yes, yes, I know that the DNA of two homosexuals can be INCLUDED in a new child, but you need some modicum of a third party involved. With two men, you need an egg and a woman to birth 'em. With two women, you need fertilization and you can’t fertilize an egg without a man involved somewhere.

If you want to discuss joint property rights, visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney, let’s do that. I see no way that civil authorities can or even should block that. But when it comes to benefits, those were put in place to encourage people to create the next generation.

Bucket,
Would you concede that there is a world of difference between begetting children and raising children? Is marriage necessary for the begetting of children?
Same sex couples and homosexual individuals are raising children, however they got them. That’s a fact. But this is not the direction of that part of my argument. In fact, I wish we could get off the children issue, because it isn’t really the focus of what we are talking about. Your other ideas (property rights, etc) are right on, in terms of civil rights and equality, and DOMA, an action of government, is blocking the equal access to those benefits.

 

[The_Bucket]

I do not object to couples of the same sex getting a piece of paper formalizing their relationship in a way that allows for easier transfer of property, visitation, power of attorney etc. I do not believe they should be forced to take care of each one of those things separately.

Domestic partnerships and civil unions, however, must have distinctive differences from the marital relationship. If states with such arrangements create a “separate but equal” situation where the only difference is the label of “marriage” versus “civil union” then yes, that’s blatantly unconstitutional.

The only situation where it’s allowable is if the designations are not equivalent. And that’s where I stand on the matter. I think civil unions that are not equivalent to marriage are fine. Once you start making gay marriage equal to heterosexual marriage, that’s where I have an issue.

 

[JimG]

If it’s any consolation, it’s not like this is the first time we’ve changed the definition of marriage. Polygamy was allowed in ancient times. It’s still allowed in Islam today. But you and I agree and for anyone who thinks Christ said nothing about marriage…

"At the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Mosaic law was wrong to allow divorce. Many kings and prominent members of Israel were wrong to have multiple wives. Islam is wrong to permit polygamy. The Lord created marriage for one man and one woman. But let’s not kid ourselves that we’ve never screwed that up before.

Polygamy is of course, not same sex marriage. It is one man and many wives. My point is simply that same sex couples are by nature incapable of marriage. They are by nature incapable of marital relations.

The scriptural quote is apt: “At the beginnng of creation God made them male and female.” Jesus did not tell his listeners anything new in saying that: they can observe that human beings are male and female. He did clarity that divorce was not allowed, and that marriage was between one man and one woman.

He made no mention of same sex marriage, because it was never even a question. His listeners knew that marriage was between man and woman just as every other civilization knew, by knowing the nature of man and woman. Sexual complemtarity has never been hard to discover.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not going to search through your convoluted post 243. If you have a point to make in this regard, make it in a new post, and I’ll reply to it.

I already explained why that is not possible in post 280. Calling post 243 convoluted after reading post 280 is very telling.

Calling what exists a fiction as you have is just incorrect.

I am very correct as I provided in post 243

Gay marriage is a fact, whether you like it or not.

It does not exist as I proved in post 243. So if the government creates it, it is a legal fiction

You have consistently failed to give vvalid, independent (non-cyclical) reasons for your position, so I believe I will henceforth refrain from replying to your nonsensical posts.

I gave you an extremely strong rational explanation in post 243. It just seems you don’t understand it even after I tried to explain it to you in post 280.

Don’t feel bad, because I have not meet one person on the pro same-sex is marriage side that can define marriage; to them it has no meaning. They are basically just having a tantrum and using the government to get what they want by legislating a legal fiction.

 

[Stephen168]

Bucket,
Would you concede that there is a world of difference between begetting children and raising children? Is marriage necessary for the begetting of children?
Same sex couples and homosexual individuals are raising children, however they got them. That’s a fact. But this is not the direction of that part of my argument. In fact, I wish we could get off the children issue, because it isn’t really the focus of what we are talking about. Your other ideas (property rights, etc) are right on, in terms of civil rights and equality, and DOMA, an action of government, is blocking the equal access to those benefits.

In D.C. and a number of states, same sex couples can be really married, yet DOMA prevents them from receiving the benefits of marriage.

Repeal the laws with give benefits to married people. Then single and marriage people would be treated the same. You don’t have to create a legal fiction. ref post 243.

 

[Seeker1961]

Repeal the laws with give benefits to married people. Then single and marriage people would be treated the same. You don’t have to create a legal fiction. ref post 243.

That is called “cutting off your nose to spite your face”

 

[RevDon]

I do not object to couples of the same sex getting a piece of paper formalizing their relationship in a way that allows for easier transfer of property, visitation, power of attorney etc. I do not believe they should be forced to take care of each one of those things separately.

Domestic partnerships and civil unions, however, must have distinctive differences from the marital relationship. If states with such arrangements create a “separate but equal” situation where the only difference is the label of “marriage” versus “civil union” then yes, that’s blatantly unconstitutional.

The only situation where it’s allowable is if the designations are not equivalent. And that’s where I stand on the matter. I think civil unions that are not equivalent to marriage are fine. Once you start making gay marriage equal to heterosexual marriage, that’s where I have an issue.

Part of the problem we are having in this string is sorting out the sameness/differences between these civil-recognized relationships. For those same sex couples who would be content to simply be able to enjoy the civil benefits equal to those that married couples have, beginning with the ones you named, then I believe the problem would be solved.
If that were the case, then would you be content that gay marriage would not be equal to (I’m a bit uneasy using that phrasing, but…) heterosexual marriage?

 

[Stephen168]

That is called “cutting off your nose to spite your face”

I don’t think so.

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.

If subsidizing children is not what we should be doing with our tax money, than end it.

 

[RobbyS]

For me it’s because the term “marriage” is still used.

A civil union, on the other hand, is not something I’m going to object to on a legal level.

I object to it on a policy level. Why should two guys whose chief tie is sexual have a civil advantage over two guys who are sharing an apartment?

 

[RevDon]

Here’s a little interesting information on the issue being discussed in recent posts:
Google: benefits of marriage in the us

nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
marriageequality.org/get-the-facts

“However, as of mid-2011, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies married, civil unionized and domestic partnershipped same-sex couples approximately 1,100 federal benefits currently reserved as special privileges to opposite-sex married couples. Even though their marriage may be recognized within a couple’s state, the federal government considers them to be simply roommates; their children are regarded as illegitimate.” religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614329/ (non-economic benefits)
hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Do you think that there’s a good reason to deny these to your fellow citizens?