Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[edwest2]

“Drs. Byne and Parsons of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University reviewed the biologic theories of human sexual orientation in 1993 and concluded, “[T]here is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory.” (Byne and Parsons 1993, p. 228) No study suggests that a simple cause–effect relationship exists. (Hubbard and Wald) And Dr. Earl Wilson wrote, “the disputed evidence for physical causes of male homosexuality is even weaker when it comes to lesbianism.” (Wilson, p. 76)”

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

Could you provide some specific documentary evidence for these assertions that we might examine?

What type of evidence do you seek specifically?

 

[The_Bucket]

"There is no broad discourse on homosexual marriage and the Church is not silent on the matter. If homosexual acts in and of themselves are gravely sinful, it stands to reason that homosexual marriage is not licit. Remember, sexual acts between heterosexuals in and of themselves are not sinful at all. It’s when those acts are conducted outside of marriage that they become sinful.

Why? Certain sexual acts even within marriage are sinful. I figured you knew that. I only wrote “sexual acts” so we didn’t get into the whole “is oral stimulation as foreplay” licit game.

There is no possible way for homosexuals to engage in licit sexual acts. None. Each and every sexual interaction that is brought to completion must be both unitive and procreative. Even if you were to convince me that acts between homosexuals are unitive, they inherently lack the ability to be procreative.

 

[fix]

lead on

These discussions go in circles. There is no way to convince anyone who refuses to be convinced.

 

[The_Bucket]

Everything you wrote indicates the importance of context. Thank you

It proves the importance of context when it comes to the degree of sinfulness. In the case of self-defense, it negates the sinfulness of taking another human being’s life.

But if you want to go crazy with the whole thing, then yeah, sure. Oral stimulation between married heterosexuals is totally licit. Oral stimulation between unmarried heterosexuals or between homosexuals is not. Oral sex, on the other hand, where there is intentional completion on the part of a man, is sinful regardless of whether the parties are married.

So sure, context matters. At a certain point, however, you start to lose perspective and simplicity when you dive into these nuances and try to pick apart “ok why is this sinful and why is this not?”

Suffice to say that it’s easy, clear and correct enough to say that all sexual acts brought to completion must be unitive and procreative and performed by married couples. Anything outside of that CONTEXT is sinful. Homosexual acts cannot be procreative. They simply cannot. No matter what angle you want to come at the issue, this barrier remains.

 

[Seeker1961]

But again, to bring the discussion back to topic…we are discussing civil, non-sacramental marriage between two consenting adults who are NOT Catholic. The definition of marriage and what is or not a sexual sin according to Catholic teaching does not apply.

 

[RevDon]

“Drs. Byne and Parsons of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University reviewed the biologic theories of human sexual orientation in 1993 and concluded, “[T]here is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory.” (Byne and Parsons 1993, p. 228) No study suggests that a simple cause–effect relationship exists. (Hubbard and Wald) And Dr. Earl Wilson wrote, “the disputed evidence for physical causes of male homosexuality is even weaker when it comes to lesbianism.” (Wilson, p. 76)”

Peace,
Ed

That’s good, Ed, and right on the topic of the causes of homosexuality (there was a very interesting string on that very topic a short time ago, but now closed). I think I can find some studies completed after 1993 that would have contrary findings. If you like, I’ll do that and post links. Or we could just assume that, regardless of cause, there are people who are homosexual and just advance the discussion from there concerning the way civil law will handle their relationships. You call it.

 

[fix]

The definition of marriage includes opposite sex persons. That is not a religious matter.

 

[RevDon]

Why? Certain sexual acts even within marriage are sinful. I figured you knew that. I only wrote “sexual acts” so we didn’t get into the whole “is oral stimulation as foreplay” licit game.

There is no possible way for homosexuals to engage in licit sexual acts. None. Each and every sexual interaction that is brought to completion must be both unitive and procreative. Even if you were to convince me that acts between homosexuals are unitive, they inherently lack the ability to be procreative.

That would be a good argument if society were to prohibit the marriages of infertile heterosexual couples, but since we are seeking a definition that applies equally to all cases where we call something marriage, the procreation argument doesn’t work.

 

[JimG]

But again, to bring the discussion back to topic…we are discussing civil, non-sacramental marriage between two consenting adults who are NOT Catholic. The definition of marriage and what is or not a sexual sin according to Catholic teaching does not apply.

That’s right. It’s not a matter of religion. It’s a matter of human biology and human nature. There are men. There are women. They are sexually complementary. Sexual complemtarity by its nature tends to the unitive and the procreative, and leads to marriage and family formation, and to the next generation of humanity. It has been so throughout history. Who wants to mess with mother nature? We do so at our own peril.

 

[rossum]

The definition of marriage includes opposite sex persons. That is not a religious matter.

And in some legal jurisdictions it also includes same sex persons. This thread is about “non-sacramental, civil gay marriage”. Such already exist in some countries and in some US states.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

It’s not mine, but I can work with it:
mar·riage

/ˈmarij/
Noun

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

For what purpose?

 

[fix]

It’s a matter of human biology and human nature. There are men. There are women. They are sexually complementary. Sexual complemtarity by its nature tends to the unitive and the procreative, and leads to marriage and family formation, and to the next generation of humanity. It has been so throughout history. Who wants to mess with mother nature? We do so at our own peril.

Being self evident is no longer in vogue.

 

[fix]

And in some legal jurisdictions it also includes same sex persons. This thread is about “non-sacramental, civil gay marriage”. Such already exist in some countries and in some US states.

rossum

The law can contradict common sense and reason but that just means it is no law at all. It is unjust. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[rossum]

That would be a good argument if society were to prohibit the marriages of infertile heterosexual couples, but since we are seeking a definition that applies equally to all cases where we call something marriage, the procreation argument doesn’t work.

For the purposes of this thread we don’t actually need a definition that applies to “all cases”. For example, Moslem marriages between one man and four women are not relevant to this thread, and need not be included in whatever definition we agree to use, though they might be included.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

For the purposes of this thread we don’t actually need a definition that applies to “all cases”. For example, Moslem marriages between one man and four women are not relevant to this thread, and need not be included in whatever definition we agree to use, though they might be included.

rossum

Then give us one.

Peace,
Ed

 

[RevDon]

The definition of marriage includes opposite sex persons. That is not a religious matter.

I wrote I could work with the definition I posted; I didn’t say I agreed with it. I merely hoped to give this conversation a renewed beginning place.

On the matter of dictionary definitions: Lexicographers use two different authorities. In Britain they use the Queen’s English (literally the track the way Her Majesty uses the language and include it in their books) and in other English-speaking countries common usage is what is used. That usage is constantly changing, witness the word “gay” until 1960 or so, it meant happy, then it meant homosexual, and now teens are using it to mean bad, evil.

 

[RevDon]

For the purposes of this thread we don’t actually need a definition that applies to “all cases”. For example, Moslem marriages between one man and four women are not relevant to this thread, and need not be included in whatever definition we agree to use, though they might be included.

rossum

For the purposes of this thread we do need a definition that
A. applies to the culture in which we live
B. suits the people engaged in this discussion
If we are going to use examples from history or sociology, then our definition would have to be such that those examples were pertinent.

 

[Seeker1961]

That’s right. It’s not a matter of religion. It’s a matter of human biology and human nature. There are men. There are women. They are sexually complementary. Sexual complemtarity by its nature tends to the unitive and the procreative, and leads to marriage and family formation, and to the next generation of humanity. It has been so throughout history. Who wants to mess with mother nature? We do so at our own peril.

Not everyone looks at marriage as being all about procreation. Yes, the Church does-we’ve covered that quite well. Yes, there is a state interest in subsidizing procreative behavior, we’ve covered that as well. But there is also an interest in promoting relationships between non-procreative couples, or the benefits the state provides to childbearing couples would not exist for couples who are unable to bear children.

As for the “it’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature” argument, are we heading to Pat Robertson territory and blaming gay marriage for hurricanes and other natural disasters?

 

[edwest2]

Being self evident is no longer in vogue.

Being contrary is. When you can bend reality to your will, who needs to define anything except yourself? Or engage in vague vagueness ™.

Peace,
Ed