Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[PastorBonus]

We speak of sanctity of marriage, but in reality is it still a treasured concept in society? Just pick up the remote and click through the channels and you’ll see how our society perceives marriage: something any consenting adults can do after living together and having multiple sexual partners, and if you’re unhappy, there’s always divorce. If you believe fighting same-sex marriage is a way to protect the sanctity of marriage, then you must also fight other sins that affect marriage as well, like divorce or negligence. While the Catholic Church is against both, it rarely voice its teachings clearly. What we end up with is increasing divorce rate for both Catholics and non-Catholics.

Should the Catholic Church validates same sex marriage? No, because the Bible and sacred traditions forbid it. But this doesn’t mean states can not recognize civil same sex marriage. Considering that the Church doesn’t recognize same sex marriage in the first place, should we be so concerned? Is same-sex marriage that lethal to our traditional beliefs when marriage is already trampled on? Same-sex marriage is an objectionable institution, but its legality will only add a dint to the already beaten traditional marriage.

 

[RevDon]

I asked for YOUR definition of marriage and that is what you gave me. See post 518, 554.

So you are changing your definition…fine. Let me try again:

Your definition of marriage is:

1. Ordered toward the good of the spouses
2. Participants must be mature
3. Participants must freely enter into the relationship
4. Participants must be monogamous
5. Must be ordered toward a lifetime commitment
6. Participants must treat each other with love and respect.
   Ordered toward the good of society
   Recognized by the surrounding society
   Protected by the surrounding society

Is that right?

Yes, I think any definition of marriage should apply to ever situation. I see by your definition that polygamy is OK

Here’s what I posted in 518:
I will say that my definition of marriage must include the following:
1. between two people (no more than that)
2. Participants must be mature
3, Participants must freely enter into the relationship
4. Participants must be monogamous
5. Participants must intend a lifetime commitment
6. Participants must treat each other with love and respect

I later added recognized and protected by the culture.

You overlooked my first point, stated, I believe, very emphatically.
I think that the good of society flows from the very nature of this kind of relationship. The procreation of the next generation is an important good for society, but it was left off the list because it is not a sine qua non of marriage.

 

[RevDon]

It’s all here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

There are no two right answers.

Ed

Ed, I think I took on a portion of this document showing substantial errors of fact and logic. (Post 555) If you want to use this document, then show why it is reliable and my objections are in error.

 

[JimG]

If I am reading you correctly, it is not heterosexual marriage that leads to these other groups marrying - as we would have seen the evidence of that - so I am assuming you feel it is something intrinsic to homosexual marriage - Can you explain what it is.

We have always had homosexuality, why do you feel it is now a threat? As you say and I agree with you ‘human biology, human nature…’ have not changed. So what is your concern? I don’t see them changing.

We have always had homosexuality, but we have never had same sex marriage. It may be that homosexual marriage will lead to those other groups marrying, because once the meaning of marriage has been destroyed, there is no reason for those other groups not to ask for the same things granted to homosexuals.

My point was that if marriage is not related to sexual complementarity—to the difference between men and women, to the ability to come together in the conjugal act, then it is devoid of meaning, and it might as well be offered to any two (or more) individuals who desire it. It will mean nothing, having been rendered meaningless. Even now there are groups advocating for the lowering of the age of consent so that men can marry their boys. Recently there have been cases of female teachers having sex with their underage minor students. Why can’t they marry? Isn’t that discriminatory as well?

My point is that same sex marriage puts the final nail into the coffin of marriage. It will do that.

Now, I don’t blame same sex marriage for the destruction of marriage. It came late to the game of undermining marriage. First came contraception, breaking the link between marriage and children. That enabled promiscuity, adultery, fornication, divorce, abortion. And those things destroyed not only marriage but families.

Children are the ones that suffered the most. But families also suffered. So did women, and men. The disintegration of marriage does no one any good and everyone a lot of harm.

I refer you to Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” which details the sad results brought about by the sexual revolution. For a longer term view, read “Family and Civilization,” by Carle Zimmerman, which details the structure of families throughout history, and how civilization collapses when family structure collapses.

No, homosexual marriage didn’t cause it all. It is merely the last nail in the coffin of the family. It’s the final sign of the death throes of the institution of marriage.

I am not personally hopeful that the tide can be turned. I think it is probably too late to avoid the final collapse of families and of western civilization. Cardinal Francis George said that he expects to die in his bed, but his successor will die in prison and his next successor will die a martyr in the putlic square. But he went on to say that the next successor would begin to pick up the pieces of a dying civilization and help to rebuild it as the Church has done before.

It’s not a pretty picture, but to me, it’s what the evidence suggests for our near future.

That’s why I get upset to see same sex marriage celebrated as if it were something other than a sign of a dying culture.
I know the Church will survive a new dark age, but it’s still not pleasant to consider.