Would legalizing same-sex "marriage" increase the possibility of sham marriages?

[3DOCTORS]

Maybe my mind just goes strange places :whacky: but I wonder about this.

It’s been presumed until recently that a male-female couple seeking to marry (whether in civil law or religious context) is in love with each other and willingly seeking marriage and in most cases will go on to have a family. Different religious requirements may apply - for Catholics, of course, the openness to life, marriage by a priest or deacon unless dispensation is obtained for some reason, no remarriage after divorce unless a Church declaration of nullity has been proven for previous unions, etc.

There have been different ways marriages between a man and a woman come about (arranged marriages vs. courtship, for example), and different reasons a marriage could be annulled in both Church and civil contexts - someone being compelled against their will, murder of the previous spouse, and others are covered in the Code of Canon Law.

Some centuries past, there were practices to ensure the marriage had been consummated or that the bride was a virgin; these have fallen out of practice in favor of privacy and giving the couple the benefit of the doubt. But even without these more intrusive practices, the immigration laws for instance take a dim view of sham marriages and if there’s enough evidence, will investigate.

It would seem that with traditional opposite-sex marriage, there’s a little more protection against sham marriage. If same-sex “marriage” is legalized, might there be sham marriages between friends just for the tax breaks? Or to help a buddy get a green card? Or as a form of civil disobedience I could even see it being done by some straights just for kicks and giggles - not that it would be right to perpetrate a deception, but I could see it happening.

Discuss . . .

 

[rossum]

Would legalizing same-sex “marriage” increase the possibility of sham marriages?

Would banning oposite sex marriages reduce the possibility of sham marriages?



rossum

 

[R_C]

Would banning oposite sex marriages reduce the possibility of sham marriages?

If we distort the meaning of Matrimony and allow society at a given place and time to redefine it as it better pleases her, then its holiness is lost.

However, from the standpoint of reason, the point is that allowing certain unions to be erroneously called “marriage” is to endorse a grave error.

If we know with certainty that X and Y are the necessary conditions for B to belong to the set “Marriage”, and yet we allow C to be in that set although it lacks X or Y, then this will allow anything to be in the set “Marriage”, even, say, a single person or unlimited spouses.

Banning “B” from the set, of course, is not the solution. However, nor can the solution be to redefine the set by stripping away X or Y that define the elements that can belong to it. This redefinition would be a contradiction, and unless X or Y are at the same time proven to be erroneous, then anything other than that which meets both X and Y cannot be in the set “Marriage”. However, it is not possible to prove X or Y to be unnecessary or insufficient, for any such attempt has already been proven unsound.

In context, X is “the natural generation and bringing-up of offspring”, and Y is “mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge”. Both are necessary, but neither is sufficient alone.

 

[lonelypetunia]

I think you have a valid concern. I believe there was a movie about this very thing. Two straight guys got married, of course it was a sham.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Would banning oposite sex marriages reduce the possibility of sham marriages?



rossum

Yes it would, at least legally.

No one wants to prevent anyone’s actions, but we don’t have to legalize them.

 

[Digitonomy]

It would seem that with traditional opposite-sex marriage, there’s a little more protection against sham marriage. If same-sex “marriage” is legalized, might there be sham marriages between friends just for the tax breaks?

I’m not sure there’s much more protection with opposite-sex marriage; I think it is uncommon simply because it is frowned on by the culture at large, and also for the practical reason that wise people don’t get married lightly - there are potentially serious legal consequences.

But, to answer your question, I think you are correct that it will become more common. It won’t just be that it is twice as easy, since there will be twice as many potential sham spouses available. What will happen is that there will be more discussion about what a modern marriage really is, and people taking advantage of the benefits will be profiled in the media. The impressionable public will take its cues from that. I think it will always be a small percent, but it wouldn’t surprise me if sham marriages increased to five or ten times their current number.

One of the final episodes of Boston Legal featured just such a sham marriage, where William Shatner was married to James Spader (by Antonin Scalia, in case the show was too realistic for you up to that point). In the lead-up to the event, a lesbian state employee who processed their marriage license application alerted some gay rights group which then went to court in an attempt to prevent the sham wedding.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Yes it would, at least legally.

No one wants to prevent anyone’s actions, but we don’t have to legalize them.

I tend to agree.

At the same time, if we refrain from legalizing gay marriage, that opens the door to the possibility that some people will suggest civil unions instead. Then we must ask, does legalizing civil unions do the same thing? Would “sham unions” be a problem?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Isn’t that pretty much what civil unions are openly designed to do—facilitating tax breaks for same-sex couples, I mean?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I tend to agree.

At the same time, if we refrain from legalizing gay marriage, that opens the door to the possibility that some people will suggest civil unions instead. Then we must ask, does legalizing civil unions do the same thing? Would “sham unions” be a problem?

Yes it would also be a problem. I was just answering a question rather literally.

Banning opposite sex marriage would rule out heterosexual incestous marriage for instance, but at the same time legalizing same sex “marriage” would increase the possibility of incestous marriage under the same argument.

As I was saying, just because we ban a form of union, doesn’t mean that union and all its actions won’t still take place (which isn’t the point anyway) and no one is really trying to prevent anyone’s actions, but we don’t have to legalize them either as in the case with gay “marriage.”

 

[rossum]

If we distort the meaning of Matrimony and allow society at a given place and time to redefine it as it better pleases her, then its holiness is lost.

There is no single “meaning of Matrimony”. Marriage means different things in different places and at different times:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

Even now, civil marriage allows divorce while Catholic marriage does not. That is at least two different versions of marriage running in parallel today. The proposed changes are to civil marriage, not to Catholic marriage.

rossum

 

[R_C]

There is in fact a unique and very well-defined meaning of Matrimony. This is the meaning that Christ told the teachers of the Law regarding the perversion of the matrimony called “divorce”:

In the beginning it was not so. …] For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. What God has united, let no man divide.

It does not matter that the Scriptures show that something different was present before. These were distortions of the divine law. It does not matter that other cultures have done something different: their marriage foreshadowed true Matrimony.

The union of man and woman, and the necessity of this union for being monogamous and indissoluble, are conclusions that not only are confirmed by revelation, but that can also be proven without reasonable doubt by reason alone. I could, for instance, quote the writings of Thomas Aquinas on these matters:

The reason why simple fornication is a sin according to divine law, and that matrimony is natural.
That matrimony should be indivisible.
That matrimony should be between one man and one woman.
That matrimony should not take place between close relatives.

This is not to say that the most virtuous definition of Matrimony was not foreshadowed before its explicit definition in the context of Christianity. However, to attempt to distort it will always inexorably result in failure, both because the refutation can always be shown to be fallacious (in your case, for instance, it appears to be an argument loosely based on some sort of moral relativism, which inherently refutes itself, as well as contradicting the sound and logical existence of absolute moral laws), and because the analysis of the consequences of such changes shows that the result is, invariably, chaos and the self-destruction of the society towards what Hobbes brilliantly defines as the “state of nature”, in which the only rule is “might makes right”. No doubt, there have been human societies that have had this as their legitimate law, in which not just poligamy, but even abduction and rape were perfectly legal forms of “marriage”, along with many other perversions. That does not make them valid, or moral, or truthful. And divine revelation is not needed to understand this.

 

[rossum]

There is in fact a unique and very well-defined meaning of Matrimony. This is the meaning that Christ told the teachers of the Law regarding the perversion of the matrimony called “divorce”

That is the Catholic definition. Hindus have a different definition, as do Moslems. What this thread concerns is civil marriage, which is different again. For example civil marriage allows divorce and remarriage, which Catholic marriage does not.

The Catholic definition is not relevant to civil marriage, any more than the Hindu definition is.

It does not matter that the Scriptures show that something different was present before.

But it does matter. Scriptures show that different peoples in different times and places have used different definitions of marriage – confirming my point. You are merely picking your favourite from the many possible definitions available. You are perfectly free to do that, but you cannot expect me to have the same favourite just because you say so.

Religious arguments are not really relevant to the definition of civil marriage.

rossum

 

[R_C]

That is not the “Catholic” definition. That is the most virtuous and reasonable definition of the natural union between a man and a woman.

It means absolutely nothing that Hindus, Moslems, Azteks, Visigoths, XXIst Century State of California have a different definition. They can all be shown to be less good and less perfect.

Civil marriage is ecclesiastical matrimony deprived of the sacramental aspect. The fact that it allows distortions such as divorce and remarriage do not take away the fact that these are distortions that should not be present in marriage, no more than polygamy or incest, et cetera.

In short - the most reasonable and solid definition - which so happens to be the one that the Church has preserved for some 20 centuries - is the one that must be reflected as much as possible in so-called “civil marriage”, because it is most reasonable that human societies tend towards what is more virtuous and which lead to greater stability of the society and promotes greater civilization. We are, of course, perfectly free to be so irrational as to prefer a form of “marriage” which is demonstrated to be invariably flawed and to invariably lead, on the long run, to the ruin of the society that allows it. It has certainly happened before, and it will certainly keep happening. Men are that much foolish.

 

[Darryl1958]

There is no single “meaning of Matrimony”. Marriage means different things in different places and at different times:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

Even now, civil marriage allows divorce while Catholic marriage does not. That is at least two different versions of marriage running in parallel today. The proposed changes are to civil marriage, not to Catholic marriage.

rossum

In all the history precedents you listed, in all the major societies and cultures and religions that have arisen in the past five thousand years, has there ever arisen a construct that was based on anything other than people of different sexes?
For sure, anthropologist might be able to point to Ogopogoes of the UmbaGumba region of remote Oceania who practice the Wallwallbingbang faith as defining marriage as girl on girl action, but as far asall these diverse constructs go, is that tribe really relevant to what is happening to our world right now?

It is likely not a coincidence that as sexuality becomes defined in terms of sterility rather than in terms of fecundity, it has only been since the 1970’s that marriage has even been considered to be about anything other than men and women being involved.
Dennis Prager calls our the Age of Stupidity. Certainly none of the sages of times outside of a narrow band of our own culture have ever defined marriage as the sham it is becoming defined as now.

People have got tired of waiting for the end times promised by Jesus on his return. It is the generation that considers itself to be the Last Man that would consider a next generation so inconsequential so as to construct marriage into what it has become for us today.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Possibly. However, in some countries that are fairly anti-homosexual homosexuals might enter into a opposite sex marriage in order to hide their homosexuality. That’d certainly be a sham marriage. I guess it’d work both ways.

 

[rossum]

In all the history precedents you listed, in all the major societies and cultures and religions that have arisen in the past five thousand years, has there ever arisen a construct that was based on anything other than people of different sexes?

Yes. I think you will find that all of Solomon’s wives (and his concubines) were the same sex. Also same sax marriage was allowed (though rare) in pre-Christian Rome. The Christians forbade it when they came to power.

You need to do more research before posting.

rossum

 

[BellsMom]

The union of man and woman, and the necessity of this union for being monogamous and indissoluble, are conclusions that not only are confirmed by revelation, but that can also be proven without reasonable doubt by reason alone. I could, for instance, quote the writings of Thomas Aquinas on these matters:

The reason why simple fornication is a sin according to divine law, and that matrimony is natural.
That matrimony should be indivisible.
That matrimony should be between one man and one woman.
That matrimony should not take place between close relatives.

From the second link…

For the female needs the male, not merely for the sake of generation, as in the case of other animals, but also for the sake of government, since the male is both more perfect in reasoning and stronger in his powers.

Ridiculousness.

 

[R_C]

From the second link…

Ridiculousness.

I would not say so. He was just stating what was considered to be almost common sense back in the 13th Century, and anyways in no contradiction with Sacred Scripture. Even if today he would probably restate in more kind terms the need for the sake of government, given that the husband does have loving authority over the wife as Christ is head of the Church, this does not undermine his argument.

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes. I think you will find that all of Solomon’s wives (and his concubines) were the same sex. Also same sax marriage was allowed (though rare) in pre-Christian Rome. The Christians forbade it when they came to power.

You need to do more research before posting.

rossum

Solomon’s wives were not married to each other.However perverse polygamy is from the point of view of the diminution of women, it is not same sex marriage.
.

 

[rossum]

Solomon’s wives were not married to each other.

They were all in the same marriage to the same man.

rossum