Clarification mine.
In what pre-christian or non-christian society did marriage encompass anything other than one man and one woman? I don’t know of any specific example.
But the state DOES grant equal rights to same-sex couples. In California the Domestic Partnership Act makes the civil union of same-sex couples exactly the same as a marriage in all but name. The “fight” is over the word marriage. Until the present time, the word was defined to mean a man and a woman - for the purpose of mutual support AND the generation and rearing of children. While same-sex couples certainly can agree to come together in a mutually beneficial long term relationship, by definition it is not a marriage UNLESS you change the definition of the word. But by doing so you are robbing married people of the uniqueness of their relationship. Simply put, changing the definition is institutionalizing a LIE - i.e. that there is no difference when in fact there IS a difference.
No. I think that the conflict has to be resolved in favor of keeping the meaning of the word marriage as it has been from the beginning, and acknowledging the distinction between marriage and same-sex union. To reduce the term “marriage” to the lowest common denominator is an act of appeasement that “pretends” that a lie is the truth.
A married gay man has the possibility of filing such a return. But the choice to live an alternative lifestyle removes that choice by his own actions. No one tells a gay man he cannot marry. The problem is that “who” he “wants” to marry is most likely not an option.
People are NOT allowed to pursue any sort of union. There are marital restrictions based on age, consanguinity and capacity - as well as gender. The question is not whether or not the term should be redefined to meet one group’s desires, but whether or not one group’s desires should be recognized as outside of the definition of the term marriage. It is not discriminatory to say that two men cannot be married, just as it is not discriminatory to tell a man that he cannot be a mother, even if that man has many of the same responsibilities and privileges that a mother would also have. The reality is that the man cannot be a mother - regardless of how good a father he is.
I don’t see why you are bringing this up except to dodge the issue.
I think this is the question that needs to be answered. We’re talking about “rights”, but we don’t seem to see rights in the same way. Until we do that, we’ll just keep talking past each other.
) about gay couples where the family contests the will, etc. Well, this could be a good argument in support of reforming laws surrounding wills, but why is the solution to this changing the definition of marriage? It’s not.Did you choose to post on this site thinking you would not get a Catholic answer to your questions? If I go to vote and there is a Yes/No Gay Marriage on the ballot, what am I supposed to do? All laws discriminate against behaviors and set limits, I’m sure you know that.
Good post, Joe. You summed things up quite well.I don’t see why you are bringing this up except to dodge the issue.
I think this is the question that needs to be answered. We’re talking about “rights”, but we don’t seem to see rights in the same way. Until we do that, we’ll just keep talking past each other.
Another important question to ask is “Are there other ways to protect rights besides recognizing gay marriage and/or civil unions?”
Strawberry Jam keeps alluding to anecdotal evidence (sorry, that’s what I call it when there are no sources or specific details given.
What it really all comes down to is that homosexual couples want to be recognized as normal. All the arguments about financial benefits, health care benefits, probate benefits, etc. are really just distractions intended to appeal to our sense of fairness. All those issues could be resolved in a thousand different ways besides changing the definition of marriage. The real issue is that they want to be seen as a couple just the same as any other couple. That’s where the discussion really needs to be.
If anyone is genuinely interested in understanding why the Catholic Church is against gay marriage and even civil unions, I really recommend taking a look at the documents I linked to in post #3. There are many good reasons, but they cannot be condensed into sound bite size posts by us random CAFers. If you really want to understand someone else’s position, it takes a bit of legwork. There’s no way around that.
The pursuit of happiness is the right to own property, actually.
Same sex unions in the OT? Chapter and verse, please.Well read the Old Testament for starters.
Yours in Christ
Joe
I don’t think this is a “Catholic v. Non-Catholic” issue. It’s a matter of natural law. Although the Catholic Church teaches its members about the nature of marriage, that specific teaching need not be relied upon to support the argument in favor of traditional marriage, nor would traditional marriage collapse if the Catholic Church were to be removed from the political and social landscape.
Robert you said…Same sex unions in the OT? Chapter and verse, please.
I was just simply pointing out the fact that what we define as “traditional” marriage wasn’t necessarily so in all times and places.
In the OT the concept of multiple wives was not the “traditional” model, and was not exactly condoned, although it was tolerated on occasion. Traditional marriage was always one man/one woman, as confirmed by Christ himself in the NT.Robert you said…
I was just simply pointing out the fact that what we define as “traditional” marriage wasn’t necessarily so in all times and places.
Yours in Christ
Joe
You’re missing the forrest for the trees my friend. There is a fundamental distinction between a marriage and a same-sex union that should not be subverted by altering the definition in the name of political expediency.
Yeah but do we still have to follow Old Testament laws? I disagree with homosexuality but I never understand how people can use this verse as an argument.
You should look at some stats on just how often homosexual men and women actually stay together and how often they have “open” relationships. These fights for gay “rights” are almost entirely bogus. They want attention and acceptance.
I’m not sure they want attention, though I would wager they want acceptance, and can our laws deny them?. Your points are valid arguments against civil unions, but I don’t see the state getting involved in adultery in marriages. Not to be snide, but I would need to see additional evidence to prove that their fight is indeed “bogus.” I’ll grant you that their relationships tend to collapse more, but maybe there would be more incentives if civil unions were allowed.