Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
Okay, let’s wrap this up. (I hoped to do this before Labor Day, but Irene and such put a crank in my works. I’m determined to keep this to 10 parts, although I will need to cheat and add an epilogue.)
Where do the reflections in the first nine parts of this series leave us?
- Marriage and family life are in decline. On average, more people wait longer to marry, engage in more sex with more partners before marrying, cohabitate before marriage, eschew marriage entirely, or divorce (and remarry, and divorce again) than past generations.
- The effects of the decline of marriage and family life are not theoretical or moralistic, but measurable, practical and serious. The decline of marriage, and with it the rise of children raised out of wedlock, contributes to a host of physical, emotional, social, behavioral, educational and economic disadvantages, and those problems become society’s problems. (Family breakdown has been implicated, for instance, in the social environment that gave rise to the recent riots in England.)
- The decline of marriage correlates the relaxing of social norms regarding sexual behavior associated with the sexual revolution, including the mainstreaming of contraception as well as artificial conception techniques and increased acceptance of nonmarital sex, cohabitation, casual sex, unnatural sexual acts, adultery and divorce and remarriage have all undermined the institutional authority of marriage.
- The relaxing of social norms regarding sexual behavior have undermined the traditional function of marriage as a social institution in regulating sexual behavior between men and women. The nature of marriage as the enduring union of a man and a woman as the privileged context for sexual relations between a man and a woman for the welfare of the next generation has been eclipsed. The value of marriage today is widely reduced to the happiness and fulfillment of the individual spouses.
- At the same time, the cultural legacy of marriage still commends it as a romantic and personal ideal. The celebration of marriage in a culture that no longer understands it has led to pressures to redefine marriage in various ways, e.g., no-fault divorce, divorce-ready prenups, and now, among other things, efforts to erode the social expectation of exclusive fidelity.
- It’s this context that the push for same-sex “marriage” has become first thinkable, then reasonable, and finally, in the eyes of many, seemingly inevitable.
Worse, the decline of marriage has disproportionately hit precisely those already disadvantaged in many of these ways and can least afford the additional hit. No paternal support laws can compensate for the absence of paternal involvement. (Recent research even suggests that unmarried cohabitation is worse than divorce for the children’s welfare.)
Even as society suffers the corrosive effects of the breakdown of marriage, the historic social impetus for marriage—the reason marriage as a universal social institution existed in the first place—has become so inaccessible to most people today that it is widely supposed, by marriage defenders as well as marriage revisionists, that the case for marriage as the enduring union of a man and a woman is rooted not in the common good but in religious doctrine.
Even many people who intuitively recognize, or are at least sympathetic to the idea, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman are daunted by the seeming lack of self-evident reasons why marriage should be defined as it is and has been throughout human history. Filling in the blanks and helping people to really see and understand the rationale for what they already knew to be true is an important step in the right direction—a step I’ve tried to contribute to in this blog post series. We need to be clear and confident, not apologetic or intimidated, about what we believe.
Those unsympathetic to the historic understanding of marriage, of course, will resist this, while those on the fence may require more convincing. How can we respond to them? What needs to be done? Here are some considerations toward defending marriage.
- While we need to be clear and confident, we also need to be charitable and compassionate. It is both wrong and counterproductive to demonize those who oppose us. Unquestionably, we will be demonized ourselves by others—we will be called haters, bigots, homophobes and worse. The temptation to respond in kind is understandable, but must be resisted. The hollowness of the other side’s charges against us depends on our ability to be charitable rather than hateful.
- We need to be clear, both among ourselves and with those who challenge us, that the problem we face is much bigger than one issue. A particular legal definition of marriage is far from a panacea. We need to work toward a healthier marital culture. This is a huge challenge, and it’s a challenge to the whole culture.
- Building a healthier marital culture begins with the Church. We need better catechesis and formation on marriage—from our bishops and priests, in our schools and religious education, and in pre-Cana programs. Catholics need to understand Church teaching better, not just insofar as it reflects divine revelation, but insofar as it is founded upon natural law. Pastors and religious instructors need to speak courageously about the most intimidating topics: cohabitation, contraception, divorce, remarriage.
- We must be clear what is at stake for the Church. Better catechesis and formation, and a more courageous defense of Church teaching, are not merely moralistic agenda items: Same-sex “marriage” is a legal weapon pointed right at the role and mission of the Church in society. Poor catechesis and formation has directly contributed to the social challenges now faced by the Church to her freedom to operate adoption agencies, hospitals and schools in a manner consistent with her moral teaching. Pastors cannot afford the sort of “pastoral sensitivity” (or timidity, or whatever it is) that avoids difficult topics. If we continue to lose ground in the broader cultural discussion, in the end Caesar will be calling all the shots.
- Catholic families should live their vocation joyfully and support other families. We can help save the world by loving our spouses and our children. Research has indicated that divorce is contagious. The reverse can also be true: Happy marriages and families can be a beacon of hope and inspiration to others. If you don’t see any happy marriages, it’s harder to believe that marriage can work at all. Generosity in having large families can also be contagious.
- Looking beyond the Church, we need to keep the discussion focused on the nature of marriage itself. Instead of being defensive when challenged, we should challenge those on the other side to explain what it is they think marriage as a social institution is in the first place, and why the state has or ought to have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying and decertifying sexual partnerships involving two and only two non-related adult partners. If Michael sets up house with Emma, or with Anthony, what business is it of the state’s? What compelling state interest applies to those situations, but not to Michael, Emma and Anthony all setting up house together? Etc.
- In pressing this argument, there is a place for pointing to actual people and institutions defending and seeking to legitimize, e.g., polyamory or group marriage as well as polygamy, pedophilia, incest, etc., as well as doing away with marriage altogether.
- Legal and educational measures can help, as the authors of a recent report propose. Instead of subsidizing marriage as it ought to, the state currently penalizes marriage in various ways, both via taxes and via support offered to cohabitating couples but not to married couples. This should be changed. Divorce laws should be reformed. Public campaigns have had some success in changing cultural attitudes regarding, for example, smoking and drunk driving. Similar campaigns could be helpful in promoting marriage and discouraging divorce.
Dealing charitably with those demonizing us may or may not win over our attackers, but it will help win over other people, and in the long run it will help us win the larger cultural discussion. It’s also helpful to remember that many individuals with same-sex attraction have suffered real cruelty, and some of the anger may be grounded in such experiences. Responding in kind will only confirm negative preconceptions, understandably so.
We need catechesis and formation that is explicitly countercultural—that awakens Catholics, and especially engaged couples, to the toxic culture in which we live and move and have our being, and the extent to which we must accept the challenge to live in opposition to the values of the larger culture. Ultimately we want to redeem and transform the culture, but this goal starts with valuing and nurturing a distinctive Catholic and Christian presence within the larger culture.
How bad is the catechetical/formation problem? Consider this bar graph breakdown of social support for same-sex “marriage” by religion. Note that the reported point spread for support among Catholics (52% vs. 41% opposed) is statistically identical to white mainline Protestants—many of whom belong to churches that officially sanction homosexuality! (Even if this data is distorted, it’s hard to imagine that methodological bias entirely explains away the appearance of catechetical failure. For example, it’s fair to note that the “Catholic” population undoubtedly includes a great many nominal or lapsed Catholics—but why are there so many nominal or lapsed Catholics in the first place?)
Will we see direct legal action brought against churches merely for refusing to marry homosexual couples, or against pastors or bishops who merely affirm historic Christian teaching? In the United States, perhaps not—our First Amendment protections may be too robust for that; even the ACLU would probably be on our side in such a battle—but in other countries in which free speech is less robustly protected, including Canada and various European countries, it could be only a matter of time.
Other measures are more likely in the U.S. if they aren’t already underway. Will Catholic schools be forced to hire teachers with same-sex partners? To provide benefits for said partners? Will churches lose their tax-exempt status, or face other punitive measures? Will Catholic hospitals and charities find doors shut to them, be forced out of the work of helping people? Will churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples eventually lose their right to celebrate legally recognized marriages? Will Christian couples be required to marry twice, once by the church and once by the state? It is far from clear that we will win these battles if same-sex “marriage” continues to advance.
The argument, though, is broader than a pragmatic slippery slope; it is an in-principle challenge to articulate why any domestic arrangements and not others should have any particular standing in the eyes of the state. Marriage revisionists have no coherent answer to this question. The only answer that makes sense of marriage as a social institution is that society has a proper interest in regulating sexual relations between men and women, founded in human reproduction and the needs of children.
Finally, we need to be prepared to counter arguments regarding same-sex “marriage.” This will be the topic of my next and final post.
Comments
Post a Comment
commenting for updates
This is an excellent summary to a great series of blog posts. I am surprised at the lack of comments though!
Paul H: Perhaps I have plumb worn everyone down. :-D
Personally, the reason I’m not responding is that literally dozens of comments were scrubbed from other articles where some really good debating was going on. It kinda made me upset.
@janetfernandez: Not in this combox, that I know about. Review the last 9 installments. There are hundreds and hundreds of comments with lots of very strong disagreement, including comments by gay activists and same-sex marriage advocates, etc.
I’ve removed nothing I can remember, or next to nothing. Certainly I’ve removed nothing that was even marginally civil, just for point of view.
P.S. Just checked with my editor. He hasn’t been deleting comments here either. So, the floor is wide open. Cheers.
First off, thanks so much for this really fascinating set of arguments! I’ve been checking back regularly and eagerly to look for each installment (this is what it must have been like for Dickens’s contemporaries—“What’s happened to Little Nell!?”).
One question that comes to mind: Is the thing that the world calls “marriage” the same as the sacred thing we as Christians understand marriage to be? I think your articles have shown that it really (thankfully!) isn’t. In the course of watching the debates (and, as a Canadian, having seen some decisions made), I’ve wondered, though, whether marriage could be something that we gave up as a term in favour of retaining its more meaningful core under a different name. I.e., could the Church simply say: Fine, let’s call this pseudo-relational phenomenon “marriage,” but behind that term and only overlapping it in certain cases is a sacred union that cannot be redefined. I’ve wanted to advance that argument in the past—mostly because of friends I’ve had who are in same-sex relationships—but your article has raised a lot of questions about whether such a capitulation would ever be justified.
At the most basic (and perhaps petty) level, this doesn’t really seem fair: surely, centuries of a particular understanding should trump such an extremely recent cultural revision. At the practical level, I imagine this substitution would only be a temporary (and maybe a very temporary) solution. At still another level (an ontological level that I don’t think I quite understand) does the argument against such a move have something to do with natural law? (I really feel my ignorance here, so would appreciate anybody’s insight and wisdom!) Maybe that’s part of what you’re advancing here: a reminder about how marriage is a gift, not only to Christians, but to the world. Thought from that perspective, there’s something profound (and not just petty) about defending it as an ideal and as a sacrament. The rhetoric of defense, though, rarely looks as reasonable or civil as you’ve been here, and my own imagination of how a discussion would unfold weakens my resolve. (I hope you’ll offer some insight about this in the next post!)—Sorry for the long comment!
Jeff,
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. Nothing more needs to be said. We are not fighting for the right to a “word”, or the right to tell secular society what they can or cannot do. We are fighting for souls. There is a metaphysical reality, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. It’s not that we don’t want to change the definition of marriage, it’s that it is not ours to change. Yes, it has everything to do with Universal/Natural Law. But what IS this universal/natural law, really? It is DIVINE law. We didn’t make the laws, we are not at liberty to change those laws. Any more than we can “change” the laws of the physical world. We can manipulate the hell out of them, render them virtually unrecognizable, but we cannot change them. Can we get around gravity? Sure. We can build our planes. So we have, as they say in Wicked, defied gravity. But we have not and cannot CHANGE the law of gravity. Of course there are no moral consequences to the laws of the physical world. When we attempt to mess with the Moral Order of Creation, as in “manipulating” marriage, or birth, or death, THEN, we are treading on very, very dangerous ground. Hence the phrase, God Have Mercy on Us.
@MK: Absolutely right. This should be quite simple for people to get. Divine laws have a built in punishment so to speak. Sex outside marriage, = babies, suffering, std’s, hardships of all kinds. Same sex fornication, all kinds of diseases & suffering and hardships. Adultery, can be unbelieavable devestading suffering.
I didn’t think they had been removed for reasons of disagreement. NCR has always allowed debate, and I certainly appreciate it. I thought it was an issue of space or something, but actually I had been looking in the wrong place. (As the kids say: My Bad!) I found some on Part 7 so I’m going to do some copy and paste and then get back to this one. Thanks for telling me to look again!
Forgive me for jumping in without reading all the comments (I hate it when people do that!), but this subject came up on another blog, and someone suggested that I read this series, which I did. Then I was posting some responses on the other blog, but I’m going to transfer them here. This was for part 1:
“Marriage has been redefined for decades in our society, and it isn’t homosexuals or politicians who have done it. It’s our culture as a whole. And that’s why we are where we are.”
Okay I read Part 1, and so far he is saying the exact same thing I have been saying. Every society defines marriage differently, and every society is (almost) constantly re-defining it. It rings very hollow with gays, when the Church all-of-a-sudden wants to be politically involved with marriage, when the Church never politically opposed divorce-on-demand. And then to add insult to injury, the Church started handing out annulments to everyone so they could get remarried in the Church! And then proclaim that GAYS are destroying the family? It just doesn’t work.
Part 2 is mainly about contraception being the root problem. Unless am getting my encyclicals mixed up, I believe that was what Pope Paul VI was saying in Humanae Vitae, that contraception would lead to a rise in the divorce rate, cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births, etc. That brings me back to the fact that the Church did not oppose contraception in the political realm, not even the abortifacient types—and still does not
Same-sex marriage advocates may bristle at this: What has this to do with them and their issue? Nothing, at least directly. That’s actually my point.”
Part 3 is about kids growing up without fathers, and I can see that, obviously that would be the case in a lesbian marriage. But that is also the case in divorce-on-demand, which is not opposed politically by the Church.
My children are growing up without a father, because their father died when they were ages 7, 5, and 3. I can tell you from my own experience, I think the hardest part is being single. In other words, not having a partner to assist with training and discipline. Not having someone to take turns wearing the black hat, and therefore having to always be the bad guy, the mean parent. It gets old, and you start to get a little more permissive than you would have been with a partner. So I guess what I’m saying is, it would be great to have the support of another parent. But honestly, if I were so inclined, I don’t think it would make any difference whether that partner were male or female. The issue is not having to go it alone.
Now it keeps saying, unable to receive comment at this time. (sigh) I will keep trying
@janetfernandez: My heart goes out to you. I have known many single parents in my time and understand the hardships. But don’t kid yourself about the importance of the sex of your partner. Would you actually say a woman could have replaced your deceased your husband? I think not.
Part 4 concerns the definition of marriage, but at no point spells out the Catholic definition, so I will attempt: A sacramental union between one man and one woman, which is lifelong, mutually exclusive, and open to procreation.”
No society, anywhere, has ever insisted on these things as a matter of law. The fact that same-sex marriage is unprecedented does not mean it is bad for society. Only time will tell. But in my experience, it is amazing to me to see the way same-sex couples treat one another, compared to heterosexual couples. Guess which group could take lessons from the other in that department?
But the point still is this: Church law cannot dictate civil law. Nor, in the case of marriage, has it ever tried to do so. Until now.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/redefining-marriage-7#ixzz1XNXC38VF
Larry, no one could replace my husband, my children’s father. What I mean is, there should be a study concerning the effects of single parenting vs., for lack of a better term, double parenting. I think it works the same with gay couples as with straight, raising children together, as opposed to alone.
JoAnna—What I mean by the difference in this case is that in no other marriage issue has the Church been politically active. If a vote to outlaw divorce-on-demand were brought before Congress, I don’t think that Catholics who voted against it would be threatened with ex-communication. Yet that is what happened with the gay marriage vote in New York. As has already been noted, it is entirely possible to believe that homosexual activity is wrong, and also to believe they have the civil right to marry, just as it is possible to believe divorce & remarriage is wrong, but still believe those couples have the civil right to marry.
I can not find historical evidence of the Church threatening ex-communication to candidates who supported the legalization of chemical birth control. If you know of it I would appreciate that. But if it came to Congress for a vote today, I doubt that candidates would be threatened with ex-communication for voting to keep it legal.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/redefining-marriage-7#ixzz1XNcdN41N
Part 5 seems to be about restricting sexual activity between men and women (via monogamy) so that the children produced will have a stable environment, financial support, etc. Again I don’t see how gays marrying would undermine heterosexual monogamy, domestic stability, or financial security for their children. I certainly DO see, right before my eyes for the past four decades, how divorce-on-demand undermines all these things.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/redefining-marriage-7#ixzz1XNd7PSl3
Of course the Church has always opposed divorce-on-demand in her teachings, and may well have tried to oppose legislation in its favor (though I find no evidence to indicate that) The point is, the Church seems to have been content to affirm her teachings on marriage apart from political action, until now. No one is threatened with ex-communication in regard to chemical birth control, even if they openly use it in their own marriage, and that is potentially killing a newly formed fetus! No one is ex-communicated for getting a divorce on the grounds of ‘incompatibility’. Instead they are given an annulment so they can re-marry! These things (and more) add up to a lot of inconsistencies, and it really makes one wonder.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/redefining-marriage-7#ixzz1XNdML6Tl
Turned out if I deleted the “Read more” part at the end, it wouldn’t copy.
I’m trying to access a Mark Shae article, “Scripture Does Not Say”. It’s not on his RSS feed anymore. Also his article “Gay Marriage is About Power, Not Love”
@Larry: You said, “This should be quite simple for people to get. Divine laws have a built in punishment so to speak.” From our perspective, you’re right, that IS obvious—it’s as basic as cause and effect. I think the problem that this article has done such a great job unpacking is the gap between perspectives. It’s like what Alasdair MacIntyre says in “After Virtue”: “There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture” (6), and this is because of the kind of separation of facts and values that SDG references throughout (Part 2 being especially insightful in this regard). Even the best arguments for marriage end up looking “incoherent” when they are encountered by people who’ve bought into the counter-narratives of modernity.
@SDG: One of the things I find incredibly encouraging (and discouraging at the same time!) about the solutions you offer in this post is that they imply a slow process of resistance. Happy marriages aren’t a soundbite; families take time to grow (my wife is expecting our fourth right now and, as usual, the 40 weeks seem to stretch on and on for us). Argument on the topic is obviously useful (hey! it’s helped me firm up some of my thoughts on the subject), but when it comes to changing an entire worldview, of undoing the ties that bind a person to one set of narratives so that they might be free to encounter the true narrative: that’s something that only God can do, our task being instead a steady faithfulness trusting that He will prevail. So thanks again, you fine thinker!
Incidentally, Wendell Berry offers a great supplement to the kinds of ideas you touch on. His essay, “Feminism, the Body, and the Machine” (http://www.crosscurrents.org/berryspring2003.htm), is a kind of marvel of writing and thought that keeps inspiring me in my own marriage. Here’s one especially great insight (feel free to excuse [or enjoy] his curmudgeonly tone): “Marriage, in what is evidently its most popular version, is now on the one hand an intimate ‘relationship’ involving (ideally) two successful careerists in the same bed, and on the other hand a sort of private political system in which rights and interests must be constantly asserted and defended. Marriage, in other words, has now taken the form of divorce: a prolonged and impassioned negotiation as to how things shall be divided. During their understandably temporary association, the ‘married’ couple will typically consume a large quantity of merchandise and a large portion of each other. [...] There are, however, still some married couples who understand themselves as belonging to their marriage, to each other, and to their children. What they have they have in common, and so, to them, helping each other does not seem merely to damage their ability to compete against each other. To them, ‘mine’ is not so powerful or necessary a pronoun as ‘ours.’”
This is from an earlier debate on another blog, just something that is food for thought in this discussion:
Yes I am well aware of Church teaching on birth-control. My point was that chemical forms of birth-control are equivalent to abortion. The money spent on opposing gay marriage would be better spent on opposing birth -control drugs, or at least spent on informing people of how these drugs work, not to mention their other side-effects. As I said above, and you chose to ignore, these drugs are killing newly conceived children. I dunno, but I think that’s a little more serious than two men or two women who love each other getting married. Gay marriage is not killing anyone. It’s not even hurting anyone.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scripture-does-not-say/#ixzz1XNkhNcuu
It’s not too late for the Church to politically oppose policies and practices that are anti-family and anti-life. Abortion is the worst of these, and the Church (thankfully)has never wavered on that. But some forms of chemical birth control actually cause abortion of an already-conceived fetus. This is why I would like to see the Church politically oppose this as the greater evil. Gays are not killing anyone by loving each other and getting married. Chemical birth control is.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scripture-does-not-say/#ixzz1XNlUJsy8
@ janetfernandez: You already posted most or all of these comments in Part 7. The reason you are getting the “Comment cannot be received” error is that the spam filter blocks comments it recognizes as duplications of previously submitted posts. I appreciate the comments but there is no need to repeat yourself verbatim.
@Steven, yes I said I was copying. I would like to have a discussion of the points, without having to retype it all. I don’t have internet at home anymore, will have to sign off in about an hour, til tomorrow, but I will keep checking back.
@janetfernandez: I appreciate your wish to contribute to the discussion, but I don’t want duplicate comments, please.
Looks like one of my predictions above is already being talked about in the UK: Christian churches must be banned from performing any marriages if they refuse to hold civil partnerships ceremonies for gay couples, a Conservative MP has demanded.
@janetfernandez: You seem quite committed to gay marriage being accepted. Why?
Great job Steve. Part of me would like to see things get worse so that all Catholics will understand and believe what the Church Teaches, especially Humanae Vitae. I hope that it’s not a sin to wish for this.
So true. However, while it’s certainly important to assert that religion is not the author of marriage, we shouldn’t be afraid to point out that religion does indeed have something to say about marriage. I awoke at 5:00am out of a sound sleep a couple days ago and wrote down the following: Marriage exists because while having an intimate relationship may be instinctual, staying together to raise the probable results of that relationship is not. Religions treat marriage specially not because they are its author but because they want to preserve reverence for our sexuality, which they know is essential to ensuring that marriage fulfills the role society has ordained for it.
I think the main idea is that religion has something to say about practically everything we do, but is the author of almost none of it. For example, it’s not religion that says I should eat, but religion does say that I should eat in moderation. Religion doesn’t say that I must wear clothes, but it does say I should dress modestly. Religion doesn’t say that I must work for a living, but it does say that my work shouldn’t rule my life, and that if I hire someone else I must pay them a fair wage. The same is true of marriage - religion didn’t institute it, but it does set some ideals and expectations for it to ensure that it remains a good thing and achieves the goals society has set for it.
In principle the precedent for this has already been set. In both marriage and adoption the Church facilitates the formation of relationships that are legally recognized, and the state grants it permission to certify the legalities on its behalf. If it can revoke that permission in one case - as it has in Massachusetts regarding adoptions - there is nothing in principle that would prevent it from doing so in the other.
I have had several people on the side of same-sex “marriage” also suggest that the First Amendment will protect us against such atrocities. However, I suggest that it would be rather naive to think that the law cannot be bent to the will of a minority that has the nation’s attention. (Especially considering how far they’ve already gotten.) If the Supreme Court can excuse abortion by manufacturing a lack of “consensus” as to when human life begins by clouding with ancient philosophy and religion an understanding previously determined only by science and medicine, anything is possible.
Larry: I think it would be wonderful if young people did not feel the anguish, guilt, and shame they currently experience when they realize they are gay. Also it would be good if a person who is gay and Christian, does not feel compelled to marry someone of the opposite gender, given the fact that they are not in love with that person and will not be capable of an emotional attachment. (And if children are born of this union, they suffer through it too when the gay parent can no longer cope with the situation) Also I think people should have the right to marry the person they decide to marry, regardless of gender. Gay couples have legal and financial burdens not experienced by sraight couples in a legal marriage, just to ensure that their partners have the same rights. And even then, the families of deceased partners often win custody and property battles, because the marriage was not legal, and the partner is not next-of-kin. These are just a few reasons. I will share more… I really appreciate your asking. May I ask, why not?
I was just trying to figure out if you were gay activist plant. I was right.
Jen,
I would like that too. Very, very much. I would also like if they understood that being gay does not mean you must be in a homosexual relationship. I wish they would understand that sexual relationships were meant to be between people of the opposite sex, after marriage. I would hope they would get plenty of support and compassion and love in living a chaste life given their inclinations. I hate seeing young people told that if they “feel” a certain way, that is is morally acceptable to act on those feelings. I would hope someone loved them enough to tell them that they have value, and can live a beautiful fulfilling life without ever resorting to a sinful expression of their sexual temptations. I would hope someone would love them enough to think of their eternal life and resist the temptation towards false compassion which might gratify them temporally, but could very well damn them eternally. *sigh*
MK=Thank you. I wouldnt even try to explain what you do so well.
@Larry, While it seems ridiculous , I suppose I have to give my ‘credentials’, although my disagreement on this issue will make anything else that I say null and void to you.
I got saved in 1980 and was a Baptist, evangelical fundamentalist, etc, until my conversion to the Catholic Church in 1984. In 1985 I became involved in Presentation Ministries in Cincinnati, a very traditional/orthodox (though charismatic) community. I worked in that ministry full-time for several years. I taught Bible studies and encyclical studies, edited publications, and worked with kids at summer camps and retreats. In 1990 I began sidewalk counseling at Planned Parenthood, and in 1991 was arrested a few times with Operation Rescue, and spent several weeks in jail in Cincinnati and in Buffalo. Am I Catholic enough for you yet?
I met my husband in 1992, we were married in 1993, then the babies started coming. I haven’t missed Mass (Except for illness, myself or a kid) since my conversion in 1984. From March 1984 til June 1999 I was a daily communicant, then it became a bit difficult with three kids under 5. I could go on and on, but I’m just trying to show you that a person disagreeing with you on one issue, is not necessarily a plant or a troll or whatever.
Posted by Larry on Friday, Sep 9, 2011 2:55 PM (EDT):
I was just trying to figure out if you were gay activist plant. I was right.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/redefining-marriage-10/#ixzz1XYzjxy13
In other words, you have no intention of having an actual conversation. I was wrong to get my hopes up.
As far as activist, I’m not sure what you would consider an activist. I am definitely an advocate of equal marriage rights. But I have never been to a rally or a gay parade or whatever, it is as disgusting to me (their behavior) as the behavior of straight people at Mardi Gras. (which I also have no desire to ever attend)
Oh, and I always vote pro-life. That issue trumps all others.
@mk, I think where we differ is the view that a person’s soul will be lost if they are in a gay relationship. That is also a separate issue from whether or not gays should be legally allowed to marry. Certainly the Church teaches that those in a second marriage (without benefit of annulment) are at risk of condemnation, yet these marriages are not opposed politically. Also the Church teaches that the use of contraceptives is a mortal sin, yet their use is not opposed politically. The trouble with these conversations is that there are two issues, but they tend to be discussed as one. The question of whether gay relationships are morally acceptable is a totally separate issue from whether gays should be allowed to legally marry. Otherwise we would have to say that re-marriage should also not be legal.
Larry, here’s a thought: Gay couples want to marry for the same reasons you do. They fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
@janet, I have to ask how you resolve the issue of abortion with same-sex “marriage.” The ability of couples to marry with the intention of never having children - which can only be realized by keeping abortion on the table - is a big part of the arguments of many of those who advocate same-sex “marriage.” If legalized abortion were eliminated, it would at least significantly change the complexion of those arguments, if not completely invalidate them.
Regarding the Church’s supposed failure to oppose remarriage - which would be manifested most effectively as opposition to liberal divorce laws - it is not a universal lack of action within the Church, but rather seems to vary by country. For example, bishops have opposed liberal abortion laws in countries like Malta and the Philippines:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/maltese-voters-opt-for-legal-divorce-in-national-referendum/
http://ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=3349
while in the U.S. we obviously have some work to do:
http://www.speroforum.com/a/39853/Catholic-bishops-must-resolve-inconsistent-teachings-about-divorce
Testing
Hello everyone, I have been reading the posts, and would like to offer my opinion. However, I am not catholic, but I am a spiritual person. Is my opinion welcome here?
@janetfernandez: Your credentials are not important here. Since this is the internet I neither believe nor disbelieve. I do not know you. But I am getting to know where your coming from. You do not have to be gay to be an activist. Your what they would call an ally. Activist and advocates are terms that are used interchangeably, And unless your involved with lobbying and legislators your pretty much an activist. Blogging may be the only form you use to do this.
ok then. I am very glad we got that important point straightened out. Now how about the points that are actually the point
btw, I don’t think anyone’s ‘credentials’ are important to the discussion, but then I’m not the one labelling others as trolls or activists or whatever, and then pretending my label for them exonerates me from discussing the actual points.
@jeweleia, jump on in, the water’s fine!
@janetfernandez: I would suggest since your just getting started here, to first read all SDG articles. Then read all of MK comments. That should cover all you would have to say, which is right out of the gay activist handbook anyway.
Read them. That’s why I commented in response to them. Also Mark Shea’s article.
I didn’t know there was a handbook.
Janet,
The reason the Church is speaking out against gay marriage (politically) but not gay relationships (politically) is because redefining marriage affects us personally. We also speak out against abortion (politically) but not contraception (politically) because abortion involves a human life while contraception (usually) does not.
But my comment was not politically directed either way. The Church most certainly does speak out against birth control, homosexual relationships, as well as abortion and gay marriage. Actually, as in the case of Africa, the Church does indeed speak out politically about the use of birth control (think condoms).
When I say politically, I am referring to the Church’s effort to keep gay marriage illegal. Divorce-on-demand affects us personally, as does re-marriage. And yes, sometimes contraception involves ending a life. Yet the Church does not make efforts to make these things illegal. I do not see how a same-sex couple being married is going to affect you personally, except that you see it as immoral and you don’t like it. How is that different from a re-married straight couple? Besides it’s immoral and you don’t like it, because an awful lot of things fall into that category, and that doesn’t mean those things should be illegal.
To further answer the “why” question, (insincere though it was) : I think gay marriage will go a long way in encouraging monogamy among gays. I guess time will tell.(Straight people can marry any time they want, but sadly it doesn’t seem to encourage monogamy among them) It would be awesome if people (gay and straight) would hold off on a sexual relationship until they find someone with whom they can enter into the life commitment of marriage.
Hmmm, the age-old question, What would you do if you were invisible? answered every day on the internet.
Dear invisible very angry person: I’m sure your post will be deleted shortly and you will be blocked from posting (at least I hope so)
Meanwhile I want you to know, Jesus Christ loves you and died for you. That will always be true, no matter what any priest or pope does. God bless you.
Janet,
So am I.
But neither of those changes the definition of marriage. It’s ending a marriage, or starting a new one, but the definition remains the same. At one time divorce was illegal too, as was contraception. Not all that long ago. Divorce and remarriage have been around as long as marriage itself. They do not change the entire definition of what marriage means, although divorce certainly weakens marriage. 2 men marrying changes the entire meaning of what marriage IS. That’s the difference. Nothing to do with morality or immorality (although it is that also), but everything to do with Divine/Natural Law and the impossibility, yes impossibility, of changing the definition of a Divinely Inspired Law. Again, it’s like trying to change the definition of gravity.
@janetfernandez:
“I do not see how a same-sex couple being married is going to affect you personally, except that you see it as immoral and you don’t like it”.
This is an evolving question. As time goes by chanches are that it will affect christians in very negative ways.
“SDG” put a link up earlier:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/uk-mp-pushes-to-force-church-to-have-contrary-to-nature-marriages-or-no-marriages-at-all/
There is more, if your honest and want to see it.
Funny how quickly your credentials become meaningless.
Little Boy,
I see we got a new toy for Christmas. Next year, maybe you could ask for a thesaurus? Oh…what’s that? I think it’s your mother calling…she wants to know why your bedsheets are wet again. Seriously, children should not play with things they don’t understand. Stick to legos and coloring books!
I am an atheist raising an atheist daughter. I was brought up uber-hyper-strict Mexican Catholic, Beat-Jeeezus-Into-Your-Panties-Until-You-Bleed Catholic, and left the church many years ago with much rage which I’ve had to learn to manage through cognitive therapy for the sake of my husband and daughter.
I was taught that the ONLY marriage that “counted” as such was a Catholic marriage and was told by my parents that if I married outside the church,in a CIVIL ceremony, even within a heterosexual union, that I would be considered a FORNICATOR and that they would disallow me, my “civil marriage spouse” and our daughter from setting foot in their house.
Thus, I just don’t understand WHY the Catholic church gets involved in the gay marriage issue if civil marriage is NOT seen as a marriage—Otherwise, Catholics could marry only by the civil authorities and still receive the sacraments and my parents would have to accept my heterosexual CIVIL marriage, which they don’t.
Like I stated, I admit to being an enraged atheist, an ex-communicated ex-Catholic, and could care less what the church says except for the fact that it’s been 15 years since I’ve spoken to my own family due to their view of heterosexual, CIVIL, marriage.
I don’t think you will post this but any answer to my query would be greatly appreciated. I need to find out where/how my Catholic parents learned to hate.
@Comala666: You know I don’t believe a word of what you wrote. Your conflicted but you don’t even have the courage to tell the truth.
My guess is the same place you learned to hate. Their parents.
Blaming the Catholic Church for your parents is like blaming Germany for Hitler.
As for my snarky remark…I highly doubt, given the sophistication of “little boys” comments, that there is a complicated, deeply profound reason for his comments. More likely he’s 14 (mentally or emotionally) and was just looking for attention.
I don’t often respond in such a manner, but since the blog owner wasn’t doing anything…
You’re response, on the other hand, does sound like you were deeply hurt and view the Catholic Church as the responsible party. What comes through on your post (besides the obvious anger) is pain. I’m sorry. Maybe you could write a letter to your folks. Explain that you would have welcomed guidance instead of condemnation, tell them how sad it makes you that they are no longer part of your life and ask if they’d be willing to meet. Be prepared to show them (through Scripture, the Catechism, your own words) how disowning you was not the Catholic answer, but forgiving you 7 times 70 time (as yesterdays Gospel reading points out) would have been far closer to Catholic Teaching. Tell them you are sorry you hurt them, but not sorry you made the choice you did (providing that’s true and you are still married) and that you want to make amends. If you’re not willing to do that, then I would say that you are equally responsible for the broken relationship. The Catholic Church does not produce perfect people. It is a shelter for the broken, the lost and the marginalized. Being Catholic does not mean being without fault. You can better point out their Christian shortcomings by being a better example of Christianity than they are. But using your pain to foster your anger and hate is not doing anyone any good. Going from “my parents hurt me” to “all priests rape boys” tells me that you have more problems than just your parents failure to embrace your marriage and daughter. I’ll be praying for you. God bless.
Coma: You raise some questions worth answering. I’m sorry you intersperse them with unacceptable antisocial behavior which is going to get you banned, because I wouldn’t mind answering your legitimate questions.
Actually, civil marriages are perfectly valid as long as the couple are free to marry and are not bound by canonical obligations of form. What that means is that, assuming no other impediments, two validly baptized Protestants married by a justice of the peace have a valid sacramental marriage. Also, civil marriages contracted by non-Christians—Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists—are valid natural marriages. Even polygamous unions among non-Christians (e.g., a Muslim man with two or more wives) may be valid natural marriages.
However, Catholics are bound by canonical obligations of form, and MUST be married according to the rules of the Church (which go beyond the laws of God). If Catholics attempt marriage outside the requirements of form, the Church considers their marriage null before God.
Hope that helps.
@Larry, you have an interesting way of avoiding the issue. Just tell everyone who disagrees with you, you don’t believe anything they say and they are a liar. Too bad you have no substitive arguments. As for my ‘credentials’, I think I was the one who said no one’s credentials were relevant to this discussion. Someone was calling people plants or trolls or activists or something… Oh, that was you! Do us all a favor and stay off the blog if you don’t want to have a discussion.
@janetfernandez:
These are two of the silliest comments in a combox with more than its fair share. Your parenthetical comment literally does not make any sense at all.
mk- if it is impossible to change the definition of marriage, then you should regard same-sex couples the same as you would children playing ‘wedding.’ Why get so worked up over something being done that you say can’t be done?
As for Comala’s question: Mr. Greydanus reaffirms the fact, a Catholic must be married in the presence of a priest. Any other marriage contracted by a Catholic—such as Comala’s marriage—is null. Her parents are not the only ones by far who disown their children over this same issue. In their eyes, associating with them and their spouse is like saying it’s ok that they are in an immoral relationship. In the eyes of the Church, they are not married, and so are living in sin.
@Comala, as has been stated, please do not blame the Church for your parents’ choices. The Church’s teachings do not require Catholics to disown and ostracize those who do not follow them. If your parents had sought spiritual direction from a priest, very likely things would be different. God bless you and your family.
@janetfndz: You know, there is a huge difference between not believing someone and calling them a liar. As far as substitive arguments go, your hardly one to talk. As far as credentials go, you are the one who brought that up. Plants or trolls, again your words. Gay Activist, you are no doubt. As far as discussion, how about commenting on the last comment I made to you, concerning how gay marriage will/may/are affect christians personally. Your right about one thing. I am the least capable here. So why not converse with MK while I watch her unravel every thought you think makes sense. Come on, I need a good laugh this morning.
Did you read my post? Specifically point #4?
I have not read the link, but I have read other articles where certain groups want to force churches to perform gay weddings. Ironically, I post on those blogs too, stating why this would be wrong, and those groups think I’m an anti-gay plant!
Unfortunately, there are extremists on both sides of every issue. I’m not going to put everyone who opposes gay marriage into the same box with Scott Lively and Fred Phelps. I would very much like the same consideration.
Fair enough. But you’re naive if you think that legalized same-sex marriage isn’t going to have the kind of consequences you say you oppose.
@Steven: point 4 is full of questions, one claim, and no evidence. The church is not currently forced to marry divorced couples (without benefit of annulment) Why would the Church (or any church) be forced to marry any couple it does not see fit to marry? Yes I know there are those who would force it, but don’t put us all in the same box.
The statement about monogamy: what I’m saying is that when you tell people that their relationship has no validity or value, they may not be motivated to act as though their relationship has validity and value.
And this is why I sometimes copy and paste: I get tired of the ad hominem, and would just love to see some real responses to actual statements. Take a lesson from mk; at least he/she is discussing the issue.
Sorry Steven I just saw your post
@janet, I submitted a comment a couple days ago that was apparently off the radar as soon as it appeared since it was delayed by moderation. I would like to get your response. It has the date Sep 10, 2011 12:31 PM. Thank you.
All any of us can do is work toward what we believe is right and just. I believe it is right and just to give gays the same legal marriage rights as everyone else. I believe it is right and just for churches to be given the right to act in accordance with their own teachings. To both these ends I have to work.
@janetfernandez: What do you think marriage is? What are “marriage rights” and why should the state have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying and decertifying partnerships to which such rights apply? On what grounds should qualifying partnerships comprise two and only two non-related, otherwise unmarried persons of any gender combination? What is the state’s interest in these and only these domestic arrangements?
@Kevin, thanks for pointing that out, I had not seen that post. The pro-life issue is the very closest to my heart.
There is an organization called PLAGL—Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. So you see, I’m certainly not the first person to hold both views.
Abortion and contraception, though of course related, are not exactly the same thing. True contraception does what the name implies—prevents conception. This would refer to non-chemical forms, like sterilization, etc. (Don’t really want to get graphic :)
Some ‘contraception’ , however, can actually be abortifacient, such as the pill and other chemical birth control methods, in that they sometimes fail to prevent conception, and in those cases they cause the newly-formed human child to be expelled. That is abortion, pure and simple.
In gay marriage, there will be no newly-formed human children.
[The ability of couples to marry with the intention of never having children - which can only be realized by keeping abortion on the table - is a big part of the arguments of many of those who advocate same-sex “marriage.” ]
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/redefining-marriage-10/#ixzz1XkqKjyqJ
Maybe so but again, not all.
Also there is the fact that some heterosexual couples marry with the intention of never having children. No, they can’t be married in the Church, but no one would say they should be barred from civil marriage. I would imagine that even before abortion was legal, there were couples who married with no intention of having children, so legal abortion need not be kept on the table.
I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question, but basically a person does not have to be pro-abortion if they are for gay marriage rights. Each issue has to be weighed for its own merits.
I am summarizing here. Please see Part 9 for more. Already Catholic adoption services have been forced to shut down, ministries have lost tax-exempt status, organizations such as the YMCA have been stripped of government support, Christian photographers and others have been sued and fined. A Canadian bishop was investigated by a human rights commission over a newspaper column, and a Pentecostal pastor in Sweden was convicted and jailed for preaching a sermon. And, as I said, we’re still in the early stages. I don’t have to provide evidence that it will get worse: The legal means are there unless it can be shown otherwise, and individuals and groups will avail themselves of it.
@janetfernandez, In this country marriage “rights” even for traditionally-married couples didn’t exist in the form of recognition of marriage by the government until about a hundred years ago, and may still not exist in some countries yet today. So what you’re talking about is legislation that confers certain recognition and privileges to a specific group of citizens, similar to much other legislation. I believe that that legislation had a purpose - that they expected it to result in some benefit for society. The same privileges weren’t granted to singles, cohabiting couples, cohabiting individuals not involved in an intimate relationship with each other, etc., so whatever those benefits those were, it wasn’t expected that people in those groups could provide them, which is why they were limited to married couples.
If someone who acknowledges and understands the benefits that married couples were expected to provide to society and can show that same-sex couples could provide those benefits equally well, perhaps I could be convinced to extend the government’s recognition and privileges to them. I’ve challenged many to do this, including via letters in local and national mainstream news publications, but no one has succeeded in doing it. I continue to be willing to listen to new attempts, however.
Sorry, I should have realized that was a summary, I’m slipping (My apologies) I did read Part 9 (I read all the Parts) but it has been a couple weeks and it wasn’t fresh in my mind.
All of these things you point out are very wrong, and extremely unfortunate. But as you say, we are in the early stages of accepting gay marriage. Perhaps as society becomes less polarized, we will no longer see either side trying to legally force its will on the other.
Kevin, if you believe that “popping out babies” is the one and only benefit of the commitment of a married couple, then I will not waste time trying to point out other benefits. Think of a couple who, through no fault of their own, is unable to produce children. What benefit is their relationship to society?
@Steven It doesn’t matter what I think marriage is. The Church defines it thus: The sacramental union of one man and one woman, which is for a lifetime, is mutually exclusive, and is open to life. But should the Church define marriage for the state? If so, then each part of the definition would be a matter of law.
I have to go home now, where there is no internet, and my kid has a soccer game later, but I will participate as much as possible. I love you all, and thank you.
@janetfernandez: That’s the Church’s definition of the sacrament of matrimony, not marriage.
@Janet (or whoever you really are)
Regarding “Perhaps as society becomes less polarized, we will no longer see either side
trying to legally force its will on the other.”
The promoters of gay marriage will never be at peace. They think they’ll be at peace if all the laws regarding marriage are changed - but they won’t. Sin does not satisfy.
((sigh)) I guess I won’t ever understand what kind of a thrill certain people get from questioning the sincerity of others. David, sweetheart, here’s my facebook e-mail: janet.fernandez1@yahoo.com. Run on over there and send me a friend request, and I will accept. Won’t that be lovely? Then we can be real people. Yes I realize many people ‘pose’ on facebook, but those people do not post pictures of themselves, their kids, their friends, etc. (This invitation is open to all.)
@Steven, I did not realize that, for purposes of this discussion, there was a difference. What is the difference, and which parts should be legally binding on all, and not just morally binding on Catholics?
btw don’t send e-mail to that address, I only use it to log-in to FB, and I never ever (ever) check it for mail, but here’s the one I check regularly: js64fern@hotmail.com
@janetfernandez: Did you see my comments above at Sep 12, 2011 8:23 AM (EST)?
Matrimony as a sacrament is less than 2000 years old, and applies only to baptized Christians.
Marriage as a natural human institution predates both the Church and the Hebrew people. It is an essential foundation of all human societies, civilizations and cultures.
Despite cultural vagaries of many kinds—including polygamy, concubinage, and social expectations regarding what constitutes an appropriate marriage, how a match is made, what is expected of and permitted to the spouses, and so forth—the essential character of marriage as the enduring union of a man and a woman as the privileged context for socially sanctioned sexual relations between a man and a woman, the better to provide for the next generation, is evident throughout human history across cultural lines.
Society needs marriage, thus defined, for reasons I’ve set forth in the past 10 blog posts. One more is planned specifically discussing questions and answers around same-sex marriage.
@janetfernandez said;
A salient point, but irrelevant to my argument, which is not obviated by the fact that abortion wouldn’t be operative in a same-sex relationship.
Marriage has always been much more something that society demands of a couple wishing to enter into an intimate relationship, rather than something it merely allows them to do. Contraception can reduce the likelihood that a child will be conceived, but it cannot change the basic fact that sexual intercourse may result in pregnancy. Therefore there is a valid reason to expect even a contracepting couple to make a public commitment to each other in order to ensure a stable context for the still-possible results of their relationship. Only by keeping the option of abortion open can such a couple make the case that they should not be obligated to marry, and thus enable one of the main arguments of same-sex “marriage” proponents, which I described earlier.
Babies aren’t the only benefit provided by married couples, but they are the only reason that we can demand that couples make the commitment of marriage in the first place, and I suggest that they are indeed the greatest contribution that such couples make to society - society itself. The rights and privileges granted to married couples by the government are structured as an incentive to form the relationships that provide a stable context for the raising of children, rather than as a reward for having actually done so. Like so many government programs, it is the collective results of that policy rather than the performance of any individual beneficiary of it that justifies its cost to society. (Not to mention the impracticality of the alternative: Would couples not receive marriage benefits until their first child is born? How many years would we give them to produce a child before we take those benefits away? Would we take some or all of them away if/once one of the spouses becomes infertile?)
Janet,
First, I haven’t even broken a sweat so I’m unsure why you made the comment about getting “so worked up”. Second, I speak out against changing the definition of marriage because a. I stand up for the Truth and would hate to see an entire society following a lie and b. Redefining marriage and having people believe the lie would be detrimental to society as a whole. To stand by and say nothing makes me as guilty as the party committing the “crime”. To change the definition of marriage, is to render “marriage” meaningless.
Janet,
That is exactly how I view same sex couples. It’s also how I view cohabitating couples. Play acting and nothing more. 40% of children were born to unwed mothers in 2010. That is just one result of children playing house, sans real marriage. The ramifications of “pretend” marriages are real and devastating. The solution is not to promote new fake marriages, but to embrace and promote “real” marriages. Someday the world will catch on that reality is objective. This insane idea that we “create” reality is killing us. We subjectively perceive reality, but reality itself is objective. Saying something is so, doesn’t make it so. We must adapt to Truth, not try to change Truth to fit our perceptions.
Janet,
IF civil unions were being discussed instead of marriage, I would still be opposed on moral grounds, but I’d be less vocal. It’s not that we are saying same sex couples cannot/must not receive tax breaks and visitation rights. It’s that we are saying marriage, by definition, cannot exist in same sex couples. The problem with civil unions are also worth noting, however. Where does the line get drawn. If the criteria for marriage or civil unions is two people who love each other and want to live together as a legal couple, then we must clearly state which people are eligible for this benefit. Can brothers live together as “married” couples? Mother and son? Man and boy? Father and daughter? Why/why not? They fit the criteria. Every argument you give for same sex “marriage” can be given for a marriage between a father and his son. They love each other. They want the same benefits that other couples have. We have no right to say that their “love” isn’t valid. IF the reasoning given for same sex marriage is good and sound, then it should be able to be applied across the board. If not, then you must rethink why gay marriage should be allowed. Rather than ask why gay marriage should not be allowed, give me reasons that it should be allowed, that don’t also qualify the marriage of brothers, men and boys, mothers and daughters, etc.
mk, you point out some of the perils of civil unions. Another is that a lack of distinction between a civil union and a marriage in terms of privileges bestowed by the government leads to a perceived unfairness in not calling them the same thing. It is, after all, how we treat a thing much more than the name we give it that says what we really consider it to be.
@Kevin, I’m sorry if it doesn’t make sense to you, but I will have to maintain that a person can believe that same-sex marriage is a good thing, and murdering innocent unborn children is a bad thing. It grieves me that most gays think they have to jump onto some perceived liberal ‘bandwagon’, part of which is abortion-rights.
@Steven, the ‘vagaries’ are, in a sense, part of the marriage-equality argument. Every society has defined and re-defined marriage. A smattering of same-sex weddings can be seen throughout history, but you are of course correct in saying it has never been taken seriously. That in itself does not make it wrong to do so now. Democracy (in which ALL adult citizens have voting rights, not just land-owning white males) is also an idea in its baby stages, but I like it, don’t you? If an idea has merit, then being new, or never having been tried, is not a good reason to reject it.
mk—this is what I love about you: you make me think, and you make very good points. I must say ‘touche’ to your last points. However, in the matter of a man and boy, there are age-of-consent laws which are in place. I don’t think anyone is saying there should be no laws whatsoever regarding marriage.
When we start thinking about the possibility of relatives marrying one another, (the impediment of consanguinity), the Church has laws regarding these situations. However, a dispensation is always granted, unless the relationship is in the ascending or descending line. So you can’t marry your kids or your parents, but you can marry your cousins, even though it is forbidden in the Bible and in Church law, to the fourth degree. You also can’t marry your siblings, although in 2 Samuel 13:13, it seems that exceptions could be made, even to this. However, I think the main reason we don’t need to worry about consanguinity, is that people do not want to breach those laws anyway. I think you will find that in cases of consanguinity, and historical attempts to break those laws (i.e., to marry one’s child or sibling) there is always one very unwilling party, and the other party is either very powerful (like, a king) or mentally ill, or both. So the immeasurable benefit of consanguinity laws has been to protect the unwilling party
Unfortunately, this could change in time, especially by judicial fiat, in much the same way that anti-sodomy laws in place a few decades ago were struck down by the courts.
Unfortunately, this is not true.
However, amid all such vagaries, no culture or civilization has ever recognized marriage as anything other than the enduring union of a man and a woman as the privileged context for socially sanctioned sexual relations between a man and a woman. All the vagaries are still within the context of that fundamental universal human agreement, that core shared understanding of all cultures and civilizations.
I have told you what I think marriage as a socio-anthropological constant is, and why society needs it, and why this need has driven every society in history until the 21st century to have marriage as so defined. When I ask you what you think marriage is and why society should have it, and why it should be defined the way you think, you say it doesn’t matter what you think. Why is that?
Well because it doesn’t, in regard to making decisions for everyone else. That is the core issue, really. The question of who gets to decide these things, and why.
But it is relevant to your support of same-sex marriage. You don’t simply support that decision being made by one party rather than another; you specifically support a particular configuration (or reconfiguration) of the state’s criteria for what constitutes a “marriage.” How did you arrive at this adjusted criteria as the one that you would support? What do you see, given your support of same-sex marriage, as the government’s interest in “marriage,” and why same-sex relationships ought to qualify? Why do you believe a state-sponsored apparatus for certifying and decertifying sexual partnerships ought to be configured in the way you support, rather than another way?
@janetfernandez said,
They do it because it makes their case stronger, at least from a liberal’s point of view.
Janet,
You say that it shouldn’t matter what you think, but then you agree that abortion is wrong. Yet that is the exact wording used to defend abortion by those who “would never have one themselves, but believe they have no right to tell anyone else not to”. I understand that abortion takes a life, but even then you are taking a stand, claiming that your opinion matters, by saying that you think it is objectively “wrong” to take anothers life. See what I’m saying? Sooner or later it comes down to you making a choice. Even if that choice is to say that you shouldn’t have a say so. Or that life is important enough to speak out against, but marriage is not.
Also, in the case of incest, I am talking about the law, not the Church sanctioning such marriages. I purposely picked same sex union (Father/Son…Mother/Daughter…Brother/Brother) because the objection of genectic mutation wouldn’t enter the picture (which is why incest laws are in place to begin with). Even then, you would say, I think, that a mother and son should not marry, because their children would suffer. But who are you to say that these children would be “bad”...you see? Again you would be making a judgment call. It gets tricky, doesn’t it?
I can’t remember if it was CSLewis, Chesterton or Kreeft (probably all three) that write about this, but eventually you must answer the question “what is GOOD”. What does it mean and on whose authority does it rest. If it rests on mans authority, then it is rendered impotent. It has no meaning, because it’s meaning becomes relative. This is what happens when we redefine marriage. If the definition of marriage rests with man, then it too becomes meaningless. It is rendered impotent because it’s meaning is relative. Only when you acknowledge Objective Good and Objective Bad (Now that is from Lewis’ “Abolition of Man”) can society sustain itself. Relativism is a slow but sure death.
One can claim that a is good except when b. But then one must qualify why b is bad. Eventually you either admit that there is no such thing as good or bad/right or wrong…or you make a judgment call and are forced to acknowledge that right and wrong do exist. Now who is the authority? Where does the definitive right and wrong come from?
@mk—OMG! CSLewis, Chesterson, Kreeft, I doubt had your stamina. It’s not stamina, it’s love. Strange, To some it might bring joy and a tear to the eye, to others, judgement.
@janetfernandez—you might want to burn that handbook. True, I am a fan of MK , her dummyies guide to life going on here will never get the credit it deserves.
Larry,
Stop it some more!
Honestly, when I get to heaven I will be thoroughly disappointed if there isn’t a Pub for Philosophers. I cannot wait to down a Guinness with the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Chesterton, Kreeft, Lewis and my all time favorite, Socrates! It will be the first time in my life that I will have nothing to add to the conversation! (That, of course, will be heaven to other people, most notably my family! lol)
My internet access is limited to the time I can spend at the local library, so my apologies for my absence. School starts next week so I hope between classes to have a little more time online.
@Steven, to answer your question, I don’t think we really disagree about the purpose or role of marriage, as it benefits society. I just happen to think those purposes and benefits can be fulfilled by same-sex couples.
@mk - you forgot Cicero.
I’ve thought a little further about the question of, why not have siblings marrying, etc. The main difference is that gay people are by nature unable to experience any sort of attraction to those of the opposite gender. No one is saying that everyone can just marry whomever they want to marry. After all, you might fall in love with someone who doesn’t feel the same way about you, or they may be married already, or you may not be able to live in the same country, or their religion might prevent them marrying you, or ... well the list of obstacles could go on and on. So you can’t always marry the person you want to, the most common reason being unrequited affection. So then you move on and you wait and see if maybe things will work out next time. So you see, if you want to marry your sibling, you can easily move on and get involved with someone who does not happen to be your sibling. It’s a great big world full of people, and most of them are not your siblings. But the thing you would ask of gays, is that they enter into a straight marriage, or remain unmarried. Neither of these options is appealing, nor is it just to require it of them. (I’m NOT talking about the Church here, but CIVIL law)
If a person is in love with their sibling, they are not incapable of letting that go and getting into another relationship. However, if a person is gay, they ARE incapable of a relationship with the opposite gender.
I’m not sure I’ve explained this thought very well, but there it is.
@“Janet”
Interracial marriage affirms Marriage, same-sex marriage either renders marriage a different meaning then understood since before civilization began, and/or makes “marriage” meaningless. Civil law is not separate from Natural Law, but takes it’s meaning and force from it. Can you please provide some Natural Law argument that shows that there is no real difference between two men, two women, or a man and a woman getting married. Please be sure sure to show that there is no difference between each couple’s nuptial embrace.
Another great article by Keith fournier on this subject.
www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=42850
@janetfernandez said,
That’s true only if you exclude from consideration the purposes and benefits that same-sex couples could not be expected to fulfill. For example, same-sex couples couldn’t be expected to approach anywhere near a replacement rate of fertility, which means that if maintaining a stable population is part of society’s interest in supporting marriage, granting the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples could do nothing but dilute them.
I’m not aware of any state that would prohibit two people of the same sex from living together and treating each other as spouses, let alone make them marry someone they’re not attracted to or remain unmarried. If someone who experiences same-sex attractions really understands and respects the origin and purpose of marriage (and I’m sure some of them do), however, they won’t expect society to grant the rights and privileges of marriage to other social arrangements.
A straight couple can be married for two weeks (or two minutes, for that matter), and they are automatically one another’s legal beneficiaries. A gay couple can ‘live together and treat eachother as spouses’ for two decades or more, and still encounter legal battles upon the death of one. As I said above,
Gay couples have legal and financial burdens not experienced by sraight couples in a legal marriage, just to ensure that their partners have the same rights. And even then, the families of deceased partners often win custody and property battles, because the marriage was not legal, and the partner is not the next-of-kin.
And then we have laws like DOMA, that help to ensure that the surviving partner has no legal rights.
Correct. The ability to transfer property between persons tax-free, file tax returns jointly and other privileges of marriage exact a cost from society - a cost that must be justified, and is justified for married couples by the contributions they make to society. A child is going to be the biological (or in most states adoptive) child of at most one same-sex partner, so it’s reasonable that the laws governing custody would take that into account. Even people who aren’t intimately involved with or legally bound to someone else may want to ensure that property ownership and custody questions are answered in a particular fashion or handled in a certain manner upon their death or other life event, however, and the wills, legal directives and powers of attorney available to them for doing this are available to same-sex partners as well.
David, the Church will not marry a couple if either party is impotent. I’m talking about a straight, Catholic, otherwise-free-to-marry-in-the-Church couple. I did not say infertile, but impotent. If, for any reason, a penis cannot enter a vagina, they cannot marry. Sorry, editors, to be so graphic.
So, who here is not conflicted by this:
A young Catholic couple is engaged, the date is set, and the young man goes off to serve a year in Iraq. He suffers an injury which leaves him impotent. He returns to his fiance, but the couple cannot be married in the Church. They must cancel the wedding, or be married outside the Church, which they are told would endanger their souls.
The point is, the state has different rules, not necessarily dictated by the Church, or ‘natural law’, or ancient understandings from before civilization began. (Hold that ‘ancient understanding’ line on other issues, and we would still have slavery, human sacrifice, and lots of other extremely unpleasant societal ills.)
btw, I just want to say, I do not expect to change anyone’s mind, and I’m highly unlikely to change my mind. However, it is good for both sides to understand the reasoning behind the other’s views. I have appreciated the conversation very much.
@Janet
Actually human sacrifice has made a come back with millions of unborn children being sacrificed to any kind of sex without conception. I’ll have to check on your example of a man and woman who cannot get married without the “ability” to consummate a marriage.
Getting back to my question on Natural Law it seems you have no Natural reasoning that would defend the notion of calling the union of two men or two women a marriage. Am I correct?
Since there is no argument it seems that you move to dispense with Natural Law. Will you and yours also dispense with “we hold these truths to be self evident….” ?
If this is not part of Natural Law what gives you the right to force this moral judgement on everyone?
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/05/impotence_vs_in.html
Here ya go.
Okay, you’re blaming abortion on gays? Been hanging out with Pat Robertson much? Are gays also to blame for Katrina and tsunamis?
Two men or two women can (physically) comprise a marriage just as well as a man and woman who are unable to have sex due to impotence, and just as ‘naturally’ as a straight couple who does not intend to have children. I have no desire to ‘force’ gay marriage on anyone. If you feel that having laws allowing gays to be legally married, is equivalent to ‘forcing’ gay marriage on you, then I guess the Emancipation Proclamation was ‘forced’ on Americans too. I’m sure glad it was. No I’m not in the least trying to imply that you’re NOT glad slavery was outlawed, simply trying to point out similarities in how these things work.
@Janet
Slavery is contrary to Natural Law, there is no comparison to two men calling their union a marriage.
Ideas have consequences; already in Massachusetts homosexual sex and unions are given the same moral weight as the natural union of a man and woman. And that’s simply not true.
You have no natural argument.
@janetfndz- I can agree with you one thing, Canon 1084, when I read that I about fell out of my chair laughing. One more thing, if it’s not force lets bring it up in a national vote and see how it fairs. It loses consistantely at the state level.
Abortion and gay unions are fruit from the same unnatural tree.
I need no natural argument for civil law, only for Church law.
In a democratic-republic, not everything is decided by the majority. Your representatives are decided by the majority, and then they write laws, and then they vote on laws. I don’t like the fact that drivers have to wear seat belts and carry insurance, but that law is forced on me. I guarantee that abortion could not be outlawed by popular vote, but I would sure like to force pro-life legislation.
Larry—are you laughing at the Church’s law?
So you all think it’s just fine that when Johnny comes home from Iraq unable to ‘perform’, he and Susie can’t be married in the Church?
And let’s have no silliness about it not being “permanent and untreatable”. Johnny had his junk blown off by a bomb he was attempting to defuse. He and Susie are just plain out of luck.
@janetfndz—Yea, canon 1081 the one refered to in jimmy akin article.. Your probably right about the abortion not being voted out, and the’re using the same arguments for same sex marriage.
No Janet, this country was founded on Natural Law, and Truth. And that’s a very good thing.
Otherwise “might makes right”. And frankly I see this as a by product of you argument, and/or lack of it.
Freedom is not license to do what ever we want, but to do what we “ought” to do.
@janetfernandez: Johnny is unable to marry. Do I think it’s “fine”? No, it’s tragic. But it’s not the Church’s fault. It’s the fault of those who set the IED.
Incidentally, God doesn’t make junk. I know it’s just a slang term that got popularized by that TSA protester guy. But it’s a term that implies worthlessness, and that is an error that can’t be afforded in this discussion above all. Neither generation nor the organs of generation are worthless or irrelevant.
@SDG—Johnny can marry, just not in the catholic church. Maybe he will even adopt a child or two from a catholic orphan agency.
Thank you Larry. Exactly my point. Gays can marry, just not in the Catholic Church. Maybe they will even adopt a child or two.
Larry: To clarify, Johnny may be able to obtain a marriage license or have a celebration in a church. (Perhaps even a Catholic church, God have mercy on us.) But he cannot get married. This is neither a precept of Catholic form nor a special requirement of sacramental matrimony; it applies across the board whether Johnny is Catholic, Christian or non-Christian. He is physically unable to marry. It’s a terrible thing, but it’s the way it is.
Um, no. Johnny can have a civil marriage, or get married in a non-Catholic Church. Not everyone insists that a penis must enter a vagina. (Sorry, but you protested the ‘slang’)
@janetfernandez—Don’t thank me to soon. I do not agree with you. Like MK said, you cannot redefine marriage because Johnny likes to play with boys instead of girls. Just like you cannot redefine gravity because it includes everyone and will not allow you to fly.
@SDG—I understand the churches take on this, I just totally disagree.
Is there any scripture that agrees with the church on this?
Oh, my bad. What you’re saying is that Johnny’s marriage will never be considered valid by the Church. Unlike most couples whose marriages are not valid by Church standards, Johnny’s never will be. Most couples are just waiting on an annulment (or two), but Johnny needs a miracle.
I have been to a wedding which was the bride’s third in the Church, having obtained two annulments from previous marriages in the Church. Isn’t it wonderful how Catholics have the option of serial marriage, thanks to annulments? But Johnny and Susie, and the gays… well, that’s just unnatural. Can’t have that.
@janetfnda—Johnny and Susie=natural-homosexuals=unnatural. You persist on arguing the unnatural. Good for you. Yes love is natural, and it’s natural for man to love everyone. Even other men. It’s unnatural when it’s expressed between the sheets,Eww!
So, is there some official Church statement or guideline, that says a mortal sin is more mortal if it is deemed unnatural, and more to be opposed with every resource at the Church’s disposal?
@janet—What are you calling a mortal sin?
I suppose it would be too much to expect gays to be treated the same as you treat others whom you consider to be in mortal sin? Do you associate with couples in a second, adulterous marriage? How about couples living together? Hang out with them, have dinner, play cards? How about with gay couples? No? Why is that? That’s where I’m going with the question, is some mortal sin more mortal than other mortal sin, such that those who commit the greater mortal sin are to be treated differently than those committing the lesser mortal sin?
@Janet
Honestly “Janet” if a man loves a woman but can no longer give her physically what belongs in marriage he ought not to marry her. He would almost certainly understand that. They can be loving friends…. What’s wrong with being friends?
An annulment means that marriage or marriages did not Exist. There was some impediment.
For a sin to be mortal it must be serious, there must be a full understanding and full consent of the will. Sin by definition is disordered, unnatural.
You’re searching searching for some loophole some inconsistency. You won’t find one. Christ didn’t tell Simon to build the Church, He told him “you are rock and on this rock I Will Build My Church”.
David, I don’t think there’s any need to scare-quote Janet’s name/handle. She’s apparently made herself available via Facebook and I see no reason to question her identity.
Yes. Calling the union of two men or two women ” a marriage” is more grievous. Hanging out and pretending that it’s ok is a greater scandal.
Sorry. Janet, I apologize.
@janetferndz—You have no right to judge everyone here and claim we do not treat gays fairly. Disagreeing, voting our conscience, donating to organizations to fight gay marrriages is nothing more than you do. You just do not like it, and are now playing the victim card. Yes I hang out with adulterous married people and couples married together. I do not know any gay couples. Why? They have never approached me and told me they were gay, or they never came over and talked to me. Working 10 to 12 hours a day I really do not get out much. I had a good friend for years that was gay. i had dinner at his house quite often. As far as one mortal sin being greater than an other, it would be logical. Murder one person, get 15 to life. Murder two people get the death penalty.
Janetfernandez wrote “it would be too much to expect gays to be treated the same as you treat others whom you consider to be in mortal sin . . .” Since we are dealing with your expectations, how is it that you know your expectations have not been met?
I’ve been waiting forever for part 11!!
Sorry, Christine. Overbooked at the moment. The addendum is coming, but not real soon. Probably next week.
All of a sudden judging is a bad thing. I hope you folks who bristled at my assumption that you would have a problem hanging out with a gay couple, would also bristle at Mark Shea’s article claiming that gays’ motive for wanting gay marriage legislation is power, not love. I haven’t cornered the market on judgmentalism, by far. I’m glad that you would treat gays exactly the same as others you regard as being in sin. The reason, by the way, that you don’t know any gays, is that most gays pretty much know (or assume, usually correctly) that they are not wanted in certain circles, and so they stay away. I’m not being critical here, just stating something I have observed.
janetfernandez: Why is it so important that your expectations be met? Is that you concept of Church – hanging out together?
@janetfernandez, without logic or reason sufficient to overcome its negative effects on marriage and Christians, your advocacy for same-sex “marriage” seems mostly to be a matter of sentiment, which is a pretty consistent metric among its other supporters as well, save for those for whom its overwhelming attraction is its utility as a stick with which to beat religion.
StevenP, perhaps you could elaborate on whether you think Christ expects you to treat some people differently than others, based on nothing more than the fact that you find their ‘sin’ more distasteful than other ‘sin’. Or you could continue to latch on to a particular word having no bearing on the point of the comment, rather than responding to the point itself. You do excel at that.
Kevin, without logic or reason sufficient to show how gay marriage will negatively affect straight marriages or Christians or society or the weather or the economy or anything else, your opposition to gay marriage seems mostly to be a matter of the ‘ick’ factor, which is a pretty consistent metric among its other detractors as well.
I have no desire to beat religion with any sort of stick. My faith is the only thing that keeps me sane.
@janetfernandez, the damage caused by same-sex “marriage” to Christians who only seek to practice their faith has been well and widely documented, including via references provided in this series of articles. You merely choose to ignore it. That same-sex “marriage” is more another factor that is negatively impacting marriage, rather than a positive or even neutral force is amply demonstrated by these articles as well.
Far from ignoring any such ‘evidence’, I have consistently commented on it throughout. I will not copy and paste my own comments again, as it seems to annoy Mr. Greydanus, and as you seem to be fairly adept at ignoring things as well.
janetfernandez: Sigh. It seems the only point you want to make is to demand complete and utter agreement: dissent will not be tolerated. However, thank you for the answer and I apologize for hounding you, if it seemed that, in the past. As you may have understood I disagree with purchasing legislation. Finally, as I mentioned before, perhaps we will attend Liturgy at some point.
@janetfernandez said,
Actually, the only references I’ve seen you make to the persecution and discrimination Christians and churches have experienced as a result of same-sex “marriage” and other homosexual “rights” becoming law - to which several links are found in parts 3 and 9 - is to write off those behind them as “extremists,” which ignores the fact that these things are really happening, are really harmful and are being imposed with the force of law.
@janetfernandez said,
And just what have I ignored? Oh wait, here’s a clue:
I usually take that kind of comment as a sign that someone has run to the end of their real arguments.
It would be extremely difficult to express the opinion that these things are bad and wrong, while simultaneously ignoring that these things are happening. So I will say it again: These things are happening. These things are bad and wrong. I will add, however: These things do not equate to gay marriage being bad and wrong. Three questions: 1) should divorce & remarriage should be legal? 2) should churches be forced to marry divorced people? 3) should churches be allowed to preach that divorce & remarriage is sin? THREE SEPARATE ISSUES. Can you really not see that? They have to be answered separately. 1) yes 2)no 3)yes Now just substitute gay marriage.
Kevin, I suppose you did not recognize the tongue-in-cheek repetition of your own phraseology. Looks like you ran out of arguments.
Steven, I don’t care whether you agree, and I’m not the one who can’t tolerate dissent. I think I’m the one who said it was ok that we did not all agree, but it was good to see eachother’s points. If working toward gay marriage is equivalent to demanding agreement, then should I also stop working toward pro-life legislation?
@janetfernandez said,
Now substitute abortion for divorce & remarriage. You and I still have to answer all 3 questions the same way, because no qualifications are possible. They are essentially loaded questions. We cannot say that abortion ought to be illegal because that would include cases where it’s necessary to save the life of the mother. (Notwithstanding the fact that I wouldn’t call it “abortion” in that case - I would simply call it saving the life of the mother.) Likewise, the question of divorce gives me no opportunity to express that when I say that divorce ought to be legal I mean something quite different than what someone else might mean by the same statement. You presume that I would agree with your answers, but there’s no way to know whether I’d be agreeing with your meaning. This deficiency invalidates the whole exercise. The issue is far too complex to boil down into three simple questions.
We can disagree about whether same-sex “marriage” is bad and wrong, but we cannot disagree about its real effects on those who don’t accept it. I think the operative question, however, is from what do those effects issue? Is it from the fact that same-sex “marriage” is right or wrong, or from something else, such as the fact that it is weak or strong?
Certainly the case can be made that same-sex “marriage” is a weak thing. First, we’re talking only about a very small percentage of the population that might be involved in them - maybe 1.5 to 2 percent - so same-sex “marriage” will never be that prevalent compared to traditional marriage. Second, there is no reason that society could demand that two people of the same sex make a public commitment to each other before beginning an intimate relationship, so unlike the case of a man and a woman, societal pressure to marry is nonexistent. Third, there is no way for a same-sex couple to be generative - for their very union to result in a contribution to society the way a traditional couple’s can. Even with money and all the technology available to conceive and bear children artificially, they couldn’t be expected to so much as replace themselves. They simply could never be a very important cog in the wheel of civilization. Finally, most moral codes find homosexual activity and relationships to be immoral, which means that a significant percentage of the population will always see them not merely as neutral, but negative.
Why is being weak such a problem? The problem is that laws recognizing same-sex “marriage” and granting other “rights” to those with same-sex attractions are in essence a form of protection, and the weaker a thing to be protected, the stronger that protection must be. That is why laws protecting same-sex “marriage” tend to be tyrannical and result in the negative effects acknowledged above. As much as I believe that homosexual activity and relationships are immoral, if they’re going to be recognized by law I know that we’d be much better off if they were strong. I don’t know how they could ever be made strong, however. They simply have very little going for them.
Great column, insightful:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271088/no-homophobia-george-weigel?page=1
Kevin, your argument of the ‘weakness’ of same-sex marriage is, I think, the weakest argument yet.
First of all, as a society, we protect that which is ‘weak’, or in some ways unable to protect itself. That’s why we have parking spaces for the handicapped, and laws against discrimination that apply to all businesses, etc. If something is ‘weak’, but worth protecting, we protect it, regardless of the force necessary to do so. That is why a small black child in the deep south was escorted to school every day by armed forces: her right to a public education was worth protecting.
Now before anyone starts accusing me of playing the ‘victim’ card, let me point out that, in order to do so, I would have to agree with Kevin that gay marriage is ‘weak’, which I do not.
First, numbers and percentages do not indicate weakness, nor imply an insignificant contribution to society. The United States comprises 6% of the world’s population; that does not equate to weakness.
Second, our society does not demand that straight couples get married before beginning an intimate relationship.
Third, although gay couples cannot create new life, they can provide a stable, loving home to children in foster care because their (straight) parents were so crappy.
Finally, most moral codes USED to find divorce & remarriage immoral, but since it has been so widely practiced and accepted by Christians, it is no longer considered negative.
Gay marriage is just one of those changes that will take a while to get used to. Our great-grandchilren will wonder what all the fuss was about.
@janetfernandez
Children have a right to a mother and father, even if to homosexuals were loving they do not constitute what is healthy for child development.
As far as our grand children looking back, all they will see is that civil marriage has become a farce because of gay marriage. an untruth.
Right. Because it’s so healthy for a child to grow up with unloving parents, as long as they are straight. Wow. I know that’s not what you’re saying. I’m not going to say all gay couples make great parents. But certainly not all straight couples make good parents either.
If anything has turned marriage into a farce, it was the Church granting annulments to everyone—EVERYONE—who applies. And don’t give me the anecdotals about the guy you knew that didn’t get one. Bullcrap. There’s not a Catholic couple standing at the altar in the last 30 years, with any doubt in their mind that when ‘I do’ becomes ‘I want out’, they will jolly well be able to get out. You want a source for the demise of marriage? Look no further.
@janetfernandez
In regard to:
“Because it’s so healthy for a child to grow up with unloving parents” ,
No that’s not healthy either.
“If anything has turned marriage into a farce, it was the Church granting annulments to everyone”
No, not quite everyone. The divorce culture we live in has a lot to do with the high number of annulments, as does the sex before marriage culture and the contraceptive culture. All these things are evils in the culture we live in. Placing same sex relations on the same pedestal as true marriage is an emerging evil..
It seems that must point to other evils to justify. There is no logic in that.
“There’s not a Catholic couple standing at the altar in the last 30 years, with any doubt in their mind that when ‘I do’.”
No, many many couples live to death do they part.
“
Way to miss the point. It’s awesome that many stay together til death. My in-laws just celebrated 50 years. They are the most inspirational couple I have ever known. But the POINT is, no one has to stay together. The option is there, you want out, get an annulment.
Seems pretty clear:
Mark 10:2-12
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Mark 10
And consider “male and female”?
I should add that an annulment means the marriage never was.
@janetfernandez said,
It would if everyone else belonged to the same country and we were practically impotent as regards contributions to society necessary to maintain our very existence.
More on that in a subsequent comment, but for the purpose of answering the question as to whether this is a factor that makes same-sex “marriage” weak, the first thing to recognize is that regardless of whether they actually result in pressure from society to marry at any particular point in history, the reasons that society should expect two people to marry before beginning an intimate relationship - which are the reasons that marriage exists as an institution in the first place - are as real and compelling today as they ever were. It is the fact that those reasons simply aren’t operative in same-sex relationships that makes them weak, and society’s failure to respect those reasons in the context of heterosexual relationships doesn’t change that.
That doesn’t eliminate the weakness that comes from an inability to generate, and if an effect of clearing the way for same-sex couples to raise foster children is to disqualify straight couples from doing the same, as it has in the UK, how can this be a net gain for society?
Since almost two-thirds of the world’s Christians are Catholic, Catholic doctrine on the matter has not changed (not to mention the fact that the actions of Catholics or even clergy do not determine doctrine) and practically no one - not even most secular persons and institutions - considers divorce a positive thing, I think I can say that this is patently false.
Its weakness would have explained the evil effects that same-sex “marriage” has had on Christians. Since you have rejected this argument, however, I think you are now obligated to offer your own explanation for how something that is supposedly good could can lead to such evils, including this very recent one: www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/
@janetfernandez said,
Certainly having this view would lead one to find same-sex “marriage” acceptable. After all, if there is no demand from society to marry, then having an intimate relationship with someone outside of marriage is at worst neutral as regards its effects on society, and marriage is nothing but a purely optional endeavor freely chosen by the participants, which may (or may not) have a positive effect on society. And if that’s the case, what difference does the gender of those involved make?
I think the first question that needs to be answered is whether all segments of society really have this view? Perhaps things are different elsewhere, but I and I think most of the people I know - including several who would claim no religious affiliation - feel at least a twinge of disappointment when someone they know decides to cohabitate with someone with whom they appear to be involved in a romantic relationship. If they don’t say something, it’s usually not because they approve of what is happening, but because they simply don’t want a confrontation or to alienate someone. (Not that that is right, either, but that is certainly a situation in which showing Christian charity without compromising Christian morality is a challenge.)
So how did we get here? As I noted in my last comment, the reasons that society should expect people to commit to each other in marriage before beginning an intimate relationship have not diminished. I suggest, however, that what society’s present apparent near-apathy in the matter is is an overreaction to an overreaction. The first overreaction is exemplified by the story I heard a few days ago about a situation 30 years ago in my town in which a 15-year-old girl was thrown out of her house when her parents found out she was pregnant, which became the impetus for the founding of a local pregnancy resource center that today serves more people than ever. As in so many matters, however, society has gone beyond merely correcting the situation and has overreacted, to the point that it has eliminated the stigma of such situations to such a degree that there is no longer hardly any shame in them at all, and granted so many benefits to women in this situation that children have become a cash crop for some single mothers.
It is easier to make a mistake about something when the practices that form the premises of one’s position are themselves a mistake. Those who advocate same-sex “marriage” on the basis that society fails to demand that men and women commit to each other in marriage before beginning an intimate relationship are basing their arguments on a mistake, rather than standing on solid ground.
Matrimony literally means “making Mothers”.
How can the union of Adam and Steve, or Eve and Stephanie be Matrimony?
Kevin, the rest of the world lives on the same earth, of which we are only 6%, so numbers and percentages do not equate to weakness or strength.
I did not attempt to argue for gay marriage based on the fact that society no longer demands straight couples get married before being intimate. That would be silly. You were making the reverse argument, and I was pointing out that it is irrelevant.
BTW, I firmly believe in the benefits of abstinence til marriage. I have drilled it into my kids, and anyone else who will listen.
David, by that logic, in-vitro is matrimony.
@janetfernandez said,
If you want to convince me that the combination of small numbers and impotence doesn’t make a population weak, you’ll have to address both factors, not just the numbers.
You were contesting my assertions that societal pressure for men and women to marry exists, which you have not refuted. I did not claim that you were arguing “for gay marriage based on the fact that society no longer demands straight couples get married before being intimate.” I only showed how having that view could easily lead one to find same-sex “marriage” acceptable (whether or not it is actually a factor in your own position), and that that view is not accurate. And what is silly about that explanation?
@janetfernandez,
No, using an unnatural means such as invitro- (that destroys human life. I thought you were Pro-Life??) would qualify the set as Matrimony - “making mothers”.
If so, which of the two men would be the “Mother”? which of the two women the “Father”?
I didn’t say you were silly.
This has turned into ” ‘You said…’ ‘No, YOU said…’”
Reading Comprehension. It’s a beautiful thing.
Well, you said something was silly. I apologize if I failed to connect with what it was.
No big. But getting back to the ‘small numbers and impotence’. Impotent couples, gay or straight, can be just as positive an impact on society as any other couple, by supporting those with children, by adopting or fostering, and by just plain showing the love of Christ in their relationship.
David, my apologies, I just saw your comment. (Sigh - here we go…) I did NOT say I approve of in-vitro, which I do NOT, any more than I approve of rape, even though it sometimes results in motherhood. There are methods of getting pregnant which don’t involve in-vitro. And the biological mother would be the mother, and her wife would be the adoptive mother. This happens all the time—all adopted kids have a birth-mother and an adoptive mother. But in this case they would live in the same home and be in a committed, loving relationship. That’s more than a lot of kids get from their two bio parents.
@janetfernandez said,
Which puts us right back where we started with my Sep 21, 2011 12:54 AM comment.
Yes, we do go in circles a bit, but that’s ok. I think in general we’ve at least had a good discussion, generating more light than heat.
@janetfernandez,
You’re are equating in-vitro, rape and “other” methods like a man masturbating in a dish for two “mothers” to conceive a child like some kind of chemistry set experiment; to “ a man and woman, two becoming one flesh” as Christ speaks in Matthew 10?
Then you say it’s the same as a birth and adoptive mother.
And then, to solidify you hold up same sex couples to the dark light in example in the worst marriages.
Holy Matrimony was designed by our Creator; in-vitro, rape and “other” methods are not His design. Neither is two men sodomizing and then masturbating in a dish for a hired woman. His design is a man and woman, mother and father. How a self professed “Christian” can claim otherwise is a tribute to the genius of the devil, and he loves to go around in circles.
@-David—
“How a self professed “Christian” can claim otherwise is a tribute to the genius of the devil, and he loves to go around in circles”.
I am constantly amazed how you and many others are still having a “civil” conversation with janet /he/him. Personally I am not convinced she/he is either man nor woman. No matter what she/he has on facebook. An activist agenda is merely to present a false front and then tear you down in front of everyone else. All the while pretending to be the same christian as you. Ever polite, respectful, and evangelical as you. It is not that you should have an uncivil conversation, but a more honest one would be more appropriate. If a productive conversation was possible, “MK” would be here educating and sharing the truth as she does so well. When she quits, you know, there is no point in trying. We are not called to be the polite Light, so to speak. Just a light.
Larry, I do actually find some value in developing and articulating arguments related to positions that are fundamentally incongruous, such as rejecting abortion but accepting same-sex “marriage,” or finding extramarital sex immoral but homosexual relationships not. Most of us know innately that homosexual activity and relationships are wrong, but since it’s been centuries (or more) since anyone proposed publicly affirming them, we’re (or at least I am) woefully out of practice defending what is right (or in some cases even need to rediscover the reasons that the right things are actually right). I’ll take any practice I can get.
Steven, you mentioned that you would be writing one final post in this series. Is that still in the works? I have read this series with great interest, and would be interested in reading one final installment.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.