Catholic Support of Gay Marriage?

[Yaatee]

The unmarried are an interesting contrast, because at least they recognize what their lifestyle implies: that marriage is a formality, it is not something that defines or can define their relationship. Marriage is a socially-oriented institution, and if you're going to have it at all, then either it is going to be a meaningless legal matter, or it is going to be something that has to have some social and cultural meaning (which does not have to be one man and one woman, as historical polygamous marriage demonstrates, but it has to be something). The thing about "gay marriage" is that it has no special social or cultural meaning...the narrative is that gays are just being admitted to "marriage"...there is no "gay" and "straight" marriage, there is only marriage with gays and straights (I'm using "gay" and "straight" for usefulness, not implying there actually exists a class of persons gay and straight). If we're going to gut a social institution like marriage of any social, historical, or cultural meaning, and simply have it as a legal institution, then what have we accomplished? Nothing. Better to get rid of marriage than to make it a legal toy that we use to cover ideology. 

No, we invented modern marriage, the consenting marriage of adults, one woman and one man.  This is a recent western development.  Polygamy has been around as long as war has, and still exists in the US (yes), Mexico (Mormons there, too), and in the Muslim world, probably also in Africa and the aborigines.  Polygyny (horrors!) has existed, too, but was/is not nearly as common.  (Ladies, can you imagine having more than one husband?!)  In the Middle Ages and Renaissance in Europe among the ruling classes, marriages existed just short of incest (and uncle and a niece), and there were marriages by proxy in which the parties hadn't even seen each other, long before the age of photography. Phillip II, who married Mary I of England (Bloody Mary) by proxy, both Catholics, could not hide his disappointment when he saw her and her black teeth.   And he had to make some stab at impregnating her (unsuccessful) before he left for good.  These marriages were made in the Catholic Church.  Royal girls especially were married at birth. Many marriages have been performed without consent of the females, especially involving wealthy or well-connected young girls married to much older men. There is a considerable body of traditional comic opera devoted to this plot, wherein the lovely young soprano manages to escape the rich old man chosen by her father.  In our history, there were mail-order brides, weddings sight unseen, and still are, asian and Russian young women willing to do anything to get to the US.

So "social, historical and cultural meaning"s are meaningless, in my opinion. The only precedents are male and female. In current US history, something had to be done, as gay marriages were legal in some states, not in others where they didn't even have civil unions, therefore no rights as next of of kin or inheritance. It was chaos.

Marriage is now redefined, but has been undergoing metamorphosis over the ages.

[Era Might]

No, we invented modern marriage, the consenting marriage of adults, one woman and one man.  This is a recent western development.  Polygamy has been around as long as war has, and still exists in the US (yes), Mexico (Mormons there, too), and in the Muslim world, probably also in Africa and the aborigines.  Polygyny (horrors!) has existed, too, but was/is not nearly as common.  (Ladies, can you imagine having more than one husband?!)  In the Middle Ages and Renaissance in Europe among the ruling classes, marriages existed just short of incest (and uncle and a niece), and there were marriages by proxy in which the parties hadn't even seen each other, long before the age of photography. Phillip II, who married Mary I of England (Bloody Mary) by proxy, both Catholics, could not hide his disappointment when he saw her and her black teeth.   And he had to make some stab at impregnating her (unsuccessful) before he left for good.  These marriages were made in the Catholic Church.  Royal girls especially were married at birth. Many marriages have been performed without consent of the females, especially involving wealthy or well-connected young girls married to much older men. There is a considerable body of traditional comic opera devoted to this plot, wherein the lovely young soprano manages to escape the rich old man chosen by her father.  In our history, there were mail-order brides, weddings sight unseen, and still are, asian and Russian young women willing to do anything to get to the US.

So "social, historical and cultural meaning"s are meaningless, in my opinion. The only precedents are male and female. In current US history, something had to be done, as gay marriages were legal in some states, not in others where they didn't even have civil unions, therefore no rights as next of of kin or inheritance. It was chaos.

Marriage is now redefined, but has been undergoing metamorphosis over the ages.

Marriage has not been redefined. It has been undefined. The state is not a maker of culture. What makes marriage marriage is precisely its social, historical, and cultural meaning...apart from that it's just a contract.

In modern society, male and female are irrelevant, not just in marriage, but in society in general. We fill abstract categories...worker, minority, consumer, whatever. That abstraction is central to modern society...it's made for an efficient and well-running social system, but it has also destroyed whatever culture and society we had. Modernity shatters all culture. What we have now with gay marriage is just X and X.

I'm well aware of the fluidity of human culture and institutions, but they all assumed that there was a culture, there was something that gave the people an identity. The church certainly has not accepted gay marriage, and will not, so it will continue to maintain its own culture. You could argue, I guess, that the culture of modern society is now divorced from the church and traditional society, we now have a purely institutional and abstract culture where the only thing that matters is technical standing under the law. But the problem is that the narrative of gay marriage is NOT that narrative...the narrative of gay marriage is that it is part of a flourishing of western culture, a Progress, an elevation to a higher plateau. I do not recognize it as that.

But I don't consider myself part of the modern narrative of Progress and Development, so I'm not really the audience the Supreme Court was preaching to anyway.

[Yaatee]

The culture is changing. Homosexuals are now openly a part of society, and are swiftly being integrated into society.  I regard this as a good thing, as as it happens many of them are bright and talented and contribute to society at all levels. One can recognize their marriages, as one recognizes civil marriages and Protestant, Unitarian and Quaker marriages (the Quakers marry each other, no minister). But the RC does not perform these marriages, nor do the Southern Baptists, (probably) Missouri Synod Lutherans, some Anglicans, all Orthodox, etc.  Nor will they ever.  No problems.  The RC and other churches do not have to be in the mainstream; in fact, it is good that they aren't,  so that they can be the gadflies on the sidelines, which they have  become.  This is not to say that they aren't important.

[Era Might]

The culture is changing. Homosexuals are now openly a part of society, and are swiftly being integrated into society.  I regard this as a good thing, as as it happens many of them are bright and talented and contribute to society at all levels. One can recognize their marriages, as one recognizes civil marriages and Protestant, Unitarian and Quaker marriages (the Quakers marry each other, no minister). But the RC does not perform these marriages, nor do the Southern Baptists, (probably) Missouri Synod Lutherans, some Anglicans, all Orthodox, etc.  Nor will they ever.  No problems.  The RC and other churches do not have to be in the mainstream; in fact, it is good that they aren't,  so that they can be the gadflies on the sidelines, which they have  become.  This is not to say that they aren't important.

There is no "the culture." But yes, modern society is homogenizing. "Homosexual" is a marketing category, not a species of human person, not a country, not a culture, not a religion. There is no such thing as "gay marriage." The whole idea is that homosexuals are just being admitted to what everyone else is..there is nothing "homosexual" about their marriage, it's a contract between X and X, nothing more. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

The culture is changing. Homosexuals are now openly a part of society, and are swiftly being integrated into society.  I regard this as a good thing, as as it happens many of them are bright and talented and contribute to society at all levels. One can recognize their marriages, as one recognizes civil marriages and Protestant, Unitarian and Quaker marriages (the Quakers marry each other, no minister). But the RC does not perform these marriages, nor do the Southern Baptists, (probably) Missouri Synod Lutherans, some Anglicans, all Orthodox, etc.  Nor will they ever.  No problems.  The RC and other churches do not have to be in the mainstream; in fact, it is good that they aren't,  so that they can be the gadflies on the sidelines, which they have  become.  This is not to say that they aren't important.

What i think Catholics disagree with is homosexuals integrated into society with praise for the homosexuality and it not being seen as significant that they are active. That's different than a chaste person with SSA who tries to follow God's law - and they are out there... I wonder how the homosexual community sees them. 

  We can't recognize their relationships as marriages like we recognise non Christian marriages for non Christians, because for it to be a valid marriage it needs to go with natural law. Even if it'd not a Sacrament . Natural law states that marriage at all exists because of procreation. People might say what about infertile couples etc but I think that misses the point. I'm referring to marriage itself generally speaking. Otherwise it has no primary purpose... The main purpose is not to feel fulfilled with someone you love, because not everyone being called to marriage shows that God's Love is our true fulfillment. Chaste people with same sex attraction who are Catholic would agree too I think I also disagree that the Church should be on the sidelines... To a Catholic that means - the truth should be on the sidelines, so error prevails. No we pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven"! His Kingdom starts in souls. Then these souls are meant to help the rest of the world be more with God's Will. When all would be restored completely by God and He reigns, and even during some time of great spiritual restoration and conversion/miracles, the Catholic faith becomes predominant and someday it would be all there is - simply the truth. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

If marriage is not about procreation but feelings then wouldn't it be logical to say that marriage can be anything? Some have been known to want "marriages" with really unnatural things as disturbing as it is.  but how is man and man different than another attempted union without potentiality for procreation?

[Yaatee]

What i think Catholics disagree with is homosexuals integrated into society with praise for the homosexuality and it not being seen as significant that they are active. That's different than a chaste person with SSA who tries to follow God's law - and they are out there... I wonder how the homosexual community sees them. 

  We can't recognize their relationships as marriages like we recognise non Christian marriages for non Christians, because for it to be a valid marriage it needs to go with natural law. Even if it'd not a Sacrament . Natural law states that marriage at all exists because of procreation. People might say what about infertile couples etc but I think that misses the point. I'm referring to marriage itself generally speaking. Otherwise it has no primary purpose... The main purpose is not to feel fulfilled with someone you love, because not everyone being called to marriage shows that God's Love is our true fulfillment. Chaste people with same sex attraction who are Catholic would agree too I think I also disagree that the Church should be on the sidelines... To a Catholic that means - the truth should be on the sidelines, so error prevails. No we pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven"! His Kingdom starts in souls. Then these souls are meant to help the rest of the world be more with God's Will. When all would be restored completely by God and He reigns, and even during some time of great spiritual restoration and conversion/miracles, the Catholic faith becomes predominant and someday it would be all there is - simply the truth. 

 

NO, the RC and others don't have to be on the sidelines. They just are---for the present. This could always change.

[Catlick]

But the RC does not perform these marriages, nor do the Southern Baptists, (probably) Missouri Synod Lutherans, some Anglicans, all Orthodox, etc.  Nor will they ever.  No problems.  The RC and other churches do not have to be in the mainstream; in fact, it is good that they aren't,  so that they can be the gadflies on the sidelines, which they have  become.  This is not to say that they aren't important.

How wrong can you be... The whole fuss with the Christian businesses being de facto forced to close because they don't want to serve at gay events, shows that acceptance of gay marriage is getting imposed with massive force.

You say 'No problems' if the Catholic Church refuses to perform gay marriages? I say: St. John the Baptist. 

 

Edited July 1, 2015 by Catlick

[Credo in Deum]

Just going to leave this here. 

[Yaatee]

How wrong can you be... The whole fuss with the Christian businesses being de facto forced to close because they don't want to serve at gay events, shows that acceptance of gay marriage is getting imposed with massive force.

You say 'No problems' if the Catholic Church refuses to perform gay marriages? I say: St. John the Baptist. 

I think that these unusual occasions could easily be circumvented. Two event organizers could work together on these events. One receives the referral for gay events only.  Possibly #2 might want to pay #1 back, maybe not. I suggest that these situations are uncommon. Gay couples will soon know who's good (for them) and who is not.  The vast majority of businesses would have no objection, whatever their private attitudes.  Business is business. The Catholic Church is never going to ask these businesses not to accept it.  Maybe the few put-upon businesses caught up in this want to be seen as martyrs, who knows.

Re St John the B, in this country the Constitution  guarantees freedom of church and state, no matter how many "Christians" and the Syllabus of Errors oppose it.

I thought that the movie was lame. The play was much better.  Wolf Hall I & II offer a completely different take on Thomas More, one that I think is much closer to the truth.

 

[Yaatee]

The United States of America now regards these marriages, if legally performed according to the laws in which the marriage is performed--as legal.  Period.

 

[Catlick]

I think that these unusual occasions could easily be circumvented. Two event organizers could work together on these events. One receives the referral for gay events only.

This would constitute a moral form of autism: I'll refer you to people who can further your descent into mortal sin, but please let me wash my hands in innocence. The Pontius Pilate Option. 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

This would constitute a moral form of autism: I'll refer you to people who can further your descent into mortal sin, but please let me wash my hands in innocence. The Pontius Pilate Option. 

Autism?? Dude.

[Yaatee]

This would constitute a moral form of autism: I'll refer you to people who can further your descent into mortal sin, but please let me wash my hands in innocence. The Pontius Pilate Option. 

This would constitute a moral form of autism: I'll refer you to people who can further your descent into mortal sin, but please let me wash my hands in innocence. The Pontius Pilate Option. 

 

Autism?? Dude.

NO. You as an event organizer get the inquiry. You find out it's gay. You can say, No, we don't do gay weddings. But there are several other organizers in the phone book. Please try them. Or you can say, So and So does gay events. We don't. Try others.

End of story.

[Yaatee]

 

Autism?? Dude.

No one is guilty of mortal sin unless (s)he thinks that its' mortal sin.  Gays don't. They just want to get married. As far as they are concerned,it's a good thing.

...are you married?

Is anyone on phat married (outside of the kids' section and Li'l Red)?---congratulations, Li'l Red!

Edited July 1, 2015 by Yaatee
punctuation