[phil_20686]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-29, 20:46, said:

How do you answer the "rude" question asked of Santorum: do you have any gay friends?

Yes. About five with whom I have regular contact. Many more if you include those I seen on an occasional basis.

I strongly object to the insinuation of this statement that my view is based on some kind of personal prejudice.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 03:57, said:

I strongly object to the insinuation of this statement that my view is based on some kind of personal prejudice.

I, for one, wouldn't think that of you, but I am a bit surprised at your position on this. I'd be interested learning what negative effects gay marriage has that make you call it a step in the wrong direction.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 03:57, said:

I strongly object to the insinuation of this statement that my view is based on some kind of personal prejudice.

As opposed to the prejudices of your church?

[Vampyr]

PassedOut, on 2011-June-30, 06:37, said:

I'd be interested learning what negative effects gay marriage has that make you call it a step in the wrong direction.

I think I know. He probably feels that unmarried people should not be subsidising married people, so that the ranks of the latter should not be expanded -- rather the economic benefits of marriage should be eliminated. Equality should extend not only to people who choose to marry, but also to gay and straight people who choose not to. Or who do not marry due to some other circumstances than choice.

[PassedOut]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-30, 08:06, said:

I think I know. He probaly feels that unmarried people should not be subsidising married people, so that the ranks of the latter should not be expanded -- rather the economic benefits of marriage should be eliminated. Equality should extend not only to people who choose to marry, but also to gay and straight people who choose not to. Or who do not marry due to some other circumstances than choice.

I see. You are sure that Phil would be fine with gay marriage if the economic benefits of marriage were eliminated.

If Phil concurs, that would be that. And I do agree that the economic benefits of marriage should be eliminated.

[phil_20686]

PassedOut, on 2011-June-30, 08:21, said:

I see. You are sure that Phil would be fine with gay marriage if the economic benefits of marriage were eliminated.

If Phil concurs, that would be that. And I do agree that the economic benefits of marriage should be eliminated.

I most definitely do not agree.

As hrothgar as alluded to, I am a Catholic, and subscribe to catholic teaching. I will attempt to layout the Catholic position below, although I suppose it is really my own understanding of that position, which may or may not be 100% accurate. What I am attempting here is to layout the philosophy of the objection. If one were to say that Christianity is opposed to gay marriage because it believes homosexual acts are sinful, that would be true, but it is not really a statement of "why". To my mind, Christian thought forms a coherent picture of human nature, a seamless tapestry within which one can understand the conditions necessary for humanity to flourish both as individuals and as a society. Too often Christian morality is presented as a series of do's and don't with out any attempt to tie them together into a complete picture, within which one can understand why these things are regarded as sinful. Also, this is not by any means meant to be an exhaustive argument, more of an overview. If you are interested in the Christian position I can offer you a reading list.

At heart, I think the main area of disagreement is about the concept of man's purpose. In the prevailing Zeitgeist of secular countries like the UK, it seems that most people see their purpose as "having a good time", or having a life with "the greatest happiness", or occasionally "to produce the greatest amount of happiness that I can". This differs hugely from a Christian understanding of life, which, considers as primary the concept of service. Thus, when coming of age, the appropriate question for a Christian to ask is "Whom shall I serve?", or more theologically "What form of service is most pleasing to God?". Since we are each born with different gifts, the specifics of our vocations differ, although it is possible to group them into broad categories, like joining a religious order, or marriage, or advocacy. Seen in this light, Christians reject the idea that marriage is primarily about feelings of happiness, and instead see marriage as entering into a life of service to ones spouse, and to society as a whole. Fulfilling this service (or indeed any appropriate vocation), is the route to true contentment and fulfilment.

If one accepts this thesis, then one is bound to reject such things as divorce and adultery, since it is necessarily about putting ones own `needs' about those of your spouse. Paradoxically, such an action also robs one of the chance of true happiness - a paradox we see played out daily in the celebrity gossip columns, where celebrities with wealth enough to indulge every whim, get married and divorced more often than I change my clothes, forever seeking a happiness that is denied them, by their refusal to partake of a life of service.

If life is about service, it follows that both sexual identity and sexual expression are to be subsumed into the concepts of service. Absent the willingness, desire and capacity to bear children, a key part of that service is taken away, and the relationship reduced to something which is primarily self-serving, as opposed to primarily self-giving.

Buying into Gay marriage is to accept the thesis that marriage exists primarily for personal fulfilment, and is an attack on the concept of life as service. In so doing, it is spreading confusion about a fundamental truth of our existence, and that confusion will breed misery.

It follows also, that one should give special protection to marriage, compared to say co-habitees. The difference between these two states is precisely the idea of service, and of duty. Of a public promise to put your own desires aside for the sake of your spouse. Those who see marriage as part of an individuals quest for happiness will reject this analysis, and reject that there is any real difference between marriage and cohabiting. Nor have I bothered to refute the "marriage as a right" and the equality arguments.

There is much more that I could talk about. I have not mentioned gender differences and sexual complementarity, and the opposing viewpoint of gender as a social construction, another area where gay marriage advocates are preaching theories directly opposed to a Christian understanding of human nature. Nor have I spoken at all of the concept of love (short version: In Christianity, love is something that you do, not something that you feel), which in a longer statement is perhaps where I would have started. Nor have I explained why a hetrosexual couple who are infertile is different from a homosexual couple. Nevertheless, I think the argument I have given above is the most fundamental (philosophical) reason why Christianity is opposed to Gay marriage.

A short summary:
(1) Life is about Service.
(2) Therefore relationships are about service.
(3) In general service rendered unto ones spouse will also be received in equal measure, whereas service unto ones children can never be repaid.
(4) Thus a relationship which rejects the having and bearing of children whether through contraception or because a relationship between two people of the same sex is incapable of it, represents an impoverished view of service.
(5) If this impoverishment is not accepted, and indeed, the concept of service to society as the basis for a meaningful life is rejected, the result will be much misery and societal suffering.

[blackshoe]

Hm. How does this view correlate with the medieval Christian practice of essentially "selling off" one's daughters to serve someone from whom one hopes to gain politically?

Never mind, I withdraw the question. But I gather the Christian view then is that "marriage" is purely a religious sacrament, and that any legal contract between the parties concerned cannot be separated from the sacrament. Does not that view violate, in the US at least, the Constitutional separation of Church and State? If so, how would Christians resolve it?

[Bbradley62]

Having been raised Catholic, been an altar boy, gone to Catholics schools, etc., I must say that your explanation is pure crap.

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 16:18, said:

... Christians reject the idea that marriage is primarily about feelings of happiness, and instead see marriage as entering into a life of service to ones spouse, and to society as a whole. Fulfilling this service (or indeed any appropriate vocation), is the route to true contentment and fulfilment...

If life is about service, it follows that both sexual identity and sexual expression are to be subsumed into the concepts of service. Absent the willingness, desire and capacity to bear children, a key part of that service is taken away, and the relationship reduced to something which is primarily self-serving, as opposed to primarily self-giving.

This appears to say that a man who cannot father children, or a woman who cannot bear children, would only get married for selfish reasons. Seriously?

My godfather's widow (P) raised their daughter as a single parent. At some point, P met a widower (A) with a similar story. P and A married when they were both in their late 40s, after both of their daughters were grown. Are you really saying that their relationship is "something which is primarily self-serving, as opposed to primarily self-giving" because they had no plans to have children together?

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-30, 16:52, said:

But I gather the Christian view then is that "marriage" is purely a religious sacrament, and that any legal contract between the parties concerned cannot be separated from the sacrament. Does not that view violate, in the US at least, the Constitutional separation of Church and State? If so, how would Christians resolve it?

That's the crux of the matter, in the US at least.

I would certainly oppose any law that forced the Catholic church (or any religion, for that matter) to marry a couple that the church found unacceptable. But the New York law is a state law and expressly does not impinge on the rights of churches to act as they see fit. So I don't see why it would be necessary for a catholic to oppose the law. (And, indeed, catholic legislators voted for the law and a catholic governor signed it.)

[Vampyr]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 16:18, said:

<stuff>

ROFLMAO

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-30, 16:52, said:

But I gather the Christian view then is that "marriage" is purely a religious sacrament, and that any legal contract between the parties concerned cannot be separated from the sacrament. Does not that view violate, in the US at least, the Constitutional separation of Church and State? If so, how would Christians resolve it?

As a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor, I am confident that Bill O'Reilly (representing the "marriage is a sacrament" position) and I would agree on the following arrangement:
The government should not issue marriage licenses; the government should issue civil union licenses (or whatever more poetic term you'd like to use). These civil union licenses should be issued to anyone whose union was proclaimed by a civil servant (justice of the peace, ship's captain, etc.) as well as anyone married in a religious ceremony. All federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations that now refer to "married" should uniformly be changed to "unioned".

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 18:07, said:

The government should not issue marriage licenses; the government should issue civil union licenses (or whatever more poetic term you'd like to use). These civil union licenses should be issued to anyone whose union was proclaimed by a civil servant (justice of the peace, ship's captain, etc.) as well as anyone married in a religious ceremony. All federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations that now refer to "married" should uniformly be changed to "unioned".

Why, Bill? Why do you think that people who have chosen to get "married" or "unioned" should receive subsidies from the rest of the population, who have not done that?

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-30, 18:11, said:

Why, Bill? Why do you think that people who have chosen to get "married" or "unioned" should receive subsidies from the rest of the population, who have not done that?

I didn't come near the question of subsidies. I simply said that people should be able to declare "this is my life partner", regardless of whether that declaration is in a religious or civil setting, and regardless of the genders of the declarants. There are many benefits that arise from this that are not subsidies, including such things as hospital/jail visitation rights, end-of-life decision-making, etc.

If you want to eliminate some of the subsidies that couples now get, that would be a separate step that does not need to be entwined with the other. As a 48-year-old single man who doesn't realistically expect to ever be married/unioned, I think I'd vote against you on that, but it might be a separate conversation worth having.

[phil_20686]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 17:14, said:

Having been raised Catholic, been an altar boy, gone to Catholics schools, etc., I must say that your explanation is pure crap.

Are you implying that (a) you disagree with the catholic position, or (b) what I said does not adequately express the catholic position. I will assume you mean the latter. Here I offer a few relevant quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic CHurch. The numbers are paragraph numbers in case you want to look them up e.g. here.

On the centrality of service: God created everything for man, but man in turn was created to serve and love God 358

On the importance of pro-creation within marriage: "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory." 1652.

Quote

This appears to say that a man who cannot father children, or a woman who cannot bear children, would only get married for selfish reasons. Seriously?

This is not what I intended to convey: Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice. 1654. However: the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 § 1). 1664

Marriage has many goods other than procreation, but procreation remains an essential part of it. One may not choose to be married with the intention of refusing the gift of new life. However that is a different situation from being unable to conceive. In general an infertile couple is still considered a relationship ordered towards the generation of life and as such is perfectly ok. This is different again from a homosexual couple where the sexual act itself is now intrinsically unable to bring forth new life, and hence is unable to enter into a valid marriage from a catholic perspective.

Choice and intention retain a central role in Christian Theology. Choosing not to do something when you have the ability is therefore fundamentally different from not having said ability.

[phil_20686]

PassedOut, on 2011-June-30, 17:30, said:

That's the crux of the matter, in the US at least.

I would certainly oppose any law that forced the Catholic church (or any religion, for that matter) to marry a couple that the church found unacceptable. But the New York law is a state law and expressly does not impinge on the rights of churches to act as they see fit. So I don't see why it would be necessary for a catholic to oppose the law. (And, indeed, catholic legislators voted for the law and a catholic governor signed it.)

And the `catholic' governor has now been excommunicated for that.

The catholic church opposes gay marriage because it opposes the ideas inherent within it, which is that all sexual relationships are morally acceptable. As it also opposes pre- and extra- marital sex, promiscuity, adultery, contraception and abortion, for all these things are contrary to the authentic flourishing of humanity. Part of the churches mission is to preach the truth about humanity and sin.

Indeed, I think we all agree that in a democracy neither individuals nor institutions should be silent in the face of that which they perceive to be erroneous or unjust. Whether you draw the line at human experimentation, eugenics, euthanasia, abortion or gay marriage is purely a matter of perspective.

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-30, 16:52, said:

Hm. How does this view correlate with the medieval Christian practice of essentially "selling off" one's daughters to serve someone from whom one hopes to gain politically?

There have always been bad Christians, just as there have always been unjust practices in society. As soon as you stamp one out another springs up. But I think in order to classify something as a Christian practice you need more than that some Christians have at some time done it.

Quote

But I gather the Christian view then is that "marriage" is purely a religious sacrament, and that any legal contract between the parties concerned cannot be separated from the sacrament. Does not that view violate, in the US at least, the Constitutional separation of Church and State? If so, how would Christians resolve it?

You seem to be putting constitutional separation on a pedestal. Separation of church and state is ok as a pragmatic solution, but it is not the only viable solution for the creation of a just society, which is the principle aim of the state. Certainly, if you like, solutions like Germany are possible where you have your civil marriage and then you go to the church for your "actual" marriage. It is an incumbent moral duty on the state to recognise marriage as one of the building blocks of society. Moreover, even if you go in for separation in an extreme way and take up the German solution of civil marriage being totally separate from religious marriage, it does not follow that marriage should therefore not be economically subsidised. Germany subsidises marriage the most of any euro zone country I believe.

[Bbradley62]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 18:31, said:

Are you implying that (a) you disagree with the catholic position, or (b) what I said does not adequately express the catholic position. I will assume you mean the latter. Here I offer a few relevant quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic CHurch. The numbers are paragraph numbers in case you want to look them up e.g. here.

No, I am quite certain that you are correctly expressing the Catechism. I am equally certain that trying enforce your religion on the rest of us is crap.

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 18:31, said:

...On the importance of pro-creation within marriage: "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory." 1652.

...

Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice. 1654. However: the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 § 1). 1664

Marriage has many goods other than procreation, but procreation remains an essential part of it. One may not choose to be married with the intention of refusing the gift of new life. However that is a different situation from being unable to conceive. In general an infertile couple is still considered a relationship ordered towards the generation of life and as such is perfectly ok. This is different again from a homosexual couple where the sexual act itself is now intrinsically unable to bring forth new life, and hence is unable to enter into a valid marriage from a catholic perspective.

So, the use of contraceptives by a married couple is a violation of their (Catholic) marriage vows and is a sin. Should it be illegal? For all married couples, regardless of religion?

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 18:24, said:

I didn't come near the question of subsidies. I simply said that people should be able to declare "this is my life partner", regardless of whether that declaration is in a religious or civil setting, and regardless of the genders of the declarants. There are many benefits that arise from this that are not subsidies, including such things as hospital/jail visitation rights, end-of-life decision-making, etc.

Fair enough. I think that most couples do get married/unioned/civil parnershipped in order to make that public and binding declaration.

By the way, it occurs to me that there might be people in the world who have managed never to have seen the following:

[phil_20686]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 18:24, said:

There are many benefits that arise from this that are not subsidies, including such things as hospital/jail visitation rights, end-of-life decision-making, etc.

I have never understood this arguments. It seems like saying "we should have gay marriage because we are too lazy to draft properly non-discriminatory laws" Ignoring the fact that there are often other classes of people who suffer from these laws. For example, there was a case in the UK of two men who lived together in a non-sexual partnership as bachelors, and had done for nigh on twenty years, but when the other was injured in a car accident he was refused visiting rights in hospital. Is that not equally unjust? It seems to me that people should be able to create a list of non-family members who they wish to give visiting rights to to be kept with their medical records. That seems like a fair and equitable solution.


Bonus questions for the panel: The wording of the UK statue for civil unions states that the relationship must contain a sexual component. This is to discourage, say, buisness partners from entering into civil partnerships to avoid tax laws (since interpersonal transfers are exempt from every kind of tax within a marriage). There was a case recently of a pair of (female, identical, elderly) twins who lived together in a house they owned jointly, when one of them died the other was forced to sell their home as despite receiving everything in the will she was unable to afford the inheritance tax on her sisters half. They had previously attempted to enter into a civil partnership to avoid inheritance tax but had been refused on the grounds that it would have been incestuous. Where would the NY gay marriage law stand on issues like these?

[phil_20686]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 19:03, said:

No, I am quite certain that you are correctly expressing the Catechism. I am equally certain that trying enforce your religion on the rest of us is crap.


So, the use of contraceptives by a married couple is a violation of their (Catholic) marriage vows and is a sin. Should it be illegal? For all married couples, regardless of religion?

In an ideal world, yes. But in an ideal world, there would not be any other religions.

Back in the real world, we have to go through the democratic process like everyone else. If we can convince 50+% of the population that it is sinful, and therefore harmful to relationships/society, then we will be able to get a law passed.