I can understand why abortion, embryonic stem cells, and euthanasia are considered big deals: all involve the destruction of human life. I may disagree with people about how to deal with these things, but I have no problem understanding why people treat these as their primary political concern that trumps other issues. I can't understand why gay marriage is treated the same way. Gay marriage doesn't kill anyone. I don't see how it can trump issues like war, poverty, or health care, which are directly connected to life and death.
Gay Marriage - Big Deal?
- Thread starter fragmentsofdreams
- Start date
- Status
greg300
Newbie
I think rightly marriage is seen as an important social and legal institution. Despite the decline of the rate of marriage, the majority of people still marry and even those who do not marry tend to form marriage-like relationships with the sharing of home, finances, intimacy and the procreation and rearing of children. Perhaps the more basic truth is that society is based a lot on the family, in the sense people form intimate communities at a smaller level than society at large with people they are related to or bonded with in marriage or by love.
The concept of marriage as a legal institution is fairly straightforward. It has religious roots but at least from the 19th century onwards it became more secular in orientation. However, the Western concept of marriage has also been quite strongly influenced by concepts taken from Roman Law (and to a certain extent canon law, or in countries that were part of the British empire, English law). In some countries where Christianity or a major church (i.e. Catholic or Orthodox) is quite powerful, the laws relating to marriage tend to reflect the ecclesial laws to some extent. Other countries have civil codes (i.e. Japan) and marriage is pretty much a secular arrangement, though the couple may have a wedding that is 'Christian' or 'Buddhist' in form and is blessed.
The law has tended to regard marriage as a very important instution and married couples had a range of protections which those who did not marry (i.e. couples who lived in defacto relationships) did not have. The law also regarded marriage as only being between a man and a woman and entered into for life. In English and Australian family law for example, even though these countries were not Catholic, until the mid-20th century divorce could only be granted very rarely and on narrow grounds. This situation has been changed by legislation in many countries, and also some countries have introduced 'no-fault divorce' laws. The recognition of more types of relationship that strictly speaking, do not conform to the traditional pattern of marriage as well as the increase in the levels of divorce, have led to many people, particularly on the conservative side of politics, to view that the 'experiment' in liberalising marriage has been a social disaster, and cite statistics which purport to show the various social evils that result from looser marriage laws and a lower regard for marriage in society.
There does seem to be some evidence to suggest that high rates of divorce do have a negative impact on the social lives of individuals and also on communities. The economic costs also seem to be quite high. On the other hand, divorce and family breakdown are complex problems with a variety of causes. Despite many private groups, churches and governments trying in various ways to stymie the tide of breakdown or divorce, not much has happened to reduce the number of relationship breakdowns, the high levels of extra-marital and pre-marital sex, of teen mothers and the numbers of abortions, and the increasing rates of STD's. There seems to be a more fundamental problem at the heart of broken relationships and marriages which needs a more comprehensive response.
The conservatives seem to believe that the only way to reverse the social malaise brought about by the 'sexual revolution' and the breakdown of marriage is to restore traditional 'family values' and the institution of marriage. This includes giving no ground to endorsing relationships out of wedlock (i.e. defacto couples) or to those who are gay, since marriage is only for a 'man' and a 'woman.' I think conservatives believe that allowing gay marriage is a threat to marriage because it undermines the traditional concept of marriage, as only being between heterosexual couples of different genders. Churches endorse this tradition by either claiming that this traditional structure is endorsed by God's express will in the Bible, or because it is a sacramental union of the couple by God's grace. The CC also appeals to natural law in saying that sex must be confined to the marriage bond between a couple, and must also be open to procreation. Thus to religious conservatives, to allow gay marriage is to both go against the best of secular law and tradition handed down to us by the centuries and also against the will of God.
Suffice to say this is problematic in our time when marriage has become (outside of churches) a mostly secular affair, more similar to a contract than a sacramental rite. I think secular people see marriage more as a special sort of binding agreement you make with a person (like a contract) which can be broken at will if there are good enough grounds to do so. While the ideal of a lifelong union between the couple is endorsed in the laws, and divorce cannot simply be allowed overnight, the fact that 'no-fault' divorce laws exist (which make the process relatively easy), many people do not attach the weight to marriage as was once the case, and are more willing to leave the marriage if the relationship runs into trouble or breaks down. More people are also willing to re-partner after a marriage fails, and at a quicker rate than in the past.
Since secular society seems to have adopted the view that homosexuality and homosexual acts are not immoral, it is not surprising that gay people are agitating for their relationships (when they take the form of long-term relationships) to be recognised at law and to have the same legal rights in a relationship as heterosexual couples. This argument seems to have some force since society has already done much the same for defacto couples, giving them many of the same rights as married couples.
But this raises the ire of conservatives and also Christian churches that pin their ideals of love and relationships on the 'traditional' concept of marriage. Thus they often go out of their way to try and ensure such relationships are not recognised, either by secular law or by their own communities.
In a pluralistic society one has to ask whether such an approach really helps the conservatives or the churches. What comes from the past is not always best suited to the needs of the present. Likewise, the often harsh language of religious conservatives against gay people and gay relationships just seems to add to the stereotype that such people or groups are intolerant and fanatical.
I am not sure what the right solution is. Ultimately in my view the law should try to remove unjust discrimination, including that against people with homosexual orientations. On the other hand, I think it is in the interest of society in general to try and foster long term, stable and loving relationships between people because there is much evidence to suggest a long term and loving relationship (especially marriage) is good for the health of the couple and is also good when children are involved. Instability, breakdown and violence in any relationship on the other hand, have toxic effects on the couple, their family and friends, their children, and also indirectly to society in general by giving a bad example to children and others, and also through costs caused by the breakdown (i.e. due to poorer health, poorer social outcomes, court litigation, etc).
The secular law and Christian churches should do all they can to encourage people to form or stay in, long-term, stable, secure and loving relationships, and provide educational, pastoral and community support to those in such relationships, including counselling where needed. I think it is in the interests of all to foster more stable relationships between people so the high levels of relationship breakdown are reduced as much as possible. Sending a hate-filled, exclusive and narrow message on the other hand, probably just alienates more people from the Christian faith and is counter-productive to the true end, which is to try and protect marriage and the family in society.
The concept of marriage as a legal institution is fairly straightforward. It has religious roots but at least from the 19th century onwards it became more secular in orientation. However, the Western concept of marriage has also been quite strongly influenced by concepts taken from Roman Law (and to a certain extent canon law, or in countries that were part of the British empire, English law). In some countries where Christianity or a major church (i.e. Catholic or Orthodox) is quite powerful, the laws relating to marriage tend to reflect the ecclesial laws to some extent. Other countries have civil codes (i.e. Japan) and marriage is pretty much a secular arrangement, though the couple may have a wedding that is 'Christian' or 'Buddhist' in form and is blessed.
The law has tended to regard marriage as a very important instution and married couples had a range of protections which those who did not marry (i.e. couples who lived in defacto relationships) did not have. The law also regarded marriage as only being between a man and a woman and entered into for life. In English and Australian family law for example, even though these countries were not Catholic, until the mid-20th century divorce could only be granted very rarely and on narrow grounds. This situation has been changed by legislation in many countries, and also some countries have introduced 'no-fault divorce' laws. The recognition of more types of relationship that strictly speaking, do not conform to the traditional pattern of marriage as well as the increase in the levels of divorce, have led to many people, particularly on the conservative side of politics, to view that the 'experiment' in liberalising marriage has been a social disaster, and cite statistics which purport to show the various social evils that result from looser marriage laws and a lower regard for marriage in society.
There does seem to be some evidence to suggest that high rates of divorce do have a negative impact on the social lives of individuals and also on communities. The economic costs also seem to be quite high. On the other hand, divorce and family breakdown are complex problems with a variety of causes. Despite many private groups, churches and governments trying in various ways to stymie the tide of breakdown or divorce, not much has happened to reduce the number of relationship breakdowns, the high levels of extra-marital and pre-marital sex, of teen mothers and the numbers of abortions, and the increasing rates of STD's. There seems to be a more fundamental problem at the heart of broken relationships and marriages which needs a more comprehensive response.
The conservatives seem to believe that the only way to reverse the social malaise brought about by the 'sexual revolution' and the breakdown of marriage is to restore traditional 'family values' and the institution of marriage. This includes giving no ground to endorsing relationships out of wedlock (i.e. defacto couples) or to those who are gay, since marriage is only for a 'man' and a 'woman.' I think conservatives believe that allowing gay marriage is a threat to marriage because it undermines the traditional concept of marriage, as only being between heterosexual couples of different genders. Churches endorse this tradition by either claiming that this traditional structure is endorsed by God's express will in the Bible, or because it is a sacramental union of the couple by God's grace. The CC also appeals to natural law in saying that sex must be confined to the marriage bond between a couple, and must also be open to procreation. Thus to religious conservatives, to allow gay marriage is to both go against the best of secular law and tradition handed down to us by the centuries and also against the will of God.
Suffice to say this is problematic in our time when marriage has become (outside of churches) a mostly secular affair, more similar to a contract than a sacramental rite. I think secular people see marriage more as a special sort of binding agreement you make with a person (like a contract) which can be broken at will if there are good enough grounds to do so. While the ideal of a lifelong union between the couple is endorsed in the laws, and divorce cannot simply be allowed overnight, the fact that 'no-fault' divorce laws exist (which make the process relatively easy), many people do not attach the weight to marriage as was once the case, and are more willing to leave the marriage if the relationship runs into trouble or breaks down. More people are also willing to re-partner after a marriage fails, and at a quicker rate than in the past.
Since secular society seems to have adopted the view that homosexuality and homosexual acts are not immoral, it is not surprising that gay people are agitating for their relationships (when they take the form of long-term relationships) to be recognised at law and to have the same legal rights in a relationship as heterosexual couples. This argument seems to have some force since society has already done much the same for defacto couples, giving them many of the same rights as married couples.
But this raises the ire of conservatives and also Christian churches that pin their ideals of love and relationships on the 'traditional' concept of marriage. Thus they often go out of their way to try and ensure such relationships are not recognised, either by secular law or by their own communities.
In a pluralistic society one has to ask whether such an approach really helps the conservatives or the churches. What comes from the past is not always best suited to the needs of the present. Likewise, the often harsh language of religious conservatives against gay people and gay relationships just seems to add to the stereotype that such people or groups are intolerant and fanatical.
I am not sure what the right solution is. Ultimately in my view the law should try to remove unjust discrimination, including that against people with homosexual orientations. On the other hand, I think it is in the interest of society in general to try and foster long term, stable and loving relationships between people because there is much evidence to suggest a long term and loving relationship (especially marriage) is good for the health of the couple and is also good when children are involved. Instability, breakdown and violence in any relationship on the other hand, have toxic effects on the couple, their family and friends, their children, and also indirectly to society in general by giving a bad example to children and others, and also through costs caused by the breakdown (i.e. due to poorer health, poorer social outcomes, court litigation, etc).
The secular law and Christian churches should do all they can to encourage people to form or stay in, long-term, stable, secure and loving relationships, and provide educational, pastoral and community support to those in such relationships, including counselling where needed. I think it is in the interests of all to foster more stable relationships between people so the high levels of relationship breakdown are reduced as much as possible. Sending a hate-filled, exclusive and narrow message on the other hand, probably just alienates more people from the Christian faith and is counter-productive to the true end, which is to try and protect marriage and the family in society.
Upvote
0
Your post makes a strong case for marriage, but it is an argument that applies just as well to homosexual couples as it does to heterosexual couples.
My difficulty in comprehending the gravity people see in gay marriage is definitely partially related to not agreeing with their conclusions about the effect of gay marriage, but I don't think that is all of it. Even assuming that gay marriage will exacerbate the problems related to divorce, I don't see how those negative effects would be fundamentally different than the disruptions caused by medical bankruptcy, the execution of innocent people, our torture program, or the devastation of unnecessary war. I simply don't understand why Catholic Answers put gay marriage on the same level as abortion.
My difficulty in comprehending the gravity people see in gay marriage is definitely partially related to not agreeing with their conclusions about the effect of gay marriage, but I don't think that is all of it. Even assuming that gay marriage will exacerbate the problems related to divorce, I don't see how those negative effects would be fundamentally different than the disruptions caused by medical bankruptcy, the execution of innocent people, our torture program, or the devastation of unnecessary war. I simply don't understand why Catholic Answers put gay marriage on the same level as abortion.
Upvote
0
scotsdoc54
Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus
I agree with both posts above. I do find the CC's use of natural law theory in regards to issues of human sexuality (including homosexuality) to be a bit problematic and bring up an entire set of potential philosophical problems.
From a purely secular, legalistic standpoint, I cannot see any reason that is substantiated by evidence that homosexual unions will somehow harm the social fabric of the US.
The tricky question, and the one that needs to be focused on, is a theological one. For my particular church (The Episcopal Church), we must ask this question: Is there a valid Scriptural or historical precedent for a same sex SACRAMENTAL marriage? Much like our Roman Catholic or Orthodox friends, marriage in the Anglican Communion is a sacrament and as such is an important rite within the church. Obviously, there is very little historical precedent for same-sex unions. Is there Scriptural evidence though? Not really, no, though I would argue that there is not necessarily a precedent against some sort of formalized sexual union (not necessarily marriage). The most clear example we have from the Gospels are Jesus' prescription against divorce, where he is clearly talking from a heterosexual perspective. So, as Anglican Catholics, we are left on the last leg of our Anglican Three Legged Stool (Scripture, Tradition (History), and Reason/Experience) which guides our "magisterium" and church order. And reason/experience may indicate that, with our greater understanding of human sexuality and attraction, we may need to rethink our stance of the sacramental validity of homosexual marriage. How do we determine, however, which of the legs of our Anglican Stool should take precedence in our decisions. That's the tough question for us, not the legal question or whether traditional marriage will be affected.
From a purely secular, legalistic standpoint, I cannot see any reason that is substantiated by evidence that homosexual unions will somehow harm the social fabric of the US.
The tricky question, and the one that needs to be focused on, is a theological one. For my particular church (The Episcopal Church), we must ask this question: Is there a valid Scriptural or historical precedent for a same sex SACRAMENTAL marriage? Much like our Roman Catholic or Orthodox friends, marriage in the Anglican Communion is a sacrament and as such is an important rite within the church. Obviously, there is very little historical precedent for same-sex unions. Is there Scriptural evidence though? Not really, no, though I would argue that there is not necessarily a precedent against some sort of formalized sexual union (not necessarily marriage). The most clear example we have from the Gospels are Jesus' prescription against divorce, where he is clearly talking from a heterosexual perspective. So, as Anglican Catholics, we are left on the last leg of our Anglican Three Legged Stool (Scripture, Tradition (History), and Reason/Experience) which guides our "magisterium" and church order. And reason/experience may indicate that, with our greater understanding of human sexuality and attraction, we may need to rethink our stance of the sacramental validity of homosexual marriage. How do we determine, however, which of the legs of our Anglican Stool should take precedence in our decisions. That's the tough question for us, not the legal question or whether traditional marriage will be affected.
Upvote
0
We should work to have gay marriage accepted in the Church. In fact, I do not know if there is a debate in hand: Progressive Catholics must support gay marriage as couples must participate in the sacrament of marriage.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jul 21, 2008
- 8,384
- 1,654
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm seeking a church but to be honest I hardly care if that church endorses gay marriage or not, in essence "it's not my problem". It sounds selfish but I hardly have time to worry about others relationships when I have all of my own crap to deal with.
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
To my knowledge, this forum is for Roman Catholics and those friends of the Latin Church who wish to work for a more "open" system in the RCC.
All are welcome to voice an opinion, but use your words carefully, as this place is meant as a safe haven for "liberal" Roman Catholics.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I think that gay marrige was banned in the old ages out of fear, back then people would avoid anything unexplored for the sake of security, I think alot of the more superficial rules will disolve as time passes and people grow more aware of the world. I mean, pherhaps at the age of seven or so, we would consider two men being in love as uncomfortable and abit scary. Sadly, back then, people had alot less intelligence since the development of man (no, I don't dare to say the E-word.) has caused people's IQ to grow more prosperous throughout genetical development within the centuries. Point is that the human mind has grown, and so does the fears of the elder begin to fade.
Upvote
0
selfintercession
Contributor
- Jan 2, 2005
- 6,413
- 518
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
It's important to me because it affects me directly... as for why so many straight Christians care so much when there are so many other Biblical teachings that they don't really seem to care about... I have a couple of different theories. In a nutshell though, I don't think it's because they honestly believe that gay marriage is really that much more important than, for example, divorce... they just jump on the bandwagon because 1) They don't have to worry about it coming back and affecting them personally later 2) It's an opportunity to appear to be holy and righteous without actually having to make any kind of sacrifice or invest any real effort themselves and 3) In spite of what Jesus said about loving and not judging, many Christians see it as their duty to decide who on this planet belongs in hell, and with gay marriage they can judge others without having to look at themselves.
I don't mean to insult anyone and this isn't all Christians, but that's how I see it.
I don't mean to insult anyone and this isn't all Christians, but that's how I see it.
Upvote
0
Ave Maria
Ave Maria Gratia Plena
- May 31, 2004
- 41,090
- 1,994
- 41
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Well, I'm not a liberal Catholic. I'm a liberal Episcopalian. But I am all for gay marriage. I believe that gays and lesbians deserve equal rights as do transgendered individuals.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
