How should the Church recognise same-sex couples (or not)?

[Raphael Jauregui]

We are talking about homosexual "marriage," not just homosexuality. Nero--who was a contemporary of Paul, remember--is said by historians to have married two different males, as the husband of one and the wife of another--and the scandal was a factor in his eventual demise.

The scholars that note that such ceremonies took place very very rarely and that they were not at all legal institutions. In fact, many of those referenced, are often referred to by those mocking such ceremonies. That is not exactly a reliable set of sources. Again, the same scholars who study those few rare references are also quick to note that they were not at all legal institutions. So, it would be incorrect to compare that time period to the well established institutions of marriage, civil unions, or unregistered cohabitation for same-sex couples.

 

[A New Dawn]

The institutions of same-sex marriage, civil unions or registered partnerships, and unregistered partnerships did not exist in the societal context of any of the scriptures. While there are a few reports that ceremonies were held here or there, most scholars do not believe they were common. They also did not have an institutional or legal recognition. The contexts are totally different.

There is other history from that time that is not scripture. You seem to not be acknowledging that, historically, there is evidence of homosexual marriage, and to suggest that because the Bible doesn't mention it, specifically, that it didn't exist is disingenuous. It did exist. If you don't want to do the hard work of looking for it, just look at the wikipedia link I posted.

 

[RDKirk]

The scholars that note that such ceremonies took place very very rarely and that they were not at all legal institutions. In fact, many of those referenced, are often referred to by those mocking such ceremonies. That is not exactly a reliable set of sources. Again, the same scholars who study those few rare references are also quick to note that they were not at all legal institutions. So, it would be incorrect to compare that time period to the well established institutions of marriage, civil unions, or unregistered cohabitation for same-sex couples.

I think you're missing the point I was making.

I'm saying that the concept of homosexual marriage was known to the ancient scripture writers--and it was already firmly socially rejected--even among the pagans. They didn't need to pile explicit objections in scripture to practices that were already abhorrent to their audience.

 

[FenderTL5]

I would advocate a complete separation of the church's Sacrament of Marriage with the civil construct within society.
However, that is not included in the poll choices as I understand them.

 

[RDKirk]

I would advocate a complete separation of the church's Sacrament of Marriage with the civil construct within society.
However, that is not included in the poll choices as I understand them.

That's my real answer, which includes the "No Recognition" choice. The state should not do "marriages," but only legal domestic partnership contracts.

If two or more adults want to enter a domestic partnership (with whatever rights the state wants to give such devices) that is enforceable by state laws, then they go to lawyers and draw up contracts.

If they want some social/cultural group to recognize them as a "married" couple (or quartet or whatever), then they do whatever their favorite social/cultural group requires them to do.

And no social/cultural group should be required to "recognize" what any other social./cultural group does. The Roman Catholic Church has long refused to recognize some unions that are recognized by the state.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I think you're missing the point I was making.

I'm saying that the concept of homosexual marriage was known to the ancient scripture writers--and it was already firmly socially rejected--even among the pagans. They didn't need to pile explicit objections in scripture to practices that were already abhorrent to their audience.

You stated
What I posted completely negated that idea.

You are missing the point @Raphael Jauregui and I are making: The social construct and concepts of homosexual marriage, and quite frankly heterosexual marriage, were so vastly different then they are today that our current understanding of marriage did not exist at that time. Same-sex marriage was a joke, mockery, almost like a parody or satire we would think today, it was not meant to be taken seriously as an actual legal and functional relationship. The reason they saw it that way wasn't because it was morally wrong in some sense, but that it was essentially disrespectful to a man's masculinity in their understanding of masculinity and femininity.
More specifically when it comes to homosexuality in the Roman Empire, there was a active/dominant role and a passive/submissive role, which is what Paul is referencing in 1 Corinthians because he lists two separate people. According to Roman thought, these roles were two completely separate things, they were not equal. With the exception of rape, I don't know anyone who says that homosexuality is really two distinct things today, both people are active participants in it. It also was not considered to be adultery to have a side boy/slave, according to Greco-Roman thought, which is why it always listed separately from adultery.

 

[A New Dawn]

You are missing the point @Raphael Jauregui and I are making: The social construct and concepts of homosexual marriage, and quite frankly heterosexual marriage, were so vastly different then they are today that our current understanding of marriage did not exist at that time. Same-sex marriage was a joke, mockery, almost like a parody or satire we would think today, it was not meant to be taken seriously as an actual legal and functional relationship. The reason they saw it that way wasn't because it was morally wrong in some sense, but that it was essentially disrespectful to a man's masculinity in their understanding of masculinity and femininity.
More specifically when it comes to homosexuality in the Roman Empire, there was a active/dominant role and a passive/submissive role, which is what Paul is referencing in 1 Corinthians because he lists two separate people. According to Roman thought, these roles were two completely separate things, they were not equal. With the exception of rape, I don't know anyone who says that homosexuality is really two distinct things today, both people are active participants in it. It also was not considered to be adultery to have a side boy/slave, according to Greco-Roman thought, which is why it always listed separately from adultery.

You can come up with all the excuses you want, but the fact is that it did exist and the Bible speaks against any kind of man laying with man. ANY KIND. I think you are really naive to suggest that homosexuals wanting to be more than playthings is a modern concept.

 

[SnowyMacie]

You can come up with all the excuses you want, but the fact is that it did exist and the Bible speaks against any kind of man laying with man. ANY KIND. I think you are really naive to suggest that homosexuals wanting to be more than playthings is a modern concept.

I didn't say it was a modern concept, I said it didn't exist in Greco-Roman culture. Same-sex couples existed and were widely accepted in East Asia, South Asia, The Americas, and The Pacific. For the record, I am not saying that it automatically makes it okay, just pointing out that Rome was in the historical minority.

For me, the fact is that I am no longer conviced the Bible does codemn all forms of same-sex relationships, post #159 explains why. If you want to think that it does, I am not going to convince you otherwise.

 

[SnowyMacie]

double post

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

I think you're missing the point I was making.

I'm saying that the concept of homosexual marriage was known to the ancient scripture writers--and it was already firmly socially rejected--even among the pagans. They didn't need to pile explicit objections in scripture to practices that were already abhorrent to their audience.

How could the concept be well-known if the concepts did not even exists as institutions? There is no evidence that the society contemporary with the early Christians had same-sex marriages, or heterosexual marriages as they exist today, and they definitely did not have the institutions of civil partnerships or unregistered partnerships.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

You can come up with all the excuses you want, but the fact is that it did exist and the Bible speaks against any kind of man laying with man. ANY KIND. I think you are really naive to suggest that homosexuals wanting to be more than playthings is a modern concept.

If the institutions did not exist and the Scriptures never mention in specificity any committed same-sex relationships, how can you claim the Scriptures are against that? Is Scripture against the internet too just because it is not in the writings?

 

[RDKirk]

If the institutions did not exist and the Scriptures never mention in specificity any committed same-sex relationships, how can you claim the Scriptures are against that? Is Scripture against the internet too just because it is not in the writings?

So are you attempting to argue that an act can't be proscribed by the Church unless it's described by scripture using modern context and terminology?

You don't think "all kinds of homosexuality" covers it?

 

[SnowyMacie]

So are you attempting to argue that an act can't be proscribed by the Church unless it's described by scripture using modern context and terminology?

What we're arguing is that you have to look at the cultural context in which scripture was written in order to correctly understand what it is talking about.

 

[RDKirk]

What we're arguing is that you have to look at the cultural context in which scripture was written in order to correctly understand what it is talking about.

Unless you're talking about a celibate (Platonic) homosexual couple, 1 Corinthians 6:9 covers all aspects.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Unless you're talking about a celibate (Platonic) homosexual couple, 1 Corinthians 6:9 covers all aspects.

See post #159 for another perspective.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

So are you attempting to argue that an act can't be proscribed by the Church unless it's described by scripture using modern context and terminology?

You don't think "all kinds of homosexuality" covers it?

I echo what TX_Matt said. What I am saying, and what TX_Matt is saying, is that people cannot take isolated verses, unrelated to the cultural context and institutions today, and make a claim that those committed relationships, again not even discussed in Scripture, are wrong. That is both irresponsible and unfair in terms of judgement. It cannot be reasonable to read some verses that refer to certain acts and even abusive acts and then assert that those verses apply to faithful, committed, loving relationships that exist today in institutions that did not exist in that time of the text.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

So are you attempting to argue that an act can't be proscribed by the Church unless it's described by scripture using modern context and terminology?

You don't think "all kinds of homosexuality" covers it?

Also, none of the verses say "all kinds of homosexuality." None of them say that. That kind of phrasing also makes assumptions about the forms of intimacy expressed or not expressed in same-sex relationships. There are many couples that get married, yes, but there are also many couples who enter in civil partnerships or unregistered cohabitation and who could be celibate. There are also asexual same-sex couples who do not have sex by their nature, but who nevertheless have deeply loving and faithful romantic relationships.

 

[RDKirk]

I echo what TX_Matt said. What I am saying, and what TX_Matt is saying, is that people cannot take isolated verses, unrelated to the cultural context and institutions today, and make a claim that those committed relationships, again not even discussed in Scripture, are wrong. That is both irresponsible and unfair in terms of judgement. It cannot be reasonable to read some verses that refer to certain acts and even abusive acts and then assert that those verses apply to faithful, committed, loving relationships that exist today in institutions that did not exist in that time of the text.

That simply applies to everything else in scripture that someone doesn't like.

Marriage itself is not the same "institution" that it was in those days--does that mean all scripture has to say about marriage is also null and void today?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

That simply applies to everything else in scripture that someone doesn't like.

Marriage itself is not the same "institution" that it was in those days--does that mean all scripture has to say about marriage is also null and void today?

Instead of attempting to apply the legalisms of thousands of years ago, we try and see what the underlying message or theme is. In many many cases, the theme is faithfulness and commitment. That is certainly expressed in same-sex marriages and in celibate same-sex relationships that might include civil partnerships or unregistered partnerships.

 

[RDKirk]

Instead of attempting to apply the legalisms of thousands of years ago, we try and see what the underlying message or theme is. In many many cases, the theme is faithfulness and commitment. That is certainly expressed in same-sex marriages and in celibate same-sex relationships that might include civil partnerships or unregistered partnerships.

I could argue as well that the underlying theme abandonment of all exclusive social ties and absorption into a Body in which all personal connections are platonic and equal.