Homosexual marriage II

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I should further clarify that I do not not now, nor have I supported gay marriage, though I am gay myself.

Any non-theological reason why not?

[Tessar]

Actually I'll be quite interested to see the answer to that. .

I am also gay, and Catholic, so I don't support gay marriage either. But my reasons are actually two-fold... one is religious, the other is that I know it would break my family's heart for me to be in a relationship with another man. Of course my family's reason for being so hurt would be religion, so maybe that only counts as another religious reason? But in my eyes the one reason is religion, and the other is just that I don't want to hurt my family.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Any non-theological reason why not?

I'm a theology student; theology bleeds into everything for me. The reasons we give for a position, and the reasons we actually hold that position are often very different. I can give non-theological reasons, but fundamentally my opposition springs from reflection on Paul.

[BeardofPants]

So, are you both non-practicing homos? Is this how you reconcile being gay with catholicism? (not a loaded question, just genuinely trying to understand).

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Actually I'll be quite interested to see the answer to that. .

I am also gay, and Catholic, so I don't support gay marriage either. But my reasons are actually two-fold... one is religious, the other is that I know it would break my family's heart for me to be in a relationship with another man. Of course my family's reason for being so hurt would be religion, so maybe that only counts as another religious reason? But in my eyes the one reason is religion, and the other is just that I don't want to hurt my family.

Yes, families can put a lot of pressure on you, but hopefully with time prejudice may be eased.

For example, my father's family was rabidly prejudiced against Catholics ( my father excepted), and would have been totally opposed to any of us marrying one.
When my cousin moved to Vancouver from Edmonton when we were about 12, we were walking along in my neighborhood when we saw a classmate of mine.

"Is he Catholic or Protestant?" asked my cousin.
Somewhat surprised, I had to think for a minute.
"I think he's Catholic," I finally replied.
"Then let's get him!" he cried
"What are you, some kind of nut!?!" was my astonished rejoinder.

(Turns out it was partly a tribal thing; Alberta at that time had separate Catholic and Protestant schools in the public system- in practice Catholic and Everybody Else- and there was constant warfare between kids from each system.)

So I was quite surprised when my mother told me that my aunt- that same cousin's mother- was thrilled when informed that my youngest son was an altar boy in a Catholic church.

Actually, I think it's due to the same process that has led to (most)Fundamentalist Protestants burying the hatchet with the Scarlet Woman in America- uniting in the face of the greater threat from secularism.

Sort of like the neo-cons rushing to the defense of gay rights because it gives them another stick to beat the Muslims with.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm a theology student; theology bleeds into everything for me. The reasons we give for a position, and the reasons we actually hold that position are often very different. I can give non-theological reasons, but fundamentally my opposition springs from reflection on Paul.

Do you mean you are personally against gay marriage; i.e. that you- while no doubt being your usual impeccably courteous self- would not accept the legitimacy of being introduced to Mr. and Mr. Smith; or that you think it should be banned?

The problem with that is we're talking about public laws in a secular polity. For example, in Islam it is generally accepted that a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's, yet we wouldn't accept the argument of a Muslim accused of a crime that we shoudn't listen to a woman testifying against him because the Koran says so.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

So, are you both non-practicing homos? Is this how you reconcile being gay with catholicism? (not a loaded question, just genuinely trying to understand).

For myself, the simple answer is "yes." Not that there's anything simple about it. . .

GM, I'd like to answer, but I'm currently extremely busy as the semester ends, with 20 pages due tomorrow, 20 more on Monday, and 12 more on Tuesday. Hopefully once I have space to breath, I'll be able to reply.

[BeardofPants]

Thank you for your answer. I hope it works for you.

[Tessar]

I'm sure all of the things I'm about to be say could be said more gooder and with much more finesse and intelligence by Gwai, but what the heck .

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Do you mean you are personally against gay marriage; i.e. that you- while no doubt being your usual impeccably courteous self- would not accept the legitimacy of being introduced to Mr. and Mr. Smith; or that you think it should be banned?

The problem with that is we're talking about public laws in a secular polity. For example, in Islam it is generally accepted that a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's, yet we wouldn't accept the argument of a Muslim accused of a crime that we shoudn't listen to a woman testifying against him because the Koran says so.

Sorry, I know this was aimed at Gwai but I hope you don't mind if I answer as well.

If two gay men introduce themselves to me as being husbands, I actually do accept it. If I didn't, I would also feel morally obligated to tell common-wealth married straight couples that they're not really married, not to mention people who got married at court houses. While I'm at it I might as well toss in anyone who wasn't married in a Catholic church by a priest .

If it became legal where I lived, I would respect the fact that in a legal sense those two men/women would be married. In the eyes of the United States, which is a country that I love living in, those people are married and I do have respect for that fact .

But then again when people introduce themselves to me as being married they usually don't stick a question mark in after it.

I actually sort of don't have a problem with the idea of gay marriage. In a world where things like strip clubs, pornography, and things like that are legal... I feel like gay marriage is a small fish in a herd of sharks. I will always vote against it, but if it passed I wouldn't consider it the end of the world. There are already ten million things that are considered acceptable, and even lauded, by society that the Catholic Church teaches are wrong. That doesn't mean the Church is going to accept those things, and as a Catholic it's more important to me what the Church teaches.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

So, are you both non-practicing homos? Is this how you reconcile being gay with catholicism? (not a loaded question, just genuinely trying to understand).

For me the answer is yes. I'm a non-practicing gay .

Now I'm not advocating orientation changing, which a lot of people seem to think that I do. I am personally not convinced that it can actually be done with much of a success rate based off of the research that I've seen. Also to me 'success' is not being able to marry a woman, it's actually doing away with being gay, and I've not seen many (convincing...) cases of that. Most people who 'become' straight later in life and actually are straight do so without the therapy... for them it's like being homosexual was a phase and (without trying to) they just change. Lucky jerks .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

First paper done, so a brief response during a brief respite. GM, I think Tessar's answer is more or less the same as mine, so I'll mostly frame my response as Variations on a Theme by Tess.

First goodering and more finessing :

Originally Posted by Tessar

If I didn't, I would also feel morally obligated to tell common-wealth married straight couples that they're not really married,

I think you mean common-law.

not to mention people who got married at court houses. While I'm at it I might as well toss in anyone who wasn't married in a Catholic church by a priest .

I would nuance this; theologians distinguish between natural marriage and the sacrament of matrimony (basically, marriage +). Non-Catholics are considered to contract a natural marriage, which while not sacramental, is really a marriage. I think Catholics have to go all-or-nothing, sacramental marriage or none, but I'd have to double-check on that. So, a Catholic position would not be that those who aren't bound by the sacrament of matrimony are not really married.

After that prolegomena:

If two gay men introduce themselves to me as being husbands, I actually do accept it . . . If it became legal where I lived, I would respect the fact that in a legal sense those two men/women would be married. In the eyes of the United States, which is a country that I love living in, those people are married and I do have respect for that fact .

I basically agree with this; assuming by "accept" we mean "by the way we relate to the people in question," I would not say to the Messrs. Smith, "Oh, no, I don't believe in that!" I would accept them where they are at, although I would not offer assent to the validity of their marriage. I would avoid referring to them as spouses, and lean towards terms such as "life partner."

If Mr. Smith and Mr. Lane sent me an invitation to their wedding, I would not be able to attend in good conscience. If we were close enough that my absence would raise questions, I would explain as sensitively as I could that my convictions did not permit it. If not, I would simply fail to RSVP.

I should say that this is in the abstract; while I do have gay friends IRL, I don't know any gay couples, but this is how I think one with my beliefs ought to respond to a stable same-sex relationship.

But then again when people introduce themselves to me as being married they usually don't stick a question mark in after it.

And that's the saving point for me. Like Modern Family; since they don't make a big deal of Mitch and Cam being gay, I can simply enjoy the dynamics without worrying about ideological affirmations.

I actually sort of don't have a problem with the idea of gay marriage. In a world where things like strip clubs, pornography, and things like that are legal... I feel like gay marriage is a small fish in a herd of sharks.

I know what you mean. When Prop 8 passed in California, but Prop 4 (a parental consent law) didn't, it really disturbed me, and manifested the screwed up priorities people operate on. If someone thinks that opposing same-sex marriage is more important than ensuring that an underage abortion is only performed with the consent of the parents, that person is messed up in my opinion.

I will always vote against it, but if it passed I wouldn't consider it the end of the world.

I wouldn't say I will always vote against it. I will never vote for it as such, but there are other issues which to me are more important (abortion, death penalty, war, social justice) which will influence my vote more than same-sex marriage. I'm sure that's what you meant; just clarifying.

Now I'm not advocating orientation changing, which a lot of people seem to think that I do. I am personally not convinced that it can actually be done with much of a success rate based off of the research that I've seen. Also to me 'success' is not being able to marry a woman, it's actually doing away with being gay, and I've not seen many (convincing...) cases of that. Most people who 'become' straight later in life and actually are straight do so without the therapy... for them it's like being homosexual was a phase and (without trying to) they just change. Lucky jerks .

I'm with you there. Conversion therapy seems dubious to me; from what I've seen of it, it's not anything I'd want anything to do with anyway, being to a large extent based on outmoded ideas of "masculinity." Apparently, if you man queers up enough, they'll unqueer.

I used to hope that my homosexuality was a phase, but I've known I was gay for some ten years now, so at this point I just accept it.

To further elaborate in response to GrayMouser:
On a relational level, my opposition to same-sex marriage would basically reduce to avoiding a same-sex wedding and spousal terms, as I said before. At the same time, I would not offer assent to the reality of such a marriage.

Politically speaking, I don't think the state should support it. The claim that "marriage is between a man and a woman" is no more theological than the claim that "marriage is between consenting adults."

I offer two of the non-theological reasons I gave earlier:

A) Throughout history (at least in the western world, and the context in which we are discussing this is, for better or worse, a western context) there has been no such thing as same-sex marriage, even in those cultures where same-sex relationships were approved. Those few recorded instances are quite obviously intended by those who record them as signs of degeneracy, most notably in Nero and Eliogabalus. This renders them A) historically dubious, and B) even if true, hardly an argument for same-sex marriage. Marriage has never been considered to be between two people of the same sex. To say that it should now be modified in this way is comparable to saying that the understanding of "sibling" should be modified to second cousins. It is perfectly possible to acknowledge the reality of stable same-sex relationships without distorting the meaning of words, and when we begin to distort the meaning of words, we destroy language as the basis of human communication. That's not a path I want to go down. Of course, the meaning of words change over time, but I don't think it's the place of the government to take an active role in disputed philology.

B) Only the socio-political aspect of marriage belongs to the provenance of the state. As a socio-political institution, marriage is ordered to the production of children. Yes, of course, this raises issues with infertility, unwillingness to conceive, etc. To my mind, however, these are circumstantial elements of a relationship which render that relationship incapable of production of children. Further, they often prove to be untrue. A couple may change their mind and decide to conceive, or a woman who was told she was barren may prove otherwise (as my mother did!) A same-sex relationship, however, is through its very nature incapable of the production of children. Since this is so, a same-sex relationship lacks the element of marriage which is relevant to the state. The relational element may still be there, but that is not what "matters" in terms of the good of the country.

Having said all of that, let me reiterate once again that to my mind, same-sex marriage is a third or at best second order issue, not one which plays a major role in the determination of my vote.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I think you mean common-law.

You're correct. I always call it common-wealth because I think of it in terms of they're sharing their possessions and that's what makes it possible for a legal marriage. But yeah, it's actually called common-law. Durh.

Non-Catholics are considered to contract a natural marriage, which while not sacramental, is really a marriage. I think Catholics have to go all-or-nothing, sacramental marriage or none, but I'd have to double-check on that. So, a Catholic position would not be that those who aren't bound by the sacrament of matrimony are not really married.

Pretty sure this is all correct. I was being dramatic . I believe the Church does recognize any Christian marriage as valid, although I could be wrong, but I'm 99% sure you're right about Catholics have to go for all or none.

I basically agree with this; assuming by "accept" we mean "by the way we relate to the people in question,"

Yes that's exactly what I meant.

If Mr. Smith and Mr. Lane sent me an invitation to their wedding, I would not be able to attend in good conscience.

This is a question I've struggled with. I think if I were very close friends with them, I might attend the wedding simply as an event in their lives that means a lot to them. But that's definitely something that I am not sure about, and that would require further consideration on my part before I said 'yae' or 'nae'.

I wouldn't say I will always vote against it. I will never vote for it as such, but there are other issues which to me are more important (abortion, death penalty, war, social justice) which will influence my vote more than same-sex marriage. I'm sure that's what you meant; just clarifying.

Having said all of that, let me reiterate once again that to my mind, same-sex marriage is a third or at best second order issue, not one which plays a major role in the determination of my vote.

That is what I really meant, but of course you put it more gooder and finenessder than I.

[The Gaffer]

You guys need to get a room! HAHAHA ........ sorry, sorry, really bad taste there

Crikey. Those are tricky ones. I have a lot of sympathy with those of you that are dealing with these issues. All the best with that, sincerely.

You know, it is always possible to live a different life. Perhaps it seems like the risk, or potential loss is unacceptable, or indeed immoral.

But you never know. Maybe people won't go mental. They probably already know. I have a nephew that is clearly gay, yet he hasn't come out to the family yet. In a sense it closes him off from us, partly. Or rather, it imposes a limit.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I know, and I've considered it. I don't think anyone who recognizes themselves to be in this position doesn't undertake some serious soul-searching. And what I found is that, ultimately, I cannot be true to myself without at least doing my best to live in accord with my religion.

I understand about your nephew; I'm out to my family and my closest friends. The atmosphere I was in before made more general coming out difficult, but now that I'm in a more open place I'm not as guarded.

But yes, I think hiding your sexuality is no good for you, and no good for your relation with the people form whom you hide it.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I would nuance this; theologians distinguish between natural marriage and the sacrament of matrimony (basically, marriage +). Non-Catholics are considered to contract a natural marriage, which while not sacramental, is really a marriage. I think Catholics have to go all-or-nothing, sacramental marriage or none, but I'd have to double-check on that. So, a Catholic position would not be that those who aren't bound by the sacrament of matrimony are not really married.

Yes, as I understand it, provided it fits the standards- consensual, monogamous, straight- don't know about non-Catholic divorced people, but I would imagine not.

IIRC this was one of the main sources of the estrangement of Tolkien and Lewis, when Lewis declared he was going to enter a marriage of convenience with Joy Gresham simply to get her a residence visa for the UK.

Lewis argued that since Christians recognised non-Christian marriages as legitimate, his marriage in a civil registry should be considered okay too, while Tolkien argued believers were held to a higher standard. Adding a twist was that Lewis was already falling in love with Gresham at the time; however as she was a divorcee, that still would have ruled it out for Tolkien as a Catholic; the CofE's position at that time was that divorced people could not remarry in a Christian ceremony, but, being the CofE of course, nothing is set in stone.

I offer two of the non-theological reasons I gave earlier:

A) Throughout history (at least in the western world, and the context in which we are discussing this is, for better or worse, a western context) there has been no such thing as same-sex marriage, even in those cultures where same-sex relationships were approved. Those few recorded instances are quite obviously intended by those who record them as signs of degeneracy, most notably in Nero and Eliogabalus. This renders them A) historically dubious, and B) even if true, hardly an argument for same-sex marriage. Marriage has never been considered to be between two people of the same sex.

Of course a lot of things have not existed before the last couple of hundred years ; AFAIK all societies above the tribal level had some form of bonded labor; all societies had some form of hereditary control (with the notable exception of Athens in the age of Pericles); no societies granted legal equality to women- but the argument that we should reduce some of our fellows to a servile condtion, reintroduce inherited rank, and strip some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights because our ancestors thought Freedom, Democracy and Equality were Bad Things is, to me anyway, not very persuasive.

To say that it should now be modified in this way is comparable to saying that the understanding of "sibling" should be modified to second cousins. It is perfectly possible to acknowledge the reality of stable same-sex relationships without distorting the meaning of words, and when we begin to distort the meaning of words, we destroy language as the basis of human communication. That's not a path I want to go down. Of course, the meaning of words change over time, but I don't think it's the place of the government to take an active role in disputed philology.

Really? Tell that to the Mormons. Thousands of lawfully married people suddenly found themselves declared adulterers solely through the power of the federal government of the United States to change the definition of marriage- enforced by the US Army.

Or when anti-miscegnation laws were passed in various American states, and people found that the definition of "marriage" had been changed to invalidate what had formerly been inclyded under the definition; or "Loving vs. Virginia" when the Supreme Court once again altered the meaning of the word 'marriage' without destroying the language.

Or since you're currently living in the Belly of the Beast as far as gay marriage goes, ask some of my fellow citizens whether they understand the meaning of the word. I think you'll find that they are quite able to stretch the word to encompass two people of the same sex without being lost in a post-modernist fog of endless differance.

B) Only the socio-political aspect of marriage belongs to the provenance of the state. As a socio-political institution, marriage is ordered to the production of children. Yes, of course, this raises issues with infertility, unwillingness to conceive, etc. To my mind, however, these are circumstantial elements of a relationship which render that relationship incapable of production of children. Further, they often prove to be untrue. A couple may change their mind and decide to conceive, or a woman who was told she was barren may prove otherwise (as my mother did!) A same-sex relationship, however, is through its very nature incapable of the production of children. Since this is so, a same-sex relationship lacks the element of marriage which is relevant to the state. The relational element may still be there, but that is not what "matters" in terms of the good of the country.

Nonsense, tush and piffle- you contradict yourself by saying the state's interest in marriage is restricted to the production of children- if that were true the state would only recognise those marriages which have produced children - like Nazi Germany, where the government could forbid marriage or order people divorced for infertility.

When you file a joint tax statement, the clerk doesn't ask you whether you're capable of, or intend to have, children.

Nope, all non-theological arguments collapse in a welter of their own contradictions.

[GrayMouser]

Here's a list of US federal government legal rights granted to people through marriage. Those pertaining to natural children I have put in bold; all the rest applies to all married people:

Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]

Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I was going to say that I will reply in a couple of days when I have finished my final papers for the semester, but when I read this:

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Nope, all non-theological arguments collapse in a welter of their own contradictions.

I decided that there is no point in responding, if this is taken up as a demonstrated principle. Arguments which go nowhere are worthless, and since this one promises to go nowhere, I'm not really interested in continuing. You think I'm being irrational (or at least non-rational), I think you're collapsing proper differentiations, and neither of us is going to change our mind.

[The Gaffer]

That's a shame, I was enjoying that.

That's an instructive list, GM.

It is relevant to UK politics right now. Our next prime minister has to fetishise traditional marriage, to appease his conservative base. Yet he also wants the votes of people who aren't prejudiced against gays. Tricky one! Especially since the country hasn't degenerated into Sodom and Gomorrah as a result of legalising civil partnerships between gays (and between non-gays, for that matter).

Here he is being a clueless eedjit in an interview with Gay Times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlDfp85gP8

[BeardofPants]

That was painful.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I was going to say that I will reply in a couple of days when I have finished my final papers for the semester, but when I read this:

"Nope, all non-theological arguments collapse in a welter of their own contradictions."

I decided that there is no point in responding, if this is taken up as a demonstrated principle. Arguments which go nowhere are worthless, and since this one promises to go nowhere, I'm not really interested in continuing. You think I'm being irrational (or at least non-rational), I think you're collapsing proper differentiations, and neither of us is going to change our mind.

You're right, that was too sweeping a generalisation- got caught up in my own rhetoric.

So, modified to read "Nope, non-theological arguments based on the necessity of the possibility of fertility in marriage collapse in a welter of their own contradictions."

Personal example- when my 85-year-old grandfather remarried his 83-year-old childhood sweetheart 12 years after my grandmother's death, the possibility of them being able to conceive was not what most people, anyway, would say that the wedding was about.

Joy, love, and companionship, yes- all equally as applicable to gays as to a woman who has had a hysterectomy. The exceptions granted for naturally infertile heterosexuals simply blow a hole in any logical base for this argument.

As to your other arguments, they are not irrational, just wrong- IMHO, of course.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm actually sort of serious. When the topic was just re-opened, I was pretty hesitant about getting into it. Simply put, we've all run round this track so many times in the past that I don't really see the point to continuing to do so. I think the positions that people take on charged issues like this are rarely determined by rational argument as I alluded to before, but instead by a resonance of a certain position in their minds. As such, rational argument is very rarely sufficient to change someone's mind on such an issue, as I think the history of these discussions has demonstrated. If neither of us is going to change our mind, then it seems to me that it degenerates to argument for the sake of argument; that line you wrote just served to jog my own memory about this.