www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Gay Marriage Debate Musings

It is apples to apples. Just as you first pointed out that children get bad habits from their apparently Christian parents, we all get our base assumptions from our family of origin. Very few people ever examine their base assumptions, let alone ever try or succeed to change them. Thus, in choosing a spouse, one would surely do well to consider the source of their intended's base, and the likelihood of wide differences.

Well put. But sometimes we can't even penetrate that until after the ceremony and the years begin to wear away the veneer of pretence we use in the courting process.

Bob

Which would seem even more to recommend the wisdom of choosing a spouse not solely on the subjective impression one has of their character but also on the objective reality of their family situation, religious practice, etc.

A young lady does well to choose a husband not only who she fancies a hard worker, but who actually has a job, and whose father has shown him, since before he can remember, that a man supports his family. And when the veneer has worn and time has done it's work, what man but a fool is surprised that his good lady wife has turned out a fair bit like her mother?

So does free will or grace not play any role in who a person is. People are just forever trapped in the circumstances there parents give them? I didn't realize empirical philosophy held so much sway on a byzantine Christian message board.

If people are forever doomed to hold the values their families given, it means that for most people the thought of being ostracised from their families for being different trumps their desire for independent thought, so they fit in It doesn't really have anything to do with whether free will exists, just that it is not always easy to exercise. I do find Stuart's solution to the problem of limiting the variety of social circumstances that people can become trapped in is not really a solution at all to this problem, however.

It's not philosophy. It's human experience.

Have you, or have you not been surprised to hear yourself say to your own children the same stupid things your father said to you?

Has your wife, or has she not ever lamented "I'm turning into my mother"?

Does not fatherlessness plague generation after generation of urban black Americans, to horrifying consequences?

People *can* change. They just typically *don't*. I'm shocked that this point needs arguing. For every one person you know who has made a significant change in his life, you know at least one hundred who haven't.

That sounds like a calculating protective father talking, not a Christian speaking about his brothers or sisters in Christ.

Family of origin is radically important and you are right to give it hard scrutiny, but there are even greater factors that determine character. Most everybody has been exposed to disfunction in their development, what you will have to determine is any potential suitor's response to it, which is what truly reveals the qualities you are looking for.

The discussion is interesting but has veered slightly off topic (not that I didn't sign up for that by simply being a member of a forum). So that's fine.

But back to my original comment/question/impression. Many Catholic bishops in this country (I only really know of Roman bishops doing this, but I'm sure some Eastern Catholic bishops in this nation do so as well) seem to be basically telling the faithful that "if you support/are not opposed to gay marriage by the state, you're sinning."

As we've discussed in this thread, I am very uncomfortable with this message - again, not because of anything to do with Catholic teaching regarding marriage or homosexuality, but because it's a prudential concern being foisted on people as if it's a theological truth of the faith...

Alexis

Well, to give tacit support to sinful behavior is itself sinful. And to support allowing the state to legitimize sinful behavior cannot be anything other than sinful. That aside, allowing the state to legitimize same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any other alternative to conventional marriage, will have devastating consequences for society at a practical level (as in fact it has already).

Your logic is faulty because it can also be applied to laws regarding abortion. If supporting laws that allow abortion is sinful, why not laws that support sodomy, fornication and adultery?

Stuart,

I agree with everything you say here. However, I see a problem with your previously-stated thesis that the solution is for the Church to simply get out of the business of executing marriage licenses and concern itself strictly with the "purely sacramental" aspects of marriage.

The problem I see is twofold: first of all, the ones agreeing with you in this thread that the Church should "get out of the business" seem to be using it as a reason not to oppose legislation allowing gay marriage. The other aspect is the fact that simply changing the law in this regard will do little to change the well-ingrained popular notion of a "church wedding:" the fact is, many people somehow perceive a church wedding as producing a stronger bond--or something like that--even if they have little use for "church" otherwise.

Moreover, given the fact that religiosity is regarded as a feminine quality, we should not be surprised that there will be a higher proportion of gay men than straight men desiring "church weddings."

In other words, yes, the Church will soon be out of the business of executing marriage licenses, but that fact will do little to mitigate the impact of what lies ahead.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The Church has to get out of the marriage business to preserve its own integrity and the integrity of the sacrament and theology of marriage. It does not follow, though, that the Church must therefore remain neutral with regard to the civil recognition of same-sex marriage, or the normalization of homosexual behavior. Even when the Church was an illicit superstitio under the Roman Empire, it did not cease to censure those aspects of Roman mores and Roman civil law that it saw as inherently immoral. With the Church close to being viewed as an illicit superstitio once more, why should we not emulate the Fathers?

As to the misuse of the sacrament as a kind of legitimizing "seal" of marriage for those who otherwise do not hold any faith, well, there are plenty of "ecclesial communities" willing to prostitute themselves, but that is no reason for any truly Apostolic Church to do so. We, instead, must be even more steadfast, even to the point of denying that sacrament to those of our nominal members who are otherwise unprepared to undertake the obligations and responsibilities that go with it--for their sake, as well as for that of the Church. And at the same time, the Church must begin once more to preach the true theology of human sexuality and marriage--from the pulpit and the ambo, as well as from the classrooms for both children and adults.

As for the future of same-sex marriage, I see it as a passing fad, for a couple of reasons. First, most homosexuals are just not that interested in it. It was not part of the gay agenda until quite recently, and early gay pioneers (e.g., Harvey Milk) decried marriage as a bourgeois affectation that sexually liberated gay men could do without. The only reasons it rose to the top of the agenda were (a) the desire to gain access to the "goodies" of marriage, including health insurance and pensions, in light of the AIDS epidemic; and (mainly among the leadership of the movement), the desire to use marriage as a way of normalizing (mainstreaming) homosexuality. Tolerance in the sense of live and let live was not enough--it was necessary to put homosexuality on an even footing with heterosexuality, or even to give it privileged status. Hence the recourse to arguments based on fairness, civil rights, and, of course, "love"--as though, for most of its history, "love" was ever seen as sufficient in itself to justify marriage.

I think the stats in Canada bear this out.

It looks like Fr. Thomas Hopko (OCA) discussed this topic at a recent conference in Chicago:

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/orthodox_christian_synergys_annual_symposium_2011

AJ

Interesting article in the NYT today. Clearly the writer is on the other side of the moral debate, but his solution is similar to what some of us have been positing:

http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/true-equality-for-all-americans/?hp

Alexis

The author of this blog, Andrew Rosenthal is suffering from faulty logic, in my opinion.
Marriage does enjoy equal rights for all within the law. What he proposes is to change the limits that the law has legitimately set on whom one can and cannot marry.

For instance:

A single woman can marry a single man. This right is not denied to someone based on their sexual orientation. Whether a person with SSA would "want" to marry someone of the opposite sex is entirely another matter that depends nothing at all on the law.

There is no discrimination because the law of one man one woman is applied equally to all people irregardless of race, color, or creed.
But if you notice, in his article Mr. Rosenthal says that "all couples should be able to marry under the law". But he puts his own limitations in saying this.

In saying couples, he apparently believes that plural marriages are out, yet he has no compelling reason to keep this prohibition.
I assume that he also wants to keep the age restrictions in place as well.

However, if he wants to allow a marriage of any convenience between man/man or woman/woman, then logically, it follows that any plural arrangement is also allowable under the law. Therefore, one man multiple wives should be legalized and recognized. One woman multiple husbands should be recognized. Multiple men multiple women should also be recognized.

Yet, they are not pushing for such a sweeping reform of marriage laws. They only seem to want what is convenient for them.

Poor Mormons. Kicked to the curb again, apparently.