|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How does allowing gay men and women to marry threaten marriage?
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Shrewsbury has been reported to have said:
“For all generations to come one generation of politicians sets out to demolish in the name of an ‘equality agenda’ the understanding of marriage that has served as the timeless foundation for the family."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9309155/Bishop-of-Shrewsbury-Gay-marriage-is-attack-on-family.html
Can somebody explain to me why and how allowing gay men and women to marry damages marriage as an institution?
I can understand that easy divorce, more easy-going morality about sex, even easy access to marriage (marry in haste repent at leisure) could be said to damage marriage. But I simply do not understand how a group of people previously excluded from this institution wanting to be allowed to join it, when plenty of others are abandoning it, can in any way be described as damaging (or "demolishing") this venerable institution.
Can anyone explain to me how gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage?
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Because marriage, at present and in the Book of Common Prayer, requires consummation by an act of potential procreation.
Not so much threaten as radically alter or destroy.
To allow couples who are incapable of an act of procreation to call their relationship marriage radically alters this definition.
I've been with my partner for over thirty years. As civil partners, thank goodness, we have all the rights and protection of married couples.
Changing the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to call themselves married provides not a single additional right. Except being blessed by the church, which in our case has in fact happened.
My partner and I find the proposal patronising by suggesting that everyone who is not "married" is second rate.
Gay "marriage" will probably go ahead. I hope it will encourage same sex couples and I wish them happiness and realism. But it seems quite unnecessary to me, and divorces marriage from sex and babies.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
venbede, are you suggesting that infertile or menopausal couples cannot marry? We can't make babies either.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
venbede, are you suggesting that infertile or menopausal couples cannot marry? We can't make babies either.
Or to propose an alternate case in the other direction, what about a lesbian couple where one partner administers artificial insemination to the other? That would seem to be "an act of potential procreation". Does that mean female same-sex marriage should be allowed, but male same-sex marriage shouldn't?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
That is the hitch with my argument. Strictly speaking infertile couples are in a civil partnership, I suppose. Certainly, the Prayer Book assumes that normatively the bride will be fertile.
I'm not going to go on about this, as I don't want to give comfort to homophobes, but just don't see the point of gay marriage, when civil partnership gives us the same protection and benefits.
I've struggled to cope with hostility (not in our church congregations, by the way) since we first met, and no way do I want what we have to be reckoned as second rate.
I just want to get that off my chest.
And homophobes are just as likely to be hostile, even if marriage is redefined to allow same sex marriage, maybe more so. Legislation can only effect status and actions, not attitudes.
And it does muck up the catholic sacramental understanding of marriage.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I've asked this question a number of times, and the best answer I have received is this: the problem with same-sex marriage is that it is a marriage of equals. At the ceremonies I've been to, "husband and wife" gets changed to "spouses for life." Allowing gays and lesbians to marry is acknowledging that heterosexual marriage is no longer about male and female roles either; in contemporary society, it is also now a marriage of equals. It has nothing to do with trying to keep marriage about babies, it's about trying to keep women in ther traditional role.
Allowing e.g. civil partnerships that are marriage all in name proves my point: the root word is partner. Preserving that distinction re-asserts the historically un-equal nature of marriage. In some jurisdictions, heterosexuals aren't allowed to enter into a civil partnership, presumably to prevent straight people getting ideas about the equality of the sexes. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Are we talking about Holy Matrimony, or the State issued civil contract between two individuals that confers rights and responsibilities? In my book these are very different questions.
I don't see how making a change to civil contract legislation undermines anything. Contract law changes all the time.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
According to a study reported in This American Life eight or ten years ago, same-sex relationships embarrass het ones by being too good. In a test analyzing the mutual empathy and understanding suggested by visual and aural cues during a videotaped conversation, the few same-sex couples observed were off the charts. The researchers had never set out to make such a comparison, but they couldn't help noticing it.
The fact that they could study same-sex couples at all required some circumlocution in the grant proposal. They were aware that Republicans, being Republicans, would rather not discover anything that might upset their preconceptions. Computer screening of applications was in place, whereby any experiment that paid attention to gays would probably be spiked before a human being were even put to the trouble of reading it.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'd be interested in hearing from people who think that civil partnership conferring same-sex couples with the same rights/reponsibilities as married couples is somehow harming the institution of marriage.
Because what I've heard, over and over again, from people voting for punitive legislation denying any such rights to same-sex couples (as in my own state, Michigan), is, "Just don't call it marriage. 'Marriage' is special. It has a special meaning in my religion," etc.
Well, fine. Let's not call it marriage. Let's call it civil partnership. Why are the same people who want to bar gay people from "marrying" also the people who want to bar gay people from entering into a legal civil partnership? Seriously; if you're going to be that precious about "your" word, then take it back. And then let us have our civil partnership. Win-win.
Or, better yet: Divorce (pardon the pun) marriage from the State altogether: Have a system where you get hitched legally via the court, then if you wish have your union blessed in whatever religious ceremony you wish. Again -- win-win.
But the social conservatives won't go for that. Why? To me it seems purely punitive and belligerent.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
Thank you for some interesting answers.
If the argument is about marriage as defined in the Book of Common Prayer or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then it is an easier question to answer: both of these have a view of how God wants marriage to work e.g. what scripture reveals of what marriage is in it essence.
So perhaps the question should be: what has God revealed to us about the essence of marriage?
I am not aware however, of the church having a big problem with civil marriage before (maybe this is my ignorance) which would not necessarily fulfil the criteria above: so what is the new problem with same sex marriage?
Are civil Marriage and the sacrament of marriage fundamentally different then? Are those only married by the state "not really married in the eyes of God"? As commented above, is Christian marriage by definition an unequal partnership?
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
I can understand that easy divorce, more easy-going morality about sex, even easy access to marriage (marry in haste repent at leisure) could be said to damage marriage. But I simply do not understand how a group of people previously excluded from this institution wanting to be allowed to join it, when plenty of others are abandoning it, can in any way be described as damaging (or "demolishing") this venerable institution.
Some would say that gay marriage is part of the same liberalising process that includes 'easy divorce [and] more easy-going morality about sex'.
As such, it's not that gay marriage is doing anything totally new, but that it takes us further in a liberalising direction, a direction which, by definition, makes marriage more fragile as a cultural phenomenon.
Perhaps it's the very fact that straight people are increasingly abandoning marriage (as you say) that makes them more willing to approve of same-sex marriage for others? Straight people don't care about marriage quite as much as they once did, so why should they care who gets married? Straight people in England are increasingly unlikely to get married in churches, so why should they care what a bishop has to say about who should get married in a church?
For me, it's not a question of condemning same-sex marriage for theological or psychological reasons, but of seeing it as part of a secularising agenda. It's in this sense that it 'threatens' marriage in general, because increasing secularisation goes in hand with decreasing marriage rates. But it's unfair to single out same-sex marriage for special disapproval in this process.
(In the UK, the current discussion is quite confusing, because there are different marriage/civil partnership proposals on the table, with different legal implications. So we can all take our pick as to what we approve or disapprove of. I suppose some might seem more 'threatening' than others.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some would say that gay marriage is part of the same liberalising process that includes 'easy divorce [and] more easy-going morality about sex'.
As such, it's not that gay marriage is doing anything totally new, but that it takes us further in a liberalising direction, a direction which, by definition, makes marriage more fragile as a cultural phenomenon.
That's the fear, perhaps. But as Jonathan Rauch points out, it is not the reality.
quote:
When I began advocating gay marriage in the mid-1990s, and then well into the new century, I used to hear this kind of objection all the time. A gay couple first attempted to marry in 1970, ... but marriage was not then taken up by the gay-rights movement. Matrimony seemed not only out of reach but out of touch with the liberationist, libertine ethos of the time. We were supposed to be breaking the fetters of conventionality, reinventing sexuality and ourselves.
But then came the plague, and the discovery, too often, that we had only each other for family, yet we had none of the tools to care for one another that families need. We could not enter the hospital room; sometimes, we could not even enter the country. We would use our bodies to warm our shuddering “lover” (such was the term in those days — even worse than “partner”). We would hand-feed him as he wasted. Then, when he passed, we would be sent packing by the relatives who had never known or cared we existed.
Never again, we said. That was when we understood that real liberation lies in family’s embrace, not its rejection. Triple-drug HIV therapy and the gay-marriage movement arrived almost simultaneously. No coincidence, that.
And this is why I support marriage equality: One of my siblings is gay, and was finally able to get married. They'd been together for over 25 years already. They wanted to be a family.
And if anyone tries to come between the spouses, in riches or in poverty, in sickness or in health, at home or in the hospital or (when the time comes) at the morgue or the funeral home, their extended families will be there for them, and will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they are treated as family.
Because marriage equality isn't about being libertines. It's about creating families. It's about commitment. It's about taking care of each others' aging parents. It's about paying bills now and saving for your own and each others' old age. It's about doing the dishes and repairing the deck. It's about figuring out how a hyper-extrovert and a hyper-introvert who adore each other can live together without driving each other crazy. It's about throwing a party as a couple, being invited on a single invitation to the weddings of your nieces and nephews, and attending funerals together. It's about having someone to share the joys of life with, and the sorrows, and everything in between.
So it's not about procreative sex. When my grandfather remarried, it wasn't about procreative sex. He was 90, and his bride was 70. No procreation there. And they weren't open to it, either -- had anyone suggested artificial insemination, IVF, or surrogacy, they'd have said that person was stark raving mad. It was about companionship, and comfort. And, most likely, sex, because marriage, for most, involves sex.
But that's not what marriage is about.
It's about family. It's about commitment. For those of us who are Christians, it's about working out your salvation in fear and trembling.
In other words, it's about love.
Anything that strengthens families, that supports commitment, that helps people walk a path of love (as hard as that can be), is good for marriage.
[ 07. June 2012, 19:34: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
My instinct is that it's fear of camp.
The fear, I suppose, is that, because gay people are camp, when 'they' get married 'they' don't mean it like people like 'us': they're just doing it for the camp value. Camp is or at least involves a strong element of parody and mockery; so what 'they' are doing when 'they' get 'married' is mocking those of 'us' to whom it's an important and meaningful life ritual. Because, you know, it can't mean the same to 'them' as it does to 'us'. 'They' just don't love each other in the same way that 'we' do.
(Spatter of ''s to make it quite clear that I do not endorse the above sentiments.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Josephine
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Oh, and the other reason I support marriage equality: I'm divorced and remarried. That's not the kind of marriage God set up in the Garden of Eden, either. It's not how it was supposed to be from the beginning. And it took about a thousand years (and some government intrusion) before the Church decided that it would be okay to have second marriages blessed in the Church. Not that they are ever regarded as being exactly the same as a first marriage. But the Church has acknowledged that, for some people, the best way to work out their salvation is as a married person, and sometimes that means allowing them a second (or even a third) chance at being married.
This, in spite of the fact that our Lord said very plainly that this was not to be so. Despite the fact that every bit of custom, tradition, history, and law came down against this, for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Despite the strong arguments that can be made for remarriage weakening the institution of marriage, despite the evident problems that it causes children, despite the complications it creates for estates and inheritances, it's allowed.
What kind of a hypocrite would I have to be to accept this grace, this lenience, this economia for myself, and deny it to a same-sex couple?
There are other reasons to support marriage equality, of course. But these are the most important.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Are civil Marriage and the sacrament of marriage fundamentally different then? Are those only married by the state "not really married in the eyes of God"?
Well yes. If Bob divorces Alice and gets married to Carol, there are a number of religions (Roman Catholicism comes to mind as the obvious example, but there are no doubt others) who will insist that Bob's wife is "really" Alice and that Carol is, in essence, Bob's adulterous mistress. The state, obviously, disagrees and considers Carol to "really" be Bob's wife.
Most religions are able to keep this distinction between civil and religious marriage straight, except when it comes to same-sex partners. Then they get all flustered and confused.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Josephine
I accept, of course, that for gay Christians, the secularisation argument won't necessarily be meaningful. But in the UK at least, it's not gay Christians who are driving the issue. (The Unitarians and Quakers who lobbied the govt. for same-sex marriage have been absent from the public debate.)
In the UK, where we already have same-sex civil partnerships, where the church is a far less important part of society, and where marriage is less important than it used to be, public arguments for gay marriage tend not to focus on the same things. And certainly not on doing God's will! (Even the Quakers and Unitarians probably don't even see religious gay marriage that way!)
In the American arena, the focus now seems to be on highlighting the conservatism of gay marriage, as you suggest. In the UK, our prime minster has said he's in favour of gay marriage because he's a Conservative (capital 'C' because he's in the Conservative Pary). But he didn't really explain himself, and few campaigners for gay marriage seem to be taking an especially conservative (little 'c', because they may not belong to the Conservative Party) line. Maybe they should, but there's less to be gained from doing so. This is a far less conservative country. Most of our gay spokesmen and women are not religious. They don't have any problem with the word 'partner', (as per your link) which is commonly used among straight couples in the UK. There are gay people in many churches, and they may hold a variety of opinions, but they're not really the ones guiding the discussion.
In any case, this is fairly academic, because in some form or other, religious or otherwise, same-sex marriage is likely to continue evolving in both of our countries. A few outspoken Catholic bishops are hardly going to stop that.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
I can understand that easy divorce, more easy-going morality about sex, even easy access to marriage (marry in haste repent at leisure) could be said to damage marriage. But I simply do not understand how a group of people previously excluded from this institution wanting to be allowed to join it, when plenty of others are abandoning it, can in any way be described as damaging (or "demolishing") this venerable institution.
Some would say that gay marriage is part of the same liberalising process that includes 'easy divorce [and] more easy-going morality about sex'.
As such, it's not that gay marriage is doing anything totally new, but that it takes us further in a liberalising direction, a direction which, by definition, makes marriage more fragile as a cultural phenomenon.
Perhaps it's the very fact that straight people are increasingly abandoning marriage (as you say) that makes them more willing to approve of same-sex marriage for others? Straight people don't care about marriage quite as much as they once did, so why should they care who gets married? Straight people in England are increasingly unlikely to get married in churches, so why should they care what a bishop has to say about who should get married in a church?
For me, it's not a question of condemning same-sex marriage for theological or psychological reasons, but of seeing it as part of a secularising agenda. It's in this sense that it 'threatens' marriage in general, because increasing secularisation goes in hand with decreasing marriage rates. But it's unfair to single out same-sex marriage for special disapproval in this process.
(In the UK, the current discussion is quite confusing, because there are different marriage/civil partnership proposals on the table, with different legal implications. So we can all take our pick as to what we approve or disapprove of. I suppose some might seem more 'threatening' than others.)
Thinking about the liberal/conservative axis, I would agree that marriage is conservative, almost all institutions are. When I was a lad there were plenty of voices in the gay community that said "Why should we ape the straights? We don't want to marry. Marriage is a repressive misogynistic institution" etc etc. Voices not often heard in the current debate for obvious reasons.
But there are plenty of conservative gay men and lesbians who want all that the institution of marriage can bring. Not least I suspect its very "ordinary-ness"
So does marriage need to become wider to accept same sex relationships or does society need to have "parity of esteem" for other forms of relationship? Marriage is a tough old bird after all!
If you won't let gay men and women marry, don't be surprised & don't judge when (some of them) have sex with a different person every night.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
If you won't let gay men and women marry, don't be surprised & don't judge when (some of them) have sex with a different person every night.
As I said at the end of my last post, I'm sure that gay people will be able to marry. In the USA certain states have already legalised gay marriage, and more will surely follow. In the UK, I imagine that the formation of civil partnerships has already created a considerable number of stable same-sex couples. The right to marry in the meeting houses of a certain number of religious groups is likely to follow.
Your statement is interesting though, because it implies either that (1) only legal marriage makes people monogamous, or that (2) only the right to legal marriage makes people monogamous. Plenty of cohabiting straight couples would take exception to no. 1! For many of them, marriage is just a piece of paper that can be ignored. In terms of no. 2, it suggests that in order to maintain a benchmark for orderly behaviour in our society, the legal system must remain fairly conservative, even if we routinely flout and complain about its 'asinine' laws.
In the same way, we all accept the freedom to divorce, yet we'd strongly object if anyone proposed removing the concept of marital vows, even though, in our culture, it would probably be more honest to do away with them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
What Josephine said
Will allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry destroy marriage? I think not. My wife and I will not, and nor will any other straight couple, be any less married if it is allowed.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Josephine said it beautifully. Thank you.
My partner had a life-threatening heart condition for which she had to have open heart surgery in 2001. We already held powers of attorney for each other, but we were well aware that even in NZ, some staff in some hospitals didn't honour them for gay and lesbian couples. Yes, one could take them to court and win, but right at the point of needing to be able to make a decision, one would be blocked.
We were lucky: the private hospital she had the surgery in couldn't have been more friendly and helpful (apart from the chaplain, but even he was friendly, he just couldn't produce a bible when required).
Three years later we were able to have a civil union (if you look in the Gallery you will see me signing the register) and such worries disappeared. Our families were able to celebrate with us as we became, officially, family. I remember Rosie saying to my Mum, "Now I can stop calling you my mother-out-law," and the pair of them having a little cry together.
The key thing for me is that not one person we spoke to referred to it as a civil union: they all referred to it as "getting married." It will happen. Popular usage is already well ahead of the lawmakers, let alone the church. Personally, I don't much mind what its called officially, since we call it married and if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Are we talking about Holy Matrimony, or the State issued civil contract between two individuals that confers rights and responsibilities? In my book these are very different questions.
Exactly. While I understand things are different in the UK due to the Establishment, in the US we are supposed to have separation of Church and State. Let's get the state out of the Holy Matrimony business entirely, and recognize that there are two distinguishable things that, whether unfortunately or no, go by the same name. The state has no business interfering in the one; the church has no business interfering in the other.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Are civil Marriage and the sacrament of marriage fundamentally different then? Are those only married by the state "not really married in the eyes of God"?
As far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned "yes".
For the Church of England "no".
The Catholic position has the virtue of consistency - and in the past paraplegics have not been allowed to marry as the marriage could not be consummated - while the CofE is more of a muddle. I don't know whether the fact that marriage is not a sacrament in the CofE has any effect or not.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Oh, and the other reason I support marriage equality: I'm divorced and remarried. ...
What kind of a hypocrite would I have to be to accept this grace, this lenience, this economia for myself, and deny it to a same-sex couple?
Sadly, I know exactly what kind of hypocrite you'd be: the kind who sits across from me in church each week, who, now that he is past the trauma of the divorce and happily settled into the second marriage, is glad to take an active role in church life and leadership -- while I, still married and still faithful to my first and only husband, am discouraged from participating in those same church roles because I have said out loud now and then that it's not such a terrible thing if gay couples marry.
It's blinding to me that people don't grasp the hypocrisy of their position. Would that everyone were as gracious and generous as you are, Josephine.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Are civil Marriage and the sacrament of marriage fundamentally different then? Are those only married by the state "not really married in the eyes of God"?
As far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned "yes".
For the Church of England "no".
Not true. At least I'm pretty sure the Church of England doesn't recognize same-sex marriages performed by civil authorities in other jurisdictions. For instance, if a couple is married in Canada I believe the CofE would only recognize the marriage as valid if the couple had complementary instead of matching genitals.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Are civil Marriage and the sacrament of marriage fundamentally different then? Are those only married by the state "not really married in the eyes of God"?
As far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned "yes".
For the Church of England "no".
Not true. At least I'm pretty sure the Church of England doesn't recognize same-sex marriages performed by civil authorities in other jurisdictions. For instance, if a couple is married in Canada I believe the CofE would only recognize the marriage as valid if the couple had complementary instead of matching genitals.
True - my apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that UK civil marriages are recognised by the CofE.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
True - my apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that UK civil marriages are recognised by the CofE.
And certain non-UK civil marriages will also be recognized by the Church of England, but not all of them, which puts it in a fairly similar boat as the RCC.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
I struggle to remember these days what I thought about it back when I thought like this. I think I started from the premise (one that I agonised over for a long time) that gay sex was a sin, and everything followed from that point, becoming just another small skirmish in a wider culture war.
I think that explains my past opposition to a lot of things which appeared to advance the "Gay Agenda" (a term I don't think I ever used, but which does a pretty good job of summarising my mindset). Gay marriage wasn't much of an issue at the time, but I think I'd have opposed it without thinking too much about reasons - it's part of the same war, therefore bad.
And I think it's that perception of a wider war that leads people to engage in special pleading about how this particular form of civil marriage is so damaging to the very concept, an attitude I've satirised on my blog. They've put their special glasses on to fight this war, and only see pink things (if you'll forgive the slightly dodgy stereotype). It's not that they're ignoring other changes to the nature of marriage, it's that they don't see them while they're fighting this battle.
If pushed, a slightly more developed argument might be that while marriage is still OK despite plenty of tinkering (although some would probably argue that it's looking a touch peaky), this really is a completely different kettle of fish, and could lead to all sorts of terrible, catastrophic results. The best thing is that you don't need to provide any evidence, just fear.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
venbede: quote:
Certainly, the Prayer Book assumes that normatively the bride will be fertile.
I hope you are not seriously suggesting that it is OK for a fertile woman married to an infertile man to dump him when she decides she wants to procreate. Because according to this logic (as many people have already pointed out), if either half of the sketch is infertile that means their marriage is invalid. Or are you suggesting that the Prayerbook is only concerned with female infertility, and any fertile woman married to an infertile man should just grin and bear it, whereas a man married to an infertile woman can trade her in for another? This hardly seems fair, although it is the way the world has worked for most if not all of recorded history.
ISTM that the unease over allowing homosexual marriage is that it means Society can no longer turn a blind eye to gay men and women. It is a commitment between two people, but it also forms a bond that didn't previously exist between two families. In Public. Frightening The Horses.
Personally I don't see a problem with this (I would be happy to dance at my gay/lesbian friends' and relatives' weddings) but I am probably in a minority in my denomination (C of E) and definitely out of step with my Archbishop.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I struggle to remember these days what I thought about it back when I thought like this. I think I started from the premise (one that I agonised over for a long time) that gay sex was a sin, and everything followed from that point, becoming just another small skirmish in a wider culture war.
I think that explains my past opposition to a lot of things which appeared to advance the "Gay Agenda" (a term I don't think I ever used, but which does a pretty good job of summarising my mindset). Gay marriage wasn't much of an issue at the time, but I think I'd have opposed it without thinking too much about reasons - it's part of the same war, therefore bad.
And I think it's that perception of a wider war that leads people to engage in special pleading about how this particular form of civil marriage is so damaging to the very concept, an attitude I've satirised on my blog. They've put their special glasses on to fight this war, and only see pink things (if you'll forgive the slightly dodgy stereotype). It's not that they're ignoring other changes to the nature of marriage, it's that they don't see them while they're fighting this battle.
If pushed, a slightly more developed argument might be that while marriage is still OK despite plenty of tinkering (although some would probably argue that it's looking a touch peaky), this really is a completely different kettle of fish, and could lead to all sorts of terrible, catastrophic results. The best thing is that you don't need to provide any evidence, just fear.
One of the things that occasionally fascinates me is when the 'pink glasses' come off, as it were. Because every now and then I see a hint that an opponent of gay marriage realises they lost their best arguing ground much earlier. In terms of legal recognition, they lost a lot of ground when de facto couples started getting recognised a couple of decades back - but to rewind that change now would be complete political suicide. In terms of the rationale of what marriage is about, a lot of the logical reasons against gay marriage lost their hold as marriage became seen as a partnership of equals.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a lot of the logical reasons against gay marriage lost their hold as marriage became seen as a partnership of equals.
This. Which is why there is so much sexism in the anti-gay arguments. It's been an eye opener. I used to support equal rights for gay people for the benefit of my gay friends, I now, in addition, realise it also involves me - as so many of the anti-gay marriage arguments also attack me as a woman in an equal relationship who doesn't intend to have children.
The sort of marriage that is threatened for these people is the sort that historically was used to subjugate women and to limit their opportunities in life - good riddance to it.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the things that occasionally fascinates me is when the 'pink glasses' come off, as it were. Because every now and then I see a hint that an opponent of gay marriage realises they lost their best arguing ground much earlier. In terms of legal recognition, they lost a lot of ground when de facto couples started getting recognised a couple of decades back - but to rewind that change now would be complete political suicide. In terms of the rationale of what marriage is about, a lot of the logical reasons against gay marriage lost their hold as marriage became seen as a partnership of equals.
I'm fascinated by how people's beliefs change, because they clearly do, but it's quite rare to be able to point to a particular thing and say "this changed my mind". Even when you can, that's probably only the first time you noticed that your opinion had changed. I've moved on all sorts of things, but I'm never entirely sure what caused that or when. I never felt like I was moving - I just looked around and realised that I was nearer to this landmark, or further away from that one.
That goes double for topics like gay marriage, which are proxy wars for culture and identity. People have heavily fortified positions on this, which is why it ends up here in DH, and there's little to no prospect of anyone changing their mind. But they do - I did, somehow, at some point - and your comment about noticing people taking the pink glasses off interests me, because I think that may be a very early stage of the process. Once you start to look at the whole landscape, rather than fighting a one-dimensional battle, you start to change.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
True - my apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that UK civil marriages are recognised by the CofE.
And certain non-UK civil marriages will also be recognized by the Church of England, but not all of them, which puts it in a fairly similar boat as the RCC.
And I believe it is also true that Canadian (and Spanaish and...) same sex marriages are not even recognized as civil partnerships in England. Leaving the two people in the position of being, from the English point of view, unrelated.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a lot of the logical reasons against gay marriage lost their hold as marriage became seen as a partnership of equals.
This. Which is why there is so much sexism in the anti-gay arguments. It's been an eye opener. I used to support equal rights for gay people for the benefit of my gay friends, I now, in addition, realise it also involves me - as so many of the anti-gay marriage arguments also attack me as a woman in an equal relationship who doesn't intend to have children.
The sort of marriage that is threatened for these people is the sort that historically was used to subjugate women and to limit their opportunities in life - good riddance to it.
L.
This is an interesting argument. It certainly undermines the arguments one sometimes hears that marriage is an intrinsically unequal set-up.
Perhaps we should be grateful that same-sex marriage activism has removed the notion that marriage is intrinsically anachronistic and repressive! However, if we take that view, we must also accept that same-sex marriage isn't just 'marriage', as some like to argue, but is actually a transformation of marriage. Maybe a transformation for the better (i.e. away from anachronism and repression), but a transformation nevertheless.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps we should be grateful that same-sex marriage activism has removed the notion that marriage is intrinsically anachronistic and repressive! However, if we take that view, we must also accept that same-sex marriage isn't just 'marriage', as some like to argue, but is actually a transformation of marriage. Maybe a transformation for the better (i.e. away from anachronism and repression), but a transformation nevertheless.
Sorry, I think you have this completely the wrong way around. Same-sex marriage activism is possible precisely BECAUSE people have already moved marriage away from the old model. It's the push for the equality of women that has made same-sex marriage activism, not the other way around.
The transformation of marriage has already happened, and my point was that many of the people worried about same-sex marriage simply seem not to have noticed.
[ 12. June 2012, 01:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
True - my apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that UK civil marriages are recognised by the CofE.
And certain non-UK civil marriages will also be recognized by the Church of England, but not all of them, which puts it in a fairly similar boat as the RCC.
And I believe it is also true that Canadian (and Spanaish and...) same sex marriages are not even recognized as civil partnerships in England. Leaving the two people in the position of being, from the English point of view, unrelated.
John
Incorrect, and it was incorrect during the time that my spouse and I - married in Canada - resided in the UK after the passage of the civil partnership act. Here is a link to Schedule 20 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which lists foreign jurisdictions as of 2010 that had various forms of same-sex marriage or other unions that were recognised in the UK as civil partnerships: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/ecis/ecg/foreign-civil-partnerships.pdf
The list would now be larger if an updated review has taken place. I also note that some jurisdictions such as Vermont that formerly had civil unions now have marriage equality, whilst other jurisdictions like Delaware, where I now live and that recently enacted civil unions, are not listed, as these developments have occurred since the review reflected in the 2010 revision of Schedule 20.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
No, what I'm talking about between men and women is as far as most people are concerned 'just marriage'. That's my point. The transformation of marriage to became egalitarian and not based around intended procreation as a necessary concept has happened over hundreds of years, with the first significant steps that I can see being taken by the Reformed churches in the 17th century, who began to stop putting procreation front and centre in the marriage service.
Certainly hardline Catholics, for example, have different views, but they've never really succeeded in convincing people outside their church that these marriages are not marriages or that a different word must be found because women have been given less hidebound roles and are regarded as equals. Despite this being a profound transformation there's hardly anything like the obsession about what it should be called that we see when it comes to gay people. It is as far as most people are concerned just 'marriage' in an uncontroversial way.
In the light of the acceptance of this process for women, it's hard to find arguments against gay marriage and many of the arguments against gay marriage also attack women and try to pull women back to the more sexist, procreation-centric ideologies of marriage. These are what are threatened, but that horse bolted a long time ago for most heterosexual people. The anti-gay campaigners are trying to shut the stable door on modern views of marriage, and they don't mind slamming it on women's fingers while they're at it.
L.
[ 12. June 2012, 02:03: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Are civil Marriage and the sacrament of marriage fundamentally different then? Are those only married by the state "not really married in the eyes of God"?
As far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned "yes".
For the Church of England "no".
Not true. At least I'm pretty sure the Church of England doesn't recognize same-sex marriages performed by civil authorities in other jurisdictions. For instance, if a couple is married in Canada I believe the CofE would only recognize the marriage as valid if the couple had complementary instead of matching genitals.
True - my apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that UK civil marriages are recognised by the CofE.
What does recognition by the C of E even mean in this context? I can't think of any case where it makes any practical difference whether the C of E recognises a marriage or not.
If a man marries another man, and then wants to marry a woman, I suppose the state would forbid him from doing so on the grounds of bigamy, whereas the Church would regard him as unmarried. However I think the Church would still be prevented from carrying out the marriage.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
What I meant was that UK civil marriages are recognised by the CofE.
What does recognition by the C of E even mean in this context? I can't think of any case where it makes any practical difference whether the C of E recognises a marriage or not.
Now that the CofE has relaxed its position on remarriage of divorced people, it may not make much of a difference but, 45 years ago it meant that my parents could not get married in church but could have been if they were Catholic, because my mother had divorced her first husband having married him in a registrar's office. She has held a grudge against the church ever since because she believes that God had nothing to do with that first marriage. The fact that she divorced him for adultery (in the early 60's, before the reform of the divorce laws) was irrelevant in the church's opinion.
I am aware that this is a bit of a tangent to the main discussion but it matters to me.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
When will the Church stop acting like an arse and get on with loving people?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
I suspect Satan may get a snowplough for his daily commute first. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
What I meant was that UK civil marriages are recognised by the CofE.
What does recognition by the C of E even mean in this context? I can't think of any case where it makes any practical difference whether the C of E recognises a marriage or not.
Now that the CofE has relaxed its position on remarriage of divorced people, it may not make much of a difference but, 45 years ago it meant that my parents could not get married in church but could have been if they were Catholic, because my mother had divorced her first husband having married him in a registrar's office. She has held a grudge against the church ever since because she believes that God had nothing to do with that first marriage. The fact that she divorced him for adultery (in the early 60's, before the reform of the divorce laws) was irrelevant in the church's opinion.
I am aware that this is a bit of a tangent to the main discussion but it matters to me.
And it should. This is what happens when doctrinal committees and theological hair-splitting take precedence over love, decency and respect. I'm reminded of something someone (Emma?) once said here - that the church would cause all sorts of trouble if you wanted to remarry after a long, faithful marriage, even if you had divorced your spouse for the most vile behaviour imaginable, but if you'd spent that period of time "living in sin" instead, you'd be welcomed with open arms.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
There is a group, however, for whom allowing gays to marry does diminish the concept of marriage: those who use being married as proof that they are NOT GAY, regardless of what they might happen to be caught doing in public toilet stalls, on vacation with their luggage handlers, etc.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I used to think that gays being able to be married wouldn't weaken straight marriages. But I'll concede there have been a lot of breakups since gay marriage has been allowed;
Arnold Schwartznegger, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, David Patterson,Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton...They're dropping like flies now that they don't have the smug security of knowing they have what gays can't have.
(You'll have to supply British Examples yourself) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
When will the Church stop acting like an arse and get on with loving people?
I dunno; it's been 2000 years. I'm not going to interrupt aspiration.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
