Originally posted by Huia:
Wow!
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
The report I saw said there is no residentary clause, so does this mean same sex couples can come from another state and still have their marriage recognised in their home state?
Huia
quote:IANAL, but I think it would be up to the home state whether or not to recogzine marriages performed in New York. But like I say, IANAL.
Originally posted by Huia:
Wow!
The report I saw said there is no residentary clause, so does this mean same sex couples can come from another state and still have their marriage recognised in their home state?
Huia
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The Empire State Building has been lit in rainbow colors to celebrate!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Actually not quite. The general rule based on the Constitution was that states had to recognize each other's actions (full faith and credit, Article IV section 1
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I think recognition is always up to the other jurisdiction. My understanding was that before now, New York was one of a couple of states that already did recognise same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, even though NY didn't perform them itself.
quote:However the "Defense of Marriage Act" passed by Congress allows states not to recognize same sex marriages and required the Federal government not to recognize them. These are being challenged in the courts.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
quote:From the perspective of current U.S. law that's a different question entirely. Same-sex marriage is a question of franchise (who can participate) while polygamy, etc. are questions of structure (what is being participated in). To analogize from property law, the former is like saying that married women can own property in their own name (i.e. a change that allows wider participation in the current property law structure), while the latter would like enacting some form of entailment (i.e. changing the structure of property law).
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Isn't it time for Polygamists, Polyandrists, and other Combinationists to have their right recognised?
quote:I can't post on the discussion where you've been active. Either that or I'm looking at the wrong thing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Oh-So-Holy-Orthodox™ on Facebook are in apoplexy. My other "liberal" Orthodox friends seem to think I'm the only one who can hold the barricades. Guys, just clicking "like" on my posts isn't enough! I need some support!
quote:Smart man there. A pity so few prominent clergy understand the difference between religious and civil marriage. And I understand the New York law makes it crystal clear that no church is going to be forced against its will to provide marriage to those nasty infectious homosexuals.
"Many clerics declared their opposition, but the spokesman of the Primate of the Church of Greece said that people who marry "outside the church ... can do what they want".
quote:Ah okay. Thank you. I hadn't realised that DOMA was part of the reason that States had the option whether to recognise each other's marriages or not.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:Actually not quite. The general rule based on the Constitution was that states had to recognize each other's actions (full faith and credit, Article IV section 1
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I think recognition is always up to the other jurisdiction. My understanding was that before now, New York was one of a couple of states that already did recognise same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, even though NY didn't perform them itself.
quote:However the "Defense of Marriage Act" passed by Congress allows states not to recognize same sex marriages and required the Federal government not to recognize them. These are being challenged in the courts.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
quote:This whole thing is really ridiculous. Does the state force the Catholic Church to marry divorced people?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Smart man there. A pity so few prominent clergy understand the difference between religious and civil marriage. And I understand the New York law makes it crystal clear that no church is going to be forced against its will to provide marriage to those nasty infectious homosexuals.
quote:Yeah, I don't think most of us can chime in unless we "friend" the Bishop.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yeah it's mostly posts on this one Greek bishop's wall. He's a good egg. Geeze Louise, the blistering spite is just incredible. The delicious (if it weren't so horrid) irony of one of the arch homophobes talking about gay "hatemongers." Puh-leeze.
quote:States have to recognize marriages between a male and female homo sapiens that take place in another state (barring the usual rules applying across state boundaries about consent) and they have to recognize divorces that take place in other states. They have the option because of DOMA of not recognizing marriages between homo sapiens of the same sex (though for some people determining what sex they are can be tricky [e.g., someone with XY chromosomes but appears female] and states have different rules on that also).
Originally posted by orfeo:
I hadn't realised that DOMA was part of the reason that States had the option whether to recognise each other's marriages or not.
It makes for very pretty maps on Wikipedia, doesn't it?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:This seems to be where the conservatives are trying to shift the argument. In Canada, the Conservative government has basically accepted gay marriage as a done deal, but there was some talk for a while of the government introducing legislation specifically protecting the rights of churches not to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to. I don't think that bill was ever introduced, since churches already had the right to marry or not marry as they saw fit, but it was something being pushed by the right wing.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:This whole thing is really ridiculous. Does the state force the Catholic Church to marry divorced people?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Smart man there. A pity so few prominent clergy understand the difference between religious and civil marriage. And I understand the New York law makes it crystal clear that no church is going to be forced against its will to provide marriage to those nasty infectious homosexuals.
Yeah, I didn't think so. Good grief; will people ever grow up about this, I wonder....?
quote:IIRC, when Queen Frederika was told that a new bishop was a pederast, she replied "I thought they all were". Perhaps not all, but theenqiries which led to the reforms at Mt Athos in the eighties showed that many monks were gay.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Oh-So-Holy-Orthodox™ on Facebook are in apoplexy. My other "liberal" Orthodox friends seem to think I'm the only one who can hold the barricades. Guys, just clicking "like" on my posts isn't enough! I need some support!
quote:Thanks for the link.
This seems to be where the conservatives are trying to shift the argument. In Canada, the Conservative government has basically accepted gay marriage as a done deal, but there was some talk for a while of the government introducing legislation specifically protecting the rights of churches not to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to. I don't think that bill was ever introduced, since churches already had the right to marry or not marry as they saw fit, but it was something being pushed by the right wing.
link
quote:So in fact, they are still fighting the fight....
The amendment that was passed stated that barring access to same-sex ceremonies, or failing to provide services for them, would not “result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation.”
The amendment also included protections for “any employee thereof being managed, directed or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order or a not-for-profit corporation.” And it included similar protections for clergy who declined to perform same-sex ceremonies.
Finally, the legislation contained what is known as an inseverability clause. If a court found any part of the act to be invalid, the entire legislation would also be invalid. The clause is an important provision to Republicans because it means that the marriage legislation would be at risk if the religious exemptions were successfully challenged in court.
quote:The language about discrimination "against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation" makes me think they are looking at cases like the Ocean Grove (NJ) Camp Meeting Association lawsuit:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wow. An INseverability clause.
That is... I'm sorry, but coming from a system where severability clauses are quite commonly used as a constitutional safeguard, the idea of an inseverability clause just seems like the most perverse form of childish law-making imaginable.
quote:So this is a direct challenge to any such future action. IOW, they're saying, "don't try this again - or we'll torpedo same-sex marriage."
The state Division on Civil Rights ruled Sunday a lesbian couple can move forward with a discrimination complaint against Ocean Grove for refusing to let them use an oceanfront pavilion for a civil union.
Since the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association regularly offered the pavilion to the broader public, it was bound by the state Law Against Discrimination from barring civil unions, division director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled. Because its action was voluntary, he added, use of the discrimination statute does not impair the association's "free exercise of religion."
quote:This won't have any affect on cases that don't involve the NY marriage law specifically, though I don't doubt the GOP may try this with other future legislation. The only reason it was successfully inserted in this particular piece of legislation was it was the only way to guarantee it's passage, otherwise gay and lesbian couples would still be waiting for the right to marry in NY. There may come a day when this particular piece of legislation can be replaced, but that day probably won't come until more states pass laws enabling gay marriage than bar it.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The language about discrimination "against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation" makes me think they are looking at cases like the Ocean Grove (NJ) Camp Meeting Association lawsuit:
quote:So this is a direct challenge to any such future action. IOW, they're saying, "don't try this again - or we'll torpedo same-sex marriage."
The state Division on Civil Rights ruled Sunday a lesbian couple can move forward with a discrimination complaint against Ocean Grove for refusing to let them use an oceanfront pavilion for a civil union.
Since the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association regularly offered the pavilion to the broader public, it was bound by the state Law Against Discrimination from barring civil unions, division director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled. Because its action was voluntary, he added, use of the discrimination statute does not impair the association's "free exercise of religion."
I wonder if this is unconstitutional! Would be interesting to see....
quote:I was wondering the same. I note in the Ocean Grove case the pavilion in question was explicitly open to the general public since the camp association wanted to receive real estate tax exemptions; it was not forced to be a public accommodation but if it so chose, it couldn't discriminate (note this was not an exemption as a church and not all non-profits that own land in New Jersey are exempt from tax on their land). Ocean Grove is an odd place anyway, the camp association owns all the property in the community and leases land to the residents (all 4,000+); both couples wanting to get a civil union were residents of Ocean Grove. I think the camp association's board is self perpetuating not elected and all members must be Methodist.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The language about discrimination "against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation" makes me think they are looking at cases like the Ocean Grove (NJ) Camp Meeting Association lawsuit:
quote:Just for the record, pederasty (otherwise known as paedophilia), is not the same thing as homosexuality.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:IIRC, when Queen Frederika was told that a new bishop was a pederast, she replied "I thought they all were". Perhaps not all, but theenqiries which led to the reforms at Mt Athos in the eighties showed that many monks were gay.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Oh-So-Holy-Orthodox™ on Facebook are in apoplexy. My other "liberal" Orthodox friends seem to think I'm the only one who can hold the barricades. Guys, just clicking "like" on my posts isn't enough! I need some support!
quote:I would think that, given the similarity of the words and the high possibility/probability of their being confused, it would be wise to avoid the word "pederasty" altogether.
Originally posted by Gee D:
The OED definitions show the very clear difference between pederasty and paedophilia. Pederasty is buggery; paedophilia is sexual attraction to children of either sex.
quote:My 1984 Webster's defines pederasty as "sodomy between males, especially between a man and a boy". My late 90s Longmans(which is supposed to be British English) defines "paederast" as "a man who has sex with a boy".
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I would think that, given the similarity of the words and the high possibility/probability of their being confused, it would be wise to avoid the word "pederasty" altogether.
Originally posted by Gee D:
The OED definitions show the very clear difference between pederasty and paedophilia. Pederasty is buggery; paedophilia is sexual attraction to children of either sex.
quote:(My emphasis.)
Homosexual relations between men and boys
quote:A few comments:
Originally posted by Think²:
Frankly, I don't care about the technical detail of the act - I care that the lie of a link between homosexuality and child abuse is not perpetuated deliberately or by poor word choice.
quote:First, I'm pretty sure that this exclusion doesn't apply to any politician passing or revising New York's divorce law, so that seems a bit inconsistent. Second, since when is "regulating affection" the appropriate job of the Catholic Church?
Religious leaders slammed the state's new gay marriage law on Saturday, vowing to ban politicians who supported the measure from any Catholic church and parochial school events.
The city's top Catholic clergy released strongly worded statements in the hours after the state Senate voted 33-29 to legalize gay unions.
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, of the diocese of Brooklyn, called on all Catholic schools to reject any honor bestowed upon them by Gov. Cuomo, who played a pivotal role in getting the bill passed.
He further asked all pastors and principals to "not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration."
"This is a further erosion of the real understanding of marriage," DiMarzio told the Daily News. "The state should not be concerned about regulating affection."
quote:As I'm not friends with the Bishop (and not sure I wish to be!), it's a bit difficult to post a comment.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Oh-So-Holy-Orthodox™ on Facebook are in apoplexy. My other "liberal" Orthodox friends seem to think I'm the only one who can hold the barricades. Guys, just clicking "like" on my posts isn't enough! I need some support!
quote:In short, he doesn't like gays and has decided that his personal distaste should have legal consequences for others.
Originally posted by Gee D:
What's the good Bishop's problem?
quote:hosting
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:As I'm not friends with the Bishop (and not sure I wish to be!), it's a bit difficult to post a comment.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Oh-So-Holy-Orthodox™ on Facebook are in apoplexy. My other "liberal" Orthodox friends seem to think I'm the only one who can hold the barricades. Guys, just clicking "like" on my posts isn't enough! I need some support!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Sorry! Won't happen again.
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:hosting
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:As I'm not friends with the Bishop (and not sure I wish to be!), it's a bit difficult to post a comment.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Oh-So-Holy-Orthodox™ on Facebook are in apoplexy. My other "liberal" Orthodox friends seem to think I'm the only one who can hold the barricades. Guys, just clicking "like" on my posts isn't enough! I need some support!
Can I remind people not to import matters from other boards/websites onto these boards? I didn't post previously because Mousethief remembered and corrected himself. But just in case anyone is in doubt about official policy, please don't import arguments from your facebooktwitblogwhatever here!
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
quote:Well, that is somewhat heartening.
Originally posted by mousethief:
A personal response to the call to sign the Manhattan Declaration by an Orthodox priest.
Excerpt:
Do we practice what we preach? Why should anyone pay attention to us at all until we do? If there is a persecution of Christianity in this country it may well come not because of our fidelity to the truth, but due to our arrogance and hypocrisy.
...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
quote:What an extraordinarily elaborate way of saying 'we don't think your genitals fit together properly'.
We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.
quote:Heh. I remember saying something along these lines to my mom when I was about 15- 16. I asked her if there was any verses in the Revelation indicating that we were asking for it. (This was during some of the uglier moments in Christianity's Response to the AIDS Crisis.)
Originally quoted by mousethief:
Do we practice what we preach? Why should anyone pay attention to us at all until we do? If there is a persecution of Christianity in this country it may well come not because of our fidelity to the truth, but due to our arrogance and hypocrisy.
...
quote:And isn't the phrase "fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation" just about the most romantic thing you've ever heard?
Originally posted by orfeo:
What an extraordinarily elaborate way of saying 'we don't think your genitals fit together properly'.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Created to provide employment for urologists?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Quite.
I'm almost tempted to draft a 20-line response that basically boils down to "okay then, explain the prostate gland".
quote:I'm happy to be corrected, but really? Didn't we have a discussion a while back about whether two people who explicitly didn't want children could have a Catholic marriage? And didn't Henry VIII do just this (although the official excuse was consanguinuity)? OliviaG
That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.
quote:Yes, that's right, OliviaG. Two people who decided in advance that they would choose not to have children (in circumstances where they supposed such was possible) lack the intention to effect the sacrament of matrimony. But a case in which either or both were infertile and knew this to be the case could still effect the correct intention for martrimony, supposing their infertility was involuntary.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:I'm happy to be corrected, but really? Didn't we have a discussion a while back about whether two people who explicitly didn't want children could have a Catholic marriage? And didn't Henry VIII do just this (although the official excuse was consanguinuity)? OliviaG
That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.
quote:Under that logic, wouldn't same-sex marriage be sacramentally okay? After all, a same-sex couple knows in advance that they're infertile, and I can't think of a way to argue that this infertility is voluntary (i.e. the result of a conscious decision and specific actions).
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Yes, that's right, OliviaG. Two people who decided in advance that they would choose not to have children (in circumstances where they supposed such was possible) lack the intention to effect the sacrament of matrimony. But a case in which either or both were infertile and knew this to be the case could still effect the correct intention for martrimony, supposing their infertility was involuntary.
quote:I thought your argument was that being able to bear children wasn't an aspect of the Church's teaching on marriage at all, though it does have a strong opinion about being willing to bear children.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No, Crœsos. Because being able or not being able to bear children is just one aspect to the Church's teaching on marriage.
quote:Simply that such arguments seem to be a non-sequitur in relation to same-sex marriage (the alleged topic of this thread).
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Um, yes - that's right. What's your point?
quote:Well, the "inherently nonprocreative nature of homosexual unions" was one of two reasons cited by the US Conference Of Catholic Bishops cited for opposing gay marriage. The other being that gay unions don't "express human complementarity".
Since the Church doesn't forbid marriage to those who cannot conceive a child together, the Church naturally does not premiss its argument against gay marriage on that. [/QB]
quote:Ah, but that's rather different. The fact that a man and a woman may be incapable of having a child together is no impediment in itself. In itself, not being able to have children is not a proof that a valid marriage cannot be contracted. Which is why marriages are permitted to sterile couples and why the accidental impossibility of children is does not in itself nix homosexual marriages.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, the "inherently nonprocreative nature of homosexual unions" was one of two reasons cited by the US Conference Of Catholic Bishops cited for opposing gay marriage. The other being that gay unions don't "express human complementarity".
quote:Then why bring it up?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Ah, but that's rather different. The fact that a man and a woman may be incapable of having a child together is no impediment in itself.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, the "inherently nonprocreative nature of homosexual unions" was one of two reasons cited by the US Conference Of Catholic Bishops cited for opposing gay marriage. The other being that gay unions don't "express human complementarity".
quote:Didn't say you did; sorry if it seemed that way.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I didn't - OliviaG did. Do keep up.
quote:Can you explain what things are part of the very sort of person one is, and what things are accidental? I'm trying to make your statement here make sense to me, and I'm having trouble with it.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But a relationship that is so ordered that procreation is, by the fundamental identity of the persons themselves, precluded - not by accident but by the very sorts of persons (two males or two females) attempting to contract the marriage - cannot, the Church argues, be solemnised in matrimony.
quote:It's back to the complementarity thing. God made people male and female (which is, I would argue, a basic part of each person's identity as a created being) as part of His plan for creation, which includes procreation. Whether one is fertile or not is not a basic part of one's identity as a person - being male or female is.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Can you explain what things are part of the very sort of person one is, and what things are accidental? I'm trying to make your statement here make sense to me, and I'm having trouble with it.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But a relationship that is so ordered that procreation is, by the fundamental identity of the persons themselves, precluded - not by accident but by the very sorts of persons (two males or two females) attempting to contract the marriage - cannot, the Church argues, be solemnised in matrimony.
quote:And yet, the Catholic Church teaches precisely that homosexuals should not procreate - that we are "called to chastity."
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's back to the complementarity thing. God made people male and female (which is, I would argue, a basic part of each person's identity as a created being) as part of His plan for creation, which includes procreation. Whether one is fertile or not is not a basic part of one's identity as a person - being male or female is.
quote:No, rather the Church recognises that homosexuals cannot procreate (at least, in ways which would also be licit for heterosexuals).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:And yet, the Catholic Church teaches precisely that homosexuals should not procreate - that we are "called to chastity."
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's back to the complementarity thing. God made people male and female (which is, I would argue, a basic part of each person's identity as a created being) as part of His plan for creation, which includes procreation. Whether one is fertile or not is not a basic part of one's identity as a person - being male or female is.
quote:Of course homosexuals can procreate, and often do.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No, rather the Church recognises that homosexuals cannot procreate (at least, in ways which would also be licit for heterosexuals).
[eta: but yes, the Church calls homosexual people to chastity.]
quote:What you've just said about procreation directly contradicts this; apparently homosexuals are actually NOT "part of His plan for creation" at all. (And BTW, it's rather odd hearing this argument from a member of a Church that has heartily approved of celibate priests since the early middle ages and celibate monastics from the very beginning....)
God made people male and female (which is, I would argue, a basic part of each person's identity as a created being) as part of His plan for creation, which includes procreation. Whether one is fertile or not is not a basic part of one's identity as a person - being male or female is.
quote:Really? With their same-sex partners and in a way that would be licit (in the eyes of the Church) for heterosexuals (i.e., as a result of the marital act and not by in vitro or other such technologies)? Because that was the claim I was making.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Of course homosexuals can procreate, and often do.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No, rather the Church recognises that homosexuals cannot procreate (at least, in ways which would also be licit for heterosexuals).
[eta: but yes, the Church calls homosexual people to chastity.]
quote:Well, obviously. I fail to see the relevance of that obsrvation to the question in hand, however.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
We're not infertile; we could simply marry heterosexually and have children in the usual way.
quote:Because the Church does not tell anyone they should marry and have children. It especially would not encourage people who were unsuited to a heterosexaul marriage for whatever reason that they should marry. The Church teaches what it does because it thinks it is in possession of the truth.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Why does the church teach what it does? Why doesn't it teach, instead, that we should marry somebody of the opposite sex and have children?
quote:I understand the assertions -- male or female is a basic part of your identity, fertility is not. What I don't understand is your reason for the assertions. What makes one thing a basic part of your identity and another thing not a basic part? I know people who consider being Deaf or being autistic a basic part of their identity -- would you agree or not? If you're 6'11" tall, is that a basic part of your identity? Who decides? On what basis?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
God made people male and female (which is, I would argue, a basic part of each person's identity as a created being) as part of His plan for creation, which includes procreation. Whether one is fertile or not is not a basic part of one's identity as a person - being male or female is.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What you've just said about procreation directly contradicts this; apparently homosexuals are actually NOT "part of His plan for creation" at all. (And BTW, it's rather odd hearing this argument from a member of a Church that has heartily approved of celibate priests since the early middle ages and celibate monastics from the very beginning....)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The Church does not think procreation is God's plan for every single individual person - as you've just pointed by metioning calling to celibacy of her priests. But [it is I]part[/I] of the plan for humankind as a whole.
quote:Good questions. The Catholic Church's answer is "God": through reason and revelation. This is the way creation is presented to us in the Scriptures, in most of (the rest of) Tradition and as it presents itself to reason. For example, we think it remains true that we will be men and women in eternity, but not deaf or blind or necessarily the same height as we were in life.
Originally posted by Josephine:
What makes one thing a basic part of your identity and another thing not a basic part? I know people who consider being Deaf or being autistic a basic part of their identity -- would you agree or not? If you're 6'11" tall, is that a basic part of your identity? Who decides? On what basis?
quote:Oh, stop rolling your eyes; I'm asking perfectly reasonable questions here, given your assertions about human beings made male and female for a particular purpose - i.e., "procreation."
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not sure why that has anything at all to do with marriage equality. God's plan for humankind as a whole involves procreation. Fine. But not all can procreate. So that completely skirts the problem of distinguishing between those who can't procreate in their marriage by means of being fertile, with those who can't procreate in their marriage due to not having complementary plumbing. THAT criterion, at least, is irrelevant to the distinction since it equally covers both.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
)quote:I'll stop rolling my eyes if you stop so badly misrepresenting what I'm saying. I have never said all human beings were created with the express purpose of procreation. That would be ridiculous. In fact, the Church teaches that God made everybody with the supreme purpose of loving him and living with him and all redeemed humnaity for ever - that is the purpose of our creation. That procreation is part of God's plan for humanity (not every single human being) is all I contend.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Oh, stop rolling your eyes; I'm asking perfectly reasonable questions here, given your assertions about human beings made male and female for a particular purpose - i.e., "procreation."
quote:In order:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
why are homosexuals "unsuitable" for heterosexual marriage? Why are we "called to chastity" instead? What makes us "unsuitable," given our God-given natures as men and women, created for the purpose of procreation? (And why, BTW, are priests "unsuitable" for marriage, while we're at it?)
quote:Agreed. The Catholic Church does and always has taught that the the unmarried state is in a sense a higher state than the married one. But that is not to say that one does wrong by marrying - that can work towards God's purpose too, and without it there would be no new children of the Church (since god has "devolved" that to us). I'm married myself. Not everyone is suited to a life of celibacy, even if that is the "higher" way. Any more that a life of complete holy poverty is for everyone, although in a sense more perfect.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(What's really interesting, actually, is that it's very, very easy to make the case that the preferred marital status in the New Testament is "none." Paul encourages those who are single to stay single, after all.
quote:Except 'He' didn't. Human beings have an interesting range of intersex conditions and chromosomal variation. Historically societies have tried hard to force people with such conditions into binary human constructs of either male or female approved sexual roles. Churches, catholic and protestant, have often behaved with extraordinary cruelty in order to do this - hermaphrodites who didn't stick to their Church court assigned sex-roles were often burned. Gay people who refused to be forced into asexual or heterosexual lives were executed.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's back to the complementarity thing. God made people male and female (which is, I would argue, a basic part of each person's identity as a created being) as part of His plan for creation, which includes procreation. Whether one is fertile or not is not a basic part of one's identity as a person - being male or female is.
quote:So, then: what's the problem with homosexual relationships?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:I'll stop rolling my eyes if you stop so badly misrepresenting what I'm saying. I have never said all human beings were created with the express purpose of procreation. That would be ridiculous. In fact, the Church teaches that God made everybody with the supreme purpose of loving him and living with him and all redeemed humnaity for ever - that is the purpose of our creation. That procreation is part of God's plan for humanity (not every single human being) is all I contend.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Oh, stop rolling your eyes; I'm asking perfectly reasonable questions here, given your assertions about human beings made male and female for a particular purpose - i.e., "procreation."
quote:1) The Catechism does, categorically. Here it is, #2359: "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." Period. End of story. And unless I'm mistaken, Catholics can marry without any sort of consultation with a priest; they can marry somebody of another religion, too, and people can become Catholic after having been married in another tradition. All those kinds of marriages are considered valid. Which means that heterosexuals never have to attest to their sexual attraction to their spouses; why should gay people be denied heterosexual (or any) marriage on that basis?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:In order:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
why are homosexuals "unsuitable" for heterosexual marriage? Why are we "called to chastity" instead? What makes us "unsuitable," given our God-given natures as men and women, created for the purpose of procreation? (And why, BTW, are priests "unsuitable" for marriage, while we're at it?)
1) I don't categorically state that all homosexual people are necessarily unsuited to (heterosexual) marriage. Perhaps there are some for whom it works very well. But I think there are obvious problems with someone marrying another person with whom there is a baseline sexual incompatibility. Don't you?
2) All people who remain unmarried are called to chastity, because marriage or abstinence from sex altogether are the states of life (that the Church believes) God calls us to.
3) Not all people are called to procreation - see above.
4) Priests are not necessarily unsuited to marriage at all - they merely forego it (in general, in the Latin Church) to answer their call to priesthood.
quote:This is exactly the problem - this kind of statement is more or less what it looks like to judge other people from a position of, almost unconscious, privilege. It doesn't look that way for someone on the receiving end of it. Much of Jesus's teaching is about trying to get us to see that other end of the stick and to refrain from hitting people with it.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Louise, of course there are people with all sorts of conditions which make them gendered in non-typical ways. But that doesn't, it seems to me, fundamnentally affect the general nature and calling of the vast majority of people. Hard cases make bad law, as it were. Too late to say much more on that.
quote:So why do you lump homosexuals in with 'the general nature and calling of the vast majority of people'? Instead of with the intersex and transgender as non-typical people?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Louise, of course there are people with all sorts of conditions which make them gendered in non-typical ways. But that doesn't, it seems to me, fundamnentally affect the general nature and calling of the vast majority of people. Hard cases make bad law, as it were. Too late to say much more on that.
quote:I mean, I would imagine that all Catholics are "called to chastity" in the first sense of the word, no? So perhaps this is actually loophole left for later, when the understanding of homosexuality changes - and therefore the teaching has to change with it?
1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord," they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.
quote:God also made people who are neither fully male nor female.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:It's back to the complementarity thing. God made people male and female (which is, I would argue, a basic part of each person's identity as a created being) as part of His plan for creation, which includes procreation. Whether one is fertile or not is not a basic part of one's identity as a person - being male or female is.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Can you explain what things are part of the very sort of person one is, and what things are accidental? I'm trying to make your statement here make sense to me, and I'm having trouble with it.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But a relationship that is so ordered that procreation is, by the fundamental identity of the persons themselves, precluded - not by accident but by the very sorts of persons (two males or two females) attempting to contract the marriage - cannot, the Church argues, be solemnised in matrimony.
quote:Hate to mention it, but this also implies that gay people can in fact marry their same-sex partners.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Catechism does not say that homosexual people are called to celibacy, as TM later pointed out, but to chastity - which is the same call for any married person.
If there are no fundamental obstacles (psychological, emotional, physiological, situational, etc.) to a person with same-sex attraction forming the relevant intention of matrimony with a person of the opposite sex and to consummating that marriage, I do not see why they may not, ceteris paribus, be married by the Church.
quote:Hmmm. You yourself just said this:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sorry, TubaMirum - you've lost me. How does it imply anything of the sort?
quote:I'm not clear why you are "lost" about this. What does "chastity" in marriage mean to you, if not - as in the second definition I gave above - "moderation in sexual matters"? i.e., "the same call for any married person." How, exactly, are these "married persons" actually living out their "call to chastity"? What does this actually mean, when speaking about marriage?
The Catechism does not say that homosexual people are called to celibacy, as TM later pointed out, but to chastity - which is the same call for any married person.
quote:No. It doesn't. Because marriage is defined by the Church as an instutution between men and women and always has been (just as it was and is for Jews and Muslims and any other number of religions and socities).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Hate to mention it, but this also implies that gay people can in fact marry their same-sex partners.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If there are no fundamental obstacles (psychological, emotional, physiological, situational, etc.) to a person with same-sex attraction forming the relevant intention of matrimony with a person of the opposite sex and to consummating that marriage, I do not see why they may not, ceteris paribus, be married by the Church.
quote:"Triolism"! That's a new one on me; never heard the term before today.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Married people exercise chastity by treating one another, others and themselves in accordance with what the Church teaches: they may not engage in any act which is wrong in itself, such as abuse, exploitation, triolism, public indecency, etc. But since homosexual genital acts are in themselves wrong according to the Church, homosexual unions cannot be chaste if they involve them. Therefore, although the marriage of persons with same-sex attraction to people of the opposite sex is not in itself ruled out, it is ruled out between two people of the same sex.
I'm sure none of this comes a surprise to you, and I don't expect you to accept it - but it is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church and always has been.
quote:In other words: it doesn't really matter how long the prohibition has been in place, if the actual attempt to deal with the topic creates a fatal contradiction in the Church's own teaching! (This, I'd say in fact, is a clear indication that the teaching is wrong.)
Please notice that there are two logical barriers which the ecclesiastical argument cannot jump without falsifying it’s own doctrine. The first is this: The Church cannot say “Well, being that way is normal, something neutral or positive, the Church respects it and welcomes it. The Church only prohibits the acts which flow from it”. This position would lack logic in postulating intrinsically evil acts which flow from a neutral or positive being. And this would go against the principle of Catholic morals which states that acts flow from being – agere sequitur esse. The second barrier is this: the Church cannot say of the homosexual inclination that it is a desire which is in itself intrinsically evil, since to say this would be to fall into the heresy of claiming that there is some part of being human which is essentially depraved – that is, which cannot be transformed, only covered over.
Faced with these two barriers, ecclesiastical logic did a backward double-flip worthy of an Olympic gymnast so as to arrive at the following formulation: “The homosexual inclination, though not itself a sin, constitutes a tendency towards behaviour that is intrinsically evil, and must therefore be considered objectively disordered.” With this phrase, the Vatican Congregations sought to maintain the absolute prohibition of the acts without describing the desire as intrinsically evil. Nevertheless the price of this definition is very high. It obliges its defenders to insist that the homosexual inclination, independently of any acts flowing from it, is something objectively disordered. And the kind of objectivity they have in mind is deduced not from what can be known through experience, but is an a priori which depends on the Church’s teaching concerning marriage. That is to say, the a priori of the intrinsic heterosexuality of all human beings. In other words, from the presupposition of the intrinsic heterosexuality of all human beings, it is deduced that the person whose inclination is towards those of the same sex is a defective heterosexual.
....
This then is the conflict: for the prohibition of the acts to correspond to the true being of the person, the inclination has to be characterised as something objectively disordered. However, since the inclination doesn’t alter, unlike desires which are recognisably vicious, the gay or lesbian person would have a desire which is, in fact, intrinsically evil, an element of radical depravity in their desire. And we would have stepped outside Catholic anthropology. Or, on the other hand, the same-sex inclination is simply something that is, in which case grace will bring it to a flourishing starting from where it is, and with this we would have to work out which acts are appropriate or not, according to the circumstances, and we will have stepped outside the absolute prohibition passed on to us by tradition.
quote:Excuse me, but there IS a fundamental psychological and emotional obstacle - and it's one that the church RECOGNISES. We are NOT ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If there are no fundamental obstacles (psychological, emotional, physiological, situational, etc.) to a person with same-sex attraction forming the relevant intention of matrimony with a person of the opposite sex and to consummating that marriage, I do not see why they may not, ceteris paribus, be married by the Church.
quote:You and TubaMirum will have to fight that one out between yourselves, then. If it's not an obstacle to formimg a proper intention to marry as the Church understands it and is not an absolute obstacle to consummating the marriage, then it's an open question as far as I'm concerned. All I know if that I couldn't marry a guy if the requirements were the same.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Excuse me, but there IS a fundamental psychological and emotional obstacle - and it's one that the church RECOGNISES. We are NOT ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If there are no fundamental obstacles (psychological, emotional, physiological, situational, etc.) to a person with same-sex attraction forming the relevant intention of matrimony with a person of the opposite sex and to consummating that marriage, I do not see why they may not, ceteris paribus, be married by the Church.
quote:Which brings me back to Sodom and Gommorrah. I have this version of the story in my mind where God says "Oh RIGHT, you wanted to rape a WOMAN! Sorry, terrible misunderstanding. Won't destroy you then. Carry on!"
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Because of the fall, many of our desires are disordered - some only when out of control or proportion but directed towards soemthing neutral or good (like, say, unrestrained gluttony or lust), others intrinsically because of what it is directed towards (like same-sex attraction).
quote:Exactly. Which makes it utterly ridiculous to tell a gay man "Good News! You're allowed to marry a woman!"
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
All I know is that I couldn't marry a guy if the requirements were the same.
quote:I think you probably should read the whole article; the ellipses did leave out some important stuff - but it was too long to quote....
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actually, I'd hate to miselad you: it's "troilism", and it's my example, not the Church's.
As to James Alison's argument, it's a bit all over the place. In his evident need to make it look as if the Church just hasn't thought her doctrine through properly, he overloooks something massively important himself.
Because of the fall, many of our desires are disordered - some only when out of control or proportion but directed towards soemthing neutral or good (like, say, unrestrained gluttony or lust), others intrinsically because of what it is directed towards (like same-sex attraction). But in neither case is the desire itself - whether intrinsically disordered or merely out of control - morally culpable (unless deliberately indulged in or acted upon). A desire certainly can be intrinsically disordered without any blame attaching to the person with that desire.
In other words, there is no contradiction here at all.
quote:Well, to be fair, he was responding to me; I'd asked why gay people were forbidden intimacy at all, simply because we were same-sex oriented. This doesn't make sense to me; one would think that this was going way too far, especially since (as Chesterbelloc describes it) the RCC teaches that reproduction is as centrally important as it is.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Exactly. Which makes it utterly ridiculous to tell a gay man "Good News! You're allowed to marry a woman!"
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
All I know is that I couldn't marry a guy if the requirements were the same.
quote:(And may I just add: what will these wild and crazy heterosexuals come up with next!?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actually, I'd hate to miselad you: it's "troilism", and it's my example, not the Church's.
)
quote:And yet they also knew about Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, and they did care. Is it because Wilde and Turing weren't nobility?
Originally posted by John Holding:
Everybody knew in all these cases, and no one cared.
quote:Perhaps the difference is in the "married" part? Alan Turing was openly gay, and not playing any sort of game about it. As long as you do obeisance to the will of the majority, you can often skirt by; it's when you break society's rules and forgo the pretense that you get into trouble.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And yet they also knew about Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, and they did care. Is it because Wilde and Turing weren't nobility?
Originally posted by John Holding:
Everybody knew in all these cases, and no one cared.
quote:In regards to Oscar Wilde, wasn't it the case that ONE guy, Lord Alfred's father, really cared, and decided to humiliate Wilde publically by sending a mock bouquet to one of his performances? Followed by Wilde ignoring all the legal advice he was given, and launching a libel suit against Queensberry? Which led to information coming up at trial about his sexual activities, and then subsequent criminal charges from that?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Perhaps the difference is in the "married" part? Alan Turing was openly gay, and not playing any sort of game about it. As long as you do obeisance to the will of the majority, you can often skirt by; it's when you break society's rules and forgo the pretense that you get into trouble.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And yet they also knew about Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, and they did care. Is it because Wilde and Turing weren't nobility?
Originally posted by John Holding:
Everybody knew in all these cases, and no one cared.
I don't know about Wilde, though....
quote:I wasn't really trying to argue anything one way or the other about how the Victorians treated homosexuality. I was just filling in the blanks about Wilde, since Tuba said that s/he didn't know the details of the case.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, they don't care except when they do? They don't care how gay you are until you admit it publicly? I'm not following the logic.
quote:Did I miss something? Who said social rules had to be logical?
So, they don't care except when they do? They don't care how gay you are until you admit it publicly? I'm not following the logic.
quote:Well, to be honest, I'm not sold on what John Holding has said above, anyway. I'd certainly like some sort of evidence that it's true - because I doubt it very much, myself, unless he's talking strictly about the very wealthy or powerful. Still, I'd sure like some links or something to read about this.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, they don't care except when they do? They don't care how gay you are until you admit it publicly? I'm not following the logic.
quote:I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't talking about social rules when I said I don't understand. I was asking about what people were saying were the social rules in the UK. It was a, "do i have it straight, what you're saying?" (no pun intended of course.) Social rules are often illogical and inconsistent. But it is also true that I often misunderstand what people are saying.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Mousthief:quote:Did I miss something? Who said social rules had to be logical?
So, they don't care except when they do? They don't care how gay you are until you admit it publicly? I'm not following the logic.
quote:Not just Victorian. 15-20 years ago Terry Teachout ranted about the nascent phenomenon of gay people coming out and predicted that it would lead to a mighty backlash. Gays do nicely without it, he explained, because people are willing to look the other way when their own values are not challenged or threatened. Then he launched into a sort of paean for this kind of hypocrisy-- overlooking certain behavior in others despite disapproval-- which is distinct from doing something oneself while making a great production of condemning it.
Originally posted by Stetson:
for the most part people are happy to look the other way, and confine prosecution to the the few luckless losers who are indiscrete enough to get caught.
And yes, I think that Victorian's hypocrisy about sex and our own hypocrisy about drugs are equally disgusting.
quote:The only explanations I can think of are that Giuliani is a total tool or that he's delusional enough the think that this would be the act which makes Republicans reject him at the polls. These two explanations are, obviously, not mutually exclusive.
The gay car dealer who opened his home to Rudy Giuliani in 2001 during his humiliating divorce battle says the former mayor offered to preside at his wedding if same-sex marriage were ever legalized -- but is now ducking his calls to make good on the offer.
"I asked if he would marry us," recalled Howard Koeppel, the unlikely provider of an emergency Midtown crash pad to Giuliani for six months when his marriage to Donna Hanover was crumbling and Gracie Mansion was a war zone.
"He said, 'Howard, I don't ever do anything that's not legal. If it becomes legal in New York, you'll be one of the first ones I would marry.'"
Ten years later, Koeppel is distressed that his former house guest hasn't returned the many calls he began making before the legislation was passed last week.
"It seems like a lot of people he was close to become persona non grata," Koeppel observed.
Koeppel has been with his partner, Mark Hsiao, since 1991.
quote:Possibly. Nobility, or at least upper and upper middle class. Or cathedral clergy. Or Oxbridge colleges. Or senior civil servants. Or...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And yet they also knew about Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, and they did care. Is it because Wilde and Turing weren't nobility?
Originally posted by John Holding:
Everybody knew in all these cases, and no one cared.
quote:I suspect that's a large part of it. Wilde was married with children, though so I think in his case it was more what Stetson describes.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Perhaps the difference is in the "married" part? Alan Turing was openly gay, and not playing any sort of game about it. As long as you do obeisance to the will of the majority, you can often skirt by; it's when you break society's rules and forgo the pretense that you get into trouble.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And yet they also knew about Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, and they did care. Is it because Wilde and Turing weren't nobility?
Originally posted by John Holding:
Everybody knew in all these cases, and no one cared.
I don't know about Wilde, though....
