Sad day in USA for both Parties (Page 8)

Which stems from my not be able to write clearly enough about this...

They may be socialist, but they have great food.

OK, how 'bout broadening that example a bit...

Would a duly elected school board in MA, in a community that by a mix of chance and choice is made up exclusively of families with a Father and a Mother as their head, be required to set curriculum that teachs that gay marriage is the equivalent of their marriages?

If they refuse, could they be charged with hate speech or some similar charge?

So, boiled down, your saying that because my partner (or I) cannot bare children, that my relationship with him, my spiritual bond to him, my physical life with him, is less meaningful than yours to your wife. 

I have known several people to be married, have an active sex life with their partner, yet did not love each other....is there marriage to be more valid than mine.  I wear a ring around my finger, I have spent 10 years, for better or for worse with my parther...and I defy you to quantify that our love is not as deeply rooted as any heterosexuals marriage.   

They should teach that the marriages are equal...because one of those students may need that guidance in the future.  The pain that gay student who is now told that his life is less than everyone elses...and the message sent, that it is ok to discriminate against the gay student.   

I guess, not having kids, I have no idea what they teach them these days,  Is "marriage equivalency" really a subject?  I'm thinking you're having to think too hard to come up with hypotheticals to make your point (but I appreciate the effort). 

As for reproduction, I hear they do great things in petri dishes these days

To counter with a question - wouldn't groups like the ACLU want to, today, teach kids that a homosexual relationship is the equivalent (whatever that means) of a heterosexual one?  I still fail to see how this relates to marriages specifically.

How is the legal marriage of first cousins with the requirement that they be unable to procreate consistent with that reasoning? 

To be honest and frank, I don't see a moral reason why it should be opposed.

In practice, it seems that polygamy has been abused to setup marriages between older men and younger girls ( see recent cases being pursued in the southwest ).  That certainly has compelling moral reasons to be opposed, but one does not need to disallow polygamy to prevent that, one needs to set reasonable limits on age, which are already on the books!

There may be financial reasons why ( tax purposes ) they government may have a compelling interest into limiting the number of parties to a marriage, but I'm not morally opposed to polygamy. 

Your right....I know many people in Polyamorous relationships, both hetero and homosexual ones.  I think one of the main differences is the difficulty in dividing up the property if the relationship is disolved.  The legal ramifications are the main concern.  I think that if there were a way to work it, that a polyamorous family should be able to become legally binding.  If everyone in the family loves each other, why should it matter.  And possibly the reason that no one fights for the rights of the polygamist is they don't care or are afraid to come forward, like many gay men and women were up until quite recently. 

Partly, but not fully. Obviously, with technical advances you can theoretically procreate with yourself now. So procreation is available to everyone.

and this, hopefully, is the answer I promised runningwoof:

We first need to consider what a "marital act" is.

Marital acts unite a man and a woman organically. They become one organism, a two-in-one flesh union.

And the marital acts are always reproductive in type, even if they are not reproductive in effect.

They are intrinsic to the union. They actualize the union because they are an end in themselves.

Obviously, there are other types of sexual sexual acts that are not reproductive in type. Even between a married man and woman, though, they cannot be considered a marital act because they do not unite the couple into one organic principle.

They are performed for ends or goals that are extrinsic to themselves. Sexual satisfaction, or mutual satisfaction, is sought as a means to release tension, or in order to express affection, ect. They are the instrumentalization of the bodies of the persons involved.

So, the marital act is an end in itself.

A non-maritial act is a means toward some other end.

Don,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I think I understand why our viewpoints are at such odds: I do not, in any way shape or form, think that the governmental form of marriage (meaning, the union sanctioned by the US Government, where two people declare to the state that the chose to function as one legal unit) has anything to do with love on a spiritual level. Now, clearly, I believe that marriage does have the spiritual component you speak of, which is why when and if I get married, I will chose to do so in a religious ceremony consistent with my faith, however that ceremony is not, in my mind, the same thing as me asking the state to grant me a marriage license. 

Ok, I'm getting caught up and missing the point: I guess the issue, really, is that in my heart, I don't think your theory on natural law (regarding marriage in this case) is right. Now, I'm not schooled in this, and I'm not well spoken, but when I look deep inside to examine what I know to be true, what I know to be true is that two people pledging to spend their lives with the other, to honor each other in good times and bad, and to provide a stable and loving home to their children -- that seems natural to me. That seems to be in synch with the way 'things should be'. And whether those two people are two women or a woman or a man ... the beauty of that union isn't changed to me. And so I simply do not understand why the state should grant legal benefits to one couple and not to another.

I see many marriages that I think are violation of natural law, but it has nothing to do with the gender of the couple. 

I know you think I am being stubborn in my views here, by refusing to see what you are laying out. But I just can't... I don't get it. I just don't see the big freaking deal about two people honestly loving each other. /stamps foot, has tantrum/  

No.

I can't speak about your relationship. I can't and won't make a judgement about whether or not it is meaningful to you. I assume that it is as meaningful, if not more, than mine.

And it's not about not being able to have children. Many heterosexual couples cannot have children.

But I will say that it is different in type.

And to fully understand what I'm saying here, you need to consider that in the context of the other things I laid out regarding the basis for making moral claims in society.

The difference in type speaks to the question of why there ought to be only two in a marriage. You and coredump are at least honest and consistent in saying that relationships of more than two ought to be allowed. I don't agree with that, but I respect the position.

It's easier to see the argument I'm laying out if you consider the number instead of the gender. Of course it's only two, because only two can unite into one organic principle, not three or four or more.

Don, as always I thank you for taking the time to respond and with the details of your beliefs.  We will never agree on this issue, because I think the actualization comes from the heart / spirit if you will...not from a single act.  I understand your argument, which I still see as a religous one.  But I respect that...  at least your not telling me that I am mentally ill and diseased, like in an earlier thread that was pulled.   

Not at all. I truly appreciate the opportunity to share my views with you and everyone else. Everyone is free to come to their own conclusions.

I just want to share one other thing. I myself, did not not want to come to this conclusion. I really didn't. I've spent years looking for all kinds of ways around it.

I would be a happy person if someone could prove my belief wrong. To me, this is different than my opposition to abortion. With abortion, a person's life is at stake. In my view, a person dies. With gay marriage it's different. Here we're talking about the desire to increase love. So how could anyone oppose that. And if you've notice, I've never made any comment one way or the other about any other aspect of homosexuality.

But as with all of us, I have a responsibility to form my conscience in alignment with truth. I've read and thought and talked and prayed about this a lot. I really didn't want my current belief to be the conclusion. But it is the conclusion, and in order to be honest I need to deal with it.  I've lost good friends over this.

I wish I could explain my understanding of this better. Writing here on COJ helps a lot. It helps to clarify my thoughts. And having it probed helps a lot as well. If there are holes or weaknesses in my argument, I want to know about it.

I just don't see a way around it. I don't see a way of sanctioning gay marriage and not pushing the door to moral relativism even wider. I wish it were otherwise.

Here's another tangent.  A couple of questions:

1) Do you believe that gay couples should have fewer rights than heterosexual couples?  To wit, should gay partners be denied the ability make medical decisions on each others behalf without having to carry and produce written power of attorney documents?  Should they be denied the ability to be listed on each other's health insurance?

2) If you do not answer yes to 1, do you also support the gay marriage bans in the form of legislation and constitutional amendments, from a moral positioin?

3) If the answer to number 2 is also yes, is it because of the word 'marriage' that offends you?

4) If number 3 is yes, why do you pursue a negative action vis the denial of the rights mentioned in question 1, instead of a more morally superior to change existing laws to allow the equal granting of rights without conferring the loaded title of 'marriage' to the union?

IE, how do you morally justify the denial of rights through banning gay marriage yet claim to support a concept of Civil Unions? 

They are performed for ends or goals that are extrinsic to themselves. Sexual satisfaction, or mutual satisfaction, is sought as a means to release tension, or in order to express affection, ect. They are the instrumentalization of the bodies of the persons involved.

As a means to release tension? is that seriously the FIRST thing you list when referring to a non procreative sexual act?

instrumentalization? What does than even mean? Like Runningwoof suggested earlier, there is absolutely a spiritual aspect based on love and faith in my physical realtionship with my spouse.

I assume there are many straight couples in the world whose physical relationship involves non procreative touch etc which is spiritually based and not just "to release tension" or even to express "affection"  It is the physical connection that creates unity, regardless of the potential procreative outcome.

Are natural law inspired orthodox catholics allowed to enjoy sex? 

There's an old chestnut about papal infalibility. It goes like this:

Someone asked Thomas Aquinas what he would do if the Pope said that 2+2=5. He responded, "I'd ask him to explain himself more, and then I'd pray for his sanity."

If the Pope actually said tomorrow that gay marriage was OK, no one would listen to him. The Pope can't impose like that. It's not how it works. A satement like that would be so far out of line with the theology of the sacrament of marriage that people actually would be concerned for his sanity.

When the Pope makes an infalible declaration, as John Paul II did regarding abortion, it is done in communion with the Bishops who together constitute the teaching magisterium. JPII could only define the teachng on abortion as infallible because it was consistent with two thousand years of Christian history and theology and because the Bishops as a whole were of the same mind about it.

Hollis, when I wrote the word tension, I was actually thinking about the act of masturbation.  Please don't infer from that some idea that I don't understand what's involved here on an emotional and sprititual level between sam sex partners.

Instrumentalization in this case is a philosophical terms that refers to some act that is performed toward some end other than itself.  I'm sorry that I'm having trouble explaining it better.  Maybe I can sleep on it and have another go.

It's an important concept, because it is at the heart of the argument.  Please don't dismiss it simply because I need to explain it better.  If you want to continue this conversation, I really wil try to explain it better.

As to Catholics and sex...

The challenge is often put out around this issue and others to make a non-religious argument.  That's what I've tried to do.  That's why it sounds clinical.  It needs to be, because it's an attempt at a purely rationally based argument, not an emotional or poetic one.

And by the way, there have been several studies that show that Catholic couples have sex more often and have a deeper satisfaction with their sex lives than the general population.  That fact is not only allowed by orthodox teaching, it is considered a very good thing.

Natural Law is consistent with Catholic teaching, but it does not eminate from it.  As I said before, it is knowable by non-Catholcis, non-Christians, a-religious, and a-theistic people.  Among other ways, it's knowable through philosophy, which is a tool available to people of all faiths or no faith at all.

Jefferson was definitely not a Catholic, but he had a pretty good handle on Natural Law.

My guiding light is Jesus Christ.  But I can't impose that light on anyone else. 

Instrumentalization in this case is a philosophical terms that refers to some act that is performed toward some end other than itself.  I'm sorry that I'm having trouble explaining it better.  Maybe I can sleep on it and have another go.

 well, A for effort, Don, I know you are trying to explain this, and I know it must be frustrating to try and explain things to those of us who dont have the same vocabulry.. You are being very patient!

But I am confused about that definition of Instrumentalization- does that mean then that the act of sex has just one "end?" because that sounds like perhaps you are more biologically influenced than philosophically--

what is the philosophical, natural law purpose of orgasm in women? 

To the first question: No

To the second question: a qualified No

I qualify it because of a recent case in New York.  An institution in the diocese in New York is being forced by the state to provide contraception coverage in their employee medical plans, even though providing such coverage is against Catholic teaching.

In the example you gave, I dont' know if providing coverage to a same sex partner would be the same as providing contraceptive services.

I have a moral position on this that flow from my religious beliefs.  I'm always careful to discern whether or not I'm imposing my religious beliefs on someone else when it comes to things like voting. 

In the case of gay marriage, I'm satisfied, and actually can't avoid the fact, that there is a strong non-religious argument for opposing gay marriage.  

I would support legislation, but I would be cautious about ammendments.  Definitly cautious at the federal level, less so at the state level.

I haven't had to vote on this yet, so I haven't gone through the process of deciding. 

It doesn't offend me, I've just come to understand that it's not true.

I'm not fully sure yet.

Marriage is not just a word, it is a way of being.  So it's the line in the sand.  A civil union is a different concept, and frankly I haven't thought through it enough.

Hollis, if I have any frustration it's because I can't articulate it better than I do.  If you don't understand what I'm saying (not agree with, but understand), then I'm not doing a good job of making myself clear.  That means I have work to do to learn to write about this better.

I meant it yesterday when I said that you were a person of integrity.  I know you're giving me a chance to explain myself, and I appreciate it. 

Those are great questions.

Let me get back to them later, if it's alright.  Maybe I can be a little more clear headed than I am now. 

Man, Don is like the hero in the Martial Arts movies.  He spars with me for a few rounds, kicks my a$$, and while he's punching me he throws a roundhouse to Hollis and then hits coredump on the way back down.

Not that he's winning the arguments, no idea if he is or not, but he sure has an ability to handle multiple arguments at once, keeping his position straight, and to his credit, is consistent across the board.

that's why he's da man