Despite regular and repeated efforts to tell us we think otherwise, we--faithful Catholics--do not hate gays. We have just as much love, care, and concern for our gay friends and family as we do for our straight ones (and yes, I do personally have several gay friends and a gay family member, FWIW). We are not fearful. We are not hate mongers. We're not ignorant or on the fringes of some sort of "right-wing" or "backwoods" group. We're not narrow minded, irrational, nor stupid. And we're not worried about what other people do in their bedrooms.
On the contrary, marriage is a public, societal, civic (and for many, religious) institution. Our position is not about denying anyone the right to live and love as they please; it is about the public, civic institution of marriage. And marriage, for us, is even more than that--it's a sacrament, right up there with baptism, the Eucharist, confirmation, ordination, reconciliation, and last anointing. It's in the top 7 things we care about. But regardless of our religious beliefs, marriage, for everyone, is something that spans cultures, time, politics, governments, and with few exceptions (I'm being generous and assuming there have been a few societies, though I don't know of any), it has been recognized as a man and a woman forming a stable bond in which they can raise children.
So that's why we care and are not willing to just stand by and let it be whimsically be redefined by this particular cultural ethos in this particular time. It's too important to experiment with. Democracy is great, but the current will of the majority does not equate to what is true or right. History does not define what is true or right either--it just records what is, so saying "history will prove us right" just doesn't make sense.
It may be that our society continues in the direction it is heading as so many are predicting and that gay marriage will eventually be legalized in every state. That won't make it right, though; it'll just make it what the will of the current majority is, just as the current majority for now seems to still think we shouldn't legalize gay marriage. Two sides of the same coin--democratic majority <> truth, right, or justice in either case.
We are not the ones who made gay marriage into an issue. We did not wake up one day and think "hey, whom can we exclude next?" Our society, like pretty much all societies throughout history (I do have a BA in history and humanities, FWIW), just knew what marriage was and made laws to support it because it is in the best interests of a society to do so. It was they on the other "side" of this issue who have made marriage into an open question and are pursuing us for not agreeing with them. We are simply responding with what we think is true and right and just, upholding what marriage has meant across most human cultures and time. We are not out to get anyone nor actively seeking to exclude anyone. We're just standing by the most time-tested human institution.
I have been accused of using reason to defend prejudice; my motives (and those of all who share the traditional view of marriage) have been questioned. I can understand that--there certainly are those who are motivated strictly by prejudice. And in a sense, you could say that any received/traditional understanding of something is a kind of pre-judgment on a thing, i.e., prejudice. But the problem with prejudice is not prejudice in itself but an adhering to it despite reason--an unwillingness to examine an issue reasonably and be open to change your pre-judgment.
This I and many, many others have done in the case of redefining marriage. Our positions are not based on prejudice but on reason, truth, and justice, which means giving a thing what it is due. Before gay marriage advocates burst on the scene, we (pretty much all of us) just assumed a lot about marriage. It's like you assume your car will just work when you turn it on. You may never think about why or how it works. The same goes for how we think about marriage--it just works and has been proven to work and has existed longer than any other human institution and in basically all human cultures.
So why question it? Why change it? Why redefine it? To make the case for that is tough, and we're saying we're not convinced. It's not about hate; it's not about fear; it's about justice--the chief concern of civil society. It wouldn't be just to grant the same civil benefits to gay unions unless they can be proven to provide the same benefits to our society. This certainly hasn't been proven in any sense of the word I know, and it doesn't even bear out in theory--just using reason to think about it.
The real problem we're facing here--the reason so many people (IMO) don't seem to get us is that marriage is already in a bad way in our society. Soaring divorce rates and the consequent perception of marriage as a very temporary arrangement. The perception that marriage is some kind of love story ending (it's really just the beginning). The perception that marriage is a human right (it's not--it's a privilege). Devaluing of new life in the family, and a basically complete lack of understanding of the meaning and value of sex. The best answer to these problems is to work to fix and strengthen marriage, not to further undermine it by reinforcing these problems through redefining it to include other forms of human relationships.
The American Catholic bishops have recently said most of this, probably better and certainly more concisely than I. You'll forgive me for coming across a little defensive, but it gets old having people telling you and others lies about what you think and feel, especially when it paints you as a terrible caricature and it just plain ain't true.
I do not believe that marriage came about because of the benefit to society. It came about because it benefits the people getting married. There are emotional, sexual, child-rearing and economical benefits to getting married. Society benefits from marriage in the trivial sense that society consists of people who benefit from getting married. Society also benefits from reduced sexual competition between males (I dont hit on your wife, you dont hit on mine).
ReplyDeleteWith the possible exception of child-rearing, I fail to see how both gay people and society would not benefit in the exact same way. If a life-long commitment between a man and a women bestows economical and emotional benefits on them, would the same thing not be true for gay people? If society benefits by the stability of 2 people making a life-long commitment to each other, does it matter if the people are of opposite or same sex?
You also mentioned that no other society has ever had gay marriage. But our society does many things that no other society has ever done (cars, airplanes, electricity, internet). It seems to me that these things have far bigger influence on our society than gay marriage ever would. Gay marriage will not have a big influence on our society (it will have a big impact on gay people, but not on society at large) simply because there are not very many gay people. Whatever effect it will have will be positive for the reasons I listed above.
Anyway, that is my opinion. I thank you for explaining your views and for giving me the space to explain mine.
- Respectfully,
Christof
Hi Christof,
ReplyDeleteThe reason that marriage gets special status in civil law (which frankly is the crux of this debate) is that it does benefit society, chiefly in being ordered towards both natural procreation and the raising of those children to perpetuate that society. I'm not talking about what came first--moms and dads bonding and raising children precede any civilized recognition of those bonds. The fact that civilizations do recognize it is because of its perceived benefits to society.
I wrote a lot more on the good of marriage here (also linked in my post):
http://dotNetTemplar.Net/On+The+Good+And+Right+Of+Marriage.aspx
Note that in that piece I do concede to some extent what you say--that a similar stable commitment between gay people does have some benefit to society, in theory. What little I know of the statistics don't prove this out; in fact, the unions between gays are apparently not as stable, for whatever reason (see the book I reviewed for details on this http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2009/07/review-sexual-authenticity.html). But even granting it has potential, partial benefits to society, it's clear that they are no equivalent; ergo, it doesn't make sense to give those unions the same privilege nor to redefine the civil understanding of marriage to include these.
I'm all for helping people who are committed to each other being able to take care of each other without being troubled by legal barriers. We do have things in our law already to deal with these (powers of attorney, beneficiary declarations, etc.), and in fact, even being married these days doesn't guarantee such things will go smoothly in any case (I have been advised to get powers of attorney for my wife and me).
If we want to create a new class of recognized civil union to make it easier for people in other kinds of relationships--gay or otherwise--then that is a matter on its own. But in my thinking, redefining marriage to accommodate these is not just nor does it really even make sense.
To your other point, marriage is hardly comparable to a new technology. We're talking about fundamental things to being human here--technology is not fundamental to being human nor fundamental to society. My larger point is that marriage--traditional/heterosexual marriage--is already endangered in our society, and we need to fix that. Our society is suffering from the instability of marriage--*people*, especially the most vulnerable (our children) are suffering.
For me, this latest issue with gay marriage is just another symptom of a larger problem plaguing marriage as a whole; it just happens to be something of a lightning rod and a novelty, hence the focus on it.
Like many rights that have been infringed on in the past:
ReplyDelete-Woman right to vote
-Right to freedom regardless of race (abolishment of slavery)
-Equal Oppurtunity Employment
-Banning of child labor
there are always traditionalist who point out it has always been this way and so it will remain. Catholics have long been traditionalist and have a rich and public tradition of endoctrination and polictal aspirations.
I personally believe in rationale thought. I know relationships after the first few years transcends the infatuation of the flesh and enters into a state of deeper love and commiment. This state can be achieved regardless of whether ones partner has male or female parts. All legal benifits and duties work regardless of gender mix. This is fact.
Lets also mention the conservation of rights for those who believe in traditional marraige. If Bob and Steve decide to get married to ensure their future happiness how does this affect the practionor of traditional marraige? They are free to live their lives unaffected by someone else choice of partner. This is also fact.
Lets also discuss the need to strengthen traditonal marraige as a reason to not allow gay unions. Gays are not interested in pursuing a life long commiment with the opposite sex. So just because we are no longer able to force woman to upkeep a relationship they are no longer interested in maintaining (ala 1960s and before)does not effect a totally unrelated issue that does not involve the past objectification of woman. This is why divorce rate is up not because people morales are dropping through the floor.
-@foreachdev
I assume you mean "indoctrination" and "rational"? I believe in rational thought, too, and only a bigot could insinuate that I don't just because I'm Catholic.
ReplyDeleteI'm not ashamed of tradition. Tradition is almost always a good thing; it would be stupid to reinvent life with every generation. We'd still be living in caves and collecting berries without tradition. That's why the burden of making a break with tradition is and should be on those who want the change--change is not a value in its own right.
People only denigrate tradition when it suits their purpose, and it is quite popular and naively perceived to be clever to do so these days. Doing that is just following the crowd, it is not thinking rationally nor independently.
One good of marriage is the communion of persons you mention, but it's not the only nor, I would say, the most important good, certainly not insofar as society is concerned, which is the question when we're discussing civil marriage contracts.
I've said over and again that I don't feel threatened by gays nor their desire to live in committed relationships. I am not worried about my personal freedom or anything like that, so the "conservation of rights" is a moot point with me.
We have a very fundamentally different view of marriage, which is what I said in my post. I've illuminated my view, and as someone who is purportedly into rational thought, you should be able to follow it and see that given my view of marriage, it is eminently rational for me to hold the position I hold.
Frankly, JR, you've been nothing but aggressive, insulting, and I would even say bigoted in your dealings with me here and on twitter. I'm interested in rational, thoughtful conversation with people who disagree with me, but if you just want to regurgitate what you hear from Bill Maher or Jon Stewart, I'm not interested.
You confuse traditionalism with progresiveness and innovation. Which actually mean improving over time. A traditionalist would argue we live in a cave because our ancestors did. A traditionalist would argue it remain unchanged for no other reason but the love affair with the status quo and the past.
ReplyDeleteActually the reason we have advancment in technology and standard of living is not traditionalism but in fact innovation and progressivism. Because these terms actually mean what you think traditionalism means.
So again you are confused and believe that your belief right or wrong subplants the rights of others. As for Catholic church. It is clear they are willing to spend big money to keep their beliefs subplanting others. http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/11/in-aftermath-of-maine-gays-step-up.html
And really it is not as clear cut as they would like to infer by that article in Maine. The vote was pretty much down the middle. Chances are good if the Catholic church would have a little bit more respect for the american ideal of seperation of church and state the referendum would of went the other way.
And in the end how does gay unions legalize affect the rights of the Catholic church or its members? The church and its members could choose to ignore the new law and only recognize traditional marraige as has been status quo for centuries. In fact, You have been avoiding that question every time. Instead choosing to attack my character then taking the time to answer a basic question that you do not like the answer to.
I don't confuse anything. You have a very annoying habit of telling other people what they think that you really should break.
ReplyDeleteValuing tradition does not at all imply a shunning of change. Tradition comes from the Latin "to hand over/on," and it is human nature to do this. It's a good thing, too, because tradition is what enables progress. If you don't value and learn what came before--what has been handed down to you--you have to reinvent it, losing all the accumulated wisdom and knowledge you could get from all the blood, sweat, and tears of those who went before you. Without tradition, you could happily "innovate" your whole life and never get very far. Tradition is a prerequisite of progress.
"Traditionalist" in the way you use it is just a dishonest rhetorical device used to dismiss and denigrate others when they disagree with you that something should change.
"So again you are confused and believe that your belief right or wrong subplants the rights of others." <-- This assertion barely makes sense and is totally unsupported in anything you wrote.
About your complaining about the Church spending money, Planned Parenthood spends millions to lobby congress. Gay rights activists spend tons of money and effort trying to "force their views" on others. Big corporations do it, too. It's part of the democratic system; there is nothing sinister or wrong about it. Oh, except of course when the Catholics do it; then it is hate and evil and.. oh grow up! We have every right to lobby for our beliefs as does PETA, NARAL, you, and everyone else. It's democracy. It's freedom of speech. It's freedom of religion. If you don't like it, move.
You show your utter ignorance and, again, mindless regurgitation of the zeitgeist by suggesting that "separation of church and state" means that churches cannot speak on issues that have political import. If you can show where the Catholic Church has lobbied to become *the established state religion*, then and only then can you complain we're violating that clause.
Rather, what you suggest is the equivalent of an atheist state that excludes religion from politics, but our founders were wiser than you and fought for a bill of rights that includes the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. For someone who's supposedly so into "rights," you sure are trying to step on some pretty established ones.
Lastly, I wasn't going to reply to your snide twitter comments, but you force my hand. This has ZERO to do with "conservation of rights." Your argument, as you call it, is simple indeed, and it is completely irrelevant to what I have argued. Yes, fine, I acknowledge that if gays got married, my right to marry would not change. Big. Flipping. Deal. I never said it would, so your point is just plain moot.
I'm sorry. I know I'm feeding your inner troll here. You do a good job of baiting, I have to hand it to you.
Freedom of Religion also includes freedom from religion. Meaning I have the choice to disbelive any value a religion may throw out including what beliefs they have about marraige.
ReplyDeleteSeperation of church and state means the state should concentrate on what benifits the people. And in the case of minorities if a right would be benificial to them and not affect other's right it should consider heavily allowing that right.
Since we are in agreement that the church's rights and its members rights are not affected. Why throw millions at the problem. Maybe to subplant catholic beliefs onto to others? Obviously almost 50% of maine thought the idea was fine.
I think if the Catholic church wants to continue doing this they should pay the same taxes as any other political lobby group. Its gets a little tiring to see the Catholic church continually play the victim here. If they would stick to their mission spreading the word of Christ and stay out of politics I am sure no one would have a reasonable problem with them. You think the church is beyond reproach. I think they are just playing their cards as they have since Byzantium.
Yes, obviously freedom of religion includes non-religion. No one is saying otherwise.
ReplyDeleteSeparation of church and state does not in fact mean that. You are extrapolating. I'm not disagreeing with the ideals of protecting minorities, but that's a generalization and extrapolation from the very specific purpose of the non-establishment clause.
I'm sorry you are a little tired of the Church being a victim. We're tired of it, too. If folks like you would engage us on a rational, equal level, we wouldn't have this problem. But instead you just spew hate and false garbage around, claiming, ironically, that we're the ones doing that.
Lastly, again, stop telling me what I think. I do not "think the church is beyond reproach." I see the Church far more realistically than you apparently do. I've actually studied the history that you seem to have only derived from Monty Python, Maher, Hitchens, and other demagogues and comedians. I see and know the bad that people have done in the name of the Church along with the good, and that enables me to know that the good outstrips the bad by light years.
Further, I know what the Church teaches--which is far more relevant than what those who have abused our religion have done when it comes to determining the value of our religion--and I happen to think that what the Church teaches is far better than what our current society accepts as the good life.
Part of the good life lies in how we interact with each other (society) and, indeed, how government assists us in getting there. So part of what our religion teaches touches on social aspects, which inherently include government. What we are pursuing, then, is no different from what others are pursuing--the best life, full of the most happiness possible--within the framework of what that means for us.
I suspect you wrongly think (because that is the popular misconception these days and because you seem to imply it) that religion is a "private matter" only, but it isn't. That may be why you don't understand why the Church is involved in civic matters. Our focus is certainly not on government, but in as much as government touches on enabling everyone's good, we are just as concerned as the next person.
Let me flip it around for you and maybe that will make it clearer. What does the Church stand to benefit from engaging on this issue? Surely gay marriage doesn't change the way the Church can and will marry people. None of our rights and freedoms are threatened by this issue. In fact, as you flippantly suggest, the Church is risking a lot by doing this because of folks who wrongly think that our participation in the political debate should jeopardize our tax free status. Tax free status is not a muzzle in the public square.
So your insinuation that this is some power play is just plain silly. Rather, our participation in this debate is exactly what you suggest we do--spreading the word of Christ. It's just that you don't seem to understand that doing that has social consequences.
Really, you should stop just trying to ignorantly judge others' motives and just focus on the debate itself--what are we saying? What I say in my post here is a good part of explaining where we're coming from. So far you haven't engaged that really beyond just trying to dismiss it and then reframe the discussion in a way that suits you. You're free to do so, but don't pretend you're engaging in thoughtful, rational dialog when you do that. Communication is not one-way; it's two, and that means you need to *listen* to what others are saying. So far, you're not really doing that.
Well my argument has remain the same. You're the one who is trying to bring in assumptions about my personal views.
ReplyDeleteSo you also agree that this is a move by the church to subplant their beliefs on unwilling parties, the gay community and their supportors. Their motivation is the only thing we do not agree on.
That's two things we agree on.
Here is a new item: Why doesn't the church just concentrate on evangelism and peoples who are curious and willing to hear their message. Why is there the need to legislate their beliefs in to law? Isn't America about allowing people are different walks of life have their views and reach their full potential?
It is after all your side who is fighting not for some benefit but for some misplaced presumption of righteousness and truth. And I sure we can agree on this too, fighting for a view not held by all people in America. In main the vote was statistically close +/- 5%. Really nothing was proven that day.
We can also agree that nothing was proven by that vote except the will of the current majority. I said as much in my original post--that the will of the majority does not equate to what is good or true.
ReplyDeleteWe do seem to disagree on equal participation in democracy. You want us to just butt out and let your views win, right? But we are for equal treatment in democracy--we think we have every right just like you do to work to have our view of the common good upheld by law. Why can't you accept that we have the right to participate in democracy? Democracy is the fundamental American principle, isn't it? We're not trying to establish our religion as the state religion; we're just fighting for our view of the common good--which doesn't include state religion.
Nothing in my argument is founded on religious faith alone. Everything I have argued is from reason and humanity. We're not legislating our faith. We aren't the legislature. We are promoting our view of the common good.
The Church *is* concentrated on evangelism. It's not an either-or proposition. We can and do fund and run hospitals; we can and do preach on the corner; we can and do run the largest charitable organizations in the world, and we can and do promote our view of the common good in society.
America certainly does have freedom as a central principle, but it has never been boundless freedom. Freedom without constraint would be chaos & anarchy. You toss of freedom as if it should end the discussion, but you seem to not realize that this debate is not about some absolute ideal of freedom but rather what constraints should be placed on freedom to promote the common good. And more specifically, in this context, what is just and unjust.
We are fighting not just for *some* benefit but for the benefit of *all*. That's what the common good is about, man. Our disagreement is on what marriage is and how it impacts the common good. A big part of the common good is justice; I hope we can agree on that. Law is all about justice. Legislating unjust laws undermines the common good; it does not promote it.
What is unjust about gay unions again? Does being gay preclude you from morality? Can you not be a upstanding, contributing and important member of society?
ReplyDeleteI think we both agree to the answers of those questions as we both have friends in the community under question.
Whats wrong with homosexuals having access to the legal rights and duties that traditional marriage has? The answer is there is nothing wrong with it.
Gay unions have little to do with hampering justice or the rights of others. Its an expansion of rights and justice in fact. It takes away the limitation of gender on who one chooses for their life long partner. I fail to see how that is a wound against justice or common good.
I do however know what the sacrement of marriage is for Christians. I think that is the driving force behind your argument as you have mentioned it is in your top 7, which has NOTHING to do with the legal rights and duties a gay or straight marriage should or should not have. Which is the current matter on discussion. Religion should stay out of it outright. Because I have been saying since the beginning the rights of the Catholic church and its members are in no way in jeopardy. Nor is society by adopting this expansion of rights and justice.