As I recently said again, I'm not terribly concerned with the idea of same-sex civil "marriage."
I do think that the mating union of a man and a woman is special and sacred above all others, of course, in a way that a same-sex union never even could be logically, and am concerned about attempts at "total leveling" especially through legislating linguistic changes. And I certainly support the Church's teachings on sexual morality. But, at the end of the day, as I said, I think this is all largely a semantic debate about mere labels, and I do definitely support civil recognition of same-sex partnerships and extension of relevant legal benefits (which include most of those given to marriage except things like presumption-of-paternity).
And I see no reason even why these shouldn't be seen as establishing kinship in the same way marriage does. In other words, a man's wife becomes his parents' daughter-in-law and his siblings' sister-in-law, even before they have children; indeed, in many cultures (ala the Song of Songs), a wife is thought of as a type of "sister," the primary analogy is one of adoptive siblinghood. And I see no reason why same-sex life-partnerships (which may or may not be sexually active) should not constitute a sort of horizontal "adoptive brotherhood/sisterhood" along those lines (and, indeed, such a notion of fraternatio/adelphepoeisis did exist in the medieval church, albeit I think it is clearly incorrect to say that these were understood to institutionalize homosexual sexual relationships as such). What you want to call all this legally is ultimately just a question of words, and I don't really care.
I also said I see no real issue with adoption. Sure, kids being raised by a mother and father is ideal, but if singles can raise children, and if we don't confiscate the biological children of people living in homosexual relationships...claims of absolute "harm" resulting seem specious. I don't really think speaking of "two mommies" or "two daddies" is good. But, apart from any immoral sex acts that may take place (but also may not; why should we assume?)...I really can't find anything intrinsically wrong with, say, two men sharing domestic life, protected by a kinship-establishing legal arrangement (such that each is the other's parents' son-in-law, and the other's siblings' brother-in-law), each adopting children as singles, but then each father appointing their partner as a legal guardian of their children (along the lines of something like an "uncle-godfather"), and raising these children in the same household as legally cousins but who feel more like siblings (as, indeed, many cousins who grow up together do).
Because, I consider, the same arrangement between biological brothers would be totally non-controversial and has probably existed often throughout history. Apart from any incest that may take place (but also may not; why should we assume?)...what would be wrong with two, say, widower brothers living together for financial reasons and mutual support, protected in that domestic life by some sort of legal recognition, and raising together the kids they each had (or adopted) with their late wives. The children would have only one father, of course, and know that at some point they had a mother, but if their "uncle-godfather" was their other legal guardian, and the cousins were all raised together as practically siblings...is this really problematic? I don't see how.
And yet, what is the difference between this and the above except that biological brothers already have kinship (as opposed to needing it to be legally created), and that we assume a gay couple is having sex whereas we don't assume the biological brothers are involved in incest. But, though those assumptions may likely be true in our culture...since when is it our job to assume? And, more to the point, why would the accidental and occasional occurrence of private immorality spoil the whole arrangement as if it somehow changes in essence an otherwise externally identical situation??
I also said I see no real issue with adoption. Sure, kids being raised by a mother and father is ideal, but if singles can raise children, and if we don't confiscate the biological children of people living in homosexual relationships...claims of absolute "harm" resulting seem specious. I don't really think speaking of "two mommies" or "two daddies" is good. But, apart from any immoral sex acts that may take place (but also may not; why should we assume?)...I really can't find anything intrinsically wrong with, say, two men sharing domestic life, protected by a kinship-establishing legal arrangement (such that each is the other's parents' son-in-law, and the other's siblings' brother-in-law), each adopting children as singles, but then each father appointing their partner as a legal guardian of their children (along the lines of something like an "uncle-godfather"), and raising these children in the same household as legally cousins but who feel more like siblings (as, indeed, many cousins who grow up together do).
Because, I consider, the same arrangement between biological brothers would be totally non-controversial and has probably existed often throughout history. Apart from any incest that may take place (but also may not; why should we assume?)...what would be wrong with two, say, widower brothers living together for financial reasons and mutual support, protected in that domestic life by some sort of legal recognition, and raising together the kids they each had (or adopted) with their late wives. The children would have only one father, of course, and know that at some point they had a mother, but if their "uncle-godfather" was their other legal guardian, and the cousins were all raised together as practically siblings...is this really problematic? I don't see how.
And yet, what is the difference between this and the above except that biological brothers already have kinship (as opposed to needing it to be legally created), and that we assume a gay couple is having sex whereas we don't assume the biological brothers are involved in incest. But, though those assumptions may likely be true in our culture...since when is it our job to assume? And, more to the point, why would the accidental and occasional occurrence of private immorality spoil the whole arrangement as if it somehow changes in essence an otherwise externally identical situation??
However, that doesn't mean I don't think words are important. They are, and I hate when they are used deceptively or equivocally.
I've written before about how much of a muddle the Catechism's language on "homosexuality" is. Specifically how, in saying that "homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex," they seem to be defining "homosexuality" as "relations between homosexuals" rather than "relations between members of the same sex." This, of course, leads to all sorts of weird questions like, "Is a gay man marrying a lesbian still 'homosexuality'?" and "Are two heterosexual guys experimenting with sex together not an example of 'homosexual relations'?" In other words, it is problematic to morally define homosexual activity as "the activity of homosexuals" as if it about the type of person involved and not the objective structure of the act.
But this is a problem among the liberals as much as the conservatives. For example, a recent article says: "It's all but certain that the Supreme Court will hear a case over the
constitutional right of gays to marry one another, and hear it soon,
thanks to this week's lopsided decision by the full Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals to let stand earlier rulings striking down California's 2008
amendment banning same-sex weddings." Look at how that's phrased: "the constitutional right of gays to marry one another." This is subject to the same problem as the Catechism's definition. For example, a gay man marrying a lesbian...is already "a gay person marrying another gay person." Nor is it about a right for homosexual individuals to marry simply, as homosexuals can already marry (ie, a member of the opposite sex) like anyone else, and some in fact want to and do enter into such "mixed-orientation" marriages. That's not the question. The question is about whether there is a right of males to marry other males, or females other females. Or about a right to marry 'any non-familial consenting adult of your choosing.'
The point being, all this is not actually about giving homosexuals as a category of person the right to marry. Rather, it's about giving homosexual couples as a category of couple the right to marry. That's different. And I think it needs to be recognized as different just for the sake of intellectual honesty even before any value judgment is made. This isn't about discriminating against a type of person (heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex either!) It's about discrimination (whether justified or not) regarding a type of corporation (ie, the pair). Gays are not being denied marriage (at least not in the Catholic argument) as homosexuals, or because they're gay specifically, but rather simply because they're two males. It's not about the orientation of the individuals involved, it's about the composition of the corporation proposed (but the composition as based on sex; it is neutral to the question of the orientation of those involved.)
Yet, of course, it is convenient for the Left to frame this as about individual rights and protected classes of minorities. There is a narrative there and assumptions regarding freedom and individual fulfillment that have essentially already been granted in our culture, and under this framing it would just be taking that to its logical conclusion (just like it really is already the logical conclusion of approving contraception). However, I think if the Left wants to frame it that way, it is more intellectually honest to phrase the proposed right as "the right to marry whomever you love" (as they sometimes do), not about "the right of gays to marry" as if this is about the exclusion of a type of person rather than the exclusion of a certain type of behavior or structure of a pair. (Of course, then we must ask, is that legally making love or sexual attraction essential to marriage? How would the law go about proving that "love" existed between two people??)
This is a lesson the conservatives and liberals need to learn, as I think it is at the root of a lot of homophobia. The "essentializing" connection between homosexual individuals and homosexual interaction is a brilliant linguistic sleight of hand that both sides have tacitly agreed to, but it's also entirely inaccurate. I think defining a category of person by subjective desire is problematic. It makes the liberals look intellectually dishonest, and it makes the conservatives look like homophobes.
In reality, the Church's teaching is about sexual activity and lust for it. The Church's teaching does not target a type of person, does not target an orientation, as it applies to everyone equally, and existed long before the social construct of sexual orientation had its consciousness raised. It's not about types of people, not about identity, not about relationships, not about "lifestyles" (whatever that means), not about communities. And yet, framed like this, it almost makes it seem like it is about a type of person (rather than just a type of act considered abstractly that theoretically anyone could commit). Well, as long as it looks like the Church is targeting a group of people, a type of person...we're going to lose the battle in terms of convincing people morally.
At the same time, the liberal use of this framing involves what seems to me a dangerous slippery slope. "The homosexual" is not a species of creature for whom "marriage" can only by nature meaningfully be to a member of the same-sex. By this logic, the law would be allowing opposite-sex marriage only for heterosexuals and same-sex marriage only for homosexuals, on the presumption that only the former would want the former, and only the latter the latter. But then, would this require legally categorizing people as "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals" in some sort of official taxonomy? Would sexual orientation start being a legal status inhering in the person? Would its expression in behavior be seen as inseparable from that status? How would we go about proving it?
No, this framing is problematic, very troubling, and should be avoided by both sides.
21 comments:
Wow! Excellent and thought provoking post! I think this is one of your best. Thanks SO much!
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure how you can say this under the banner of Traditionalist.
Marriage can only be defined one way, an this is simply in virtue of Creation (Natural Law). In fact, marriage precedes the state, so speaking of same sex unions on par in any sense is already a self-refuting proposition. Thus any attempts by the State or anyone to include in this definition anything else auto-demolishes any inherent meaning to marriage. Instead, everything reduces to (voluntary) contracts and not marriage. By saying what you've said, you've not only reduced marriage to a human contract, you've said it's ok for the state to sanction sin, contrary to the duty of the state which is to promote the common good.
The only possible way a Catholic could be for this is if the same-sex contracts were mere inheritance contracts that had nothing to with 'unions', and thus such contracts could be between friends, siblings, etc., the same way any business contract could be formed. The Popes have repeatedly warned and shown plainly that messing around with marriage is the lynchpin of society. Weak marriages bring about the ruin of society and thus the state by the very fact the basic building block of society, the family, is lost.
This is not at all about semantics, but rather about the proper philosophical understanding of Catholic Social Teaching on the family and state. Otherwise, your position reduces to a form of libertarianism, which is the antithesis of Catholic Social Teaching. The Catholic position is founded upon Reason and Natural Law as well as Revelation, while the libertarian is none of those things, but simply the delusion that pushing the envelope on any constraints is the highest good in life. The fact you're framing the issue as a liberal vs conservative problem already shows you're misunderstanding the true Catholic position, since Conservatism is the archenemy of Christ.
I don't want this response to turn into a book, but the idea that such situations are beneficial for children and that such environments are chaste is ridiculous. Sodom cannot be the foundation of any society.
"Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure how you can say this under the banner of Traditionalist."
Well, because I prefer traditional liturgy (the Old Rite, etc), prefer traditional expressions of orthodox doctrine (as opposed to the "new" fluffy lingo of Vatican II), and in general have an appreciation for holding to an organic continuity in the Church (the traditio, the handing-down) rather than narratives of radical revolution or "progress."
"Marriage can only be defined one way, an this is simply in virtue of Creation (Natural Law)."
My point has been "marriage" is a WORD. Words can be defined any number of ways, or can evolve or change in their definition to apply to different things or spectrums of things than they used to.
There is a natural institution which is the mating union of a man and a woman. This is special and sacred above all others BY NATURE. Yes.
But, a swapping or evolution of mere LABELS doesn't change this, doesn't change that natural institution's nature, doesn't get rid of the natural institution just because it is being classed with other things legally or comes to be referred to under the same banner as other institutions that have come to take on the same word "by analogy."
I am very wary, as I say in this post, of manipulating language to manipulate thought. It's clear that this is a major weapon in this battle on both sides: argue over words and slip the philosophical implications in "under the radar" as it were.
But in reality I think that's intellectually dishonest. We should take the higher path and refuse to battle for semantics while, at the same time, standing utterly by our vision of the underlying CONCEPTS (whatever words may be applied to them...)
"In fact, marriage precedes the state,"
Yes, it does.
"so speaking of same sex unions on par in any sense is already a self-refuting proposition."
Well, there are ways they are similar and ways they are different from "true" (ie, opposite-sex) marriage.
The State recognizes marriages for a variety of reasons related to both individual rights (like, the choice of who you want to inherit from you) and the common good (encouraging stability, mutual support networks, the proper raising of children, etc).
However, the State may also see social benefits in other sorts of partnership, and there is no reason to NOT recognize these also with similar benefits where relevant. What you want to LABEL these partnerships is really just semantic.
"Instead, everything reduces to (voluntary) contracts and not marriage."
Yes. Under the Catholic-theological definition of the word "marriage."
But, "marriage" in itself is just a word. If the State's regime of voluntary contracts adopts that LABEL...well, there are reasons this is troubling, but at the end of the day it's just a linguistic/semantic evolution. It doesn't necessarily actually change the underlying distinctions.
In fact, it's basically the State saying, "These two things may be different for theological or philosophical purposes. But for LEGAL purposes...there is no real difference." And, well...meh.
"By saying what you've said, you've not only reduced marriage to a human contract,"
I think you misunderstand me then. I do not think the natural institution which is the mating union between a man and woman...is a mere human contract.
However, the State CAN (also) recognize human contracts, and what the State NAMES those contracts...is really just a question of labels.
"you've said it's ok for the state to sanction sin, contrary to the duty of the state which is to promote the common good."
Where have I said this? The recognition of same-sex partnerships is not, as far as I know, a sanctioning of sin.
The recognition is given to the relationship or the status of partner (and all that legally entails). It's neutral to the question of what immoral activity may or may not take place between the partners (but which, if it does, is accidental to the legal arrangement).
The State is not "licensing sodomy" or anything like that. It's recognizing real human relationships that exist. As far as I know, it's indifferent to the question of whatever sin may take place within those relationships, just like it is indifferent to what sin may take place within an (opposite-sex) marriage (be it gossip, contraception, fighting, etc).
"The only possible way a Catholic could be for this is if the same-sex contracts were mere inheritance contracts that had nothing to with 'unions', and thus such contracts could be between friends, siblings, etc., the same way any business contract could be formed."
Well yes. There is no "sexual activity test" for a civil union. If two heterosexual male friends wanted to enter into one...I believe they can, if I understand the current laws correctly.
The law is indifferent to what goes on in the relationship emotionally or otherwise, as long as two people are saying they want to designate each other as the other's main (domestic) partner.
Siblings can't, but that's because siblings ALREADY have kinship. There is no need to make your biological brother into your "adopted brother."
"This is not at all about semantics,"
It is, though. Because I'm not disputing any of the underlying concepts. I'm not saying heterosexual marriage and opposite-sex partnerships are "the same thing."
What I am saying is that it doesn't really matter if other people or the State use the same WORD to apply to both things (even though those things are distinct in some very important ways).
I think it's very important to tie down words like "marriage" and thus avoid confusing the common man. Otherwise words will have no meaning, and it will end up with a situation like Mormons saying they believe in the Trinity when in fact they have a totally different definition and use the same term to scam unsuspecting people.
Reserving the term "marriage" should not be dispensed even if the word itself objectively less important than the philosophical understanding behind the term. The sole reason the state wants to go the direction of making the term meaningless is precisely because it reflects the state's understanding of the institution as nothing but a voluntary contract and thus "plainly obvious" that anyone should be able to enter into it. But at that point the State isn't in the business of looking out for the family and promoting the family, since to the state a family is nothing more than a voluntary association. THAT is where the break down is taking place, the state is no longer defining marriage along the lines of Natural Law but rather purely along the lines of convenience. To say the state can do whatever it wants is to concede the rights of God to the abomination called Conservatism.
When I spoke of the state sanctioning sin, that's because the push is between specifically those of the homosexual community wanting to get married. In that specific case, the state is saying there is nothing disordered going on between them, they "love eachother" just as a husband and wife are called to. What you are saying is something totally different, which is that the state should have a blind eye to what the couple is doing and just issue the contract, but if that were the case then any duo or trio of friend/sibling/coworker should be "getting married" and yet we don't see that. We don't see any political pushes to let polygamy start up. And the reason is plainly obvious. Of course when the term marriage itself is completely destroyed, i.e. after homosexual marriage is allowed, then polygamy will come next since there's no principled basis to oppose it.
I understand there is an element of validity to what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that I see no way for you to advocate that the state singles out marriage as the basic building block of society. If there is no unique word for marriage left, then the state cannot be backing the family since every union and relationship is indistinguishable in it's mind. If there is no unique definition of family as traditionally understood, then Catholic Social Teaching is impossible to embrace. So you see how severing the term from the concept has ultimately resulted/revealed the state's understanding having no CONCEPT of family or marriage at all.
So my question to you is: how is the state supposed to distinguish the traditional concept of family in legislation when all unions are indistinguishable?
"I think it's very important to tie down words like 'marriage' and thus avoid confusing the common man."
I would tend to agree. However, at the same time, language does evolve. It happens all the time.
So, would it have been better FROM THE START to tie down the word "marriage" (and perhaps insist for precision on using some other word for other sorts of life-partnerships?) Perhaps, indeed. It would have been EASIER at least; changing language causes confusion, and changes in thought can be "slipped in" when there is confusion.
But we have to ask where we are now. What does "marriage" mean to be people today? What is the essence of that WORD now?
Is it still identified as specifically indicating the sacred and natural institution that brings a man and woman together for life to generate offspring and raise those offspring?
Well...I think yes and no. THAT institution is certainly COVERED by what people understand when they think of "marriage."
But what about that union, in the mind of the common speaker, makes it a "marriage"? Is it the ordering-towards-offspring-generation specifically (as is its philosophical essence)?
I have a hard time believing that for most people today. With all the use of contraception, and all the children born out of wedlock, the idea that marriage is specifically about the mating...is not how the word is used anymore.
Is it the male-female structure? For a good number of people, certainly, but we have to ask why? If it's not because of the "breeding" nature of such a pairing, then what? Generally, it seems, people are more and more understanding "marriage" to mean the commitment to shared life of romantic partners. And so even if they imagine this as a between a man and a woman specifically, it is not for the "right reasons" (ie, the ordering towards procreation), but merely because of their own sort of heterosexist assumptions that men go with women (even when they have logically disconnected this from the specific REASON that such a pairing would have to be opposite-sex; ie, mating).
In truth, it seems nowadays that most people understand "marriage" to mean simply "life-partnership." Heterosexual life-partnerships, marriages, are indeed understood to often include or at least usually be open to mating and producing children together, but this is generally not what people think of, subjectively, as making it a marriage. That's considered accidental, not essential, to "marriage." The reason it's a "marriage" in most people's mind now, is because of the life-partnership.
Now, of course, as Catholics we know that the openness to life in such a life-long commitment is not accidental, at least not to what WE understand as "marriage." To us, a life-long commitment + openness to life = a specific institution by definition. And only this institution is the moral context for sex acts, and only this institution is the subject of a Sacrament.
However, words are words. Nowadays, "marriage" is more and more seemingly extended to all life-partnerships, and it is the aspect of life-partnership which makes something a "marriage" in many people's minds now, rather than the mating aspect (even when that is ALSO included).
I think most people now, when they ask a person "Will you marry me?" are no longer specifically asking "Will you be the mother of my children?" but, rather, "Will you spend your life with me?" (even when the proposed life together WILL happen to including mating.) THAT'S the emotional content/emphasis of that label/question nowadays, and so it makes some sense that men who want to spend their lives together feel like they are being arbitrarily denied sentimentally evocative language with which to express this wish.
As such, perhaps it's time that we conceded that expansion of the meaning of the word "marriage" to all life-partnerships, and started using a DIFFERENT word for that SUBSET of life-partnerships which constitutes the natural "breeding pair" union specifically.
Perhaps we concede the label "marriage" to all life-partnerships...but then start applying "matrimony" (which is derived from the Latin "mater", mother, and evokes the concept of "mate") to that subset of life-partnerships which ARE defined by their inclusion of mating. ("Holy Matrimony" could be the Sacrament specifically).
If people understand the word "marriage" today to signify the aspect "Spending your life together" as opposed to "becoming mates" (even when the people who spend their lives together ARE ALSO mates)...then that's simply a shift in language, a rather natural evolution of a meaning from one thing it used to describe onto another aspect that WAS present in what it used to describe, but which is also present in other things.
(For example, "Ship" used to mean a vehicle that floated on the seas. It was a water vehicle specifically. However, when aircraft and spacecraft were invented, the terms "air-ship" and "space-ship" were invented by analogy. Albeit, this new usage left out the formerly essential connection to Water, but not arbitrarily. Rather by a shift in the emphasis onto the "floating" aspect; the "vehicle" aspect remained continuous. This sort of analogizing is simply one way language evolves.)
"Reserving the term 'marriage' should not be dispensed even if the word itself objectively less important than the philosophical understanding behind the term."
As I said, if we could have done this ALL ALONG...maybe.
But if the cats out of the bag, we just start looking silly to insist on the reservation of a term.
Just like people who for some time insisted on using "men" to refer to all humans, even though "men" had come to specifically refer to males (as opposed to "women" for females) and "human" had become the preferred term for all people in general.
My only answer can be, really: we should have defended our trademark better.
"The sole reason the state wants to go the direction of making the term meaningless"
The term is not meaningless under the new definition, anymore than "ship" is now meaningless.
It's just that the meaning has changed or extended to all life-partnerships; just like "ship" came to also apply to vehicles which floated in the air or in space.
"is precisely because it reflects the state's understanding of the institution as nothing but a voluntary contract"
Well, I don't think it has to see something as "nothing but" to say that only certain elements are LEGALLY relevant.
For example, I don't think the State necessarily means that a chasuble is "nothing but a textile" to say that only its status as a textile is LEGALLY relevant.
The State is neutral, here, to the question of whether the chasuble may be somehow "more special" than other cloth-products for other purposes. But it's status as a sacred vestment is not particularly relevant for LEGAL purposes.
It seems that, where gay marriage has been legalized, the State sees the primary purpose of recognizing such unions as now mainly applying to the "life-partners" aspect.
But life-partnership exists in more than just the mating type of union, and if the legal recognition is related to that life partner aspect, rather than to the mating aspect...it could seem arbitrary to exclude it from other things which also include that aspect.
"But at that point the State isn't in the business of looking out for the family and promoting the family"
As far as I know, extending certain civil benefits, or even a certain legal label, to OTHER things...doesn't take any positive protections or rights or benefits AWAY from matrimony (unless you want to claim that "getting some things, any things, that no one else gets" is in itself a right due to marriage. I find that problematic).
Matrimony is still protected and promoted and recognized by the State. It's just that other partnerships are now ALSO recognized and protected similarly.
The only argument I could see here is that by giving the same benefits to other arrangements, those benefits no longer serve as an incentive to marriage specifically.
But I think that's rather naive. It's not like gays were generally going to marry people of the opposite sex anyway, and no amount of "exclusive" incentives for doing so were going to change that!
No, MUCH more troubling, I think, by this "promoting" logic...is how no-fault divorce has made non-permanent and permanent unions equivalent, thus taking away any legal incentive for couples to try to work through their problems and stay together rather than simply splitting up.
"the state is no longer defining marriage along the lines of Natural Law but rather purely along the lines of convenience."
Not really. All it's doing is saying that, for legal purposes, the relevant thing in matrimony is the marriage (ie, the life-partnership). But life-partnership exists in other types of unions that aren't matrimony too.
The State is not saying that matrimony isn't different from these other "marriages"/life-partnerships. Nor is it saying that mating isn't in some sense an essential feature to making it a matrimony instead of some other type of union. All it's saying is that it's not really a legally relevant feature anymore.
"the state is saying there is nothing disordered going on between them"
No, it's not saying that. It's saying their relationship/partnership is recognized for legal purposes. But whether or not they are sexually active is IRRELEVANT to those legal purposes, and thus the State can't be interpreted as sanctioning it one way or another (even assuming it is going on), because it is accidental to what the State is addressing.
It's not saying "nothing disordered" is going on between them anymore than it is saying the same thing for heterosexual relationships it recognizes (which may contain many disordered things including contraception, gossip, fighting, etc). It is neutral to that question, because that question is irrelevant to the legal purposes, which apply only to the partnership itself (not to any sins that may or may not take place between them).
"but if that were the case then any duo or trio of friend/sibling/coworker should be 'getting married' and yet we don't see that."
If friends and coworkers, for whatever reason, want to establish the sort of partnership that involves designating each other as the "most important" in the other's life, for the purposes of decision-making, shared-property, inheritance, etc...they are free to do so.
There is no sexual activity nor even "love" test for civil marriages. Legal "marriages of convenience" certainly happen, and always have in history!
However, in general, we don't see so much of this because the one person most people want to spend life with and designate with that sort of commitment...is not any mere friend or coworker, but only their 'special friend.'
"then polygamy will come next since there's no principled basis to oppose it."
I don't know. Establishing one person as the "most important," as "another self" for legal purposes, as your proxy, your partner, your designate, your life-partner...serves important social and legal purposes.
Having ONE person who is designated to make such decisions for you, who shares responsibility with you, who is your heir, etc...makes a lot of sense. But how could you have TWO people as the ones who make a decision for you (say, if you're in a coma?) What if they disagree???
No. People are free to commit themselves for life and have children with several partners at once. And indeed some people live this way. It's perfectly legal, just not State recognized. Because there is no compelling reason to LEGALLY institutionalize such arrangements, in fact it would just cause confusion.
For example, it would seem an unreasonable burden on a company to have to extend insurance to all TWELVE of a man's wives?? How do you prove, then, that people aren't just taking on a boatload of "wives" for the sake of obtaining them insurance? Or what if I "married" all my friends just so that they could ALL visit me in the hospital?? The whole hospital would become too crowded!
Sure, monogamous marriages can be a sham too (for immigration, for insurance, etc)...but at least THOSE marriages of convenience are "contained" to only one person at a time, so the effect of their abuse is limited.
No, if people want to live in polygamy, fine. But they only get to have ONE "primary" wife legally, even if separate private contracts can be established to extend certain protections to the others and their children.
"I see no way for you to advocate that the state singles out marriage"
Why is it the State's job to single anything out?
As long as matrimony is getting the OBJECTIVE and ABSOLUTE benefits it needs legally...I find it rather strange to insist that it must have these EXCLUSIVELY, that they must be given (relatively, speaking) "more" than other things (even if that "more" is arbitrary.) That they cannot be extended to anything ELSE.
I mean if you want to "single out" matrimony, then create a new "breeding incentive" that would be given ON TOP OF legal marriage to any couples who can prove they have tried to generate children (which could obviously only be heterosexual marriages) and give them an extra 5% tax break or something. There, that's "singling out" (but you see how trivial this idea of "singling out" is!)
"So my question to you is: how is the state supposed to distinguish the traditional concept of family in legislation when all unions are indistinguishable?"
My question to you is why you think it is important they be LEGALLY distinguished?
I think it's important they be distinguished theologically, philosophically, etc.
But what is important about LEGAL distinction??
I think the very fact that, for many people now, the legal distinction they are fighting for boils down to a TOKEN, a mere LABEL...proves that there really is no relevant OBJECTIVE legal benefit that only matrimony must needs have, and so it boils down to trying to have the State uphold a mere linguistic distinction, which is trivial.
There is a strong argument to be made in that terms like "gay" have been radically redefined such that virtually everyone only identifies it with homosexuality. And you are right about the term "marriage" meaning nothing to the common mind today other than "we loved each other to say yes, and just divorced after we grew apart". There is less and less association with "marriage" and "having a family," as nearly 40% of children born the last few years are illegitimate (according to the latest illegitimacy statistics: 30% of Whites; 50% of Hispanics; 70% of Blacks). But what other term is left to use? It seems all we can do is rescue the word rather than cede it.
I don't see how "matrimony" would make a difference legally, since there is no such concept in the minds of the law makers. It seems like this is one of those words where we cannot just let it slip. And this is also the basis by which the church becomes subordinate to the state if we're not careful. The Popes have warned about this very thing.
Here is the crux of the philosophical problem I'm having where you make comments like this:
"Matrimony is still protected and promoted and recognized by the State. It's just that other partnerships are now ALSO recognized and protected similarly."
This comes off as reducing marriage to little more than a voluntary contract and totally undermines the unique status marriage and family have for society. The family cannot precede the state and be the basic building block of the state if other partnerships receive equitable protections and favorable status. Under the scheme you're proposing, the individual is the basic building block of society. There thus becomes a radical redefinition and/or evolution of the traditional *concept* of Common Good. That's the underlying logic of no-fault divorce: the individual must be looked out for first and foremost, not the family unit. Thus, when you focus in repeatedly on "for legal purposes," it seems to me that you're speaking of "legal purposes" for "legal purposes" sake (or "fairness sake") and not Common Good sake.
So I guess what really needs to be addressed here is: what is the purpose of the state?
The way in which that is answered would likely determine everything.
As for polygamy, there are various ways to work it out (e.g. there can be a seniority among wives). I see no principled basis to oppose it now that marriage is purely on the level of voluntary contracts. There needs to be no more "compelling" reason other than many people want to do this and there's no rational grounds to oppose it, save convenience, which is shifting sand. What a company things in regards to extending benefits is ultimately irrelevant since that's not a factor for "marriage," that's as effective as a company forbidding you from having more than 2 children because a large family will just be seen as freeloading of company resources. None of the reasons you gave for opposing polygamy rise above a matter of logistics.
You said: "Why is it the State's job to single anything out?"
Because the State's entire purpose is the common good, with the family being the chief feature. To lose sight of that turns the purpose of the state into something purely self-serving. Homosexual unions not only contribute nothing towards the good of society, they burden it.
What you seem to be proposing is that as long as certain rights are given to marriage, granting those same rights to others does nothing detracting from marriage. So if a family needs $100 per day to get by, there is no injustice in granting homosexual couples $100/day so long as the family still gets $100/day. From a strictly "fairness" standpoint, that's well and good, but in view of man's End and duty, such logic has no place. In the case of a couple having children, they're fulfilling their duty as humans and contributing to society; the homosexual couple is living for themselves and detracting from the common good.
You asked me: "But what is important about LEGAL distinction?"
Law does not exist for its own sake. A law is ultimately a reflection of one's religious/philosophical position. What you appear to be saying is that laws don't really have to have any bearing on anything objective, and merely exist for convenience sake. In this case, the convenience is instituting blind "fairness" to make one block of citizens happy.
That's why I'm now convinced the root of this problem is properly defining the purpose and role of the state in the first place.
"I don't see how 'matrimony' would make a difference legally, since there is no such concept in the minds of the law makers."
I never said it had to make a difference LEGALLY.
I meant, if people have started thinking of "marriage" as applying to all life-partnerships, then in OUR theology and philosophy could maintain the conceptual distinction by starting to use "matrimony".
It WOULDN'T have legal standing as a word, that's exactly the point.
The point of using it would be to retain the CONCEPTUAL distinctiveness of that subset of life-partnerships in our own philosophical/theological/moral categories...even while admitting that the law groups all life-partnerships under the same heading ("marriage") and doesn't distinguish, for LEGAL purposes, the special subset.
"This comes off as reducing marriage to little more than a voluntary contract and totally undermines the unique status marriage and family have for society."
I don't know why you think the State's posture towards it is determinative in whether it is "reduced" or not.
Obviously, the State could (and already does, I think) view marriage as simply a voluntary contract...even if it DIDN'T recognize other partnerships alongside it.
So the recognition of other things alongside it isn't really what's at issue here.
"The family cannot precede the state and be the basic building block of the state if other partnerships receive equitable protections and favorable status."
Again, you seem to be acting as if the State actually determines Nature. It doesn't. The Family DOES precede the State and IS the basic building block of society, REGARDLESS of whether the State recognizes this OR NOT.
I certainly don't think the nature of things is changed just because the State decides to recognize other living arrangements.
"Under the scheme you're proposing, the individual is the basic building block of society."
Unless you are proposing a return to the power of the Paterfamilias...I hardly see how this hasn't ALREADY been the case for at least 200 years.
The State has been treating us as individuals rather than family-units for quite a long time now.
"not Common Good sake."
Marriage would still receive all the same protections it does now. However, there is much social value in other sorts of partnerships too, and much social good to be gained by recognizing and protecting them too.
"what is the purpose of the state?
The way in which that is answered would likely determine everything."
To ensure maximum temporal peace and prosperity so that people can work out their salvation in the most favorable conditions, I suppose.
"I see no principled basis to oppose it now that marriage is purely on the level of voluntary contracts."
It would be complicated, legally speaking, but if they can think of a way to do it...why not?
I'd rather have those families given some sort of legal protection than none at all. Things can be much more difficult (and dangerous for the children, etc) when the whole arrangement is just informal/unofficial and so there are no legal guarantees or anything like that if something bad should happen or someone should change their mind, etc.
I'd imagine, without a clear legal framework, that custody issues could be a mess. Therefore, you might as well provide a legal framework (if only for the sake of the children involved.)
"There needs to be no more 'compelling' reason other than many people want to do this and there's no rational grounds to oppose it, save convenience, which is shifting sand."
If you think the State's primary reason for recognizing marriage has to do with children...that hasn't been true in a long time. Ensuring paternity and inheritance are no longer big issues for society, really.
For a long time now, the State has been recognizing marriage simply because the social support network a partner and family provide is good for society. People paired up and with people to care for them do better than singles, and are a lot less of a burden on society and the State.
This alone is the compelling reason for recognizing people's stable domestic partnerships, whether they are marriage or not. "The buddy system" just makes everything a lot easier to deal with. God knows how the State deals with it when a single without any close relations falls into a coma...
"Because the State's entire purpose is the common good, with the family being the chief feature."
Families will still exist if gay marriage is established. Real heterosexual marriage will still exist. Neither will lose any of the benefits or protections from the State they currently have.
Your arguing from some sort of IDEOLOGICAL standpoint. But the State has not been promoting our ideology for a long time, and rarely even in Christendom did it ever fully listen to the Church regarding the State's own role and proper bounds. The State has usually been much more pragmatic than that.
"Homosexual unions not only contribute nothing towards the good of society, they burden it."
Ah, well I think that's where we disagree. I think all relationships, especially very close relationships, contain an enormous amount of social capital, social value.
It is singles who burden society.
"the homosexual couple is living for themselves and detracting from the common good."
I really don't see how.
See, THIS I think is the basic disagreement.
Although it's a common conservative canard to see the push for legal recognition of homosexual unions as just some sort of trophy the gays are looking for, as if they're just doing it for official "affirmation" and to "feel accepted"...in reality, most of them don't care at all what other people think, and are doing it for very PRACTICAL reasons regarding the practicalities of their lives.
You said: "The State has been treating us as individuals rather than family-units for quite a long time now."
Which is the root of the problem. Laws are more and more about 'promoting' the individual, until the individual hangs himself by the rope of his own unrestrained "freedom".
You said: "there is much social value in other sorts of partnerships too, and much social good to be gained by recognizing and protecting them too."
What social value and much good does sanctioning homosexual couples living together? The danger with that kind of logic is that abortion is the epitome of "much social good to be gained" by making it legal. Abortion terminates what is truly unwanted and will be literally dead weight on society, to put it in totally blunt pagan terms. Never can an intrinsic evil ADD "social value" in any positive sense. The only permissible grounds for allowing an intrinsic evil is to slow down or restrain a greater evil. But at this point there's not much worse that can be restrained. Natural Law plainly shows such a society is founded on error and will collapse, and Christianity teaches God's wrath rather than blessing is over sinful nations.
I asked what was the purpose of the state, and you said: "To ensure maximum temporal peace and prosperity so that people can work out their salvation in the most favorable conditions, I suppose."
I'd say this is ambiguous, for while there is a way this can be true under Catholic Social Teaching, it is a very different thing than what most people think when they read "maximum temporal peace and prosperity". For example, abortion promotes peace and prosperity by stimulating economy and not having to tie down people to care for what is in fact unwanted. Divorce promotes peace and prosperity by not having people live in undesirable marriages and free to live and spend their money as they wish. War promotes peace and prosperity by crushing enemies and conquering and creates jobs. You see how that's simply too ambiguous of a description?
The true purpose of the state is to promote the Common Good, meaning build up the family and promote virtue. Temporal peace and prosperity will naturally follow, but these will not be the peace and prosperity most are thinking about.
You said: "It would be complicated, legally speaking, but if they can think of a way to do it [legalize polygamous marriage]...why not?"
Why not? Because such is a perversion of the natural order and does not contribute (at least in the long run) to the common good. And such naturally would ruin and expose the whole phony basis of civil unions because the state would be milked dry by every different angle and twist people can come up with to derive benefits. Next there will be threesome homosexual couples getting married and demanding the same protections and benefits.
You said: "Your arguing from some sort of IDEOLOGICAL standpoint. But the State has not been promoting our ideology for a long time, and rarely even in Christendom did it ever fully listen to the Church regarding the State's own role and proper bounds."
I'm arguing from a philosophical standpoint that seeks to build on a firm foundation. You seem to be saying the status quo has been this way for so long that it's not worth changing our attitudes and mindsets. All that devolves into is unconsciously saying X is good because the state says X is good. Without a firm foundation all you have is a slippery slope to wherever convenience takes you. At this point I see no way you can oppose abortion on the legislative level.
You said: "Ah, well I think that's where we disagree. I think all relationships, especially very close relationships, contain an enormous amount of social capital, social value. It is singles who burden society."
I would need to see a very solid case for this. Sin, by its very nature, destroys and merits God's curse. Again, I don't see how you can oppose abortion with this kind of logic. A true relationship, built in terms of Natural Law, is one founded on a natural level. One cannot have a close relationship apart from charity, especially Christian charity, and homosexual acts are the furthest thing from charity. Allowing homosexual acts obliterates any grounds for an objective moral code.
I said: "the homosexual couple is living for themselves and detracting from the common good."
You responded with: "I really don't see how."
Because their lifestyle is - by nature - self centered and usurious. Children are precluded from their lifestyle, as is promoting the family in general. Virtue has no place, as there can be no consistent moral code. It's life as if God didn't exist. Where is there any good emerging from this?
"Which is the root of the problem. Laws are more and more about 'promoting' the individual, until the individual hangs himself by the rope of his own unrestrained 'freedom'."
I know what you're saying.
But, ultimately, there is no "common good" that is not the good of each and every individual, remember.
Catholics are communitarian, NOT collectivist.
Persons are not parts for the good of the whole. Rather, the whole of society is ordered to the good of each member.
Either way, though, the ship if Individualism sailed a long time ago. It's very problematic, but if you want to dial it back, I'd work on striking at the root, not on fighting the symptoms.
"What social value and much good does sanctioning homosexual couples living together?"
This word "sanctioning" is strange.
The State is simply recognizing a de facto reality, a practical situation in the world that IS.
The State pretending that the situation doesn't exist doesn't help anything, in fact it just raises a lot of problems.
When people are in partnerships that are treated essentially like marriage in terms of all the things that would be legally relevant (note: almost all the legally relevant aspects have nothing to do with the breeding aspect and everything to do with the "sharing life" aspect)...it's just bureaucratic arbitrariness to pretend like these households don't exist or, in the eyes of the law, are just friends or roommates.
"Never can an intrinsic evil ADD 'social value' in any positive sense."
Who is talking about an intrinsic evil???
No one here is saying that sodomy or unchaste sex acts add social value or anything positive to society, so I'm not sure what you're even addressing here.
"For example, abortion promotes peace and prosperity by stimulating economy and not having to tie down people to care for what is in fact unwanted."
Except it can't be called peace when a million babies are slaughtered!
I think we agree here, as this is what I meant when I first emphasized that "the common good" must mean the good of each and every member, not some sort of good maximized within the collective in the utilitarian sense (but at the expense of individual members).
"Divorce promotes peace and prosperity by not having people live in undesirable marriages and free to live and spend their money as they wish."
Well, the Church has never said civil divorce can't take place absolutely.
In fact, some Catholics had problems at one point in history in strict Protestant nations, where the Catholics had had their marriages annulled, but the Protestant State would not grant them a CIVIL divorce.
In a pluralist State, it seems hard to imagine that there wouldn't be civil divorce not connected to religion.
Should it be "no fault"? Not necessarily. At the same time, there's a fine line between incentivizing people to work out their problems, and keeping people trapped in a living hell by coercive force.
Civil divorce and remarriage, in itself, doesn't address any moral questions. People doing that civilly may be abstinent, may have an annulment, etc.
"Why not? Because such is a perversion of the natural order and does not contribute (at least in the long run) to the common good."
Under the assumption that people are going to live in such arrangements INformally, whether the State recognizes it or not (and given the assumption that States today are not going to actively ILlegalize such unofficial arrangements)...it seems better to at least give the State some jurisdiction in such cases, to insert the State into them (yes, in the form of sort of contractual agreements) so that there can be some order (esp. re: protection for the children) rather than having them be completely "at your own risk" for the parties involved financially, etc.
"the state would be milked dry by every different angle and twist people can come up with to derive benefits."
When you use the phrase "milked dry" and speak of the "burden" of such unions on the State...I'm not sure what you imagine married people GET from the State.
It's not like they all get a check every month, and recognizing all these other partnerships will mean having to give all them hand-outs too.
That's not how it works. The rights the State is guaranteeing in such cases are usually not anything like entitlements from the State, but rather just protecting people's decision-making in their private affairs.
(For example, deciding who you want to be able to visit you in the hospital, or make important medical decisions; there are many stories of gay couples where one goes into a coma and suddenly the family comes out of the woodwork and starts excluding the partner against the would-be wishes of the unconcious party).
"You seem to be saying the status quo has been this way for so long that it's not worth changing our attitudes and mindsets."
No. But, as I said, I think it's silly, then, to fight the symptoms.
Start advocating for the Catholic religion to be established as the State Religion if you want to get to the root of the problem, then.
Expending energy over these token victories in these proxy-battles...just seems like a waste.
(Though, I imagine my Catholic State would recognize all sorts of domestic arrangements. The Church always has, after all, had religious communities, celibate priests, now we have secular institutes, etc etc)
"I would need to see a very solid case for this. Sin, by its very nature, destroys and merits God's curse."
I'm not sure who's talking about sin here. I've never advocated the State promoting or protecting sin.
Privacy, perhaps. But I don't think we can say, "Singles wanting to not have camera's in their houses, or not being forced into marriages simply are fighting for masturbation!" or something like that!
I'm not sure who ever said anything about sin here.
"Allowing homosexual acts obliterates any grounds for an objective moral code."
I'm not sure who is talking about allowing homosexual acts. Not me. Allowing privacy, maybe, but the State is neutral to what exactly people use that privacy FOR.
Saying the State shouldn't criminalize is another matter; and Catholics have never said the human law had to be totally co-extensive with the divine (though I am not, actually, theoretically absolutely against criminalization of various sexual sins if a compelling social reason can be shown for doing so that would have a net positive effect. Theoretically.)
As for relationships and what they are "founded on"...you seem to have some strange ideas here. All our relationships probably contain some sin (gossip, impatience, uncharitable jokes, an occasion of anger, etc). That doesn't make these things "the foundation."
"Because their lifestyle is - by nature - self centered and usurious."
Ah, now you bring in this term "lifestyle." As I say often (and said in this very post)...what does that even mean?? As far as I know, 99% of the time...people in homosexual couples are doing things non-controversial and no different from singles, married folk, or guys with roommates, etc.
"Children are precluded from their lifestyle"
Generating new children, perhaps. But they're precluded from the life of all singles and celibates.
At the same time, as I say on this post, nothing is stopping such couples from RAISING children who need homes. Certainly, they often raise their OWN biological children (who have come about in various ways; sometimes a previous marriage, perhaps that ended in widowhood; it need not even be controversial).
"Virtue has no place, as there can be no consistent moral code. It's life as if God didn't exist. Where is there any good emerging from this?"
I'm not sure what exactly you're imagining or talking about.
I'd definitely concede what you're saying applies to homosexual sex acts. It applies to heterosexual sex acts with contraception too. And fornication and masturbation among singles.
I'm not sure what this "lifestyle" you're imagining is, though.
Good point on the "framing" issue. I think I failed to grasp your meaning on this point previously. It's not about types of people, it's about sex and the respective sexes of the people involved, and that's it.
Post a Comment