The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Peregrinus · 18-08-2019 11:30am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Remembering the gay marriage debate leading up to the ref and the dire predictions that would occur if gay marriage was allowed. Have any of these predictions been realised yet or are there any signs of negative consequences from gay marriage, from a Christian perspective?

Can we remember any of the specifics of any of the dire predictions? Generalised "hell-in-a-handbasket" prognistications aren' really falsifiable, so not of much use in this context.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-08-2019 5:39pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can we remember any of the specifics of any of the dire predictions? Generalised "hell-in-a-handbasket" prognistications aren' really falsifiable, so not of much use in this context.

The devaluation of heterosexual marriage. Use of the term "value" suggests is it could be measured but I suspect not.

smacl · 18-08-2019 6:33pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The devaluation of heterosexual marriage. Use of the term "value" suggests is it could be measured but I suspect not.

Or even that the value relates to relative rather than intrinsic worth. If the value of any couple's marriage can be undermined by another couple's relationship being given the same status in the eyes of the law, I know which marriage I'd consider questionable

Peregrinus · 19-08-2019 2:26am

Mmm. I could just about see an argument that the introduction of divorce "devalues" marriage. I don't think I'd be convinced by the argument, but I could construct it.

But, honestly, I don't even understand the claim that the introduction of same-sex marriage "devalues" opposite-sex marriage.

Cabaal · 19-08-2019 3:03pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Remembering the gay marriage debate leading up to the ref and the dire predictions that would occur if gay marriage was allowed. Have any of these predictions been realised yet or are there any signs of negative consequences from gay marriage, from a Christian perspective?

Well, if you selectively apply stuff that generally happens a christian could claim that the predictions of a great flood have happened.....

Yes, this is a real claim

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/18/uk-storms-divine-retirubtion-gay-marriage-ukip

UK storms are divine retribution for gay marriage laws, says Ukip councillor
Former Tory David Silvester says 'natural disasters' are result of David Cameron acting 'arrogantly against the Gospel'

aloyisious · 19-08-2019 3:19pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. I could just about see an argument that the introduction of divorce "devalues" marriage. I don't think I'd be convinced by the argument, but I could construct it.

But, honestly, I don't even understand the claim that the introduction of same-sex marriage "devalues" opposite-sex marriage.

Going back over old ground, if one has the mindset that marriage has a specific [sacramental] purpose then one is putting a value on it. Continuing with that mindset, it's inevitable that one would not want same-sex couples to have access to marriage, even civil marriage, as to those of that mindset, there is a singular purpose behind marriage in all its forms. Ireland did and does still have people with that value mindset. If one cannot fulfil within a civil marriage the sacramental requirements, then, per se, there is an inevitable conclusion reached within the said mindset.

smacl · 19-08-2019 5:29pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Going back over old ground, if one has the mindset that marriage has a specific [sacramental] purpose then one is putting a value on it. Continuing with that mindset, it's inevitable that one would not want same-sex couples to have access to marriage, even civil marriage, as to those of that mindset, there is a singular purpose behind marriage in all its forms. Ireland did and does still have people with that value mindset. If one cannot fulfil within a civil marriage the sacramental requirements, then, per se, there is an inevitable conclusion reached within the said mindset.

Worth noting that heterosexual atheists would also fall foul of that [sacramental] criterion, as would marriage between Christians who have no intention of having kids. I would have thought that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the church is a matter for the church whereas that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the law is a matter for the state.

aloyisious · 19-08-2019 10:51pm

smacl wrote: »

Worth noting that heterosexual atheists would also fall foul of that [sacramental] criterion, as would marriage between Christians who have no intention of having kids. I would have thought that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the church is a matter for the church whereas that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the law is a matter for the state.

I agree with you as far as those heterosexuals who would fall foul of the sacramental criterion goes. However, it was the position of the church that civil marriage must be denied to homosexuals and that was based on it's position of the sacramental value of marriage.

I don't recall there being as much mention of heterosexual atheists or non-conforming heterosexuals who might decline to comply with the importance of the sex-act for procreation purposes as outlined by the church in respect of sacramental marriage as there was of the need to deny civil marriage equality between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

Heck, there were even gay people standing alongside the religious-belief heterosexuals before the referendum all promoting the message that there must be no equality of civil marriage for gay couples. Some of those gay people made it clear that their position was based on their Christian faith belief.

Cabaal · 20-08-2019 8:30am

Fyp

aloyisious wrote: »

Heck, there were even gay people one gay man standing alongside the religious-belief heterosexuals before the referendum all promoting the message that there must be no equality of civil marriage for gay couples. Some of those gay people made it clear that their position was based on their Christian faith belief.

So just Paddy Manning then?
:pac::pac::pac:

Peregrinus · 20-08-2019 8:42am

smacl wrote: »

Worth noting that heterosexual atheists would also fall foul of that [sacramental] criterion, as would marriage between Christians who have no intention of having kids. I would have thought that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the church is a matter for the church whereas that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the law is a matter for the state.

Um. [Heterosexual] marriages involving atheists, non-Christians and non-Catholics are perfectly religiously valid from the Catholic point of view. Those marriages might be invalid for other reasons - not freely entered into, one or both spouses still married to other people, etc - but this is independent of whether the parties are Catholics. And I'm pretty sure that other denominations and religions mostly take a similar view.

Which means that, from this perspective, a gay marriage is [religiously] invalid in the way that a bigamous marriage would be, or a marriage of somebody who lacks (what the church regards as) capacity or understanding or proper intent.

But of course civil law already recognises lots of marriages which Catholics/Christians would regard as not true marriages, from a religious point of view. That ship sailed a long time ago, and the churches have managed to live with it.

Cabaal · 20-08-2019 9:25am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. [Heterosexual] marriages involving atheists, non-Christians and non-Catholics are perfectly religiously valid from the Catholic point of view.

Really?
So when a person I know outright told the priest that they didn't believe in god, were only getting marriage in a church for the other half and they also flat out refused to do the marriage course and the priest married them anyway. That was all square and ok with the catholic church? I would have thought believing in god was a basic requirement of a catholic religious marriage.

That seems a little odd.

If it is then it seem like the church cares little about the people it marrys and instead just wants to pack in the numbers as much as they can.

Are they that desperate to try increase the catholic church marriage numbers as they fall each year?

Peregrinus · 20-08-2019 9:46am

Cabaal wrote: »

Really?
So when a person I know outright told the priest that they didn't believe in god, were only getting marriage in a church for the other half and they also flat out refused to do the marriage course and the priest married them anyway. That was all square and ok with the catholic church? I would have thought believing in god was a basic requirement of a catholic religious marriage.

That seems a little odd.

If it is then it seem like the church cares little about the people it marrys and instead just wants to pack in the numbers as much as they can.

Are they that desperate to try increase the catholic church marriage numbers as they fall each year?

You're confusing "marriages celebrated in a Catholic church" with "marriages the Catholic church regards as valid".

The Catholic church has a rule that Catholics must marry in a Catholic ceremony (or get a dispensation allowing them to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony) and, if they don't, the marriage is invalid. But this rule only applies to Catholics.

For non-Catholics - and this includes other Christians, adherents of non-Christian religions, and unbelievers - no such rule applies. The nature and location of their marriage ceremony is irrelevant, as are their views or lack of them on God or His existence or non-existence. All that matters is their capacity and intention to marry. If they freely intend to enter into a committed, exclusive, enduring, procreative, conjugal union, their marriages are entirely religiously valid, as far as the Catholic - and I think most other - church is concerned. (To the extent that, if they later get religion and rock up to a church seeking to be married in a religious ceremony to the same - or, awkwardly, a different - spouse, they'll be told "No can do; you're already married".)

Nick Park · 20-08-2019 10:30am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Remembering the gay marriage debate leading up to the ref and the dire predictions that would occur if gay marriage was allowed. Have any of these predictions been realised yet or are there any signs of negative consequences from gay marriage, from a Christian perspective?

As someone who argued for a No vote, I didn't believe that the word 'marriage' should be redefined by the State.

I don't think I made any 'dire' predictions. The most extreme prediction I made was that the special nature of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman was being changed, in Enda Kenny's words, into "the right to say I do". I therefore predicted that we might expect to see divorce being made easier to obtain, and a growing trend for pre-nuptial agreements.

The most 'dire' prediction I remember elsewhere was from the Iona Institute when it predicted that we could see two heterosexual men getting married for tax reasons: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/iona-institute-calls-for-defeat-of-marriage-referendum-677960.html

That prediction, of course, was fulfilled in 2017: https://www.thejournal.ie/marriage-tax-reasons-3766958-Dec2017/

aloyisious · 20-08-2019 11:01am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. [Heterosexual] marriages involving atheists, non-Christians and non-Catholics are perfectly religiously valid from the Catholic point of view.

Umm: interesting perspective, that if one of the partners was honest and upfront with the priest as to his/her non-belief in the creed of the other partners faith but was intent on being faithful within the marriage to that partner, then there would be no auto-restrictions placed on the priest by rules of the church preventing him from proceeding with the ,marriage ceremony and giving it the blessing of the church and its deity. Edit: I'm referring to heterosexual couples marrying there. On an aside, this caused me to check on the Ne Temere rule and I found it was removed from RC church law in 1970.

Cabaal · 20-08-2019 11:51am

Nick Park wrote: »

The most 'dire' prediction I remember elsewhere was from the Iona Institute when it predicted that we could see two heterosexual men getting married for tax reasons: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/iona-institute-calls-for-defeat-of-marriage-referendum-677960.html

After all, as we all know no man and women has ever gotten married for tax, money or immigration reasons
:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Nick Park · 20-08-2019 12:10pm

Cabaal wrote: »

After all, as we all know no man and women has ever gotten married for tax, money or immigration reasons
:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Oh, of course they have always been happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sham_marriage

The concept of a 'sham' marriage was always based on the fact that they were not 'real' marriages with sexual consummation and a lifelong commitment. However, it is none of our business what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms (including choosing to do nothing at all ever). Nor can it be convincingly argued that marriage is truly a lifelong commitment.

It's not particularly 'dire' (but then, I wasn't the one who initially chose that word). I do predict that it is going to prove increasingly hard to argue that any union is 'sham' when we don't have much of a criteria for what constitutes a 'real' marriage.

recedite · 20-08-2019 1:46pm

Nick Park wrote: »

I do predict that it is going to prove increasingly hard to argue that any union is 'sham' when we don't have much of a criteria for what constitutes a 'real' marriage.

We are being led into an age of gender fluidity and marriage flexibility.
By this reasoning, you can be whatever you claim you are.
Male/female, sham/legit, who cares anymore. Its only a piece of paper. Or so they say.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-08-2019 3:08pm

Cabaal wrote: »

So just Paddy Manning then?
:pac::pac::pac:

Keith Mills, as well. So that's 2...

Nick Park wrote: »

As someone who argued for a No vote, I didn't believe that the word 'marriage' should be redefined by the State.

Appeal to tradition. "We've always given fewer legal rights to gay people, therefore we should continue to give fewer legal rights to gay people."

I therefore predicted that we might expect to see divorce being made easier to obtain, and a growing trend for pre-nuptial agreements.

There was already increasing pressure for both. Nothing to do with gay marriage. The five year wait written into the constitution was always ridiculous. Still no legal recognition of pre-nups but it'll likely happen eventually. Irrelevant for the vast majority of couples with few or no assets beyond a family home.

The most 'dire' prediction I remember elsewhere was from the Iona Institute when it predicted that we could see two heterosexual men getting married for tax reasons: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/iona-institute-calls-for-defeat-of-marriage-referendum-677960.html

That prediction, of course, was fulfilled in 2017: https://www.thejournal.ie/marriage-tax-reasons-3766958-Dec2017/

So that's one case that we know of.

But so what?

People have got married to obtain property, cement / repair links between two powerful families (or even nations), and all sorts of other reasons which don't correspond to the relatively newfangled Western notion of romantic love, and these marriages were regarded as perfectly valid.

smacl · 20-08-2019 4:04pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

All that matters is their capacity and intention to marry. If they freely intend to enter into a committed, exclusive, enduring, procreative, conjugal union, their marriages are entirely religiously valid, as far as the Catholic - and I think most other - church is concerned.

The only criterion there that would would preclude gay marriage between men would be procreation, which would be the same for marriage between hetero Christians who have no intention of having kids (as previously raised), though not for gay women who could avail of artificial insemination. I'm at something of a loss to see what is objectionable about a gay marriage in the above context beyond this.

Um. [Heterosexual] marriages involving atheists, non-Christians and non-Catholics are perfectly religiously valid from the Catholic point of view. Those marriages might be invalid for other reasons - not freely entered into, one or both spouses still married to other people, etc - but this is independent of whether the parties are Catholics. And I'm pretty sure that other denominations and religions mostly take a similar view.

Which means that, from this perspective, a gay marriage is [religiously] invalid in the way that a bigamous marriage would be, or a marriage of somebody who lacks (what the church regards as) capacity or understanding or proper intent.

I struggle to see from the first paragraph how a gay marriage would be invalid in the same sense as a bigamous marriage. Is this intent to procreate again?

recedite · 20-08-2019 4:33pm

smacl wrote: »

The only criterion there that would would preclude gay marriage between men would be procreation, which would be the same for marriage between hetero Christians who have no intention of having kids...

That, and the fact that they are both men :pac:
In the RC doctrine marriage may only be between one man and one woman.
Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?”

smacl wrote: »

... though not for gay women who could avail of artificial insemination. I'm at something of a loss to see what is objectionable about a gay marriage in the above context beyond this.

The fact that they are two women (as above).
And besides, your cop-out clause is invalid because artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood are considered immoral because they involve sexual acts that are procreative, but not unitive.

Peregrinus · 21-08-2019 2:01am

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm: interesting perspective, that if one of the partners was honest and upfront with the priest as to his/her non-belief in the creed of the other partners faith but was intent on being faithful within the marriage to that partner, then there would be no auto-restrictions placed on the priest by rules of the church preventing him from proceeding with the ,marriage ceremony and giving it the blessing of the church and its deity. Edit: I'm referring to heterosexual couples marrying there. On an aside, this caused me to check on the Ne Temere rule and I found it was removed from RC church law in 1970.

There are no "auto-restrictions" of the kind you describe. You don't have to be a "believer in God" to have your marriage celebrated in or recognised by the Catholic church; just a believer in marriage. (Of course, one of the couple has to be a Catholic if they want a Catholic ceremony.)

Peregrinus · 21-08-2019 2:15am

smacl wrote: »

The only criterion there that would would preclude gay marriage between men would be procreation, which would be the same for marriage between hetero Christians who have no intention of having kids (as previously raised), though not for gay women who could avail of artificial insemination. I'm at something of a loss to see what is objectionable about a gay marriage in the above context beyond this.

Um, if an opposite-sex couple rock up looking for a Catholic ceremony, one of they questions they'll be asked is whether they are open to having children. And if the answer is "no, we've discussed this and we both don't want children and intend never to have them" then they will be denied a Catholic ceremony.

What is at issue here is not your circumstances or situation, but your attitude and intention. The fact that having kids is unlikely or impossible (e.g. because one or both are infertile) is not an impediment to marriage, but the fact that you're not open to having kids is.

This isn't quite on all fours with a same-sex couple, because of course a same-sex couple may be very open to having kids, so their attitude/intention is not the problem. But the conjugal relationship between them, the foundation of their marriage, isn't ordered towards procreation, not because of circumstances or situation, but because of the fundamental nature of the relationship itself.

(This is not my view, you understand; it's the church's line.)

smacl wrote: »

I struggle to see from the first paragraph how a gay marriage would be invalid in the same sense as a bigamous marriage. Is this intent to procreate again?

Sorry, I didn't put it well. It's as invalid as a bigamous marriage, but for different reasons. The bigamous marriage is invalid because it's not exclusive; one of the couple has another spouse. And it's fundamental to the Christian concept of marriage that marriage be exclusive. The same-sex marriage is invalid because it's not procreative (in the sense just explained), which is another fundamental characteristic of the Christian concept of marriage.

Cabaal · 21-08-2019 7:43am

recedite wrote: »

That, and the fact that they are both men :pac:
In the RC doctrine marriage may only be between one man and one woman.
Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

You are 100% right,
We clearly should follow the bible when it comes to dealing with people and marriage.

Exodus 21:7-11

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

:rolleyes:

aloyisious · 21-08-2019 12:04pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um, if an opposite-sex couple rock up looking for a Catholic ceremony, one of they questions they'll be asked is whether they are open to having children. And if the answer is "no, we've discussed this and we both don't want children and intend never to have them" then they will be denied a Catholic ceremony.

What is at issue here is not your circumstances or situation, but your attitude and intention. The fact that having kids is unlikely or impossible (e.g. because one or both are infertile) is not an impediment to marriage, but the fact that you're not open to having kids is.

This isn't quite on all fours with a same-sex couple, because of course a same-sex couple may be very open to having kids, so their attitude/intention is not the problem. But the conjugal relationship between them, the foundation of their marriage, isn't ordered towards procreation, not because of circumstances or situation, but because of the fundamental nature of the relationship itself.

(This is not my view, you understand; it's the church's line.).

Going off at a bit of a tangent here, where it comes to the varied LGBT human.
On the basis set out by you, if a homosexual couple, one man and one woman [she in the process of trans-ing from female to male] were to wish to get married as a couple within the RC church, there would be no snag within the RC church and its religious ethics to it actually proceeding with the ceremony [while knowing of the future intent of the couple in respect of procreation - given the fact that the woman would be trans-ing to a man but the couple had the natural capability for procreation at the time of the marriage] as long as one was of the RC faith.

I know this seems a convoluted question but there are Trans-men who were women and in a committed and sexual relationship with gay men and went on to procreate and give birth, making the question unconvoluted in fact.

Edit: by auto-restriction I meant RC Church ethics as in its understanding of marriage and foundation.

recedite · 21-08-2019 1:55pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Going off at a bit of a tangent here, where it comes to the varied LGBT human.
On the basis set out by you, if a homosexual couple, one man and one woman [she in the process of trans-ing from female to male] were to wish to get married as a couple within the RC church, there would be no snag within the RC church and its religious ethics to it actually proceeding with the ceremony [while knowing of the future intent of the couple in respect of procreation - given the fact that the woman would be trans-ing to a man but the couple had the natural capability for procreation at the time of the marriage] as long as one was of the RC faith.

I know this seems a convoluted question but there are Trans-men who were women and in a committed and sexual relationship with gay men and went on to procreate and give birth, making the question unconvoluted in fact.

Edit: by auto-restriction I meant RC Church ethics as in its understanding of marriage and foundation.

I can't say I speak for the RCC, but for the examples you give I would be inclined to think the man in question has an attraction to the somewhat butch or dominatrix type of woman.
And while you are describing them as a same-sex couple, the church might not describe them that way at all. Either before or after the so-called transitioning.

recedite · 21-08-2019 1:58pm

Cabaal wrote: »

You are 100% right,
We clearly should follow the bible when it comes to dealing with people and marriage.:rolleyes:

Now now, I didn't say that at all.
I merely commented on the discussion, which was about what is allowable under RC doctrine, and what is not.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-08-2019 4:16pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um, if an opposite-sex couple rock up looking for a Catholic ceremony, one of they questions they'll be asked is whether they are open to having children.

If they're both OAPs would they seriously be asked that?

Peregrinus · 22-08-2019 2:50am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If they're both OAPs would they seriously be asked that?

Yup. It's on the form. The whole thing is quite legalistic, so this (in this context) would be a box-ticking exercise.

Peregrinus · 22-08-2019 3:04am

aloyisious wrote: »

Going off at a bit of a tangent here, where it comes to the varied LGBT human.

Yes. It is a bit of a tangent. We probably shouldn't let the thread get sidetracked.

But, since you ask . . .

aloyisious wrote: »

On the basis set out by you, if a homosexual couple, one man and one woman [she in the process of trans-ing from female to male] were to wish to get married as a couple within the RC church, there would be no snag within the RC church and its religious ethics to it actually proceeding with the ceremony [while knowing of the future intent of the couple in respect of procreation - given the fact that the woman would be trans-ing to a man but the couple had the natural capability for procreation at the time of the marriage] as long as one was of the RC faith.

I know this seems a convoluted question but there are Trans-men who were women and in a committed and sexual relationship with gay men and went on to procreate and give birth, making the question unconvoluted in fact.

Edit: by auto-restriction I meant RC Church ethics as in its understanding of marriage and foundation.

I think the position would be this:

1. In the Catholic view, the cis man is a man, and the trans man is a woman, both before and after transitioning.

2. The fact that after transitioning the trans man might still be physically capable of bearing a child - i.e. still has ovaries and a womb - isn't the issue. The issue is not whether the couple can have children, but whether they are open to having children.

3. So if the plan is definitely not to have kiddies, they're out.

4. What if they intend that the trans man will, in fact, conceive and bear their children? As you point out, this has happened, so we can't rule out the possiblity that they might be open to it happening.

5. In that case, their marriage is not precluded on the grounds that they lack the proper disposition with regard to procreation.

6. But it is almost certainly going to be precluded on other grounds; namely, that the couple themselves do not see their marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so they lack the proper disposition in that respect. This is an issue regardless of their intention with regard to procreation.

7. The other thought that occurs to me is that it is wildly unlikely that a couple so situated would seek a church wedding, and the question would certain arise, "why are they looking to be married in church?" And if the answer to that question was that they wanted to make a point about discrimination or exclusion (i.e. they ask in the expectation of being refused) that too would probably be regarded as evidenced of not having a proper disposition.

aloyisious · 22-08-2019 9:09am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. It is a bit of a tangent. We probably shouldn't let the thread get sidetracked.

But, since you ask . . .

I think the position would be this:

2. The fact that after transitioning the trans man might still be physically capable of bearing a child - i.e. still has ovaries and a womb - isn't the issue. The issue is not whether the couple can have children, but whether they are open to having children.

3. So if the plan is definitely not to have kiddies, they're out.

4. What if they intend that the trans man will, in fact, conceive and bear their children?

5. In that case, their marriage is not precluded on the grounds that they lack the proper disposition with regard to procreation.

6. But it is almost certainly going to be precluded on other grounds; namely, that the couple themselves do not see their marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so they lack the proper disposition in that respect. This is an issue regardless of their intention with regard to procreation.

7. The other thought that occurs to me is that it is wildly unlikely that a couple so situated would seek a church wedding, and the question would certain arise, "why are they looking to be married in church?" And if the answer to that question was that they wanted to make a point about discrimination or exclusion (i.e. they ask in the expectation of being refused) that too would probably be regarded as evidenced of not having a proper disposition.

Ta for the reply, it enables me to think further outside the box, extends my view.

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments