My second point is that the Church does hold that only marital sex is permissible and it holds that only opposite sex couples can possibly be married. The Church holds that marriage is a humanly natural thing. I say humanly natural in the sense that it is something that exists whether any government grants marriage licenses or says to a couple 'you are no longer married'. The essential fact of being married can remain even if one is civilly divorced.
So what is this humanly natural marriage? The ultimate reality of marriage is a real and enduring union --regardless of the legal structures of the society. This profound union can exist, the Church teaches, only between a man and a woman who have mutually and solemnly promised and understood themselves to be so promising life-long fidelity, openness to having a family, and willingness to raise and nurture all children that might be gifted to them.
Protestation at this point, to this view, should not be based on defending the civil rights of those identifying themselves. Because the best and good adherents of this view (not lame homophobes and mad traditionalists) themselves admit and defend the legitimate concerns of homosexuals and other groups that have been wrongfully treated. Protestation at this point, if it is to be made, must be in this form: "But why should marriage only be between opposite sexes?" But before answering that question we'd have to be careful. For marriage, as the Church defines it, is a feature of humanity itself, and transcends a society's particular legal structure. So there are really two questions here: (1) Why is it inherent to humanity itself that marriage be between opposite sexes? (2) Whatever we say about the nature of marriage, what laws should the United States or other nations, have concerning the civil institution of marriage? Now I would argue that most of those in favor of expanding the definition of marriage haven't earned a right to a hearing yet. For most of us have forgotten why a state has any interest in protecting and facilitating the so called "nuclear family". And it is easy to forget and no surprise we're confused about the grounds of the traditional law, for we live in a no-fault divorce, contraceptive culture of common and unquestioned childless cohabitation (and yes, abortion does fit into this same trend). While expanding the definition would be a way of helping to meet the legitimate civil concerns of homosexuals, it is not the only way, nor is it necessarily the most efficient way, nor is it on balance the best way to serve the interests of the state in facilitating old-school marriage. And, at least to me, the charges that law itself is discriminatory seems empty. For the law permits homosexuals to marry in every state and don't stop such services.
One last point here. One major mindset problem in this debate is that given our culture of sexual 'freedom' and childlessness sexuality (inclusive of all orientation types), marriage is always thought of *as an adult-centered, couple-centered good*. This goes for almost everyone, conservative, liberal, for or against same-sex marriage, Christian or not. It certainly is a good designed for the couple. But the state and all of us *simply as humans* have a vital interest in facilitating the sort of arrangement and environment that is *helpless infant* centered and *needy toddler* centered and *hormone wacked* teen centered. For those periods of development almost invariably mark the difference, and thousands and thousands of studies have shown this, between at risk high-schools and not at risk, between potential criminal citizens and non-criminal contributing citizens, between unwanted teen pregnancies and not, between troubled adults and not, etc. See the work of Professor Jennifer Morse to get access to the social scientific evidence.
Here is the Discussion that Originally Followed from the Above Note.
Kate Martin Alex, I love conversations that you are a part of But sometimes I don't understand a word you say and this was one of those times for me!;) I wish I had any idea what you were communicating here!!!
Alex Plato Is this a criticism of my expression or a request for more explanation? I certainly deserve criticism and would love to try to explain. If you want to ask me questions about particular words, phrases, or concepts, please do.
Kate Martin Thanks. I suppose it is a criticism of your expression but only because yes, I do wish for more explanation. I guess at first it was so confusing that I wasn't even sure what to specifically ask but I re-read it and I think I can now form a couple specific questions at least. Will do that later when I have my computer not iPad. ;)
Kate Martin okay soooooooo.... your first paragraph is pretty clear (i think!) to me. i would like to ask, is this your answer to colby's question, "It SEEMS to me that you are suggesting that you oppose homosexual acts NOT because they are a result of same-sex behavior, but because they are non-marital acts. Is this correct? If so, then my question is this: do you then support the relationship between two people of the same-gender who commit to ONLY participate in “marital acts” (again, I’m not fully certain what that does/doesn’t entail)? Or, to put that differently, would you support a gay relationship where they only hold hands, snuggle, live together, kiss, etc… but do not partake in sodomy/oral sex/whatever else would be considered non-marital sex acts? It seems to me, based on your reasoning for being opposed to the practice, that you would then be open and accepting to such a relationship as I’ve described. Is this correct? Do you understand what I’m asking?" ? am i correct in reading that you are clearly stating that it's only even possible to be married if you are an opposite sex couple because of the very nature of marriage? is that right? marriage is for one man and one woman because it's only even possible for marriage to exist that way?
second paragraph: would you be a doll and starting from this line, "Now I would argue that most of those in favor of expanding the definition of marriage haven't earned a right to a hearing yet." on through the rest of the paragraph try to re-state what you stated and explain it in a different way? i couldn't come up with any specific questions from that point on because i was so confused about what you were addressing or trying to say. i'm sorry. i know it's hard when someone says "just say that again differently" and doesn't give specific questions. but would you try again for me please? i follow all your comments on colby's blog and a lot of your dialogue on your own fb and really enjoy "hearing" your perspective. boy do i wish these conversations could happen around a fire with a good drink in hand. so much easier. but since they can't, would you do me a solid and try to explain whatever it is you were trying to explain here one more time but using a "to put it differently" approach?
third paragraph: in this line here, "For those periods of development almost invariably mark the difference, and thousands and thousands of studies have shown this, between at risk high-schools and not at risk, between potential criminal citizens and non-criminal contributing citizens, between unwanted teen pregnancies and not, between troubled adults and not, etc. See the work of Professor Jennifer Morse to get access to the social scientific evidence." were you trying to say that treating marriage as not JUST an "adult centered-couple centered good" is the (or can be) difference between weather a person grows up to be criminal or non-criminal, etc. ? did i read that correctly? i wasn't totally sure if that's what you meant. if it is indeed what you are saying, i agree but have some important follow up questions.
thank you for taking time and compassion for me and my confusion!
Alex Plato Dear Kate,
I'm ever so happy to oblige someone with sincerity in their heart and courtesy in their speech.
First, a word about how I write. I try to write and converse in a way that contributes to both myself and the reader thinking through the issue. I don't like to just state, point by point, my beliefs. Rather, I like to try to create a space of reasons. I hope that concepts can be connected, logically. I hope that political and cultural bias can be blunted by the lack of persuasiveness. I try, often, to describe ways of thinking, both for and again some important claim. I try to understand both sides and strive to see what arguments people have. I don't have much confidence in most discussions of these deep worldview issues. Most people, even if desirous to understand, often aren't equipped to understand things without background expectations forcing what's said into various molds and shapes, various 'isms' and 'ologies'.
Second, I'll take your points in order, one for each of my paragraphs. ...
Alex Plato I was stating what the Church teaches. It teaches this: God made humanity in two modes, male and female. He made the total self-giving love between male and female. He made that type of union have the power to share in His creativity and fruitfulness of overflowing love. He gave this couple the means of bringing into being new human life. Each male has half the organ for that. Each female has half the organ. Together they have one. When the male and female love fully one another, their love has the power to be fruitful. God made a unique human relationship. The name for that is human marriage. This special human relationship is what it is, whether some legal codes of societies understand, uphold, alter, or forget about it.
If we ask now: "Is it only possible for marriage to exist in that way" we assume something. We assume it makes sense to say that "marriage" can name other relationships besides the paradigm type instanced by Adam and Eve and Mary and Joseph. But if we assume "marriage" can name other types of relationships, then we've revealed how we think about the idea of marriage. What have we revealed? We revealed that we no longer think of marriage as a reality but only think of it as a legal idea. And a legal idea is something definiable according to legal and social needs of the day, of the country, or of the churches we're in.
So if marriage is the name of a specific type of relationship and then we ask: "it that type of relationship only possible for opposite sex couples?" We haven't understood what it means to say marriage is the name of this specific type.
Second point about my second paragraph... I was saying this... Since there is a tremendous power in normal male-female sexual intercourse, that particular pair needs special attention and care from society and law. Because the greater the power the greater the potential evil of its abuse. And it's abuse inevitably ruins children, the innocent victims. It ruins many adults, too. But children are innocent and vulnerable. One of the most common abuses is broken homes and unwanted pregnancies. Result: ruined human individuals. So, if somebody comes along and wants to change a legal structure of immense complexity and longevity, and change it in a radical way, a fundamental way, then this innovator must first show his appreciation and understanding of the tradition. If he doesn't, he's a mere iconoclast.
Third paragraph is this. People that have sex don't think about children enough, before, during or after sex. They don't connect sex and children in their minds. Our culture has this mentality. Hence, when we think about marriage we don't picture children, but only couples. And how we think affects how we act and how we act makes a culture's values. We don't value children.
PLEASE ask follow ups after thinking about what I've said here, or tell me what was helpful. I appreciate your feedback and hope the conversation continues!
Kate Martin thanks Alex Plato! you're awesome! so appreciate you and your thoughtfulness!
thank you for explaining a word about how you write! :) very helpful!
you are good for me. i'm the opposite. i like to state point by point my beliefs. and so i like others to do the same. you stretch me and challenge me. on that same note i have a question... as a catholic(roman?), when you state what the church teaches are you not also stating what you believe? i'll embarrassingly confess i don't know much at all about catholicism. i'm working on that though. (i've read every single post your sister-in-law has posted on her blog! she's a great writer and has helped me a ton in understanding a BIT more about catholicism) so this could be a stupid or even offensive question but so far in my limited understanding, i've come to see that if the pope/catholic church teaches something then that is what a catholic believes also. am i way off base? it seems to me that if you state what the catholic church teaches then you are in fact also stating what you believe. thoughts?
i think we fundamentally disagree about how God created humans to live in relationship. for i disagree so much with "If we ask now: "Is it only possible for marriage to exist in that way" we assume something. We assume it makes sense to say that "marriage" can name other relationships besides the paradigm type instanced by Adam and Eve and Mary and Joseph. But if we assume "marriage" can name other types of relationships, then we've revealed how we think about the idea of marriage. What have we revealed? We revealed that we no longer think of marriage as a reality but only think of it as a legal idea. And a legal idea is something definiable according to legal and social needs of the day, of the country, or of the churches we're in." i disagree that since i think marriage can name other relationships besides the paradigm type instanced by adam and eve and mary and joseph that i then no longer think of marriage as a reality but only a legal idea. though saying we fundamentally disagree makes it sound like we're further worlds apart than we are. i agree with so much you say such as "Since there is a tremendous power in normal male-female sexual intercourse, that particular pair needs special attention and care from society and law. Because the greater the power the greater the potential evil of its abuse. And it's abuse inevitably ruins children, the innocent victims. It ruins many adults, too. But children are innocent and vulnerable. One of the most common abuses is broken homes and unwanted pregnancies. Result: ruined human individuals." but then the very next line, "So, if somebody comes along and wants to change a legal structure of immense complexity and longevity, and change it in a radical way, a fundamental way, then this innovator must first show his appreciation and understanding of the tradition. If he doesn't, he's a mere iconoclast." i get tripped up because i believe in gay marriage. i believe a gay married couple should be able to adopt and raise children. i believe in family and marriage looking differently. how does one "first show appreciation and understanding of the tradition"? as to not be a mere iconoclast? what does that look like?
"Third paragraph is this. People that have sex don't think about children enough, before, during or after sex. They don't connect sex and children in their minds. Our culture has this mentality. Hence, when we think about marriage we don't picture children, but only couples. And how we think affects how we act and how we act makes a culture's values. We don't value children." AMEN!!!!!
Alex Plato Hi Kate. As always, a pleasure talking with you. I hope things are going well with you. Perhaps when I'm back in Oregon Nick and co. and you and your co. can BBQ or something. I'd enjoy that, to be sure. All the child'n runnin' about, meat cooking on the grill wafting its deliciousness around, beer in hand (or choice cocktail made by yours truly)...
Okay, to business. :-)
I make an act of faith in saying that “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” So, yes, I'm either saying what I am believing or what I'm trying and willing to believe, if God would help me in my unbelief.
But when I say "all that the CC teaches, what does that idea encompass? This is your question about how to delineate the body of Church teaching. Call this: Sacred Doctrine.
Some popes have spoken heresies. Do I believe them? Don't they have authority? They're the pope! Isn't what a pope teaches included in what "the holy Catholic Church teaches?"
Answer: not if he isn't *officially teaching*. Make a comparision. If a professor of, say Western Baptist (this is hypothetical...) says, at a bar to someone, "I believe Sola Scriptura is false" then he's speaking what the WB people would call heresy. But is WB teaching, through there professor (PROFESSor) a heresy? No. Because that professor is not speaking AS A PROFESSOR. He's in no official capacity, there. His statements are not official statement of a professor of WB. Similarly if a pope, bishop, or local parish publishes something that is not in official capacity it has absolutely no BINDING AUTHORITY. There are very strict and discernible conditions for speaking *in official capacity*
Here's a guide to finding the OFFICIAL teaching. First: find the conclusions within all the ecumenical councils, especially the first 7, the Council of Trent, and Vatican I and Vatican II. But only find the conclusions that are about matters of faith and universal moral principles. The reason the conclusions on universal matters of faith and morality are most important is because the Church claims these are always protected by the Holy Ghost and cannot state falsehoods.
Alex Plato I hit 'enter' without the shift key and published that prematurely... Anyway.... I was talking about a guide to finding the official teaching.
I wanted it to say, and was editing it to say: First, pick up an official Catechism of the Catholic Church (or find it online, perhaps at the Vatican website). Second, look to the conclusions of ecumenical councils. Third, find the special and rare times where a pope declares a dogma "Ex Cathedra". Here, it is not necessarily in the midst of an ecumenical council. BUt such statements are also specially protected by the Holy Ghost. But they are very rare and sorrounded with a lot of ceremony, special words, and are obvious. In no way can a pope just define a dogma for the whole church in a book he writes, or a sermon he delivers. Similarly, no president of the U.S. can legislate or execute law without definite protocols and procedures that make it official.
Okay, I hope I've responded to the first two issues. They were your questions about what I believe and then about what the scope is of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Alex Plato Okay, on to the next ish.
You say, in reply to my statement: "i disagree that since i think marriage can name other relationships besides the paradigm type instanced by adam and eve and mary and joseph that i then no longer think of marriage as a reality but only a legal idea."
So you think marriage names other types of relationships but is not a mere legal idea, definable as our group, country, family, or religion prefers. So you agree that 'marriage' can name other realities.
But my claim isn't that marriage can't name other realities. That would be like saying "Hey you can't say that word when you're talking about that." A name can name anything we arbitrarily choose it to name. I can name my dog "marriage". I can name my relationship to my favorite plant "marriage". And what I name is a reality. My point was a bit more subtle. I'll try to explain.
Suppose I say that "purple" is name for both purple and green. I can arbitrarily say I'll be using the word "purple" like this. And I'd be naming two distinct realities, purple and green.
But suppose that a blind person who knew every single statement about purple but had never seen colors was to use this new meaning you offer. How could he possibly know the proper way to use the word "purple". He had hitherto believed correctly that yellow is the contrary of purple. That purple is darker than blue. That purple is between blue and violet. That rose pedals can be purple. That grass is not purple. That purple and green are not the same color. That stop lights are red, orange, or green but not purple. Etc. Now all those sentences are not necessarily true, or are false, or are hoplelessly ambiguous. So our blind man's knowledge of purple has been radically thrown into disarray. Perhaps after a long long time, after being corrected by the color word innovators he'd eventually change his tune. He'd never say "yellow is the contrary of purple" anymore. But he'd say "yellow was the contrary of purple when we use purple to name only purple." He'd no longer say that "the grass is greener on the other side". He'd say: "the grass is greener or purpler on the other side." He'd not say "purple is the color been violet and blue". For purple is not a single color anymore. All these expressions he used to say must be revised in light of the new usage.
No doubt that would be too tedious and a bit unfair to our blind friends that might know more about color than we do. So we'd say "traditional purple" and "alternative purple". And by "traditional purple" we'd mean what was always meant by "purple" and by "alternative purple" we'd mean what was always mean by "green".
So you see that the way a word works is built up by the hundred of sentences it appears in. And by knowing all those sentences and how they work, which one's are true and which one's are false, are how we know the CONDITIONS FOR PROPER USAGE of a word in our language. Indeed, this is how mothers like yourself teach your children language. "No, that's not a fluffy dog, even though it looks like one, it's a sheep" "We don't say this coffee is an 'adult beverage', my son, because adult beverages have alcohol. But if it had alcohol we'd call it an adult beverage". Etc.
So what's my parallel? You probably see it in part, at least.
We can say "marriage" names both opposite sex and same sex partnerships, now, just as someone wants to say that "purple" names purple and green.
You want to say "marriage" names at least two different realities. I said that if you do you've assumed that "marriage" doesn't have CONDITIONS FOR PROPER USAGE. I said it would be a mere legal idea. "Dollar" is a mere legal idea. The CONDITIONS FOR PROPER USAGE don't say anything about WHICH reality is named by it. It could be a hand-sized rock, a triangular piece of red paper, a round piece of silver, a series of binomial clicks in a computer... whatever carries the function of being a "unit of exchange" for the group.
You've denied that for you 'marriage' is a mere legal idea. But you treat it like it is. For you say: "i believe a gay married couple should be able to adopt and raise children."
But you want them to be named something so that they can be seen as allowed to do something. But you aren't starting from the reality of the relationship but from the legal functions you want to ensure gays have.
But they can be pronounced married and adopt and raise children. That's not illegal. Uncle Sam doesn't pronounce such marriages but doesn't say no one can.
I said above that you want marriage to name two different realities. But you might want to deny this and say, "No it names one reality: it names a relationship between two adults who love each other and have promised to be faithful and to have and raise children."
But how the couples 'have' children is vastly and importantly different. I'm not denying gays can be loving and nuturous. I'm saying that a child cannot be brought into being by human begetting and conception by the gay couple. So now what is a standard father and mother? What is fatherhood and motherhood? Fatherhood is a word connected to marriage. But if we expand the meaning, we throw it into confusion. And it is in the court systems. For children want to know their fathers, those who beget them or from whom the material for begetting was procured (sperm banks). Or the fathers want to know their own children. So meanwhile an adoptive father or mother get into legal battles about who is REALLY the mother and father. And things get complicated. Now what? Now the state will have to define motherhood and fatherhood. And it already has been. And more and more, through no-fault divorce, it ends up in the father role, telling parents when to hang out with their children and when not, and how and how long.
But the way humans as humans and not as legal citizens have children is by begetting and conception, two activities impossible to bring about but by the cooperation of male and female bodies.
I have no doubt what I've said has absolutely no persuasive force for you, Kate. But I can only say so much (probably too much). I was tedious, and I'm sorry for that. But I don't know how else to proceed.
The motivation to expand the definition is admirable. For it is motivated out of a sense of injustice. That gays have been unjustly treated. And they have. I agree. And the state has the job of restraining evil and injustice. So I believe the gay-rights movement does have some legitimate complaints.
But is expanding the definition how to rectify such injustices? Would it? How? It depends, of course, on the nature of the injustices. And here's where the motivation for expanding the definition seems to me to be based on the feeling of injustice without specifying precisely what is unjust.
For it is not unjust to protect, encourage, and facilitate the ordinary human process of bringing new human beings into being, that is, of begetting and conception, of mothering and fathering. Protecting isn't just surrounding the act of intercourse with special laurels. It is making an institution where not just the having but also the education and upbringing of the child is protected. How is that unjust to gays?
It isn't. For they are not disallowed from being alternative families raising adopted children they didn't nor possibly could beget and conceive together. They are awarded social benefits, too. The state isn't required to give anyone benefits, let alone required to do it the same for all.
It is unjust to allow individuals, groups, or institutions to ruin the lives of gays. That must and is illegal. Am I saying that the legitimate concerns of gays have been completely met? No. Am I saying that the voiced concerns of gays are all equally legitimate? No.
This is the end of my response to your second issue.
Alex Plato I'm glad you wholeheartedly agree with my last point. Now my question to us together then is this: How do we correct this mentality? How do we restore to our communities and nation the centrality and importance of children?
Kate Martin I have loved this conversation and I want it to continue. I loved loved loved your responses... SO helpful and interesting and insightful! Thank you for taking time and care to correspond with me! I'll be back when I get a chance! You rock. And I think it's so awesome that we can be a model of civil discourse... That does not easily take place between many. Rarely have I had the pleasure!
No comments:
Post a Comment