Boiling down the whole gay marriage debate


In the wake of the announcement that Bishop Cordileone was being elevated and moved to San Francisco, I had a short, fruitful discussion with a friend who is liberal regarding gay marriage.  When I told her about the move of Archbishop designate Cordileone, she was afraid he would get more involved in the gay marriage debate.  She started by saying “You’re the wrong person to talk about this with…”

I asked her why she would say that, and she told me that the Archbishop’s stance on it would have him in hot water with the gay community.  I responded to her that Catholics are not against homosexuals having legal status in cohabitation, that we were simply against it being called marriage.  I asked her first what the purpose of marriage was, and when she hemmed and hawed, I asked her if it wasn’t primarily for the welfare of children.  She thought about that and said that she could agree with the statement.  I said that if marriage was about what is best for the raising of children, then gay marriage was an impossibility.  I told her that marriage is a religious institution that was usurped by government, that the purpose of government was to determine that the people forming the union weren’t already in a union, and that was about the end of government’s involvement.  So I proposed that, rather than call what government does in the whole process ‘marriage’, they call it something else, like ‘civil union’.  Then we could all agree that two homosexuals could form a civil union.  But, before going down that road, we have to determine what the boundaries are of that?  Can a man and his horse, say, form a civil union? Or a woman and her 15 lovers?  The point of this is that these things always have boundaries that must be defined, otherwise, we get ‘mission creep.’

God bless you.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Boiling down the whole gay marriage debate

  1. Sigh. Gay marriage. I don’t know where to begin to open that can of worms. I am, of course, on the “traditional” Catholic stance that marriage is a Sacrament for a man and a woman. And I agree that “marriage” is a religious institution. Why does the government have to insist that somebody’s civil union be called a marriage? It’s like trying to make people call WordPress “Blogger” instead because they are both blogging platforms! But we all know there are major differences between the two. (Did that analogy make sense? Sort of?) Anywho, I applaud you for even mentioning this topic on your blog. Maybe someday, I’ll be as brave as you and put more faith content on mine too. 🙂

  2. Janice, thanks for being a faithful reader. As for what you blog, isn’t that what makes the blogosphere? Different content. You fill a need, obviously, for those that have mommy issues, and photography and inspirational poetry. That’s what your blog is. I started mine as a journal because I went to a diocesan program starting about four years ago which will lead up to, hopefully, my diaconate journey starting next year. I intend to teach the faith and give frequent homilies, so everything I read, everything I see, I try to find a way to use it in homiletics. If you look waaaaay back in the beginning of this, you’ll see that I posted some of my homework assignments, and also just things going on in life. I only blog when I have something on my mind. Sometimes I think of something to say, and then it leaves me, so I don’t write. This one got me, and stuck in my craw, so I had to say it.

What say you???

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s