Recently I expressed my computerized views on Facebook. Someone had made a posting congratulating President Obama for his courage in publically supporting same-sex marriages. I made a brief comment about also acknowledging the courage of those who oppose such unions. Later when I revisited the posting to see where the conversation was going, I found the response that I should not allow my Catholic Faith to cross the barrier that separates Church and State. Nor should I try to impose my beliefs on those who do not have the same religious perspective I do. I typed in that my view on same-sex marriage does not rest on my religious or faith beliefs. I believe my opposition to such unions is grounded on the truth of things, on reality, and I would therefore hold this view even if I were not Catholic, nor a priest.
Among many other comments on the posting was the opinion that the State had no right to step into the arena of marriage. That seemed true to me, and I “liked” it. A day later when I looked to see where the ongoing discussion had gone, I discovered that it was not there. Nothing was there. No record of all the pro and con comments on the topic of same sex marriages. I am not skilled in using the computer, and maybe I just could not find the posting because of my ineptness. I hope that is the case. I hope the topic is not such a hot potato that cannot be reasonably discussed online. I hate to think that the cliché “You can’t discuss Politics or Religion in public” might be proving true in this instance. There is nothing more important for a citizen of any country to be concerned about than Politics and Religion. Their relationship to one another is of supreme importance.
As an American exercising my civil rights, and concerned about my homeland, I want to state four truths I believe any person of any religion has a right to hold.
1. MARRIAGE PREDATES THE STATE. Men and women had to be having children in large numbers and for many generations before the State came into existence. That’s just the way it is.
2. THE NATURAL FAMILY IS THE BASIC UNIT OF SOCIETY. The individual is not the basic unit of society. If you believe differently, all you have to do is show me the individual who can reproduce by himself or herself without involving another. Again, this truth seems self evident to me, like “the shortest distance between two points is a straight line”.
3. The State has as its primary purpose and duty to protect the natural family and support its citizenry in building a civilization that enables the family to flourish.
4. A nation is as strong or as weak as its family life.
None of those four points is difficult to understand. The first two are so obvious I don’t know how anyone could deny them. Perhaps the last two would require more thought and discussion before acceptance, but I believe they follow as logical conclusions of one and two.
If civil discourse and a general consensus are not possible on at least the first two points, then all truly is lost. A good friend of mine believes our country has reached precisely this point where reason is dead, logic means nothing, common sense is nonsense, emoting has replaced thinking, and the divisions between us are so wide and multiple that mere civil discourse is an unattainable goal. In his opinion, as a nation, we are “coming apart”. Perhaps the next presidential election will show us how far along we are in that process, and if the coming apart is reversible or not.
I do not really want to comment on the topic, but on the idea that your objection to same sex marriage is, "grounded on the truth of things, on reality." That idea really excites me! The idea of reality grips me in way that "religion" doesn't. Yet I want to believe that the way of reality and the way of Jesus Christ are one and the same. Sometimes they seem to part company though. Anyhow, I like your approach.
ReplyDeleteYes to the family as the basic unit of society - that seems to be reality. And yes, marriage predates the state - that's factual. I would like to be "for" the family and "against" same sex marriage in a way that is Christian, and yet, first and foremost, grounded in reality, in Truth. (Of course, there should be no "and yet". And yet there is.)
This means I want to understand the topic more deeply, and why it is wrong. My natural sympathies are for the same sex couple. But my religious teaching and the Bible tells me its wrong. Its just so hard to believe, in the face of the evidence of the people who long for it, and whose experiences I can never share. Your friend may be right that American society is coming apart, and it may even be that the disintegration of family life is the cause; but is this related to the recognition of same sex couples? Are they such a threat to family life? (My unspoken answer to that is obviously that i don't think they are).
However, I realise that this is not the point. If a thing is against the very fibre of reality, that is what makes it wrong. So its the nature of reality that is hereby called into question.
My little, tiny, no doubt blurry observation of reality is that its full of surprises, variety and apparent contradictions, that paradox is woven right into it ... and that love conquers all! But also, that there is a moral law, and that when we find it, and absorb it, no amount of natural sympathies or inclinations can keep us from wanting it. So, truly, I would like to understahd this topic better, and I also know I cannot do that without the mind of God. That won't stop me trying though!
Oh yes, I shall be dumbstruck, too, if religion and politics are not generously, abundantly and freely discussed! What is more important than reality, ie God, ie religion? Politics ... well, in the sense that its utterly related to God, yes.
For dialogue in the Public Square, Reason is the way to go. It is the solid ground of the truth of things that Faith rests on. A website I find very helpful is www.thepublicdiscourse.com . There are many articles about the issue of same sex unions and President Obama's position. One that goes into the issues you raise is by Stephen Heaney,dated 5/7/12 entitled:Two Steps From Reasonable About Marriage.I would love to hear your ideas about same sex marriage after you read the article.
ReplyDeleteThank you, I did. It was bracing dose of conservatism that I tried my best to enter into with an open mind. I like the way Steven Heaney writes; clearly. Since reading a couple of his articles, I have pondered the role of logic and reason in reaching truth. Who could sanely challenge logic and reason? He argues so compellingly, so confidently ... and yet. Let me try to express some of my objections.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to say the gays can not marry because such a "marriage" would be unreal, against the nature of marriage - since marriage is a union of two people chiefly for purposes creating and raising children. That it deviates from marriage's original purpose is sufficient reason for it to be wrong. Analogies to this way thinking keep springing to mind. Are we to keep everything in the state in which it best serves its orginal purpose? For example, food - should we not create and enjoy new dishes, combine new flavours, because they do nothing to enhance food's original purpose,which is merely to nourish the body?
But I am on shaky ground here, because I do see that where we deviate too much from food's primary function - to keep us alive - and build empires and Tv shows and doctors bills and a slimming product industry on the love of food for its own sake, we ARE actually crazy and wrong, precisely because we have nurtured a relationship with food based on one aspect only - that it gives pleasure).
OK, let me try a different tack. Is marriage really only for society-sanctioned procreation? Why do human beings have such an urge to pair off with someone? What is to be done with this deep-seated urge, so built into most people? We are designed for relationship, and for most, relationship with others in general is not enough - we want someone special, with whom we can be intimate with our whole selves. God made us this way. What's to be done about this desire if your wehole being longs for it with someone of the same sex? I cannot agree with the idea that homosexuality is learned - not in all cases. I do believe that in many people, it arises from deep inside him or her, is a part of himself.
Homosexuality, and people who change their sex, is in fact aquite a huge conundrum to me! All the logic, all the theology, all the pontificating by people like me, doesn't change the reality of their experience.
And let us say that marriage IS chiefly about creating children. What about couples who want to focus only on marriage's other benefits - companionship, intimacy, commitment, security, love - without having children? Are they about as warped as gays who want to marry?
However. I see the point. How differently we all might talk, though, if we were IN a situation, instead of standing on the outside looking in! I hope I will see this more clearly, as God reveals it to me, and I thank you for the interesting link, which I may read from time to time, as an aid to clearer thinking. You have stimulated my interest in logic and reason. Its usually the original premisses, not the validity of the argument, that are at fault. And for that, we do need grace.
Most of us do not live by reason and logic. Most of us use reason and logic to justify the choices and decisions we have already made on the basis of our feelings and preferences. That is one of the reasons why logical reasoning ends up disconnected from what is real and true. Our emotions and appetites get in the way. Of course if each of us has the right to create our own version of reality based on our preferences, well, anarchy looks like the result, to me anyway! Footrubbing may a pleasurable activity. Eating certainly is. But there is no reason why the state should favor, support, and protect a club of footrubbers or an association of gourmets, since such groupings are not necessary to the existence of the state. Without men and women who produce, raise, and educate children, however, there is no state. I can see that people want to be free to do what they choose with their lives, but see no reason why the state or society should endorse their choices by calling recognizing it as a "marriage".
Delete