Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The Myth About Marriage
Source:
New York Review of Books
URL Source: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblo ... s%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Published: May 13, 2012
Author: Garry Wills
Post Date: 2012-05-13 10:23:43 by lucysmom
Keywords: None
Views: 62300
Comments: 126
Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage? Certain religious groups want to deny gays the sacredeness of what they take to be a sacrament. But marriage is no sacrament. Some of my fellow Catholics even think that “true marriage” was instituted by Christ. It wasn’t. Marriage is prescribed in Eden by YHWH (Yahweh) at Genesis 2.24: man and wife shall “become one flesh.” When Jesus is asked about marriage, he simply quotes that passage from Genesis (Mark 10.8). He nowhere claims to be laying a new foundation for a “Christian marriage” to replace the Yahwist institution. Some try to make the wedding at Cana (John 1.1-11) somehow sacramental because Jesus worked his first miracle there. But that was clearly a Jewish wedding, like any other Jesus might have attended, and the miracle, by its superabundance of wine, is meant to show the disciples that the Messianic time has come. The great Johannine scholar Father Raymond Brown emphasizes this, and concludes of the passage: “Neither the external nor the internal evidence for a symbolic reference to matrimony is strong. The wedding is only the backdrop and occasion for the story, and the joining of the man and woman does not have any direct role in the narrative.” The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs. snip Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives, as the church has done ever since the time of Aquinas. The myth of the sacrament should not let people deprive gays of the right to natural marriage, whether blessed by Yahweh or not. They surely do not need—since no one does—the blessing of Saint Thomas.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-24) not displayed.
.
.
.
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
All the major religious institutions from thousands of years ago used to perform that very point that you bring up. Perhaps the world's oldest religion is Hinduism and it permitted this escape clause. The Jews certainly did as well. Today, a marriage escape clause popularly known as "divorce" can occur just because you may have had a bad hair day. And American culture makes a man pay dearly, too.
God created marriage, it is as sacred as life itself. It is no coincidence that in the Old Testament when God placed the death penalty on murder, he placed the same sentence on adultery (Leviticus 20:10). To violate the marriage vow is as serious as murder.
I don't see that there any significant conflict between the article I posted and what you've said. I disagree. To say that "...This (the marriage rite) was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation. The fact, as I have shown, is that there was indeed a marriage rite and that marriage was not "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire." Marriage was much more than just a "legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" to a Christian couple getting married. You may not consider that to be significant, and I respect that, but I consider it to be very significant because it shows that his attempt to delegitimize the Church in order to make his point is not factual.
So if the Church is all believers and all believers includes men, then how can the Church be the bride of Christ? If the Church is the bride and Christ is the husband, how does that marriage is about having natural born children apply?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
marriage is not just for people of your religion. Because you have a religious base for how you and others of your faith would do marriage, why do you think you should force others by law to conform to it? Mormons believe that one can seal a marriage beyond the grave. They believe a man who keeps the covenants can get his own universe and god status whereby he and a goddess he sealed the bond with while corporeal can make baby spirits. These spirits are meant in the Mormon faith to be plucked down to Earth to assume corporeal form and have their human lives begin. How would you like if it they were a majority and forced you to accept the sealing concept and the added dimension of procreation in a way codified into law. How would you as a Christian like to see Mormons who are in sealed marriages get legal advantages over your regular marriage because this was a legal standard to work with? If you find this an odious thought, then welcome to the world much in the same way as gay couples are often forced to deal with it because of the irrational hatred and intolerant of others.
The Gospels use this connection as an example of the righteous tie between believers in Christ and Christ Himself. But it also illuminates the sacredness of the marriage union.
I don't really care what other religions believe. This nation was founded on the Judeo/Christian belief. What they care to do in other nations is up to them and God will Judge all nations.
No one is forcing a particular religion on any others. In this nation everyone has a right to believe what they will, but our laws and our customs are formed from the Original Laws of the Judeo/Christian religion. If our country abandons it's heritage and the very thing that made it so successful for so long, with the Grace of God and His blessings, you can be sure that the failure of the nation will be a direct result. We can see the fruit of that kind of thinking already in this nation. And History itself shows this to be true.
And no one's commitment to a bond between two people should have to banned and in a legal sense made inconsequential purely on the religious beliefs of one group. The United States is not a theocracy. There is a Constitution here that gives freedom of or from religion. And that Constitution is there to protect minority groups from the capriciousness and malevolent whims of the majority. Until everyone has the legal right to marry, this albatross of injustice is a stink that hangs around everyone's neck. An injustice to one is an injustice to all.
By the way, to refuse the blessings of a God created union between a man and a woman to two people of the same sex is not hatred and it isn't intolerance. It is upholding what God Himself put together and not perverting it.
What is unjust is for homosexuals to want to pervert the marriage vows that God bestowed on ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. They may desire to thwart God by declaring their desire to be just like heterosexuals in the marriage union, but alas God will not change His mind about their perversion regardless of the charade they attempt to force on the rest of society.
He says specific marriage rite and you agreed that was most likely so. He also argues that marriage is not a sacrament - here's what the Catholic Church says: The exact definition of a sacrament is that it is "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace."
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
Why should that have anything to do with a civil marriage?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
This nation was founded by men who came from a Judeo/Christian background and choose to not codify religious practice into secular law, for instance, Americans are free to work on the sabbath if they chose and a profit can be made (all hail the god of the free market, commerce be upon him!)
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
In all honesty I don't care if homosexuals want a civil marriage and go to the court house to do it. But they keep banging on church's doors and demanding a Christian ceremony. And I'll tell you this for certain. They don't give a crap about "equality" with heterosexuals, they care about demanding that others in society and especially those in religious faiths deny that their homosexuality is not an abomination of natural law. It is this small minority who are forcing others to accept their deviancy as being as normal as heterosexual unions. For we Christians who adhere to the Gospel of Christ, it's never going to happen. They think they are going to win a great victory when they can pervert God's law by marrying in the church. The only thing they're going to get is God's wrath.
Christians are allowed to work on the sabbath. As Christ said when asked about work on the sabbath He said if your donkey falls in a well on a sabbath are you going to ignore the donkey in the well because of the sabbath? In other words we are free to work and do what we must on the sabbath. What our founders chose to do was make sure that the State couldn't force religion on the people.
Really? I don't doubt you, but that's news to me. Would you please post a link or two.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
But he also said, "this was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs." Nothing was "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman empire" and Christians did not get married simply because "marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs." Whether or not the church at that time had a uniform, one-size-fits-all marriage rite is neither here nor there. The fact is, of which there is tons of evidence, the Christian church had marriage rites at least as early as the 4th century. In fact, as my quotes and link show, until the rite was done, the marriage was not recognized by the Church, just as its not recognized today. He also argues that marriage is not a sacrament - here's what the Catholic Church says: The exact definition of a sacrament is that it is "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace." He can call himself a Catholic all he wants. I can say I'm a lawnmower until I'm blue in the face but that doesn't make me one. He can also make all the claims he wants but his claims were not proven. I claim the moon is made of blue cheese! Does that make it so? Where is his proof? I believe the Catholic Church has done an excellent job in defending/justifying/proving that marriage has always been considered a sacrament in the Church. I also believe that the fact that marriage is considered a sacrament by Churches that split with Rome in the 4th century to be pretty good proof that the Church has always considered marriage to be a sacrament.
Go forth and read. I won't do the research you apparently are unwilling to do for yourself.
Good points. I want to point out, however, that irrespective of religious practices from animism to the Church of Scientology and all those in between, that marriage was an important consideration in secular societies as well. Again, the goal has always been to ensure a minimum of social standards about a relationship wherein children were an important attribute for and about the same community. Beyond having progeny, another social goal was to ensure reasonable community FORCE against those that violated the bonds of the communal vows. Rape, incest, homosexuality and so forth were always shunned within almost all societies around the world. If someone was caught in acts that violated social standards, they were often shunned or chastised for years or even worse, put to death. As modern societies evolve, we are intricately linked to our past of many thousands of years. It is codified in our DNA and the documented laws for social behaviour. And the sense of "shame" shall always be the first area of responsible considerations, even if there is some sort of agreement to keep a relationship secret or away from society.
And I still haven't seen anybody mention the real reason why gays want to get married in the first place......
Leftardism/Liberalism: The chickenschitt way to deal with life’s problems by creating solutions to problems that don’t exist, thereby creating a problem where none existed before and then having to find a solution to that one…
Your religion's erronious perception of homosexuality belongs solely to people like you if you ant it. It should not be the basis of what is codified into law. ADA research and all other well conducted and impartial studies have shown homosexuality to just be a normal human sexual variation. People who are homosexual are every bit as productive and moral as anyone else. Sexual preference of an individual does not effect negitively another person who has a different gender preference. It's time for folks like you to grow up and fact that fact. Because the rest of us are not going to live by your belief on homosexuality you glean from a segment of a religion many of us do not agree with. Homosexuality is part of the spectrum of normal human sexuality. And that has always been the case, and is something that will will never change.
And I see the old snear that gays and lesbians have many short relationships and this is detrimental to their health and welfare justified at all if it is those uttering such nonsense are the ones working aggressively to make it as hard as possible to commit to and live ib a stable long term relationship. It's time to stop oppressing people and tho legalize marriage for all in this country.
What is unjust is to try to impose your religion on the laws that involve everyone else. There is nothing obscene about one human being making this strong a commitment to another.
There is a precursor to your idea that needs an answer before your question is answered. How does a homosexual promote social standards and goals since a homosexual can not have children? As a group, aren't they a detriment to social goals for the survival of society?
Homosexuals have children, and the ability to procreate is not the benchmark to determine if a marriage is valid or not.
Can you explain this natural phenomena?
I don't need to explain it twice. You lack rationality in stipulating the child bearing issue is the benchmark of marriage and then saying that only homosexual couple who don't have children with each other or through adoption are the non-childbearing couple to be discriminated here. You explain to me how people past child bearing years or are incapable of having children with each other should be allowed to marry yet claim that the only thing that is important in marriage how well the team of two can drop pups. This is an illogical posture to take, but you don't care because the primary motivation you have here is based on hatred and intolerance. I seem many women couples in town who have plenty of kids who are well adjusted and flourishing. And the kids do not turn out gay if their parents have that gender preference. It is inherent in a person's nature to be straight or gay. It is not taught or a fad someone buys into.
Yes you do need to explain your post. You made the post, correct? How do homosexuals NATURALLY have children? Don't evade the question, Mike. Come clean and discuss the merits of your ideas.
I have. Just because you don't want to acknowledge I've addressed this, I am not going to pander to your contrivance here.
Keep kicking their as buckeroo.
Are you saying that homosexuals have natural birth? Let us see.... and Can you explain in any detail how this phenomena occurs?
I explained how. You are just unwilling to acknowledge that. To you, a heterosexual partner who have to rely on a surrigate Mom or artificial insemination as being normal but a gay couple who does the same sort of thing with the same end goal in mind are horrble to you. This is a double standard, and points to the fact I have already covered this base with you and points to the bigotry that spawns your cognitive dissonance on the topic.
For wiccan tree divers.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Except the mental heath establishment that has sown homosexuality not to be an evil or a stigma are made up of scant few of those.
I know you regard me as a fairely simple and stupid poster, as though I am a mere country bumpkin, but I am intrigued how two males can have children OR conversely, how two women can have children naturally without male/female interaction. Look, I am learning all the time. Help me!
The point you make a mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage. Unless you are a believer that infertile humans should be banned from marriage, or even have it ended if their fertile period of life ends.
Marriage has ALWAYS been between a single man and a woman. It is a contract between themselves and society at large. It is a rite of passage about one's maturity to be successful in the raising of children and family life overall. How is that idea a "mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage"?
Homophobia and bigotry of homosexuals has not always been such a common affliction. Your 'always" is a lie. Marriage is a commitment between two people that should always be permitted. The human race would not be better if people who prefer same gender relationships were forced to go against their will to marry someone of the opposite sex. Hatred and oppression would win, and human rights and the common good would suffer greatly.
Lets review human history for a moment. Where has homosexuality been honoured?
The homo mafia has tried using strong-arm tactics, but normal people aren't buying it. Kenyans know the Obama illness well, and aren't afraid to speak the truth. It's settled science, known for 6 thousand years. In a press release dated December 15, 1973, the APA became the first medical organisation “to officially remove the stigma of disease from persons with same-sex preference”. It’s very important to note that no new medical findings had been made about homosexuality between 1970 and 1973 to reverse the diagnosis that it was a disease. The homosexual lobby brought about this reversal by its persistent and for the most part, dishonest public campaigning. This included coercion and lobbying of government and influential organizations in America. Numerous incidences are well documented during this period when homo activists frequently disrupted medical conferences, shouting down speakers and physically intimidating scientists. Clearly, the 1973 reversal was a political and not a scientific decision by the APA. Its very easy to understand why the homosexual activists resorted to these unscientific tactics. The credibility of the homosexual movement was at great risk as long as the medical professional listed their behaviour as a sickness. Public opinion in America (and elsewhere) could be greatly influenced to regard homosexuality positively if a “scientific opinion” was to lend support to the homosexual cause. Thus, the 1973 APA decision opened the most important door for homosexuality to find a legal footing in western countries. I will now demonstrate here that homosexuality remains a mental disorder, despite what misguided Western nations may want Africans to believe. Any honest, unbiased person who has studied the medical literature relating to homosexuality will surely reach the same conclusion.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Comments (66 - 126) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#26. To: buckeroo (#25)
#27. To: lucysmom (#23)
There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.
#28. To: SJN (#24)
The proper understanding of marriage helps us have the proper understanding of God’s love. God established the eternal union between his Son Jesus and Jesus’ Bride, the Church who are all believers. Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. He died for the sins of his Bride. He cleansed the guilt of his Bride with the power of baptism. He lives and rules in heaven now, waiting to bring his Bride into the glory of the life to come.
#29. To: SJN (#24)
#30. To: lucysmom (#28)
#31. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#33. To: SJN (#30)
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#35. To: Ferret Mike (#33)
#36. To: Fibr Dog (#27)
The fact, as I have shown, is that there was indeed a marriage rite and that marriage was not "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire." Marriage was much more than just a "legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" to a Christian couple getting married.
#37. To: SJN (#35)
What is unjust is for homosexuals to want to pervert the marriage vows that God bestowed on ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
#38. To: SJN (#31)
This nation was founded on the Judeo/Christian belief.
#39. To: lucysmom (#37)
#40. To: lucysmom (#38)
#41. To: SJN (#39)
But they keep banging on church's doors and demanding a Christian ceremony.
#42. To: lucysmom (#36)
He says specific marriage rite and you agreed that was most likely so.
#43. To: lucysmom (#41)
#44. To: Fibr Dog (#42)
#45. To: All (#0)
Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage?
#46. To: SJN (#35)
#47. To: CZ82 (#45)
"And I still haven't seen anybody mention the real reason why gays want to get married in the first place......"
#48. To: SJN (#35)
#49. To: Ferret Mike, SJN (#48)
What is unjust is to try to impose your religion on the laws that involve everyone else. [?]
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
#51. To: Ferret Mike (#50)
Homosexuals have children
#52. To: buckeroo (#51)
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
#54. To: buckeroo (#53)
#55. To: buckeroo (#15)
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
Homosexuals have children
Homosexuals have babies all the time.
#57. To: buckeroo (#56)
(Edited)
#58. To: Ferret Mike, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#46)
Homosexuality is part of the spectrum of normal human sexuality
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#59. To: hondo68 (#58)
#60. To: Ferret Mike (#57)
I explained how. [how homosexuals have children NATURALLY]
#61. To: buckeroo (#60)
#62. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
The point you make a mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage.
#63. To: buckeroo (#62)
(Edited)
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#63)
Homophobia and bigotry of homosexuals has not always been such a common affliction. Your 'always" is a lie.
#65. To: Ferret Mike, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#59)
(Edited)
the mental heath establishment that has sown homosexuality
Homosexual Diseases Part 3: Mental Disorders (Kenyans Against Homosexuality - Confronting Homosexuality with Facts)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]