In a recent statement, the bishops of Mexico called the family, built upon the unity of man and woman, necessary for society to exist.
“The family, founded upon marriage, is a patrimony of humanity, an essential social institution,” the bishops said. “It is the vital cell and pillar of society. This affects both believers and non-believers. It is a reality to which all governments must give their full attention.”
The statement was read during a press conference attended by Bishop Juan Pedro Juarez Melendez of Tula, Coadjutor Bishop Jorge Carlos Patron Wong of Papantla and Auxiliary Bishop Victor Rene Rodriguez Gomez of Texcoco and secretary general of the bishops’ conference.
... In today’s culture, they added, “Love is reduced to an emotional feeling and the satisfaction of instinctive drives, with no effort to build lasting bonds of mutual belonging.”
The bishops recalled the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI, who has urged families to resist attempts to redefine the traditional family, “in which all of us have lived.”
... Committing to another person “is not something to be feared,” noting that fatherhood and motherhood is “a gift of God.”
12 Comments
"committing to another person is not something to be feared..."
Indeed.
Societies can exist without marriage, the question is will they advance, will they be weakened as a result. And, of course, the answer is clear in communities where government discourages marriage through financial assistance to illegitimate children and single moms. Fathers flee and the male children become criminals. The female children become the next set of single moms.
"Love is reduced to an emotional feeling and the satisfaction of instinctive drives, with no effort to build lasting bonds of mutual belonging."
... therefore, what? Is this meant to justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from the opportunity marriage provides to build lasting bonds of mutual belonging?
Not all same-sex couples are unrelated, and not all are "gay." Why should we allow some same-sex couples to get married, and not others. What's the rationale?
Daughter of Eve writes:
Do you really not understand what is meant when two people are referred to as "a couple"? Or for that matter, a "same-sex" couple? Do you imagine or pretend that any two dudes, plucked from the population at random, constitute what we refer to as a "same-sex" couple?
Couple - In common use, when referring to two people as a "couple", the term connotes a romantic relationship in which the two function as a single social unit. The romantic link is so strongly inferred when we refer to two people as a couple, that we add modifiers if we need to express that their link is anything but romantic.
Consider the following examples:
1) They are a couple.
2) They are a couple of jokers.
or even
3) They are a couple of siblings
People understand that example #1 speaks to a type of relationship that is not invoked in example #2 or #3.
Or how about a couple of additional examples:
1) A couple of gentlemen
2) A gentleman couple
Is it really that hard to understand? We are talking about interpersonal relationships here. The term "couple" isn't simply a quantifier to let you know how many people are involved. And same-sex isn't simply a qualifier to let you know the gender(s) of those two people.
Is there a planet where two siblings of the same gender are ever referred to simply as "a couple"? Or a "same-sex couple"? No. We might call them a couple of jokers. We might even call them a pair! But not simply "couple" ... because "sibling" is a different sort of relationship than "couple".
Because we are talking about a type of relationship! A romantic, and loving, and committed, and sexualized relationship between two consenting adults. A couple, a bonded pair, sharing their lives, their obligations to their community, their triumphs, their future. This is the fully realized "couple" relationship.
If the couple is male-female, society celebrates it. Recognizes it. Supports it. Subsidizes it? Why should this not also be the case with same-sex couples. You know, the romantically linked acting as a single social unit kind.
Where is the cogent argument justifying this apparently arbitrary inequity? Not that circular logic of "marriage is male-female because it requires a man & woman" ... not its variants that substitute the word "coitus" for "man and woman". Those are just variation of "marriage requires it because it requires it".
There is a conclusion at work here, that underlies the "marriage protection" arguments: no same-sex couple should be granted the rights, protections and obligations of marriage. But to be a complete, cogent, valid argument we need the premise: the evidence that supports a conclusion.
Daniel -
That"s the silliest comment I've ever seen. We regulate couples based on a perception or claim of romantic connection? Really?
Howsabout some objectivity? I.e., a man and a woman is the way that humans reproduce (romantically or not). That's the basis for marriage.
See, that's the misperception: that because many couples are romantic that romance is an element of marriage. It's not. It helps form couples, but it is unnecessary for the purpose of marriage. The reasons for people getting married must be distinguished from the basis and purpose of marriage from a state/societal view. It's about procreation.
Overcame,
Thank you for your comments re: couples & romance. When you write (about my post #5 above):
1) You ignore the context, which is a response to D.O.E.'s obtuse question asking what the difference is between gay couples for whom marriage should be an option, and "other same-sex couples". My response is to point how these are different types of relationships ... there are differences in the interpersonal connection. Romantic interest in one such difference, which you seem to acknowledge when you say:
You make my point for me. Thank you. Two people are not referred to as "a couple" simply because they are paired in some way ... but because they are paired in a specific way. In a romantic way.
If you're reading the word "romantic" to mean soft lights, mood music, flowers and candy romantic, you have misunderstood my meaning.
2) I have not claimed that couples are regulated based on perception or claim of romantic anything. But since you mention it, we do exactly that with couples for whom the assumption of a romantic connection is suspect. INS does it all the time, attempting to weed out so-called "green card" marriages of convenience.
to further clarify, check out the contrasting meanings of the words "romantic" and "platonic"
Daniel said, "If the couple is male-female, society celebrates it. Recognizes it. Supports it. Subsidizes it? Why should this not also be the case with same-sex couples. You know, the romantically linked acting as a single social unit kind."
Ah, but there are exceptions. Male-female unions are forbidden, where the couple is close-kin. Why is that? Because of homophobia? Because one or both of them might be "gay"? Clearly, defining marriage is not about sexual identity politics, but about particular sex combinations. Sex integration vs. sex segregation. But not all opposite-sex individuals may marry. Why is that?
Here's a little challenge for you:
"1. What is your moral argument for the claim that SSM is a type of marriage that the marriage law must recognize as real marriage?
To answer this you need to state what marriage is and to explain the moral reasoning that would compel society, through the legal system, to distinguish between marriage and the other types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category.
2. What is the moral argument for the claim that same-sex sexual behavior is the moral equivalent of opposite-sex sexual behavior? And, as applied to marriage, that it is the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife?
If you have no moral arguments for either of these assumptions, then, that should be stated forthrightly."
Daughter of Eve writes:
There is the objective reason that their sexual congress presents heightened risk of congenital birth defects in any offspring they might produce. Clearly not a risk with same-sex couples. Your point?
The burden of proof falls on the person who makes an assertion. As I have not made this assertion, I do not feel compelled to prove it through argumentation.
Again, as I never asserted this claim, how am I compelled to prove it?
If YOU have an assertion that YOU wish to prove through the presentation of a moral argument, please feel free to do so.
Daniel -
I understand your distinction of romantic versus platonic; the point is that there is no objective distinction possible. SSMers seem to believe that love/romance is an objective qualifier for marriage, and notwithstanding what the INS does (inefficient gov't losers) it can't be. I think DoE's point is that the notion of "couple," in the sense you use it, is immeasurable and fleeting. As opposed to male-female couples which are complementary, regardless of feelings.
So, using a love/romance standard any two non-romantic buddies can get married by putting on the kissy-kissy act in the licensing office. Silly.
So-called SS"M" removes all objectivity from marriage, turning it into nothing but a pairing (or even more, since there's no objective reason for pairs) of people who want to call themselves "married." What purpose to society/gov't would that serve? None. It's mere randomness.
OvercameSSM,
Thanks for the response re: romantic -v- platonic. I agree with your observation that this distinction is not particularly useful as an objective qualifier for marriage eligibility.
But please note that I never proposed it as such. I don't propose that it be placed on the town clerk's checklist when determining whether or not a marriage license should be issued. I suppose we could have a conversation about what it takes to score a marriage license, and all the ways that ANY couple - romantic or otherwise - can and do exploit those criteria for their own benefit.
And in this, I suppose we have a two part question. The part I was addressing pertains to an understanding of the type of relationship that ought to be eligible to marry. The part you address pertains to how we make sure the couple seeking license to marry is in that type of relationship.
So in light of this, let us consider your complaint about SSM:
I would ask you to consider how this differs from the status quo, and challenge you to provide an example of any differences other than the geneders of those who would be involved. Because the status quo already leaves ample room for all kinds of "pairing of people" who do not satisfy any widely held definition of marriage, other than the gender requirement.
You ask:
This might be a little nit-picky, but its worth noting: people do not exist to serve the government - government exists to serve the people. Furthermore, I wouldn't propose a necessity that all human endeavor must serve a purpose even to society. Those human endeavors that are serve a purpose to those involved, without imposing harm on themselves or others, are defensible on that basis alone.
But to the extend that those who would marry are seeking something FROM society, I think that portion of your query is reasonable in this case. And my answer is this: the bonds of marriage create stability in families, which in turn create stability in society. This is a good thing that is realized independent of the genders of those who marry. When a couple commits to care for one another, which is a good thing for them and for society. When they have the opportunity to fully share their lives and commitments, that is a good thing for them and for society. Certainly any couple's commitment to monogamy is arguably a good thing for society.
If you ave the opportunity, I would greatly appreciate it if you would elaborate on your assertion that: