Those doing that which is considered wrong are often treated badly by those who believe it is wrong. Just an observation.

I once held the same position as you but I kept asking myself how would a homosexual person feel to know I supported their right to marry but I believed that their lifestyle was a sinful choice. To my mind, it was not tenable position.

Thanks for recognizing the distinction, although I don’t go for the “fallen order” thing.

christof,

You don’t define what a “successful marriage” requires so I can’t really respond to your main point. If marriage is just to be a “happy thing,” that does not exclude a homosexual marriage.

I don’t want to open this can of worms but it is at the heart of your argument. Homosexuality in itself is not bad (we may differ on this point) but so your Church’s requirement would not necessarily exclude two homosexuals from marrying. That’s not an argument, I know, but a contrary assertion.

But mine better corresponds with the facts.

Anyway I will volunteer one to add to our list of “definitional” (wc?) ingredients – good for each other. My church (Anglican) made of habit of “publishing the bands of marriage” several weeks in a row prior to my marriage. The reason? If someone could produce evidence that I or my beloved were a. bad b. already married or c. getting married under false pretenses, then the wedding would be off. The Church, it seems, has a duty to only allow marriages to go forward that have the potential (at least!) to be successful. Getting to my point… Homosexual marriage is a non-starter because, regardless of the opinion/testimony/experience of either party, the marriage can never be a success – which means, at least, that the marriage is more likely than not to fail in its goal of being a happy thing… because it is indivisibly composed of things that are (apparently – see Romans) bad for you.

For this reason, it seems like it would be, at best, uncharitable and, at worst, horribly cruel (condemning someone to a permanent union that can never succeed… always desiring, never possessing) to “extend the franchise” in this way. With regards to what is most likely to lead to a successful marriage, the three most important inputs are the teachings of scripture, the opinion of the Church, and what history has taught us. Finally, in the case that you consider it uncharitable to withhold from someone a thing that they believe will be good for them (regardless of your personal belief), remember that the Church has always been in the business of unmasking things that appear good but are, in fact, bad for you.

Regarding the Church’s blessing of a union, that is irrelevant to the issue of civil marriage for homosexuals. Maybe not for you. But it is irrelevant to the issue.

Matt: I know we have covered why you believe that both sexes are necessary for the institution of marriage but the preservation and sustenance that a secure–and monogamous, I agree on that point–relationship provides should not be denied to homosexual individuals. You may contend that they have that ability now and that it is just not legally recognized. But it’s that recognition that is vital to its integrity as a union.

Although we can dispute the d/evolution of marriage, how exactly does extending the franchise–diminished though it might be–do harm to it?

I’m going to combine my answers. I say that the vow is what the whole thing hangs upon, which I will stand by. But I don’t think it’s all that constitutes marriage. There’s a deeper dynamic that the vow is meant to preserve and sustain, and without which leads to a diminished sense of flourishing in and through marriage. So, marriage needs both sexes and monogamy, but the vow is inextricable from it as well.

I hope I’m not creating distinctions without differences here, or just creating ad hoc positions to save what I wrote. Feel free to push back.

Best,

matt