[percy-l] gay marriage

Mike Frentz mfrentz at bbn.com
Tue Aug 12 14:42:19 EDT 2003

Marriage, from the Catholic point of view (to which Percy, to all 
appearances, fully ascribed) is first and foremost a sacrament.  Marriage, 
even between a man and woman if they enter it consciously not intending to 
have children, is invalid.  Same sex "marriage" is a total oxymoron given 
the cultural roots of the authentic institution -- it can't exist.

Apparently Mr. Robinson referred to his election as the "Easter after Good 
Friday".  I pity the poor Episcopalians through all this.  What a travesty 
of Christianity.


At 11:40 AM 8/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Interesting, I see your point, Sara. But your example is a metaphoric 
>application of the word, and there are many like this.
>Again, I'm not referencing the morality or immorality of homosexual 
>"marriage". But, heterosexual unions are different than homosexual unions. 
>That's obvious enough, isn't it? The first is a 'marriage' (both as it is 
>tradtionally and semanticallyunderstood) the second is...well...something 
>else, a union, a bond, a committed relationship, a pact, a contract.
>All I'm saying is that the newness of homosexual unions, if they are to be 
>recognized by the state, requires a new word, not one that is already has 
>a specific meaning.
>I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public 
>champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been 
>hijacked and/or run through.
>Steve Parlin
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sara Carter [mailto:saracarter2 at juno.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:20 AM
>To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
>Cc: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
>Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage
>another observation:
>how about the marriage of two minds??
>Sara Carter
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:53:59 -0500 "Parlin, Steven" 
><<mailto:PARLINS at culver.org>PARLINS at culver.org> writes:
>Just a quick comment on the public debate regarding "gay marriage"
>I wonder what Percy would make of this, at least from a semantic point of 
>view. 'Marriage' refers to a specific thing, the union of man and woman, 
>and whether one argues that such definitions can be stretched and 
>broadened and altered to be more inclusive, the truth is they can't. For 
>example, no one would really allow 'flock of fish' or 'swarm of cows' 
>(unless for effect). Such words refer to specific things. So, leaving the 
>moral arguments aside, on purely semantic terms, homosexuals can't be 
>'married' any more than fish can flock or cows can swarm.
>Just an observation.
>An archive of all list discussion is available at 
>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20030812/eeda900e/attachment.html>

More information about the Percy-L mailing list