[percy-l] gay marriage
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
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.
>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
>how about the marriage of two minds??
>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...
More information about the Percy-L