[percy-l] gay marriage

Parlin, Steven PARLINS at culver.org
Tue Aug 12 14:48:55 EDT 2003

I, too, am a Catholic and fully ascribe to the RC teachings (that
homosexuality is gravely immoral). And, I agree that such marriages, as you
say, can't exist. Calling a bird a dog doesn't thereby endow the bird with
canine attributes. Likewise, calling homosexual unions "marriages" doesn't
endow them with matrimonial attributes. I just think that defending the word
itself is the easiest and most effective argument. The morality argument
isn't going to go far in this culture. There's too much inertia behind this
Steve Parlin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Frentz [mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:42 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage

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
<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" < PARLINS at culver.org
<mailto: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/20030812/9477b31d/attachment.html>

More information about the Percy-L mailing list