A Catholic Perspective on Gay Marriage

[Eugenius]

Yes, I am aware of the church’s teachings. The fact is you do not know which side of the issue I am on; the elementary 101 was pompous and unnecessary.

I need to make a correction in this response to SW. I meant to say “the elementary 101 was premature and unnecessary…” My apologies in advance for the harsh word “pompous,” that was not my intent.

 

[sw85]

Power of attorney, wills, etc., already are available to everyone (same sex couples, different sex couples, and no sex relationships, such as siblings, close friends, business partners, etc.). There is overlap between those benefits and those that are automatically granted to married couples as next of kin. That is my point.

OK, well… what’s the point of your point?

Where did I say that consent was the only requirement for marriage? You are making this up…and calling me stupid?!?

I said the argument is stupid.

I don’t why else you would use a “consent” argument in arguments against bestiality and the like unless it formed a central element of your conception of marriage. I for one argue against bestiality because it is flatly contrary to human nature and thus a sin, i.e., because mine is a natural law conception of marriage. That would be a silly argument for me to make against bestiality unless I thought consent was the primary requisite for marriage.

If I jumped the gun on assuming you to be another pro-gay “marriage” Catholic quisling, please forgive me.

Since you argue so much AGAINST mutual consent, are you saying you are FOR forced marriages, or marrying persons in a coma or with other mental deficiencies? See, not as “weak and flimsy” as you thought.

I said that consent is not what marriage is primarily about, i.e., that consent is a necessary but insufficient prerequisite for marriage. Marriage (civil and sacramental alike) is chiefly about procreation: hence the traditional requirement that couples be capable of completing the sexual act in a manner consistent with the end of procreation in the case of canon law, or at least be of the opposite sex in the case of civil law.

You imply that civil entitlements for married people, as they are defined today, are an eternal truth. They are not. Don’t forget, it wasn’t that long ago that medical insurance did not exist. How would anyone get spousal access to something that did not exist?

I’ve said no such thing. Marriage, as a matter of civil law, is recognized and benefits are attached to it because it serves a socially valid end. The benefits take whatever form are socially meaningful at the time.

I need to make a correction in this response to SW. I meant to say “the elementary 101 was premature and unnecessary…” My apologies in advance for the harsh word “pompous,” that was not my intent.

No worries.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

… Homosexuals wouldn’t want to get married if modern society hadn’t already created a special, entitled class where children were not needed and part of the definition was about entitlements. So you see, gay marriage is already a progression issue, this even falls in line with what St. Paul tells us about homosexuality (God has “handed” us over to it because of the sinfullness that already exists in the world).but people don’t (or won’t) see that. If you want to stop the progression you need to step back and reflect on how you have participated in bringing it to the point where it is and do something about THAT instead of blithering away about dogs.

‘Progression’ is a favorable description to what is otherwise a slide to further social and moral ills where gay ‘marriage’ is taking society. Note that I say further, not saying that gay ‘marriage’ is the initiating factor of decline. Yes, your argument in past threads is known, that the preceding and foremost contributors to the destruction of marriage are no-fault divorce and conduct of heterosexuals. It’s a side debate much covered before and I hope you don’t insert it here again so as not to derail the OP, entitled Catholic perspective on gay ‘marriage.’

Given where society is, which is more logical, to step on the brakes now, or the silly talk of ‘stripping of insurance benefits, rights of survivorship and any other number of modern entitlements that did not exist back when God created marriage’?

…

Homosexuals that I have talked to see themselves as individuals who just want to live their lives, want to be there for each other at death, maintain their material positions, etc. The organized “gay agenda” that every homosexual is supposedly goose-stepping to is a laughable myth.

It’s true not every homosexual is an activist. But there is enormous pressure brought about by individuals and groups, some not organized, some not well organized, some very organized. Just read After the Ball if you have not. Or documents such as Defending a Higher Law, the first chapter, titled The Homosexual Movement: Imposing a Moral Revolution. If the gay agenda is a myth, explain what is being propagated just in one gay site among hundreds or thousands now, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force site, for instance. Its clarion call is Move the Movement, Become a Change Agent Today. It aims to propel among other things all gay concerns from the margin to the center including gay ‘marriage.’ According to a published research paper it sponsored, activist gays do not want to accept civil unions as it’s not deemed to be enough. That shoots down your proposal that civil unions for same-sex marriage is the answer as long as Catholics contain their beliefs on the sanctity and tradition in sacramental marriage.

Further, then cardinal in 1986 and now Pope wrote about people bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. These groups are guided by a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person. They seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position and use that confusion to their own advantage, and the momentum of the movement is even greater now than before. Do you disbelieve the Pope and events helped along by activist judges and misguided legislators playing before us?

Finally, please correct me if I am wrong, your posts reflect disaffection with the Magisterium. If I am correct, how do you figure the Catholic Church could or should lead the faithful without a single teaching authority? Should the Church capitulate on a core teaching to appease homosexuals and roll over?
,

 

[Eugenius]

‘Progression’ is a favorable description to what is otherwise a slide to further social and moral ills where gay ‘marriage’ is taking society. Note that I say further, not saying that gay ‘marriage’ is the initiating factor of decline. Yes, your argument in past threads is known, that the preceding and foremost contributors to the destruction of marriage are no-fault divorce and conduct of heterosexuals. It’s a side debate much covered before and I hope you don’t insert it here again so as not to derail the OP, entitled Catholic perspective on gay ‘marriage.’

Please note that you, not me, are the one bringing up past discussions. I already know that you don’t enjoy discussing marriage in discussions about marriage.

Given where society is, which is more logical, to step on the brakes now, or the silly talk of ‘stripping of insurance benefits, rights of survivorship and any other number of modern entitlements that did not exist back when God created marriage’?

You do realize that my comment was a rhetorical statement, don’t you?

It’s true not every homosexual is an activist.

Yes, this is indeed true.

That shoots down your proposal that civil unions for same-sex marriage is the answer as long as Catholics contain their beliefs on the sanctity and tradition in sacramental marriage.

Where did I propose civil unions are the answer? I pointed out there is overlap between marriage benefits and what is already available to everyone through an attorney. That is a legal contract, not a civil union.

Further, then cardinal in 1986 and now Pope wrote about people bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. These groups are guided by a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person. They seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position and use that confusion to their own advantage, and the momentum of the movement is even greater now than before. Do you disbelieve the Pope and events helped along by activist judges and misguided legislators playing before us?

Finally, please correct me if I am wrong, your posts reflect disaffection with the Magisterium. If I am correct, how do you figure the Catholic Church could or should lead the faithful without a single teaching authority? Should the Church capitulate on a core teaching to appease homosexuals and roll over?
,

The church’s core teaching is outlined in the catechism and I’ve already said in other discussions that I support that. If the church is worried about confusion, it needs to be proactive and communicate to the people more clearly. If you need to accuse me of something, as apparently you do, then accuse me of wanting the church to do a better job.

As I’ve pointed out, there is overlap between some marriage benefits and what can be legally obtained through an attorney. I haven’t heard anyone talk about changing this. If you look point by point at what is included in the definition of civil marriage and look at this uncontested overlap, it implies that the church apparently approves of this overlap. Why do you think homosexuals now want to now call it marriage? All blah, blah, blah about “activists” aside, homosexuals know that they can obtain benefits by paying an attorney that others get by walking down an isle. They think it is the same thing as marriage and want to call it the same thing. So where does the church draw the line on this? Because I’m apparently the only one that sees this and dares to ask the question does not mean I am disaffected with the magisterium.

 

[benedictus2]

OK, so yes we also don’t recognize incestuous marriages, but in the Middle East it is super common. If we want this thread to be about the intricacies of different countries marriage laws that is fine. My point is that Catholics seem to be fine with, for example, non-baptized atheists (or insert ANY other religion) (man and woman) being legally married, but not OK with two gay people.

To me, an unrecognized marriage is just as invalid as the next. And if I am allowed to be Catholic, they are allowed to be (insert religion). And if I am allowed to receive legal benefits for choosing someone to be my spouse, why can’t a member of (insert morality of your choice). I think it should apply to non-religious marriages, and therefore, gay marriages.

Our marriages are sacred to us, and what other people do who are not Catholic is frankly none of our business, and vice versa.

This is just downright unadulterated hogwash.

If that is then morality is just a matter of what you think is moral.

Let’s extend that thought. If others feel it is okay to molest children and they are not Catholics, why should it concern us, Surely they are free to exercise their right to their own beliefs and they believe that paedophilia is actually okay. Why should the law curtail their pursuit of their own happiness?

You are obviously one of those who believe that our faith should be kept to ourselves.

Sorry but that is not Christianity. Christianity is evangelical. There is no aspect of our lives that should not be within the purview of the moral teachings of our faith.

If the apostles were like you, the Gospel would have been confined to the twleve and never progressed beyond that!

 

[benedictus2]

After reading your post, I conclude that you’d be the one to support my campaign to marry my dog.

I’m a member of the “Marry my dog league” and I want some social benefits. I also want an end to the discrimination that prevents me from marrying my dog. And I hope you will come to my support when others try to say I shouldn’t have my marriage blessed by God (my dog is, after all, one of God’s creatures) and to support me when Hotel and Motel owners attempt to turn us away when we are honeymooning. I also anticipate that many will attempt to restrict people like me to marrying just one dog, when I know I could love and cherish many dogs.

I’m sure you have read all those tired old moral arguments about how me and my dog wont be ‘open to life’ and all that stuff, but gee whiz, we really do care for one another. I reckon it would be a great way to get promiscuous dogs off the streets and into good loving homes. Dogs will feel so much better about themselves, being loved and respected and all.

I also have a cousin who is soooooo in love with his horse…

What say you?

Perhaps Hutch can officiate at the ceremony

 

[John21652]

Well then let’s return to a Biblical understanding of marriage and strip out insurance benefits, rights of survivorship and any other number of modern entitlements that did not exist back when God created marriage and have been added on to the the legal definition of marriage (and thereby already redefining marriage).

That’s typical; let’s return to the Bible so you can avoid answering the question. In the process you threw logic out the window. Legal addendums to marriage down through history are a long way from re-definitions of marriage away from being exclusively between a man and a woman.

I was in Chicago this summer and visited an exhibit at the history museum about the LGBT experience in that city. The only thing worth remembering was a placard describing how the rise of capitalism has led to this situation where people accumulate wealth and no longer need their children or extended family to take care of them in old age. Consequently people need legal entitlements so they don’t loose their material belongings and can perpetuate the illusion of independence and self sufficiency. Homosexuals wouldn’t want to get married if modern society hadn’t already created a special, entitled class where children were not needed and part of the definition was about entitlements. So you see, gay marriage is already a progression issue, this even falls in line with what St. Paul tells us about homosexuality (God has “handed” us over to it because of the sinfullness that already exists in the world).but people don’t (or won’t) see that. If you want to stop the progression you need to step back and reflect on how you have participated in bringing it to the point where it is and do something about THAT instead of blithering away about dogs.

Gay “marriage” is a regression issue. You have avoided the logical implications of what it is that so called “Gay” marriage represents and have fallen for the propoganda that would have us believe that society is the cause of the moral regression. All you have done is give examples of how a wealthy society tends towards hedonism, of which homosexuality is but another manifestation. Now, if you’d only get over your peurile attempts at condecension about someone ‘blithering away about dogs’, the implications of which you obviously can’t face or debate because it destroys your argument, and just go back and answer the philosophical points raised.

 

[Eugenius]

That’s typical; let’s return to the Bible so you can avoid answering the question. In the process you threw logic out the window.

I went through your previous posts in this thread and the only question I found that was not just included for rhetorical purposes was “What say you?” I told you “what said me” and now you accuse me of avoiding the question. What exactly is your question?

Legal addendums to marriage down through history are a long way from re-definitions of marriage away from being exclusively between a man and a woman.

Not so long ago Inter-racial couples who moved from one state to another would differ with you in their experience. In one state they were married and in another state they were illegal. Yes marriage is between a man and a woman, I never said it wasn’t; however the broader definition varies by culture, time and place.

Gay “marriage” is a regression issue. You have avoided the logical implications of what it is that so called “Gay” marriage represents and have fallen for the propoganda that would have us believe that society is the cause of the moral regression.

In a previous post you were talking about “progression” and now “regression.” Which way are you going? By the way, I haven’t “fallen” for propaganda, I am fully capable of making my own observations. If you don’t like my reasoning, please refer to the first chapter of the book of Romans. It is pretty clear to me.

All you have done is give examples of how a wealthy society tends towards hedonism, of which homosexuality is but another manifestation. Now, if you’d only get over your peurile attempts at condecension about someone ‘blithering away about dogs’, the implications of which you obviously can’t face or debate because it destroys your argument, and just go back and answer the philosophical points raised.

Our strength as Catholics is in the scriptures and church teachings, not humanistic philosophical points. You could play “what if” all day long and still not prove anything.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It appears, Eugenius, that you do not have a reply to mine providing supporting evidence that a gay agenda is not just a myth.

Please note that you, not me, are the one bringing up past discussions. I already know that you don’t enjoy discussing marriage in discussions about marriage.

Aah, but discussion of marriage in a gay ‘marriage’ thread is logical. However, your record of posts is dismissive of the problems of gay ‘marriage’ notwithstanding your disclaimer that you are not for it. You then supplant the discussion of gay ‘marriage’ with the high divorce rate in heterosexuals. I simply expressed the hope that it does not happen in this thread so we don’t waste keystrokes.

Where did I propose civil unions are the answer? I pointed out there is overlap between marriage benefits and what is already available to everyone through an attorney. That is a legal contract, not a civil union.

Okay, I am not the first to be confused about your position on same sex unions. Were you not in effect proposing civil unions or considering it for same sex couples, mainly to help those you personally have come across who are not activists so to speak, who are just quietly living as couples with same aspirations as married people in the traditional sense? I can’t check each post you made, but a quick persusal of your position on the matter led me to this specific post:

To society there are legal issues about inheritance, power of attorney, medical decisions, benefits, taxes, survivorship, etc., that did not come from the church and are not controlled by the church. These have also evolved and changed over time and different cultures. If you are including the civil aspects in your definition of marriage, I suppose it would be safe to say that marriage has already been redefined many times. Many of these are automatically available to married couples in one fell swoop by getting married and becoming the legal next of kin. However, many of these are already available to just about anyone by visiting an attorney and having legal papers drawn up…one by one and with legal fees. You can even print out pre-worded forms on the Internet, have them signed by witnesses and have the document notarized. The church does not control these civic details. Homosexuals feel that they should have equal access to these civil rights without having to pay what they see as an unfair tax (attorney fees). I suppose a lot of this would be covered under “civil unions” although I do not know too much about this or how they differ state to state. I have heard that even in situations where civil unions are recognized the legal benefits are still different. For example medical benefits from an insurer may have to be counted as taxable income if the beneficiary partner uses it.

In its strictest religious sense I am not in favor of gay marriage. Something happens at a spiritual level when two people marry that is only ordained by God. We might deny it, but nothing in human law can change this. However, I also do not see how the church or government can prevent people from entering a legal contract that says "when I am on my deathbe I want x to make decisions on my behalf, inherit.

And this now which talks about overlap of benefits from civil marriage and legal contracts:

As I’ve pointed out, there is overlap between some marriage benefits and what can be legally obtained through an attorney. I haven’t heard anyone talk about changing this. If you look point by point at what is included in the definition of civil marriage and look at this uncontested overlap, it implies that the church apparently approves of this overlap. Why do you think homosexuals now want to now call it marriage? All blah, blah, blah about “activists” aside, homosexuals know that they can obtain benefits by paying an attorney that others get by walking down an isle. They think it is the same thing as marriage and want to call it the same thing. So where does the church draw the line on this? Because I’m apparently the only one that sees this and dares to ask the question does not mean I am disaffected with the magisterium.

So you want the Church to do a better job, like getting involved or controlling the civic details of contracts entered into by same sex pairs?. What and how exactly should the Church do in your view in this regard? Should or should not same sex couples resort to legal documents to obtain all the benefits that people in regular marriages have? C’mon, spell it out for us, please.
,

 

[Eugenius]

It appears, Eugenius, that you do not have a reply to mine providing supporting evidence that a gay agenda is not just a myth.

You provided your own answer in post #43 when you said “It’s true not every homosexual is an activist.” Yep, I agree with you.

Aah, but discussion of marriage in a gay ‘marriage’ thread is logical. However, your record of posts is dismissive of the problems of gay ‘marriage’ notwithstanding your disclaimer that you are not for it. You then supplant the discussion of gay ‘marriage’ with the high divorce rate in heterosexuals. I simply expressed the hope that it does not happen in this thread so we don’t waste keystrokes.

Yes, the high divorce rate undermines our ability to sell marriage as a holy institution. You seem to have a problem with this, enough to bring it up twice while telling me not to.

Okay, I am not the first to be confused about your position on same sex unions. Were you not in effect proposing civil unions or considering it for same sex couples, mainly to help those you personally have come across who are not activists so to speak, who are just quietly living as couples with same aspirations as married people in the traditional sense?

So you want the Church to do a better job, like getting involved or controlling the civic details of contracts entered into by same sex pairs?. What and how exactly should the Church do in your view in this regard? Should or should not same sex couples resort to legal documents to obtain all the benefits that people in regular marriages have? C’mon, spell it out for us, please.
,

I believe strongly in justice and even criminals deserve a fair trial. I see some loopholes in the gay marriage debate that are left standing wide open and I objectively point them out. It would be like us fighting off an invading tribe. I shout out that someone forgot to barricade the door and the fort is on fire, but being in a trigger-happy frame of mind you go and shoot me for being an invader (while the fort still burns, of course).

Your request for me to “C’mon, spell it out for us” was actually my question to you and the other experts on CAF. Let me present it again. I look forward to an answer. I’ve brought this up in other discussions and the experts suddenly disappeared.

As I’ve pointed out, there is overlap between some marriage benefits and what can be legally obtained through an attorney. I haven’t heard anyone talk about changing this. If you look point by point at what is included in the definition of civil marriage and look at this uncontested overlap, it implies that the church apparently approves of this overlap. Why do you think homosexuals now want to now call it marriage? …] homosexuals know that they can obtain benefits by paying an attorney that others get by walking down an isle. They think it is the same thing as marriage and want to call it the same thing. So where does the church draw the line on this?

 

[benedictus2]

If you look point by point at what “married” means in the legal sense you’ll notice that some of the rights automatically available to married couples are already available to homosexual couples, they just have to hire a lawyer to draw up a will, power of attorney, medical power of attorney, etc. People don’t seem to have a problem with this fuzzy overlap of “rights,” yet they will run out into the street crying that the world is coming to an end if those same couples want to register their relationship with the government (a civil unuion) to obtain those same rights.

Just because something is legal it does not necessarily mean it is moral.

Abortion is legal.

Now why are we advocating against the legalization of homosexual union? Because the law is a great educator. Once something is passed as law, people tend to think that somehow it is moral too.

I was arguing against abortion with a colleague and she retorted that it cannot be wrong because the law allow it!

The more these perversions are legalized that more we shift the boundaries on what is and is not permissible.

As Christians, we are supposed to evangelize.

I have not heard anyone advocate to disallow homosexuals from obtaining wills, power of attorney, etc., apparently they already consent to at least partial recognition of these types of legal arrangements. Neither have I heard anyone advocate repealing no-fault divorce laws as a way to strengthen marriage. People are not very consistent about what marriage means or how to best go about “protecting” it.

And these legal arrangements still has to do with the natural union - man and woman.

I find your stance strange considering you claim to be a Catholic.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, the high divorce rate undermines our ability to sell marriage as a holy institution. You seem to have a problem with this, enough to bring it up twice while telling me not to.

So should we declare murder and theft no longer a crime because of it’s high incidence?

Should the law be shaped by what is common than by what is true and good?

 

[FightingFat]

I wonder if I might offer this rather excellent piece (written by a gay man) in favour of keeping the status quo on marriage:

richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

It really does put the case rather well!

 

[benedictus2]

I wonder if I might offer this rather excellent piece (written by a gay man) in favour of keeping the status quo on marriage:

richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

It really does put the case rather well!

Very good article. Thanks for the link.

 

[Eugenius]

Just because something is legal it does not necessarily mean it is moral.

Abortion is legal.

Now why are we advocating against the legalization of homosexual union? Because the law is a great educator. Once something is passed as law, people tend to think that somehow it is moral too.

I was arguing against abortion with a colleague and she retorted that it cannot be wrong because the law allow it!

The more these perversions are legalized that more we shift the boundaries on what is and is not permissible.

As Christians, we are supposed to evangelize.

And these legal arrangements still has to do with the natural union - man and woman.

I find your stance strange considering you claim to be a Catholic.

I don’t understand why everyone is so confused. I’ve made an observation, not a recommendation, that there is some overlap in what is available to married couples and everyone else. They just have to go about it differently. I’ll borrow your example about abortion. It is legal, but morally wrong; therefore we continue trying to change abortion laws. Are Catholics okay with homosexuals obtaining wills, power of attorney, etc., for each other that overlap some of the benefits that come with marriage or are we supposed to restrict those like we are abortion? In my mind this is a logical question and I don’t see why it should cast doubt on my status as a Catholic.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You provided your own answer in post #43 when you said “It’s true not every homosexual is an activist.” Yep, I agree with you.

The sentence does not mean there is no gay agenda.

I believe strongly in justice and even criminals deserve a fair trial. I see some loopholes in the gay marriage debate that are left standing wide open and I objectively point them out. It would be like us fighting off an invading tribe. I shout out that someone forgot to barricade the door and the fort is on fire, but being in a trigger-happy frame of mind you go and shoot me for being an invader (while the fort still burns, of course).

You are pretty good with saying things now without using the words. But it’s evident where you are moving the discussion!

Your request for me to “C’mon, spell it out for us” was actually my question to you and the other experts on CAF. Let me present it again. I look forward to an answer. I’ve brought this up in other discussions and the experts suddenly disappeared.

Wait, who has claimed expertise? This is an internet forum which is largely anonymous, not where members post their qualifications in their profile although there are some who are highly educated in appropriate areas of learning or with useful background whom you might be lucky to catch reading your post.

If you read the replies to you, the answer is there, one of which is sw85’s post with this portion that specifically addresses your question:

The Catholic Church has in the past supported the extension of such bundles of rights. They have wound up opposing them only when homosexual activists insist such that bundles be made available only to sexual couples. There is no reason why such bundles of rights should be unavailable to anyone group of people who want them (siblings, close friends, business partners, etc.), so they rightly concluded that “civil unions” in such circumstances are just stealth gay “marriages” to be folded into marriage law by judicial fiat later.

Yet, you continue to carp about the overlap of marriage benefits, why it is that the Church is not drawing the line, or where the Church should draw the line. It is clear to many if not all who reject gay ‘marriage’ that *same sex couples insist on marriage for equal material benefits afforded by traditional marriage and more. They want uncontested entitlement and moral approval for which they cannot have. *

If the explanation does not suffice, and you want to pin an expert or as close to an expert as possible, you can direct the question to Father Serpa in the Ask an Apologist forum. It seems a Catholic member like you should take it up with him, a representative of the Church.
,

 

[sw85]

I don’t understand why everyone is so confused. I’ve made an observation, not a recommendation, that there is some overlap in what is available to married couples and everyone else. They just have to go about it differently. I’ll borrow your example about abortion. It is legal, but morally wrong; therefore we continue trying to change abortion laws. Are Catholics okay with homosexuals obtaining wills, power of attorney, etc., for each other that overlap some of the benefits that come with marriage or are we supposed to restrict those like we are abortion? In my mind this is a logical question and I don’t see why it should cast doubt on my status as a Catholic.

People are confused because it’s not clear what your point is.

Why would Catholics object to homosexuals obtaining wills or power of attorney? What does that have to do with their objection to gay “marriage”?

If people are reaching the conclusion that you are harping on about this apparently irrelevant people because you think it’s evidence for gay “marriage,” it’s only because it’s unclear why else you’d be arguing with anyone.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I don’t understand why everyone is so confused. I’ve made an observation, not a recommendation, that there is some overlap in what is available to married couples and everyone else. They just have to go about it differently. I’ll borrow your example about abortion. It is legal, but morally wrong; therefore we continue trying to change abortion laws. Are Catholics okay with homosexuals obtaining wills, power of attorney, etc., for each other that overlap some of the benefits that come with marriage or are we supposed to restrict those like we are abortion? In my mind this is a logical question and I don’t see why it should cast doubt on my status as a Catholic.

Why should Catholics not be okay with homosexuals obtaining wills and power of attorney? The smart same sex couples who live outside Massachusetts and other few states where same sex ‘marriage’ has been legalized already do to transfer assets and material benefits upon death of one or the other! Activists just want all marriage benefits to be applicable across the board in every state in the country. Hence, they want DOMA to be repealed.

When you say ‘they just have to go about it differently,’ who is they? The Church, Catholics, or same sex couples demanding to have benefits?

Eugenius, it should occur to you by now that your arguments or the way you pose and pursue them are indeed confusing.
,

 

[Eugenius]

Why should Catholics not be okay with homosexuals obtaining wills and power of attorney? The smart same sex couples who live outside Massachusetts and other few states where same sex ‘marriage’ has been legalized already do to transfer assets and material benefits upon death of one or the other! Activists just want all marriage benefits to be applicable across the board in every state in the country. Hence, they want DOMA to be repealed.

When you say ‘they just have to go about it differently,’ who is they? The Church, Catholics, or same sex couples demanding to have benefits?

Eugenius, it should occur to you by now that your arguments or the way you pose and pursue them are indeed confusing.
,

I’ve gone back through my posts and the questions seem clear to clear to me (hint, look for the question marks). You obviously read everything I say looking for a gotcha where there is none and I suspect that is the cause of the confusion. These are legitimate questions, folks. In 2004 the state of Ohio voted to ban gay marriage and anything approximating it. I’m wondering if the overlap in benefits counts as approximating gay marriage and, if so, what as Catholics are we supposed to do about it. That is hardly un-Catholic or dismissive of the Magisterium.

 

[michelleds]

I’ve gone back through my posts and the questions seem clear to clear to me (hint, look for the question marks). You obviously read everything I say looking for a gotcha where there is none and I suspect that is the cause of the confusion. These are legitimate questions, folks. In 2004 the state of Ohio voted to ban gay marriage and anything approximating it. I’m wondering if the overlap in benefits counts as approximating gay marriage and, if so, what as Catholics are we supposed to do about it. That is hardly un-Catholic or dismissive of the Magisterium.

Eugenius, if I understand your questions correctly, you are asking about homosexuals achieving many of the benefits of a “civil union” or “marriage” through legal documents, is that correct? this formed the core of an argument I had with StA in another thread, where she advocated for homosexual civil unions (which the Catholic Church does not support), because, she said, people were unable to visit loved ones in the hospital and pass on their property after death. I pointed out that most of the legal benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples could be obtained through a lawyer’s office without sullying, tarnishing or otherwise invoking marriage.

I take your question to be about that lawyer’s bundle and whether we, as Catholics, should oppose such a thing when it’s clear that the intent is to create the benefits of a marriage? is this correct?

if so, my answer and mine alone, would be no, we do not need to attempt to restrict those actions. here’s why: anyone and everyone of legal age and sound mind can form a contract. advanced directives, living trusts, wills, etc are all documents that can likewise be entered into by anyone and everyone of legal age and sound mind. therefore, a homosexual couple having a will, trust, and durable powers of attorney documents drafted are not recieving anything that any other 2, 3 or 10 people couldn’t get.

tell me if i’m off track here.