Can Catholics support same-sex civil unions?

[EthanBenjamin]

So I understand why same sex marriage cannot occur in the Catholic Church, and I understand why same sex sexual acts are wrong, but does the matrimony issue carry over into the secular world? Does the Church condemn same-sex civil unions?

I raise this question because civil unions don’t really have all of the string attached, per se, like matrimony does in the Catholic Church. People who get married by the government aren’t making a promise to consummate and bring children into the world like those getting married by the Catholic Church do. So can we support same-sex civil unions outside of the Catholic Church?

 

[exnihilo]

No, we can not support same sex unions. No distinction is made between marriage and unions which are marriage by another name or lacking the word marriage. Really marriage by its nature is between a man and a woman. So there can not be same sex marriages. There can only be imitations of marriage. Just like it is wrong for a man and woman to imitate marriage by living together, so is wrong for two men to imitate marriage.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

(sorry for the long title and all caps but I just copied it as was)

 

[Gorgias]

So can we support same-sex civil unions outside of the Catholic Church?

Do same-sex civil unions give the thumbs-up to sexual activity that’s sinful?

 

[EthanBenjamin]

Do same-sex civil unions give the thumbs-up to sexual activity that’s sinful?

I don’t think they necessarily do give a thumbs up, but they’re also definitely not stopping anyone from sinful sexual activity.

 

[Colorad007]

No.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think they necessarily do give a thumbs up, but they’re also definitely not stopping anyone from sinful sexual activity.

So, a “same-sex civil union” is not a recognition of a relationship that’s more than platonic?

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Catholicism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If something is objectively true–as we believe Catholic teaching is–it applies to everyone. This doesn’t mean we should be imposing, but it does mean we should stand behind the truth wherever we are or whatever the situation.

It’s tough, because disagreeing with same-sex civil unions on religious grounds does make us ‘the bad guys’ in some places and in some parts of the world. No normal person is comfortable with that…

 

[pensmama87]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the establishment of a legal “next of kin” type arrangement that would simplify some of the hurdles. A single person could designate a roommate, sibling, other relative, friend, etc. It’s possible to do that piecemeal with various organizations, but it can be cumbersome.

The problem with “same-sex civil unions” from a moral perspective is that it privileges a sexual, but not conjugal, relationship. Marriage is a conjugal relationship and that’s the primary reason governments have ever cared about it. In some areas, an attempt to establish legal relationships that could be sexual partnerships but don’t have to be, have been torn down by gay activists.

 

[Usige]

No, no, no, one thousand times no.

To support same sex marriage or civil unions is to attempt to raise them to the equality with marriage. It gives support to a lie that they are even remotely related. People can cloak it in the language of love, but homosexual unions will never be generative and result in another human being which is a key hallmark of marriage. (yes, I know not all heterosexual marriage is fecund, nor all children result from marriage.)

Supporting it from a civil standpoint while rejecting it from a moral or religious stand point is just like those who say “I would never have an abortion, but I leave the choice to others if they chose to.” We are judged not just by our internal feeling, but by our actions too.

Christ was very clear about those who lead others to sin. Supporting others in sin is doing just that. Do you really want to have a millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the sea? (Matthew 18:6, Luke 17:2, Mark 9:42)

 

[Mary_Estelle]

I don’t think they necessarily do give a thumbs up, but they’re also definitely not stopping anyone from sinful sexual activity.

The Church does not stop sin per se, but acknowledges that sin exist and is adamant in the quest to teach us to make the choice from being a sinner, to a person of God and the teachings of the Church. Only YOU can make that choice. The Church does want us to treat all individuals with respect as that person is a creation of and from God. But the answer is NO, it does not support SS unions, civiil or otherwise.

Read your Bible. Nowhere is there support for SSM.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

No.

 

[Tablefor9]

No.

 

[SwizzleStick]

So I understand why same sex marriage cannot occur in the Catholic Church, and I understand why same sex sexual acts are wrong, but does the matrimony issue carry over into the secular world? Does the Church condemn same-sex civil unions?

I raise this question because civil unions don’t really have all of the string attached, per se, like matrimony does in the Catholic Church. People who get married by the government aren’t making a promise to consummate and bring children into the world like those getting married by the Catholic Church do. So can we support same-sex civil unions outside of the Catholic Church?

Absolutely not.

 

[mdgspencer]

According to the Catholic view, sex outside of marriage is sinful. So it would be wrong to accept this.

 

[James214]

Domestic partnerships however would not be anti catholic because they don’t presume sexual bonding as a part of the union or attempt to equate it with marriage while extending rights. For instance allowing for a civil joining of assets and rights to unmarried sisters or even longtime friends who live together would achieve the same thing as a “same sex civil Union” and be more inclusive. But that never got supported much because it (IMHO) takes the sensationalism out of the issue when certain elements wanted it to be ABOUT elevating homosexual behavior.

 

[Personanongrata]

Yes.

 

[exnihilo]

Domestic partnerships however would not be anti catholic because they don’t presume sexual bonding as a part of the union or attempt to equate it with marriage while extending rights. For instance allowing for a civil joining of assets and rights to unmarried sisters or even longtime friends who live together would achieve the same thing as a “same sex civil Union” and be more inclusive. But that never got supported much because it (IMHO) takes the sensationalism out of the issue when certain elements wanted it to be ABOUT elevating homosexual behavior.

The thing domestic partnerships are trying to ape is marriage which is sexual. The people advocating for domestic partnerships always compare what they want to marriage. We know marriage is sexual because marriage has had blood laws.

It is silly to suggest that people are advocating for domestic partnerships with no view towards sex. Anyone can join assets with anyone else through private arrangements. This has been true long before same sex unions became popular. What people advocating for these unions want is public acceptance and approval. If they just wanted a financial union or power of attorney they would have gone to a lawyer not started a political movement.

 

[pensmama87]

The thing domestic partnerships are trying to ape is marriage which is sexual. The people advocating for domestic partnerships always compare what they want to marriage. We know marriage is sexual because marriage has had blood laws.

It is silly to suggest that people are advocating for domestic partnerships with no view towards sex. Anyone can join assets with anyone else through private arrangements. This has been true long before same sex unions became popular. What people advocating for these unions want is public acceptance and approval. If they just wanted a financial union or power of attorney they would have gone to a lawyer not started a political movement.

I’m not sure I agree, because where I live it was proposed and shot down by gay activists, on the grounds that it did not *explicitly *favor sexual relationships.

I could very well see why one would want the simplicity of something like this without going to a lawyer. How many people die without even basic wills? Legal stuff is intimidating and potentially expensive. Signing a paper at the courthouse that automatically does all that stuff? Lot easier, and I can see why a roommate would want that arrangement even if they aren’t sexually involved with the person they wish to establish as their domestic partner.

 

[shockerfan]

No. If same sex unions have legal equality as man/woman marriages, then:

1. Same sex “marriages” get taught as equal to man/woman marriages in schools. By there very nature, they cannot be equal, as only one of the two can actually product children. (The immediate reply some reading this are thinking of are older couples past childbearing age or couple where one of the opposite sex spouses are sterile…bottom line is that by the very nature of the design of the human body, man + woman are ordered for each other…the basic design of the bodies prove this)
2. Same sex unions get equal consideration in adoption cases. I’m not casting dispersions on same sex unions, but men and women are complimentary, man+man or woman+woman are not. While some marriages are less than perfect, for a number of reasons, many due to factors outside the control of the spouses, society should consider a loving man+woman marriage as the gold standard to view adoptions.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not sure I agree, because where I live it was proposed and shot down by gay activists, on the grounds that it did not *explicitly *favor sexual relationships.

Where on earth do you live?

I could very well see why one would want the simplicity of something like this without going to a lawyer. How many people die without even basic wills? Legal stuff is intimidating and potentially expensive. Signing a paper at the courthouse that automatically does all that stuff? Lot easier, and I can see why a roommate would want that arrangement even if they aren’t sexually involved with the person they wish to establish as their domestic partner.

Legal stuff is expensive. Creating legal classes like civil unions is also expensive. But in that case the cost is shifted to society. Someone has to pay for the government ‘services’ including courts that are used to support civil unions. And it is typically not the people using services, even if some nominal fee is charged.