Catholic Governor Lynch signs Civil Union Bill in NH

[Suat]

So only the rich will be allowed to have children, correct? Will it be a one-child policy like China?

No, I grew up poor and had a few siblings, but my parents never expected that other people should give them money for it. If a couple is struggling financially with 4 children and is on welfare or cannot pay the bills, then I do not think that it is right to continue having children until they can care for the ones that they already have. In my opinion, it is irresponsible.

That is exactly the point. The heterosexual couples need their money so they can take care of their children and they should not be paying a dime for single man’s partner. Single men and women pay for themselves and often single mothers carry the added burden of caring totally for their children.

You really just have a problem with them being homosexual and getting the same rights that you do, do not try to disguise it as something else . As I said, I am willing to let parents forgo those payments, as long as it is regardless of their sexual preference.

Pointed questions: should struggling homosexual parents be allowed the same rights and privileges that struggling heterosexual ones get? Should childless homosexual partners get the same rights and privileges that childless heterosexual ones get?

 

[Mirdath]

Charts and graphs, oh my

Even the Family Research Council admits that fidelity is not unknown in homosexual couples? I am pleasantly surprised; I would not have expected such an admission from them.

How are the stats for unmarried heterosexual couples? Consider that since homosexuals cannot yet marry, this situation is far more analogous. And since they are not married, and are American males, they are encouraged to wildly exaggerate their sexual prowess, the same way American women, straight or gay, married or not, are encouraged to lie the other way and seem as innocent as they can. In popular opinion, a promiscuous man is a stud; a promiscuous woman is a slut. Orientation doesn’t even come into it.

And something else to keep in mind: when married couples are reporting fidelity, they’ve got plenty of reasons to lie to make themselves look good. 75-85% sounds way too high.

Find one documented case of total fidelity and I’ll retract the claim about “none”.

So, queers have less stable relationships because they can’t get married, and you say they should not be able to marry because they don’t have relationships as stable as married heterosexuals have? Nice. Very tidy circle.

Few people have had an interest in documenting long-term, stable homosexual relationships; there’s not really anything in it for them, there’s a smaller base to draw from, and oppressed minorities are generally less willing to participate.

However, homosexuals can and do have long-term, faithful, stable relationships, even to extremes most heterosexual couples would have given up on. One couple I know was apart for over a year when the deeply condemning father of one of them died; the guilt just overwhelmed him. After a year, they’re back together, stable and happy and now coming on their 23rd year of being partners. Had they been married, that painful separation would never have happened.

RyanL:

Basically, what I’m wondering is if you personally (or impersonally, for that matter) know any examples of the gay counterpart to those of us heterosexuals who are virgins until marriage and faithful until death.

Care to comment, goofyjim? And he’s not the only one on this board who might have something to add on the matter.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by** Suat**
. If a couple is struggling financially with 4 children and is on welfare or cannot pay the bills, then I do not think that it is right to continue having children until they can care for the ones that they already have. In my opinion, it is irresponsible

.

There indeed may be some irresponsibility there.Sexuality is a very tricky thing. I don’t believe we are entitled to sex either.

Yet PRIDE is a very tricky thing.

You really just have a problem with them being homosexual and getting the same rights that you do, do not try to disguise it as something else . As I said, I am willing to let parents forgo those payments, as long as it is regardless of their sexual preference.

Yes I do have a real problem. They are single. They have the same right as I have, they can marry another person of the opposite sex. They can bring forth life. They are asking for a special right- that is to have sex with someone of the same sex. As I said earlier. I don’t believe we are entitled to sex.

Pointed questions: should struggling homosexual parents be allowed the same rights and privileges that struggling heterosexual ones get? Should childless homosexual partners get the same rights and privileges that childless heterosexual ones get?

Yes homosexual parents should be allowed the same rights and privileges of that of a struggling single heterosexual parent.

Again yes, homosexual singles and heterosexual singles should be given the same rights and privileges.

 

[goofyjim]

Even the Family Research Council admits that fidelity is not unknown in homosexual couples? I am pleasantly surprised; I would not have expected such an admission from them.

How are the stats for unmarried heterosexual couples? Consider that since homosexuals cannot yet marry, this situation is far more analogous. And since they are not married, and are American males, they are encouraged to wildly exaggerate their sexual prowess, the same way American women, straight or gay, married or not, are encouraged to lie the other way and seem as innocent as they can. In popular opinion, a promiscuous man is a stud; a promiscuous woman is a slut. Orientation doesn’t even come into it.

And something else to keep in mind: when married couples are reporting fidelity, they’ve got plenty of reasons to lie to make themselves look good. 75-85% sounds way too high.

So, queers have less stable relationships because they can’t get married, and you say they should not be able to marry because they don’t have relationships as stable as married heterosexuals have? Nice. Very tidy circle.

Few people have had an interest in documenting long-term, stable homosexual relationships; there’s not really anything in it for them, there’s a smaller base to draw from, and oppressed minorities are generally less willing to participate.

However, homosexuals can and do have long-term, faithful, stable relationships, even to extremes most heterosexual couples would have given up on. One couple I know was apart for over a year when the deeply condemning father of one of them died; the guilt just overwhelmed him. After a year, they’re back together, stable and happy and now coming on their 23rd year of being partners. Had they been married, that painful separation would never have happened.

Care to comment, goofyjim? And he’s not the only one on this board who might have something to add on the matter.

I am still a virgin. I don’t consider my homosexual orientation to be a disorder. If I were to meet a man rather than a woman I know I could stay committed. There would be the same need for trust of course but considering it is off limits I remain a virgin.

 

[Listener]

While I am very much against gay marriage, I believe that these same-sex unions are at least tolerable from a legal (not moral) standpoint. I just don’t know why they had to bring sex into it. After all, there are many single people who practice abstinence out there. There are also handicapped people with caregivers who could maybe benefit from some sort of domestic partnership. The question in my mind is, how on earth could a person prove that he/she was gay? Could two roommates who were dear friends have a civil union?

Many of us who have been married forever can’t imagine not having any relatives or children/grandchildren to take care of us. Try to imagine that you are 80 years old and you never married. You have a dear friend who is in the same boat. Your mother, father, brothers, and sisters are all dead. If you die, the state will get your money. Maybe you have a friend in the same boat. Maybe the two of you would want to live in the same house. You could have a “domestic partnership” where you could visit your friend in the hospital or she could visit you. She could inherit your money if you die first, and you could inherit her money if she died first. I just don’t see what sex has to do with it. Would you have to pretend you were gay if such a union would work for you?

I was also thinking that these new laws could backfire for gay people. Right now, many companies allow health insurance for same-sex partners. With the new law in place, will employers now insist that gay couples need to have a legal domestic partnership in order to get health insurance? There are probably many gay couples who would love to have the health insurance but who don’t want to will their assets to their partner.

I think it is too soon to tell how all of this is going to work, but I’m just so thankful that the definition of marriage hasn’t been destroyed yet.

 

[gam197]

Thanks goofyjim for living a chaste life.

I don’t understand all the burdens that life seems to place on everyone. To me there is no such thing as a civil union.

 

[goofyjim]

While I am very much against gay marriage, I believe that these same-sex unions are at least tolerable from a legal (not moral) standpoint. I just don’t know why they had to bring sex into it. After all, there are many single people who practice abstinence out there. There are also handicapped people with caregivers who could maybe benefit from some sort of domestic partnership. The question in my mind is, how on earth could a person prove that he/she was gay? Could two roommates who were dear friends have a civil union?

Many of us who have been married forever can’t imagine not having any relatives or children/grandchildren to take care of us. Try to imagine that you are 80 years old and you never married. You have a dear friend who is in the same boat. Your mother, father, brothers, and sisters are all dead. If you die, the state will get your money. Maybe you have a friend in the same boat. Maybe the two of you would want to live in the same house. You could have a “domestic partnership” where you could visit your friend in the hospital or she could visit you. She could inherit your money if you die first, and you could inherit her money if she died first. I just don’t see what sex has to do with it. Would you have to pretend you were gay if such a union would work for you?

I was also thinking that these new laws could backfire for gay people. Right now, many companies allow health insurance for same-sex partners. With the new law in place, will employers now insist that gay couples need to have a legal domestic partnership in order to get health insurance? There are probably many gay couples who would love to have the health insurance but who don’t want to will their assets to their partner.

I think it is too soon to tell how all of this is going to work, but I’m just so thankful that the definition of marriage hasn’t been destroyed yet.

Noone wants to “prove” they are gay to get benefits. They already know well before entering any relationship. I am still a virgin but know I am gay. Whether anyone likes that doesn’t bother me. There are others like myself out there who never do it because there is absolutely no support for it. In ancient Greece or Rome they wouldn’t have thought much of it but somehow we have it stuck in our minds that it is totally a choice. How does one prove they are straight? They may force themselves to get married just to enjoy the social status placed on the married life.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by gofyjim
Noone wants to “prove” they are gay to get benefits.

What I can’t understand is why they think because they are attracted to the same sexed person that they are entitled to monetary benefits and/or entitled to have sex. I know many single people and they don’t get monetary benefits and/or have sex.

I know some married people who have chosen not to be sexually active.

If they are living the chaste life, what does money have to do with it?

 

[goofyjim]

What I can’t understand is why they think because they are attracted to the same sexed person that they are entitled to monetary benefits and/or entitled to have sex. I know many single people and they don’t get monetary benefits and/or have sex.

I know some married people who have chosen not to be sexually active.

If they are living the chaste life, what does money have to do with it?

There’s alot more to it than monetary benefits as has been stated here. What about the legal permission to have the beneficiary of your choice on life insurance and who to give permission to visit you in the hospital or to leave your possessions to in your will. Everyone stands in the way of this if it is not a legal spouse. I’m not necessary for calling it a marriage or even having sex but should be able to do these things mentioned w/o having them contested by the courts or anyone else for that matter.

 

[gam197]

As far as I have been told, those things are already in the laws. Would it not have made more sense to just go after a clarification of things that they felt were necessary not going after everything and make these available to all parties that live together - brother or sister, father and daughter, two friends.

No they went after health insurance along time ago. They are not entitled to each other health insurance. They get their own or go to the state for help.

Even when they got health insurance, they didn’t back down and say. “Why am I entitled to another person’s health insurance. I am single and should have my own.”

They then went for more benefits and a remake of the law to declare that their relationship was a marriage on equal par with “sacraficial marriage”.

If you disagree with this, they call you a name. You are “a hateful person a homophobe.”

You may not be for the sex but without sex, there would be no homosexuality. It would be simply friendship. Sex is a major part.

 

[Verisimilitude]

As far as I have been told, those things are already in the laws.

They are not. HIPAA rules are very stringent. 2 years ago my brother was in an accident- a steam line he was working on burst. I live 2000 miles away from him, and received a call from my sister telling me of the accident, and that my my brother may die from the burns. My brothers wife was out of town, and my parents were unable to get any information from the hospital he was transported to. So I called the hospital.

Because my brother is married no one but his wife could be told ANY medical information. When I asked if my brother was in danger of dying I was told they could not tell me. Even if I was there in town, as my sister was, I would have been denied even seeing him.

Thankfully he only wore a burn suit on his upper body for a year+ and did not die, but his blood family had no rights to any information or could not say what his wishes were, or if he had a personal choice about particular medical treatment.

Now think of a gay couple, and one goes into the hospital, the partner has the same restrictions. I support changing the law to allow certain persons designated as legal recipients of such information and authority be they gay or close family relations.

With respect to financial matters, I think it is similar. Insurance benefits that pay a surving spouse benefits with no kids should not be withheld from a declared gay partnership, no matter how I disagree with it.

When the issue is a civil matter such as those it is not a spiritual concern of the Church, the Church should have no particular sway of its enactment. Where the issue is a moral or family matter such as gay adoption I think the Church (and the body of the Church) has an obligation to oppose it.

Some have pointed out this bill has such adoption provisions. If that is the case, I too oppose it. But if a civil union or other legal vehicle has limited elements to make fair the non spiritual realm of the law as noted above- I would not oppose it.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Verismilitude
Insurance benefits that pay a surving spouse benefits with no kids should not be withheld from a declared gay partnership,

My understanding is that employers pay a portion of health insurance, pensions and other benefits. Why should an employer be required to pay anything for a man who choses to have sex with another man

Now think of a gay couple, and one goes into the hospital, the partner has the same restrictions. I support changing the law to allow certain persons designated as legal recipients of such information and authority be they gay or close family relations.

I was told these laws are already in place. I know someone can quote where it didn’t happen but that is also true when it comes to direct family members that relatives take care. Often the hospital doesn’t know the information. No one is saying a gay person should not be allowed into the hospital. If that needs clarification, clarify it. Most people don’t object to that - even a close relative being their for that person. My sister took care of my grandmother. She definitely should have some say. If it comes to assets, a lawyer should have been contacted at the beginning.

 

[goofyjim]

As far as I have been told, those things are already in the laws. Would it not have made more sense to just go after a clarification of things that they felt were necessary not going after everything and make these available to all parties that live together - brother or sister, father and daughter, two friends.

No they went after health insurance along time ago. They are not entitled to each other health insurance. They get their own or go to the state for help.

Even when they got health insurance, they didn’t back down and say. “Why am I entitled to another person’s health insurance. I am single and should have my own.”

They then went for more benefits and a remake of the law to declare that their relationship was a marriage on equal par with “sacraficial marriage”.

If you disagree with this, they call you a name. You are “a hateful person a homophobe.”

You may not be for the sex but without sex, there would be no homosexuality. It would be simply friendship. Sex is a major part.

That’s where the big mistake is made. There can be homosexuality without the sex. It’s equivalent to being sexually attracted to one’s own gender. And maybe they should just drop the HIPAA rules and allow anyone to find out how a loved one is doing.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by goofyjim
. There can be homosexuality without the sex.

This is extremely rare. Most men and women that have partners that I have talked with, about 4 couples, all have talked to me about their active sex lives.

To me if there are no sex, it would just be a loving good friendship. I am not sure you can do without the HIPAA riles. I think sometimes they are there because there are disputes in the family and someone has to be the ordained spokesperson for the mom or dad. Often in a critical situation they only want one person to call or in the room.

If this is not clear, it needs to be cleared up so this incidents won’t happen to partners.

 

[jmj603]

Even the Family Research Council admits that fidelity is not unknown in homosexual couples?

Read it again. They do not admit that fidelity is known in male homosexual couples who have been together for more than 5 years.

How are the stats for unmarried heterosexual couples? Consider that since homosexuals cannot yet marry, this situation is far more analogous.

I’m surprised you concede this point. Whereas the institution of Christian marriage preceded its acceptance by the civil law, the faitfhul, long-term male homosexual couple cannot exist at all without social structures engineered by civil authority. Therefore the argument that the law should recognize “a gay couple that loves each other and having commited to each other” is proven false. That happens to be the argument that began this thread.

Few people have had an interest in documenting long-term, stable homosexual relationships; there’s not really anything in it for them, there’s a smaller base to draw from, and oppressed minorities are generally less willing to participate.

According to their 2006 IRS form 990, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which “engages in research and provides public education and programming”, spent $9.2 million in that year alone. According to Wikipedia, there are now over 40 certificate and degree granting programs in sexual diversity studies in the United States alone and a full department at City College of San Francisco. There’s plenty of resources and motive to do this research, and gays these days are hardly “oppressed” even though they are a tiny minority. Incidentally, why are we redefining the basic structures of society to accomodate a tiny minority?

However, homosexuals can and do have long-term, faithful, stable relationships, even to extremes most heterosexual couples would have given up on. One couple I know was apart for over a year when the deeply condemning father of one of them died; the guilt just overwhelmed him.

Wow…imagine if at that moment you had helped your friend to acknowledge his guilt for choosing the lifestyle he lived and to decide to convert, express contrition (perhaps go to Confession) and live a chaste life!

After a year, they’re back together, stable and happy and now coming on their 23rd year of being partners. Had they been married, that painful separation would never have happened.

Great point! Gay marriage discourages gays from leaving the lifestyle. To state it another way, it effectively encourages them to remain in sin. Therefore it must always and everywhere be opposed by Catholics.

BTW, if your friends really and truly haven’t “incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships”–no lying–then have them contact an academic researcher.

 

[Mirdath]

I’m surprised you concede this point. Whereas the institution of Christian marriage preceded its acceptance by the civil law, the faitfhul, long-term male homosexual couple cannot exist at all without social structures engineered by civil authority. Therefore the argument that the law should recognize “a gay couple that loves each other and having commited to each other” is proven false. That happens to be the argument that began this thread.

Marriage is hardly a novel idea on the part of Christians. It’s been part of society and religion for about as long as either have existed.

Incidentally, why are we redefining the basic structures of society to accomodate a tiny minority?

Because members of that minority are just as human and just as deserving of representation as you are?

Wow…imagine if at that moment you had helped your friend to acknowledge his guilt for choosing the lifestyle he lived and to decide to convert, express contrition (perhaps go to Confession) and live a chaste life!

Why would I do that? He was not feeling guilt over his love life, he was feeling misplaced guilt for his father. The guy was raised strictly religious, and his family never accepted him once they found out he was gay. His father in particular was highly condemning, but my friend still loved him anyway. Then he died. People are weird; they internalize and take on themselves the wrongdoings and undeserved criticisms of others. This is what happened here, not some kind of moral epiphany.

Also, I’m not Catholic.

Great point! Gay marriage discourages gays from leaving the lifestyle. To state it another way, it effectively encourages them to remain in sin. Therefore it must always and everywhere be opposed by Catholics.

You would rather deny our ability to love one another than to admit you might possibly not have a leg to stand on when it comes to what secular civil law does?

BTW, if your friends really and truly haven’t “incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships”–no lying–then have them contact an academic researcher.

I’m not going to treat somebody as a lab rat to prove a point. Nor should it be necessary; constancy is not merely the domain of heterosexuals, bisexuals, and lesbians, and there is nothing in their DNA that makes male homosexuals utterly incapable of practicing it. Since you seem to want historical documentation of a quality not at all often documented even for heterosexuals, allow me to point you to the example of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.

 

[jmj603]

Marriage is hardly a novel idea on the part of Christians. It’s been part of society and religion for about as long as either have existed.

No kidding. I said “Christian marriage”, meaning the abolition of divorce, and other requirements like the woman must freely consent to the marriage, both parties must be of the age of reason, there must be openness to life, etc.

I would greatly appreciate if you stopped lying about what I say. It is a rather desperate debate tactic.

Because members of that minority are just as human and just as deserving of representation as you are?

Bestialists are also a tiny minority–should we rewrite animal welfare laws in order to represent them? If not, why should we rewrite the far more important laws about marriage for any tiny minority?

Why would I do that? He was not feeling guilt over his love life, he was feeling misplaced guilt for his father. The guy was raised strictly religious, and his family never accepted him once they found out he was gay. His father in particular was highly condemning, but my friend still loved him anyway. Then he died. People are weird; they internalize and take on themselves the wrongdoings and undeserved criticisms of others. This is what happened here, not some kind of moral epiphany.

If a man in mortal sin feels remorse of conscience, it isn’t misplaced. It’s the natural order of things, and a gift from God, one which unfortunately goes away if you keep committing the sin. People are supposed to feel guilty for sodomy, because it’s insidiously evil.

Also, I’m not Catholic.

You don’t have to be Catholic to try to help people.

You would rather deny our ability to love one another than to admit you might possibly not have a leg to stand on when it comes to what secular civil law does?

It isn’t love. It is the most selfish act anyone can commit. Demanding the rest of the world change dramatically to accomodate and validate the act is an expression of that deep selfishness.

I’m not going to treat somebody as a lab rat to prove a point.

But you’re willing to experimentally change society’s very foundations in order to prove the same point?

Since you seem to want historical documentation of a quality not at all often documented even for heterosexuals, allow me to point you to the example of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.

Athenian pederasty? That’s your example? In a pagan city as notorious as Athens, sexual fidelity would be truly exceptional. Following the standard Athenian practice, the older man would seduce the boy by molesting him, and the sexual relationship would end “when the youth reached adulthood”. Those two were executed before Harmodius could reach adulthood. Also, according to Wikipedia, “there is a tradition that Aristogeiton was in love with a courtesan (see hetaira) by the name of Leæna (lioness)”. On this basis you would change the definition of marriage?

 

[Mirdath]

Bestialists are also a tiny minority–should we rewrite animal welfare laws in order to represent them? If not, why should we rewrite the far more important laws about marriage for any tiny minority?

Animals cannot consent.

You don’t have to be Catholic to try to help people.

I think we have rather different ideas of what constitutes help.

It isn’t love. It is the most selfish act anyone can commit. Demanding the rest of the world change dramatically to accomodate and validate the act is an expression of that deep selfishness.

Who are you to say it isn’t love?

But you’re willing to experimentally change society’s very foundations in order to prove the same point?

Experimentally? Prove?

Athenian pederasty? That’s your example? In a pagan city as notorious as Athens, sexual fidelity would be truly exceptional.

If you look, they are held up as paragons of devotion. And yes, in Athens, that says a lot. Simply, there is not a lot of historical record devoted to constancy of individuals, gay and straight alike. About the only people who have notes on that through history are Catholic saints, and I’m sure you can see the problem there, traditions regarding Sts. Sergius and Bacchus notwithstanding.

Also, according to Wikipedia, “there is a tradition that Aristogeiton was in love with a courtesan (see hetaira) by the name of Leæna (lioness)”. On this basis you would change the definition of marriage?

Tradition is not history; and love is not sex.

Once again, you fall into that circle: male homosexuals are not popularly well-known for forming long-lasting, constant relationships like marriage – so let’s deny them marriage because we don’t think they form long-lasting, constant relationships!

 

[jmj603]

Animals cannot consent.

If they could, would you be in favor of legalizing bestiality as a minority right?

Who are you to say it isn’t love?

God is the one who says it isn’t love. God should know. He is Love.

Experimentally? Prove?

It’s never been tried before in the history of mankind. You think it’s a good idea, fine, but surely the authors will bother to look at the results just to confirm their presuppositions, right? You wouldn’t just change society in a novel and fundamental way and then ignore the possibility that there might be unexpected consequences, right? Maybe I’m giving the authors too much credit here.

If you look, they are held up as paragons of devotion.

As far as male homosexual relationships go, they probably are. But their pederast relationship began with molestation, lasted less than five years, and was punctuated with one public affair, at least of the heart. As the sole example of a “faithful long-lasting homosexual relationship” analogous to marriage, it seems a bit wanting.

Simply, there is not a lot of historical record devoted to constancy of individuals, gay and straight alike.

The lack of adultery prosecutions and suits to compel wayward spouses to fulfill their duties is enormous evidence, in the many places where these records survive from before the 1800’s.

About the only people who have notes on that through history are Catholic saints, and I’m sure you can see the problem there

What problem is that?

Once again, you fall into that circle: male homosexuals are not popularly well-known for forming long-lasting, constant relationships like marriage – so let’s deny them marriage because we don’t think they form long-lasting, constant relationships!

The state (society) does not create marriage, it recognizes it. The argument that it should recognize analogous homosexual relationships fails because they don’t exist. It fails for a number of other reasons too, many explained well in the Vatican document Considerations.

 

[Mirdath]

If they could, would you be in favor of legalizing bestiality as a minority right?

Of course. If capable of consent, they are persons.

God is the one who says it isn’t love. God should know. He is Love.

God does not say that. In Leviticus it is condemned, but it is not said to be unloving. In Paul’s letters it is condemned, but again not said to be unloving – and Paul seems to have been something of a misanthrope in any case. The only major figure in the bible that I can recall to have said anything about love is Jesus, who isn’t on record saying anything about homosexuality.

It’s never been tried before in the history of mankind. You think it’s a good idea, fine, but surely the authors will bother to look at the results just to confirm their presuppositions, right? You wouldn’t just change society in a novel and fundamental way and then ignore the possibility that there might be unexpected consequences, right? Maybe I’m giving the authors too much credit here.

Wasn’t the ‘Great Experiment’ of a constitutional republic worth a try – as in, the United States?

As far as male homosexual relationships go, they probably are. But their pederast relationship began with molestation, lasted less than five years, and was punctuated with one public affair, at least of the heart. As the sole example of a “faithful long-lasting homosexual relationship” analogous to marriage, it seems a bit wanting.

Males in general are not noted, known, or applauded for being monogamous; that doesn’t mean that they aren’t capable of it. How many examples of unimpugnably constant heterosexual relationships are recorded in history? Not many. Chaste homo- and heterosexual males alike are frankly almost mythical; the constancy of males in any relationship is not generally recorded or even accepted when it should be. Yet in both cases, it exists.

What problem is that?

Impartial historical verification.

The state (society) does not create marriage, it recognizes it. The argument that it should recognize analogous homosexual relationships fails because they don’t exist. It fails for a number of other reasons too, many explained well in the Vatican document Considerations.

Sacramental and civil marriages are entirely different things.