Catholic Response towards Civil Union

  • Thread starter Thread starter sxpacks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sxpacks

Guest
I am a catholic from California and a lot of stuff has been said on Gay marriage.
I thought was a good solution was to allow Civil Unions but not allow gay marriage. However I found out that as Catholics we oppose civil unions. And my question is why?

I’m numbering them so it’s easy for people to respond 🙂
  1. Marriage is between a man and a woman and we’re still keeping that. Gays can have Civil Unions and we keep Marriage.
  2. It grants Gays all the financial/medical benifts of same sex couples. Because as the Lord says, Do unto others as other do Unto you. I wouldn’t want to be denied benefits just because I’m may sin, after all Homosexuals are not sinners. The act of homosexual sex is a sin.
  3. What if the Civil union was a Gay catholic couple. Could they not adopt a child and raise that child to be catholic?
    It would be difficult, but isn’t having 2 fathers/mothers better than having no fathers/mothers.
  4. The knee jerk reaction I have to #3, How do you live one way yet preach another? Well my parents didn’t goto college, but he would constantly encourage me to go to college. They said it was good for me. And I did. I graduated college and it was good for me.
    So couldn’t a Gay catholic couple do that?
-Thanks in advance for your thoughts and prayers
Dennis
 
From the article about Homosexuality
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).

Can’t a homosexual couple be together and remain celebate?
Are we not inferring that people that live together will sleep together? Which isn’t true.
By provided civil unions to a catholic homosexual couple it allows them to adopt and raise a good catholic child with the financial benifits such as child medical care and partner medical care.

I like the mention of the Old Testament vs the New Testament

And from the link on gay marriage:
“same-sex marriage advocates appeal to the economic benefits of marriage. A clever lawyer can create partnerships to confer most of the economic advantages of marriage. Durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance-any of these can be tailored to cover homosexual relationships without the need for marriage”

That seems like a lot of work for something that come so easily for heterosexual couples
 
sxpacks said:
  1. Marriage is between a man and a woman and we’re still keeping that. Gays can have Civil Unions and we keep Marriage.
Click to expand...
Why is this separate name necessary? If the legal and financial benefits are identical why should the government give marriage licenses to straight couples, but civil union licenses to gay couples? Wouldn’t it make sense for the government to give all couples either a marriage license or a civil union license?
 
@ Dale_M
Because as Catholics we believe that a marriage is a religous sacrament for procreation that should be between a man and a woman.
I thought Civil Unions and Heterosexual marriages would be a balance between what the church accepts as marriage and what the state wants as non-discrimination.
However the Catholic chuch is opposed to Civil Unions as well
Which is why i originally posted
 
sxpacks said:
@ Dale_M
Because as Catholics we believe that a marriage is a religous sacrament for procreation that should be between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why the Catholic Church isn’t going to marry a gay couple. But why should government policy follow Catholic doctrine?

I think the principle of separation of Church and State supports the idea of getting government out of the marriage business. Why not just issue licenses of civil union to all couples, and then if a couple wants to get married they can go to their preferred religious organization.
 
@Dale
The question wasn’t about Government policy and Catholic Doctorine.

It was why do we (as Catholics) not allow Civil Unions between same sex couples for the 4 reasons listed above
 
There’s a difference between sacramental marriage (the kind given by the Church) and, say, a non-sacramental one that is not performed in the eyes of God. I’m pretty sure that a lot of the marriages performed by members of the government aren’t always done in the eyes of God (that is, they aren’t sacramental marriages).

But, I see no problem with giving homosexuals civil unions. It’s not like they’re actually married, it’s merely done for economic purposes. If they’re in a steady relationship and living together, I don’t see why they should be denied the benefits of a heterosexual couple in a similar situation (this heterosexual couple, however, isn’t necessarily married).

For instance, my brother has been living with his girlfriend/fiance/whatever-they-call-each-other for quite some time now (a few years). They began living together in South Carolina, and under SC law, after a certain amount of time living together, they were considered to be in a civil union, and could receive the benefits of such. When they moved to Florida, that civil union was maintained, because states have to honor other states’ laws in that regard.

I’m not saying they’re right, but what I am saying is that if a homosexual couple is in that same (or similar) situation, why shouldn’t they be given the same benefits?
 
Dale_M said:
Why not just issue licenses of civil union to all couples, and then if a couple wants to get married they can go to their preferred religious organization.
Click to expand...
Actually I am in favor of this to a certain degree. Marriage is an inherently religious thing. Because early societies were so closely connected with religion, a religious marriage was considered binding/legal/official by the state, whereas nowadays, a legal (non-sacramental) marriage isn’t always considered valid in a given religion.
 
sxpacks said:
@Dale
The question wasn’t about Government policy and Catholic Doctorine.

It was why do we (as Catholics) not allow Civil Unions between same sex couples for the 4 reasons listed above
Click to expand...
oops, I apologize. 😊
 
I find the idea of single gender “marriages” extremely confusing. Imagine how it must look for children.

I look at the government’s interest when it comes to marriage. While marriage involves more than procreation, does the government have any other interest in the relationship between a man and a woman? The legality of marriage lies in protecting children who may result naturally from that relationship.

It is unfortunate that during the past decade, the word partner has come to be defined in sexual terms. It has not always been so. The argument that I hear so often for permitting same gender “marriages” has to do with legal rights. It has to do with being able to visit a partner who is in the hospital and to making life decisions regarding the other person in the relationship. I have no objection to that right, but it need not be limited to those with a sexual relationship. Other laws could be passed allowing best friends to make such choices. I think about the type of relationship that can be found between Cal and Woodrow in Lonesome Dove. To give special rights to relationships that many religions, not simply Christianity, consider sinful, overlooks the rights of individuals in platonic relationships.
 
@Deb Chris
I find the idea of single gender “marriages” extremely confusing. Imagine how it must look for children.

Agreed. It is confusing, but asian child growing up in a white area, race was very confusing to me. The explanation I got as a child and will tell my future children is

“God just made everybody different, but just because they are different we shouldn’t love them any less.”

And this explanation will still hold true for homosexuals and we can continue to teach them that homosexual acts are sinful just as we teach them hate groups based on races are sinful

I’m still confused as to why the Catholic church opposes Civil Unions:confused:
 
DebChris said:
I find the idea of single gender “marriages” extremely confusing. Imagine how it must look for children.
Click to expand...
Children are ignorant. They are too young to understand things the way competent, reasonable adults do. As a child, many things look confusing or strange. And just because something is confusing or strange doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s right or wrong.
I look at the government’s interest when it comes to marriage. While marriage involves more than procreation, does the government have any other interest in the relationship between a man and a woman? The legality of marriage lies in protecting children who may result naturally from that relationship.
Click to expand...
The government has tons of interests in marriage/civil unions, primarily economic. Think about household spending, taxes, things along those lines. Married/civilly unioned couples (and especially those with children) get tax benefits. If you prohibit a segment fairly decent-sized segment of the population from forming a legal union, the government gets more money in the long run. So, while there are moral concerns regarding homosexual civil unions, those moral concerns aren’t the only concerns.
Other laws could be passed allowing best friends to make such choices.
Click to expand...
That will never happen, simply because it’s illogical and wouldn’t work according to plan. How would you designate someone a “best friend?” What if someone argues that they are someone else’s best friend? I can only imagine the social/legal troubles that would come out. Having to officially label someone as your “best friend” so that they can make important decisions of life or death would not go over well. I mean, you’d have to legalize the term “friend.” That’s just not gonna happen.
 
faithfulone said:
gay catholic couple sounds like an oxymoron
Click to expand...
It isn’t. There are actually gay Christian couples that maintain a pure relationship. More like a deep friendship, romantic, but pure.

As far as I am concerned, I see no sense in limiting people’s freedoms that do not affect the lives of innocent people by harming them in any means possible.

And I see no sense in banning civil-unions either. It’s not like people will become chaste all of the sudden when they see a religion forcing its will upon them through the state…

counter-productive
 
sxpacks said:
@Deb Chris
I find the idea of single gender “marriages” extremely confusing. Imagine how it must look for children.

Agreed. It is confusing, but asian child growing up in a white area, race was very confusing to me. The explanation I got as a child and will tell my future children is

“God just made everybody different, but just because they are different we shouldn’t love them any less.”

And this explanation will still hold true for homosexuals and we can continue to teach them that homosexual acts are sinful just as we teach them hate groups based on races are sinful

I’m still confused as to why the Catholic church opposes Civil Unions:confused:
Click to expand...
There is a difference between looks, race, and behavior. Marriage is sacred. It a decision made between a man and a woman with the potentiality of giving life.
It is true that not everybody chooses to marry, for whatever reason. The bottom line is those who seek marriage other than between a man and woman are seeking legitimacy for the act.
We can still love one another. Love is not confined to sexual activity. To force me to accept that which is against my faith is to force another person’s moral values on me.

I lived overseas as a child. I know what it is like to be among those who look different. I answered my grandchild in the same way when he asked why he was the only person who was apricot in his HeadStart class while everybody else was brown.

Friendship or partnership does not need to be legally defined. I simply stated a position that two individuals, regardless of sexual relationship, should have the right to visit one another in the hospital. Not everybody has family nearby. I pointed to the traditional idea of partnership, one that closely resembles that of Woodrow and Cal in Lonesome Dove.

Some of us choose to live chaste lives.
I listened to a speaker during a Eucharist Conference who talks to teens about sexuality. She draws on the Theology of the Body. She uses the example of a precious gem, not simply treated like cheap zirconium. We do not want to lose sight of the sacred in our lives.
 
@DebsChris
Friendship or partnership does not need to be legally defined.

If a civil union is not defined by law how do same sex couples go about getting these rights that you mentioned in your post. Me and my fiance will soon be getting our marriage sacrament. If you were to ask me to get all that done through a lawyer that would be very complex and it may vary from lawyer to lawyer.

I still don’t get it why Catholics oppose Civil Unions
Marriage will still be the sacrament marriage in our church don’t we alllow atheist couples to wed in our churches (don’t we?) even though we don’t know what they’ll do behind closed doors.
But when Civil Unions ceremonies come to our door we automatically assume they’re going to sin.

still confused about why the Catholic church opposes Civil Unions :confused:
 
sxpacks said:
@DebsChris
Friendship or partnership does not need to be legally defined.

If a civil union is not defined by law how do same sex couples go about getting these rights that you mentioned in your post. Me and my fiance will soon be getting our marriage sacrament. If you were to ask me to get all that done through a lawyer that would be very complex and it may vary from lawyer to lawyer.

I still don’t get it why Catholics oppose Civil Unions
Marriage will still be the sacrament marriage in our church don’t we alllow atheist couples to wed in our churches (don’t we?) even though we don’t know what they’ll do behind closed doors.
But when Civil Unions ceremonies come to our door we automatically assume they’re going to sin.

still confused about why the Catholic church opposes Civil Unions :confused:
Click to expand...
They are making a public statement of personal intent.
That is not the same thing as two people sharing a domicile, of being roommates.
The marriage between 2 atheists (man and woman) is recognized. The creation of life is a gift from God regardless of personal belief. The receipt of a Sacrament within the Church involves a belief in God that the atheist does not hold.
 
A civil union is the legal equivalent of a marriage. If my unmarried best friend wanted to give me certain legal rights, I’d have to divorce my husband to enter a “civil union” with her.
How would you designate someone a “best friend?”
Click to expand...
By a legal process to name them “next of kin.” This would not affect marital status.

An example. I discovered that my work-related life insurance automatically designated my father, whom I’ve met twice, as my next of kin. I had to sign a form to designate my sister as my beneficiary. Naturally, I’m not married to either of them.

A legal method to declare a person “next of kin” would give them the right to inherit if no will is written, and the right to visit that person in the hospital, among other rights inherent in being the *actual *next of kin.

That, I’d be in favor of.

Ruthie
 
Ruthie said:
A civil union is the legal equivalent of a marriage. If my unmarried best friend wanted to give me certain legal rights, I’d have to divorce my husband to enter a “civil union” with her.

By a legal process to name them “next of kin.” This would not affect marital status.

An example. I discovered that my work-related life insurance automatically designated my father, whom I’ve met twice, as my next of kin. I had to sign a form to designate my sister as my beneficiary. Naturally, I’m not married to either of them.

A legal method to declare a person “next of kin” would give them the right to inherit if no will is written, and the right to visit that person in the hospital, among other rights inherent in being the *actual *next of kin.

That, I’d be in favor of.

Ruthie
Click to expand...
Thanks for restating what I was trying to say. The person designated as “next of kin” could be a friend with whom a person has a long term relationship. That relationship could be platonic.
Not everybody has a family nearby. We might need to find another term to use. “Significant other” would work if it did not have sexual connotations attached.
Life insurance forms ask for the beneficiary’s relationship to the insured. Medical forms could be written the same way. A person needing medical care could simply say “trusted friend” for who to contact in case of emergency and the person designated to make decisions if the person is unable.
Isn’t that the most common “right” being sought?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top