P
Padilla7921
Guest
But a civil union isn’t the thing same as a marriage.
- Status
D
dkdempsey
Guest
Marriage is a legal issue, and is independent of religion. I don’t understand why some might be upset about gay people getting married. It may be the official view of the Catholic Church to be against it, but many Catholics might actually be accepting of it,
D
DebChris
Guest
Civil union, as used in the current vernacular has to do with a sexual relationship. There is only one such relationship that the church accepts as holy and that is the relationship between a man and a woman with it potential to create life.
The protection of that life is the only interest that government has in the relationship. Our very names come from the family to which we belong.
For the Catholic Church to accept civil unions would be to compromise with evil, to honor that which is scriptually described as sinful. It is described as a sin against the self.
What I do find acceptable are laws that allow a “trusted friend” to visit a sick person in the hospital or to make those life decisions that would be made by “next of kin” if “next of kin” were not available. The is the biggest argument that I hear for “civil unions.” Laws can be written that honor long term relationships without giving priority to those that are sexually based.
P
Padilla7921
Guest
Not necessarily. Marriage was originally a religious thing (and still is). However, a civil union is not the same thing as marriage. It’s an official proclamation of domestic unity between two homosexual people (though some nations or states allow heterosexual civil unions).
S
sxpacks
Guest
So back to the original question.
Civil union is not a religious “thing”. Why does the catholic church oppose civil unions?
I saw a convincing argument from London about why we should and I would like to share it with you.
youtube.com/watch?v=snseY3rFTsk
Civil union is not a religious “thing”. Why does the catholic church oppose civil unions?
I saw a convincing argument from London about why we should and I would like to share it with you.
youtube.com/watch?v=snseY3rFTsk
A
AgingCatholic
Guest
The position of the Church can be read here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Basically, it argues that unions are still marriages in societal purpose, so their existance erodes the Sacrament of Marriage, hence the Family. However, this does not supercede our responsibility to justice (see footnote 16 and the reference to it), so while the Church does object to civil unions, it does support certain rights, like healthcare and medical visitation rights.
D
DebChris
Guest
Which comes back to my previous statements.
Civil unions do erode the Sacrament of Matrimony.
The state’s only interest in marriage is the protection of children who may result from the union.
Laws can be written to provide healthcare and medical visitation rights for individuals who do not necessarily have family close by. These laws need to be written in such a way as to not give priority to those relationships which are sexual in nature over those which are not. To do otherwise is to deny the sacred.
A
AgingCatholic
Guest
But if we only address gays and civil union, but ignore the relentless and obvious erosion of divorce, we lose moral authority. If we are selective in application, then we are clearly demonstrating that we are more interested in the discrimination than the actual protection of a fundemental construct of the family.
This is much the way that we often erode our moral authority on abortion. The Church is quite consistant, but many Catholics are quick to push even prudential aspects of our teachings on abortions to extremes, then turn around and argue vigorously that other strongly held church positions on life are ‘optional’ because they are not ‘infallible’. If one picks and chooses which forms of life to hold sacred, then goes even farther and votes for politicians who hold imperfect views on even those forms, it is hard to be taken seriously when we turn around and speak in moral absolutes.
Pope Benedict has used the phrase Eucharistic Consistancy. We must be morally consistant to show that certain things are, in fact, held dear.
D
DebChris
Guest
When men lose sight of God, then marriages are in disorder.
Divorce, as scripture says, was only allowed under Mosaic Law due to hardness of heart. It is not encouraged by the Church which continues to teach the indissolubility of marriage.
Divorce hurts the abandoned spouse as well as children.
Divorce lawyers have profited by Connecticut’s law.
Divorce, as scripture says, was only allowed under Mosaic Law due to hardness of heart. It is not encouraged by the Church which continues to teach the indissolubility of marriage.
Divorce hurts the abandoned spouse as well as children.
Divorce lawyers have profited by Connecticut’s law.
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
- Civil union laws don’t just redefine marriage, they also redefine certain acts of heteronormacy as a hate crime. So depending on the extent of redefinition, a vote for Civil unions is a vote to close Catholic adoption agencies, hospitals, schools and so forth. [note: depending on the extent of the redefinition]
- The Church teaches that the family must be protected by society. The right of a child to be raised by their mother and father is protected by traditional marriage.
- There are some states where it is not legal for homosexual couples to adopt. Something like that passed in AR this last election if I remember correctly. In other states like MA, it’s illegal for Catholics to refuse them.
- True, there are alot of people that can parent who don’t have a vocation to marriage and the Church has nothing against them. Nuns are good at raising orphans, but even they will bow out if a kid gets a chance having a family.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
because it encourages an unnatural state
The issues are unrelated
The “financial/medical benifts” are to benefit the children, not the spouse
certainly many good people can raise children, however Natural Moral Law places children to male & female parents
again there are many good people, however that is not how nature creates children
Additionally, bad marriages do not justify civil unions. It is not about hurting SSA people. It is not about pretending the SSA couple are a natural couple. btw- the people you spoke of use “power of attorney” to achieve your/their goals
hope that helps
G
gavanhe
Guest
Not sure why any catholic would want the sanction of the church to live together as friends for any gender type arrangement as the church doesn’t condemn those arrangements.
As for sanctioning civil union arrangements for the purposes of adopting children any catholic worth his/her salt can see huge hurdles.
Gerry
As for sanctioning civil union arrangements for the purposes of adopting children any catholic worth his/her salt can see huge hurdles.
Gerry
F
fix
Guest
Exactly. If a civil union is not a faux marriage then could such a union be among 3 persons, or 12, or 30? Why only 2?
R
RyanML
Guest
I must admit i’ve never quite understood this concept
. How would the state’s recognition of civil unions be forcing another person’s moral values on anyone? You might as well say that the state allowing the Buddhists to build a temple in town is forcing you to accept Buddhism or giving the Methodists the right to build their churches is forcing you to accept protestantism 
D
DebChris
Guest
It is not the same thing. The first amendment protects the rights of the individual to worship as he or she pleases. Mormons, following their faith, accepted polygamy as normal. Even with that relationship, one knows who the husband is and who the wives are.I must admit i’ve never quite understood this concept
When we move into the idea of civil unions, however, we are dealing with the difference between what constitutes sin and what does not constitute sin. The legalization of civil unions forces members of the religious groups mentioned to accept the lawfulness of these unions while denying the teaching that these unions are sinful. It causes great confusion that is contrary to what is being taught.
The traditional definition of marriage revolves around the complimentary nature of man and woman. Civil unions deny that relationship.
Anybody, regardless of gender, can live with another person as brother and sister. Civil unions, within the current vernacular, places a sexual relationship incompatible with religious belief on the same level as marriage between a man and a woman. It gives rights to a sinful relationship that a non-sinful relationship between members of the same gender is denied.
By definition, law enforces the social mores of a society.
R
RyanML
Guest
But states already recognize as legal what the Church considers sinful. Common law marriages are recognized as legitimate by the state, but not by the Church, the same with civil marriages witnessed by a justice of the peace which the Church considers invalid and therefore the couple is living in sin. The state would also recognize a couples right to artificial contraception. And not all people of religious faith agree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. They could accuse you of forcing your religious beliefs on them.
D
DebChris
Guest
Common law marriages developed during a time when clergy or justices of the peace were not around to perform the ceremony. Generally speaking, a common law marriage becomes legal after a certain amount of time.
The only relationship that results in children is the relationship between men and women. The fact that the complimentary relationship may result in children is the only stake the state has in the relationship. The child is given his/her name as a result of that marriage.
Marriage was around long before the establishment of the Church.
There is no forcing of religious belief when it comes to the state recognizing the union of man and woman, nor is there any disrespect of anybody’s religious belief.
I am not concerned about what a person does behind closed doors. Do not however ask me to accept by virtue of the law that which my faith teaches as immoral.
A man and woman living together, sexually or as brother and sister, are not given special privileges by virtue of their living together unless or until they are legally married.
The quest for civil union is a quest for rights based on a sexual relationship that is considered sinful. Again, it is a request for rights over roommates or lifelong friends who share a domicile.
While an individual may reject religious teaching, Christianity is not the only religion to preach against the acts of adultery, fornication, and homosexuality. These acts are also contrary to Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam.
Of course the Church’s stance will be against those acts which are contrary to its teachings.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Hello! I am also from California, So Cal to be exact.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
-Thanks in advance for your thoughts and prayers
- Marriage is between a man and a woman and we’re still keeping that. Gays can have Civil Unions and we keep Marriage.
- 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.
- 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.- 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?
Dennis
I am opposed to gay unions - legal or illegal - because I am opposed to homosexual activities, which are a mortal sin and an offense against charity.
I am opposed to the legalization of free unions (gay or otherwise) because, if a free union is given the same legal status as a marriage, than it will be made equal to marriage, and if made equal to marriage, than people will start to oppose marriage, and in opposing marriage, families will be attacked, and than the world will be in trouble. Laugh if you want, but history will repeat itself if free unions are legalized. No, not overnight, not in a few years, but in the course of years - like a snowball starting off on top of a hill and being pushed down, than growing bigger and bigger as it gathers more snow as it rolls down the hill, eventually becoming a snowball too big for anyone to handle.
R
RyanML
Guest
I understand, but you can not use the “sinfulness” of a relationship as a valid argument against it in a pluralistic society. Just as an example, how could you convince a gay couple who are liberal Anglicans that they should not be allowed a civil union? They wouldn’t believe that their relationship is offensive to God so you couldn’t use the “sinfulness” argument because then you would be trying to force them to live by your religious convictions. Should the state also insist that heterosexual couples be open to life and monitor whether or not they have children? It sounds silly, but if the only reason for states to support the marital union is for the good of the children that come from that union, shouldn’t the state only support marriages that are open to children? What about couples who get married and have no intention of ever having children?
D
DebChris
Guest
Individuals may choose to live in a sexual relationship. The argument becomes whether or not the government should give that relationship legal status as a civil union, therefore rights that individuals who choose not to engage in the same act do not have. The answer is an unequivocal no. It is not the same as the relationship between a man and a woman. It is not complimentary. There are very well difference between men and women. Would a hammer be used against a hammer?
The circular argument comes back to legal acceptance of an immoral act over moral actions and lifestyle.
Yes, the term moral and immoral are appropriate terms. Law codifies that which society accepts as moral and decries that which is immoral from thievery to murder. That does not mean that all actions that take place within a society fall within the bounds of a law. Homosexual acts do not fall under the law nor are they against the law. Civil unions would codify the act, placing it under a law that demands acceptance of an immoral act.
The Catholic Church recognizes the difference between the person and the act.
The circular argument comes back to legal acceptance of an immoral act over moral actions and lifestyle.
Yes, the term moral and immoral are appropriate terms. Law codifies that which society accepts as moral and decries that which is immoral from thievery to murder. That does not mean that all actions that take place within a society fall within the bounds of a law. Homosexual acts do not fall under the law nor are they against the law. Civil unions would codify the act, placing it under a law that demands acceptance of an immoral act.
The Catholic Church recognizes the difference between the person and the act.
- Status