Catholic Response towards Civil Union

  • Thread starter Thread starter sxpacks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DebChris said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t seem consistent to me. If you are going to deny legal rights and protections to gay couples because homosexual activity is sinful then you must also deny the right to marry to heterosexual couples who never have any intention of having children, as such intentions invalidate a marriage making it fornication. The same goes for the argument with procreation. Gay couples can’t and many straight couples won’t so in either case, the government would be giving rights and benefits to solely sexual relationships. I think the argument for the legality of a sexual relationship based on the complementarity of the “plumbing” is pretty silly, granted that’s just my opinion.
 
RyanML said:
I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t seem consistent to me. If you are going to deny legal rights and protections to gay couples because homosexual activity is sinful then you must also deny the right to marry to heterosexual couples who never have any intention of having children, as such intentions invalidate a marriage making it fornication. The same goes for the argument with procreation. Gay couples can’t and many straight couples won’t so in either case, the government would be giving rights and benefits to solely sexual relationships. I think the argument for the legality of a sexual relationship based on the complementarity of the “plumbing” is pretty silly, granted that’s just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The question is not asked about intention for the marriage. Some states have blood tests for physical compatibility–should the couple have children. Even if a couple marries with no intention to have children, that decision can change. Vasectomies are reversible. Other birth control methods fail. Physically only one relationship is capable of procreation. I do not hear heterosexual couples stating that they want to marry because of the rights and benefits that they may receive.
Since legalizing same sex “marriages,” it is divorce lawyers handling the dissolution of these relationships who have profited (I think it was a 60 minutes report).
Do you really want a law that justifies sin?
OP was the Church’s stance. The “plumbing” as you put it only fits in the one relationship.
 
DebChris said:
The question is not asked about intention for the marriage. Some states have blood tests for physical compatibility–should the couple have children. Even if a couple marries with no intention to have children, that decision can change. Vasectomies are reversible. Other birth control methods fail. Physically only one relationship is capable of procreation. I do not hear heterosexual couples stating that they want to marry because of the rights and benefits that they may receive.
Since legalizing same sex “marriages,” it is divorce lawyers handling the dissolution of these relationships who have profited (I think it was a 60 minutes report).
Do you really want a law that justifies sin?
OP was the Church’s stance. The “plumbing” as you put it only fits in the one relationship.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but it still looks like a double standard to me. If the real concern is supporting by law only that which is pure and virtuous, then only heterosexual couples who have children should receive marital rights and benefits. If you are arguing that the law should recognize all heterosexual unions simply because of the potentiality of children then the law should also recognize lesbian unions because the potentiality for children is just as possible, albeit not through “normal” means. If the real concern is a couple benefiting society by raising children, then gay couples could do just as well by adopting. What if you had a situation where a single father was homosexual or bisexual and he found a partner and they both shared in the raising of the child? Irregardless of whether you agree with the lifestyle or not, should this family not receive benefits and protections under the law? It just seems to me that instead of logically coming to a conclusion, a lot of folks start with the conclusion or some prejudice or stereotype and then try and find reasons to back them up.
 
Even if a couple marries with no intention to have children, that decision can change.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you’re arguing that civil unions for gay couples should not be legal because it would justify sin. But the Church also teaches that a couple must be open to life for a marriage to be valid. If a couple marries with the intent of never having children then this invalidates a marriage and then, according to the Church, the couple is living in sin. The Church teaches the same in respect to marriages witnessed by a justice of the peace. Yet, this is protected under the law. The state will recognize as valid any union between a man and a woman, even if they practice artificial contraception and intentionally never have children. Hence the state is recognizing a purely sexual relationship, hence, a law that justifies sin. If you are going to impose the Church’s morality through law, you need to be consistent.
 
There is no inconsistency when we look at scripture, both the OT and the NT. The homosexual act is a sin against self.

These things are too wonderful for me, yes, four I cannot understand. the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock,The way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a woman. (Proverbs 31:18-19).

CCC2357…[Homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

CCC2360Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes the sign and pledge of spiritual communion…
 
I actually believe that legal marriage should be abolished for everyone. Individuals should be able to draw up contracts among themselves defining the specific legal ramifications of their relationships ( be they something we would recognize as marriage, very close friends running a household together, same sex couples, polyamorous relationships or whatever else people want to do).

Religious marriage should be separate from legal arrangements. This just makes sense to me. We live in a pluralistic society, and many people can make well considered decisions that are moral in the context of their belief system. I may believe that they are wrong, but that’s a personal belief based on my own faith and conscience.

I don’t expect the law uphold all my beliefs. That was possible when nations were much more homogeneous than they are now. The job of the law, in my opinion, is to facilitate the economic and physical peace of citizens and to otherwise butt the heck out.
 
There is no inconsistency when we look at scripture, both the OT and the NT. The homosexual act is a sin against self.
Click to expand...
Most Biblical scholars would disagree. Biblical injunctions against homosexual activity seem to have more to do with social and cultural norms than with moral absolutes. That’s not an excuse for ignoring the Church’s teaching, but I don’t think the issue is as black and white as once supposed. But on this we must agree to disagree. God bless! 🙂
 
RyanML said:
Most Biblical scholars would disagree. Biblical injunctions against homosexual activity seem to have more to do with social and cultural norms than with moral absolutes. That’s not an excuse for ignoring the Church’s teaching, but I don’t think the issue is as black and white as once supposed. But on this we must agree to disagree. God bless! 🙂
Click to expand...
Sory my friend but there is only one magisterium. The Holy Spirit is not divided.
 
We can look at the Council of Jerusalem in which the Apostles debated about whether or not converts needed to follow Mosaic Law. The decision was that new converts needed to refrain from illicit sexual relationships and meat sacrificed to idols.
Later when we read the Epistles of Paul, it is definitively stated that fornication, adultery, and homosexuality lead to damnation. Those who commit these sins against the flesh hurt not only others, but themselves as well.
There is more involved than merely social norms. At the same time social norms do reflect the moral climate of a nation and/or culture, pluralistic or otherwise.
 
fix said:
Sory my friend but there is only one magisterium. The Holy Spirit is not divided.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing the problem with the solution. RyanML pointed out that there is a contradiction in scripture. This would appear to be widely accepted as correct. There is also some contradiction in holy tradition, though not for many centuries.

For Catholics, such contradictions do not represent a problem. We have an apostolic Church, which provides us with proper interpretation of doctrine. However, we do not have a lot of eccumenical guidence, nor has a pope spoken ex cathedra, so we cannot deem our current position to be a moral absolute.

Look at the CDF’s document on civil unions which I linked to before. It is quite forceful, but openly describes the situation as “discrimination”. However, it notes that discrimination is permissible until it interferes with justice. Since secular unions have some taxation and civil rights implications, there is some area of moral ambiguity.

What I find interesting is that many of the Catholics who howl at the suggestion of moral ambiguity in this case often grant themselves some moral latitude with the same teaching. Consider how the Church references the teaching with regards to voting:
The family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

This is put very forcefully, it is even described as a “fundamental and inalienable ethical demand”. But while I see a lot of enthusiasm for the snippet “between a man and a woman” I see a lot less enthusiasm for promoting the rest. This raises the legitimate question as to rather or not we are motivated by a desire to target and discriminate, which would be sinful, or a sincere desire to defend the family. While we remain selective in our embrace of the teaching, we remain open to the secular accusations of hate.
 
Civil Unions have been legal in NZL for some time. When it was legalised teh stupid govt at the time were more interested in scoring brownie points with the gay community so didn’t write the law very well to rush it through. Essentially if you’ve been married for three years you can change it over to a “Clivil union” but it works both ways, if you’ve been in a civil union for three years you can have it legally changed and thusly recognised as a “marriage”.

Ergo, Gay marriage is legal.

As for gay couples adopting children, what I would like to know, is when will society stop treating like they’re some form of property?? Children need a mother and a father, to be a in firm, married relationship. All the literature says that - of course the gay community won’t let you know that. Children deserve the best start in life, and in America, on average the gay relationship only lasts 5 years, gays live shorter lives and often times are involved in drinking, drug use, sexual promosquity et cetera. And while straight couples can also be involved in this, the statsitics point to Gays as being over represented in those figues. Who would want to support allowing an unstable couple take in a child when there are so many stable married straight couples unable to have children?

And since a large chunk of the gay community supports abortion, which kills over 1.5million in the US annually. They cant have their cake and eat it too.
 
DebChris said:
Later when we read the Epistles of Paul, it is definitively stated that fornication, adultery, and homosexuality lead to damnation. Those who commit these sins against the flesh hurt not only others, but themselves as well.
Click to expand...
But notice that the list is plural. With the level at which promiscuity outside of marriage is celebrated in our culture and the extraordinary failure rate of all marriages (50%?), it is hypocritical to focus exclussively on gay unions.

I think that we tend to focus exclussively on just one aspect of the teaching because it is easy, we can point at others and condemn them rather than confronting our own moral degradation. It also fits nicely into our own dehumanizing biases.

Consider how far so many of us went in excusing John McCain’s ‘marriage’, which is about as licit as public beastiality, or Sarah Palin’s family values, which include two generations of out of wedlock conceptions…

We generally accept this because it represents the level to which we have morally declined. But instead of confronting that, and its terrible toll on children and society, we transfer blame and responsiblity onto a small group and then congradulate ourselves for going after them.
 
vera_dicere said:
And since a large chunk of the gay community supports abortion, which kills over 1.5million in the US annually. They cant have their cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
At least 40% of practicing Catholics (self identified as weekly (or more) attendence) are not in complete agreement with the Church on abortion. This rises to over 50% when we are querried about specific situations.

With that in mind, it seems a bit dishonest to try to create guilt by association with an intrinsic evil.
 
AgingCatholic said:
But notice that the list is plural. With the level at which promiscuity outside of marriage is celebrated in our culture and the extraordinary failure rate of all marriages (50%?), it is hypocritical to focus exclussively on gay unions.

I think that we tend to focus exclussively on just one aspect of the teaching because it is easy, we can point at others and condemn them rather than confronting our own moral degradation. It also fits nicely into our own dehumanizing biases.

Consider how far so many of us went in excusing John McCain’s ‘marriage’, which is about as licit as public beastiality, or Sarah Palin’s family values, which include two generations of out of wedlock conceptions…

We generally accept this because it represents the level to which we have morally declined. But instead of confronting that, and its terrible toll on children and society, we transfer blame and responsiblity onto a small group and then congradulate ourselves for going after them.
Click to expand...
If you have read my posts, you will notice that at no time do I place any of these sins on a different level from the others.
A history of sin within one family does not justify the legitimization of another.
 
DebChris said:
If you have read my posts, you will notice that at no time do I place any of these sins on a different level from the others.
A history of sin within one family does not justify the legitimization of another.
Click to expand...
It was not my intent to accuse you of a belief, nor am I excusing anyone’s sin.

I meant only to build upon the point you had made. That is, we are repeatedly warned in the Gospels that it is perilous to put our energies into judging others. We are advised to focus on committing ourselves to the service of others and looking towards reducing our own plentiful sins.

As Catholics, we must look to our motives as well as our actions. As St. Paul pointed out, the thought alone is sinful. Because of the Protestant bent of our culture we often fall into moral relativism between ourselves and others. For some subjects, like abortion, this is hard to discuss clearly. Because direct abortion is infallibly held to be never licit, it is hard to address the possible hypocrisy of ignoring non-absolute life related teachings.

However, this is a much easier context. Our teaching is not to ‘get gays’. But quite the opposite. We are instructed to love them as our neighbors inspite of their sins. Our teaching is to protect the family and the sacrament of marriage. If we do this only in the most selective way it is probably a good opportunity for self reflection.

FWIW, I use ‘we’ a great deal in discussing Catholicism, not because I am trying to politely suggest ‘you’, but because our concept of the “body of the faithful” is a significant distinction between us and the Protestant majority we live with.
 
The Church does not allow atheists to receive the Sacrament of Marriage. Because of the Incarnation, though marriage has been forever changed, even natural marriage between two atheists. Marriage now transcends time and even original sin. It has escaped it.
 
Homosexual acts are inherently disordered., whereas those of adultery or fornication are not. The marital act is within marriage is holy. Fornication and adultery are the marital act outside marriage. Homosexual acts are not the marital act at all. Yes, all of these are sins which lead to damnation, but the homosexual acts are furthest from the marital act. That is why they are more corrupting and lead to more destructive of society and family life quicker…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top