Celibate gay couple and civil marriage

[Joie_de_Vivre]

**Why do you resign yourself to remain a ‘SSA’ woman?
**

Sexuality rather seldom changes.

For each of us we need to access the conditions around us to ensure we are not in an environment, that if circumstances would change, find us in an occasion for sin.

Says who? And how does however it is suggest that we do that?

If satan should return to you and tempted you later, how would your choice to live this way now help you to fend off the temptation?

Meaningful relationships actually help quite a bit especially if both are devout Catholics.

It is my opinion you are still submitting to a temptation, your only at phase 1 of a grander scheme that will certainly have no benefit to you when it plays out to completion.

How is she still submitting to a temptation and what temptation is that?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t think two friends should equal a marriage. But I guess that’s the way this new definition of marriage is working. Pretty soon anything will be called a marriage as long as it includes at least two individuals living together. Or maybe one day we can marry ourselves.

 

[djames99]

Being friends assumes mutual concern for the other’s well being and future.

There was never any ‘new’ way. Man does not have the authority to change God’s definition. People have been trying NEW ways since the reformation, and it taught them nothing.

A marriage is a contract between a man and woman. With the minister’s blessing, that is, a Minister whom Christ defined is his true minister, confers the second element which is Sacramental. This part gives the marriage it’s Sanctity, and is recorded in the celestial log.

In order to effect the Sacramental, the minister should be a priest. This is because Christ established the Catholic Church, not the protestant church, or any other church. The full fruits of the Sacraments can be found in the Church that Christ established.

The civil marriage is an administrative one only and serves the purpose of facilitating community affairs. It’s authority to marry between same sex people,(horses and chickens,rocks and trees), is determined by majority rule, not God’s rule. But we don’t need to invent lies to know to stay clear of it. There is proof it cares little about sanctity, in that to them unborn children are not human, and prisoners are not worth keeping alive. Why would anyone cling to the precepts of officers of an institution who extol the merits of marriage, and in the sidelines do what they can to prove they don’t even value life?.

3/It is a sin because we are rejecting God’s gift of Sanctification.

4/There is NO such thing as a marriage between SS couples. It can only be described in terms of the negative since God forbids it. If He does so, then it is not a ‘good’. Therefore, it is a cult ritual just like playing around with ouijia boards and witchcraft. Satan presides in such ceremony, the contract recorded in the netherworld.

5/Catholics need to reference their parish priest and the deposit of the Faith for information, hold to scrutiny advice from anyone who wears the label ‘christian’ and is non-Catholic. He should learn from catholic sources only.

 

[Monica59]

What would be your objective in seeking civil marriage?

One of the objectives would be the fact that I would be paying half the cost for my health insurance, and also would be able to get half her monthly annuity from the postal service if she predeceases me.

 

[Rau]

One of the objectives would be the fact that I would be paying half the cost for my health insurance, and also would be able to get half her monthly annuity from the postal service if she predeceases me.

A financial deal? I don’t understand US health insurance so can’t comment on that one (other than to say your pricing sounds interesting!)

As to the annuity, you should be arguing for that problem to be solved. - it has little to do with marriage. In many jurisdictions, the full suite of financial “benefits” available to a spouse or dependant all apply to defactos, including same sex.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

A financial deal? I don’t understand US health insurance so can’t comment on that one (other than to say your pricing sounds interesting!)

In the US, if you are neither spouse or related you rarely get anything. What’s considered mid-range healthcare costs about $4k in the US and for low income people $1-2K per year is pretty huge.

As to the annuity, you should be arguing for that problem to be solved. - it has little to do with marriage. In many jurisdictions, the full suite of financial “benefits” available to a spouse or dependant all apply to defactos, including same sex.

She lives in the US, if she tried to do that she’d get attacked for supporting “the gay agenda”. Often not even heterosexual common law spouses except in those few states that recognized common law marriage get benefits.

 

[marymary1975]

The answers given by 1ke and Corky pretty much sum it all and are right in point. You gotta be clear that in the eyes of the catholic church there is no such thing as a a sane sex “marriage.” Impossible and it doesn’t exist and no a homosexual relationship is not the same as a marriage or treated similarly as a heterosexual relation. Obtaining a civil marriage is wrong in the eyes if the church and just like 1 ke said, same sex annulments don’t exists. For the chur h same sex marriage is like putting a dog custom on a cat and say that it is not a cat that is a dog and present it to everyone as a dog. No matter how many times you say is a dog it is not it will remain a cat forever. No matter how much society calls it a marriage and it doesn’t matter if legally a figure is created for that purpose, it is not a marriage and never will.

Second, as corky very well stated the situation of living celibate as neither and sister is a very specific solution to one particular issue. That issue is not present in the OP so it doesn’t apply. Moreover, living together if you are a lesbian with another woman with whom you are purporting a relationship is sinful. No matter if there is no sex it is still sinful. Besides the sin of scandal you would be placing yourself in a near occasion of sin which is a sin too. That leaving behind the fact that you would be sending the message that you support SSM.

So yes living together in your situation is sinful.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In the US, if you are neither spouse or related you rarely get anything. What’s considered mid-range healthcare costs about $4k in the US and for low income people $1-2K per year is pretty huge.

She lives in the US, if she tried to do that she’d get attacked for supporting “the gay agenda”. Often not even heterosexual common law spouses except in those few states that recognized common law marriage get benefits.

Not true. Most employers have given co-insurance to any form of “life partner” for years and years now. You most definitely do not have to be married to claim it.

 

[SMGS127]

Not true. Most employers have given co-insurance to any form of “life partner” for years and years now. You most definitely do not have to be married to claim it.

That’s not true at all. They only offer it in the states where gay marriage is illegal. In states where it is legal, it is literally the only way to obtain the financial benefits, legal and medical protections, and inheritance rights that doesn’t cost a gazillion dollars.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That’s not true at all. They only offer it in the states where gay marriage is illegal. In states where it is legal, it is literally the only way to obtain the financial benefits, legal and medical protections, and inheritance rights that doesn’t cost a gazillion dollars.

Really? If that is true, gay marriage is actually a limitation and a step backwards for homosexuals. How crazy. I wonder if the insurance companies have something to do with gay marriage becoming legal.

 

[SMGS127]

Really? If that is true, gay marriage is actually a limitation and a step backwards for homosexuals. How crazy. I wonder if the insurance companies have something to do with gay marriage becoming legal.

No the way it works is that companies and insurances want to provide for long-term couples for societal purposes (especially insurances, as long term couples have lower insurance payouts). If gay marriage is illegal, they provide benefits by self-representation of your coupling, because there’s no way for them to know otherwise, and it’s still a cheaper option. When gay marriage is legal, the insurance companies can zero in on the lowest-cost couples to cover and provide lower rates in order to encourage gay couples to marry in order to reduce payouts. They do the same thing with straights, but straight people have always been able to enter into legal marital arrangements.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

No the way it works is that companies and insurances want to provide for long-term couples for societal purposes (especially insurances, as long term couples have lower insurance payouts). If gay marriage is illegal, they provide benefits by self-representation of your coupling, because there’s no way for them to know otherwise, and it’s still a cheaper option. When gay marriage is legal, the insurance companies can zero in on the lowest-cost couples to cover and provide lower rates in order to encourage gay couples to marry in order to reduce payouts. They do the same thing with straights, but straight people have always been able to enter into legal marital arrangements.

I still say it benefits the insurance companies, quite a bit. And it also forces gay couples to get married if they want benefits.

 

[SMGS127]

I still say it benefits the insurance companies, quite a bit.

That wasn’t your original point, and no one is disputing that.

You said that gay couples didn’t need marriage in order to obtain those benefits. That is demonstrably false. It costs thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees to obtain many of the benefits of marriage, and others are completely unobtainable without marriage. On the other hand, a marriage license costs almost nothing. This is why Pope Francis endorsed civil unions that made no assumption of sexual activity but that provided these legal and financial benefits.

To the OP: I think it would be licit for you to obtain a marriage license if you and your partner did not inform anyone unless absolutely necessary (aka informing those who provide your benefits, your parents for the purposes of awareness of your partner’s legal and medical authority, etc.). However, the Church would 100% not see it as a marriage, and there would be no license for sexual activity. Furthermore, a legal divorce would be needed to obtain a Catholic marriage in the future if either of you is bisexual.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That wasn’t your original point, and no one is disputing that.

You said that gay couples didn’t need marriage in order to obtain those benefits. That is demonstrably false. It costs thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees to obtain many of the benefits of marriage, and others are completely unobtainable without marriage. On the other hand, a marriage license costs almost nothing. This is why Pope Francis endorsed civil unions that made no assumption of sexual activity but that provided these legal and financial benefits.

Wrong. I said in states (where gay marriage is illegal - now you tell me), same sex couples and even heterosexual couples who live together are given insurance benefits by their employers no questions asked. Seem like it is preferable to live in a state where gay marriage is illegal.

 

[SMGS127]

Wrong. I said in states (where gay marriage is illegal - now you tell me), same sex couples and even heterosexual couples who live together are given insurance benefits by their employers no questions asked. Seem like it is preferable to live in a state where gay marriage is illegal.

Except you don’t get the federal benefits, of which are numerous. In addition, legal, medical, and funeral authority still costs a truckload of money to obtain without a license and, without a license, these grantings of authority have been overridden in the past by vengeful parents in the legal system. Marital licenses are literally the only way to obtain these benefits in a guaranteed manner. A true Catholic system would have civil unions and marriage, where civil unions made no assumption of sex. Absent that, we must engage in society in the ways society offers. If you make no representation of your marriage being a real, Catholic marriage, I see nothing wrong with getting a license for personal security/protection reasons.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Except you don’t get the federal benefits, of which are numerous. In addition, legal, medical, and funeral authority still costs a truckload of money to obtain without a license and, without a license, these grantings of authority have been overridden in the past by vengeful parents in the legal system. Marital licenses are literally the only way to obtain these benefits in a guaranteed manner. A true Catholic system would have civil unions and marriage, where civil unions made no assumption of sex. Absent that, we must engage in society in the ways society offers. If you make no representation of your marriage being a real, Catholic marriage, I see nothing wrong with getting a license for personal security/protection reasons.

Which do you prefer - civil unions or gay marriage?

 

[SMGS127]

Which do you prefer - civil unions or gay marriage?

For same-sex couples? Civil unions, because they make no assumption of sexual activity, since sexual activity is immoral in Catholic law. And from an American standpoint, as it is unconstitutional to differentiate by the sexual orientation of the participants, universal civil unions that make no determination of sexual activity, but that can be marital in nature with religious blessing.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

For same-sex couples? Civil unions, because they make no assumption of sexual activity, since sexual activity is immoral in Catholic law. And from an American standpoint, as it is unconstitutional to differentiate by the sexual orientation of the participants, universal civil unions that make no determination of sexual activity, but that can be marital in nature with religious blessing.

Wow, In my opinion, that is asking for a bit too much. Marriage for friends with a blessing from the Catholic Church? yikes.

 

[Corki]

Wow, In my opinion, that is asking for a bit too much. Marriage for friends with a blessing from the Catholic Church? yikes.

That’s correct. The Church will never bless a same-sex union - sexual activity or not. It’s not just the sex that makes these relationships wrong.

At least one Bishop addressed the SS civil partnership rule for employees in his state by allowing all employees to add one person to their health insurance. If the person had a partner (same or opposite sex) that could be their “one”. But they could also add a sibling or friend that needed insurance coverage or an elderly parent.

I think the Church might be accepting of civil partnerships that followed the same model - a contractual arrangement to protect benefits and inheritance without any presumption that it is a “marriage” as long as it was open to other combination than just homosexuals in a partnered relationship.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That’s correct. The Church will never bless a same-sex union - sexual activity or not. It’s not just the sex that makes these relationships wrong.

At least one Bishop addressed the SS civil partnership rule for employees in his state by allowing all employees to add one person to their health insurance. If the person had a partner (same or opposite sex) that could be their “one”. But they could also add a sibling or friend that needed insurance coverage or an elderly parent.

I think the Church might be accepting of civil partnerships that followed the same model - a contractual arrangement to protect benefits and inheritance without any presumption that it is a “marriage” as long as it was open to other combination than just homosexuals in a partnered relationship.

Yes that seems reasonable and fair. I wonder if it would really fly though. I doubt if the insurance companies would be for this.