Celibate Homosexual Civil Marriage?

[sealabeag]

He wasn’t aggressive at all. Sources for what?

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I don’t believe the Church ever views marriage (even a civil one) as merely contractual, so your premise there doesn’t work. It’s either natural or sacramental, both of those presuming a level of fidelity to the Church’s teaching about what marriage is (far exceeding, if even acknowledging, the contractual aspects afforded by law).

 

[commenter]

BananaBread:

This should not be treated as a sacramental marriage)?

please refrain from discussing the morality of homosexual acts , the sin of scandal, and the definitions of a Sacramental marriage vs a civil marriage,

How can anyone answer within your prescribed parameters?

If someone has already made up their mind about what parameters do not apply and they won’t accept, they already made up their mind about the answer.

Not a sincere question.

 

[BananaBread]

If someone has already made up their mind about what parameters do not apply and they won’t accept, they already made up their mind about the answer.

Not a sincere question.

i’m not asking for a description of a sacramental marriage because a sacramental marriage doesnt apply here. Of course two individuals of the same sex cannot get a sacramental marriage within the church, which is why im not asking. I’m asking about a legal procedure that provides a license granting certain benefits and rights to a pair of individuals who would like to be joint as such. I would be in favor of a system where this perhaps is not called a marriage, but I use the term as that is what it is currently referred to.

Unless there are other claims against the parameters I’ve raised, I believe them to be just. Of course I may be missing something, if so please correct me.

 

[sealabeag]

So, basically, two friends? Two friends who want legal benefits they are not entitled to?
I don’t get your question at all.

 

[Rau]

I would be in favor of a system where this perhaps is not called a marriage, but I use the term as that is what it is currently referred to.

Indeed. Not much reason to oppose that. However the proponents of SSM have and would oppose it. They require that their love and intimate relationship are acknowledged as of the same kind and equally good as that of man+woman.

 

[Irishmom2]

I don’t understand either. The thread title says civil marriage, but the OP said they are okay with not calling it marriage.

So what exactly is the relationship? Two homosexual friends that live together, that wish to have a name for the relationship?

 

[aroosi]

I think s/he may be wondering about getting certain benefits usually easily granted for spouses but not in other situations. For example if one person in the couple has serious health issues and is underemployed or unemployed, would be very useful to get health insurance through the legal spouse.

 

[Rau]

For example if one person in the couple has serious health issues and is underemployed or unemployed, would be very useful to get health insurance through the legal spouse.

Sound like the healthcare system ought to be reformed!

 

[Funvod]

I’m actually curious as to what the priests here will say, especially if it’s for something like Aroosi described. This is a very interesting question.

 

[esieffe]

If they want to live according to the teachings of Christ and his Church, they should not enter into a legal state that calls itself marriage but makes a mockery of the real thing. Additionally, such a “marriage” would be cause for scandal.

This is the fly in the ointment so to speak.
I think it is fine for two people who love each other to be chaste companions, unless there is a level of temptation that makes the arrangement a constant “near occasion.”

SSA people shouldn’t have to suffer indefinite solitude unless they cannot be chaste. A tax break isn’t worth the risk of making God angry. This is all just my understanding of church teaching. Not an apologist.

 

[Buks]

I don’t have a definitive answer, but I just want to say that the OP is pretty clear. A number of replies seem to say the question doesn’t make sense, but really it was a reasonable, clear query.

IMO, since such a marriage would have no recognition by the Church, it doesn’t seem sinful, given the scenario as presented.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

IMO, since such a marriage would have no recognition by the Church, it doesn’t seem sinful, given the scenario as presented.

If that is the case, why does the church frown upon a Catholic man and woman marrying each other civilly but not in the Church?

 

[1ke]

Would there be an occurrence of sin between two persons with SSA of the same sex, both of which who have committed to living a life pure of homosexual acts (defined solely as sex between two same sex individuals), to both A) live in the same household and B) obtain a civil marriage (defined as a joining of two individuals in order to obtain a marriage license granting federal rights such as those listed here: https://now.org/resource/civil-marriage-v-civil-unions/ ,

Yes. It would be a sin.

The Church quite clearly teaches that you may not formally or materially cooperate in a same sex marriage or same sex civil union:

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.

Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.

See here.

 

[aroosi]

If a partner really needs insurance badly (let’s say the person cannot live without a costly medical treatment or has a chronic disability) I can see how the idea of a civil union could be tempting to help him/her even if there is just a chaste SSA relationship.
But I am only speculating.
For what we know OP’s question may be purely intellectual.

 

[Thorolfr]

If a partner really needs insurance badly (let’s say the person cannot live without a costly medical treatment or has a chronic disability) I can see how the idea of a civil union could be tempting to help him/her even if there is a chaste SSA relationship.
But I am just speculating.
For what we know OP’s question may be purely intellectual.

Would it be better for someone to die because they couldn’t get the health care they needed for a serious medical condition than to commit the “sin” of entering into a same-sex civil union to get the health care they needed that way?

 

[aroosi]

I think (but again it is my guess only) that, since homosexual sex is considered sin but not SSA, OP may be wondering if it is a sin a same sex civil union chaste and done only for getting benefits. Maybe a bit like divorcees or people married outside the Catholic Church, that cannot get Communion unless they are living chastely.
I don’t know the answer so that’s why I tagged more knowledgeable people.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

Loneliness is not solved by a civil marriage. 1. My mom is married civilly and is lonely, 2 people can just simply live together. All the other issues can be solved with legal processes that do not involve marriage.

 

[1ke]

Would it be better for someone to die because they couldn’t get the health care they needed for a serious medical condition than to commit the “sin” of entering into a same-sex civil union to get the health care they needed that way?

This is known as fraud: entering into a civil marriage under false pretenses— obtaining benefits. Whether hetero- or homosexual, it’s wrong.

A person in need of health care, and health insurance, can obtain it through their own employer, on a public insurance exchange, or through state Medicaid programs depending on their situation and what they qualify for.

It’s a false dichotomy to say the only choices are commit fraud or die.

 

[Rau]

Would it be better for someone to die because they couldn’t get the health care they needed for a serious medical condition than to commit the “sin” of entering into a same-sex civil union to get the health care they needed that way?

While not answering that question, I’d earnestly suggest a society that makes what you suggest a relevant option has lost its way.