Civil Unions: Can Catholics Support Them?

[Amolibri]

Same-sex unions can provide absolutely nothing to society. These relationships between such individuals cannot even be said to contain love or friendship. There is nothing to them but the sexual act, which is why they must never be permitted. There is absolutely no collective benefit to be had in same-sex unions and their tolerance under any sort of technicality would shift all the great virtues from ones of selflessness to the worship of the self and one’s own good. It is, essentially, to spit on the Crucifix so that one may do what one wills.

This apparently enraged state can do society no good, either, my friend. I shall pray that you may see the light of compassion.

 

[Other_Eric]

This apparently enraged state can do society no good, either, my friend. I shall pray that you may see the light of compassion.

It is a false compassion which fails to call things for what they are.

 

[Migueliones]

I completely support civil unions - homosexual couples should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, and legal recognition of their relationships.

 

[Other_Eric]

I completely support civil unions - homosexual couples should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, and legal recognition of their relationships.

To what end? Why ought such couples be granted the privileges and recognition of the marital union?

 

[blessedtoo]

…I meant no offense, I was just saying what it is. I mean, we can discuss it hours on end without discussing what it truly is… but it really upsets me when people call it “love”. That’s pretty much what I meant… the Catechism makes it pretty clear why it is wrong. I mean, its the act we’re against, and that’s about it. But it clearly condemns homosexual marriages and unions. So, as practicing Catholics, we shouldn’t just look away, but be opposed to such. Then again, we shouldn’t go gay bashing either… but I’ve never met a Catholic who does do such.

While your choice of words may have been slightly, um, indelicate, your theology is absolutely correct and illustrates a wisdom beyond your chronological age. I am heartened to read such clarity from someone so young!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Nope, I believe they allow ages 13 and up. I have run into a number of posters who are in the 15-17 age range. You can check and see if the person lists their age in their profile by clicking on their username then selecting “public profile”. No one is required to list their age, however.

Thanks for the headsup. I am questioning the rightness of this policy. I’ll be checking more carefully. I would not wish to interfer with parental rights here by speaking in a way they might find improper regarding their child.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The various benefits of marriage such healthcare surrogacy, assumed inheritance and immunity against testifying against a spouse are all meant to provide stability – not for the good of the couple but ultimately for society at large. Society realizes a genuine benefit in seeing to it that marriages are stable and that the smooth transition of property from one spouse to another is not hindered by any legal difficulty. This stability both makes the union more desirable than unofficial ones, providing a steady community and formalizes the inheritance of property.

Well you offer no proof of this conclusion on your part, but if one were to agree that benefits confer stability to society independent of the stability you claim it offers the union, then this is only added to by those who are of same sex. Your argument self destructs since same sex unions in no way disstabalize society but in fact only add to it by your own definition.

Same-sex unions can provide absolutely nothing to society. These relationships between such individuals cannot even be said to contain love or friendship

This is simply meanspirited rhetoric devoid of any proof. It is illogical and simply on its face untrue. You cannot define love and friendship to your own narrow perameters. .

There is absolutely no collective benefit to be had in same-sex unions and their tolerance under any sort of technicality would shift all the great virtues from ones of selflessness to the worship of the self and one’s own good. It is, essentially, to spit on the Crucifix so that one may do what one wills.

Except you’ve already proved quite nicely the opposite. I believe the Church really advises you not to hate this much. CCC #2303

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To what end? Why ought such couples be granted the privileges and recognition of the marital union?

Mostly because Catholics are not running a theocracy here. Most people in this country do not agree with you, and Catholic teaching is of no interest to them. They are human beings with legitimate concerns. You don’t agree, fine. As I have said, you have made the best case in favor of civil unions I can think of. Much thanks!

 

[Filius99993]

Mostly because Catholics are not running a theocracy here. Most people in this country do not agree with you, and Catholic teaching is of no interest to them. They are human beings with legitimate concerns. You don’t agree, fine. As I have said, you have made the best case in favor of civil unions I can think of. Much thanks!

The question is if we can support them, not if they are legitimate to those who do not practice Catholicism. Since the Church condemns Civil Unions, then its followers should not endorse them.

 

[Other_Eric]

Well you offer no proof of this conclusion on your part, but if one were to agree that benefits confer stability to society independent of the stability you claim it offers the union, then this is only added to by those who are of same sex. Your argument self destructs since same sex unions in no way disstabalize society but in fact only add to it by your own definition.

This is simply meanspirited rhetoric devoid of any proof. It is illogical and simply on its face untrue. You cannot define love and friendship to your own narrow perameters. .

Except you’ve already proved quite nicely the opposite. I believe the Church really advises you not to hate this much. CCC #2303

It is true that I did not provide proofs for the arguments I have made, as I would have thought them to be obvious. An opposite-sex union, being by its nature procreative, is desirable in a way that a similar same-sex union is not. It is this procreative function that such privileges as I have mentioned, are meant to serve. The smooth transition of property in the event of death eases financial burdens and helps to stabilize the living conditions of those left behind, being both spouse and offspring. Healthcare surrogacy preserves the unity of this procreative partnership further enhancing the stability that the offspring need. Without these protections, issues of inheritance and care for the ill would become an anarchic power struggle between the spouse, children, larger family and lending institutions. The welfare of the next generation therefore demands these protections.

For the same-sex couple, this cannot be the case since the union itself is not procreative; it is sterile as an inherent product of the identities of its constituent parts. As such, society realizes absolutely no benefit by even passively endorsing such an arrangement and indeed creates the anarchy that society seeks to avoid with marriage. The care of the ill and issues of inheritance are no longer the codified, organic outgrowth of familial relations but rather a false legal construction meant to artificially confer validity on a union that is sterile and self-centered as an intrinsic consequence of what it is.

I repeat my assertion that relations between members of the same sex can neither contain love nor friendship. Participants engage in exercising the sexuality in a way that is contemptuous of that faculty’s ends in both unity and procreation. With an act that can, by its nature, never be fruitful, the individuals in such a couple use the body of the other as a mere receptacle for their own personal pleasure, often to the detriment of the other’s physical integrity. Mutual consent to this evil constitutes neither love nor friendship but instead hatred and indifference.

Without doing extreme damage to the Church’s teaching, there exists absolutely no warrant to even tolerate this disgusting perversion. In hating the sin and loving the sinner, we are meant to look upon this sad state of affairs and hate it with all our hearts and with all our souls and with all our minds.

 

[Other_Eric]

Mostly because Catholics are not running a theocracy here. Most people in this country do not agree with you, and Catholic teaching is of no interest to them. They are human beings with legitimate concerns. You don’t agree, fine. As I have said, you have made the best case in favor of civil unions I can think of. Much thanks!

Surely you must understand that your response avoids the question entirely. Moreover, this has nothing to do with what the Church teaches but is a strictly secular question. What benefit does society realize in recognizing same-sex unions? This is separate and distinct from whatever benefits those individuals in such arrangements might glean. If society is meant to subsidize these relationships then it needs to get something out of them. That they are wanted by some is an insufficient reason. Any investment made ought to have some reasonable prospect of return.

 

[Amolibri]

The question is if we can support them, not if they are legitimate to those who do not practice Catholicism. Since the Church condemns Civil Unions, then its followers should not endorse them.

Church and “Civil” are not compatible, as I understand it…so civil unions are for the state to legislate pro or con. The Church sanctions sacramental marriages…is that correct???

 

[Other_Eric]

Church and “Civil” are not compatible, as I understand it…so civil unions are for the state to legislate pro or con. The Church sanctions sacramental marriages…is that correct???

According to Sacred Scripture, the state also wields the power of the sword given it by God. The Church is nevertheless compelled to speak out against abuses of this power by the state. The corruption of marriage by attempting to give similar status to unions that mock that sacrament is one such instance in which the Church must condemn the actions of the state.

 

[Migueliones]

To what end? Why ought such couples be granted the privileges and recognition of the marital union?

Because I think they are perfectly legitimate loving relationships. I don’t see any difference between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship.

The Church is not the state, therefore I see no reason for the state not to give legal rights and recognition to couples in a stable monogamous relationship.

 

[Other_Eric]

Because I think they are perfectly legitimate loving relationships. I don’t see any difference between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship.

The Church is not the state, therefore I see no reason for the state not to give legal rights and recognition to couples in a stable monogamous relationship.

Yet the question wasn’t “why not,” it was “why”. Even if I conceded that such relationships were loving (and they are not) that still would not answer the question of why the state should sanction such a relationship. A boy may love his dog or a sister love her brother but neither of these relationships merit official recognition based on the fleeting emotions of the moment.

If the state is going to implicitly encourage people to enter into such unions, there ought to be a positive reason why. There must be some deficiency that it’s in the state’s best interest to correct. In other words, if the state is going to subsidize such unions, it must see some benefit, some return on its investment.

In the absence of this, we turn the government into a sort of Santa Claus who bestows rights and privileges meant to suit whatever the impulses of the moment dictate. Unmoored from any morality or system of reasoning, the phrase “just because” becomes reason enough to do anything.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is true that I did not provide proofs for the arguments I have made, as I would have thought them to be obvious. An opposite-sex union, being by its nature procreative, is desirable in a way that a similar same-sex union is not. It is this procreative function that such privileges as I have mentioned, are meant to serve. The smooth transition of property in the event of death eases financial burdens and helps to stabilize the living conditions of those left behind, being both spouse and offspring. Healthcare surrogacy preserves the unity of this procreative partnership further enhancing the stability that the offspring need. Without these protections, issues of inheritance and care for the ill would become an anarchic power struggle between the spouse, children, larger family and lending institutions. The welfare of the next generation therefore demands these protections.

For the same-sex couple, this cannot be the case since the union itself is not procreative; it is sterile as an inherent product of the identities of its constituent parts. As such, society realizes absolutely no benefit by even passively endorsing such an arrangement and indeed creates the anarchy that society seeks to avoid with marriage. The care of the ill and issues of inheritance are no longer the codified, organic outgrowth of familial relations but rather a false legal construction meant to artificially confer validity on a union that is sterile and self-centered as an intrinsic consequence of what it is.

I repeat my assertion that relations between members of the same sex can neither contain love nor friendship. Participants engage in exercising the sexuality in a way that is contemptuous of that faculty’s ends in both unity and procreation. With an act that can, by its nature, never be fruitful, the individuals in such a couple use the body of the other as a mere receptacle for their own personal pleasure, often to the detriment of the other’s physical integrity. Mutual consent to this evil constitutes neither love nor friendship but instead hatred and indifference.

Without doing extreme damage to the Church’s teaching, there exists absolutely no warrant to even tolerate this disgusting perversion. In hating the sin and loving the sinner, we are meant to look upon this sad state of affairs and hate it with all our hearts and with all our souls and with all our minds.

Please don’t tell me how you love the sinner when you talk of them in this vein claiming they are incapable of love and friendship. I as they say, knock the dust from my shoes and move on. What you say is too ugly to continue to respond to…but as I said, thanks. you made a great argument in favor of civil unions.

 

[Migueliones]

Yet the question wasn’t “why not,” it was “why”. Even if I conceded that such relationships were loving (and they are not) that still would not answer the question of why the state should sanction such a relationship. A boy may love his dog or a sister love her brother but neither of these relationships merit official recognition based on the fleeting emotions of the moment.

If the state is going to implicitly encourage people to enter into such unions, there ought to be a positive reason why. There must be some deficiency that it’s in the state’s best interest to correct. In other words, if the state is going to subsidize such unions, it must see some benefit, some return on its investment.

In the absence of this, we turn the government into a sort of Santa Claus who bestows rights and privileges meant to suit whatever the impulses of the moment dictate. Unmoored from any morality or system of reasoning, the phrase “just because” becomes reason enough to do anything.

Yes, these relationships are loving (and you repeating that they are not will not make them not so!). A couple of consenting adults in a stable relationship should have the opportunity for legal recognition. Maybe you should be answering why they should not be given such recognition, based on a secular argument. The Catholic Church has no place in civil law.

Same-sex relationships are not based on “feelings of the moment” - well some will be, just like heterosexual ones - but are perfectly valid relationships of love and friendship. Just saying they aren’t doesn’t mean they aren’t. It’s a very different type of love to brotherly love. It’s a protective, caring, sharing, giving, and yes, sexual love.

“Implicitly encourage”? The people entering such unions will be people who want to enter one. Do people get married simply because the state implicitly encourages them? Some might - but the vast majority want to do so and are in stable relationships beforehand.

Civil unions have many positive effects - they give legal recognition to same-sex couples in long-term relationships and give them property, health etc. rights. That is an excellent thing in my opinion.

 

[BlaineTog]

I think it makes the most sense to remove marriage from the civil sphere altogether and then give civil unions to whoever wants them. A civil union, as I understand it, is essentially an arrangement for tax and legal purposes to make it easier for two people to live together and take care of one another. If two really good friends want a civil union, that’s fine. If two gay people want one, also fine. If a straight couple wants it, also fine. But if you want a marriage, you have to go to a church, since marriage is something above and beyond the laws.

That said, I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert on politics or anything. I just think civil unions fall under “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” whereas marriage falls under God and religion’s purview alone.

 

[Amolibri]

I think it makes the most sense to remove marriage from the civil sphere altogether and then give civil unions to whoever wants them. A civil union, as I understand it, is essentially an arrangement for tax and legal purposes to make it easier for two people to live together and take care of one another. If two really good friends want a civil union, that’s fine. If two gay people want one, also fine. If a straight couple wants it, also fine. But if you want a marriage, you have to go to a church, since marriage is something above and beyond the laws.

That said, I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert on politics or anything. I just think civil unions fall under “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” whereas marriage falls under God and religion’s purview alone.

CORRECT, you are!!! Simply so.

 

[blessedtoo]

Obviously there is tremendous confusion among Catholics about the insititution of marriage and it’s role in society. I would suggest that those who are unclear read this book:
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812

It is not a “Catholic” view of marriage, nor conservative or “right-wing”. It is a practical and fully unbiased history and explanation of the purpose of marriage in our society.

For the Catholic who believes he can hold any opinion on the issue of civil unions, I suggest reading the recent document published by the USCCB.

“Departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral.”30 Love and truth go together. The Sacred Scriptures tell us that the way to grow more Christ-like is
by “living the truth in love” (Eph 4:15).
The Church cannot support organizations or individuals
whose work contradicts, is ambiguous about, or neglects her teaching on sexuality.31 Nevertheless “‘sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination.” 33 Therefore, it is not unjust, for example, to limit the bond of marriage to the
union of a woman and a man. It is not unjust to oppose granting to homosexual couples benefits that in justice should belong to marriage alone. “When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The
weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high
a social cost.”34

Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: