Civil Unions: Can Catholics Support Them?

[iamrefreshed]

A couple of consenting adults in a stable relationship should have the opportunity for legal recognition.

Why should you limit it to a ‘couple’? Why not three?

 

[iamrefreshed]

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.

Why does it have to be monogamous?

 

[Migueliones]

Why should you limit it to a ‘couple’? Why not three?

Why does it have to be monogamous?

Same reason marriage only has two.

That’s the fallacious argument that homosexual couples somehow lead to bestiality eek and polygamy eek.

 

[fix]

Same reason marriage only has two.

That’s the fallacious argument that homosexual couples somehow lead to bestiality eek and polygamy eek.

What makes the number 2 sacrosanct, but not the genders?

 

[Migueliones]

What makes the number 2 sacrosanct, but not the genders?

Two people can give themselves completely to each other - they become one. The number isn’t two. It’s one. You commit to one person and the other commits to you completely.

Surely more than two would have to share?

I don’t see how the relationship between man and a man, and a man and a woman are any different. It seems to come down to procreation, and seeing as the state marries couples who are infertile (oh and heterosexual sex is only “open to life” for a certain period anyway…)

If gay people wanted to get married to somehow sleep around… they wouldn’t bother getting married. The opportunity for sleeping around is more than easy to get - dating!

 

[fix]

Two people can give themselves completely to each other - they become one.

You mean a man and woman can become one? How do
men or two women become 1? That contradicts reason and Scripture.

The number isn’t two. It’s one. You commit to one person and the other commits to you completely.

Says who? What is that assertion based on?

Surely more than two would have to share?

So, is sharing bad? Why?

I don’t see how the relationship between man and a man, and a man and a woman are any different. It seems to come down to procreation, and seeing as the state marries couples who are infertile (oh and heterosexual sex is only “open to life” for a certain period anyway…)

Subjective unintentional sterility is vastly different from starting with the wrong premise.

If gay people wanted to get married to somehow sleep around… they wouldn’t bother getting married. The opportunity for sleeping around is more than easy to get - dating!

They want the natural institution of marriage to be done away with.

 

[Migueliones]

You mean a man and woman can become one? How do
men or two women become 1? That contradicts reason and Scripture.

How does it contradict reason? Because you (or others) say homosexuals are incapable of love?

Scripture has nothing to do with a debate about civil unions. Nor about civil marriage, really.

Says who? What is that assertion based on?

That is what a relationship is built on.

So, is sharing bad? Why?

Why don’t you tell me? The Church does not allow polygamous marriages - pourquoi?

It is for the exact same reason that I oppose polygamy.

Sharing means that they can not commit fully to each other if they are trying to commit to two.

Subjective unintentional sterility is vastly different from starting with the wrong premise.

Same result. The point still stands.

The state marries infertile couples, so if procreation is the issue here, it has no relevance.

They want the natural institution of marriage to be done away with.

Who is “they”?

I certainly don’t. Marriage is a great thing.

 

[fix]

How does it contradict reason? Because you (or others) say homosexuals are incapable of love?

Who has said that? Love does not include illicit relations.

Scripture has nothing to do with a debate about civil unions. Nor about civil marriage, really.

Why? Truth needs to be excluded from society? The natural moral law, and Scripture, support marriage. That is the natural institution of marriage, not some plastic idea conjured up to favor whatever social attitude is floating around.

That is what a relationship is built on.

Again, says who?

Why don’t you tell me? The Church does not allow polygamous marriages - pourquoi?

It is for the exact same reason that I oppose polygamy.

Sharing means that they can not commit fully to each other if they are trying to commit to two.

The Church says polygamy is wrong because it is too hard to share? Again, your reasons seem little more than personal opinion?

Same result. The point still stands.

The state marries infertile couples, so if procreation is the issue here, it has no relevance.

Not even close. Man and woman are objectively procreative, even if subjectively sterile. Two men or two woman are objectively anti procreative.

Who is “they”?

I certainly don’t. Marriage is a great thing.

Those who support redefining marriage.

 

[Migueliones]

Who has said that? Love does not include illicit relations.

Interesting. I do not believe homosexual relationships to be illicit, but say a heterosexual couple married. One of them falls for someone else and has an affair. Now you would class that as illicit relations, non? Yet they are capable of love with their fellow adulterer? So love does include illicit relations.

I find it odd that you can say that love is so restricted.

Why? Truth needs to be excluded from society? The natural moral law, and Scripture, support marriage. That is the natural institution of marriage, not some plastic idea conjured up to favor whatever social attitude is floating around.

I do not consider the Bible to be “Truth” which must be opposed on society. Not all of society is Catholic. I consider the official Catholic view on some things to be wrong (such as gay sex) but obviously you would disagree When deciding on the law of the country, secular arguments must be used and not religious arguments.

If those religious arguments are linked with secular arguments then fine. But because a book says so won’t cut it.

A civil union is not a plastic idea but merely giving recognition to a relationship founded on the most basic and human of emotions - love. It’s been around since the beginning of humanity, love. But if you don’t believe homosexuals can love then… I won’t be able to change your mind on that.

Again, says who?

That’s what I believe.

May I ask what you believe a relationship to be built on? From a non-religious stance as well as a religious one?

The Church says polygamy is wrong because it is too hard to share? Again, your reasons seem little more than personal opinion?

No, I oppose polygamy because more than two can not give themselves to each other completely.

I have not said why the Church opposes polygamy - I asked you why they do.

Your opinion seems to be littler more than an unsubstantiated claim that civil unions will lead to polygamy?

Not even close. Man and woman are objectively procreative, even if subjectively sterile. Two men or two woman are objectively anti procreative.

They aren’t procreative if they are sterile.

So should the state deny marriage to infertile couples?

Those who support redefining marriage.

Who are…?

I love how people hysterically cry that the traditional family is under attack, etc etc…

 

[iamrefreshed]

Same reason marriage only has two.

That’s the fallacious argument that homosexual couples somehow lead to bestiality eek and polygamy eek.

I never mentioned beastiality, you did

I am however asking why should marriage only have two? Who are you to determine this?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Two people can give themselves completely to each other - they become one. The number isn’t two. It’s one. You commit to one person and the other commits to you completely.

What if the ‘two’ were first cousins, siblings, step mother and step son?

That’s two.

 

[Migueliones]

What if the ‘two’ were first cousins, siblings, step mother and step son?

That’s two.

First cousins and a step-mother and a step-son would be perfectly valid relationships (although I don’t condone the affair of the second and obviously the step-son would have to be over 18 )

Siblings - well, I don’t think I need to say why incest is wrong

 

[iamrefreshed]

First cousins and a step-mother and a step-son would be perfectly valid relationships (although I don’t condone the affair of the second and obviously the step-son would have to be over 18 )

Siblings - well, I don’t think I need to say why incest is wrong

In the context of this discussion I think you need to tell me how it differs from your definition for a valid marriage.

I think we both agree incest is wrong but I’m asking why it does not constitute a valid marriage based on the criteria you have presented thus far.

 

[fix]

Interesting. I do not believe homosexual relationships to be illicit, but say a heterosexual couple married. One of them falls for someone else and has an affair. Now you would class that as illicit relations, non? Yet they are capable of love with their fellow adulterer? So love does include illicit relations.

I find it odd that you can say that love is so restricted.

I see. So you claim love means sin? Love is an act of the will which desires what is best for the other. How does adultery say I want what is best for you? Sounds like a lie.

I do not consider the Bible to be “Truth” which must be opposed on society. Not all of society is Catholic. I consider the official Catholic view on some things to be wrong (such as gay sex) but obviously you would disagree When deciding on the law of the country, secular arguments must be used and not religious arguments.

Really? So, the truths in religion must be discarded because they are not secular? In the end it really is a straw man argument as marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church.

If those religious arguments are linked with secular arguments then fine. But because a book says so won’t cut it.

It is not about a book. It is about truth. Objective truth. That the few, or many, refuse to grasp what is true is no proof it is not true.

A civil union is not a plastic idea but merely giving recognition to a relationship founded on the most basic and human of emotions - love.

Ah, now I see. It is about emotions for you. That is a strange way to structure society.

It’s been around since the beginning of humanity, love. But if you don’t believe homosexuals can love then… I won’t be able to change your mind on that.

Sure homosexuals can love. The problem we are having is defining what authentic love is.

That’s what I believe.

May I ask what you believe a relationship to be built on? From a non-religious stance as well as a religious one?

You mean marriage, right? Marriage has certain elements that distinguish it from other relationships. One of those elements is opposite genders. Simply slapping the word love on some arragement does not transform such a thing into a marriage.

No, I oppose polygamy because more than two can not give themselves to each other completely.

What exactly do you mean by give to each other completely?

I have not said why the Church opposes polygamy - I asked you why they do.

For one thing it is a violation of the natural law. Please see the newadvent.org site on the issue as they explain it quite well.

Your opinion seems to be littler more than an unsubstantiated claim that civil unions will lead to polygamy?

Nope. My position is that the natural moral law forbids it and that such arrangements would further destablize this culture.

They aren’t procreative if they are sterile.

So should the state deny marriage to infertile couples?

You confuse reproductive with procreative.

Who are…?

I love how people hysterically cry that the traditional family is under attack, etc etc…

They self define themselves. That would be those who reject the natural institution of marriage.

 

[Migueliones]

I see. So you claim love means sin? Love is an act of the will which desires what is best for the other. How does adultery say I want what is best for you? Sounds like a lie.

And I have said that how?

I take your definition of love to be “act of the will which desires what is best for the other” then?

Homosexuals fall in love all the time then - just like everyone else!

My adultery example was that people fall in love with others outside marriage and leave them all the time. Love is not something slapped on people who get married.

Really? So, the truths in religion must be discarded because they are not secular? In the end it really is a straw man argument as marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church.

When deciding a civil law, a secular argument must be used.

You can not say “Because God says so.” “Homosexual sex is unnatural because _____” would be a perfectly valid argument. But “God says homosexual sex is wrong” wouldn’t be because God has no relevance to the debate on civil unions (apart from a theist’s view). What I am saying is that a theist can not use a religious argument when talking about the laws of the state.

It is not about a book. It is about truth. Objective truth. That the few, or many, refuse to grasp what is true is no proof it is not true.

Just because something is called Truth does not make it true.

Ah, now I see. It is about emotions for you. That is a strange way to structure society.

I said “A civil union is not a plastic idea but merely giving recognition to a relationship founded on the most basic and human of emotions - love.” Is a marriage not founded on the most basic and human of emotions, love?

You mean marriage, right? Marriage has certain elements that distinguish it from other relationships. One of those elements is opposite genders. Simply slapping the word love on some arragement does not transform such a thing into a marriage.

But this is not about marriage. It is about civil unions. But as civil unions are essentially marriages, I will take your point.

Please list those elements of marriage for me.

Marriage is man/woman because that’s what the prevailing attitude of society was for a long time (due perhaps to the overbearing influence of religion). My personal opinion - I have no issue either way with gay marriage. I do not actively support nor oppose it.

“Just because” isn’t an argument, which essentially that is.

What exactly do you mean by give to each other completely?

Much like your definition of love really - “act of the will which desires what is best for the other”

For one thing it is a violation of the natural law. Please see the newadvent.org site on the issue as they explain it quite well.

Natural law. Hmm. Again, infertility rears its head.

Not all gay people have anal sex either by the way

I’ve seen the newadvent.org article before. I used to believe that the Catholic view of ‘natural law’ was correct. I’m not just some ignorant person who doesn’t know anything about the Catholic viewpoint.

Nope. My position is that the natural moral law forbids it and that such arrangements would further destablize this culture.

Destabilise how?

You confuse reproductive with procreative.

How are couple who are infertile but are allowed to get married, are so different to a gay couple?!

Completely silly argument based on ‘bits’

They self define themselves. That would be those who reject the natural institution of marriage.

Fair enough.

I love the way “they” is used in a ‘grab your torch and pitchfork’ way though.

 

[KarenNC]

What if the ‘two’ were first cousins, siblings, step mother and step son?

Marriage between first cousins is legal in many states (though some have age/reproductive ability restrictions).
marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm

I am not sure about whether there are restrictions on stepmother and stepson in all states, providing both were of age. It may vary by state. I know that it was legal in NC for my grandfather to marry his step-granddaughter (no blood relation).

law.jrank.org/pages/11834/Annulment-Prohibited-Marriage-Prohibited-Marriage.html is a chart. Some of the states list out affinity (related by marriage) vs. consanguinity (related by blood). Oklahoma, South Dakota, Rhode Island explicitly state no step-parent and step-child. The wedding between Woody Allen and his step-daughter was fairly well publicized. I suppose it largely depends on how the relationship is interpreted legally as to whether the step-relationship falls under the restrictions in the law. I am also not sure how the law looks on stepsiblings or adopted siblings in these cases—again, likely varies by state.

 

[KarenNC]

You confuse reproductive with procreative.

In exactly what way is “procreation” not about “reproduction”?

 

[fix]

In exactly what way is “procreation” not about “reproduction”?

A man and a woman are objectively procreative in that they are designed to bring new life into the world. That is partly biology and partly human nature. Even if sterile people are unable to reproduce they still are objectively procreative.

 

[KarenNC]

A man and a woman are objectively procreative in that they are designed to bring new life into the world. That is partly biology and partly human nature. Even if sterile people are unable to reproduce they still are objectively procreative.

As women past the age of menopause are not by nature or biology designed to bring new life into the world, in what way can a marriage between a man and a woman past the age of menopause be considered procreative?

 

[fix]

And I have said that how?

I take your definition of love to be “act of the will which desires what is best for the other” then?

It is acceptable.

Homosexuals fall in love all the time then - just like everyone else!

Again, this needs clarification. Do 2 sisters “fall in love” like everyone else to?

My adultery example was that people fall in love with others outside marriage and leave them all the time. Love is not something slapped on people who get married.

So, love is something folks fall in out of? When one stops loving their spouse they simply “fall in love” with another? This is a great example of secular conditioning. Do people fall out of love with their children and start loving someone else’s children?

When deciding a civil law, a secular argument must be used.

Really? So, murder is wrong why?

You can not say “Because God says so.”

Why? Is it a lie? Besides, natural law can be understood without being Catholic.

“Homosexual sex is unnatural because _____” would be a perfectly valid argument. But “God says homosexual sex is wrong” wouldn’t be because God has no relevance to the debate on civil unions (apart from a theist’s view).

Since when our Catholics excluded from society? Furthermore, morality is part of society whether you accept God or not.

What I am saying is that a theist can not use a religious argument when talking about the laws of the state.

Why not? Where do you think rights come from?

Just because something is called Truth does not make it true.

Exactly.

I said “A civil union is not a plastic idea but merely giving recognition to a relationship founded on the most basic and human of emotions - love.” Is a marriage not founded on the most basic and human of emotions, love?

Marriage is founded on emotion? Are you married? Does a mother or father get out of bed several times during the night to care for a sick child based on emotion?

Please list those elements of marriage for me.

One man one woman for a start. When in history has marriage consisted of two same sex persons? Marriage is not any old relationship based on “love”.

Marriage is man/woman because that’s what the prevailing attitude of society was for a long time (due perhaps to the overbearing influence of religion).

Where do these “attitudes” come from?

“Just because” isn’t an argument, which essentially that is.

In a way it is. Do you deny objective morality?

Much like your definition of love really - “act of the will which desires what is best for the other”

You have a better definition? Let’s hear it. If you think love is simply and exclusively an emotion than you would support same sex “unions” and anything else.

Natural law. Hmm. Again, infertility rears its head.

How so?

Not all gay people have anal sex either by the way

Huh?

Destabilise how?

Marriage, authentic marriage, is necessary for stability. Once that is lost we see what can happen. Note the last 40 years or so and observe the changes.

How are couple who are infertile but are allowed to get married, are so different to a gay couple?!

One couple is designed to be procreative, the other is not. There is a reason for that.

Completely silly argument based on ‘bits’

Yea, those “bits” are so secondary. That is why there is so a fight to change what marriage means. It is both the “bits” and about human nature itself.

I love the way “they” is used in a ‘grab your torch and pitchfork’ way though.

I love the way rational arguments against unnatural behaviors are portrayed as reactionary and narrow.