Civil Unions: Can Catholics Support Them?

[Filius99993]

And in real life that is considered to be bi-sexual. You prefer either gender, for people as well as other animals in the web of life.

…I agree with you here, homosexuality isn’t a disorder. But I don’t believe people are born with it, and the Catholic Church states that homosexual sexual activity is amoral. And that stance is not going to change. (it’s in Corinthians where Paul states it to be amoral. He was simply stating what the Church teaches and will forever teach. We follow the Sacred tradition, do not forget that. The Church states what is moral not just to Catholics, but to every over person there is.) Homosexuals may be good parents, but it isn’t because they had sex with their partners. (It’s possible to be a good parent and not to actually “do” it… look at Mary.)

 

[Other_Eric]

…I agree with you here, homosexuality isn’t a disorder. But I don’t believe people are born with it, and the Catholic Church states that homosexual sexual activity is amoral. And that stance is not going to change. (it’s in Corinthians where Paul states it to be amoral. He was simply stating what the Church teaches and will forever teach. We follow the Sacred tradition, do not forget that. The Church states what is moral not just to Catholics, but to every over person there is.) Homosexuals may be good parents, but it isn’t because they had sex with their partners. (It’s possible to be a good parent and not to actually “do” it… look at Mary.)

How can same-sex attraction* not* be a disorder? Whether biological, psychological or spiritual in nature it is a condition that perverts the sexual impulse to an improper and evil end. It is therefore most fittingly described and treated as a disorder. In this light it can be seen that those with same-sex attraction can never make good or proper parents for children even if they never act on the impulse once. A parent with same-sex attractions can never image a proper sexual identity for the child that parent is meant to rear and therefore stunts that child’s development. Willingly tolerating a child to live in an environment that prevents him from reaching his true potential also has a proper name: hatred.

 

[fix]

so its essentially meaningless…just means that one item goes into another item. The fact that through menapause NOTHING can procreate is of no consequence. Does this tell you anything about the strength of your argument?

No, not meaningless. It requires the ability to reason.

Please see this:

If it is the inclination of our reproductive powers which must be fulfilled in and through the conjugal act, then the procreative meaning of the conjugal act cannot be reserved only for the “fertile act of marital intercourse”; and the infertile act of marital intercourse cannot be limited only to its unitive meaning. Such a view assumes a biologistic sense of the procreative meaning of the conjugal act (cf. “The Rhythm Method: an Upbeat Update,” Ethics & Medics, July 1991, p. 2). On the contrary, both the fertile and infertile acts of marital intercourse are procreative, because both, under the right conditions, are acts in fulfillment of a natural tendency. This tendency, as constitutive of human nature, does not and cannot retreat during the infertile period of the ovulation cycle, postmenopause, and infertility…

 

[fix]

Spirit, I don’t think you can tell him ANYTHING…ever. What’s the use? The blinders are thickening…

You mean you cannot get me accept error as truth.

I want to ask “fix”…does it harm YOU that 2 people are given legal rights to visit each other in the hospital…for example? They ask nothing of the Church.

No, and no one has suggested such persons should not be able to see each other, but you know well that has nothing to do with it. The attempt to redefine marriage is not about “rights”.

 

[fix]

Actually, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The fundemental problem that Catholics have with gay marriage is that marriage is one of our 7 Sacraments.

No, marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church.

In a pluralistic and free society, we probably should leave marriage entirely to religions and only register civil unions.

That is freedom?

The Church already makes a distinction, for example, a marriage outside the Church is not officially recognized.

You mean Catholics who married outside the Church. Non Catholics certainly may have valid marriages.

But I don’t think that Rome is ready to throw in the towel. To me, turning back the clock and elliminating most forms of divorce seems hopeless, but as a Roman Catholic I am called to be dutiful and obey, not calculate the odds.

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings…No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons…

…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. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection…

 

[fix]

I have a marriage with a particular human being, my spouse. I have a marriage with the entire person, not just his external sexual organ. Sex is great and wonderful, but hardly the single most important thing in our relationship.

Straw man. No complimentarity no marriage.

That particular human being is not randomly interchangable with any other human being, regardless of chromosones, genitalia, ability to function in any particular way sexually, etc. That relationship is not based on the ability to have biological children together and would continue without the ability to do so.

Any relationship that excludes complimentarity may be a “relationship” but it ain’t marriage.

Yes, humans are body and soul and much more than only baby-making machines. That would be part of the reason that civil marriage is allowed between couples who have some sort of physical disability and are not able to insert tab A into slot B, even though the Church does not allow such. This does not minimize anatomy, it knocks it off of a pedestal as the be-all and end-all and puts it into perspective with all the other aspects of the person that lead toward marriage.

The “slots” and “tabs” exist for a reason. They are not incidental.

And you define complementarity solely based on gender characteristics, which, as the studies I cited showed, are highly influenced by culture.

That your “studies” show humans are influenced by culture does not prove objective truth does not exist.

The core differences between men and women are that men can produce sperm and women can bear children.

Other than that they are interchangeable? Again, you see this as physicalistic rather than what our natures really are.

I see it as acknowledging that our physical natures are not all identical and interchangeable. There is nothing “disembodied” about the love between a heterosexual couple or between a homosexual couple.

So, “love” as you define it is an emotion?

Raising children who are able to function independently as adults and be contributing members of society.

Not only is that not proven we need your criteria.

Please define “authentic adoption” and how it differs from legal adoption.

It means child have a right to parents of opposite sexes. Simply adopting because some civil law allows it does not make it right.

 

[iamrefreshed]

so its essentially meaningless…just means that one item goes into another item. The fact that through menapause NOTHING can procreate is of no consequence. Does this tell you anything about the strength of your argument?

So, I assume you believe that Elizabeth and Sarah’s pregnancies are myths?

 

[rpp]

So, I assume you believe that Elizabeth and Sarah’s pregnancies are myths?

And do not forget about the wife of Manoah, Samson’s mother!

 

[SoCalRC]

I will ignore that bad biology here and limit my response to the last paragraph.

I’d be more interested in your explanation of why the biology is ‘bad’. You stated a ‘strictly secular context’, I cannot help what the the secular meaning of Natural Selection is.

That means that I am saying the medical community has done great harm to those who suffer from SSA by telling them they are normal. And the fact that I said it should implies that I think harming people is bad.

I am not following you at all. My son is severely disabled, in a neurological sense he is not ‘normal’. Much as a patient in a coma is not neurologically normal. Both conditions are essentially untreatable, but there is no Christian justification to exclude and label, or demonize. We are called to accept them as fellow children of God.

I cannot ignore that homosexual acts are a sin in my faith, but I also cannot play Pharisee and pretend that I, myself, am not a sinner or that I am somehow morally superior by moral relativism. The best I can do is to strive to follow Christ, love God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

…I agree with you here, homosexuality isn’t a disorder. But I don’t believe people are born with it, and the Catholic Church states that homosexual sexual activity is amoral. And that stance is not going to change. (it’s in Corinthians where Paul states it to be amoral. He was simply stating what the Church teaches and will forever teach. We follow the Sacred tradition, do not forget that. The Church states what is moral not just to Catholics, but to every over person there is.) Homosexuals may be good parents, but it isn’t because they had sex with their partners. (It’s possible to be a good parent and not to actually “do” it… look at Mary.)

Well, look around the animal kingdom, there are same-gender matchups there and we are part of that web of life.

Nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels is this matter even mentioned. While Paul’s writings have worth, the order of the mass relegates them to the second reading and not the main focus.

Time will tell what the actual Church stance will be with this. While this gets more press in the USA than anywhere else, the RCC is a global church and has changed with the times it exists in. This is a reflection of the people in the Church, like all human institutions.

 

[SoCalRC]

And in real life that is considered to be bi-sexual. You prefer either gender, for people as well as other animals in the web of life.

As I mentioned, the research seems to suggest that the genetic tendancies are ‘spectral’, with most of us at varying places on the scale.

With no disrespect to any group of people, I can’t help but notice a similiarity to my youngest son’s situation. He suffers from the syndrome of autism, which is part of a spectrum of disorders called “PDD” (pervasive developmental disability). His sisters are all academically ‘gifted’, but also all demonstrate some traits listed in the DSM. Similiarly, while he is severely disabled, he has an incredible memory and is a savant with regards to math.

Although the research has not ruled out environmental factors, the statistical evidence suggests a strong connection to multiple genes (combining in different ways, thus producing a ‘range’ or ‘severity’ of symptoms). So, in a sense, none of my children is technically normal, but only is abnormal in the sense that he struggles with meeting the criteria to fit in with society at large.

Because my son is disabled, I’ve spent a lot of time working with the disabled as a volunteer. Interestingly, when it comes to true worth as a human child of God, many of the individuals I have worked with far outpace most ‘normal’ people I know. In other words, following Christ’s message to reach out to the weakest among us has been rewarding in a way I did not expect.

Initially, there was the immediate gratification of helping others. But over time I realized that I was spending time with many people who were simply better Christians than myself. I improve as a person not because of what I give to them, but because of the example they set for me.

I am not saying this is the same as homosexuality, but I do think that it would be more productive to do what the Lord instructed us to do, reach out in love and support, than to risk falling into a trap the Lord warned us against, making moral comparisons between our own sinful lives and the sinful lives of others.

P.S. “NewUlm” reminds me of a nice town in Minn.

 

[rpp]

I’d be more interested in your explanation of why the biology is ‘bad’. You stated a ‘strictly secular context’, I cannot help what the the secular meaning of Natural Selection is.

I am not following you at all. My son is severely disabled, in a neurological sense he is not ‘normal’. Much as a patient in a coma is not neurologically normal. Both conditions are essentially untreatable, but there is no Christian justification to exclude and label, or demonize. We are called to accept them as fellow children of God.

I cannot ignore that homosexual acts are a sin in my faith, but I also cannot play Pharisee and pretend that I, myself, am not a sinner or that I am somehow morally superior by moral relativism. The best I can do is to strive to follow Christ, love God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself.

So you pretend to not understand clear speech. And this is after you invent a system of biology where genetic traits are passed on by those who do not reproduce. Then try to twist what I say implying that I am promoting hate.

You are not responding in good faith. Good day, sir.

 

[rubenzillo]

Marriage was instituded by God and is primarly the Union between a male and a female… if this Criteria is not met then it cannot be considered a marriage.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

As I mentioned, the research seems to suggest that the genetic tendancies are ‘spectral’, with most of us at varying places on the scale.

With no disrespect to any group of people, I can’t help but notice a similiarity to my youngest son’s situation. He suffers from the syndrome of autism, which is part of a spectrum of disorders called “PDD” (pervasive developmental disability). His sisters are all academically ‘gifted’, but also all demonstrate some traits listed in the DSM. Similiarly, while he is severely disabled, he has an incredible memory and is a savant with regards to math.

Although the research has not ruled out environmental factors, the statistical evidence suggests a strong connection to multiple genes (combining in different ways, thus producing a ‘range’ or ‘severity’ of symptoms). So, in a sense, none of my children is technically normal, but only is abnormal in the sense that he struggles with meeting the criteria to fit in with society at large.

Because my son is disabled, I’ve spent a lot of time working with the disabled as a volunteer. Interestingly, when it comes to true worth as a human child of God, many of the individuals I have worked with far outpace most ‘normal’ people I know. In other words, following Christ’s message to reach out to the weakest among us has been rewarding in a way I did not expect.

Initially, there was the immediate gratification of helping others. But over time I realized that I was spending time with many people who were simply better Christians than myself. I improve as a person not because of what I give to them, but because of the example they set for me.

I am not saying this is the same as homosexuality, but I do think that it would be more productive to do what the Lord instructed us to do, reach out in love and support, than to risk falling into a trap the Lord warned us against, making moral comparisons between our own sinful lives and the sinful lives of others.

P.S. “NewUlm” reminds me of a nice town in Minn.

Nice story and good luck with your son.

Being “Christian” or “Catholic” varies widely in the world. Saying others are “better” is a very slippery slope. We are who we are, and no better than others, like you say reaching out in love and support is a good thing to strive for, even if it is very tough to see and do at times. And like you say making moral comparisons based on this trait or another is a very unproductive thing to do.

Same-gender sexual preferences are often not the defining trait in a person, the rest of their person is a sum of the rest of their character, all the good and the bad like the rest of us.

Also when you get into discussions about Civil Unions or same-gender marriage, I am not threatened in the least. I am happy for them they have found a life partner they want to be monogamous for the rest of their life with all the ups and downs that entails. That is not the way I am but they are happy.

It is also not a threat to different-gender marriages as any relationship does not rise and fall based on what someone else is doing, but only between the two people involved. I have been hurt in many relationships but I do not look for scapegoats, I blame myself and my past girlfriends/finance for the breakup, no more, no less. It is taking responsibility for your own actions and not put the blame (or apparent blame) on other people unrelated to your own situation.

Yes, my username is based on the city in southern Minnesota.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

So you pretend to not understand clear speech. And this is after you invent a system of biology where genetic traits are passed on by those who do not reproduce. Then try to twist what I say implying that I am promoting hate.

You are not responding in good faith. Good day, sir.

In relation to genetics, the gene could still be there and you can still reproduce and pass the gene on. It could be regressive and wait for future generations, or active but other life or societal factors lead a person to reproduce, passing the gene on. The genome is a complicated thing.

 

[Filius99993]

In relation to genetics, the gene could still be there and you can still reproduce and pass the gene on. It could be regressive and wait for future generations, or active but other life or societal factors lead a person to reproduce, passing the gene on. The genome is a complicated thing.

It’s really doubtful that there is a gay gene. Scientists have not found it, and pretty much all of the homosexuals I know believe themselves to be homosexual because of stuff that occurred to them whenever they were young (er) . It’s not easy.

We don’t go solely by the Gospels… like I said, we follow the Sacred Tradition. I believe it to be likely that since Paul said such about homosexuality that Christ probably at one time did say something about it… we don’t conjure these things out of thin air. He didn’t just make it up.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Fertility has no bearing.

Homosexual acts are objectively disordered. Period. They are unnatural in that they defy the requirements of natural selection. Thus from a purely secular and naturalistic point of view they are gravely disordered.

Period.

With that premise, any activity that condones such a disorder does violence and injustice to those who suffer from it. Why, because affirming the behavior is not different than affirming the behavior of a person suffering from schizophrenic hallucinations while denying them medical care. It is just cruel.

Of course, one significant difference is that most homosexuals do have some limited control over whether they act upon they impulses.

thats not exactly what we were discussing, but thanks for the post.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

It’s really doubtful that there is a gay gene. Scientists have not found it, and pretty much all of the homosexuals I know believe themselves to be homosexual because of stuff that occurred to them whenever they were young (er) . It’s not easy.

We don’t go solely by the Gospels… like I said, we follow the Sacred Tradition. I believe it to be likely that since Paul said such about homosexuality that Christ probably at one time did say something about it… we don’t conjure these things out of thin air. He didn’t just make it up.

If you read another poster’s post above, she says (and I agree) it is more than just one gene but a blending of many genes.

Yet tradition revolves around the Gospels. We have four accounts, so probably is just making an inference which the Gospel writers did not put in. Paul is not the same as Jesus, he was fallible and his own biases have been pointed out by scripture historians in relation to the time he lived in versus our modern time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

How can same-sex attraction* not* be a disorder? Whether biological, psychological or spiritual in nature it is a condition that perverts the sexual impulse to an improper and evil end. It is therefore most fittingly described and treated as a disorder. In this light it can be seen that those with same-sex attraction can never make good or proper parents for children even if they never act on the impulse once. A parent with same-sex attractions can never image a proper sexual identity for the child that parent is meant to rear and therefore stunts that child’s development. Willingly tolerating a child to live in an environment that prevents him from reaching his true potential also has a proper name: hatred.

Well its very clear who here understands exactly what the word hatred means…geeeesh…what in the world happened to you that you can spew such incredible invective at other human beings? It’s literally causes one to gasp in horror.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, not meaningless. It requires the ability to reason.

Please see this:

Yes, would that one would do just that.