Debate on Civil Unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wiedererwachen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wiedererwachen

Guest
O.K. the last couple of days I have had a couple debates about gay unions and I can’t quite figure out what to say. I know it is wrong, but I can’t explain it. I tried taking the route that it effects families and that all countries that have allowed these types of relationships have fallen, but it doesn’t seem to make the point I am trying to get across. You have to ask that just because these countries allowed it, it doesn’t mean that is why they fell. And as far as destroying the family, they can still have children, but from and outside source, which I believe is wrong. Another question that came up when I was discussing this was if I believed that all marriages should procreate. I say yes, because it is part of the sacrament of marriage. Then we got into how some people should not have children, and I am inclined to say then they should become celebate if they are not yet responsible to bring a child in to this world. Plus, if they are not ready to bring a child into this world then they are not ready for marriage. Am I right about any of this? What are your opinion? Any help on this debate would be greatly appreciated. :confused:
 
The term Civil Union infers a legal status as in the protected status of marriage. The origin of marriage is from God but the origin of the “status” of marriage i.e. protections are man made. For example, if you are married it is assumed that your spouse and children are your benefactors on your life insurance. In fact, if this is not the way you want it to be, you have to change it…because it is assumed. If you carry health insurance, your family can usually be added to it for an additional fee. Try to add your friend or neighbor to it though…it isn’t going to happen. Why was it set up this way? To protect the family unit, to make it possible for a parent or spouse to take care of their family. The reason a spouse is included is tradition. Tradition was that a woman stayed home to raise children correct? So in a same sex relationship what needs to be protected? Both parties cannot reasonably expect to reproduce with each other eliminating the need for one to be a caregiver to minor children, so both should be expected to work and receive their own health insurance right? So why are homosexuals fighting for this? Two reasons: To validate their lifestyle, elevating it to the same level as a marriage and second, with the instance of AIDS, if one partner can no longer work, the other wants to be able to “cover” the other by providing health insurance. I personally think it is unfair to expect a hetrosexual to endure higher insurance rates because AIDS and HIV treatment and medications can be very expensive.
 
I’m dealing with this one right now, and not dealing with it well. Check out Karl Keating’s e-letter this week. The lead story about a priest advocating for civil unions, is sadly, my own pastor. My arguments hold no weight since in this small city, everyone knows my own pastor is in support of the unions.

For now I bow out gracefully and listen. I hope some really good ideas come this way because I am now fresh out.
 
Peter Kreeft is a Catholic philosopher and excellent apologist. He has a great speech on why homosexuality is wrong from a moral perspective.
 
I would like to post a site that has some good studies on it. It is Tradional Values

There is a whole section on the website about how we have been lied to about the number and % of population that are gay.
 
Sorry for my spelling error in the last post but the link does work. Check out their home page for some good stuff too…
 
I throw out a post on this because I don’t know that I understand the situation.

You can have a civil union without getting married, correct? I don’t see anything wrong with that. In fact I remember seeing a statement from a bishop stating that civil unions were a matter for the state and marriage a matter for the Church.

I used to live with a roomate and I never plan on getting married and neither does he. Technically we could have a civil union to recieve tax benefits as well as other things. I don’t really see how one can object to that.

Now when it comes to adopting, thats another story…
 
40.png
Wiedererwachen:
O.K. the last couple of days I have had a couple debates about gay unions and I can’t quite figure out what to say. I know it is wrong, but I can’t explain it.
A good place to start is here:
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) 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.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a* de facto* reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage…
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Code:
 [vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html)
 
Hi Roy, Sodom and Gomorrah was judged by God for homosexuality and for inhospitality (Gen 19:24-28). I am sure there were likely some religious leaders of that day which endorsed homosexuality. The very fact that scriptures calls homosexual sex – grievous sin, an abomination and shameful means we as a nation should not endorse it and thus open our nation up to the judgement, wrath of God.

“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;” (2 Pe 2:6)
“And they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.’” (Gen 19:5)

“know” as used here is often a euphemism for sexual relations

The next statement by Lot expresses his concept of hospitality in that he was willing to suffer personal loss rather than allow it to happen to his guests…

“See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.” (Gen 19:8)

“as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 7)

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Lev 18:22)

“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Lev 20:13)

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Co 6:9-10)

In this passage, Paul uses two terms that are translated above as “homosexuals” and “sodomites.” The first term, translated “homosexuals” (“effeminate” in the KJV) is “malakos”, and is defined as:

“effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness” (THAYER)

The word translated as “sodomites” (“abusers of themselves with mankind” in the KJV) is arsenokoitai, and is defined as:

“one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite” (THAYER)

Paul’s warning not to be deceived is very appropriate even today, for some homosexual theologians would have us believe that Paul was only condemning male prostitution. Whereas the first word (malakos) does properly speak of a male prostitute, the second word (arsenokoitai) describes any sort of homosexual conduct. Despite such efforts to twist the Scriptures and deceive many, the Word of God is clear: those who continue to engage in homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God!

Paul also uses the word “arsenokoitai” (the generic term for homosexual conduct) as an example of that which is:

“…contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” (1 Ti 1:10-11)
Since the “sound doctrine” of the gospel of Christ condemns even sexual relations between unmarried heterosexuals, it should not be hard to understand that sex between unmarried homosexuals is wrong as well! As for “married” homosexuals, the institution of marriage which was begun and defined by God only allows for sex between a man and a woman (cf. Gen 2:24; Mt 19:4-6).
The “classic” passage which deals with the sin of homosexual conduct is that of Ro 1:18-28. In this passage, Paul discusses the wrath of God which is directed toward those who do not honor God:

“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.” (Ro 1:26)

“Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Ro 1:27)

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;” (Ro 1:28)

ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/hom/hom_03.htm

Isaiah 1:10,11
Jeremiah 23:13, 14
Ezekiel 16:49, 50
Matthew 10:9-15

mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/testimony_articles/2004-01-01
 
So myself living with another male would be considered endorsing homosexuality? I guess you could view it that way…I don’t personally but to each his own. Legally living with a male and sharing work benefits doesn’t seem to me to be supporting homosexuality either. That is really what I was getting at. If my buddy was out of work and didn’t have health care I’d like to be able to help out and have my plan cover him seeing as how I don’t have or intend to have a spouse.

Any law, invention, idea, etc. can be twisted to evil. Any. I’m just wondering if the benefits outweigh the consequences in this instance. At any rate, it depends on how it is explained to someone as to how an action is viewed. That is why I disagree with the underlined comment in the previous post.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.

The laws themselves are not really intrinsically meaningful. It is only when explained they are given meaning. Just as the civil union law would be.

Just my thoughts.
 
fair enough Roy, now at what point does God judge a nation, bring down his wrath on it? And, are you willing to chance such for insurance benefits?
 
40.png
precious_roy:
So myself living with another male would be considered endorsing homosexuality? I guess you could view it that way…I don’t personally but to each his own. Legally living with a male and sharing work benefits doesn’t seem to me to be supporting homosexuality either. That is really what I was getting at. If my buddy was out of work and didn’t have health care I’d like to be able to help out and have my plan cover him seeing as how I don’t have or intend to have a spouse.
Why is a so called civil union the only legal remedy for such a problem?
Any law, invention, idea, etc. can be twisted to evil.
Probably, but the motivation for civil unions is to ape marriage.
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.
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Any. I’m just wondering if the benefits outweigh the consequences in this instance. At any rate, it depends on how it is explained to someone as to how an action is viewed. That is why I disagree with the underlined comment in the previous post.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.
The laws themselves are not really intrinsically meaningful. It is only when explained they are given meaning. Just as the civil union law would be.
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.(17)
 
Daniel Marsh:
fair enough Roy, now at what point does God judge a nation, bring down his wrath on it? And, are you willing to chance such for insurance benefits?
Good point. But as I said above, you are only endorsing it as much as you explain the ‘spirit’ of the law.

The creation of an ‘incorporation’ entity in business would be similar. The idea of the theoretical entity is to protect board members from personal bankruptcy (basically) in the event of corporate bankruptcy. On the other hand, it was not intended to act like a shield enabling CEOs to abuse consumers by making faulty, or even fictional, products to collect profits at the expense of others.

Any law can be twisted and that is how a lot, if not all, people think. Each person views a law in a different light because everyone has differing experiences. The difference is in the values generated and preached to the society, not the laws.
 
40.png
fix:
Why is a so called civil union the only legal remedy for such a problem?
Oh, not saying that it is. I don’t know all the legal and financial benefits that come from a civil union. I would assume inheritance and such would also fall under that. If you wanted to individually legislate all of these things just to avoid the title ‘civil union’ then that would be fine by me also.
40.png
fix:
Probably, but the motivation for civil unions is to ape marriage.
It depends on the person and their reasoning. I just gave an example of a reason I might be in favor of civil unions for a non homosexual reason.
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.(17)
Again, if you didn’t want the ‘concept of homosexual unions’, which I would not equate to civil unions but some do, then by all means make seperate legislation for each benefit provided by civil unions so that one has to apply for each individually. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.
 
40.png
precious_roy:
Again, if you didn’t want the ‘concept of homosexual unions’, which I would not equate to civil unions but some do, then by all means make seperate legislation for each benefit provided by civil unions so that one has to apply for each individually. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.
My main concern is jumping on a slide and going down a slippery slope to judgement.

I have no problem with “universal health care”. As for inheritance, all you need to do is get a will. In your personal life insurance desinate whom you want. There are ways to do some of those things already.

Other options are join the military under the buddy system. move to canada, and bug congress to pass laws like “universal health care.”
 
40.png
precious_roy:
Oh, not saying that it is. I don’t know all the legal and financial benefits that come from a civil union. I would assume inheritance and such would also fall under that. If you wanted to individually legislate all of these things just to avoid the title ‘civil union’ then that would be fine by me also.

It depends on the person and their reasoning. I just gave an example of a reason I might be in favor of civil unions for a non homosexual reason.

Again, if you didn’t want the ‘concept of homosexual unions’, which I would not equate to civil unions but some do, then by all means make seperate legislation for each benefit provided by civil unions so that one has to apply for each individually. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.
I think the entire point of this issue is civil unions are not about non homosexuals securing “rights”. It is specfically a vehicle for those who want public endorsement of "gay’ relationships or who want to devalue marriage. I am sure the smart lawyers could conjure up many ways to solve all the problems of inheritence, or medical visitations, and all the rest.
 
Daniel Marsh:
My main concern is jumping on a slide and going down a slippery slope to judgement.

I have no problem with “universal health care”. As for inheritance, all you need to do is get a will. In your personal life insurance desinate whom you want. There are ways to do some of those things already.

Other options are join the military under the buddy system. move to canada, and bug congress to pass laws like “universal health care.”
Uh oh. I wasn’t attempting to give the impression I was for universal health care because I am not. But thats another story all together…

I guess the problem is that everyones complex thoughts and reasoning such as yours or mine get mapped into a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote which doesn’t express the full sentiment of thought. That is what I was trying to state with the idea of preaching values along with your actions.

And I do agree that the slide is quite slippery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top