Gay Marriage and Civil Unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter littleflower88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

littleflower88

Guest
I am newly Catholic (about 9 months) and I am struggling with some things. I used to support gay marriage, and I changed my views. I see nothing wrong with civil unions, due to the fact that a civil union isn’t performed in the name of God. However I have read some of these posts that say civil unions are stil wrong because it goes against the sacrament of marriage. So my first question is, if it is a governmental union, how does it go against sacramental marriage since it isn’t a marriage or union in the name of God?

My second issue is this, some people in other threads are saying that it should be against the law period, and civil unions shouldn’t be allowed. However, since civil unions are a government issue, if we made them illegal, wouldn’t that be taking away someone’s free will, which is also wrong in the eyes of God?

I am seriously asking these question so please no bashing!
 
littleflower88 said:
I am newly Catholic (about 9 months) and I am struggling with some things. I used to support gay marriage, and I changed my views. I see nothing wrong with civil unions, due to the fact that a civil union isn’t performed in the name of God. However I have read some of these posts that say civil unions are stil wrong because it goes against the sacrament of marriage. So my first question is, if it is a governmental union, how does it go against sacramental marriage since it isn’t a marriage or union in the name of God?
Click to expand...
Please note, this is just me talking - others are free to correct me or go more in-depth on this issue. Regarding the Sacrament of marriage, in the eyes of the Church, all first marriages between a man and a woman are presumed valid until proved otherwise. As far as civil unions, we cannot support them because that would be encouraging a person to sin, bringing an even greater guilt upon ourselves.
littleflower88 said:
My second issue is this, some people in other threads are saying that it should be against the law period, and civil unions shouldn’t be allowed. However, since civil unions are a government issue, if we made them illegal, wouldn’t that be taking away someone’s free will, which is also wrong in the eyes of God?

I am seriously asking these question so please no bashing!
Click to expand...
It’s no more taking away their free will than laws against marriage between cousins.
 
It may be no more taking away of free will than one thing or another, however is it still taking away of the free will? in either case wouldn’t it be wrong no matter how inappropriate and downright sinful it may be?
 
littleflower88 said:
It may be no more taking away of free will than one thing or another, however is it still taking away of the free will? in either case wouldn’t it be wrong no matter how inappropriate and downright sinful it may be?
Click to expand...
Their free will is not being taken away simply because there might be a government sanctioned law which refuses to give legal recognition and tolerance of their sin. A same sex couple might still choose to live together although the government has outlawed civil unions. The sin is the cohabitation part, not the government recognition of it. Consider the following: Is God taking away our free will by requiring us to obey the 10 commandments? Obviously not, since we are free to disobey God if we choose to do so.
 
littleflower88 said:
It may be no more taking away of free will than one thing or another, however is it still taking away of the free will? in either case wouldn’t it be wrong no matter how inappropriate and downright sinful it may be?
Click to expand...
We are not taking their free will away. People will do whatever they want, regardless of the laws. However, laws are in place to try to help people do what is right, both for themselves, and society.

It is not good for society to promote laws that harm the family. If people want to practice homosexuality, they will have the free will to continue to do that. However, society is under no obligation to condone, or promote,that which is detrimental to it or not moral. To the contrary, we have an obligation to uphold policies and laws that which will help individuals, and society.
 
ClearWater said:
We are not taking their free will away. People will do whatever they want, regardless of the laws. However, laws are in place to try to help people do what is right, both for themselves, and society.

It is not good for society to promote laws that harm the family. If people want to practice homosexuality, they will have the free will to continue to do that. However, society is under no obligation to condone, or promote,that which is detrimental to it or not moral. To the contrary, we have an obligation to uphold policies and laws that which will help individuals, and society.
Click to expand...
👍
 
ClearWater said:
We are not taking their free will away. People will do whatever they want, regardless of the laws. However, laws are in place to try to help people do what is right, both for themselves, and society.

It is not good for society to promote laws that harm the family. If people want to practice homosexuality, they will have the free will to continue to do that. However, society is under no obligation to condone, or promote,that which is detrimental to it or not moral. To the contrary, we have an obligation to uphold policies and laws that which will help individuals, and society.
Click to expand...
How is making this act illegal not taking free will away?
 
At the time they were proposed in Oregon, our archbishop was not opposed to civil unions, provided that a sexual relationship was not implied. The arrangement had to be open to any two adults wishing to set up a legal relationship of mutual care, and could not be a quasi-marriage for gays, which would be giving the state’s encouragement to illicit relationships while excluding licit ones between parties not eligible to marry each other.

Gay activists did not want this, which was very telling. If their goal had been to gain legal help for mutual care, and not a way to get the status of marriage for homosexual relationships, why would they care if partners with no sexual relationship could enter into these unions? As it was, their plan required excluding people who weren’t in sexual relationships. The story about this all being about people who couldn’t marry being able to love each other and care for each other and set up stable households was not the truth.
 
littleflower88 said:
How is making this act illegal not taking free will away?
Click to expand...
No one said we should make it illegal to be a same-sex couple. It just shouldn’t be Government-supported or recognized as valid, and no tax breaks should be given to same-sex couples because that’s an incentive to sin. But even if same-sex activity was made illegal, that still technically wouldn’t be taking away free will because they could still disobey. Free will is only taken away if you force someone to do something they don’t want to do. Making things illegal doesn’t do that. Therefore, it doesn’t take free will away.
 
EasterJoy said:
At the time they were proposed in Oregon, our archbishop was not opposed to civil unions, provided that a sexual relationship was not implied. The arrangement had to be open to any two adults wishing to set up a legal relationship of mutual care, and could not be a quasi-marriage for gays, which would be giving the state’s encouragement to illicit relationships while excluding licit ones between parties not eligible to marry each other.

Gay activists did not want this, which was very telling. If their goal had been to gain legal help for mutual care, and not a way to get the status of marriage for homosexual relationships, why would they care if partners with no sexual relationship could enter into these unions? As it was, their plan required excluding people who weren’t in sexual relationships. The story about this all being about people who couldn’t marry being able to love each other and care for each other and set up stable households was not the truth.
Click to expand...
This is one of the key points in what the LBGT lobby stands for: it is not looking for a legal resource to grant them social security or what not, it is a redefinition of family what they seek.

The problem is, that if you open the doors for gay marriage, you’re agreeing that they will also be able to:
  1. Adopt children: some couples lead very questionable lifestyles, in spite of being “married” that may not be suitable for children; plus, it is necessary for children to have male and female role models. This of course, isn’t always the case because of problems some families face that can get worse in specific circumstances but every child needs a mother and a father.
  2. To get “pregnant”: we all know how this happens; they get some sperm donnor, make in vitro fertilization (meaning several embrios lost, and therefore, aborted) or today’s fad: a surrogate mother (horrid, same risks as in vitro, loss of embrios).
  3. Promote sexual promiscuity: same sex sexual relationships aren’t exactly faithful, and are obviously, out of the natural norm. With this, children might be encouraged to “explore” their sexuality at a very young age. Just take a look at the UNO’s sex ed guide…horrid
Some high profile gay activists have even stated publicly that they’re against marriage, because they recognize it’s against marriage’s own nature, and that they agree that children need a mother and a father, so you can see that even some of them don’t agree in this.

The free will thing, is no different than prohibiting robbery or murder. You can’t claim that you violate someone’s free will just because they’re not allowed by the law to kill, and with some of the examples that have been given in this thread, I think you can get enough evidence to forbid it for the sake of the society.
 
TMO said:
This is one of the key points in what the LBGT lobby stands for: it is not looking for a legal resource to grant them social security or what not, it is a redefinition of family what they seek.

The problem is, that if you open the doors for gay marriage, you’re agreeing that they will also be able to:
  1. Adopt children: some couples lead very questionable lifestyles, in spite of being “married” that may not be suitable for children; plus, it is necessary for children to have male and female role models. This of course, isn’t always the case because of problems some families face that can get worse in specific circumstances but every child needs a mother and a father.
  2. To get “pregnant”: we all know how this happens; they get some sperm donnor, make in vitro fertilization (meaning several embrios lost, and therefore, aborted) or today’s fad: a surrogate mother (horrid, same risks as in vitro, loss of embrios).
  3. Promote sexual promiscuity: same sex sexual relationships aren’t exactly faithful, and are obviously, out of the natural norm. With this, children might be encouraged to “explore” their sexuality at a very young age. Just take a look at the UNO’s sex ed guide…horrid
Some high profile gay activists have even stated publicly that they’re against marriage, because they recognize it’s against marriage’s own nature, and that they agree that children need a mother and a father, so you can see that even some of them don’t agree in this.

The free will thing, is no different than prohibiting robbery or murder. You can’t claim that you violate someone’s free will just because they’re not allowed by the law to kill, and with some of the examples that have been given in this thread, I think you can get enough evidence to forbid it for the sake of the society.
Click to expand...
Ok, not sure where you are going with your comments, but:
  1. Straight and gay people who have “questionable” (by your standards) lifestyles, adopt children.
  2. Straight and gay people utilize sperm donors, in vitro, and surrogates, with much success.
  3. Is just a load of hooey… and you don’t give a source. 'Nuff said.
So – what is your point? And BTW - there is no “IF”. Gay marriage is legal. No court is going to take away these rights. That ship has sailed. Family HAS been redefined. It is time to move on.
 
Personanongrata said:
Ok, not sure where you are going with your comments, but:
  1. Straight and gay people who have “questionable” (by your standards) lifestyles, adopt children.
  2. Straight and gay people utilize sperm donors, in vitro, and surrogates, with much success.
  3. Is just a load of hooey… and you don’t give a source. 'Nuff said.
So – what is your point? And BTW - there is no “IF”. Gay marriage is legal. No court is going to take away these rights. That ship has sailed. Family HAS been redefined. It is time to move on.
Click to expand...
Move on? Indifference will not be occurring. Only some laws have been passed.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Move on? Indifference will not be occurring. Only some laws have been passed.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
It’s just a matter of time, my friend… It’s just a matter of time. The children shall lead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top