Gay rights

[franklinstower]

I am not a Catholic but am a Christian and a sincerely deep admirer of the Catholic faith. My question is about gay marriage and why the Catholic Church is against it. I can understand perfectly why gay marriage cannot be permitted within the Catholic Church but cannot understand not wanting them to have the right to marry in the secular world. Are we trying to retain or create a christian country? *Or is it about not wanting our children to be exposed to this temptation? * I am clear about why Christianity does not allow gay marriage or homosexual acts-- I am not clear on why it is against them having rights and dignity in the secular realm.

Why are Christians are against gay men and women having the right to at least have a civil union that affords them the same protections and benefits that married couples enjoy. A common example is a lesbian couple who have been married for twenty five years and one of them falls very ill and eventually dies. It seems to me that the surviving person would have a right to be in the hospital with her partner while dying and also that after death she would be the owner of all properties gained during that union.

I am as strict and devout a follower of Christ in the areas of trying not to sin as the next guy, I am a sinner but I am trying with the fullness of my heart not to sin-- I understand the benefits that come from this struggle. I cannot understand why we try to project our beliefs onto others who don’t hold the same beliefs. I see the supreme court decision to allow gay marriage as a tremendous victory for human dignity in a country that seems to have been founded on the idea of separation of Church and state. What am I missing?

 

[Even_So]

Have you heard of Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[JimG]

It is not so much about wanting to have a Christian nation. It is not even about wanting to impose “beliefs” on others. It is more about recognizing the nature of human beings as men and women–sexually complementary persons. If there were not men and women, there would be no marriage. (And of course no continuing civilization.) Speaking of same sex “marriage” is rather like speaking of male pregnancy–a biological impossibility, consequently a social impossibility.

 

[edwest2]

I am not a Catholic but am a Christian and a sincerely deep admirer of the Catholic faith. My question is about gay marriage and why the Catholic Church is against it. I can understand perfectly why gay marriage cannot be permitted within the Catholic Church but cannot understand not wanting them to have the right to marry in the secular world. Are we trying to retain or create a christian country? *Or is it about not wanting our children to be exposed to this temptation? * I am clear about why Christianity does not allow gay marriage or homosexual acts-- I am not clear on why it is against them having rights and dignity in the secular realm.

Why are Christians are against gay men and women having the right to at least have a civil union that affords them the same protections and benefits that married couples enjoy. A common example is a lesbian couple who have been married for twenty five years and one of them falls very ill and eventually dies. It seems to me that the surviving person would have a right to be in the hospital with her partner while dying and also that after death she would be the owner of all properties gained during that union.

I am as strict and devout a follower of Christ in the areas of trying not to sin as the next guy, I am a sinner but I am trying with the fullness of my heart not to sin-- I understand the benefits that come from this struggle. I cannot understand why we try to project our beliefs onto others who don’t hold the same beliefs. I see the supreme court decision to allow gay marriage as a tremendous victory for human dignity in a country that seems to have been founded on the idea of separation of Church and state. What am I missing?

According to a gay rights site, States that did give couples such benefits said that was not enough. That they would be considered “second-class citizens” unless they got the right to marry.

Many legal options were and are available, including becoming the other person’s legal guardian, drawing up a will, drawing up a durable power of attorney and a document stating their end of life decisions. But that was not the course taken.

If I lived with my sister, and could not afford a house or apartment, should I get the same rights as a married couple?

This is not just about beliefs.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

Have you heard of Sodom and Gomorrah?

So you’re afraid that God will destroy America for allowing same-sex marriage by raining fire and brimstone down on it?

 

[franklinstower]

It is not so much about wanting to have a Christian nation. It is not even about wanting to impose “beliefs” on others. It is more about recognizing the nature of human beings as men and women–sexually complementary persons. If there were not men and women, there would be no marriage. (And of course no continuing civilization.) Speaking of same sex “marriage” is rather like speaking of male pregnancy–a biological impossibility, consequently a social impossibility.

I understand and agree with this concept for you and I who are Christian since we both see human nature that way but this is religion and many people do not share the same perspectives and philosophies. This is where I cant see the logic in the Christian position.

 

[JimG]

So you’re afraid that God will destroy America for allowing same-sex marriage by raining fire and brimstone down on it?

I’m thinking that fire and brimstone will not be necessary. Once the institution of marriage is destroyed, society will collapse of its own weight.

But–I don’t blame gays or same sex marriage for the destruction of marriage. No–that was accomplished by heterosexuals, with contraception, divorce, and cohabitation, and fornication. The destruction of marriage was a pre-requisite for, not a result of, same sex marriage.

 

[edwest2]

I’m thinking that fire and brimstone will not be necessary. Once the institution of marriage is destroyed, society will collapse of its own weight.

But–I don’t blame gays or same sex marriage for the destruction of marriage. No–that was accomplished by heterosexuals, with contraception, divorce, and cohabitation, and fornication. The destruction of marriage was a pre-requisite for, not a result of, same sex marriage.

And society was engineered to reach this point. It’s all clearly documented.

Ed

 

[franklinstower]

According to a gay rights site, States that did give couples such benefits said that was not enough. That they would be considered “second-class citizens” unless they got the right to marry.

Many legal options were and are available, including becoming the other person’s legal guardian, drawing up a will, drawing up a durable power of attorney and a document stating their end of life decisions. But that was not the course taken.

If I lived with my sister, and could not afford a house or apartment, should I get the same rights as a married couple?

This is not just about beliefs.

Ed

Perfect thank you.

Apparently there were not not a lot of options in some states as there have been disastrous events for some long term couples in end of life situations. Is that to say then that the Catholic Church or yourself would be in support of terming it a civil union with federal recognition that afforded all of the same rights needed to have a successful long term loving relationship?

 

[edwest2]

I understand and agree with this concept for you and I who are Christian since we both see human nature that way but this is religion and many people do not share the same perspectives and philosophies. This is where I cant see the logic in the Christian position.

It’s clearly spelled out here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed

 

[JimG]

I understand and agree with this concept for you and I who are Christian since we both see human nature that way but this is religion and many people do not share the same perspectives and philosophies. This is where I cant see the logic in the Christian position.

Well, I don’t see anatomy as religion. I don’t see that the fact that human beings are male and female, and that they are anatomically sexually complementary as a religious fact. If humans were not made that way, there would be no marriage, no families, no civilization.

To me, it’s just anatomy and biology. I don’t see why that is taken as religion.

 

[Thorolfr]

According to a gay rights site, States that did give couples such benefits said that was not enough. That they would be considered “second-class citizens” unless they got the right to marry.

Many legal options were and are available, including becoming the other person’s legal guardian, drawing up a will, drawing up a durable power of attorney and a document stating their end of life decisions. But that was not the course taken.

Of course, drawing up all this legal paperwork you’re talking about would not give same-sex couples all the rights of married couples, including many federal rights such as spousal benefits and survivor benefits from Social Security, the ability to transfer property between spouses without paying inheritance taxes, etc. All this paperwork might not be recognized in other countries, even in those that now allow same-sex marriage.

 

[edwest2]

Of course, drawing up all this legal paperwork you’re talking about would not give same-sex couples all the rights of married couples, including many federal rights such as spousal benefits and survivor benefits from Social Security, the ability to transfer property between spouses without paying inheritance taxes, etc. All this paperwork might not be recognized in other countries, even in those that now allow same-sex marriage.

So, if I live in the same house with my sister, I could apply for all of these other benefits?

Ed

 

[franklinstower]

Well, I don’t see anatomy as religion. I don’t see that the fact that human beings are male and female, and that they are anatomically sexually complementary as a religious fact. If humans were not made that way, there would be no marriage, no families, no civilization.

To me, it’s just anatomy and biology. I don’t see why that is taken as religion.

Because many people don’t see it that way when looking at anatomy-- I don’t without religion… Unless you are having children I cant think of a single reason an agnostic or atheist or even someone form a different spiritual perspective would necessarily come up with the same conclusion. Why do we insist upon forcing our perception of things on others who don’t see it the same way?

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s clearly spelled out here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed

This document speak of “homosexual unions,” so it appears that the Vatican is also opposed to homosexual unions that are not called marriage such as domestic partnerships, etc.

 

[Thorolfr]

So, if I live in the same house with my sister, I could apply for all of these other benefits?

Ed

If the Federal Government allowed it, why not?

 

[franklinstower]

^^^^^^

It is just this that I cant understand. Why must we force our perception onto other people, why legislate it? Even if they are wrong I cant see why?

 

[edwest2]

I am not a Catholic but am a Christian and a sincerely deep admirer of the Catholic faith. My question is about gay marriage and why the Catholic Church is against it. I can understand perfectly why gay marriage cannot be permitted within the Catholic Church but cannot understand not wanting them to have the right to marry in the secular world. Are we trying to retain or create a christian country? *Or is it about not wanting our children to be exposed to this temptation? * I am clear about why Christianity does not allow gay marriage or homosexual acts-- I am not clear on why it is against them having rights and dignity in the secular realm.

Why are Christians are against gay men and women having the right to at least have a civil union that affords them the same protections and benefits that married couples enjoy. A common example is a lesbian couple who have been married for twenty five years and one of them falls very ill and eventually dies. It seems to me that the surviving person would have a right to be in the hospital with her partner while dying and also that after death she would be the owner of all properties gained during that union.

I am as strict and devout a follower of Christ in the areas of trying not to sin as the next guy, I am a sinner but I am trying with the fullness of my heart not to sin-- I understand the benefits that come from this struggle. I cannot understand why we try to project our beliefs onto others who don’t hold the same beliefs. I see the supreme court decision to allow gay marriage as a tremendous victory for human dignity in a country that seems to have been founded on the idea of separation of Church and state. What am I missing?

Separation of Church and State is a recent invention, and a needless one.

From George Washington’s Farewell Address - 1796

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

Ed

 

[franklinstower]

Separation of Church and State is a recent invention, and a needless one.

From George Washington’s Farewell Address - 1796

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

Ed

So are you saying basically that you want a Christian nation with Christian rules enforced by the the government? If that is the case then it at least makes the Catholic position on this understandable for me even if I do disagree.

 

[Thorolfr]

Separation of Church and State is a recent invention, and a needless one.

So which church or religion get’s priority in a state without separation between church and state? Should liberal Protestant Christianity get priority?