Homosexuality and marriage

[twoangels]

Lifesitenews recently published an article about how being Catholic means opposing even Civil Unions. Now, I have had Catholic friends explain to me why they oppose Civil Unions, but no one ever claimed this was Church teaching. They link they provided was about “homosexual unions.” Most of the arguments were about not supporting gay marriage. Meanwhile I also agree that there is a valid point: if a civil union is the same as gay marriage, than we’re playing semantics.

In the meantime, I’ve listened to opposing arguments as well. Civil Marriage laws does seem to protect more than just the children. There are some civil marriage rights that it does seem should be able to be applied beyond those who are married. These would be namely:

• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Certainly these are not all the legal benefits in marriage, but I just can’t see barring people from loving their loved ones as right regardless of how immoral the sexual behavior is. I think these things can go far beyond people in sexual relationships. My mother was abandoned at her aunts house repetitively. My grandma would show up at her sisters, claim she was running an errand and return just before she’d lose custody. My mom had no stability in her life and was mostly raised by her aunt. Her aunt also ran a foster home. One of the kids stayed at the home till adulthood. My mom considers this foster kid a sibling and considers her cousins siblings. I still consider my mother’s aunt my “real” grandmother. I consider my mom’s cousins my aunts and uncles. My mom however was never legally adopted.

Certainly we haven’t come into great legal hassles in our situation, but non-traditional families do exist. Say a young girl is pregnant. Her boyfriend abandoned her. Her mother is a widow. Rather than putting the baby up for adoption, the young girl’s mother and the young girl decide to raise the child together. Wouldn’t it make sense to allow the young girl and her child to stay under her mother’s insurance?

I think that if we just legally recognized people’s right to love each other, that would be enough – even if its not a tradtional family, even if we believe their sexual lifestyle is immoral. Certainly its not marriage. It shouldn’t be called marriage, but it doesn’t make sense to me that we should make people’s ability to be there for one another difficult.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Fifty years ago anyone who had argued for same-sex marriage rights would have been certified lunatic.

Today anybody who opposes same-sex marriage is certified bigot.

Is that progress? I doubt it. All the loonies, seeing the lunatic Supreme Court’s handwriting on the wall (oh believe it, even our dominantly Catholic Supreme Court will rally for same-sex marriage), will now want their lunacies certified … including the loonies who are polygamists, and the loonies who demand the right for incestuous marriage.

I’m not hopeful the Supreme Court will be any more courageous in striking down this insanity than they would likely be in striking down the insanity of Roe v Wade.

 

[_Abyssinia]

• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Not all states ave the same civil union laws, but most states have similar laws

Those in a civil union have hospital visitation rights and the right to make emergency medical decisions for their partner

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer.

Health insurance coverage for partner and their children through insurance company or through employer is possible

• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Right to sick leave to care for partner is permitted

• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

If a partner in a civil union passes away, bereavement leave is permitted

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Permitted

• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

They have the right to hospital visitation and the right to make emergency medical decisions

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Partner in a civil union has the right to control what is done with partner’s remains if they pass away

• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Permitted

• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

I assume that would be permitted

Civil union partners have many more rights than the ones listed above so gay marriage advocates are not pushing gay marriage because there is a lack of benefits for partners in civil unions compared to marriage

 

[Apolojez]

I support civil unions as long as they are given equal treatment by the government, which they currently don’t. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I support civil unions as long as they are given equal treatment by the government, which they currently don’t. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference.

Catholic Church does not support civil unions:

1. What is the Church’s position on legislation to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships?

On two different occasions, in 2003 and 2006, the USCCB Administrative Committee stated: “We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means.”

In 2003 a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “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. Laws in favor 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” (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, n.6).

old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml

Bishop Conley cites a quote from Bishop Salvatore J Cordileone who said:

in no way can civil union measures be considered a permissible compromise or a step in advancing the common good; instead, they directly violate principles of justice and accelerate the push to redefine marriage itself

Vatican document, ‘Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recongition to unions between homosexual persons:’

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.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Fifty years ago anyone who had argued for same-sex marriage rights would have been certified lunatic.

Fifty years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in over one third of the US. Ah, the good ol’ days!!

It’s just a slippery slope.

 

[Apolojez]

Catholic Church does not support civil unions:

old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml

Bishop Conley cites a quote from Bishop Salvatore J Cordileone who said:

Vatican document, ‘Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recongition to unions between homosexual persons:’

I realize that since I am Catholic, however that doesn’t change anything. Prejudice is something America has been struggling with since it’s founding. Women, Blacks, and Jews are just some of those who have been treated as “lesser” human beings in this country and it’s unbelievable how people still try to go back to that way of thinking.

Catholics can disagree with it but I choose not to impose my beliefs on anyone because I don’t want another person’s beliefs imposed on me.

 

[buffalo]

I support civil unions as long as they are given equal treatment by the government, which they currently don’t. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference.

The institution of marriage itself is promoted by a government for the benefit of the common good, not for “equality” reasons. It also protects children who are being forgotten in this adult argument as in abortion.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Fifty years ago anyone who had argued for same-sex marriage rights would have been certified lunatic.

.

I disgree - homosexuality was illegal then, so most homosexuals would probably have been too scared to speak out never mind seeking equal rights. Think of what it took for blacks to get equal rights. They were/are in a similar position

 

[buffalo]

I disgree - homosexuality was illegal then, so most homosexuals would probably have been too scared to speak out never mind seeking equal rights. Think of what it took for blacks to get equal rights. They were/are in a similar position

No they weren’t. This is not a civil rights issue. It is one of license (behavior).

And by the way - I don’t think the condition of homosexual was ever illegal, the act was.

 

[aprilfloyd]

No they weren’t. This is not a civil rights issue. It is one of license (behavior).

It is an equal rights issue

And by the way - I don’t think the condition of homosexual was ever illegal, the act was.

With all due respect, that is a very naive comment.

 

[buffalo]

It is an equal rights issue

With all due respect, that is a very naive comment.

Where do these rights come from?

Source for the condition being illegal?

 

[ruscal97]

Marriage was meant to be between a man and a women. It is such a special gift that God has given us.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Where do these rights come from?

Source for the condition being illegal?

Not sure about what you mean about where these rights come from. We embody them in or laws.

What do you mean by ‘condition’ - In the UK until repeal, laws discriminated against homosexuals in many areas of life. Today it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. Homosexuals and Lesbians are now afforded equal rights in almost all areas of life and as of 2015 that will include marriage.

Sadly it will not eradicate homophobia, just like we cannot eliminate racism, but it is a welcome equal rights advance.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Marriage was meant to be between a man and a women. It is such a special gift that God has given us.

Not in the UK were legislation is to be introduced to legalise same sex marriage.

 

[Lancer]

Here below (excerpts with link) is a very good reason for “No”…on civil unions…but the most important to me is in Christian charity in truth…legal contracts OK…but same sex unions as recognized “human unions” is a lie and uncharitable…to support a lie is uncharitable…even if the persons want to have it. We make these type decisions every day…decisions based on truth…not sentimentality or feelings…we do this in family life and civil life and in our religious faith based life.

Beyond same sex marriage

Civil unions, same sex marriage, then what? The final stop on this train ride is the complete de-gendering of society.
​

The “I’m against same sex marriage but favor civil unions” position is the major unheralded casualty of the California Supreme Court decision redefining marriage. Politicians from across the political spectrum have taken refuge in this dodge, believing it allows them to navigate the treacherous shoals of powerful but divided public opinion about same sex marriage. The court’s ruling has shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that civil unions are not a stable political or social compromise, however rational and reasonable that position may appear to be. Here is why.

The state must hold that mothers and fathers are completely interchangeable. Biological parents married to each other become officially equivalent to one parent plus their lover. The state will be indifferent as to whether children have any connection with their biological parents.

The experiences of other countries with same sex marriage illustrate that** this is no mere expansion of an existing institution. In Spain, the words “mother” and “father” were removed from birth certificates in favor of “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B”. Courts in Canada have assigned parental rights to three adults.** Similar experiences from Massachusetts and the UK leave no doubt that the state will have to continually intervene to prop up same sex marriage, and the gender-oblivious society that comes along with it. Sexual orientation will be viewed as immutable, with sex itself as a mere social construct.

**As Douglas Farrow, a Canadian academic asks in his book, A Nation of Bastards, is this really what we intended to do? **

Gays and lesbians have as much political power in California as in any state in America. If civil unions could have ever been a viable political compromise position, it would have been here.** Any candidate who favors civil unions, is really saying that he favors the continual progress of this train toward the destination of same sex marriage, and perhaps even beyond to the ultimate radical goal of a completely non-gendered society.
**
**This ruling gives the electorate the chance to gain genuine clarity from the candidates. The “I oppose same sex marriage, but favor civil unions,” position is the equivalent of “I’m personally opposed to abortion but support your right to have one.” It is a cowardly subterfuge that should no longer fool anyone.
**
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the author of Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village, newly reissued in paperback.
mercatornet.com/articles/view/beyond_same_sex_marriage

Pax Christi

 

[marymary1975]

It is an equal rights issue

.

I disagree on that. Equal means same for everybody. If it is an equal right issue then where is the equal right for people who practice polygamy? Where is the right to marry minors? Why they are not advocating to make bigamy illegal? Where is the right for mentally incompetent people to marry? The society is selling it to you as equality because sounds pretty and is an easy way to make people fall for it but there is nothing about equality in it.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I disagree on that. Equal means same for everybody. If it is an equal right issue then where is the equal right for people who practice polygamy? Where is the right to marry minors? Why they are not advocating to make bigamy illegal? Where is the right for mentally incompetent people to marry? The society is selling it to you as equality because sounds pretty and is an easy way to make people fall for it but there is nothing about equality in it.

Fair point Mary. In the UK it is a question of equal rights. Just like the right for heterosexual marriage.

Heterosexual Marriage did not lead to these other marriages you highlight being made legal. Is there something peculiar to homosexual marriage that makes you feel that way?

 

[buffalo]

Fair point Mary. In the UK it is a question of equal rights. Just like the right for heterosexual marriage.

Heterosexual Marriage did not lead to these other marriages you highlight being made legal. Is there something peculiar to homosexual marriage that makes you feel that way?

No it isn’t - it is an issue of equal promotion. It is not a rights issue at all. And you never answered - where do our rights come from?

 

[saintjoe]

It is so easy to label someone a bigot or racist. This is not about equal rights. I do not see signs that say “heterosexual toilets” or “homosexuals sit at the back of the bus”. This is about redefining the definition of marriage.

I have nothing against laws that allow people to grant legal rights to anyone they want; and anyone can freely choose to love who they what, but civil unions just encourage (or gives a cultural acceptance) to sin. We should not encourage people to live a sinful lifestyle, regardless if those people have different religious beliefs then us – because God is still the God who does not want sin in the world. Encouraging sinful acts is in itself a sin.