'If gays don't like it, they can choose another pasta': Barilla pasta faces global boycott after chairman says brand would never feature a homosexual

[SaintAugustine]

I think what he’s meaning is that gays don’t view legalizing gay “marriage” as changing culture, but rather allowing for more options on a personal level. Your average gay person wants nothing to do with forcing churches to give adopted kids to them or to recognize their marriage. Heck, even in cases where employers of gay “spouses” butt heads, the couple usually doesn’t want to make the employer change their opinion about the validity of their “marriage,” just allow them to receive the same employee benefits that heterosexual married couples get. It’s a personal financial and romantic argument for 90+% of gay people; it has nothing to do with other people’s lives.

And a lot of time, that’s where we end up talking past each other. Religious scream out about how gays are ruining their culture; gays roll their eyes as they make personal decisions and don’t affect the religious at all, and as a result gays see the religious as intolerant of their ability to live their life without interference. Then the religious get offended at the attack of intolerance and counter that the gays are being more intolerant because they have the nerve to call the religious intolerant.

…and then all the rational people on the sidelines just shake their heads and ask the two groups to stop generalizing the other and try to understand their points of views. The religious should understand that the LGBT movement isn’t trying to damage the Sacrament in any way and should try to accomodate them in some way (for example, allowing civil unions to be equivalent to marriage for all benefits at a federal level, where the absence of such was the direct reason why civil unions have been eliminated at a state level for gay “marriage.”) On the flip side, LGBT people should understand that the Sacrament of Matrimony is something that the religious consider absolutely sacred, and should accomodate them in return by allowing for civil unions that don’t use the word marriage, and ensuring that all civil union bills have extremely strong protective language for religions. My view, anyway .

Understood. The Church’s view is that civil unions are no different and shouldn’t be allowed. I side with the Church on that one, so I vote accordingly. It isn’t healthy for society.

Regarding the disconnect on what the other side thinks. I would agree. That said, I’m not going to say “oh, you don’t *view * the change in the definition of marriage, the requirement of religious-based institutions to allow gay adoption, etc. as a change in culture. Well, that makes everything different then.”

Obviously, they are changes to our culture, and I would argue they are destructive changes not constructive changes. I have no problem with job protection (except for situations of just discrimination - involving, for example, religious codes of conduct, problems of impropriety, modesty, etc.), housing protection, etc. for those with same sex attraction. They should be able to live, work, etcetera without being harassed. But, I draw the line at changing society to normalize their relationships.

 

[SMGS127]

Understood. The Church’s view is that civil unions are no different and shouldn’t be allowed. I side with the Church on that one, so I vote accordingly. It isn’t healthy for society.

Regarding the disconnect on what the other side thinks. I would agree. That said, I’m not going to say “oh, you don’t *view * the change in the definition of marriage, the requirement of religious-based institutions to allow gay adoption, etc. as a change in culture. Well, that makes everything different then.”

Obviously, they are changes to our culture, and I would argue they are destructive changes not constructive changes. I have no problem with job protection (except for situations of just discrimination - involving, for example, religious codes of conduct, problems of impropriety, modesty, etc.), housing protection, etc. for those with same sex attraction. They should be able to live, work, etcetera without being harassed. But, I draw the line at changing society to normalize their relationships.

I disagree; I have never seen a single Church document even reference civil unions, let alone oppose them. If someone is about to pass a bill with 70% support to legalize abortion with no restrictions whatsoever, is it morally evil to vote for an amendment to that bill to put restrictions on abortion? So why, when gay “marriage” is about to be legalized in 50 states within the next 5 years, is it morally evil to push the religious to not allow it to happen by making universal civil unions?

I’m not saying how the other side views the argument should change your position, but I am arguing that it should change how we have discourse with them. If all we’re doing is screaming at them constantly and accusing them of being X, Y, and Z, how does that do anything for our own argument, let alone the evangelization we’re supposed to be doing?

I also figured you were one who supported just employment and housing protections, but there are many religious [even Catholics!] who don’t. So in a sense, gays don’t have equal rights.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I disagree; I have never seen a single Church document even reference civil unions, let alone oppose them.

I’m happy to help you out there…

Vatican: vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/2012/giugno2012.pdf

Homosexual unions

Sr. Farley writes: “Legislation for nondiscrimination against homosex- uals, but also for domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage, can also be important in transforming the hatred, rejection, and stigmatiza- tion of gays and lesbians that is still being reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous love. … Presently one of the most urgent issues before the U.S. public is marriage for same-sex partners — that is, the granting of social recognition and legal standing to unions between lesbians and gays comparable to unions between hetero- sexuals” (P. 293).

This position is opposed to the teaching of the Magisterium: **“The Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual un- ions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recog- nition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. **The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself”.4 “The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differ- entiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unac- ceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it”.5
…
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, March 30, 2012.
William Cardinal Levada Prefect

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

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

USCCB: usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

Right now, it looks like the USCCB site is down (even www.usccb.org wouldn’t open for me), but the link should work, once they are back up. It lists the same prohibitions as the Vatican documents.

 

[SMGS127]

I’m happy to help you out there…

Vatican: vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/2012/giugno2012.pdf

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

USCCB: usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

Right now, it looks like the USCCB site is down (even www.usccb.org wouldn’t open for me), but the link should work, once they are back up. It lists the same prohibitions as the Vatican documents.

If it’s binding, then I guess I support it. My first support goes to the Church over personal feelings.

It just doesn’t make sense to me. As I’m sure you know, if a bill was proposed in Congress tomorrow to straight up ban all abortions after 3 months, Catholics would be given allowance to vote for it, even though it wasn’t a full ban. So why is pulling gay “marriage” back to gay civil unions immoral? I know, as a mode of responsibility, we cannot do an evil to achieve a greater good, but it doesn’t make sense that we can vote to have partial legalization of one evil in order to roll it back from even more evil, but we can’t do that with a different evil.

 

[Corki]

If it’s binding, then I guess I support it. My first support goes to the Church over personal feelings.

It just doesn’t make sense to me. As I’m sure you know, if a bill was proposed in Congress tomorrow to straight up ban all abortions after 3 months, Catholics would be given allowance to vote for it, even though it wasn’t a full ban. So why is pulling gay “marriage” back to gay civil unions immoral? I know, as a mode of responsibility, we cannot do an evil to achieve a greater good, but it doesn’t make sense that we can vote to have partial legalization of one evil in order to roll it back from even more evil, but we can’t do that with a different evil.

The difference is that banning abortions after 3 months is a move** toward the good of ending abortion. Support of same-sex civil unions is a move away from** the sanctity of marriage.

If all abortions were illegal and a bill was proposed to allow them but only up to the third month, it would be immoral for Catholics to support it.

 

[SMGS127]

The difference is that banning abortions after 3 months is a move** toward the good of ending abortion. Support of same-sex civil unions is a move away from** the sanctity of marriage.

If all abortions were illegal and a bill was proposed to allow them but only up to the third month, it would be immoral for Catholics to support it.

Except, gay “marriage” is legalized in 14 states and is about to be legalized in New Jersey as well. Within 5 years, it will almost be certainly legal in every state. At that point, there’s no way we’ll be able to stop it. So it’s actually a move TOWARDS the good of stopping gay “marriage” in the states in which it’s legalized, no?

 

[SaintAugustine]

If it’s binding, then I guess I support it. My first support goes to the Church over personal feelings.

It just doesn’t make sense to me. As I’m sure you know, if a bill was proposed in Congress tomorrow to straight up ban all abortions after 3 months, Catholics would be given allowance to vote for it, even though it wasn’t a full ban. So why is pulling gay “marriage” back to gay civil unions immoral? I know, as a mode of responsibility, we cannot do an evil to achieve a greater good, but it doesn’t make sense that we can vote to have partial legalization of one evil in order to roll it back from even more evil, but we can’t do that with a different evil.

The difference is that banning abortions after 3 months is a move** toward the good of ending abortion. Support of same-sex civil unions is a move away from** the sanctity of marriage.

If all abortions were illegal and a bill was proposed to allow them but only up to the third month, it would be immoral for Catholics to support it.

Except, gay “marriage” is legalized in 14 states and is about to be legalized in New Jersey as well. Within 5 years, it will almost be certainly legal in every state. At that point, there’s no way we’ll be able to stop it. So it’s actually a move TOWARDS the good of stopping gay “marriage” in the states in which it’s legalized, no?

Right. So, if you were changing a law in, say, Washington, where gay “marriage” is now legal to civil unions, it would be licit. But, going from no homosexual unions to legalizing civil unions is not.

BTW…I use Washington as an example because they are evidence that civil unions don’t stop the push for “marriage.” They had civil unions already, when gay “marriage” was recently passed. They argued that civil unions treated them as second class citizens, so it wasn’t enough.

 

[Corki]

Except, gay “marriage” is legalized in 14 states and is about to be legalized in New Jersey as well. Within 5 years, it will almost be certainly legal in every state. At that point, there’s no way we’ll be able to stop it. So it’s actually a move TOWARDS the good of stopping gay “marriage” in the states in which it’s legalized, no?

I don’t know of a single state that has gone from legalizing same-sex marriage to only legalizing same-sex civil unions. That would be a roll back - the term you used. I am not saying it couldn’t happen but it hasn’t yet.

If a state that had legalized same-sex marriage wanted to change to only legitimizing same-sex civil unions, I think Catholics could support that. The Church document quoted above says we should not support efforts to legitimize homosexual unions. Moving from “marriage” to civil unions would lessen the legitimacy in terms of it being equal to marriage.

 

[SMGS127]

Right. So, if you were changing a law in, say, Washington, where gay “marriage” is now legal to civil unions, it would be licit. But, going from no homosexual unions to legalizing civil unions is not.

BTW…I use Washington as an example because they are evidence that civil unions don’t stop the push for “marriage.” They had civil unions already, when gay “marriage” was recently passed. They argued that civil unions treated them as second class citizens, so it wasn’t enough.

Well the reason that it “wasn’t enough” was because the federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions. If you allow the federal government to recognize them, people have no case for gay “marriage.” You can’t ignore the legitimate financial complaints when saying that people instituted gay “marriage” because civil unions were inferior. There were actual financial and legal differences.

I don’t know of a single state that has gone from legalizing same-sex marriage to only legalizing same-sex civil unions. That would be a roll back - the term you used. I am not saying it couldn’t happen but it hasn’t yet.

If a state that had legalized same-sex marriage wanted to change to only legitimizing same-sex civil unions, I think Catholics could support that. The Church document quoted above says we should not support efforts to legitimize homosexual unions. Moving from “marriage” to civil unions would lessen the legitimacy in terms of it being equal to marriage.

So even if 26 states have gay marriage “legalized,” we can’t institute national civil unions because it would be moving the ball in the wrong direction in 24? It has to be all 50?

 

[SaintAugustine]

Well the reason that it “wasn’t enough” was because the federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions. If you allow the federal government to recognize them, people have no case for gay “marriage.” **You can’t ignore the legitimate financial complaints when saying that people instituted gay “marriage” because civil unions were inferior. There were actual financial and legal differences.
**

So even if 26 states have gay marriage “legalized,” we can’t institute national civil unions because it would be moving the ball in the wrong direction in 24? It has to be all 50?

So, here is the problem with what you are proposing. You’ve acknowledged that civil unions were inferior to “marriage,” which is why gay activists wouldn’t stop until they got “marriage.” You are proposing that implementing national civil unions would stave off the push for gay “marriage.”

So, either…

A) You have to acknowledge that those civil unions would be inferior, and therefore activists would still push for “marriage” equality.

B) You are advocating civil unions that are equivalent to marriage in every way but name.

Either way, it gains us nothing. In fact, it is the very reason the Church opposes civil unions. Making a name distinction without a difference. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

 

[SMGS127]

So, here is the problem with what you are proposing. You’ve acknowledged that civil unions were inferior to “marriage,” which is why gay activists wouldn’t stop until they got “marriage.” You are proposing that implementing national civil unions would stave off the push for gay “marriage.”

So, either…

A) You have to acknowledge that those civil unions would be inferior, and therefore activists would still push for “marriage” equality.

B) You are advocating civil unions that are equivalent to marriage in every way but name.

Either way, it gains us nothing. In fact, it is the very reason the Church opposes civil unions. Making a name distinction without a difference. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

But it would avoid the mockery of a Sacrament that the name brings. Do you not agree that the name itself has meaning by itself, and is thus a greater evil than gay civil unions?

 

[SaintAugustine]

But it would avoid the mockery of a Sacrament that the name brings. Do you not agree that the name itself has meaning by itself, and is thus a greater evil than gay civil unions?

No. I don’t think the name makes a difference, if you make a mockery of the Sacrament by making civil unions equivalent in almost every way. The damage to society is the same.

 

[SMGS127]

No. I don’t think the name makes a difference, if you make a mockery of the Sacrament by making civil unions equivalent in almost every way. The damage to society is the same.

Well I think that’s where we differ. I think if a gay person is respectful enough to agree not to call their union a “marriage” that that lessens their sin somewhat (but still is mortal obviously; there are still degrees to mortal sin though). It shows they aren’t doing it to be disobedient to God, even if that’s their action ultimately. They still commit a mortal sin, just not quite as bad of one. Obviously that’s still bad, but that’s a better starting place than them saying “we don’t care what you think,” don’t you think?

 

[SaintAugustine]

Well I think that’s where we differ. I think if a gay person is respectful enough to agree not to call their union a “marriage” that that lessens their sin somewhat (but still is mortal obviously; there are still degrees to mortal sin though). It shows they aren’t doing it to be disobedient to God, even if that’s their action ultimately. They still commit a mortal sin, just not quite as bad of one. Obviously that’s still bad, but that’s a better starting place than them saying “we don’t care what you think,” don’t you think?

I wasn’t talking about the sinfulness or culpability of the individuals involved. That is a totally different issue.

 

[SMGS127]

I wasn’t talking about the sinfulness or culpability of the individuals involved. That is a totally different issue.

You don’t think that accounts for civil unions being a “lesser” form of evil for us to consider when we decide which is worse to have of civil unions or “marriage?”

 

[SaintAugustine]

You don’t think that accounts for civil unions being a “lesser” form of evil for us to consider when we decide which is worse to have of civil unions or “marriage?”

Nope. The “evil” is in making the unions of two people of the same sex equivalent to marriage. The sin of the participants in such unions is another issue entirely.

 

[SMGS127]

Nope. The “evil” is in making the unions of two people of the same sex equivalent to marriage. The sin of the participants in such unions is another issue entirely.

Well that’s something I’ll contemplate in Mass tomorrow. Thank you for the discussion .

 

[SaintAugustine]

Well that’s something I’ll contemplate in Mass tomorrow. Thank you for the discussion .

:tiphat:

God bless.

 

[Corki]

You don’t think that accounts for civil unions being a “lesser” form of evil for us to consider when we decide which is worse to have of civil unions or “marriage?”

As a moral theology constuct, the “lesser of two evils” is only a valid choice if there are only two choices available. If you were voting for candidates, one who favored full recognition of “marriage” for same-sex couples and one who only supported civil unions, keeping marriage for one man/one woman couples, choosing the candidate who favors civil unions would be the lesser of two evils.

But for most of our choices, such as supporting or opposing a law, any law that gives marriage rights to same-sex couples is immoral, regardless of what its called. A Catholic could not choose to support civil unions when the alternative is to oppose all legislation granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I now go to Chick Fil A more now because of their stance to uphold the true definition of marriage. Whenever I go there, there is always a long line in the drive thru, and a good number of people inside. I now will buy more barilla pasta. I just hope they do not give in by some people boycotting. There should be a worldwide barilla pasta appreciation day, like there was with Chick Fil A last year. Thank you Barilla Pasta for standing up for the true definition of marriage, you have my support and I’m sure a lot of support from the people on this forum!!

I am disgusted by the pressure tactics of people who refuse to recognize the difference between right and wrong. But I am more disgusted by the refusal of any company that refuses to stand against these bullies.

If this pasta company caves to the culture thugs, it’s history.

The world is collapsing into barbarism because people are afraid to stand for decency.