If you don't support gay marriage, do you support civil unions?

[Dakota_Roberts]

Also, from a practical point of view, we have children growing up unadjusted, moving between foster homes and having a greater than average chance of ending up in low-incomes/drug abuse/emotional neglect etc - and a huge shortage of parents willing to adopt. The government (especially here in the UK) cannot afford to NOT allow same-sex couples to adopt.

How about preventing IVF?

 

[Bezant]

A lot of people who don’t support gay marriage support “civil unions”, are you of these people?

As civil marriage is a joke in this country anyway, what’s the harm? I don’t like it, but it’s not getting any better.

 

[GEddie]

As civil marriage is a joke in this country anyway, what’s the harm? I don’t like it, but it’s not getting any better.

So, because the civil society has been remiss in promoting the right, we should approve of it sponsoring something that both Testaments condemn?

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

ICXC NIKA

 

[sw85]

A lot of people who don’t support gay marriage support “civil unions”, are you of these people?

I guess it depends.

A while back (in Oregon, I think) there was an effort to pass civil union laws, the idea being that the many benefits commonly attached to marriage which do not arise from its procreative nature (thinks like automatic inheritance rights) can very well be bundled together and made available to anyone. The Church backed it with the proviso that the “civil union” such as it was be made available to anyone – since the rights attached to it were not explicitly procreative, there was no reason to limit it to conjugal relations. The civil union supporters refused and so the Church was forced to oppose it.

So I back them within reason and under certain circumstances only, as a mere matter of bureaucratic efficiency and not as stealth gay “marriage.”

 

[John21652]

I agree. Keep religion for the religious and government for the political.

What you are effecively saying is that morality issues are not the preserve of Government and that moral issues do not have a public sphere.

That is false.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I agree. Keep religion for the religious and government for the political.

But people who are religious are still citizens of a certain country, so the government belongs to them as well. We have equal rights to decide on these matters, just like non believers. You cannot separate the two. However, this is the usual secularist argument for kicking religion out of the political sphere,. Don’t fall for that lie.

 

[LemonAndLime]

But people who are religious are still citizens of a certain country, so the government belongs to them as well. We have equal rights to decide on these matters, just like non believers. You cannot separate the two. However, this is the usual secularist argument for kicking religion out of the political sphere,. Don’t fall for that lie.

Nope I’m not.

You are correct, religious are citizens to. But so are the non religious.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Nope I’m not.

You are correct, religious are citizens to. But so are the non religious.

Exactly. In a democratic system we all have the same rights and obligations. Therefore it is not possible to say that governance is separate from religion because some citizens do hold religious beliefs. Everybody acts politically based on their beliefs, either religious or otherwise. That is why I cannot support civil partnerships because they go against what I believe in as a Christian. My political views cannot be separated from my other beliefs.

However, secularists insist on making this distinction, that non religious beliefs are ok when it comes to politics, while religious beliefs are not ok. Your statmenet about separating ‘government stuff’ from ‘religion stuff’ shows that you believe their argument. Stand up for your rights We might not have them for too long the way things are going here.

 

[Newbie2]

I assume the question is regarding “civil unions” for homosexual couples.

In that case, no.

If it were merely a legal device to avoid taxation of single people, perhaps, if there were no restrictions on who could enter into such a legal, government recognized union.

e.g. two brothers, or two sisters, neither homosexual, who want to share a house. Son living at home with elderly mother, etc. etc. In such a case, two homosexuals entering into such a contract would be given no special recognition of their union over any of the aforementioned.

However, as it is currently understood, it’s about our society giving sinful homosexual relationships a step toward being recognized as “true” marriages,which,of course, we faithful “have a real problem” doing.

 

[kildare]

Exactly. In a democratic system we all have the same rights and obligations. Therefore it is not possible to say that governance is separate from religion because some citizens do hold religious beliefs. Everybody acts politically based on their beliefs, either religious or otherwise. That is why I cannot support civil partnerships because they go against what I believe in as a Christian. My political views cannot be separated from my other beliefs.

However, secularists insist on making this distinction, that non religious beliefs are ok when it comes to politics, while religious beliefs are not ok. Your statmenet about separating ‘government stuff’ from ‘religion stuff’ shows that you believe their argument. Stand up for your rights We might not have them for too long the way things are going here.

Well said!

Imagine being secular against say environmental issues?
“Talking about the environment is ok as long as you keep your views at home and do not bring them into the public square!”

Essentially what the secular side is trying to do is cut out any debate. Just like any dictatorship only one form of thinking is permitted.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well said!

Imagine being secular against say environmental issues?
“Talking about the environment is ok as long as you keep your views at home and do not bring them into the public square!”

Essentially what the secular side is trying to do is cut out any debate. Just like any dictatorship only one form of thinking is permitted.

Well no,

Saying “you can’t have gay marriage because it’s against my beliefs” is enforcing your beliefs on others. That’s why government and religion have to be seperate.

Secularists and government say “if people want gay marriage, then they can have it” that’s a sign of a good government - listening to what the people want. If a group don’t want it, well you can’t please everybody.

Saying you cannot allow gay marriage because of your religious beliefs is a non-argument to them, as how is going to affect you directly? If you don’t want gay marriage, then don’t have one. If it’s against your views, then vote against it. What does your religion mean to everyone else?

 

[Rascalking]

Well no,

Saying “you can’t have gay marriage because it’s against my beliefs” is enforcing your beliefs on others. That’s why government and religion have to be seperate.

Secularists and government say “if people want gay marriage, then they can have it” that’s a sign of a good government - listening to what the people want. If a group don’t want it, well you can’t please everybody.

Saying you cannot allow gay marriage because of your religious beliefs is a non-argument to them, as how is going to affect you directly? If you don’t want gay marriage, then don’t have one. If it’s against your views, then vote against it. What does your religion mean to everyone else?

So if the people say they don’t want gay marriage, and the government passes it anyway, is that good government? What about those who want gay marriage and don’t get it…well, you can’t please everybody.

Ironically, I support secular gay marriage.

 

[kildare]

Saying “you can’t have gay marriage because it’s against my beliefs” is enforcing your beliefs on others.

Thats actually how democracy works. Democracy in itself is a recognition of the plurality of beliefs in a society/nation and stripped down merely a tool for forcing a decision - a fair tool, because it gives everyone an equal chance at influencing a decision. And remember beliefs dont have to be religious. My belief could be that wealth redistribution is a good thing(socialist) thus forcing wealthy people to pay high taxes, while yours could be the opposite(conservative/neo-liberal)

That’s why government and religion have to be seperate.

That doesnt follow at all. By this logic no one should have beliefs in public about anything

Secularists and government say “if people want gay marriage, then they can have it” that’s a sign of a good government - listening to what the people want.

It could also be a sign of weak government. I’m a farmer and I want to spray the fields with toxic chemicals. A good government should not always give in.

If a group don’t want it, well you can’t please everybody.

Are you being lazy here. It scares me that people can be so nonchalant.

Saying you cannot allow gay marriage because of your religious beliefs is a non-argument to them, as how is going to affect you directly?

And what if I think it is going to affect me indirectly, or if it is going to undermine the nation or civilisation which I believe in, or simply because, like drugs, you believe its going to ruin peoples lives. As a christian you cant be indifferent. God knows many of us stood idly by while our neighbours were robbed, beaten or sent to death camps. But I’m alright Jack is not the motto of Christ. Still many non-christians and even some atheists may see gay marriages as being detrimental to their society. You might not agree with that. You might laugh it off and lump them in with other nutters such as the global warming crowd, but what right have you to deny them their democratic right!

If you don’t want gay marriage, then don’t have one. If it’s against your views, then vote against it.

Ah so you do concede people to make democractic judgements based on their beliefs!
Thank God. I thought for a moment you were Stalin

 

[kildare]

What does your religion mean to everyone else?

Important question here. The thing is to consider that a democarcy is not the same thing as a republic(commonwealth). Famously the US constitution has “inalienable” rights which cannot be voted on or changed which is why the US is actually a republic first before being a democracy. What are these inalienable rights? Equality before the law and the right to life are two that come to mind. The evidence seems that these fundamental and unchanging rights are informed by 2000 years of Christian Civilization.

To be honest I dont know how the experiment in multi-culturalism will go in Europe and the UK. Hopefully it will go well, but a republic/commonwealth needs to have an unchanging bedrock of laws for it to change. Right now there seems to be an asault on the institution of the family. It seems harmless but my gut is that if our foundations are undermined the public enterprise or- the “res publica” as the Romans called it is doomed. Others are optimistic. I belief that life is fragile becuase it is evolved in a unique way. So too is our civilization. 2000 years of work cannot easily be undone and worse, trying to recreate a new civilization is even tricker. In fact its never been done before.

Now the question that Lemon and Lime asks becomes important and it turns into this:
Can we hold society together if we do not agree on basic alienable rights and laws?

65 years ago Winston Churchill united the nation with his great speech on the eve of the Battle of Britain
*What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. upon it depends our own British life and the **long continuity of our institutions *and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us now. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Would anyone listen to him today I wonder?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

If you don’t want gay marriage, then don’t have one. If it’s against your views, then vote against it. What does your religion mean to everyone else?

That is naive. Civil partnerships have already caused damage in the UK. For example, Catholic adoption agencies, that had the highest rate of success in this area, had to either shut or cease to call themselves Catholic. It took only 3 years for that to be enforced. Is this how religious freedom is supported? Should people not care about the children first? Why is the pro-homosexualist minority so powerful? Who voted for these people? How did they get so much power? Did the government promise to support family back in the day when they were fishing for votes or were they honest about their little agenda? Is this truly the will of the people? I don’t think so.

Also, gay marriage/civil partnership does affect me personally. My children will be indoctrinated into sexual immorality when they start school. My authority as a parent will be undermined because the state will be in control of “educating”* my *own children about morals and sexuality.

 

[manualman]

Any catholic who still thinks civil unions are a reasonable compromise isn’t paying attention. This Trojan Horse idea was used in Illinois and it took all of 6 MONTHS for the leftists to cite it as a reason to obliterate Catholic Charities participation in adoption services in the State of Illinois.

I support people’s right to establish durable power of attorney with whomever they choose and to have their wishes honored in a legal will. no other compromises with the gay lobby. They are seeking nothing else, but cracks in the moral wall, which they fully intend to pry open wide.

 

[markomalley]

A lot of people who don’t support gay marriage support “civil unions”, are you of these people?

Have you ever read Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical, Arcanum (On Christian Marriage)?

He discusses many of the fallacies of separating the sacramental from the civil. Many of the statements he made back in 1880 seem like they are coming true now.

For example,

1. Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon – the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well.

You can see from reading that Encyclical letter that the idea of marriage itself does not properly belong with the State…but with the Church. Much less some mockery of marriage like the homosexualist concept of “civil unions.”

 

[djeter]

Thomas Aquinas said that masturbation was worse than Adultery and even homosexuality I believe! Not saying I agree, just pointing out a funny little factoid.

A funny little factoid that deserves closer examination. You can find it here.

dj

 

[djeter]

Have you ever read Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical, Arcanum (On Christian Marriage)?

He discusses many of the fallacies of separating the sacramental from the civil. Many of the statements he made back in 1880 seem like they are coming true now.

For example,

1. Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon – the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well.

You can see from reading that Encyclical letter that the idea of marriage itself does not properly belong with the State…but with the Church. Much less some mockery of marriage like the homosexualist concept of “civil unions.”

From reading the above. I am only left to conclude that any civil union without the sacrament of the Church is not true or legitimate. If that is so, why should we worry about any civil union law? The state may create it and enforce it but sans the performance of the sacrament of the Church it still remains neither legitimate or true.

I assume the same is true of abortions. You can perform it in a hospital, call it a “procedure” or whatever, but at the end of the day a child has been murdered. Both situations are forms of hell on earth. Seeing what the Pople wrote, I would have to change my vote – if anyone ever asked me…

dj

 

[vera_dicere]

I used to, but then they legalised them down here and its simply become a back door for gay marriage. Its normalised it in a way most people weren’t expecting it. People when having a “civil union” send out “wedding invitations”.

Secondarly, there’s no need for a civil union amongst same sex couples, or even opposite sex couples [strangely more straight couples took up civil unions after it was legalised than the SSA couples]. There are plenty of laws now that allow for the things civil union promised, next of kin rights, inheritance, living together, tax breaks et cetera. I’m not bothered if Bruce and James have each other listed as NOK on medical records and Bruce has James as the guy all his money and assets goes to after death, but that’s where it should end. Bruce and James should not be “husbands” and they shouldn’t be “civil unioned”.

Its a door we really need to get shut.