Oregon voids gay marriages

[Fiat]

Richardols:

These are obvious, and you are correct. I was, however, considering the civil union situation specifically, and I was referring to the situation at the present time, before the laws are passed. Arguments from Church doctrine work with you and me, but it may mean nothing to many non-Catholics.

Sure, I’m part of it. But, we’ve been working against the abortion laws for three decades now, and there’s little shift in our direction. And that is a subject where one can give non-Catholics solid secular arguments against abortion.

I don’t want to wait decades for a repeal of homosexual marriage or even civil union laws. And secular arguments, as such there are, would not have the weight that secular anti-abortion arguments have.

I’m hoping some might have some arguments for opposing civil union laws on other than theological grounds.

The “Considerations Regarding Proposals…” is not focused entirely on theological arguments, but includes arguments from the natural law. Also, since most Americans start paying attention when money is at issue, there are certainly financial considerations at stake (an increased strain on the judicial system b/c of increased divorce rates; child support/custody issues; increases in disability benefits, etc., etc.) These are pretty solid secular arguments.

What we shouldn’t do is just wait around for legislation to pass and then determine whether it’s legislation we should oppose. If we Catholics were doing our jobs of not only living our faith but showing people how Christ can transform us, the mountain on our horizon would be easier to traverse.

 

[Brendan]

Richardols:

No, that’s not what I said. Re-read my posts.

For example, the Church forbids us to use contraceptives. How would one try to repeal state laws allowing the sale of contraceptives, given that the laws are both constitutional and accepted by most non-Catholics? We certainly can’t call on Canon Law in the American courts.

The same with civil unions. If we are to oppose it based on our adherence to Church directives, how are we to oppose it in the civil arena where civil unions may be constitutional and accepted by the majority of voters?

I believe that you are also a lawyer, fiat. Any thoughts on this dilemma?

The same we we oppose things like legalized prostitution or drug use.

Nevada’s law legalizing prostituition is fully Constitutional, but Catholics can certainly vote against such proposals if they come on the ballot, attempt to convince others of the wrongness of legal prostitution, and vote for canidates who support their position.

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

an increased strain on the judicial system b/c of increased divorce rates; child support/custody issues; increases in disability benefits, etc., etc.) These are pretty solid secular arguments.

Thank you. These are viable arguments.

 

[Richardols]

Brendan:

The same we we oppose things like legalized prostitution or drug use.

Nevada’s law legalizing prostituition is fully Constitutional, but Catholics can certainly vote against such proposals if they come on the ballot, attempt to convince others of the wrongness of legal prostitution, and vote for canidates who support their position.

I agree. We can do that. Your example, however, is about laws already enacted. I was thinking more of yet unenacted laws that we’d oppose on grounds that would appeal to non-Catholics.

 

[Brendan]

Richardols:

It said “legal recognition of homosexual unions.” It did not say “all unions.” I would have to see the Church’s definition of a homosexual union and compare it with what some state might be offering in a civil union before I could determine whether the two are incompatible.

One’s state’s civil union might be acceptable, another’s might not. One would have to examine any proposed bill IMO, and the local bishop’s office would also, I presume, do the same before passing judgment.

We are to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions.

There are no qualifiers on “homosexual unions”. That would mean any and all unions pertaining to homosexuality, would it not?

Now why would homosexuals get special rights that others do not have?

They have the same rights I do ( to enrol in marriage with a single, unmarried adult person of the opposite sex)

These ‘Civil Unions’, would they be open to anyone; for example, could a brother and sister apply, or how about 2 friends, or a person caring for an elderly relative?

Or are they limited to homosexuals only?

If I was single and sharing an apartment with my brother, could I force my employer to add him to my insurance?

In which case, the 'Civil Union" isn’t for homosexuals, but for everybody. And it isn’t a “homosexual union” that we are obligated to oppose.

 

[Richardols]

Brendan:

These ‘Civil Unions’, would they be open to anyone; for example, could a brother and sister apply, or how about 2 friends, or a person caring for an elderly relative?

Or are they limited to homosexuals only?

If I was single and sharing an apartment with my brother, could I force my employer to add him to my insurance?

In which case, the 'Civil Union" isn’t for homosexuals, but for everybody. And it isn’t a “homosexual union” that we are obligated to oppose.

Exactly right. Some seem to think that the subject of “civil unions” is open-and-shut. I said that I’d have to see the law as worded before deciding in my own mind that the law would be contrary to Catholic teaching.

There are nuances to law that may not be obvious to the layman who insists on viewing things only in terms of black-and-white, and you gave good examples of such. And I thought that Fundamentalism only existed among the Evangelicals and Dispensationalists and such.

 

[Brendan]

Exactly right. Some seem to think that the subject of “civil unions” is open-and-shut. I said that I’d have to see the law as worded before deciding in my own mind that the law would be contrary to Catholic teaching.

There are nuances to law that may not be obvious to the layman who insists on viewing things only in terms of black-and-white, and you gave good examples of such. And I thought that Fundamentalism only existed among the Evangelicals and Dispensationalists and such.

Those nuances are what makes or breakes the deal.

When the UK was looking at Civil Unions, the House of Lords started adding things like I described, friends or relatives could apply, even housemates.

The ‘Gay Rights’ party ended up pulling the legislation, since it wasn’t about them any more.

If Johnny could put Aunt Mabel on his insurance, or Mary could leave her pension to sister Sue, it meant the ‘gay rights’ folks weren’t special anymore.

 

[fix]

Exactly right. Some seem to think that the subject of “civil unions” is open-and-shut. I said that I’d have to see the law as worded before deciding in my own mind that the law would be contrary to Catholic teaching.

There are nuances to law that may not be obvious to the layman who insists on viewing things only in terms of black-and-white, and you gave good examples of such. And I thought that Fundamentalism only existed among the Evangelicals and Dispensationalists and such.

No matter how the law would be worded, if it would be used to allow homosexual “unions”, it would be wrong. I am sure there are laws that were intended for one use, but later co opted for an illicit use. That illicit use would be wrong and must be opposed.

 

[Richardols]

fix:

No matter how the law would be worded, if it would be used to allow homosexual “unions”, it would be wrong.

We can’t know how a neutral law - say, one that would allow it to be used for family members - would be abused.

It’s the secular grounds for opposition that are important here. We’d be trying to influence politicians of all (or no) faiths to oppose a law contrary to our faith. We just can’t say that the Church opposes it and that they should follow the Church.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

I would wonder, however, how we might oppose a civil union law that is civilly constitutional even as it might be contrary to the Church’s position, and therefore one we must reject.

For example, the Church forbids us to use contraceptives. How would one try to repeal state laws allowing the sale of contraceptives, given that the laws are both constitutional and accepted by most non-Catholics? We certainly can’t call on Canon Law in the American courts.

We don’t live in a socialist state. There are plenty of things you can do. Voting for Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

To get you started:

1. Vote in legislators that can change the law.
2. Volunteer for lobbying organizations that can influence legislators
3. Persistently contact your legislators
4. Run for office
5. Create education programs to influence other voters
6. Passive resistance
7. Civil disobedience

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

These are obvious, and you are correct. I was, however, considering the civil union situation specifically, and I was referring to the situation at the present time, before the laws are passed. Arguments from Church doctrine work with you and me, but it may mean nothing to many non-Catholics.

There are plenty of arguments against them even outside of Church doctrine. In fact, the document references many of these arguments. No need to put yourself in a box because you are Catholic.

Richardols:

Sure, I’m part of it. But, we’ve been working against the abortion laws for three decades now, and there’s little shift in our direction. And that is a subject where one can give non-Catholics solid secular arguments against abortion.

Gee. I can’t figure it out. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many “pro-life Catholics” obstinantly continue to vote for politicians that fund, promote, and legalize abortion?

Richardols:

I don’t want to wait decades for a repeal of homosexual marriage or even civil union laws. And secular arguments, as such there are, would not have the weight that secular anti-abortion arguments have.

You haven’t seen our multiple 8-page threads that cover secular arguments against same-sex marriage. There is a plentitude of weighty arguments.

Richardols:

I’m hoping some might have some arguments for opposing civil union laws on other than theological grounds.

Just to start, there are statistics that show:

Promiscuity is higher.
Violence is higher.
Disease is higher.
Children do better in one-man, one-woman families.
Marriage has been defined as one-man, one-woman in virtually every culture and religion since practically forever.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

We can’t know how a neutral law - say, one that would allow it to be used for family members - would be abused.

It’s the secular grounds for opposition that are important here. We’d be trying to influence politicians of all (or no) faiths to oppose a law contrary to our faith. We just can’t say that the Church opposes it and that they should follow the Church.

Can’t a clause be put in specifically excluding the use for homosexual purposes?

I am not making Catholic arguments, only appealing to Catholic law makers to see the reasons for not supporting such things.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

Promiscuity is higher.
Violence is higher.
Disease is higher.

Among homosexuals in a stable relationship or among homosexuals currently? Proponents of homosexual unions would argue that these statistics demonstrate why stable homosexual unions should be allowed.

Children do better in one-man, one-woman families.

Not all heterosexuals have children. This argument fails where there are no children, either for hetero- or homo- sexuals.

Marriage has been defined as one-man, one-woman in virtually every culture and religion since practically forever.

Definitions can change! You’ve got to do better than that.

 

[Brad]

Exactly right. Some seem to think that the subject of “civil unions” is open-and-shut. I said that I’d have to see the law as worded before deciding in my own mind that the law would be contrary to Catholic teaching.

There are nuances to law that may not be obvious to the layman who insists on viewing things only in terms of black-and-white, and you gave good examples of such. And I thought that Fundamentalism only existed among the Evangelicals and Dispensationalists and such.

So you think the Vatican document is leaving the door open for insurance contract unions between family members and you want to make sure that legislators are not thinking of that rather than homosexual unions? And people like me are fundamentalist if we say all legal homosexual unions should be opposed per the document? And I’ve got 5 million dollars I want to give you tomorrow at 3pm if you wire me 100,000 dollars today. Deal?

This is nothing more than an attempt to backdoor justify your votes for politicians that will support homosexual unions so that you can legally fit between the vatican document and your vote. Like I said before, God doesn’t give a wink and a nod at legalese. Something is either true or it isn’t.

 

[Brad]

fix:

No matter how the law would be worded, if it would be used to allow homosexual “unions”, it would be wrong. I am sure there are laws that were intended for one use, but later co opted for an illicit use. That illicit use would be wrong and must be opposed.

I’ve seen some pretty sorry attempts for people to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians. Now we are seeing incredible creativity to allow voting for pro-homosexual union politicians. Some things never change. Christ said you are either with Him or with someone else. I’m with Christ.

 

[Brad]

fix:

Can’t a clause be put in specifically excluding the use for homosexual purposes?

I am not making Catholic arguments, only appealing to Catholic law makers to see the reasons for not supporting such things.

Nobody is proposing non-homosexual civil unions in the United States today. This is a smokescreen.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Among homosexuals in a stable relationship or among homosexuals currently? Proponents of homosexual unions would argue that these statistics demonstrate why stable homosexual unions should be allowed.

What kind of question is that? You are assuming that if they get a piece of paper then they will be stable? The statistics compare non-married homosexual couples to non-married heterosexual couples. One stat in a homosexual magazine shows that promiscuity is 7 times higher. Disease is off the chart higher.

Richardols:

Not all heterosexuals have children. This argument fails where there are no children, either for hetero- or homo- sexuals.

What are you talking about? The idea of unions or marriage presumes children. Homosexual couples are already adopting children. This would make it more pervasive. A few exceptions here and there don’t make the rule.

Richardols:

Definitions can change! You’ve got to do better than that.

I did. But this is also an excellent supporting argument for maintaining the one unchanged social institution that has been the builiding block of society.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

And people like me are fundamentalist if we say all legal homosexual unions should be opposed per the document?

The Document carries little weight outside the Church. Opposition to any legislation has to be made on grounds that are meaningful to non-Catholics.

God doesn’t give a wink and a nod at legalese.

Exactly right, but American legislatures and those who write bills are concerned with legality per US, not Vatican law.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

What kind of question is that? You are assuming that if they get a piece of paper then they will be stable? The statistics compare non-married homosexual couples to non-married heterosexual couples. One stat in a homosexual magazine shows that promiscuity is 7 times higher. Disease is off the chart higher.

Homosexuals could argue that in light of such statistics, the ability to enter into legal stable relationships would contribute to a reduction of those numbers.

The idea of unions or marriage presumes children.

Not these days. There’s no presumption that newlyweds will be having children in our modern times.

But this is also an excellent supporting argument for maintaining the one unchanged social institution that has been the builiding block of society.

The longevity and stability of the institution would be a good argument, indeed. But, a mere definition isn’t.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

The Document carries little weight outside the Church. Opposition to any legislation has to be made on grounds that are meaningful to non-Catholics.

And, as it has been shown, plenty of such meaningful data exists.

But the reality is this. If all Catholics and Christians properly opposed such homosexual unions and politicians that support them, then would never see them, even if their only argument was “because God doesn’t want them”.