Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kevin_B

Guest
There have been an untold number of threads about same-sex marriage, so I’m not even going to mention it, and I ask that no one else mention it to avoid the thread being detailed. I also ask that no politicians, political parties or elections be mentioned to avoid breaking the forum rules.

What are civil unions? They are not religious ceremonies. They do not imply that the two people involved will have children. In other words, they contain none of the reasons the church has for opposing same-sex marriage. They area purely legal document which converts rights on a person of your choosing, like the right to hospital visitation, right to automatic inheritance, etc.
The church claims that they mimic marriage, which IMGO is an insult to marriage. They have nothing in common with marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony,civil unions are a secular legal document. Marriages join humans in the eye of God, civil unions confer legal rights. Saying they have something in common is admitting that marriage is a government contract instead of a religious one, a contention the church has rightfully fought against for decades. Therefore, this argument sounds more like a papal opinion than a decree from God.

Then there is the slippery slope argument. This says that same-sex civil unions could lead to same-sex marriage. However, slippery slope arguments are inherently logically invalid. How? Am example: the right to abortion (a bad thing) directly came from the right to medical privacy (a good thing). Does that mean we should not have medical privacy, just because it led to abortion? No, we should have just worded the 14th amendment differently. In the same way, what same-sex civil unions may or may not lead to is irrelevant. It just means we need to word the laws correctly. If, for instance, we allow them along with a constitutional amendment defining marriage, it could not be overturned by the supreme court. Since I highly doubt God would present us with logical fallacies, it seems apparent that this argument, too, comes from man instead of from God.

In conclusion, I feel that the church’s position on civil unions is a political opinion instead of a moral law, and therefore is not infallible,whether it its right or wrong. And, since I believe in giving our government as little power as possible over us (since the last thing want iliberals take over is a government with the power to control our everyday actions) I believe that the government should have no say so in who someone chooses to be with them at a hospital, have their possessions when they die, and all the other choices that come with a civil union, none of which involve religion in even the slightest manner.
 
Homosexual relationships by nature are sinful. It is our job as Catholics to combat sin and to live the most holy and perfect will of God on Earth. We must therefore defend morality, what is right. A civil-union condones a homosexual relationship, which is wrong and immoral. Therefore we must fight the immorality.
 
If all that civil unions do is allow someone to visit in the hospital, etc, why can a person not have civil unuons with several people, to ensure that they will all be able to visit, etc?

And abortion did not come from medical privacy, it came from the disassociation of sex from procrearion engendered by the legalization of artifical birth control, a perversion of medicine to which medical privacy was applied.
 
I’m with you OP. What we hold ourselves to as Christians is different than what the government should be involved in.

I favor civil unions for all as far as government goes, that way marriage is purely a religious designation.
 
That is not accurate at all. Those who want same-sex marriage are taking a “we’ll take what we can get and then, once we get a little, we’ll ask for same-sex marriage.”

Domestic Partnerships: Recently, the Governor of Michigan signed a Domestic Partner benefits ban into law, which makes sense since Michigan is always the state that gets hits hardest when the economy takes a downturn. In other words, where will the money come from to pay for the benefits? Sounds pretty neutral, but you’d be wrong. The first group to complain:

“The move is a blow to gay and lesbian activists throughout the state.”

Civil Unions: The Catholic Church has made the logical decision regarding those:

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=5387

Commitment Ceremonies: The Catholic Church is teaching its flock that we must not support any form of of homosexual union.

“The same does not hold true for homosexual unions. Homosexual unions are invalid by their very nature and can never be regularized. Indeed, by their very nature, they are not merely destructive to the individuals involved but to society as a whole. If they become “normalized,” such “normalization” may well destroy civilization, and that is not an exaggeration. For that reason, I believe that all who are asked to participate in any way in such an event should refuse because such an event threatens not only the family but the larger society, of which the family is the essential building block.”

For a non-religious definition/perspective, I offer the following:

weddings.about.com/cs/gayandlesbian/a/commitmentcerem.htm

It is clear that the gay (LGBT) community regards anything other that same-sex marriage as giving a gay couples “second-class” status.

freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-versus-civil-unions-domestic-partnerships-etc

From PFLAG, which views anything short of marriage as rendering all gay people as “second-class citizens.”

“Since 2000, PFLAG has had an official policy statement on marriage equality that states its opposition to any attempts at either the federal or state level to introduce constitutional amendments restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, rendering LGBT people second-class citizens.”

For a more comprehensive answer, please read:

americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp

Peace,
Ed
 
St_Francis said:
If all that civil unions do is allow someone to visit in the hospital, etc, why can a person not have civil unuons with several people, to ensure that they will all be able to visit, etc?

And abortion did not come from medical privacy, it came from the disassociation of sex from procrearion engendered by the legalization of artifical birth control, a perversion of medicine to which medical privacy was applied.
Click to expand...
The old “visit in the hospital” story. What is behind that?

Last year, I became very ill, so I had my friend drive me to the emergency room. He stayed with me for at least two hours, maybe longer. NO ONE asked what our relationship was: friend, relative, same-sex partner. NO ONE.

I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years. I dealt with people from the ER on a regular basis. We were taught the rules about dealing with patients, and patient privacy. There is NO FORM a patient needs to fill out that discloses their sexual orientation. There is no one at the front desk that will ask you about your sexual orientation if you want to visit someone, male or female.

Peace,
Ed
 
You guys do realize that civil unions can be made between two straight men, two straight women, or platonic friends of whatever gender.
 
FIU_student said:
I’m with you OP. What we hold ourselves to as Christians is different than what the government should be involved in.

I favor civil unions for all as far as government goes, that way marriage is purely a religious designation.
Click to expand...
Then you haven’t read what the Church teaches about same-sex unions:

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

I also think some people think that what “the government” does will not affect society - both in the case of religious and non-religious people. That is not true. The same gay advocates who want the government to “get out of the marriage business” are going to the same government to convince politicians that they require some sort of rights.

WAKE UP, my fellow Catholics. In the United States, her’s how things stand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States

Same-sex marriage exists in a handful of states only due to the actions of courts and politicians.

Peace,
Ed
 
Homosexual civil unions, or so-called Gay Marriage is nothing more than Homosexuals flaunting their abberant sexual behavior in public. It is every bit as bad and corrosive to Morals and legitimate Marriage as the public cohabitation of celebrities and other public figures today.
It has been known for at least 10 years that the number of couples living together without marriage exceeds that of legitimately married couples.
 
Kevin_B said:
There have been an untold number of threads about same-sex marriage, so I’m not even going to mention it, and I ask that no one else mention it to avoid the thread being detailed. I also ask that no politicians, political parties or elections be mentioned to avoid breaking the forum rules.

What are civil unions? They are not religious ceremonies. They do not imply that the two people involved will have children. In other words, they contain none of the reasons the church has for opposing same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
Um… I don’t think you can ask people not to mention SSM and then mention it yourself.
 
edwest2 said:
Source?

Thanks,
Ed
Click to expand...
I’d have to find it, but I knew two men who got one who weren’t gay, they just were best friends and neither were close to family and wanted the other to get their inheritance and share finances and such.
 
Call it what you will, a civil union is still the government putting an official stamp of approval on something that is fundamentally morally wrong.

You can say that all it is is legal rights, but that is simply not true. The idea is to make it easier to and to give government recognition of same sex people living together immorally.
 
Kevin_B said:
The church claims that they mimic marriage, which IMGO is an insult to marriage. They have nothing in common with marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony,civil unions are a secular legal document. Marriages join humans in the eye of God, civil unions confer legal rights. Saying they have something in common is admitting that marriage is a government contract instead of a religious one, a contention the church has rightfully fought against for decades. Therefore, this argument sounds more like a papal opinion than a decree from God.
Click to expand...
The Church is correct. I stopped supporting the civil union concept when in a conversation someone asked what a civil union is, and someone else began their explanation with “It’s like a marriage, but…” That’s when I realized that civil unions are by nature imitations of marriage and are intended to desensitize others into thinking that gay relationships are equivalent to marriage.
Kevin_B said:
Then there is the slippery slope argument. This says that same-sex civil unions could lead to same-sex marriage. However, slippery slope arguments are inherently logically invalid. How? Am example: the right to abortion (a bad thing) directly came from the right to medical privacy (a good thing). Does that mean we should not have medical privacy, just because it led to abortion? No, we should have just worded the 14th amendment differently. In the same way, what same-sex civil unions may or may not lead to is irrelevant. It just means we need to word the laws correctly. If, for instance, we allow them along with a constitutional amendment defining marriage, it could not be overturned by the supreme court. Since I highly doubt God would present us with logical fallacies, it seems apparent that this argument, too, comes from man instead of from God.
Click to expand...
Civil unions are intended to be a precursor to gay marriage, as I said above. Slippery-slope is not just an argument; it’s a strategy for bringing about social change.

Look, if I wanted to make millions selling cigarettes, I would start by calling smoking an alternative lifestyle. I would coax the entertainment industry into presenting smokers as good people, noble, funny, articulate, compassionate, and above all normal. I would compare anti-smoking campaigns with opposition to the civil-rights movement and portray smokers as victims of unjust social oppression. I would promote smoking in schools. And so on. But you get the point. Slippery slope works, and it works extremely well.
 
FIU_student said:
I’m with you OP. What we hold ourselves to as Christians is different than what the government should be involved in.

I favor civil unions for all as far as government goes, that way marriage is purely a religious designation.
Click to expand...
Do you think the State should also have rituals, events, and statuses that parallel the other sacraments? Would you be in favor of a New Citizen ceremony where parents present their baby to a clerk who symbolically gives the baby an American flag, a passport, and a Social Security card? Or would that be too creepy?
 
The problem with Same-Sex Civil Unions (SSCU), is that it’s a stepping stone into possibly enforcing the (ONE AND ONLY TRUE) Catholic Church to marry same-sex couples in the future, via legislation (in whatever country it’s legalized); and we do not want that.

I mean, I’m okay with SSCUs because of all the legal benefits. Like in France, two people (no matter what their sexes are) can attain a Civil Unions just for benefits. And, it’s not just a “SSA-thing,” heterosexual men (usually two good friends) will sign up for a civil union, just for the benefits, you’ll even see a heterosexual couple (where both have a platonic and friendly relationship between each other; e.g. NOTHING romantic going on at all) sign up for civil unions. So, to be honest, I’m actually considering attaining civil union with one of my female friends, just for the benefits. I have NO plans of marrying her in the Church, and I am in no way attracted to her romantically (she’s a bit loony). She’s doesn’t like me romantically back, anyway. So, she wants to undergo the whole process, so we can be in a civil union; for the benefits, as well. And, we live over 10 miles away from each other…another good thing. 🙂

So, in all, I just see Civil Unions as “Unions for Legal Benefits.” 👍👍 I don’t consider civil unions to be “marriages.” HAHA! That’s laughable. Civil unions are mortal contracts which can be ripped up anytime. A true marriage is a covenant with God, that can NEVER be ripped up anytime and lasts FOREVER…and many other things. Marriage is a beautiful thing that a Civil Union will never be.
 
edwest2 said:
Then you haven’t read what the Church teaches about same-sex unions:

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

I also think some people think that what “the government” does will not affect society - both in the case of religious and non-religious people. That is not true. The same gay advocates who want the government to “get out of the marriage business” are going to the same government to convince politicians that they require some sort of rights.

WAKE UP, my fellow Catholics. In the United States, her’s how things stand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States

Same-sex marriage exists in a handful of states only due to the actions of courts and politicians.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I agree totally, Ed. Anyone who sincerely thinks that homosexuals will be content with civil unions is delusional. In the states where they have been granted this status, they continue to agitate for same sex “marriage,” California being a prime example. And even if civil “marriage” is allowed, do you think the militant homosexuals will then be content? I predict that at that point, they will insist on their right to be “married” in front of the altar in your neighborhood parish church. And not long after that we will have multiple party “marriages,” and further abominations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top