T
TrixieMcGee
Guest
It goes against forum etiquette to do such bold large and red typing. It is like yelling in the forum world. You can make you point just as well with all caps with the words or something.
- Status
G
gxensen
Guest
Faithdancer,
I agree. That’s the huge issue with allowing SSCUs. It’s the stepping stone to possibly completely legalizing same-sex marriage, and possibly even enforcing our Catholic Parishes to marry same-sex couples.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
G
gxensen
Guest
Rule: enforced.
Thank you, for enforcing the forum etiquette rule, or mostly letting me know about it.
B
Brendan
Guest
Really, and if a Catholic owns a business, would he be free to offer benefits to his employees spouses but not civil contractees?
Because that is not how it has been working in the states that offer civil unions.
T
TrixieMcGee
Guest
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic, but where I come from etiquette is a big deal and if someone is being rude they will be corrected by pretty much everyone around. It was beaten into me growing up and I pretty much everyone around me did that as well.
G
gxensen
Guest
TrixieMcGee,gxensen;9920139:
It goes against forum etiquette to do such bold large and red typing. It is like yelling in the forum world. You can make you point just as well with all caps with the words or something.Rule: enforced.
Thank you, for enforcing the forum etiquette rule, or mostly letting me know about it.
I sincerely swear that I was not being sarcastic, and I am sorry if you interpreted my response to your post as such. I just want to make sure I don’t break any forum rules, etc. Bottom line is, I don’t want to get banned. I like this website a lot.
So, I want to make sure that I’m not doing anything badly. In all, too, I’m sorry if it, in anyway, offended you, as well. I wont do it again on these forums.Sorry,
Gxensen
K
KP3243
Guest
First we should pray for our brothers and sisters who have homosexual tendencies and try to let them know not acting on their tendencies can be redemptive because they do suffer and if they are devout Catholics, their witness could be huge for people in both the Church and society. They suffer abandonment like Jesus did and ridicule as well. We should also remind people marriage is a sacred sacrament to Catholics it is taking a vow to God. That isn’t a small deal. Catholics usually can’t marry people of different faiths in the Church and if it is permitted you have to promise to raise your children Catholic. It has never been an anything goes sacrament and it never will be.
K
Kevin_B
Guest
First of all, civil unions do not endorse sinful behavior, because unlike marriage, sexual activity is not implied. They are simply a group of rights which one can bestow on another person. I don’t see how passing your inheritance to someone of the same sex is immoral. Like one poster said, sometimes people just want someone of the same gender to inherit their belongings and make medical decisions for them. Instead of filling out dozens of legal documents, one document does them all. That is s civil union.
Second, the hospital thing. If you are unconscious in the hospital, your family can request that no one else be allowed to see you. If you enter into a civil union with someone, your parents cannot bar them from the hospital if you are in a coma, etc.
Third, civil unions can only be entered into between members of the same sex in some states. You must live in one of those states.
Fourth, if you think homosexuals will not be content with civil unions, do you think they will be content with nothing? This is a silly argument. You are saying we shouldn’t have civil unions because homosexuals will not be happy, so your solution is to make them not happy. Of course they won’t rest if we give them civil unions, but do you honestly think they will rest if we don’t?
I know the church’s teaching on civil unions, I just think since they are a matter of politics, not faith, the church’s position is not infallible. In fact, I find it somewhat insulting that the church even makes a similarity between the two. That’s like comparing a shower to a baptism. They both include water, but the most important part of baptism is the holy spirit, not water. The most important part of marriage is becoming united in the eyes of God. Civil unions do not have that and do not claim to. Therefore, they are nothing like marriage. If you think they are similar, then you are saying tax breaks and inheritances are more important than becoming united in the eyes of God.
Last, I am sorry I take long to respond, but I have 2 children, and therefore not much free time. The only time I have is on my phone while my daughter drifts off to sleep, and phones are not very good at spell checking, so also please excuse any spelling errors or auto correct errors.
Second, the hospital thing. If you are unconscious in the hospital, your family can request that no one else be allowed to see you. If you enter into a civil union with someone, your parents cannot bar them from the hospital if you are in a coma, etc.
Third, civil unions can only be entered into between members of the same sex in some states. You must live in one of those states.
Fourth, if you think homosexuals will not be content with civil unions, do you think they will be content with nothing? This is a silly argument. You are saying we shouldn’t have civil unions because homosexuals will not be happy, so your solution is to make them not happy. Of course they won’t rest if we give them civil unions, but do you honestly think they will rest if we don’t?
I know the church’s teaching on civil unions, I just think since they are a matter of politics, not faith, the church’s position is not infallible. In fact, I find it somewhat insulting that the church even makes a similarity between the two. That’s like comparing a shower to a baptism. They both include water, but the most important part of baptism is the holy spirit, not water. The most important part of marriage is becoming united in the eyes of God. Civil unions do not have that and do not claim to. Therefore, they are nothing like marriage. If you think they are similar, then you are saying tax breaks and inheritances are more important than becoming united in the eyes of God.
Last, I am sorry I take long to respond, but I have 2 children, and therefore not much free time. The only time I have is on my phone while my daughter drifts off to sleep, and phones are not very good at spell checking, so also please excuse any spelling errors or auto correct errors.
K
Kevin_B
Guest
One more quick thought for tonight. Maybe I am not being clear.
The catechism says Catholics are to oppose any homosexual union which offers the same rights as marriage. Civil unions do not. The do not offer the right to claim you are married, the right to say God has blessed your union, or the right to be united in one body through Christ.
They do, however, share some irrelevant, superficial similarities to marriage. They both carry tax breaks and inheritance rights, for example. But marriage does not need these. If the Catholic marriage ceremony lost all its tax credits and inheritance rights tomorrow, it would still be just as strong. Those rights mean nothing. They are invented by humans, not God.
The real rights of marriage, those given to the institution by God, are not present in a civil union. Therefore, the catechism’s reference to unions with the same rights as marriage does not apply to civil unions. Since it its not mentioned in the catechism, it is not a matter of faith, and therefore any statements made by the pope on the matter reflect his opinion, not church dogma.
Not that this is am insult to the church. It knows it is human, and it knows it is fallible on matters other than of faith. So I have no issue with saying I disagree with her on this issue, but still am in full communion on matters of faith.
The catechism says Catholics are to oppose any homosexual union which offers the same rights as marriage. Civil unions do not. The do not offer the right to claim you are married, the right to say God has blessed your union, or the right to be united in one body through Christ.
They do, however, share some irrelevant, superficial similarities to marriage. They both carry tax breaks and inheritance rights, for example. But marriage does not need these. If the Catholic marriage ceremony lost all its tax credits and inheritance rights tomorrow, it would still be just as strong. Those rights mean nothing. They are invented by humans, not God.
The real rights of marriage, those given to the institution by God, are not present in a civil union. Therefore, the catechism’s reference to unions with the same rights as marriage does not apply to civil unions. Since it its not mentioned in the catechism, it is not a matter of faith, and therefore any statements made by the pope on the matter reflect his opinion, not church dogma.
Not that this is am insult to the church. It knows it is human, and it knows it is fallible on matters other than of faith. So I have no issue with saying I disagree with her on this issue, but still am in full communion on matters of faith.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Seems like if they take away the employer-based healthcare system and federal income tax, there would be little need for the state to get involved in marriages at all. Just saying.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Kevin,
The issue is bigger than what you say. The civil union issue is bigger than just this and to ignore the farther reaching issue is to bury our heads in the sand…see here…this thread explains the issue…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=722090
and these links provide the far reaching effects…
beyondmarriage.org/
I believe that there is more as found here…
Beyond Conjugality…
cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/j…002-R-0172.htm
and here…
samesexmarriage.ca/docs/b…onjugality.pdf
It is more than just the civil unions and we as informed people should know about it and oppose it…
K
Kevin_B
Guest
A triple post, boy will I get in trouble for this! Sorry to triple post, but an argument has arisen which needs to be addressed, because it is quite possibly the worst argument I have ever heard.
Some Catholics and other Christians use the argument that, if homosexuals are allowed to marry or have unions, they can force churches to marry them. This is quite possibly one of the most absurd claims I have ever heard. Why? It can be debunked in literally 5 seconds, quite possibly a record.
Can 2 atheists get married at a justice of the peace? Yes.
Is the church required to marry 2 atheists? No.
The church is therefore not required to marry people just because they can get married by a justice of the peace.
Q.E.D.
I mean, carry that to its logical conclusion. If someone can sue the church to marry them, than any marriage not condoned by the church must be made illegal, like marriage between two atheists our even marriage between two Baptists who plan on raising their child in their faith. Therefore, the only legally recognized marriages would involve Catholics. But wait, some Baptists won’t marry Catholics, so a Catholic could sure them to marry them. So marriages involving Catholics can’t happen either.
So please stop using this absurd argument. No church in the United states has ever been forced to perform a religious ceremony, and none ever will. Besides, the only possible solution is an elimination of secular marriage altogether. (Not that I necessarily disagree with that, since justices of the peace should not be performing religious ceremonies, but that is just not the topic at hand)
Some Catholics and other Christians use the argument that, if homosexuals are allowed to marry or have unions, they can force churches to marry them. This is quite possibly one of the most absurd claims I have ever heard. Why? It can be debunked in literally 5 seconds, quite possibly a record.
Can 2 atheists get married at a justice of the peace? Yes.
Is the church required to marry 2 atheists? No.
The church is therefore not required to marry people just because they can get married by a justice of the peace.
Q.E.D.
I mean, carry that to its logical conclusion. If someone can sue the church to marry them, than any marriage not condoned by the church must be made illegal, like marriage between two atheists our even marriage between two Baptists who plan on raising their child in their faith. Therefore, the only legally recognized marriages would involve Catholics. But wait, some Baptists won’t marry Catholics, so a Catholic could sure them to marry them. So marriages involving Catholics can’t happen either.
So please stop using this absurd argument. No church in the United states has ever been forced to perform a religious ceremony, and none ever will. Besides, the only possible solution is an elimination of secular marriage altogether. (Not that I necessarily disagree with that, since justices of the peace should not be performing religious ceremonies, but that is just not the topic at hand)
K
KP3243
Guest
The Church is infalliable on faith AND MORALS
R
Rainaldo
Guest
** Was Woolworth’s sandwich counter in Greensboro NC required to sell a Negro a sandwich in 1960? No.**
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
The movement won’t go along with it. They will demand “marriage”.
You cannot serve God and the world at the same time. There is no go-between especially on mortal issues like so-called “gay marriage”.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
To my fellow Catholics. This is nothing but pure propaganda. There is zero connection between the so-called gay rights movement and black civil rights. Nice try. But anybody who believes this is wrong.
jewishworldreview.com/jef…_marriage.php3
This is about gay marriage, not skin color.
Peace,
Ed
K
KP3243
Guest
The Church has the best record of fighting for injustice in the world. It wouldn’t hurt to think about maybe why they aren’t fighting for same sex-marriage. It is also worth noting that lots of heresies have occurred since Jesus created His Church and none of them have out lasted His Church even when powerful countries and leaders threatened and persecuted the clergy and the laity of the Church, the Church has survived because in the end everyone realizes that the Church upholds the truth.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
The argument posed by the civil rights movement was not one of redefinition. It was about the equal application of existing definitions. No one at that counter was asking to be redefined as “white.” They were fighting for the recognition of a natural truth, that all men are created equal, black, white, brown or beige.
To the contrary, the movement to redefine marriage asks that we replace the truth of what marriage is with a lie, so that government can unilaterally impose a thin veneer of social acceptance upon a lifestyle choice. The “gay-marriage” advocates are simply not the same caliber as the freedom riders and lunch counter sitters of the 1950s and 1960. Their politics and activism are not in the same ballpark. It’s not the same league. It’s not even the same sport!
Peace,
Robert
- Status