Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[Giants]

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

Actually, the gay rights movement is asking the government to change its working definition of marriage, not any religion’s definition of it. Your religions may continue to define marriage however you wish.

Your mistake is in believing that the government exists to rubber stamp your theology. It does not. And indeed, it legally cannot.

 

[KP3243]

Actually, the gay rights movement is asking the government to change its working definition of marriage, not any religion’s definition of it. Your religions may continue to define marriage however you wish.

Your mistake is in believing that the government exists to rubber stamp your theology. It does not. And indeed, it legally cannot.

Except the government did not define marriage, God did. It is His creation not man’s. He left us stewards of a few things on earth but He has defined marriage between man and woman where they get the supreme privilege of being co-creators of life with Him. That is why Marriage is a sacrament and you are making a vow before God that isn’t something to take lightly. That is why the Church makes you take pre Cana classes before they marry you because divorce is not recognized by the Church and it can make you not worthy of Holy Communion if you get a civil divorce. The first public miriacle Jesus performed was at a wedding that wasn’t by accident marriage is that important to God.

God bless!

 

[Kevin_B]

I understand that the Church is infallible on faith and morals, but this issue is neither. This issue is simply about a legal document passing rights onto another person. No faith or morals are involved.

I think I am beginning to see the problem. People are confusing “same-sex unions” with “homosexual unions”. The Church only condemns homosexual unions. The Church has never spoken out about two humans of the same gender who are not in a homosexual relationship getting a civil union. I am not promoting homosexual civil unions, I am promoting same-sex civil unions.

The website that Coptic Christian posted, “beyond marriage”, is actually a very good argument FOR same-sex civil unions. They list many situations in which two people of the same gender who are not in a romantic relationship could benefit from a civil union; for instance, two elderly women who are each other’s caregivers, or siblings who are both unmarried and have no other family. In both of these situations, the people involved would benefit from a civil union, because it would establish legal rights that they could transfer to the other person, and in both situations, homosexual acts are not involved. Therefore, neither of these situations are condemned by the Catholic Church, and therefore it would not go against Church teaching to vote for same-sex civil unions. Of course, some homosexual couples will invariably use the rule to pass legal rights to their partner, but since that is not the intent of the law (it is simply a negative side effect of an otherwise positive law), therefore it does not fall under the Church’s prohibition of legal recognition of homosexual unions.

If someone wants to say that supporting “homosexual civil unions” is covered under the Church’s jurisdiction over faith and morality, I would not argue. But we are not talking about homosexual civil unions, we are talking about same-sex civil unions. I want to make it legal for two elderly widows who take care of each other to be able to sign a legal document granting the other power of making emergency medical decisions , inheritance rights, etc. How is this immoral according to the Catholic Church?

 

[KP3243]

I understand that the Church is infallible on faith and morals, but this issue is neither. This issue is simply about a legal document passing rights onto another person. No faith or morals are involved.

I think I am beginning to see the problem. People are confusing “same-sex unions” with “homosexual unions”. The Church only condemns homosexual unions. The Church has never spoken out about two humans of the same gender who are not in a homosexual relationship getting a civil union. I am not promoting homosexual civil unions, I am promoting same-sex civil unions.

The website that Coptic Christian posted, “beyond marriage”, is actually a very good argument FOR same-sex civil unions. They list many situations in which two people of the same gender who are not in a romantic relationship could benefit from a civil union; for instance, two elderly women who are each other’s caregivers, or siblings who are both unmarried and have no other family. In both of these situations, the people involved would benefit from a civil union, because it would establish legal rights that they could transfer to the other person, and in both situations, homosexual acts are not involved. Therefore, neither of these situations are condemned by the Catholic Church, and therefore it would not go against Church teaching to vote for same-sex civil unions. Of course, some homosexual couples will invariably use the rule to pass legal rights to their partner, but since that is not the intent of the law (it is simply a negative side effect of an otherwise positive law), therefore it does not fall under the Church’s prohibition of legal recognition of homosexual unions.

If someone wants to say that supporting “homosexual civil unions” is covered under the Church’s jurisdiction over faith and morality, I would not argue. But we are not talking about homosexual civil unions, we are talking about same-sex civil unions. I want to make it legal for two elderly widows who take care of each other to be able to sign a legal document granting the other power of making emergency medical decisions , inheritance rights, etc. How is this immoral according to the Catholic Church?

Any union whatever you want to label it, where two men or two women engage in sex is an abomination to God and places souls in a state of mortal sin. People who die in a state of mortal sin cannot be allowed in heaven. God hasn’t left us orphaned to wander around aimlessly in faith and morals he left us a Church to guide us when we go astray. The Church is commanded by God to help people, they cannot stay silent because TheChurch is guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why the Church was the first institution in this country to educate poor people, women and African Americans, not the federal government. It why The New York Times on December 25, 1941 and 1942 had editorials that said The Pope was the lone opposition to Hitler. Its why 17 hours before President Reagan went to Berlin and exclaimed Mr. Gorbachev tear down this Wall, President Reagan met with the world’s biggest opponent to Communism and someone who before even becoming Pope was dealing with Communists and started a solidarity movement against the Soviets because he recognized human dignity and that people do not belong to any government as laborers the same man the Soviets tried to kill, John Paul II. The Church will not stay silent on anything where precious souls are defiling their bodies and threatening their eternal salvation. Their souls are far too precious to God.

The Church has fought for social Justice from the beginning. God knows what we think and what we do and we cannot hide and say we didn’t know same sex unions whether it is legally or intimately are wrong. God is just to those who who we’re ignorant and didn’t have a chance to hear the truth their punishment is less than someone who knowingly disobeys God.

 

[Rainaldo]

** Was Woolworth’s sandwich counter in Greensboro NC required to sell a Negro a sandwich in 1960? No.**

What does this have to do with anything? This thread is about so-called “gay marriage”, not about selling someone of a certain race a sandwich!

Is that all you have to offer on here?

Gay marriage will be forced on the Catholic Church exactly the same way civil antidiscrimination was forced on businesses during the civil rights agitation of the 1960s. Just you wait.

Kevin B naively argued that the Catholic Church would not be forced to officiate at same-sex marriages on the grounds that a same-sex couple would still be able to contract civil marriage under secular authorities. He fails to notice that the push for same-sex marriage is grounded in the implications of existing civil-rights legislation and the precedents that it sets.

And you ask me what that has to do with anything? I’m not going to bother quoting the actual arguments in the court decisions because nobody reads that stuff anyway, so I’ll just leave it at that.

 

[Rainaldo]

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

No, it’s pure research. Read the actual court decisions that have forced the recognition of SSM in the states that now have it. You may think there is zero connection, but the legal handling of both is spine-chillingly similar. SSM is being pushed through the courts on the two greased rails of due-process and equal-protection.

 

[Rainaldo]

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.

Churches that perform/recognize/tolerate gay marriage always do so in the name of fighting injustice; those that do not, always do so in the name of morality. The strange thing about the CC, however, is that it *opposes *SSM … in the name of fighting injustice! I don’t know of any other church that argues against SSM on the grounds that it violates the rights of children.

 

[Rainaldo]

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

No, you’re the one framing the issue as one of redefinition. Gay marriage is not being legislated into existence on the basis of some new definition. The legal argument is that it is unfair to withhold marriage from certain people just because of their sex. In other words, two men or two women are to be recognized as equal to a man and a woman.

There’s a sickening logic to it, but that’s how it’s winning in state after state. At any rate, characterizing the movement as an application of the gay agenda is not a legal argument. (It’s spot-on, but it’s just not a *legal *argument. And the Black community has already weighed in on the comparison of gay-marriage advocacy with the civil-rights movement!)

 

[KP3243]

Churches that perform/recognize/tolerate gay marriage always do so in the name of fighting injustice; those that do not, always do so in the name of morality. The strange thing about the CC, however, is that it *opposes *SSM … in the name of fighting injustice! I don’t know of any other church that argues against SSM on the grounds that it violates the rights of children.

Pretty sure there are some Evangelical Protestants that would take you to town on that. The Catholic Church ALWAYS fights for injustice. We won’t tolerate two men or two women defiling their bodies and disrespecting the human dignity God gave them let alone allowing people to believe such a union is sacred. The individuals whom God created are sacred that is why His Church is pushing back. There is only one Church, the Catholic Church is 2000 years old and it was started by Jesus himself. Our separated brethren calling themselves disciples of Christ who promote same sex marriage or unions are not in communion with the Gospels.

 

[Rainaldo]

Actually, the gay rights movement is asking the government to change its working definition of marriage, not any religion’s definition of it. Your religions may continue to define marriage however you wish.

Your mistake is in believing that the government exists to rubber stamp your theology. It does not. And indeed, it legally cannot.

How do you explain the fate of Catholic adoption agencies across the country?

 

[onenow1]

Gay marriage will be forced on the Catholic Church exactly the same way civil antidiscrimination was forced on businesses during the civil rights agitation of the 1960s. Just you wait.

Kevin B naively argued that the Catholic Church would not be forced to officiate at same-sex marriages on the grounds that a same-sex couple would still be able to contract civil marriage under secular authorities. He fails to notice that the push for same-sex marriage is grounded in the implications of existing civil-rights legislation and the precedents that it sets.

And you ask me what that has to do with anything? I’m not going to bother quoting the actual arguments in the court decisions because nobody reads that stuff anyway, so I’ll just leave it at that.

, :thumbsup:Hi Rainaldo! I see the angel of darkness at work in many areas in the world today; confuse, confuse and to make it appealing,change the name, be a word smith and this makes everything ok; this is a moral issue whether some care to believe it or not.

God Bless All
onenow1

 

[Rainaldo]

I understand that the Church is infallible on faith and morals, but this issue is neither. This issue is simply about a legal document passing rights onto another person. No faith or morals are involved.

I think I am beginning to see the problem. People are confusing “same-sex unions” with “homosexual unions”. The Church only condemns homosexual unions. The Church has never spoken out about two humans of the same gender who are not in a homosexual relationship getting a civil union. I am not promoting homosexual civil unions, I am promoting same-sex civil unions.

The website that Coptic Christian posted, “beyond marriage”, is actually a very good argument FOR same-sex civil unions. They list many situations in which two people of the same gender who are not in a romantic relationship could benefit from a civil union; for instance, two elderly women who are each other’s caregivers, or siblings who are both unmarried and have no other family. In both of these situations, the people involved would benefit from a civil union, because it would establish legal rights that they could transfer to the other person, and in both situations, homosexual acts are not involved. Therefore, neither of these situations are condemned by the Catholic Church, and therefore it would not go against Church teaching to vote for same-sex civil unions. Of course, some homosexual couples will invariably use the rule to pass legal rights to their partner, but since that is not the intent of the law (it is simply a negative side effect of an otherwise positive law), therefore it does not fall under the Church’s prohibition of legal recognition of homosexual unions.

If someone wants to say that supporting “homosexual civil unions” is covered under the Church’s jurisdiction over faith and morality, I would not argue. But we are not talking about homosexual civil unions, we are talking about same-sex civil unions. I want to make it legal for two elderly widows who take care of each other to be able to sign a legal document granting the other power of making emergency medical decisions , inheritance rights, etc. How is this immoral according to the Catholic Church?

No, Kevin, when two legal constructions have all the same properties in common, and no properties not in common, then they are legally the same thing. Civil unions are not only intended to be, but are also in fact, legally identical to marriages.

Do you really think some state somewhere is going to cook up a civil union that gives the partners the right of survivorship but fails to give them the privilege of not having to testify against each other?

Although that does raise an interesting question. Many states have heat-of-passion statutes. If you walk in on your spouse committing adultery with someone else in your bed and you kill the third party right then and there, you need not be charged with murder, but merely manslaughter. Do you really think a civil union would lack such a provision? Why would two heterosexual men in a civil union need such a provision, Kevin?

 

[Rainaldo]

Pretty sure there are some Evangelical Protestants that would take you to town on that. The Catholic Church ALWAYS fights for injustice. We won’t tolerate two men or two women defiling their bodies and disrespecting the human dignity God gave them let alone allowing people to believe such a union is sacred. The individuals whom God created are sacred that is why His Church is pushing back. There is only one Church, the Catholic Church is 2000 years old and it was started by Jesus himself. Our separated brethren calling themselves disciples of Christ who promote same sex marriage or unions are not in communion with the Gospels.

I don’t know what “take you to town” means. Evangelical Protestants argue that SSM is wrong because it’s immoral. If you are equating true justice with conformity to natural law, then that’s fine, we agree on that.

 

[Rainaldo]

, :thumbsup:Hi Rainaldo! I see the angel of darkness at work in many areas in the world today; confuse, confuse and to make it appealing,change the name, be a word smith and this makes everything ok; this is a moral issue whether some care to believe it or not.

God Bless All
onenow1

Well of course it’s a moral issue too. But the courts make rulings on law, not morals.

 

[Kevin_B]

And also why are people discussing same-sex marriage? That is not the topic of this thread at all. If you wish to discuss marriage, please do so in another thread. This thread is for discussion if civil unions only.

 

[Seeker1961]

NJ has civil unions. I know people who have them. The issue for them is the benefits that come with the word “marriage” are not available to them because they have a civil union. If insurance companies and government organizations would grant those same benefits to civil unions that they do to married couples it would work.

 

[Elizium23]

There are already clear structures for same-sex people to share living space and resources without the slightest possibility to create scandal for others and without creating a public image of promoting homosexuality and population control.

These are called Catholic religious communities.

If someone wishes to start a family and procreate children, use the right tool for the job. Let him marry a woman and be fruitful and multiply. If someone wishes to share meals with his brothers and visit them in the hospital, then let him renounce his claim to marriage and enter the consecrated religious life. The Church already provides valid, moral options for everyone’s vocation and state in life. There is no need to create stupid legal fictions that lead to the acceptance of immorality in society.

The world will not die if homosexuals observe chastity as is their calling. As 3%-4% of the world’s population, they are not essential to the survival of the species. The world will not die if there is an explosion of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, because a more faithful world respects the nature of marriage and the value of childbearing. The world will only thrive if we throw off the culture of death and reject the agenda of population control, for this is how the enemy takes over, and this is how a people dies, through the decay of moral fiber and the systematic genocide of children: aborting the unborn and having unnatural, fruitless relationships.

 

[Giants]

How do you explain the fate of Catholic adoption agencies across the country?

Not sure I understand your question.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Actually, the gay rights movement is asking the government to change its working definition of marriage, not any religion’s definition of it. Your religions may continue to define marriage however you wish.

As you can see from my earlier posts, I’m not contending that it’s “my religion” that defines what marriage is. However, “my religion” does *recognize *the truth of the institution. Marriage is what it is, and no attempt to change its meaning will change what it is. You can call a cat a chicken, but it’s never going to lay an egg. And my comment was in distinguishing the civil rights movement, that sought to recognize the truth of equal rights, from the gay rights movement and its attempt to fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as part of its campaign to further the acceptance of a lifestyle choice that is fundamentally at odds with one of the primary reasons for marriage - procreation.

Giants:

Your mistake is in believing that the government exists to rubber stamp your theology. It does not. And indeed, it legally cannot.

I’m not making that mistake. Your first mistake is in assuming that if there are two different definitions of marriage in a society, that somehow it is a workable concept. Your second mistake is assuming that I’m trying to impose my religious beliefs on society. I am not. Marriage is a natural institution, not a purely Catholic institution. You cannot marginalize the truth of what a marriage is by labelling the truth as “religious.” Your third mistake is that you are telling me that my moral beliefs cannot be legislated, while at the same time gay activists are trying to do the very same thing (legislate their own moral code) by changing the definition of marriage. Your position is inherently contradictory on this last point.

Peace,
Robert

 

[TimeEntrance]

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.

Is this like the melodramatics of people that want to vote so bad that they feel inconvenienced and to lazy to get a state identification card or drivers license?

I like to pride myself on seeing things for what they are - or at least attempting to see things for what they are.

Court TV is regular entertainment in the United States. For years people have written up wills. I fail to see how two so concerned and responsible adults can take the time to find, buy, fix up a house and get married or go through civil unions with all the paper work but can’t write up a will?

And what prevents making one partner what this website below calls medical durable power of attorney?

Source: phoenix5.org/advanced/directives/HealthCareDecisionsCO.html

A medical durable power of attorney is a document you sign naming someone to make your health care decisions. The person you name is called your agent. Your agent stands in for you when it is time to make any and all medical or other health care decisions with your doctor. Your agent can get copies of your medical records and other information to make medical decisions for you.

There are other types of durable powers of attorney which allow an agent to make different kinds of decisions for you, including financial ones.

A medical durable power of attorney can cover more health care decisions than a living will does and is not limited to terminal illness. You may put instructions or guidelines into your medical durable power of attorney telling your agent what you really want. You can cancel (revoke) your medical durable power of attorney at any time.

Your medical durable power of attorney can become effective immediately, or you can make it become effective when you become unable to make your own medical decisions. A medical durable power of attorney form is attached to this pamphlet (Attachment B) and may be used. The medical durable power of attorney discussed in this pamphlet is the type which becomes effective only when you become unable to make your own health care decisions. If you want information on the one which can become effective immediately, you may want to talk to a lawyer.

You can appoint anyone to be your health care agent as long as that person is at least 18 years old, mentally competent and willing to be your agent.