Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[onenow1]

Then start a petition to decriminalize murder, incest, theft and fraud.

God bless.

Your response is what word smithing in this culture is all about, confusing the issues, reminds me of Satan in the garden of eden. There is God’s truth and then there is make me feel good truth, my personal opinion. Rather then the commandments of our Creator.

God Bless

 

[Kevin_B]

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.

Marriage is a religious sacrament, not a legal construction. Please stop insulting the holy sacraments by calling them “legal constructions”.

In the context of your job get to work on how you differentiate this for me

Two elderly women want to be legally listed as each other’s caregivers and pass their belongings to each other. They want the other to have all the rights associated with a civil union. This is a same-sex civil union with no homosexual relations. The church has never condemned these. Therefore, it is not sinful to vote for same-sex civil unions.

 

[KP3243]

Marriage is a religious sacrament, not a legal construction. Please stop insulting the holy sacraments by calling them “legal constructions”.

Two elderly women want to be legally listed as each other’s caregivers and pass their belongings to each other. They want the other to have all the rights associated with a civil union. This is a same-sex civil union with no homosexual relations. The church has never condemned these. Therefore, it is not sinful to vote for same-sex civil unions.

Why wouldn’t two old women get a power of attorney then?

 

[mitex]

Why wouldn’t two old women get a power of attorney then?

The Catholic think tank in Ireland the Iona Institute came up with a designated beneficiary agreement for the case of two elderly people living together.

ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/civilunionweb.pdf

 

[mitex]

Although such measure could be abused by same-sex and heterosexual cohabitating couples.

 

[ProVobis]

Although such measure could be abused by same-sex and heterosexual cohabitating couples.

Doesn’t the state recognize them as married after a certain number of years?

 

[mitex]

Doesn’t the state recognize them as married after a certain number of years?

No that’s common law marriage, that was a proposal for Ireland, same-sex marriage is currently not legal in Ireland (although that may change unfortunately).

And most places have abolished common law marriage. No worries.

 

[CopticChristian]

Marriage is a religious sacrament, not a legal construction. Please stop insulting the holy sacraments by calling them “legal constructions”.

Two elderly women want to be legally listed as each other’s caregivers and pass their belongings to each other. They want the other to have all the rights associated with a civil union. This is a same-sex civil union with no homosexual relations. The church has never condemned these. Therefore, it is not sinful to vote for same-sex civil unions.

Kevin,

Why can’t these women just include each other in their wills?

 

[rossum]

Why can’t these women just include each other in their wills?

Because that does not give the benefits on Inheritance Tax that a civil union or marriage would give. Civil unions also include a whole raft of tax and other benefits that are sometimes possible separately, but sometimes not.

rossum

 

[Bill_7154]

A few false statements there. From the Gettysburg Address:

“…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Government is put in place by the people. The constant, ongoing attempts here to make it a “them” versus “us” battle is just plain false.

What is false is the left vs. right way of looking at gov’t. Bring back the gov’t from when this country was founded and I wouldn’t have an issue with it. As it stands now we are being flushed down the toilet with out of control spending, printing tons of money which hurts everyone but the super rich, no gold standard…

The US government knows what marriage is. It is the only way we get the next generation. In the sense that a couple gets a marriage license is not just approval but a true record of a marriage so as to keep continuity for their children, their property and for any claims or challenges made as to its validity.

Why not just have everyone get an RFID chip implanted under every citizen’s skin? It would be much easier to keep track of people than the current system. And kidnapped kids could be found more frequently than they are at present as the RFID chip could also act as a gps for a human so the moment any child is known to have gone missing a couple of clicks on a computer and their exact location is known. Would you be for this as well Ed?

The latest immoral living period got a real boost in the late 1960s. From a Hippie friend of mine in the early 1970s: “I don’t need no piece of paper ta live with my ‘old lady.’” (And she was what? 22? Old lady - but Hippie-speak was programmed into people who grew up us I did).

Today: It’s let’s hand out benefits to any couple living together and having sex!!! Our time has come.

Benefits for:

Cohabitating couples.
Civil Unions.
Domestic partnerships.
Same-sex marriage.

Does any of the above not cheapen marriage by virtue of its separation of a cooperative and natural biological union where, since recorded history, it was made known who was the son of who and who was the father and the mother? And I’m not talking about the guy who has 3 kids with 3 different women, and leaves them all for a crummy apartment, a 40 ounce beer and a dog.

All of that also chepens marriage. And BTW gov’t also is actively using taxpayer money to the effect of destroying marriage by having entitlement programs for unwed mothers. Teenage girls are rewarded with free money and a free apartment for having a baby out of wedlock. This is what your precious gov’t is doing.

Mothers and fathers rear their own children. And that requires stability and time,

Which the Church holds parents to a higher standard than the state does. The state doesn’t even require people to be married to have kids and pays them for having kids outside of marriage. I would say that’s a pretty good reason to get the state the heck out of the marriage business. It’s about money for the state, another way to tax people. The Church actually supports itself through voluntary donations, they don’t stick a gun in someone’s face to make them pay for the services offered, even if your not interested in the services.

not ‘imitation marriage,’ where anybody gets to walk out the door for whatever reason.

I heard the following while in a supermarket. A guy was filling the counters and someone who hadn’t seen him for a while said, “Hey. How you been doin’?”

“OK. I guess.”

“Hey, are you still with what’s her name?”

“Naw. She came up to me one day and said, ‘I don’t want to do this anymore,’ so I said, ‘OK. Bye.’”

“So how long were you and her…?”

“Two years.”

Or a friend of mine who works in the newspaper business. He told me about a young lady who kept talking about ‘her husband.’

So, one day, he casually asked her. “So, how long have you been married?”

She said, “Oh, we’re not married.”

He tried to explain his marriage to her but it was as if it didn’t matter. He tried to say marriage was for life, and that though he loved his wife, it could get hard sometimes.

So what happened? After ten years of playing ‘married couple,’ she walked into work one day and told him, “I decided to pack my bags and move out.” He didn’t say anything to her. ,

I suspect that devoted Christians who get married in the Church, under the eyes of God by a Priest and not some pencil pusher take marriage more seriously than those who get married by the state.

And the people who want same-sex civil unions, where do they go to get what they want? The Church? Nobody? They go to the same government that some say should get out of the marriage “”“business”". What a load of baloney.

Don’t be fooled my fellow Catholics, only judges and politicians are giving them what they want.,

Thanks for making my point for me!

Peace,
Bill

 

[Kevin_B]

Kevin,

Why can’t these women just include each other in their wills?

As a previous poster pointed out, civil unions include dozens of legal privileges. Accomplishing the same rights through individual paperwork would involve thousands in lawyer fees. This does not even mention that some acts, like passing a government pension to someone, requires a marriage or civil union. Why should people not be able to pass their pension on to someone of the same gender if they wish?

Of course, some people who enter into these legal unions well be immoral sexually. But many people who enter into civil marriages are immoral sexually, and that has not encouraged the church to try to make them illegal. They understand that the good causes by the moral civil marriages outweigh the bad caused by the immoral ones. In the same way, the good caused by allowing non-sexual couples to enter into a union well outweigh the bad caused by those who are sexual.

But even if the legal troubles were not true, I could just say “because I don’t want to”. This discussion is not about whether or not civil unions are ok, it its about whether or not they are against Catholic teaching. And since nowhere does the Catholic church condemn civil unions between members of the same sex who do not have sex, I have no need to explain my decisions on that matter. I simply feel the government should not be able to tell people what gender person should inherit their belongings and make medical decisions for them. Even if these are accomplished through much more tedious individual forms, I do not think it should be easier for one person than for another just because of their gender.

I noticed you did this same thing in another thread. You claim something is against the teaching of the church, but when asked to actually prove that claim, you are unable to do so and therefore resort to showing why you, personally, disagree with it. My goal is not to convince you that same-sex sex civil unions are good (although I would still like to do so, since I honestly think they are the just and moral thing to do), my goal is to find out if they are, in fact, against church teaching. And since no one has yet to show me where the church condemns legal recognition of non-sexual same-sex civil unions, I am forced to conclude they are not against church teaching.

 

[SemperFidelis07]

This country guarantees rights to all citizens. I say let them have their civil unions. I personally have a you don’t bother me, I won’t bother you policy when it comes to conflicting beliefs.

 

[CopticChristian]

As a previous poster pointed out, civil unions include dozens of legal privileges. Accomplishing the same rights through individual paperwork would involve thousands in lawyer fees. This does not even mention that some acts, like passing a government pension to someone, requires a marriage or civil union. Why should people not be able to pass their pension on to someone of the same gender if they wish?

Of course, some people who enter into these legal unions well be immoral sexually. But many people who enter into civil marriages are immoral sexually, and that has not encouraged the church to try to make them illegal. They understand that the good causes by the moral civil marriages outweigh the bad caused by the immoral ones. In the same way, the good caused by allowing non-sexual couples to enter into a union well outweigh the bad caused by those who are sexual.

But even if the legal troubles were not true, I could just say “because I don’t want to”. This discussion is not about whether or not civil unions are ok, it its about whether or not they are against Catholic teaching. And since nowhere does the Catholic church condemn civil unions between members of the same sex who do not have sex, I have no need to explain my decisions on that matter. I simply feel the government should not be able to tell people what gender person should inherit their belongings and make medical decisions for them. Even if these are accomplished through much more tedious individual forms, I do not think it should be easier for one person than for another just because of their gender.

I noticed you did this same thing in another thread. You claim something is against the teaching of the church, but when asked to actually prove that claim, you are unable to do so and therefore resort to showing why you, personally, disagree with it. My goal is not to convince you that same-sex sex civil unions are good (although I would still like to do so, since I honestly think they are the just and moral thing to do), my goal is to find out if they are, in fact, against church teaching. And since no one has yet to show me where the church condemns legal recognition of non-sexual same-sex civil unions, I am forced to conclude they are not against church teaching.

Kevin,

Where do you find me claiming Church teaching opposition?

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Kevin,

It is your job to provide clarity. I am not going to go looking for what it is you claim. You claim that the Church has an opinion on civlil unions. Show me what it is you are speaking of as it regards this opinion for clarity in discussion.

 

[edwest2]

This country guarantees rights to all citizens. I say let them have their civil unions. I personally have a you don’t bother me, I won’t bother you policy when it comes to conflicting beliefs.

Gay people are already living how they want and doing what they want. The rights they are asking for can easily be obtained by other means. I was very ill last year. My friend took me to the emergency room. He spent at least two hours with me. NO ONE asked what our relationship was; relative? friend? gay lover? NO ONE. I called the company that handles my IRA and had him put down as my beneficiary. It took 5 minutes, over the phone and NO QUESTION about sexual orientation. I worked in a hospital for almost ten years. Anybody could visit anybody they wanted. In my will, I will be leaving my possessions to my friend and there is no legal reason to state our SEXUAL ORIENTATION. This is all about benefits and calling gay sexual behavior marriage. PERIOD.

Since I was ill, we both went to my bank to add his name to my meager bank account. A few pieces of ID, sign here and we were done. NO ONE asked what our relationship was or about our living arrangements, much less sexual orientation.

Catholics need to understand that gay marriage activists don’t want Civil Unions, they want gay marriage signed into law. Anything less that that makes them 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.”

WAKE UP !!! My fellow Catholics. This is not about the gay guys who live next door, have backyard barbecues, go to work and come home. You say hi, they say hi. GAY SEX is the issue here - legalizing GAY SEX as marriage.

So, it would be one thing if your neighbors were a couple of nice gay guys who kept up their house and yard, and were friendly, and whatever they did in private was their business.

That is totally wrong. 100% wrong.

They will teach your kids that Gay Sex is OK in school. They will use this book:

amazon.com/King-Linda-Haan/dp/1582460612

to tell your kids it’s OK if they see two gay guys kissing.

This is all being marketed under THE FALSE AND DECEPTIVE LABEL - DIVERSITY.

And your kid’s school will have people who will teach them this:

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/074252034X

Or bring their gay husband or wife to school. Hey, it’s OK, little Jimmy and Johnny.

I heard the following on Catholic Radio: A primitive tribe in Africa who lived way below 20th Century standards were approached by a group of Anthropologists and, through a translator, were told about gay sex. Now, some enlightened 21st Century types might assume that these people were stupid. Not so. They asked the obvious, logical question: “How do you reproduce?”

Think of it this way. You walk into a room and you see three Hispanics, three black people, three Oriental people and three white women. Quick quiz. Which one of them is gay? Anybody? Quick quiz. Which one(s) is left-handed?

Gay History Month? How about Bisexual History Month?

If anyone thinks this is going to end with two gays just living like anybody else - that is completely false.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here is a statement about how the Church views same-sex civil unions:

archden.org/index.cfm/ID/7398

Peace,
Ed

 

[johnmann]

Ideally, government shouldn’t regulate relationships at all. But that’s not an option. So what now? There’s no moral objection against giving gay couples hospital visitation rights and the like. In fact, there are moral objections against denying them those rights. How do we grant them those rights while at the same time making it clear that we’re not approving of homosexual acts? Marriage, as properly understood, requires procreative intent. So it seems logical that the solution is to offer some sort of legal status to couples, gay or straight, that isn’t called marriage and doesn’t imply sexual activity. Say, “domestic partnership.”

There’s, of course, the argument that this will lead to gay marriage. We can abolish government marriage altogether and just offer domestic partnerships. In essence, this gets close to the ideal solution I mentioned in my first sentence. I think the slippery slope in the other direction is the more dangerous and one we’re already falling down. By grouping gay marriage together with domestic partnerships, gay marriage advocates have co-opted those who would’ve supported domestic partnerships but not gay marriage. By make a sharp distinction between the two, we can possibly save marriage.

 

[edwest2]

Ideally, government shouldn’t regulate relationships at all. But that’s not an option. So what now? There’s no moral objection against giving gay couples hospital visitation rights and the like. In fact, there are moral objections against denying them those rights. How do we grant them those rights while at the same time making it clear that we’re not approving of homosexual acts? Marriage, as properly understood, requires procreative intent. So it seems logical that the solution is to offer some sort of legal status to couples, gay or straight, that isn’t called marriage and doesn’t imply sexual activity. Say, “domestic partnership.”

There’s, of course, the argument that this will lead to gay marriage. We can abolish government marriage altogether and just offer domestic partnerships. In essence, this gets close to the ideal solution I mentioned in my first sentence. I think the slippery slope in the other direction is the more dangerous and one we’re already falling down. By grouping gay marriage together with domestic partnerships, gay marriage advocates have co-opted those who would’ve supported domestic partnerships but not gay marriage. By make a sharp distinction between the two, we can possibly save marriage.

What?

annarbor.com/news/gov-rick-snyder-signs-domestic-partner-benefits-ban-into-law/

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

I think you should explain your idea to the person(s) mentioned in the article.

Marriage is not going away because the truth is not going away.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Andre1000]

Civil marriage was invented in Germany to destroy the Church.

 

[Faithdancer]

This country guarantees rights to all citizens. I say let them have their civil unions. I personally have a you don’t bother me, I won’t bother you policy when it comes to conflicting beliefs.

As Roman Catholics we are required to oppose legitimizing homosexuality, including voting for same sex “civil unions” and same sex marriage. "Nuff said.