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

I believe I see the dilema. It is a problem with Proportionality. Some of it is not so bad therefore it cannot be all bad. Sadly as Catholic Christians others will need to recognize that we have a paradigm, we believe to be God given, that sees issues as good or bad. Those that do not understand can and do protest but to accept Proportionality arguments is not acceptable. Civil Unions & Same Sex Marriage are not good and must be opposed.
 
As Roman Catholics we are required to oppose legitimizing homosexuality, including voting for same sex “civil unions” and same sex marriage. "Nuff said.
As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose legitimising adultery by voting against divorce. As Roman Catholics you are also required to oppose legitimising the worship of false gods by voting against religious freedom for Hindus. As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose a great deal of current legislation. I am surprised that Catholics who take your view can vote for anybody.

rossum
 
Another thing is Rossum, right now divorce is civily legal and still we can see the trouble divorce has caused so many families and as Catholics we should preach about this. But redifining marriage and abortion is what is at stake right now at this current time. So we have a choice now to vote for cadidates and make laws in accordance with what is true, right, and just.
 
As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose legitimising adultery by voting against divorce. As Roman Catholics you are also required to oppose legitimising the worship of false gods by voting against religious freedom for Hindus. As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose a great deal of current legislation. I am surprised that Catholics who take your view can vote for anybody.

rossum
[citation needed]

You assertions are false and not backed up by the constant teaching of the Church. Faithdancer’s assertion was true and correct. The Church teaches that we must oppose homosexualism.
 
As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose legitimising adultery by voting against divorce. As Roman Catholics you are also required to oppose legitimising the worship of false gods by voting against religious freedom for Hindus. As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose a great deal of current legislation. I am surprised that Catholics who take your view can vote for anybody.

rossum
Rossum,

You are darn tootin…you really have a handle on this…but for a second…let me ask a few questions so I can be properly informed.

Where and in what state are we voting on Divorce?

Where and in what state are we voting on religious freedom?

I want to make my vote count ya know…do you know something that I don’t know…help me out here please, throw me a bone…let me know…Ok…👍
 
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
True, the ship may have already sailed. Though it might not be too late to cut losses. Massachusetts is most likely lost but most states have yet to allow gay marriage. Instead of making it an all or nothing fight over marriage, I think it would be wise to protect marriage and grant domestic partnerships instead.
 
As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose legitimising adultery by voting against divorce. As Roman Catholics you are also required to oppose legitimising the worship of false gods by voting against religious freedom for Hindus. As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose a great deal of current legislation. I am surprised that Catholics who take your view can vote for anybody.

rossum
rossum, you identify as a Buddhist. The Dalai Lama has the authority to speak for Buddhists, does he not?

The Dalai Lama said with regard to homosexual sex (specifically sodomy) and by logical extension his view on homosexual “marriage”
“A gay couple came to see me,” he said during an interview, “seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife – astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.”
“A Western friend asked me what harm there could be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it,” the Dalai Lama continued, warming to his theme. “But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don’t create life. I don’t mind – but I can’t condone this way of life.”
Although he says that no real love between people can be condemned and that any discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation must end, the Dalai Lama nevertheless persists in considering the natural expressions of gay and lesbian physical love as “wrong,” “unwholesome,” a “bad action,” and as “vices.”
Are you not required to follow the teachings of the leader of your religious affiliation?

ISoG
 
Rossum,

You are darn tootin…you really have a handle on this…but for a second…let me ask a few questions so I can be properly informed.

Where and in what state are we voting on Divorce?
Would you vote for a politician who did not include repeal of the laws on abortion in their platform?
Where and in what state are we voting on religious freedom?
Same question. What parties platform include legislation to restrict worship of false gods?

rossum
 
rossum, you identify as a Buddhist. The Dalai Lama has the authority to speak for Buddhists, does he not?

The Dalai Lama said with regard to homosexual sex (specifically sodomy) and by logical extension his view on homosexual “marriage”

Are you not required to follow the teachings of the leader of your religious affiliation?
I am not a member of the dGelug-pa sect of Tibetan Budhism, which the Dalai Lama leads.

Like Christianity, Buddhism splits between liberal and conservative wings on the question of homosexuality. I am on the liberal wing. The Dalai Lama is not.

rossum
 
True, the ship may have already sailed. Though it might not be too late to cut losses. Massachusetts is most likely lost but most states have yet to allow gay marriage. Instead of making it an all or nothing fight over marriage, I think it would be wise to protect marriage and grant domestic partnerships instead.
Domestic partnerships won’t protect marriage, they’ll just erode its meaning.

Peace,
Ed
 
I am not a member of the dGelug-pa sect of Tibetan Budhism, which the Dalai Lama leads.

Like Christianity, Buddhism splits between liberal and conservative wings on the question of homosexuality. I am on the liberal wing. The Dalai Lama is not.

rossum
Your clarification is appreciated.

For simplicity: Among Catholics and Buddhists (the same way with Protestants and Jews), there is a wing that departs from or disregard the traditional religious teaching and social value against homosexual acts as wrong and inappropriate, and takes on the description as liberal.

My problem is in your post #101 where you were seemingly gratuitous in bringing up voting by Roman Catholics or their wanting to legislate adultery and divorce along with same sex “marriage” as though legislation or change in current laws on adultery and divorce would even be practicable.

It is true that Catholic teaching is hard to follow and not all Catholics live their faith, but it would be a mistake to imply that adherent Catholics such as the poster to whom you directed your post are unthinking.

Same sex “marriage” advocates are insisting it’s already a done deal in the whole United States. It is not. People and voters are taking notice.

Rhetorically speaking, is it a wonder that voters in the liberal category of various faiths would be aligned with like minded politicians and legislators running for office? In the same vein, is it a wonder that faithful Catholics, or Buddhists, Protestants and Jews who value traditional marriage and union between a man and a woman only would want to vote for candidates respecting said social value and teaching?

As a side note, the discussion on the subject seems to invariably skip the fact that there are atheists who are very much against SS"M" as well.
,
 
Same sex “marriage” advocates are insisting it’s already a done deal in the whole United States. It is not. People and voters are taking notice.
I live in the UK, not the US. We already have Civil Partnerships here, and the Conservative Prime Minister has announced that he is going to be introducing same sex marriage in this Parliament.

To that extent it is a done deal in the UK. Even that language has changed. People are saying “married” instead of “civil partnered” and “husband/wife” instead of “civil partner”.

rossum
 
I live in the UK, not the US. We already have Civil Partnerships here, and the Conservative Prime Minister has announced that he is going to be introducing same sex marriage in this Parliament.

To that extent it is a done deal in the UK. Even that language has changed. People are saying “married” instead of “civil partnered” and “husband/wife” instead of “civil partner”.

rossum
I know. I can read it on your provided profile and am aware of the status of CPs there. However your posts strongly suggest a personal interest in the state of legalized same sex unions in the U.S. and advocacy for equivalency with opposite sexed marriage. Many who read and participate in this forum are from the U.S. and I wish to submit a contrary and just as real view.
,
 
Civil marriage was invented in Germany to destroy the Church.
Hi Andre,

I’m very curious about the details surrounding the invention, start, implementation of civil marriage. Any info that you or anyone else could provide about this would be appreciated.

Thanks and God Bless,
Bill
 
As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose legitimising adultery by voting against divorce. As Roman Catholics you are also required to oppose legitimising the worship of false gods by voting against religious freedom for Hindus. As Roman Catholics you are required to oppose a great deal of current legislation. I am surprised that Catholics who take your view can vote for anybody.

rossum
I, personally, can not vote for anyone in good conscience. Therefore I do not vote. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

God Bless,
Bill
 
Hi Andre,

I’m very curious about the details surrounding the invention, start, implementation of civil marriage. Any info that you or anyone else could provide about this would be appreciated.

Thanks and God Bless,
Bill
Found this on Wikipedia:
Every country maintaining a population registry of its residents keeps track of marital status, and most countries believe that it is their responsibility to register married couples. Most countries define the conditions of civil marriage separately from religious requirements. Certain countries, such as Israel, only allow couples to register on the condition that they have first been married in a religious ceremony recognised by the state, or were married in a different country.
In England
In medieval Europe, marriage was governed by canon law, which recognised as valid only those marriages where the parties stated they took one another as husband and wife, regardless of the presence or absence of witnesses. It was not necessary, however, to be married by any official or cleric. This institution was cancelled in England with the enactment of “Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act” of 1753, which required that, in order to be valid and registered, all marriages were to be performed in an official ceremony in a religious setting recognised by the state, i.e. Church of England, the Quakers, or in a Jewish ceremony. Any other form of marriage was abolished. Children born into unions which were not valid under the Act would not automatically inherit the property or titles of their parents. For historical reasons, the Act did not apply in Scotland. Consequently, until 1940, it continued to be enough in Scotland for a man and a woman to pledge their commitment to each other in front of witnesses to legalise their marriage. This led to an industry of “fast marriages” in Scottish towns on the border with England; the town of Gretna Green was particularly well known for this. In 1836 the requirement that the ceremony take place in a religious forum was removed, and registrars were given the authority to register marriages not conducted by a religious official.
In other European countries
Many European countries had institutions similar to common-law marriage. In 1566, the edict of the Council of Trent was proclaimed denying Catholics any form of marriage not executed in a religious ceremony before a priest and two witnesses.
The Protestant pastor and theologian of Geneva John Calvin decreed that, in order for a couple to be considered married, they must be registered by the state in addition to a church ceremony.
In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage. Religious ceremonies could still be performed, but only for couples who had already been married in a civil ceremony. Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France only civil marriage has legal validity. A religious ceremony may be performed after the civil union, but has no legal effect.
In Germany the Napoleonic code was valid only in territories conquered by Napoleon. With the fall of his empire, civil marriage in Germany began to die out. However, certain sovereign German states introduced civil marriages, which were either obligatory (like the French model) or optional, with either a religious or civil ceremony being accepted. Already before 1848 the Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach enacted optional civil marriages, followed by the German republics of the Free City of Frankfurt upon Main (1850, obligatory), Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg (1851, optional) and Free and Hanseatic City of Lübeck (1852, optional). German grand duchies such as Oldenburg (1852/55, optional), Baden (1860) and Hesse (1860) as well as the Kingdom of Württemberg (1863) followed suit.[2] Civil marriages enabled interfaith marriages as well as marriages between spouses of different Christian denominations. After the union of Germany as one empire in 1871, the Reichstag adopted a bill initiated by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck as the “Civil Marriage Law” in 1875; since then, only civil marriages have been recognised in Germany. Religious ceremonies may still be performed at the couple’s discretion. Until Dec. 31, 2008, religious marriages could not be performed until the couple had first married in a civil ceremony.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage
 
Same-sex unions are anything that has a ceremony and marriage like benefits to it for same-sex couples. They mimic and demean marriage. And by the way I’m a gay man saying this. It’s all a hoax. They want the redefinition of marriage and family. Personally I really liked the way Rick Santorum described defense of marriage and same-sex relationships:
You’re not entitled “to special treatment under the law…[Marriage is] not a right, it’s something that has existed since the beginning of human history as an institution where men and women come together for the purposes of forming a natural relationship as God made it to be. And for the purposes of having children and continuing that civilization. It is an intrinsic good…And as a result of that, we extend a privilege. We extend certain privileges to people who do that because we want to encourage that behavior.
Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman.
First off Santorum did not have to recognize the relationships of gays and lesbians as “special.” I know many Christians who say things such as “They don’t love each other really.” “They’re promiscuous.” “They’re dirty.” etc.

Santorum really went out of the way there, to be compassionate, and loving about gay relationships, he could have said something worse, but he didn’t. But on the other hand he is still equally clear that marriage is for procreation and bringing up the future children of society, by a mother and father and is what God intended. (By the way folks I’m celibate just FYI)

Personally I don’t get all hard core bent out of shape about same-sex relationships like you Catholics do, I recognize that they’re not the same as marriage, and that sex is really supposed to be for traditionally married couples.

But I will defend marriage with every once of my soul. Even if marriage was not a religious issue, I would still defend it.

Personally I would have no problem with the creation (on a state by state basis) of an unregistered legal contract system that allowed power of attorney, proof of a relationship, health care visitation, joint organization of affairs etc and place them all under one legal arrangement. It would simply be done through lawyers.

This would benefit perhaps two elderly siblings living together.

No government, or ceremony. It would allow all the separate things non married couples (elderly siblings) do to be done in one contract. But that’s about as far as I would go.
 
Same-sex unions are anything that has a ceremony and marriage like benefits to it for same-sex couples. They mimic and demean marriage. And by the way I’m a gay man saying this. It’s all a hoax. They want the redefinition of marriage and family. Personally I really liked the way Rick Santorum described defense of marriage and same-sex relationships:
You’re not entitled “to special treatment under the law…[Marriage is] not a right, it’s something that has existed since the beginning of human history as an institution where men and women come together for the purposes of forming a natural relationship as God made it to be. And for the purposes of having children and continuing that civilization. It is an intrinsic good…And as a result of that, we extend a privilege. We extend certain privileges to people who do that because we want to encourage that behavior.
This is a great responds and really all that needs to be said! 👍
 
Personally I don’t get all hard core bent out of shape about same-sex relationships like you Catholics do,
FYI I’m Catholic and don’t get bet out of shape at all about same-sex relationships. I try to live by Judge not, lest ye be judged. This includes same sex relationships. I also happen to have a few gay friends (I met through my wife, as I basically met all my friends through my wife, I only keep in touch with a couple of friends I have had prior to knowing my wife) and they are very caring and genuine friends. One of them picked me up after I got out of the hospital last week after I had a serious car accident as my wife called him and he was more than willing to pick me up.

So I recognize what God and the Catholic Religion has to say about homosexual acts and relationships, and as a Catholic agree with and believe those things, but as someone who has committed many, many sins myself in my past I don’t see it as my place to pass judgement on what homosexual men want to do. It’s like many things, I recognize them as wrong, but don’t personally get bent out of shape about them. I have enough shortcomings myself to keep myself busy and believe that it’s more important for me to worry about and focus on my own shortcomings and try to love my neighbor as myself. This includes homosexuals or any individuals who are for same sex marriage. I can disagree with the concept without getting bent out of shape about it.

When I’m ‘bent ouf of shape’ about any issue, ideally, I try to look at myself as being bent out of shape is an unpleasant experience. As such, I try and figure out a way to not feel bent out of shape. This is different than mentally believing or recognizing that the issue I feel bent out of shape about may be wrong in the eyes of God. I prefer to feel bent out of shape as little as possible and try to work toward that end. Again, this is different than believing that something may be morally wrong. I’ve had more than my lifetimes share of feeling bent out of shape, I believe that being in such a state hurts me, so I try to avoid feeling hurt if I can.

God Bless,
Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top