Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[fix]

Again, sorry for the delay on my response. The churches teaching on the subject:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

It clearly states “homosexual unions”, not “same-sex unions”.

A distinction without a difference. You cannot not be serious?

There is no reason to assume that two people of the same gender who put each other in their wills or want hospital visitation rights are homosexual.

That can be done right now through legal devices without any so-called unions being fabricated.

Of course, there are homosexuals who will enter into civil unions . There are also couples who gave no intention of sexual fidelity who enter into marriages. But just like we do not end marriages because of the bad eggs, so we are not required to oppose civil unions because of the bad eggs. Just like a justice of the peace does not require a couple getting married to assure sexual morality, so we do not require two people getting a civil union to require sexual fidelity.

The law is a teacher. Teach that marriage is plastic and people will act as if it is plastic.

And this article is absurd.

He claims that same sex civil unions will erode the unique status of marriage as being between a man and woman.

WHAT? LOL! if marriage is between a man and woman, and civil unions are between two people of either gender, than marriage still has the unique status of being between a man and women.

Not at all. All you are doing is playing games with words.

I almost issued when I read that, it was quite possibly the worst logic I have heard in my life. I mean, through out this entire article he talks about redefining marriage. How can you redefine marriage when you are only taking about civil unions? Thomas Aquinas he is not! He claims that he is opposing civil unions, but the entire article is simply about why homosexual marriages are wrong. He completely ignored the issue of civil unions. Why? Because it is entirely impossible for someone to argue with a straight face that it is an infallible doctrine of faith that you may only pass on your possessions to someone of the opposite sex. It’s so absurd it hurts me to think about it.

Manufacturing some legal structure called a civil union with all the same benefits as a marriage and then claiming there is a distinction is disingenuous.

And besides, these are the opinions of a bishop, not infallible church teachings.

You are aware that infallibility is not the exclusive standard used to determine what is true, irreformable, and binding under pain of mortal sin, right?

How many times did Jesus mention civil unions? How about st Paul? Did any of the early church philosophies mention the danger of same-sex civil unions? Of course not, they did not exist. Marriage is an institution that has been around forever and was created by God. Civil unions are an institution which have been around for decades and were created by humans. How can someone possibly say with a straight face that a legal document falls under the church’s infallibility on issues of faith?

They are not saying that, you are. What you seem to be missing is that the Christ left a living magisterium to be followed.

 

[edwest2]

The primary tactic of gay marriage advocates is to engage the emotions of their troops. Their leaders get them fired up by saying, “They hate you/us!!!” And they keep drilling it into their heads. Sure, there are some people who hate others because of the color of their skin or their religion or their ethnicity. But look at it this way:

You walk into a room and you see 3 black people, 3 Hispanics, and 3 women. Quick quiz. Which one of them is gay? Which one of them is left-handed?

Gays in states where their gay sex cannot be called marriage are taking what they can get:

Commitment ceremonies.
Domestic partnerships.
Civil Unions.

When Michigan’s Governor banned Domestic Partners, who was the first to complain?

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

“We’re so very disappointed in the governor,” Kary L. Moss, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union’s Michigan chapter, said in an interview. “This was the moment for him to show real leadership, to rise above what I believe is petty politics, to tell the rest of the country that Michigan is not living in the dark ages and to create an open, inclusive Michigan.”

Inclusive: We approve of benefits for couples having gay sex.

But gay people don’t want any of the above. Why?

“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.”

So Civil Unions are simply unacceptable but good enough for now, as long as we can keep our foot in the door. For the record, I don’t hate gay people. I just find their irrational statements and painting entire states as wrong as further proof that marriage will not be the end of this.

Right after same-sex marriage was defeated in Michigan, a letter appeared in one of Detroit’s major newspaper where the writer wrote. “Michigan. The great hate state.” Yeah, Aunt Matilda who is 80 years old and lives in a nursing home hates gays, and little Bobby, who is 8 years old, hates gays.

Or how rational is this? “However, gay divorce is one more reason that gay couples should be allowed to marry.” I love you but I need to have the comfort of knowing I can divorce you? Would you marry anyone, gay or straight, who told you that?

Are you, or any gay marriage advocates here, aware of how irrational that is? You fight for years to make a commitment and that’s the line being repeated here endlessly about allowing gays who are “in a committed relationship” to get married. What? You want to have the right to make a commitment and then you are going to argue for divorce?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Slavonic]

Or how rational is this? “However, gay divorce is one more reason that gay couples should be allowed to marry.” I love you but I need to have the comfort of knowing I can divorce you? Would you marry anyone, gay or straight, who told you that?

Are you, or any gay marriage advocates here, aware of how irrational that is? You fight for years to make a commitment and that’s the line being repeated here endlessly about allowing gays who are “in a committed relationship” to get married. What? You want to have the right to make a commitment and then you are going to argue for divorce?

Divorce is also a form of legal protection. It provides for the orderly dissolution of the union and (hopefully) fair distribution and division of the assets held by the couple. A lot of people wouldn’t get married if they couldn’t get divorced.

 

[edwest2]

Divorce is also a form of legal protection. It provides for the orderly dissolution of the union and (hopefully) fair distribution and division of the assets held by the couple. A lot of people wouldn’t get married if they couldn’t get divorced.

Wow. Just wow. Do you have any facts to back up that statement?

Gay marriage advocates constantly talk about “committed relationships.” Do people say, “I will commit myself to you only if I can divorce you?”

Wow.

Best,
Ed

 

[Slavonic]

Wow. Just wow. Do you have any facts to back up that statement?

Gay marriage advocates constantly talk about “committed relationships.” Do people say, “I will commit myself to you only if I can divorce you?”

Which part? That divorce is a form of legal protection? If that’s it, then I’ll say it prevents one spouse draining the bank accounts, kicking the other partner out of the house, or denying access to the children. To the second part, yeah it’s a fact (a sad fact) but it certainly happens.

Also, why are you only getting upset with gay advocates over divorce? Right now, a lot more straight couples have gotten divorced than gay couples. In fact, one can say straight people invented it so send that complaint elsewhere.

 

[CopticChristian]

Which part? That divorce is a form of legal protection? If that’s it, then I’ll say it prevents one spouse draining the bank accounts, kicking the other partner out of the house, or denying access to the children. To the second part, yeah it’s a fact (a sad fact) but it certainly happens.

Also, why are you only getting upset with gay advocates over divorce? Right now, a lot more straight couples have gotten divorced than gay couples. In fact, one can say straight people invented it so send that complaint elsewhere.

Slavonic,

You rarely represent Catholic teaching and here you erroneously present your bias for homosexuality…you are wrong concerning who gets divorced more often…

nationalreview.com/articles/299944/gay-divorcees-charles-c-w-cooke

Denmark was the first country to introduce recognition of same-sex partnerships, coining the term “registered partnership” in 1989. Norway followed suit in 1993, and then Sweden in 1995. Again, Stockholm University’s study seems to confirm the American trend. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men.

 

[edwest2]

Which part? That divorce is a form of legal protection? If that’s it, then I’ll say it prevents one spouse draining the bank accounts, kicking the other partner out of the house, or denying access to the children. To the second part, yeah it’s a fact (a sad fact) but it certainly happens.

Also, why are you only getting upset with gay advocates over divorce? Right now, a lot more straight couples have gotten divorced than gay couples. In fact, one can say straight people invented it so send that complaint elsewhere.

Your angry reply ignores the fact that gay couples apparently don’t want commitment or trust. They just want Benefits. Their money and property are more important than their loving and trusting relationship?

Quit bringing up straight people. A number of high profile divorces have already occurred among gays. And same-sex is the topic, not opposite sex.

Best,
Ed

 

[Slavonic]

Slavonic,

You rarely represent Catholic teaching and here you erroneously present your bias for homosexuality…you are wrong concerning who gets divorced more often…

nationalreview.com/articles/299944/gay-divorcees-charles-c-w-cooke

In aggregate numbers, straight people have more divorces overall, but rates are a better measure to make comparisons, so fair point. Yet, I can’t help but wonder what will happen over time as LGBT society and culture adapt and adjust to a new institution. Also, time will diminish impact of the initial “rush to the courthouse” where a couple got married because of the initial excitement not much more and then got divorced later.

Your angry reply ignores the fact that gay couples apparently don’t want commitment or trust. They just want Benefits. Their money and property are more important than their loving and trusting relationship?

Quit bringing up straight people. A number of high profile divorces have already occurred among gays. And same-sex is the topic, not opposite sex.

I don’t think we can make blanket statements about any kind of relationship (gay or straight). And I also don’t think it’s right to call providing one’s spouse with benefits and protections such as health care benefits or pensions as just being concerned with money and property and not valuing a loving, trusting relationship.

I bring up straight couples to point out the fact that there are lots of things said here about same-sex couples that would never be said about a male/female couple. No one would say that straight people don’t deserve marriage because they get divorced. No one would say that straight couples are just in for the benefits. No one would expect straight couples, on the whole, to have to prove the legitimacy of their relationship or their deserving the social a economic benefits of marriage.

 

[CopticChristian]

In aggregate numbers, straight people have more divorces overall, but rates are a better measure to make comparisons, so fair point. Yet, I can’t help but wonder what will happen over time as LGBT society and culture adapt and adjust to a new institution. Also, time will diminish impact of the initial “rush to the courthouse” where a couple got married because of the initial excitement not much more and then got divorced later.

I don’t think we can make blanket statements about any kind of relationship (gay or straight). And I also don’t think it’s right to call providing one’s spouse with benefits and protections such as health care benefits or pensions as just being concerned with money and property and not valuing a loving, trusting relationship.

I bring up straight couples to point out the fact that there are lots of things said here about same-sex couples that would never be said about a male/female couple.** No one would say that straight people don’t deserve marriage because they get divorced. No one would say that straight couples are just in for the benefits. No one would expect straight couples, on the whole, to have to prove the legitimacy of their relationship or their deserving the social a economic benefits of marriage**.

Slavonic,

Imagine that there is no such thing as a homosexual. There is no such thing as LGBT. Because there is no such thing as anything but heterosexual then the notion of heterosexaul drops out of the conversation.

The question then is marriage and divorce. Some people marry for benefits. Some people divorce for benefits.

Some people deserve to get married. Some people don’t deserve to get married. This judgement is then based on what it is each individual judging that act judges by.

They don’t deserve to get married because they are not committed.
They don’t deserve to get married because they don’t love each other.
They don’t deserve to get married because they cannot support themselves.

None of these are registered as acceptable reasons because people get married because they get married.

Now when you enter the notion of same sex, in my mind, they don’t desrve to get married because there is no marriage in my mind of two people of same sex. Whatever they do, regardless of what they say, or regardless of who witnesses or sanctions it, in my mind is not marriage and to say that they deserve something suggests that it is something that they have a right to or are capable of doing and in my mind neither reasons exist therefore they don’t deserve anything.

 

[Slavonic]

Slavonic,

Imagine that there is no such thing as a homosexual. There is no such thing as LGBT. Because there is no such thing as anything but heterosexual then the notion of heterosexaul drops out of the conversation.

The question then is marriage and divorce. Some people marry for benefits. Some people divorce for benefits.

Some people deserve to get married. Some people don’t deserve to get married. This judgement is then based on what it is each individual judging that act judges by.

They don’t deserve to get married because they are not committed.
They don’t deserve to get married because they don’t love each other.
They don’t deserve to get married because they cannot support themselves.

None of these are registered as acceptable reasons because people get married because they get married.

Now when you enter the notion of same sex, in my mind, they don’t desrve to get married because there is no marriage in my mind of two people of same sex. Whatever they do, regardless of what they say, or regardless of who witnesses or sanctions it, in my mind is not marriage and to say that they deserve something suggests that it is something that they have a right to or are capable of doing and in my mind neither reasons exist therefore they don’t deserve anything.

Can you also start with a world populated by homosexuals and reach the same conclusion?

 

[Crescentinus]

Can you also start with a world populated by homosexuals and reach the same conclusion?

Pointless question is pointless.

 

[Kevin_B]

A distinction without a difference. You cannot not be serious?

There is no difference between two people of the same gender who have sex and two people of the same gender who do not have sex? YOU can’t be serious!

Let’s say there are two widows in a nursing home. Neither has any living family. Why should they not be allowed to get a civil union so they can pass social security and pensions to each other? Why should that be restricted to people of the opposite gender?
The church opposes homosexual civil unions. Nowhere in any civil union law does it imply that the couple has sex, unlike in marriage. Therefore, the civil unions are simply “same-sex”, not “homosexual”, and therefore not immoral.

That can be done right now through legal devices without any so-called unions being fabricated.

Exactly. So if all of these legal procedures, individually, are not immoral, then how it’s one document combining them together suddenly immoral? Civil unions are just legal paperwork. It’s absurd to think that can somehow be related to morality.

The law is a teacher. Teach that marriage is plastic and people will act as if it is plastic.

Except that we are talking about civil unions, not marriage.

Not at all. All you are doing is playing games with words.

Well, isn’t the main argument against same-sex marriage that we should not redefine the weird “marriage”? Well, let’s keep the word “marriage” and redefine “civil union” instead.

Marriages are a sacred institution that have been around for thousands of years. Civil unions are a legal institution which have been around for decades. I can’t see any good reason why the church cares about them at all.

Manufacturing some legal structure called a civil union with all the same benefits as a marriage and then claiming there is a distinction is disingenuous.

It does not have ALL the benefits of marriage. It is missing the most important benefit: the right to be united in one body in the eyes of God.

Think about it this way: what if marriages had NO legal benefits. Would they still be a sacred institution? Of course. The legal benefits are completely irrelevant to the morality of marriage. They are the least important part of the institution. So civil unions are not getting anything of any importance from marriage, they are just getting the least important, superficial aspects, while the most important part, the actual union in the eyes of God, is reserved only for loving, man and woman couples.

Claiming civil unions have the same rights as marriages is like saying baptism is the same as dumping someone in water. They may look similar, but one is missing the most crucial element, and therefore they really have nothing in common.

They are not saying that, you are. What you seem to be missing is that the Christ left a living magisterium to be followed.

He left a magisterium to be followed IN MATTERS OF FAITH. The church does not have infallibility in areas other than faith, and they have often been wrong in areas other than faith. And whether someone can enter into a legal contract with a man or a woman is surely not a matter of faith. It sounds absurd to say so. How can a civil union, which does nothing more than determine who will inherit your money and make medical decisions for you, bee a matter of faith? It’s laughable.

 

[CopticChristian]

Can you also start with a world populated by homosexuals and reach the same conclusion?

Slavonic,

I can imagine lots of things. I can imagine that your feet and my feet are presumably firmly in reality.

 

[Stephen168]

Let’s say there are two widows in a nursing home. Neither has any living family. Why should they not be allowed to get a civil union so they can pass social security and pensions to each other? Why should that be restricted to people of the opposite gender?

I think you have touched on one of the problems with same-sex unions being given the same legal status as marriage. In general women give up earning higher wages to raise their children. When it comes time to retire they are given access to the husbands social security and pensions as compensation for their sacrifice. Also, Social Security is an unfunded ponzi scheme. Almost no one drawing social security has put into the system what they get, so it is not their money. Who earned the social security and pensions that the widows are getting in the nursing home? Is it right that they should be allowed to give away money that is not truly theirs? How much longer will the government give widows access to their husbands earning if their wife’s can give it to a neighbor and that neighbor can pass it to the next neighbor, etc. Basically, you want same-sex unions to scam the system set of for marriage. Marriage where children are created and raised by their parents.

 

[ringil]

I believe that the state should issue civil unions only.

Churches should do the “marrying”.

I really don’t have a problem with gay civil unions.

 

[CopticChristian]

I believe that the state should issue civil unions only.

Churches should do the “marrying”.

I really don’t have a problem with gay civil unions.

Ring,

I have a problem with accepting immorality of any kind. To say you accept “gay” civil unions means you accept “gay” and what is in your mind concerning what is and isn’t is well known and has been expressed.

Catholics are called to oppose immorality in their life and in the world and while you may be opposing it in your life your feet do no appear to be firmly grounded in the Covenant of the living God. For this I take exception and say that while you say you do not have a problem, I percieve that there is a problem.

 

[Faithdancer]

The Church opposes same sex “unions” whether civil or involving “marriage.” The argument that, well, we should be okay with same sex “unions” because they don’t always include homosexual activity is disingenuous; we all know why and how the phenomena commonly referred to as same sex “unions” originated.

One is either with the Church or against it, as on this and other moral issues. There is no room for argument, or for cafeterianism. It is our duty to oppose same sex “unions,” same sex “marriages” and all other potential legitimization of homosexual activity.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Seeker1961;9965335]Somehow that sounds like the way my Mom’s neighbor says “Bless their heart” when she’s really thinking the exact opposite!

Be charitable for your part as best you can.

Luckily for me, and for many others, the opinions of the posters on this or any other board have no bearing on our lives here and now or for eternity. It’s all entertaining, but who it’s all said and done it’s between us and God.

Matthew 12:36 ESV;

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

 

[SuperLuigi]

The Church opposes same sex “unions” whether civil or involving “marriage.” The argument that, well, we should be okay with same sex “unions” because they don’t always include homosexual activity is disingenuous; we all know why and how the phenomena commonly referred to as same sex “unions” originated.

One is either with the Church or against it, as on this and other moral issues. There is no room for argument, or for cafeterianism. It is our duty to oppose same sex “unions,” same sex “marriages” and all other potential legitimization of homosexual activity.

 

[ringil]

Ring,

I have a problem with accepting immorality of any kind. To say you accept “gay” civil unions means you accept “gay” and what is in your mind concerning what is and isn’t is well known and has been expressed.

Catholics are called to oppose immorality in their life and in the world and while you may be opposing it in your life your feet do no appear to be firmly grounded in the Covenant of the living God. For this I take exception and say that while you say you do not have a problem, I percieve that there is a problem.

I accept contraception and the ability of people to publicly express immoral ideas.

I would see same-sex couples in a therapeutic setting as in counseling and certainly would preach to them about how their activity is a sin, though I believe it to be sinful, it is not germane to the interaction.

We don’t live in a theocracy.