Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[Crescentinus]

Oh don’t get me wrong I totally agree Crescentinus. I see why the homosexualists would try to distance themselves from polygamists while their “struggle” to legitimize same sex “marriages” is still in progress. My question is, once their agenda of forcing a majority or all of the states to recognize their same sex “marriages” is accomplished, how can the homosexualists justify opposing further “redefinition” of marriage? Will they even try? Will they see expanding redefinition as a threat to the “legitimacy” of their own “marriages?” It seems to me to be common that those who bang the hardest at the gate want to slam and lock it again once they are allowed in.

I just lost a homosexual Facebook “friend” over my posing of this question…although to be honest I did pose it in the form of satire. Oh, well.

They may try to befriend the polygamists due to “common rhetoric”.
But yes, you are right about them banging the gates and then locking it once they’re allowed in it.

 

[ringil]

It occurred to me just today that perhaps all of the attacks on the Church by the homosexualists

Look “homosexualists” has made an appearance!

 

[Faithdancer]

Look “homosexualists” has made an appearance!

It is a term that has increasing usage far beyond the gates of CAF. It refers to militant homosexuals and those who support their agenda. But then, surely you already knew that?

I will confess, I first learned it here, though, from my hero Crescentinus.

 

[ringil]

I think you forgot a “not” in there; I’ll accept that you meant it to precede “preach.”

With that assumption, I would also not preach to them, in such a setting (or in any setting, frankly). Preaching is for those assigned to do so, and Jesus asked us that our interrelationships not be based on preaching.

That also does not mean providing permission, by words or actions, to acts we know to be sinful, evil, ill-advised, etc.

The clever professional – be it a physician, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a social worker, a teacher, a counselor – will use his or her position of moral neutrality to the objective benefit of the client, appropriate to the role and the setting.

In a psychological setting, the clinician is not trying to coerce, but rather to unveil. People adopt compensating behaviors, many of which are unhealthy, stunt their maturity, act as a replacement self-medication, and otherwise displace deep hurt, disappointment, and even self-hatred. The more deep-seated the unhealthy behavior, and the more rationalized the behavior, the more difficult the unveiling (obviously). A clinician who loves the client with a professional love will pursue whatever angle he or she has to help with the uncovering.

Direct affirmation of an unhealthy lifestyle is never required. If the client is seeking that, the ethical professional ought not to provide it.

I get what you are saying here.

I can think of an example where a ethical professional, and most would, certainly “give permission or positive feedback” to objectively immoral behavior such as homosexual acts.

Say you have a gay client whose relationship with his/her family is strained by the families inability or unwillingness to accept their family member as a gay person thus they are very cruel and put the client down in the homosexual relationship they are in. This would come from client reports and that’s all a therapist ever has- so that is the reality in which the clinician works.

“Start where the client is”

And, by the client’s reports, they are in a healthy, mutually giving, and supportive gay relationship. These do exist- though we as Catholics know such relationships as wrong. The client experiences no sense of shame or guilt from begin with their partner.

I as a therapist would certainly discuss how the client receives support and love from their partner, and would encourage their involvement in said relationship as a pro-social support for them. I have no reason not to.

Would I chastise the family and their reaction- not really, by I would provide support for the client and support their feelings of rejection from their family.

I would educate them- yes clinicians can educate in the therapeutic process when appropriate about the dynamics of parents and siblings dealing with the news that their family member is gay.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[ringil]

Ringil,

You confuse being a practitioner with supporting sin. As a practitioner I had to deal with gay people, immoral people, sinful people and in the context of practice, I do my job without prejudice.

I, on this forum do not support sin. Some of your postings suggest that your persona as a practitioner is carried over into your beliefs. That is how I see it.

I don’t confuse anything.

I am completely orthodox in my views. I will own, however that my acceptance of a homosexual civil union is not accepted by the Church, so in this instance, I do depart.

I totally get and agree with the Church on Gay Marriage, but I personally, find their arguments on Civil Unions to be pretty flimsy.

I know that giving assent to the Church’s doctrine is integral. I’m not sure that is a case of doctrine, but I believe there are single issues for most of us in the Church which give us pause. This happens to be mine. I also believe that Gay people should be able to adopt from secular agencies.

 

[Stephen168]

I totally get and agree with the Church on Gay Marriage, but I personally, find their arguments on Civil Unions to be pretty flimsy.

When a state gives same-sex unions the exact same legal definition as it give marriage, how can the Church be right on same sex marriage but wrong on same sex unions?

 

[ringil]

When a state gives same-sex unions the exact same legal definition as it give marriage, how can the Church be right on same sex marriage but wrong on same sex unions?

Because, for me, right are rights and belong to everyone, especially the rights that flow from marriage.

Marriage, on the other hand, has a consistent social striation, and a religious aspect.

 

[Faithdancer]

When a state gives same-sex unions the exact same legal definition as it give marriage, how can the Church be right on same sex marriage but wrong on same sex unions?

Precisely. The Magisterium is on record repeatedly as opposing both.

 

[fix]

When a state gives same-sex unions the exact same legal definition as it give marriage, how can the Church be right on same sex marriage but wrong on same sex unions?

She is not wrong. The problem is where do we place authority?

 

[Stephen168]

Because, for me, right are rights and belong to everyone, especially the rights that flow from marriage.

Marriage, on the other hand, has a consistent social striation, and a religious aspect.

That doesn’t really answer my question.
You claim to support the Church’s argument that same-sex unions are not marriage.
You claim to not support the Church’s rejection of codifying same-sex unions/domestic partnerships.
When the state passes a law making domestic partnerships the same as marriage how do you then say the Church is wrong in one case but right in the next case; as the state has made both cases the same.

 

[fix]

I as a therapist would certainly discuss how the client receives support and love from their partner, and would encourage their involvement in said relationship as a pro-social support for them. I have no reason not to.

If that is all the info given then that is very problematic. It would be like a Catholic physician telling a patient they support them getting an abortion or to continue an adulterous affair.

 

[Faithdancer]

If that is all the info given then that is very problematic. It would be like a Catholic physician telling a patient they support them getting an abortion or to continue an adulterous affair.

God first, and everything else second- obviously “everything else” includes occupation. This teaching comes straight from Jesus Christ himself. We must all work to align our careers with Catholic Christian teachings, else we are failing in our mission as Catholic Christians.

 

[ringil]

If that is all the info given then that is very problematic. It would be like a Catholic physician telling a patient they support them getting an abortion or to continue an adulterous affair.

Are you a licensed therapist? It’s not problematic in the least- it is ethical practice.

There are hundreds of Catholic Priest who are licensed therapists and I would bet they wold respond in the same way.

 

[ringil]

God first, and everything else second- obviously “everything else” includes occupation. This teaching comes straight from Jesus Christ himself. We must all work to align our careers with Catholic Christian teachings, else we are failing in our mission as Catholic Christians.

Your logic is flawed here. If what you say is true there would, or certainly shouldn’t, be any Catholic Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Counselors, etc. etc.

Determining morality or seeking to influence client’s towards Catholic moral teaching is not the realm of the therapists.

There are some specifically defined “Christian” Therapists, who specify that they incorporate Christ biblical aspects in their practice. I really don’t know what practice like this would look like but there are (usually non-licensed" therapists who bill themselves this way.

Therapists like this are really a tiny percentage of the whole mental health field.

 

[ringil]

Here is a situation I had in practice which be linked to morality.

I was seeing an elderly fellow who would talk quite a bit about how, when he was younger, he would have many girlfriends and enjoyed getting this attention. He spoke about his frustration with feeling sexually “stale” or impotent.

taking an assessment of a clients sexual life can be an important part of therapy, and in this case it was.

In that vein I asked him if he masturbated. He stated that he believed that was wrong. I replied something like “Some people do masturbate and some believe it is wrong.”

I relayed this exchange to my clinical supervisor and she stated “you told him that it it’s OK to masturbate didn’t you?”

i said “no because that is what he believed- that’s fine.” She saw that I was actually correct as determining the “right or wrong” of a clients actions is not germain to the therapeutic relationship.

Now determining pro-social or anti-social behavior can definitely be important. I would definitely speak to a client how it isn’t “right” if he/she were cheating on their spouse for example. Why? Because this is not pro-social behavior and is clearly dysfunctional for their marriage.

See the difference?

 

[Stephen168]

Because, for me, right are rights and belong to everyone, especially the rights that flow from marriage.

Marriage, on the other hand, has a consistent social striation, and a religious aspect.

That doesn’t really answer my question.
You claim to support the Church’s argument that same-sex unions are not marriage.
You claim to not support the Church’s rejection of codifying same-sex unions/domestic partnerships.
When the state passes a law making domestic partnerships the same as marriage how do you then say the Church is wrong in one case but right in the next case; as the state has made both cases the same.

It seems you actually do disagree with the Church about marriage and are just making a distinction without a difference.

 

[ringil]

It seems you actually do disagree with the Church about marriage and are just making a distinction without a difference.

To my knowledge the Church has not stated that same sex civil unions are intrinsically evil, as they have defined the concept of gay marriage.

 

[Stephen168]

I totally get and agree with the Church on Gay Marriage, but** I personally, find their arguments on Civil Unions to be pretty flimsy. **

To my knowledge the Church has not stated that same sex civil unions are intrinsically evil, as they have defined the concept of gay marriage.

?

 

[ringil]

?

?

 

[Stephen168]

?

What is the Church’s argument on civil unions that you find flimsy?