Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[Stephen168]

?

What is the Church’s argument on gay marriage you agree with?

 

[CopticChristian]

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,

The Church has stated quite clearly in the Catechism, the deposit of Faith and is divided in 4 parts…

CCC is arranged in four principal parts:

The Profession of Faith (the Apostle’s Creed)
The Celebration of the Christian Mystery (the Sacred Liturgy, especially the sacraments)
Life in Christ (including The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology)
Christian Prayer (including The Lord’s Prayer)

Now those that are Catholic believe in God…the theologic Virtues through Baptism provide us the means to know God…as He wants us to know Him…

The Sacraments are a means of Grace…

The Commandments are a guide to Moral Life, as you recall we were saved from sin by Christ…since Sin damages our relationship with Christ…

And we Pray…Thanksgiving, Petition, Adoration, Intercession and Meditative/Contemplative prayer…

Now St. Paul says we are to pray without ceasing…so in your praying…constantly adoring and thanking…and in your contemplation and asking for intercession…can you imagine anywhere in that time of praying that as you are called to know God, that knowing you need grace…and knowing that sin is against the Moral Law that guides us to know God…can you for one moment imagine that you are praying for God to accept same sex marriage or that the Church has to actually say…

Ringil…now same sex attraction is not sin…but Ringil as you know…to unite in union with another of same sex attraction and to act on it regardless of what you call it is condoning sin…can you lighten up on your understanding of what the Church needs to condemn…

Remmember Ringal…you are called to constantly form your conscience…can you put some effort into that or do we need to explicitly tell you…

Same sex unions are sinful…can you wrap your head around that…sin damages anyone’s relation with God…do you not want your fellow man to be with God too…?

You don’t need a PhD to understand this…now do you?

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

Ah yes, an authority that speaks with the same absolute authority your Church has.

Rights derive from natural law. Rights have a moral basis in law (both consitutional and other law) and are not arbitrary, based on demands or desires. They emit from objective categories (what is and what is not objecively marriage), commonly understood definitions, and universal moral principles. Definitions and categories are not randomly and whimsically subject to change based on preferences of individuals, private dictionaries, or pressure groups. And if this does not occur, there arises chaos in law and in legislating.

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

It has a religious aspect secondarily. It has a social and universal function primarily.

It would help to learn such differences, and even more so, to read the bishops’ documents and the papal documents which reference same-sex civil unions in particular.

 

[Elizabeth502]

“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.

Our Church has a lot to say about a deadened conscience, a forgotten sense of shame, a denial of the concept of guilt, and how these all have evolved from the late 20th century beyond.

First, even the most classic psychotherapy would challenge your approach. Incest survivors, for example, are not necessarily conscious of shame – a shame which in their case is inappropriate but internalized, a shame which recognizes via natural law how wrong the invasion of natural boundaries within a family (and within the same sex) is. The recognition is below the conscious level, often on the “un-” level. Overtly, an incest survivor, or a rape victim, may deny the sense of shame, reject it internally or externally, and depending on the strength of the denial and the terror of revelation which is involved, may exert enormous resistance in a therapeutic setting.

Yet I don’t know of a single professional who would rest at the client’s self-reporting of a lack of shame.

Second, someone who has murdered someone else may also not feel, truly, a sense of shame. Such people we call sociopaths. Empathy, and the lack of shame that signals a denial of empathy, is essential to healthy functioning and personal happiness. Untreated or untreatable sociopaths are also not people whose self-reports we trust as a valid expression of humanness.

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.

“and love.” You mean, sexual “love”? Or do you mean affirmation of personhood, with the highest form of consideration for the integrity of that individual apart from the relationship? Big difference.

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.

Again, depends on what you mean by “support.” Technically, though, true, honest psychotherapy is not the same thing as a support group of one. The result certainly can be, at times, and always the support should be there for disclosure. (A safe place.) But a therapist can question and probe without supporting decisions clients have made which are an interim but inappropriate substitute for genuine love.

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/-] chooses to engage in homosexual behavior.

Correcitons mine.

I hope this makes sense.

Only with my edits.

 

[Kevin_B]

Now those that are Catholic believe in God…the theologic
Ringil…now same sex attraction is not sin…but Ringil as you know…to unite in union with another of same sex attraction and to act on it regardless of what you call it is condoning sin…can you lighten up on your understanding of what the Church needs to condemn…

Your assumption, that same-sex civil unions necessarily involve sex, is flawed, and therefore your entire premise derived from that assumption is flawed as well. Garbage in, garbage out.

I am guessing you have never read a marriage contact our a civil union contract. Marriage contracts discuss love and commitment. They make it clear that sexual activity is taking place. Civil union contracts have no such language. They are simply a legal document converting legal duties to another person.

The funniest party is, YOU supplied evidence to disprove your own theory. The website you quoted, beyondmarriage.com, explicitly lists many groups of individuals who do not have sexual relations but would still benefit from civil unions.

So let me ask you this: regardless of how common you think this is, imagine two people of the same gender who are not in a sexual relationship, and never week be, want to be in a civil union. Would this be immoral? How do you know? The church has only touched on homosexual unions, it has never discussed unions between two members of the same gender who are not interested in a sexual relationship.

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

Correct!

However, that is irrelevant, since the magisterium is only infallible on matters of faith, not politics or science or any other aspect of life. Who can marry who is a matter of faith, since marriage is a sacrament. But who can enter into a legal contract with who is a matter of politics, not faith, so the magusterium’s word on the matter is irrelevant.

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

But, as of right now, two people in a nursing home of different genders can scan the system legally in this manner. If it is truly about scamming the system, then just say I want everyone to have the opportunity to scam the system equally, LOL. But there are other rights involved which do not scam the system: hospital visitation rights, automatic inheritance, etc.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your assumption, that same-sex civil unions necessarily involve sex, is flawed, and therefore your entire premise derived from that assumption is flawed as well. Garbage in, garbage out.

I am guessing you have never read a marriage contact our a civil union contract. Marriage contracts discuss love and commitment. They make it clear that sexual activity is taking place. Civil union contracts have no such language. They are simply a legal document converting legal duties to another person.

The funniest party is, YOU supplied evidence to disprove your own theory. The website you quoted, beyondmarriage.com, explicitly lists many groups of individuals who do not have sexual relations but would still benefit from civil unions.

So let me ask you this: regardless of how common you think this is, imagine two people of the same gender who are not in a sexual relationship, and never week be, want to be in a civil union. Would this be immoral? How do you know? The church has only touched on homosexual unions, it has never discussed unions between two members of the same gender who are not interested in a sexual relationship.

Correct!

However, that is irrelevant, since the magisterium is only infallible on matters of faith, not politics or science or any other aspect of life. Who can marry who is a matter of faith, since marriage is a sacrament. But who can enter into a legal contract with who is a matter of politics, not faith, so the magusterium’s word on the matter is irrelevant.

But, as of right now, two people in a nursing home of different genders can scan the system legally in this manner. If it is truly about scamming the system, then just say I want everyone to have the opportunity to scam the system equally, LOL. But there are other rights involved which do not scam the system: hospital visitation rights, automatic inheritance, etc.

Kevin,

This was addressed to a Catholic Ringal. I have no idea where you are coming from. Beyond marriage? I provided.

What is your issue here. You want to paint civil unions as platonic? Go ahead. I oppose it regardless of the color, sound, look, feel…and as for visitation rights, anyone can visit anyone they want if the patient says so. As for inheritance, you can will whatever you want to whomever you want to.

Your issues are other than those posted for a practicing Catholic. Are you a practicing Catholic?

 

[CopticChristian]

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,

The client is happy in their social situation absent approval from their family.

So, why are they seeing a therapist?

The first thing that comes to mind for me is this.

There are two issues all children fear, fear of rejection and fear of abandonment.

In this context I, speaking to this client, would not put myself into discussing immorality and the relationship…

I would mention that it is common for us as adults to experience fear of rejection and fear of abandonment and this sounds like fear of rejection manifested.

I would ask one simple question.

Does this fear of rejection as manifested cause you to believe that you are being rejected as a person or for your relationship.

Then I would discuss what the rejection is and how it causes problems.

If as you say the client says that they are happy there can be reassurance that this fear is common, they are happy, satisfied and not experiencing any problems and that this fear has nothing to do with them and they can work to mend relations with their family.

In this dialogue there is no approval, disapproval, and the client provides the direction of what it is that concerns them and where they want to go.

How the client receives support from their partner in your scenario does not address the real issue, fear of rejection.

 

[fix]

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.

Your response was open ended with not enough specifics. If I take your words at face value then support for the relationship is wrong. So-called ethical practice has to be based in true ethics or else you are simply placing words above common sense. Too many ethical standards are mere relativism.

Being a therapist, like any other occupation, cannot be isolated from faith and truth.

I do not want to go down a rabbit hole here.

 

[fix]

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.

Why? There are Catholic providers of all those and they integrate their faith into their work. To claim any of those are Catholic while they reject Church teaching in favor of secular faux ethics is to redefine what Catholic really implies.

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

That is not what we are implying at all.

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.

That really is not the issue. The issue is do we live our faith in every aspect of our life or not? That is not imposing Catholic dogma on anyone. It does include not participating in someone else’s sin through cooperation or approval.

 

[Stephen168]

I am guessing you have never read a marriage contact our a civil union contract. Marriage contracts discuss love and commitment. They make it clear that sexual activity is taking place. Civil union contracts have no such language. They are simply a legal document converting legal duties to another person.
The funniest party is, YOU supplied evidence to disprove your own theory. The website you quoted, beyondmarriage.com, explicitly lists many groups of individuals who do not have sexual relations but would still benefit from civil unions.
However, that is irrelevant, since the magisterium is only infallible on matters of faith, not politics or science or any other aspect of life. Who can marry who is a matter of faith, since marriage is a sacrament. But who can enter into a legal contract with who is a matter of politics, not faith, so the magusterium’s word on the matter is irrelevant.
But, as of right now, two people in a nursing home of different genders can scan the system legally in this manner. If it is truly about scamming the system, then just say I want everyone to have the opportunity to scam the system equally, LOL. But there are other rights involved which do not scam the system: hospital visitation rights, automatic inheritance, etc.

The system was designed to support marriage.; a marriage with a father and a mother who are supporting the children. You want same-sex couples to have the ability to scam this system. A scam is thief; a crime. Because you claim that same-sex unions will have access to the same system married people do, you are just using different words for the same thing. “Daddy, I know I can’t have a horse, I just want a large pony.”

The Magisterium is only infallible on matters of faith and morals. Morals and politics are not mutually exclusive. In the USA, our Supreme Court has determined that marriage is more than a contract (Maynard v Hill), requiring communal participation between them. As I challenged Ringil, what is the functional difference between marriage and same-sex unions? As an employer if I wanted to support marriage but not same-sex unions, how would I do that? If the government wants to continue to support marriage but not same sex unions, how would it do that?

 

[rossum]

The system was designed to support marriage.; a marriage with a father and a mother who are supporting the children. You want same-sex couples to have the ability to scam this system.

And we all know that it is illegal all over America for heterosexual couples to get married and not have children. If they were allowed to marry without having children, then they could scam the system, and we don’t want that happening, do we. Similarly we all support the ban on post-menopausal women marrying because they are past child-bearing age and so could easily scam the system is they were allowed to marry.

Do you really not think through these arguments before you post them? Surely you can find something stronger than this to present. If this is the best argument you have, then it is no wonder people are not being convinced.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

And we all know that it is illegal all over America for heterosexual couples to get married and not have children. If they were allowed to marry without having children, then they could scam the system, and we don’t want that happening, do we. Similarly we all support the ban on post-menopausal women marrying because they are past child-bearing age and so could easily scam the system is they were allowed to marry.

Do you really not think through these arguments before you post them? Surely you can find something stronger than this to present. If this is the best argument you have, then it is no wonder people are not being convinced.

rossum

Why does the government/society treat married people different than single people?

 

[edwest2]

There are hundreds of Catholic priests who are licensed mental health professionals. There are quite a few Bishops who have degrees in Psychology, Counseling, and Social Work.

How could this be Ed?

I find it sad that you decided to divert from the topic to something totally unconnected to it. Psychotherapists can share their Christian, even Catholic, thoughts with their patients.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephen168]

And we all know that it is illegal all over America for heterosexual couples to get married and not have children. If they were allowed to marry without having children, then they could scam the system, and we don’t want that happening, do we. Similarly we all support the ban on post-menopausal women marrying because they are past child-bearing age and so could easily scam the system is they were allowed to marry.

Do you really not think through these arguments before you post them? Surely you can find something stronger than this to present. If this is the best argument you have, then it is no wonder people are not being convinced.

rossum

. As I challenged Ringil, what is the functional difference between marriage and same-sex unions? As an employer if I wanted to support marriage but not same-sex unions, how would I do that? If the government wants to continue to support marriage but not same sex unions, how would it do that?

 

[rossum]

Why does the government/society treat married people different than single people?

Because humans tend to form pair bonds, and it is easier in this case for society to go along with the grain of human behaviour than to go against it.

I notice that your response does not mention children. Are you now prepared to drop the “scam” part of your argument?

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

Because humans tend to form pair bonds, and it is easier in this case for society to go along with the grain of human behaviour than to go against it.

You didn’t answer the question: Why does the government/society treat married people different than single people?

The system was designed to support marriage.; a marriage with a father and a mother who are supporting the children.

You did disagree. Tell me why the system is designed the way it is.

Why did the government/society choose to start treating married people different compared to single people? Why did we get to where we are now?

 

[edwest2]

Your assumption, that same-sex civil unions necessarily involve sex, is flawed, and therefore your entire premise derived from that assumption is flawed as well. Garbage in, garbage out.

I am guessing you have never read a marriage contact our a civil union contract. Marriage contracts discuss love and commitment. They make it clear that sexual activity is taking place. Civil union contracts have no such language. They are simply a legal document converting legal duties to another person.

The funniest party is, YOU supplied evidence to disprove your own theory. The website you quoted, beyondmarriage.com, explicitly lists many groups of individuals who do not have sexual relations but would still benefit from civil unions.

So let me ask you this: regardless of how common you think this is, imagine two people of the same gender who are not in a sexual relationship, and never week be, want to be in a civil union. Would this be immoral? How do you know? The church has only touched on homosexual unions, it has never discussed unions between two members of the same gender who are not interested in a sexual relationship.

Correct!

However, that is irrelevant, since the magisterium is only infallible on matters of faith, not politics or science or any other aspect of life. Who can marry who is a matter of faith, since marriage is a sacrament. But who can enter into a legal contract with who is a matter of politics, not faith, so the magusterium’s word on the matter is irrelevant.

But, as of right now, two people in a nursing home of different genders can scan the system legally in this manner. If it is truly about scamming the system, then just say I want everyone to have the opportunity to scam the system equally, LOL. But there are other rights involved which do not scam the system: hospital visitation rights, automatic inheritance, etc.

Those statements amount to saying, “I’m only doing it for the benefits.” We are not entitled to benefits. Two same-sex friends should not be entitled to anything from the government.

I was very ill last year and I’ll just list the facts.

1. My IRA had no beneficiary, so I named my straight male friend as my beneficiary and it was all done over the phone in about 5 minutes. No questions were asked about our relationship.
2. I put his name on my meager bank account. Some ID, a few pieces of paper were signed and we were done. No questions asked about our relationship.
3. I could and plan to make out my own will leaving what I own to him. Again, there is no requirement to state my living arrangements with my friend.
4. While I was in the emergency room, no one asked us any questions about our relationship. NONE.
5. Hospital visitation? What are you talking about? I worked in a hospital for nearly ten years and anybody could visit anybody.

Sorry, I don’t believe in the government doing anything for me for nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephen168]

Those statements amount to saying, “I’m only doing it for the benefits.” We are not entitled to benefits. Two same-sex friends should not be entitled to anything from the government.

I was very ill last year and I’ll just list the facts.

1. My IRA had no beneficiary, so I named my straight male friend as my beneficiary and it was all done over the phone in about 5 minutes. No questions were asked about our relationship.
2. I put his name on my meager bank account. Some ID, a few pieces of paper were signed and we were done. No questions asked about our relationship.
3. I could and plan to make out my own will leaving what I own to him. Again, there is no requirement to state my living arrangements with my friend.
4. While I was in the emergency room, no one asked us any questions about our relationship. NONE.
5. Hospital visitation? What are you talking about? I worked in a hospital for nearly ten years and anybody could visit anybody.

Sorry, I don’t believe in the government doing anything for me for nothing.

Peace,
Ed

As our society stops its support for marriage everything you list is the same for married people. I had to put my wife’s name on my IRA, insurance beneficiary, checking account, etc.

My wife was able to become a resident of California while, I remained a resident of Washington.

 

[edwest2]

As our society stops its support for marriage everything you list is the same for married people. I had to put my wife’s name on my IRA, insurance beneficiary, checking account, etc.

My wife was able to become a resident of California while, I remained a resident of Washington.

The Catholic Church will not end its support for the one man, one woman family. I will never accept a blanket statement about “our society” or “our country” as applying to me, and I encourage my fellow Catholics to do the same.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

A few facts about same-sex civil unions:

advocate.com/politics/2012/08/16/colorado-group-targets-republican-speaker-who-killed-civil-unions

Peace,
Ed