Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[Faithdancer]

Somehow I don’t think there are going to be too many heterosexuals rushing out to obtain civil recognition of a same sex “union” anytime soon since, regardless of the economic benefits, the prevailing perception is that those who seek to engage in same sex “unions” are homosexual- not to mention who the advocates for same sex "unions’ are and historically have been in this country (Ed just pointed one out- a militantly homosexualist PAC). To those who are putting forth this disingenuous argument that the legally sanctioned formal same sex “union” has little or nothing to do with homosexuality-

 

[Faithdancer]

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

And obviously, you didn’t need to get a piece of paper from the courthouse saying you and your straight friend are in a same sex “union” to do any of these things.

 

[Stephen168]

Somehow I don’t think there are going to be too many heterosexuals rushing out to obtain civil recognition of a same sex “union” anytime soon since, regardless of the economic benefits, the prevailing perception is that those who seek to engage in same sex “unions” are homosexual- not to mention who the advocates for same sex "unions’ are and historically have been in this country (Ed just pointed one out- a militantly homosexualist PAC). To those who are putting forth this disingenuous argument that the legally sanctioned formal same sex “union” has little or nothing to do with homosexuality-

I agree. I think it is also disingenuous of those who talk about same-sex unions having the same legal standing as marriage, but then claim same-sex unions are not marriage. All that to claim same-sex unions are something completely different from marriage, therefore the Church should not be concerned about it. They are saying, “I never shot a dove, but I have shot a few nasty pigeons.”

 

[ringil]

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

Only if that would serve the client. Clinicians can use selective self-disclosure. I have told a few Clients I was Catholic over the years.

Normally, self-disclosure is not especially relevant in the therapeutic relationship.

 

[CopticChristian]

Only if that would serve the client. Clinicians can use selective self-disclosure. I have told a few Clients I was Catholic over the years.

Normally, self-disclosure is not especially relevant in the therapeutic relationship.

Ringil,

I don’t think that is entirely necessary to say you are Catholic in any context unless someone says “I am Catholic”…I speak more than one language…and so…with that in mind…

If someone is Hindu and speaks of their understanding…I speak Hindu and relate my understanding of Hinduism as it relates to them…

If someone is Muslim I speak in the context of their Muslim understanding and keep it simple and respectful…

If someone speaks New Age I can speak of the Universe and the essence of their soul and their journey and the like…

If someone mentions God or Bible then I speak Bible to them and don’t have to go into particulars…

I can speak all these languages as well and couch them in terms that I think and believe…without divulging anything…

It is not hard to maintain dialogue with any of these people because by example the Church has dialogue with all these groups and in that dialogue is evangelizing…if you consult your Catechism you will see that this is true…

 

[edwest2]

Only if that would serve the client. Clinicians can use selective self-disclosure. I have told a few Clients I was Catholic over the years.

Normally, self-disclosure is not especially relevant in the therapeutic relationship.

In that case, replace the therapist with a computer and multiple choice questions with canned answers. Therapists are human beings and I have had those I liked and those I didn’t. If I cannot connect to my therapist on a human level then give me a computer. I’ll answer the questions and get my prescriptions later.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ringil]

In that case, replace the therapist with a computer and multiple choice questions with canned answers. Therapists are human beings and I have had those I liked and those I didn’t. If I cannot connect to my therapist on a human level then give me a computer. I’ll answer the questions and get my prescriptions later.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t get your point.

Therapists should absolutely build a relationship of trust and mutual respect. That is the first step in the process. On the other hand the therapist isn’t your “friend” per se. Everything they do and say should be to the benefit of the client- that includes self-disclosure.

But people and therapists don’t always “click” that is true.

 

[sw85]

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.

With due respect, you don’t get to decide what is or isn’t a religious issue.

Christianity has implications for the ordering of man’s political life. You need to find a way to accept that fact.

 

[Faithdancer]

With due respect, you don’t get to decide what is or isn’t a religious issue.

Christianity has implications for the ordering of man’s political life. You need to find a way to accept that fact.

Right on! The Roman Catholic Church is diametrically opposed to secularism. Those who give lip service to the Catholic faith while espousing the false values of the secularists will find this result: REV. 3:16.

 

[Faithdancer]

From Los Angeles Archbishop Gomez: "There are certain “non-negotiables” in Catholic social teaching. As we all know, there are some laws and tendencies in our society that violate God’s laws and the natural rights and dignity of the human person.

Abortion and euthanasia are never allowed because they involve the direct taking of innocent human life. There is also no negotiating the God-given definition of marriage and family based on the permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman." (italics mine)

source: the-tidings.com/index.php/viewpoints/cardinals-archbishop-gomez/2624-first-thoughts-about-this-election-year

 

[Stephen168]

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.”
rossum;10067633:

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.

As I read through the thread, I found an argument being made that State sanctioned same-sex unions are different from State sanctioned marriage; therefore the Church should not take a position on same-sex unions. I disagree with this claim because it seems they are just playing semantics games.
What you responded to was a premise to an argument. With the sarcastic tone of your response I thought you would have a ready counter explanation to my premise (post #255), but after two days I see nothing. I’m sure there must be another reason that society and later States began to treat married people different from single people.
To answer your question, yes I do think through my arguments before posting them. I try to think through them so clearly that many times people seem to have no response and just stop.

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

You given me no reason to drop it.

 

[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.

?

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

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

 

[rossum]

You given me no reason to drop it.

I will look forward to your campaign against post-menopausal women marrying then. Do you intend to force them to divorce automatically when they are past child-bearing age or will an annulment suffice?

If marriage is about children, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that. If marriage is about a relationship between two people then marriage does not require children.

Is it possible for a valid marriage to result in no children? If it is, then you are not making a good argument by bringing children into it.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

As I read through the thread, I found an argument being made that State sanctioned same-sex unions are different from State sanctioned marriage; therefore the Church should not take a position on same-sex unions. I disagree with this claim because it seems they are just playing semantics games.
What you responded to was a premise to an argument. With the sarcastic tone of your response I thought you would have a ready counter explanation to my premise (post #255), but after two days I see nothing.** I’m sure there must be another reason that society and later States began to treat married people different from single people.**

I will look forward to your campaign against post-menopausal women marrying then. Do you intend to force them to divorce automatically when they are past child-bearing age or will an annulment suffice?

If marriage is about children, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that. If marriage is about a relationship between two people then marriage does not require children.

Is it possible for a valid marriage to result in no children? If it is, then you are not making a good argument by bringing children into it.

rossum

Are you saying there is a different between same-sex unions and marriage?

Do you have another reason to explain why society and later States began to treat married people different from single people?

 

[sw85]

I will look forward to your campaign against post-menopausal women marrying then. Do you intend to force them to divorce automatically when they are past child-bearing age or will an annulment suffice?

If marriage is about children, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that. If marriage is about a relationship between two people then marriage does not require children.

Is it possible for a valid marriage to result in no children? If it is, then you are not making a good argument by bringing children into it.

rossum

Edward Feser addressed all these issues a long time ago in his Last Superstition. Sadly I no longer have my copy, having lent it to an untrustworthy friend, but I’m sure you can find a copy in the local library.

 

[Stephen168]

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

If marriage is about children, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that. If marriage is about a relationship between two people then marriage does not require children.

Let me make it more clear. We are talking about the government response to marriage not marriage itself. So I ask again: Do you have another reason to explain why society and later States began to treat married people different from single people?

 

[rossum]

Are you saying there is a different between same-sex unions and marriage?

Yes, there is. Marriages in the US have certain legal rights at Federal level that civil unions do not. Automatic recognition by other states, the ability to bring one’s partner into the US legally etc. The two are different in law. See DOMA for yet another example of differences between the two.

Do you have another reason to explain why society and later States began to treat married people different from single people?

I have already answered that, humans form pair-bonds. Why do I need a different answer? My first answer is sufficient.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, there is. Marriages in the US have certain legal rights at Federal level that civil unions do not. Automatic recognition by other states, the ability to bring one’s partner into the US legally etc. The two are different in law. See DOMA for yet another example of differences between the two.

So a State recognized same-sex union would not solve the problems Ringil and Kevin B claim they will.

I have already answered that, humans form pair-bonds. Why do I need a different answer? My first answer is sufficient.

No your answer does not say why the government would treat them different. You gave no State interest in the matter. Why does the State care if two people want to hang out?

 

[rossum]

So a State recognized same-sex union would not solve the problems Ringil and Kevin B claim they will.

A Federally recognised union would solve the problems I mentioned.

No your answer does not say why the government would treat them different. You gave no State interest in the matter. Why does the State care if two people want to hang out?

You don’t like my answer? That is your problem, not mine.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

A Federally recognised union would solve the problems I mentioned.

Then there would be no difference between a same-sex union and marriage.

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

Not all dogs molest farm animals. Enough dogs molest farm animals that the government requires us to control their movement. An animal is not required to molest farm animals to be a dog. The fact that my boxwoods have never molested a farm animal doesn’t make them dogs.

The subject we are discussing is why the government makes us control our dogs and all you want to do talk about your boxwood being a dog.
I still maintain that the government treats married people different from single people because they create and raise children. Until you can make a case that having children is not why the government treats married children different from single people, you have not given me a reason to drop my premise from my argument.
Do you have another reason to explain why society and later States began to treat married people different from single people?

You don’t like my answer? That is your problem, not mine.

Not my problem. I still have my premise in tact.