Think again on same sex civil unions: Cardinal Schoenborn [CNAU]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
surritter said:
If that’s the case, what logic would preclude 3 or 4 people from arguing that they deserve to have legal recognition as a “civil union”?
Click to expand...
Since such a domestic partnership isn’t sexual and is not pretending to be marriage why should there be a limit other than perhaps the paperwork getting messy.
Lucky7 said:
Where has anyone said that when they use the term “same sex” civil unions they are talking about two, heterosexual guys sharing a household? I’m pretty sure when people use that term they mean homosexual civil unions. Or is there something you know that I don’t know?

In fact this is what the article that Abyssnia posted stated:

To make this very clear, **the cardinal said **in a side note to this statement that, as the state may choose to respect certain choices made by its citizens, it may as a consequence legislate upon them, but it must never equate marriage with non-marriage. This cannot be seen as an endorsement of same-sex civil unions, neither in a legal sense, nor in a moral sense.

It seems pretty clear here that the Cardinal is not referring to your version of same sex civil unions here. Did you have trouble understadning it?
Click to expand...
This is a problem of translation where a literal translation might not be technically correct.

Same sex means same sex not homosexual.
fix said:
All unacceptable. These fictions simply confuse and mimic authentic unions. There is no such need. There are plenty of legal devices available right now for unique relationships that do not confuse things.
Click to expand...
Such a domestic partnership has existed before and the situations where it is useful are arising again.
Tigg said:
I think this is obvious obfuscation and only aids in further de-sensitizing society so that it will eventually accept the unacceptable.
Click to expand...
How is this, that?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Since such a domestic partnership isn’t sexual and is not pretending to be marriage why should there be a limit other than perhaps the paperwork getting messy.

This is a problem of translation where a literal translation might not be technically correct.

Same sex means same sex not homosexual.

Such a domestic partnership has existed before and the situations where it is useful are arising again.

How is this, that?
Click to expand...
Get a lawyer and draw up any papers you want. There is no need for faux unions of any type. It is all obfuscation.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Since such a domestic partnership isn’t sexual and is not pretending to be marriage why should there be a limit other than perhaps the paperwork getting messy.
Click to expand...
Thank you. You have admitted that a so-called “civil union” could be between four people, or seven people, or one hundred people. Thus, it has no meaning at all (sexual or non-sexual) because everything that it tries to accomplish – such as inheritance rights – can already be accomplished with existing legal channels.

On the other hand, marriage is unique because it tries to protect a union ordered toward the creation of new citizens, and a government wishes to ensure a stable family for the ideal growth of that new little citizen.

As others have pointed out, this business about civil unions seems to be an obfuscation created by an attempt to make “progressives” feel good about not “persecuting” those with a same-sex attraction.
 
fix said:
Get a lawyer and draw up any papers you want. There is no need for faux unions of any type. It is all obfuscation.
Click to expand...
For it to be faux it would have to be pretending to be something.
surritter said:
Thank you. You have admitted that a so-called “civil union” could be between four people, or seven people, or one hundred people. Thus, it has no meaning at all (sexual or non-sexual) because everything that it tries to accomplish – such as inheritance rights – can already be accomplished with existing legal channels.

On the other hand, marriage is unique because it tries to protect a union ordered toward the creation of new citizens, and a government wishes to ensure a stable family for the ideal growth of that new little citizen.

As others have pointed out, this business about civil unions seems to be an obfuscation created by an attempt to make “progressives” feel good about not “persecuting” those with a same-sex attraction.
Click to expand...
You could make a similar criticism of corporations

Actually think about it you could have a reasonable limit of two because it has to do with distribution of labor, sure it might seem arbitrary, but no more than making the age of consent is 18 as oppose to 17 or 19.
 
opus101 said:
What are the “rights” that you are referring to that would make the above situation easier?
Health benefits?
If so, then what about siblings who live together? Should my sister and I move in together and get a civil union? I sure could use the healthcare offered at her place of employment !
(I’m not being serious.)

If same-sex civil unions are afforded certain benefits , the same should apply to everyone else. Siblings, two relatives, partners in businesses, two best friends, etc. Sooner or later, three or more people can get civil unions. How about civil unions between children/teens and an older adult?

Same-sex civil unions are not only wrong morally, they present a form of injustice. Not only toward those who are truly married, but to all of us single people. Why should two men or two women who claim to “love” one another be afforded any of the rights of such a situation, when my sister and I are not? It opens a whole can of worms.
Click to expand...
Since such a domestic partnership isn’t pretending to be marriage and thus sex would be irrelevant so too would consanguinity be irrelevant. There is a reason why most business contracts have two sides not twenty. It would be a standard contract and thus minors could not contract.

A well done domestic partnership law would dodge all that by it not being a homosexual pseudo-marriage.
fix said:
It is pretending to be a marriage.
Click to expand...
How?
 
Lucky7 said:
You’re going to have to prove that the Cardinal meant your version of same sex and not homosexual before I’m buying it.
Click to expand...
Sprechen Sie Deutsch?
What the cardinal did recount during his lecture on “Christianity: Alien Presence or Foundation of the West?” is what he tells Austrian schoolchildren when they ask him why the Church opposes “gay marriage”. His answer is always that marriage is by definition and exclusively the union between one man and one woman that is open to life. So “gay marriage” is a contradiction in itself – and in consequence the Church cannot
oppose what does not exist, no matter what is being claimed or legislated upon to the contrary.
Click to expand...
To make this very clear, the cardinal said in a side note to this statement that, **as the state may choose to respect certain choices made by its citizens, it may as a consequence legislate upon them, but it must never equate marriage with non-marriage. This cannot be seen as an endorsement of same-sex civil unions, neither in a legal sense, nor in a moral sense. **
Click to expand...
And it is true that the cardinal sees the need to give thought to the question of pastoral care for people living in irregular situations – to truly apply, not to rethink, what the Church has to say about a life in Christ.
Click to expand...
thetablet.co.uk/issue/1000357/letters
 
surritter said:
Dakota Roberts;10660079:
Dakota Roberts;10660079:
It’s interesting that you would highlight the cardinal’s quote, since he’s actually saying the opposite of what you are trying to defend.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think his/her argument is indefensible. Whenever this topic comes up no one is talking about something other than what we’re actually talking about: homosexual civil unions (whether the term “same-sex” is used or not).
Click to expand...
 
Oops, sorry that that looks like Dakota’s quote when that should have been surriter’s.
I have no idea what I did wrong there.

Oh wait, yes I do…pre-cup of coffee post.
 
Lucky7 said:
Oops, sorry that that looks like Dakota’s quote when that should have been surriter’s.
I have no idea what I did wrong there.

Oh wait, yes I do…pre-cup of coffee post.
Click to expand...
No problem on the quote attribution.

Maybe I can use an analogy such as abortion to help Dakota see the cardinal’s intent…

If a society makes decisions for itself, such as allowing abortion, then while that decision is clearly wrong, it is permissible to enact laws that at least regulate abortion providers, etc.
But that in no way endorses abortion.

I’m not sure if that’s a good fit, though.
 
CatholicGuy22 said:
Thank God!! A cardinal with some common sense!!! Why are we forcing our beliefs on people who don’t believe?
Click to expand...
Why are we forcing our beliefs against murder on people who don’t believe?
Why are we forcing our beliefs against theft on people who don’t believe?
GK Chesterton said people have beliefs, turnips do not. We are not turnips.
This, don’t force your morality on me is a denial of absolute truths.
Homosexuals are seeking respectability for something that is not respectable. It is against the Natural Law of Aristotle, explained by St Thomas Aquinas and St Robert Bellarmine who were quoted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The book Jefferson used is in our national library donated by Jefferson. The revolution of our founding fathers was a conservative revolution to preserve those Natural Rights we already had. Clearly, those seeking so called “homosexual sexual” marriage have denied the supernatural and are simply left with the unnatural.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top