We Have to Remember That the Catholic Magisterium is Binding on all Catholics

[LilyM]

mkamoski1:

The Pope was supporting “legal protections for same-sex platonic relationships” and that is it.

These platonic relationships exclude brothers, father-son, mother-daughter, aunt-niece, uncle-nephew, cousins, and many other platonic types of relationships. That’s a peculiar feature for a platonic union.

Also, why should homosexuals be legally protected? Even if platonic? Why? Why? Why?

Because in many places they have been (and still are) abused in every possible way up to and including being physically assaulted and indeed killed for their sexual orientation to an extent that even adulterous and fornicating heterosexuals arent.

Indeed the Pope discusses, and condemns, the extent to which some have been ostracised and cast out by families and communities.

They are unusually vulnerable and do accordingly need a level of legal protection.

 

[Anesti33]

I disagree. I think they need to repent. It is unjust that people abuse and perpetrate violence against them, but repentance, not marriage, is needed.

 

[puer.dei]

Also, why should homosexuals be legally protected? Even if platonic? Why? Why? Why?

Because they are God’s children? Who have a right to make a living? And to decide where they want to live, and who should make their medical decisions if they can’t?
You know, like humans beings?

 

[puer.dei]

It is unjust that people abuse and perpetrate violence against them

If you really believed that, you wouldn’t be asking “Why? Why? Why?” they should be protected from that abuse.

 

[AloysiusBologna]

Allowed…who controls in the USA?..Democratic candidates who say they are catholic are exempt rite?

 

[JoyfulTune]

God, Make Us Channels of Your Peace bringing love where there is hatred.

But endorsing same sex civil union is to allow same sex couple to persistently living in sin.

Sinful way of living is not a channel of peace. The fruit of sin is not peace.

 

[Pattylt]

But endorsing same sex civil union is to allow same sex couple to persistently living in sin.

Sinful way of living is not a channel of peace. The fruit of sin is not peace.

If they aren’t having sex…and you really don’t know that one way or the other…there is no sin. Just because everyone assumes two gay people are having sex, doesn’t mean they are and often are not. There is no sin in BEING homosexual, only acting on it.

 

[AloysiusBologna]

they

Please follow your position with logic I can understand…I appreciate actions vs thoughts approach…is action which assists in eliminating barriers to action assistance? Does it then approach enabling…surely you wouldnt put drugs or alcohol beside your bed if your were trying to avoid addiction…but I do understand living with ex-addicts cab have its advantages…Shunning has been very effective in preserving cultures…erradication has also eliminated problems…or we can lock everyone up and retrain them…let us go to a Chinese website and promote Christianity…or better yet…send them gold to support their rainbow of change in Tibet…Everyday problems often result from short term views…

 

[AloysiusBologna]

Also, why should homosexuals be legally protected? Even if platonic? Why? Why? Why?

Limiting scope to the goooood O USA…EVERY Man Woman and Child should be protected…but not more so than others of the country. The promotion of democrats in their official platform of especially protecting sex workers especially those with unnatural inclinations while paying for abortions is problematic to my understanding of justice and presents a MORAL conflict and should be OPPOSED…should it not?

 

[JoyfulTune]

If there is no sex, then they are best friends only. Then why the status civil union for?

 

[LilyM]

Motherwit:

God, Make Us Channels of Your Peace bringing love where there is hatred.

But endorsing same sex civil union is to allow same sex couple to persistently living in sin.

Sinful way of living is not a channel of peace. The fruit of sin is not peace.

And permitting legal recognition of de facto heterosexual partnerships does exactly the same. But no-one would bat an eyelid if the Pope said “yes, cohabiting heterosexual couples are in sin, but their sin doesn’t warrant that they be without legal rights and protections”

And for good reason . Any two folks who live together, jointly for ywars or decades, and own property together etc should, if they both want it, have the same inheritance rights, rights to claim or be nominated under insurance and things like that -.which married and de facto heterosexual couples have. And have them as married.and heterosexual de facto couples do WITHOUT having to draw up complicated legal paperwork.

In many places, without the equivalent of a civil union or civil partnership,. they don’t.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

It is unjust that people abuse and perpetrate violence against them

If you really believed that, you wouldn’t be asking “Why? Why? Why?” they should be protected from that abuse.

Everyone is protected from abuse and violence. Equal rights, remember?

Why do homosexuals need protection for arrangements that aid and abet sodomy?

 

[JoeFreedom]

If they aren’t having sex…and you really don’t know that one way or the other…there is no sin. Just because everyone assumes two gay people are having sex, doesn’t mean they are and often are not. There is no sin in BEING homosexual, only acting on it.

It is true that being homosexual is not sinful, but engaging in homosexual acts is. However, the Catholic Church also teaches that bringing oneself to an occasion of sin can also be sinful in and of itself.

For example, let’s say a man who has struggled with pornography and attended certain “establishments” whereas he can see women live. He finally decides to get his life on track. But he says, I’m not going to throw out my old magazines, delete all of my links, and I’m still going to go to that place for a sandwich every now and then.

If two men are or have been in a sexually active relationship and are attracted to each other, whether they have decided to stop is not the end of the issue. Deciding to live together (provided that there is no other way financially to move apart and it becomes burdensome where it would be detrimental to life and health), would be sinful.

 

[meltzerboy2]

And contrary to what some may say, this kind of unjust behavior toward gay people IS the business of the Church. I wish the Orthodox Jewish community would make a similar statement.

 

[JoyfulTune]

And permitting legal recognition of de facto heterosexual partnerships does exactly the same. But no-one would bat an eyelid if the Pope said “yes, cohabiting heterosexual couples are in sin, but their sin doesn’t warrant that they be without legal rights and protections”

Because for cohabiting heterosexual couple can receive sacrament, only not yet. And why they can? Because when a man is faithful to a woman, that is the primodial definition of a marriage.

But same sex act is forbidden sin. It is not merely about status of sharing properties, and so on. The sex it self is sin.

And the argument that say “no sex act” cannot work either. Two same sex couple who don’t have sex are friends only, and therefore need no civil union status.

Giving them civil union status to them necessarily means allowing them to persistently living in sin for the rest of their lives.

And it cannot benefit their children either, because those children (all of them) have heterosexual parents. It will confuse their sex education. Those children have no choice but to unfairly accept what our church define as “disordered condition” as “their normal” since their childhood.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

And permitting legal recognition of de facto heterosexual partnerships does exactly the same. But no-one would bat an eyelid if the Pope said “yes, cohabiting heterosexual couples are in sin, but their sin doesn’t warrant that they be without legal rights and protections”

Because for cohabiting heterosexual couple can receive sacrament, only not yet. And why they can? Because when a man is faithful to a woman, that is the primodial definition of a marriage.

But same sex act is forbidden sin. It is not merely about status of sharing properties, and so on. The sex it self is sin.

And the argument that say “no sex act” cannot work either. Two same sex couple who don’t have sex are friends only, and therefore need no civil union status.

Giving them civil union status to them necessarily means allowing them to persistently living in sin for the rest of their lives.

And it cannot benefit their children either, because those children (all of them) have heterosexual parents. It will confuse their sex education. Those children have no choice but to unfairly accept what our church define as “disordered condition” as “their normal” since their childhood.

A man and woman can be sexually faithful to each other but never live or intend to live together. Relationships including marriage are about more than sex.

And giving civil status to unmarried heterosexual couples also encourages them to keep living in sin, since marriage then offers no additional legal protections to indiuce many of them to marry.

Two people who.live and comingle their finnances together for decades are more than mere.casual friends or temporary housemates, and should have more protections under the law than such.

 

[commenter]

And permitting legal recognition of de facto heterosexual partnerships does exactly the same. But no-one would bat an eyelid if the Pope said “yes, cohabiting heterosexual couples are in sin, but their sin doesn’t warrant that they be without legal rights and protections”

Civil partnerships for heterosexual couples would also be wrong. This kind of Recognition makes it easier to enter into a near occasion of sin, and harder to extricate oneself from it.

Why isn’t anyone defending the sanctity of marriage bond, or protecting moral rights, the right and Prudence to choose chastity?

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

And permitting legal recognition of de facto heterosexual partnerships does exactly the same. But no-one would bat an eyelid if the Pope said “yes, cohabiting heterosexual couples are in sin, but their sin doesn’t warrant that they be without legal rights and protections”

Civil partnerships for heterosexual couples would also be wrong. This kind of Recognition makes it easier to enter into a near occasion of sin, and harder to extricate oneself from it.

Why isn’t anyone defending the sanctity of marriage bond, or protecting moral rights, the right and Prudence to choose chastity?

Because like it or not we have freedom of religion, and like it or not not every sin is or should be a matter of legal distinction/punishment.

Do you really want to go back to the days where heresy was a capital offence? That just led to more.entrenched positions and.chaos on all sides.

 

[HopingforGodtohelp]

"If they aren’t having sex…and you really don’t know that one way or the other…there is no sin. "

Not necessarily true. Straight couples, such as fiancees, are told that they cannot live together before they are married, even if they are not having sex, because it is the sin of scandal.

Two openly gay people living together in a civil union is basically the definition of scandal. It would lead one to believe they are having sex, and with good reason.

 

[JoyfulTune]

A man and woman can be sexually faithful to each other but never live or intend to live together.

The above, if they don’t intend to live together, I suppose their properties & everything else remain separate. The same way if same-sex couple they just sex partners but do not intend to live together.

Now, the difference is, in hetero couple, even if they do not intend to live together but having sex, there is possibility the woman get pregnant. So then, if they decide to live together, the civil union status is necessary.

And giving civil status to unmarried heterosexual couples also encourages them to keep living in sin, since marriage then offers no additional legal protections to indiuce many of them to marry.

But there is possibility to come out from sinful situation: whenever they decide for sacramental marriage.

This is not true for ss union. The only way to stop sinning is to stop having sex.

Two people who.live and comingle their finnances together for decades are more than mere.casual friends or temporary housemates, and should have more protections under the law than such.

Two people who are not sex partners, sharing properties is called room mates, or shared tenancy, or shared ownership, or even business partnership, or master-butler, or just simply best friends.

They do not need civil union law.