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

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlessedSacraments
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JoyfulTune said:
Then why the status civil union for?
Click to expand...
For the legal protections it offers. Right to inheritance, health insurance, medical decisions, testifying in court and many more. My personal feeling is that any two people, even a brother and sister, should be able to legally have the legal rights that married people do. If it’s two best friends that are in their 80’s and have no family to care for them…whatever the situation…they should be able to get all the legal benefits that married people do and even then, civil unions do not give all the same rights as marriage but it offers much more protections than nothing.

I realize your views as Catholics are different but whether two men are civilly unionized or not, any sexual sin is between them and God. If any group needs legal protections to navigate this life, they should be allowed to obtain them. Let’s let their priest worry over their sins. All this “occasion of sin” exists in everyone’s life. Living alone in a closet won’t even protect you. Occasions of sin are dealt with by everyone.
 
commenter said:
Why isn’t anyone defending the sanctity of marriage bond, or protecting moral rights, the right and Prudence to choose chastity?
Click to expand...
By keeping homosexuals to civil unions you ARE protecting marriage. You are creating a category different than marriage.
The right to choose chastity and prudence is up to each individual regardless of their state in life. It’s as true for homosexuals as heterosexuals.
 
Pattylt said:
Right to inheritance, health insurance, medical decisions, testifying in court and many more. My personal feeling is that any two people, even a brother and sister, should be able to legally have the legal rights that married people do. If it’s two best friends that are in their 80’s and have no family to care for them…whatever the situation…they should be able to get all the legal benefits that married people do
Click to expand...
Civil union law is given to heterosexual couple, mainly because of children.

But I should say, the one thing our church & human society should never do, is to allow same sex couple to adopt children. It is unfair situation for any child .
 
JoyfulTune said:
It is unfair situation for any child .
Click to expand...
Better to live in an uncaring orphanage? Often, being abused? My future son in law was abandoned by his mother and grew up in an orphanage…his stories are heart wrenching! He would have preferred a homosexual family to what he went through. That he’s overcome the typical resulting alcoholism and then a liver transplant is a testament to his determination to stop ruing his life due to his days in the orphanage. He’s now a sober, healthy 42 yo man and engaged to my daughter.
 
Charity demands we care and avoid harm does it not? Hope is essential is it not? But does not faith demand we share the limits of what is correct rather than allow all that is wrong?
 
Why isnt anyone??? Im afraid all those ideas may have become diluted with age and the influx of liberal theology and the constant bombardment which skews identification of what is right? Has the truth been changed or simply obviscated? Seems the monks have all died or are using fartbook for social interaction…Seek ye the truth and ye shall…I forget the rest…forgive me.
 
Legal protections are there to protect more than just Catholics. They’re supposed to protect everyone.

We also don’t limit those particular protections to what one subset of religion wants. As a society that understands that what might be wrong for you may not be wrong for others, we try (and don’t always succeed) in shaping our laws not what one group or another considers a sin, but in allowing those actions that do not cause an unnecessary burden to others. The same laws that allow one to practice their faith also prevent disallowing acts that prevent said practice (e.g. not banning pork products to please Muslims, or banning statues to please Evangelicals). The same laws that protect a couple’s rights also prevent banning certain couples or practices (e.g. not banning interracial couples to please certain denominations orbanning sodomy to please anti-gay faiths).
 
I didn’t say anything about banning sodomy, I said we shouldn’t legally enshrine and protect and encourage it. Why do we do so? Does it perpetuate the human race? Does it gain us more taxpayers and workers in the system? What does sodomy gain us that it must be protected and legally encouraged?
 
Last edited:
It’s legally protected because it wasn’t that long ago that it was legally banned. This meant that a person or person (heterosexual or homosexual) could be fined or jailed for doing something that they and their partner agreed upon and caused no harm to anyone else. I wouldn’t say it’s encouraged, but surely laws prevent it from being legally discouraged while still allowing others to morally discourage if they want.
 
“Legalized” != “protected”.

Of course it’s encouraged! What do you think same-sex marriage is for? It’s obvious, to encourage sodomy and build its practitioners into “family” units.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
“Legalized” != “protected”.
Click to expand...
What does legalizing something do? It protects a person legally if they do that something.
Of course it’s encouraged! What do you think same-sex marriage is for? It’s obvious, to encourage sodomy and build its practitioners into “family” units.
Click to expand...
To encourage someone to do something is to entice someone to do that thing. A person who was not interested in sodomy isn’t going to then be interested in doing it just because it’s legal. What legalizing it does do is take a person who was already interested in the act feel safer knowing they can’t be arrested for doing it.

And I think you should know that it some places (not all) that it’s not a matter that they put a law on the books allowing sodomy, but that they repealed laws that made the act illegal. Does repealing a bad law “encourage” the act?
 
😂😂😂

I didn’t even realize it was a website…I had no clue what it was…other than a possible misspelling of Zenith…which made no sense!
 
Vatican news is more reliable I am sure then ZENIT or EWTN. Sorry for any perceived innuendo…At least someone else is still out there…
 
Ha! I thought it was some new interjection lingo like yeet or woot.
 
FYI. I did flagged your post. Normally I don’t do that nor would I say I did but your post was inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top