No “New Age” theology or philosophy implications were intended. By use of the term “holistic,” I mean “thorough,” “complete,” “well-rounded,” and yes, balanced.
I don’t know what else to say except that I disagree. You are taking a wholly subjective approach - understandable based on your experience. However, the government, as a detached entity, is incapable of making such subjective determinations without excessive and unaffordable beaucracy which would still make many unhappy. The government should not have to pay for a military member’s friend’s health care simply because they are a friend at the time, nor should any other company. Marriage is to be a lifetime committment between 2 people with a primary objective of raising children and keeping society going. Thus, such health care benefits are a special benefit meant for a particular case, not a hand-out to use as anyone pleases. There are many possible problems with such a policy. One more (although I could list many more) is that your friend might change every 6 months depending on who needed it the most. You might eventually have friends with discontent when you take away their health care and give it to someone else who needs it more (your new best friend). This would invite lawsuits on top of excessive beaucracy. The health care benefit is for married persons for a reason. Like it or not, the individual you refer to was married and his wife was with child - that is an objective standard that the government is capable of applying versus a subjective standard you want them to apply.
As is typical of the homosexual movement (and the liberal left in general), they make an concerted effort to hide their ultimate motives and agenda so that they can creep up on the public inch by inch. I noticed they removed the link to their response to US Bishops regarding homosexual “marriage” because they don’t want to appear too extreme - but most of the Catholics around are no fools.
I’m not dismissing a single encyclical provide by our Holy Church. But apparently you are dismissing Ratzinger’s teaching on opposition to the legalization of homosexual unions as a duty of Catholics.
Fired from their job for doing what? Having a hidden SSA, or acting on it?
A marriage does not need to be at the Sacramental level to be Holy. The Church does recognize Natural Marriage for non-Catholics as being a worthy and Holy institution.
)Then I am unclear on your premise. Are you talking about people with SSA’s who are actively working on living a celibate life, or people with SSA’s actively living the homosexual lifestyle who think that the Church should accept both them and their lifestyle?
Thanks for your response.
Perhaps I am being unclear? My argument is that many in the Church try to reconcile error and truth. They claim they accept all the Mother Church teaches, but they don’t. The teach others error. They sprear error. They help lead others astray. If you pin them down they claim they are faithful Catholics, but they are really dissenters.
You point was that they expressly call for a change in the Church’s teaching on sacramental marriage. Now all you have is a claim that a link has been removed and your suppositions. That is a long ways from from your earlier statement.
I don’t dismiss it. I concur with its reasonableness.
having been found to have SSA, to use yoru terminology.
Not for another thread. You twist all around to avoid this issue. It is central to the question.So Civil Marriage laws can, and usually do, reflect Natural Law. It Civil Divorce Laws that don’t (but that’s for another thread
I am talking about heterosexual people who feel their might be some openness on the standpoint of same sex civil relationships based on issues of public order.
Quite true. The Church was founded to get souls to heaven. She was not founded to claim medicare is the best or only solution or that social secruity should not be privatized, or any other political decision.
Katherine your second to last sentence is incorrect. There ARE specific laws protecting GLTB people in many states and many communities. I don’t know if there is a federal law but the reality is that the “Philadelphia” situation is pretty much a thing of the past. If you disagree and have some documentation (other than your opinion please) I’d like to see it. I know that here in Oregon these laws have been on the books for YEARS. Further if someone WERE terminated for their sexual orientation, they would have grounds for a lawsuit and I am sure the ACLU would LOVE to take it on. We’re now seeing homosexuals suing the military over “don’t ask dont tell.”
That is correct – to name some famous examples, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator John Kerry.
At some levels, it goes beyond that – it is an attempt to cover wrong-doing with a claim of “social justice.”
The social welfare programs are often the CAUSE of continuing poverty – and are seen as political plums and lagresse. It is a dirty, cynical business.
Having been found out how?
Well, I fail to see how Divorce Law is central to the issue, but OK, Civil Divorce Law does NOT Relfect Natural Law.
Nope, that against Natural Law. The greatest human happiness occurs when Civil Law mirrors Natural Law as much as humanly possible. That is Church teaching and will always be Church teaching. Anyone who cannot accept that is not ‘being written off’, they are writing themselves off.
I also provided an article that claimed this is what they want but you ignored it.
The point that someone’s sex life is completely irrelevant to how they do their job is an excellent one. But you push it too far.
Yet you oppose it’s teachings by supporting homosexual unions.
It used to be that way before no-fault divorce laws. In our wisdom we elected legislatures who in their wisdom decided divorce should be legal and easy.
The conventional wisdom was that “children adjust” and that “Children are better off after a divorce if the parents can’t get along.”