Pope Francis: Church Could Support Civil Unions

[4588686]

Did you know that there are some cults where a number of men or women will get rid of their property and make creepy celibacy pledges?  The government must protect citizens from perdition.

[NotreDame]

I said consenting adults.  If somebody want to enter into a polyamorous relationship that's not my business.  

But if they want the government to recognize the relationship and provide tax breaks, legal structure, courts, and enforcement around it, then it becomes all of our business. 

[NotreDame]

A brave new world is not a better world.

 

You obviously haven't taken your soma today.
 

[4588686]

But if they want the government to recognize the relationship and provide tax breaks, legal structure, courts, and enforcement around it, then it becomes all of our business. 

 

 

In a very marginal sense, sure.  If you want to get rid of all the legal and economic privledges granted to married heterosexual couples then it really would be nobody's business.  However, if you are going to give those privleges then they need to be applied equal to different sexual/family structures.  

[mortify ii]

In a very marginal sense, sure.  If you want to get rid of all the legal and economic privledges granted to married heterosexual couples then it really would be nobody's business.  However, if you are going to give those privleges then they need to be applied equal to different sexual/family structures.  

 

The latter part does not follow, it's not necessary for the state to bestow the same privileges on alternative relationships. It doesn't do so for polyamry nor for pederasty, and it shouldn't do so for homosexual couples. 

[4588686]

The latter part does not follow, it's not necessary for the state to bestow the same privileges on alternative relationships. It doesn't do so for polyamry nor for pederasty, and it shouldn't do so for homosexual couples. 

 

 

Who says they're alternative?  And your argument doesn't address what I said at all.  I think that the state should recognize polyamorous couples.  The only restriction I would put on that would be pragmatic paramaters.  As for pederasty, that's really not comparable since the issue with adolescent sexual partners is that without a certain level of maturity an individual cannot consent to a sexual relationship in any meaningful way.  

[mortify ii]

Who says they're alternative?  And your argument doesn't address what I said at all.  I think that the state should recognize polyamorous couples.  The only restriction I would put on that would be pragmatic paramaters.  As for pederasty, that's really not comparable since the issue with adolescent sexual partners is that without a certain level of maturity an individual cannot consent to a sexual relationship in any meaningful way.  

 

 

I have to remind myself sometimes that I have more in common with a Hindu than I do with other Westerners. Just to emphasize this point so that we don't talk past eachother, I have to remind you that I am not a modernist. I am by nature what Rene Geunon and Syyed Hossein Nasr to refer to as a traditional person, and tradition in this sense has a specific meaning. It refers to someone who lives according to a higher transcendent principle (God, Tao, Brahman, or Nature as understood by the Stoics), recognizes that there is a hierarchical order in this world according to it, and that there is truth and the absence of it. Mircea Eliade has a similar anthropological concept when he speaks of the homo religiosus. Modernism is the stark opposition to this traditional worldview because it rejects any transcendent principle or supra human element, and is consequently an aberration.

 

To me the suggestion that homosexual unions are somehow equal to a marital union between a man and woman is simply baffling. It is equally obvious that the former is not only unequal, but specifically inferior to the later. And to proceed further, is not only inferior but so diametrically opposed to the natural order that it could never be supported. Let me take some time by recalling an event in my University years, when I sat down with some classmates and this very topic came up. I was very surprised to discover that my Hindu, Buddhist, and Chinese classmates, all immigrants, also held negative views towards homosexuality. It made me realize that if people from cultures independent of mine own recognized the same moral truth there must be something substantial behind it. Everything can't be relative as our modernist friends like to suggest, there is something real we can all tap into but I struggled to describe it. I realized I had no words for such things because I myself was heavily influenced by modernism, and only carried a faint few seeds of light.

 

Anyway, let me just end with that great stoic, Marcus Aurelius:

 

"All things are interwoven with one another; a sacred bond unites them; there is scarcely one thing that is isolated from another. Everything is coordinated, everything works together in giving form to the one universe. The world-order is a unity made up of multiplicity: God is one, pervading all things; all being is one, all law is one (namely, the common reason which all thinking creatures possess) and all truth is one -- if, as we believe, there can be but one path to perfection for beings that are alike in kind and reason."

[CrossCuT]

 And I know what I'm saying sounds distasteful, I'm not kidding when I say using the word "disordered" in associated with homosexuality hurts my own modern ears, but I haven't found a more appropriate word that is also less offensive. 

See now we are being very daft.

You are making some pretty unsupported claims about the nature of homosexuality which is leading you down this road. People are offended by these terms because a lot of the time, people with strong religious bias dont understand the full picture.

 

You stated that you noticed a transition from bisexual to homosexual in a friend which lead you to believe sexual orientation is fluid.

Not necessarily. The thing is, people are born into a world filled with norms that they have to live up to. You have to fit into a mold or else there is something wrong with you. Science is continually showing that homosexuality is genetic so that means it has the potential to be hard wired into our being.

You suggest you can change it...well thats likely NOT that case at all and therefore we cannot build a model on how to deal with it based on error.

 

A person born with a homosexual tendency will likely suppress it for most of their life especially raised in a community or home that finds it sinful. Later on in life it is likely that they will come to terms with who they are or their "condition" as you put it and thus come out as being gay/bisexual or whathaveyou. You will interpret this as a transition between the sexual attractions, others will interpret it as coming to terms.

 

What you say IS offensive because you are showing a very large lack of understand of the disorder, how it effects people, and what it means to them. Growing animosity on the subject is due to this ignorance. So please try and to some more research.

 

Faith and logic are intertwined. We cannot deny logic and facts because it is more convenient for us; we are doing a huge disservice to the people who are dealing with homosexuality, especially in the Church. Instead, we need to embrace ALL understanding of this topic so that we can more efficiently deal with it. 

 

To me the suggestion that homosexual unions are somehow equal to a marital union between a man and woman is simply baffling. 

 

I dont think anyone is suggesting that the sacramental marriage between a homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexual couple.

The topic is about civil unions....a government issued agreement. Not a sacrament. 

[CatholicCid]

In a very marginal sense, sure.  If you want to get rid of all the legal and economic privledges granted to married heterosexual couples then it really would be nobody's business.  However, if you are going to give those privleges then they need to be applied equal to different sexual/family structures.  

 

A good question to ask would be why heterosexual couples were granted those legal and economic privileges to begin with. There most likely has been some form of reason or incentive behind the government offering these privileges.

 

Then, one would have to ask if these other alternative lifestyles being discussed are able to satisfy the reasons why heterosexual couples were originally granted these privileges. 

 

That being said, it must be remembered that a privilege is not a right. By it's very definition, it need not be applied equally to all groups.

[CrossCuT]

I dont know why we are so against a secular government handing out Civil Unions (not sacraments) to people who have different living situations than our own.

 

[KnightofChrist]

I dont know why we are so against a secular government handing out Civil Unions (not sacraments) to people who have different living situations than our own.

Because the Church teaches that there is a universal and social Kingship of Christ, Christ is not just a King of the Church and of our hearts, but King of the Universe, King of kings, Lord of lords. Those titles mean something and they are more than mere words. Christ is King of the Untied States, King of Canada, King of Mexico, King over all the Earth. The Church therefor teaches and that we not only have a duty to convert individuals, but societies, governments and states in which we live as well so that laws of our societies reflect the Christian Spirit. Homosexual Civil Unions do not reflect the Christian Spirit, and are set against the Kingship of Christ.

 

 

CCC 2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."³⁰ By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."³¹ The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.³² Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.

 

[CatholicCid]

I dont know why we are so against a secular government handing out Civil Unions (not sacraments) to people who have different living situations than our own.

Because we all live together. Our society is exactly that: A society. The actions of one portion of society will necessarily influence the actions of another. It's for the same reason that we, as Catholics and as members of society, remained involved and have a responsibility to remain involved in the political life of our given country. 

 

My last post was an attempt to present the issue in an entirely secular way. Marriage and the benefits associated with it by the government are a privilege. Therefore, it must be asked: Why does the secular government offer these privileges? Or, more specifically: Why does the secular government regulate marriage?

 

As Catholics, we also necessarily have another layer to this equation involving natural law and pursuit of the common good. The "common good" is not simply a phrase for us, but has a true meaning. We find this good in that who is goodness Himself, or God.

Edited March 10, 2014 by CatholicCid

[CrossCuT]

 Homosexual Civil Unions do not reflect the Christian Spirit, and are set against the Kingship of Christ.

Homosexual civil unions between two individuals that love, care, and respect each other does not reflect Christian Spirit?

Instead bigotry, exclusion, resentment, fear are?

 

 

I just dont know how two Christian women (an example I have used in the past from an experience I had) discussing how disgusting and messed up "those people" (referring to gays) is an example of the Christian Spirit. Or talking about them in some sort of degenerate, sinful, disordered subtext which is often used here which serves to dehumanize them.

 

It drives me bananas.

 

The actions of one portion of society will necessarily influence the actions of another. 

So the loving union of a happy couple will somehow...make the rest of us happy by spreading its influence? Is that what you  mean?

 

Or are you afraid straight people will start getting homosexual unions?

Sorry to break it to you, but the unsacramental union of straight people is happening right under your nose and yet no one bats an eye.

Edited March 10, 2014 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

Homosexual civil unions between two individuals that love, care, and respect each other does not reflect Christian Sprite?

No, such unions do not, exchanging the phrase Homosexual Marriages for Homosexual Civil Unions does not actually change the nature of the union, just the name.
 

Instead bigotry, exclusion, resentment, fear are?

No. The Church is not guilty of bigotry.
 
 

I just dont know how two Christian women (an example I have used in the past from an experience I had) discussing who disgusting "those people" (referring to gays) are is an example of the Christian Spirit. Or talking about them in some sort of degenerate, sinful, disordered subtext which is often used here which serves to dehumanize them.
 
It drives me bananas.

 
Those two individuals being wrong do not make the Church wrong. Their sins do not transfer to the Church. Edited March 10, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

No, such unions do not, exchanging the phrase Homosexual Marriages for Homosexual Civil Unions does not actually change the nature of the union, just the name.
 

No. The Church is not guilty of bigotry.
 
 
 
Those two individuals being wrong do not make the Church wrong. Their sins do not transfer to the Church.

 

A marriage and a union are very decidedly different where we are concerned. One is a sacramental exchange between the two where the other is a government issued contract.