Pope Francis: Church Could Support Civil Unions

[CrossCuT]

@CrossCut: I don't know much about the research dealing gay attraction being genetic, but I've heard the findings are conflicting. Do you know more about this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html
^ I don't really know why I posted this. I didn't read it.

 

I skimmed the article and they are basically saying that they dont fall on either end of the specturm for the cause of homosexuality. The gay gene is oversimplification, but it also isnt something people can choose or change at the drop of a hat.

 

I have read many articles on the subject that discuss gay genes, environmental factors, and even newer studies on epigenetics. Basically, its hard to discuss "gene" because people have an all or nothing attitude which is not always the case.

 

Genes are expressed different depending on what the cell function is so even while your liver cells possess the genes to create insulin, they dont; thats the pancreas job.

 

So along those lines, I dont think that homosexuality is an all or nothing trait, it is more of a spectrum or a degree at which you have same sex attraction. This can be brought about by many factors. The field of epigenetics has suggested that environmental factors actually DO have an effect on your genes by the degree at which they compact your DNA. And while these epigenetic changes are not inherently your "genes" they can be passed on as imprints.

 

They have done studies in mice who were all from the same litter were exposed to different levels of neglect from their mother and the results have a significant effect on their health and cognitive functions.

 

 

So that being said, and Im sorry if I was rambling, there is still no conclusive answer as to the reason behind it. Its likely very specific to the person with some underlying causes but what I DO know, is that its not black and white. Youre not just gay or straight. There is a degree of attraction. 

 

I do believe the more likely explanation for Mortify's observation with his friend is that his friend was still coming to terms with his sexuality.

[CrossCuT]

As previously explained the Unverisal Kingship of Christ and His kingdom.
 
 

You're confusing tolerance by government with acceptance and blessing of government. There is no "NOW", the Church hasn't just changed it's position, nor have faithful Christians, the Church has always been against the State blessing unions which are against the natural law. Because again Christ' authority is not just over the Church, but the state as well.

Tolerance of homosexuality would be not making it against the law, or not punishing the act like a crime.

Same-sex marriage/unions would be more than just tolerance but acceptance and blessing.

 

No, Im not confusing them.

 

The government is secular and shouldnt have a bias where religion is concerned. The government should remain neutral and allow all its citizens to have equal rights and opportunity. As of right now, the refusal to allow homosexuals to get civil unions or "marriage" contracts is not tolerance.

 

Allowing them to do this would not mean its a blessing like "LOOK HOMOSEXUALITY IS THE BEST THING EVER" it would mean they are being fair.

 

Since when do laws= blessings?

[KnightofChrist]

No, Im not confusing them.
 
The government is secular and shouldnt have a bias where religion is concerned. The government should remain neutral and allow all its citizens to have equal rights and opportunity. As of right now, the refusal to allow homosexuals to get civil unions or "marriage" contracts is not tolerance.
 
Allowing them to do this would not mean its a blessing like "LOOK HOMOSEXUALITY IS THE BEST THING EVER" it would mean they are being fair.
 
Since when do laws= blessings?

Yes Ma'am you are indeed confusing the two, you're talking about acceptance not tolerance. I don't believe in Americanism, which is what you are advocating. The Church teaches we have a duty as Christians to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which we live. This prevents us from advocating acceptance by government of homosexual unions.

A Law can either bless something or it can condemn it. In the case of murdering someone already born our government condemns and does not accept the act of murder by making laws against it. In the case of murdering someone not yet born our government blesses and accepts the act of murder by making laws that allow it. Edited March 12, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

Yes Ma'am you are indeed confusing the two, you're talking about acceptance not tolerance. I don't believe in Americanism, which is what you are advocating. The Church teaches we have a duty as Christians to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which we live. This prevents us from advocating acceptance by government of homosexual unions.

A Law can either bless something or it can condemn it. In the case of murdering someone already born our government condemns and does not accept the act of murder by making laws against it. In the case of murdering someone not yet born our government blesses and accepts the act of murder by making laws that allow it.

 

I see what youre saying, and part of me agrees in that I believe we should always show our christian spirit and love, but I dunno. I see SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much hate and anger from Christians on this subject and how they treat homosexuals. It really makes me sad.

 

I think in the midst of all this "homosexuality is a disorder" "it is bad" "it is unnatural" "it will cause harm to society" etc etc, I think people are allowing these things (which may be legit arguments from their spiritual perspective) to drownd out the PEOPLE. Even if you think all of these things, we have an obligation to treat all people with respect and dignity...something I dont see happening very often from my fellow Catholics.

[NotreDame]

I see what youre saying, and part of me agrees in that I believe we should always show our christian spirit and love, but I dunno. I see SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much hate and anger from Christians on this subject and how they treat homosexuals. It really makes me sad.

Outside of isolated families like the westboro baptist "church", I've just never ever seen anger or hate manifested in the way Christians treat homosexuals.  I can't relate to this experience in any way...

 

And I don't think this is due to lack of life experience, since I'm older, better traveled, and more worldly than the vast majority on this board, having lived on both coasts, the south, the midwest, and internationally. 

 

Without a doubt, I've seen more open disdain for "conservatives" and "religious" than I have for homosexuals. 

[Ice_nine]

This is kind of an aside, but the word tolerance has become meaningless. It's used by people who only tolerate worldviews that mesh with their staunchly individualist (live and let live) ideology. They believe their way is the right way like . . . hmmmm . . . everybody else in the world and they try to foist this belief upon the wider culture while maintaining that other people should not be allowed to do the same.

 

I am using "they" in a very vague sense I admit, but a lot of people who preach tolerance are as selective about what they tolerate as I or any other person of religious persuasion. Those who show this selectivity and preach tolerance violate their own tenet. I'm a fan of consistency and in this regard many "tolerant" people are walking contradictions. But hey we've all been hypocrites before so I don't let myself get too ruffled.

 

We're humans. We fight over things. Some will suffer more or less depending on who holds power at that particular moment in history, but the idea of a wholly tolerant society is impossible, and thank God because some thigns should not be tolerated.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The point does work with other immoral behavior like murder, theft, etc, which a vast majority of cultures though out the ages have universally condemned.

 

The fact that it works with some points does not make it applicable in every situation. Again, racism was a norm not too long ago. Morality isn't always related to popular opinion.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think Pope Francis is being realistic. Same sex unions will never be able to occur as a sacrament of matrimony, but that doesn't mean that secular states can't or shouldn't recognize unions between any two consenting adults. 

 

Assuming family is the basic unit of society, we must recognize that non-traditional families can indeed be families and can support the structure and function of society.

[4588686]

You have to realize Hasan that you are in the minority position. Virtually every culture regards homosexuality as perverse behavior. I need not explain to you what makes homosexuality wrong, it behooves you to explain why homosexuality should be tolerated. And you can laugh, but there is something to be said when diverse and independent cultures all share the same view towards a topic.

 

 

Virtually every culture?  I'd love to see that claim quantified and demonstrated.  

 

It is true that you don't have to explain to me why you've decided that a consensus amongst the same faith traditions which believed the Sun revolved around the Earth somehow counts as definitive proof that homosexuality is wrong and ought to be stomped out.  You're free to believe any crackpot thing you want. 

[4588686]

They believe their way is the right way like . . . hmmmm . . . everybody else in the world and they try to foist this belief upon the wider culture while maintaining that other people should not be allowed to do the same.

 

 

Do you honestly not see a difference between people not letting your private mystical hopes dictate the behavior of others versus your desire to (literally) dictate how others live based on your hope that Jesus listed to your prayers at night?  Just structurally, they are clearly different.  One expands human freedom of action and the other restricts it.  

[CatholicCid]

Response to CatholicsAreKewl:

 

@CatholicCid: I don't completely buy my understanding of your initial argument. Should the government really do away with anything that is harmful to society? If that's the case, tobacco and alcohol should be banned. McDonald's should be banned. The Westboro Baptist Church should be banned...

 

I think the bigger problem here is that we're exaggerating the effect gay marriage will have on society. Even if there is a negative impact, I would argue that there is a much larger one if we continue to exclude a large portion of society from marriage.

 

 

Btw, please be more careful with your choice of words. The evidence (much of it from government funded research) does not support the notion that homosexuality is a "disorder".

 

My initial argument is one based on an understanding of government in relation to natural law. All governments are, in some ways, flawed, but this doesn't exclude them from having to protect the common good for society. Though we can debate whether certain things are actually harmful to society (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, McDonald's, etc...), we generally do accept certain laws as almost universal, such as laws prohibiting murder, pedophilia, incest, etc... We see such actions as harmful to society as a whole and it necessary, for the good of society, to actively prohibit these actions. And, to an extent, we also allow for legislation that limits other goods to prevent, or at least attempt to prevent, using them in an unhealthy excess (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, etc...). It's not that the government must explicitly 'ban' anything it deems harmful, but that it must act in a reasonable and thought-out manner when putting forward legislation. A question to ask, then, is if this is being done in relation to homosexual civil unions.

 

This next bit is a bit of a misnomer when considering homosexual civil unions. Even if we disagree on whether or not such actions have a negative effect on society, I would hope that we can agree marriage, recognized by the government, is a privilege that offer certain benefits. The arguments that we are seemingly being given is that we must allow these unions for the sake of equality, so that all individuals* are equally entitled to this privilege and these benefits. This returns to another question, however, or "Why does the secular government offer these privileges? Or, more specifically: Why does the secular government regulate marriage?" Must this privilege be offered to all who seek it or can it, as a privilege, be regulated?

That being said, I would contend that gay marriage would still have serious negative effects on society, which you can surmise from my secular, religious, and personal viewpoints expressed earlier. More so then not allowing it. That being said, I would wonder if you could elaborate as to what negative impact will arise if we do not allow for homosexual civil unions?

 

To clarify terminology, I specifically chose the term "disordered" because of the term's use in the CCC, paragraph 2357.** This is also why I've only used the term when discussing homosexuality from a religious and/or personal viewpoint, not a secular viewpoint. As a side note, I would suggest a look into the research regarding homosexuality, especially the history regarding the APA and homosexuality. It's an interesting topic to review (at least, in my mind).

 

 

*Assuming the individuals are consenting adults who are not related in certain fashions. This sets up some dangerous side-topics for those who support homosexual civil unions regarding marriage laws which offer restrictions due to either the age of consent or family relations. Why is alright for the government to allow homosexual civil unions, but prevent two blood relatives from entering a civil union? Why can two 18-year-olds marry when an 18-year-old and 17-year-old cannot marry without parental or judicial consent? Etc...

 

**CCC 2357: "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex... Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Just as an interesting aside involving CCC 2357, the CCC also makes use of the term "disordered" for several other areas within the same section. "Disordered" is used to describe both lust (CCC 2351) and masturbation (CCC 2352), while divorce is referenced as a source of disorder within society and the family (CCC 2385).

[CatholicCid]

What what.....so now we are going to start categorizing peoples relationships?

How is your presence in this forum beneficial from any of those viewpoints? Are we really going to start analyzing peoples personal lives and how the outside world decides if its good enough of some ish? Really?

 

I think that is sick.

How would you like the government coming to your house and tearing your family apart because they no longer feel the relationship to your wife and children is beneficial to society?

 

I think we are officially treading down a very very very non christian path and reaching too far into insanity on this topic. We are no longer treating people humanly at this point and I find it very offensive that you think someone would have to prove that their personal relationship would benefit YOU in some way.

 

And you wonder why people are getting intolerant of us? Its because we say stupid things like this.

Yes, we can and do "categorize" relationships. That's something that is clearly done by a secular government, specifically, in this case, when issuing marriage licenses. By issuing a marriage license, the government is acknowledging a privileged status with certain benefits upon a specific relationship over other types of relationships.

 

 

To go a bit off topic for a moment, but as to the rest of your post, I'm confused as to your seemingly continual references to certain discussions being "sick" and "very very very non christian" and "stupid." This generally doesn't actually address the topic being discussed and attempts to derail honest discussion into straight emotivism.

 

I feel as though my general responses in this thread have been fairly straightforward, honest, and, above all, Christ-like. If you read over my personal viewpoint, which I chose to share, you would hopefully realize that my thoughts in these matters are ones formed neither haphazardly or out of malice, but through much study and an earnest care for my fellow brothers and sisters. 

 

To provide a bit more personal insight, I can honestly relate the following from my heart. In John 8, when the woman caught in adultery was brought to Christ, He responded in two ways. First, He did not condemn her. Second, He told her to sin no more. This is, ultimately, the foundation for my thoughts on this topic. We cannot condemn these individuals involved in homosexual civil unions, and I do not believe I am doing so, but we also cannot support judicial law or legislation which would allow them to live in relationships that are, ultimately, harmful to them. We have a responsibility, not just as citizens, but primarily as Christians, to spread the love of Christ, which includes encouraging others away from harmful relationships, whatever they might be. To do so is not only to treat someone humanly, but is an attempt to show them the love of Christ. While I can understand how this might be seen as "offensive," I think an honest view of it recognizes that, though one might disagree with it, it truly is not offensive and is done out of love.

 

To the specific topic at hand, we were discussing why "we" (presumably, Christians) should care as to how the secular government handles homosexual civil unions, or why does it matter. I was attempting to respond from a secular viewpoint (which was clearly stated) as to why "we" should care. Or, simply put, one can provide rational arguments against allowing homosexual civil unions that aren't inherently religious in nature. If these seem "non christian," that is simply because they are, though not in the sense you seem to be implying. 

 

So, back on topic, I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but, if a couple in a personal relationship wants public recognition of that relationship and to be given public benefits, then, yes, it is a public matter. And, the point I was hoping would be drawn out from my several ignored questions,* was that the reason the secular government recognizes marriages is to encourage both procreation and the raising of children in stable family units, as reflected in the benefits offered to married couples. As couples formed through homosexuals unions cannot meet either of these requirements, then homosexual unions should not be civilly endorsed.**

 

*NotreDame was kind enough to quote each question individually, here - http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/133313-pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/?p=2661221

**This opinion is formed from a Catholic perspective, including the understanding that  homosexual acts an intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357-2359), that marriage is between a man and a woman (CCC 2360-2063), and that stable family unit is a family with both parents (CCC 2385, 2221, 2202-2203). If we might disagree on this point, it is not something I am willing to argue in this thread as it is a bit divergent from the direct topic at hand. We will simply have to disagree at this time.

Edited March 13, 2014 by CatholicCid

[Ice_nine]

Do you honestly not see a difference between people not letting your private mystical hopes dictate the behavior of others versus your desire to (literally) dictate how others live based on your hope that Jesus listed to your prayers at night?  Just structurally, they are clearly different.  One expands human freedom of action and the other restricts it.  

 

I was writing a longer response, but no longer care to spend much time on it. Yes there is a difference (although I'm not sure they are "structurally" as different as you think).

 

And your use of the word "literally" disappoints me. How do I "literally" dictate how anyone else lives?

Edited March 13, 2014 by Ice_nine

[4588686]

 

 

And your use of the word "literally" disappoints me. How do I "literally" dictate how anyone else lives?

 

 

Do you know what 'dictate' means?

[Ice_nine]

Do you know what 'dictate' means?

 

No, enlighten me.

 

It has something to do with Hitler or something right?