dairygirl4u2c Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 here is a well written academic piece on why catholics should not support either http://www.lepantofoundation.org/homosexuality-can-a-catholic-recognise-the-rights-of-gay-couples/ but with that said, couldn't a catholic allow for civil unions? at least as far as existing theology goes, that doesn't explicitly condemn these unions? that is, there may be specific teachings that say 'no civil unions' but besides those, wouldn't it be possible to promote civil unions? the idea. you are doing it out of respect to the gay couples. you don't specifically endorse them engaging in their sin, but you can tolerate that they love each other, and live with each other. and, for respect, give them some legal albeit not fully on par with 'marriage' legal recognition. i understand that being against gay marriage, as that is equating two homosexuals with two heterosexuals, the later of which is clearly what is intended in nature to be a couple. this would be viewing homosexual reationships on par, and even perhaps promoting their conjugal unions, given marriage is seen as such a union in general. so couldn't a catholic endorse civil unions out of respect, with nothing to be said about what they do with their 'union', but be against gay marriage? i welcome specific statements that say neither are permissible, but mostly welcome other theology remarks and statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 Pope, in interview, suggests church could tolerate some civil unions http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400916.htm he might have been thinking more about things like contracts between homosexuals, to 'replicate' marriages and civil unions. as usual, popes are often unclear. but he may have been giving a nod to the idea of 'civil unions' in general. it would be interesting to see what he means by anything that might be considered a 'lesser' civil union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 united states bishops statement on the issue: "What about "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" between two persons of the same sex? Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of "civil unions" contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable. Basic human rights are not protected but violated by the erosion and redefinition of marriage." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) the most authoritative statement i've found. though one could 'squeeze' out something about 'unions' in some 'civil' context as Francis says, but probably not 'civil unions'. "On 3 June 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a document with the agreement of Pope John Paul II called "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons" opposing the very idea of same-sex marriage. This document made clear that "legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity". Catholic legislators were instructed that supporting such recognition would be "gravely immoral", and that they must do all they could do actively oppose it, bearing in mind that "the approval or legalisation of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil". The document said that allowing children to be adopted by people living in homosexual union would actually mean doing violence to them, and stated: "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." Edited July 18, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianGirlForever Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Pope, in interview, suggests church could tolerate some civil unionshttp://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400916.htm he might have been thinking more about things like contracts between homosexuals, to 'replicate' marriages and civil unions. as usual, popes are often unclear. but he may have been giving a nod to the idea of 'civil unions' in general. it would be interesting to see what he means by anything that might be considered a 'lesser' civil union I read about that. He was misquoted. Pope Francis was referring to civil unions between heterosexual couples being a consideration, not homosexual. I fail to understand why so much time and energy is given to "gay rights," as if they've been deprived of anything. This isn't the age of Jim Crowe. There are so many other *important* issues to be focused on. Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I read about that. He was misquoted. Pope Francis was referring to civil unions between heterosexual couples being a consideration, not homosexual. I fail to understand why so much time and energy is given to "gay rights," as if they've been deprived of anything. This isn't the age of Jim Crowe. There are so many other *important* issues to be focused on. Good grief. They don't get to have a spouse that they love and are at least in some small way attracted to. The problem is that even if they had a legal marriage, it would still not be a real marriage in God's eyes. They also can't be on each other's insurance and file joint taxes in every state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianGirlForever Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 They don't get to have a spouse that they love and are at least in some small way attracted to. The problem is that even if they had a legal marriage, it would still not be a real marriage in God's eyes. They also can't be on each other's insurance and file joint taxes in every state. But, they're not supposed to be together in the first place. They're supposed to handle their heavy cross and live celibate lives. I'm sure it must be horribly lonely, but at least they're not putting their souls at stake. They don't get to do this because they're not married. Everything else this country has to offer they can enjoy. We shouldn't have to validate their lifestyle. Don't get me wrong, I know I have no idea what they suffer with, and I wouldn't pretend to. It must be horrible! I just don't believe these are rights anyone but a truly married couple should be able to enjoy. So, in the free world, I don't believe gay people should have any quarrel with our laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now