Pelosi Says Her Catholic Faith ‘Compels’ Her To Support Gay Marriage - Page 17

**rlg94086** · #**241** May 12, '12, 12:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brok

Well I have heard all now! What the heck has being non American got to do with anything?

I think you may be inferring more out of the poster's comment than exists. When Leo13_Pius10 identifies himself as a "non-American," he was probably adding the qualifier because he is commenting on an American politician. This seems appropriate to me, because he would presumably know less about Representative Pelosi than Americans would.

**fix** · #**242** May 12, '12, 1:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilyM

Scuse I, but can you point me to where exactly the Church has stated that it prohibits all and any forms of legal recognition/benefit for homosexual couples? I'm sure I've never seen anything of the sort. And if groups of workers getting together can be called a 'union', then why not a group of two people living together in a life partnership?

Assuming it does prohibit it, then why are we OK (and we seem to be) with heterosexual de facto (unmarried) couples being bestowed various property rights and the like in recognition of their relationships? In many jurisdictions there are measures like official registration of de facto relationships. Not that couples go through any ceremony approximating a marriage ceremony to register, but it gives the partners legal rights as I've said.

And why can we not advocate for similar measures for same sex couples? Those heterosexuals fornicating without benefit of marriage are equally in sin, yet we offer then practical help as mentioned above without, seemingly, a peep out of the Church.

See here:

Quote:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

**fix** · #**243** May 12, '12, 1:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PTL

I could not understand what you said. Civil union is not marriage. Civil union gives them benefits such as insurance coverage. It is not marriage. We definitely cannot allow gay cohabitation be called "marriage". As long as they get the coverage benefits they are yelling for, why do they need the name of "marriage"? It is simply not a "marriage", even you call it "marriage", it is still not. Marriage is between a man and a woman, call gay relationship "marriage" is simply a lie, a self-cheating. God defined marriage, man cannot redefine it.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. My point was that the Church recognizes marriages that are not Catholic. The other point is that so-called civil unions are simply marriage by another name. The problems are still present. Adoption of children and and erosion of marriage would still continue. The so-called rights that people talk about can be established through other legal channels right now.

PTL · #**244** May 12, '12, 1:44 pm

In the States where gay marriage is legal, schools are teaching children about homosexual - a way of life and their choice.
A second grader went home telling his parents a story he heard in classroom: a prince marries another prince, not a princess!! The parents protested to the teacher but was told they could not stop such teaching since gay marriage is legal!! According to forum rule, I cannot post the Youtube link here. But think about this. Do you want this happen to your children?

Carlan · #**245** May 12, '12, 2:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanne S

I pray daily for all Catholics,politicians, included,that they come to an understanding that these are God's laws,as Catholics it is incumbent upon us to be obedient,and if there is a particular doctrine we struggle with,we are to pray to the Holy Spirit to come to a place of understanding.This is a big ship to turn,so to speak ,in getting the secular population to think this and other social issues through logically.It seems next to daunting t o know we have to fight this battle within the Church with so many of the laity....and in some instances our religious.

Yes, and when it comes to religious and secular moral principles the country has become so very divided that this serious issue of same sex marriage will become something our government will have to work out in some sort of compromise. We pray!
Peace, Carlan

presidentjlh · #**246** May 12, '12, 7:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlan

Yes, and when it comes to religious and secular moral principles the country has become so very divided that this serious issue of same sex marriage will become something our government will have to work out in some sort of compromise. We pray!
Peace, Carlan

Like I said, a good compromise would be the withdrawal of the state from marriage as a whole. Marriage originated from the religious and the cultural. The political should be kept separate from it. Then, there would be neither a supposed discrimination against LGBT individuals yet marriage as a belief would be protected.

Havard · #**247** May 12, '12, 7:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by presidentjlh

Like I said, a good compromise would be the withdrawal of the state from marriage as a whole. Marriage originated from the religious and the cultural. The political should be kept separate from it. Then, there would be neither a supposed discrimination against LGBT individuals yet marriage as a belief would be protected.

Sounds simple enough, but there are possibly profound societal implications.

Tell you what. Let another country try that, and after a few centuries, we'll check back on how it worked for them.

jilly4ski · #**248** May 12, '12, 8:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havard

Sounds simple enough, but there are possibly profound societal implications.

Tell you what. Let another country try that, and after a few centuries, we'll check back on how it worked for them.

Indeed, it sounds nice in a nice sterile theoretical world. But so much of our society is ordered around marriage.

I really think that people need to study real political theory. The state is really in the business of ordering society. It just isn't there to collect monies and dole it out as needed. Indeed everything the state does has an ulterior motive as a way to order society in the way it sees fit. Usually for greater prosperity or other such goal.

Thus the state recognized marriage because it fulfilled some of the goals the state was trying to accomplish in ordering society. Such things as taking care of children, protecting women, creating motivated and productive workers, etc. Thus in recognizing marriage the state was creating incentives to people to get married and stay married. (Obviously these incentives are not the only or even the main reason people get married, just like people don't do things soley for tax purposes). Btu if people don't get married or don't receive the benefits/protections of marriage it could lead to a lot more expenditures on time, effort, and money on the states part to fill in the gaps that marriage is supposed to provide. (Look at what kids outside of marriage, divorce, etc, has already done for our society and what the state now has to do, or tries to do to fill in the gaps. It isn't pretty and frankly is a little scary when the state tries to become the parent). These benefits to society however, are really only realized by male and female couples (who are not closely related). Thus the state gives them these benefits and not others.

Nec5 · #**249** May 12, '12, 11:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilly4ski

I really think that people need to study real political theory. The state is really in the business of ordering society. It just isn't there to collect monies and dole it out as needed. Indeed everything the state does has an ulterior motive as a way to order society in the way it sees fit. Usually for greater prosperity or other such goal.

Not to mention the moral components that infuse a state with the culture. The Founder's writings stretching back further to Locke and others is proof enough of that.

vz71 · #**250** May 14, '12, 9:49 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PTL

In the States where gay marriage is legal, schools are teaching children about homosexual - a way of life and their choice.
A second grader went home telling his parents a story he heard in classroom: a prince marries another prince, not a princess!! The parents protested to the teacher but was told they could not stop such teaching since gay marriage is legal!! According to forum rule, I cannot post the Youtube link here. But think about this. Do you want this happen to your children?

Another reason to homeschool.

I would like to say another reason to send kids to Catholic school, but in my area Ctholic school is not much better.

**JimG** · #**251** May 14, '12, 9:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PTL

In the States where gay marriage is legal, schools are teaching children about homosexual - a way of life and their choice.
A second grader went home telling his parents a story he heard in classroom: a prince marries another prince, not a princess!! The parents protested to the teacher but was told they could not stop such teaching since gay marriage is legal!! According to forum rule, I cannot post the Youtube link here. But think about this. Do you want this happen to your children?

I believe the book in question is "King and King." When his mother is trying to find a suitablle princess for the prince, "The prince tells his mom "Very well, Mother.... I must say, though, I've never cared much for princesses."

I've never read it, but it is being used at elementary schools, and it would appear to be a book which attempts to inculcate acceptance of same sex marriage.

PTL · #**252** May 14, '12, 9:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

Another reason to homeschool.

I would like to say another reason to send kids to Catholic school, but in my area Ctholic school is not much better.

Home school is easier said than done. The parent has to have broad knowledge for every subject for every grade. That's why the social moral is important. It is just not feasible to live in an ivory tower.

**rlg94086** · #**253** May 14, '12, 10:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PTL

Home school is easier said than done. The parent has to have broad knowledge for every subject for every grade. That's why the social moral is important. It is just not feasible to live in an ivory tower.

I don't know any home schoolers who live in ivory towers, and it is easier done than you've said. Also, the social aspect is easily maintained...unless you live in a compound that you never leave.

Considering the social negatives at public schools, and there are a lot of them, home schooling is a better option. I wish we could do it.

vz71 · #**254** May 14, '12, 10:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PTL

Home school is easier said than done. The parent has to have broad knowledge for every subject for every grade. That's why the social moral is important. It is just not feasible to live in an ivory tower.

It just takes a little time.
I homeschool 3 right now.

It is a different routine then most people have, but it works well.

The parent does not have to have a 'broad knowledge for every subject for every grade.'
The parent simply needs to be capable of explaining the assignment, enforcing the work be done, and checking it for accuracy.
There are teachers guides that come with most homeschool programs that provide the knowledge the parent will need.

And if the diploma you received from high school is really worth what it claims, then the 'broad knowledge for every subject for every grade' is there.

vz71 · #**255** May 14, '12, 10:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

I don't know any home schoolers who live in ivory towers, and it is easier done than you've said. Also, the social aspect is easily maintained...unless you live in a compound that you never leave.

I missed the ivory tower crack.

I'll choose not to be insulted.
Given the demonstrated knowledge of homeschooling, it is more likely a misunderstanding then malice.

As to the social aspect...
My kids find plenty of interaction with their friends on the soccer field, in the neighborhood, and at church.