So you would agree that it’s okay for someone to paint their car to look like a police vehicle and ware a police uniform too, correct? How about someone dressing in a black suit and Roman collar collecting money?
If the two example above are examples of decite then so are civil unions. It doesn’t matter what you call them. If you are equating marriage and homosexual unions as having the same dignity and benefit to society then it is supporting decite. Marriage benefits under the guise of civil unions is saying that those unions have the same intrinsic value as marriage, but they don’t. Living with you mom or dad has no more intrinsic value than a homosexual union so why not let singles living with their widowed or divorced parent have the same benefits? How about letting 2 platonic friends share those benefits? Heck two of my single sisters lived together for 8 years, shouldn’t they be given the same benefits?
Why should homosexual unions get treated like marriage when all these others aren’t?
I’m sorry, but no. It’s disordered and to approve it in any form would be to set a horrible example to younger generations. While I sympathize wholeheartedly with those people burdened with same sex attraction, I can not in good conscious as a loyal Catholic endorse it.
Do you support the unjust discrimination inherent in those unions? Are you aware that they are unavailable to same sex siblings? Why?
They are unavailable to siblings because civil unions are publicly characterised as a sexual relationship. What possible purpose could the government have in recognising and supporting two men in a relationship because it is understood to be sexual. How bizarre.
So you need to explain why you stand up for sexual relationships other than marriage.
Though I am uncertain about the civil unions line (I am with C. S. Lewis when he argues that laws ought to reflect moral reality), I would like to note that I agree with your other comments (though it’s not just “Protestant” fundamentalists! ;))
Neither Hatred nor Heresy should be allowed to besmirch the witness of the church!
You should reportv your parish priest to your Bshop. The church unequivocally condemns civil unions as well as so-called homosexual marriage. That a Priest would openly support either of these is a travesty and his bishop needs to know that a man who was sent to care for his flock is openly misleading them .
The Church itself teaches that we should treat homosexuals with respect however it also teaches that we should vigorously oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior .
The problem is that there is no clear definition of what is “anti-gay.” No one here, hopefully, would approve of people being beaten because they were gay - as has happened in the past - but at the same time what is considered “anti-gay” has been kidnapped by the political correctness police. Thus, to be against “have it your way” bathrooms - the latest avalanche of PC fury - is equally regarded as anti-“LGBT.”
Pretty much. At this point anything that does not uphold LGBTQ as normal and good are automatically “anti-gay” or homophobic. The whole battle plan for the last 20 years has been normalization. It is not about tolerance, but acceptance that they are no different than anybody else and that their relationships are 100%, totally and completely identical in substance to anyone’s intimate relationships.
If a civil marriage and a civil union are the same in all but name, then what is the difference? I say “cheese,” the French say, “fromage.” There is no difference in substance, only the name. To be for civil union is to be for civil marriage. The wording makes no difference that I can discern.
That’s a pretty broad brush there. Westboro, ok, Catholics should stand up against them and their style of attacking not just “gays” but also the military and other people they don’t like. It’s very unChristian behavior.
Protestant Fundamentalism isn’t necessary anti-“gay” although I am sure there are some people who would be.
Conversion therapy that is forced or done to children against their will would be something Catholic should stand against. But there is nothing wrong with an adult seeking psychotherapy or other counseling as a means to deal with or even overcome unwanted sexual compulsions.
I’ll even say that the Church is somewhat complicit at times. Now, I don’t mean that because we support traditional marriage, I’m talking about outright discrimination.
Since the 80’s at least, the Church has strongly condemned unjust discrimination against
homosexual persons. I don’t know how you can call that “complicit”.
I believe we need to live and let live. Fine, don’t call it marriage, but I’m fully in support of Civil Unions, as is my Parish Priest
As has been pointed out, both you and your priest are taking a position that is opposed to Church teaching. It would be wrong for other Catholics to “stand up” for that position.
While we should stand against injustice of all sorts I hardly think people with same sex attraction face much injustice these days. Many claims of injustice experienced by folks isn’t due to the attraction but due to living it out and promoting it. It is the people who disapprove of same sex acts or the lifestyle who face injustice.
Same sex marriage is not deceit, it’s just something you are not used to and not how you yourself define marriage.
But even the biblical perception of “marriage” has changed over the centuries.
Don’t forget, there was a time when–according to the OT–a rapist was ordered to marry his victim: God commanded it.
Would we call that a proper marriage today? In fact, the Catholic church would probably call this marriage that God commanded to be invalid and the couple would have no trouble getting it annulled.
So the perception of what marriage is has evolved according over time to what we think is right and human…and in that evolvement, same-sex marriage has become legal.
Sorry, I think you misspoke there. The perception of marriage has devolved over the past half century. It started with no fault divorce and has continued to shed meaning until the word, in secular use, means nothing. There really is zero reason for government to have anything to do with marriage since it, as defined by society, really has little to do with supporting the common good. Marriage, as it stands today, is a statement of a pseudo-commitment of indeterminate length without any inferred goals and objectives. It does not even confer exclusive conjugal rights since adultery is treated as a unfortunate, but not criminal offense.
If it has become nothing but a specific type of contract, then we should complete the devolution and treat it as nothing more than that. It should not retain any type of special status in contract or tax law. As part of that then sexual intimacy should not be an inherent part of the contract and should really just be a short form contract. Perhaps we just need to add check marks and a blank to fill in how long the contract is good for. Given that it has almost zero common meaning anymore, it should also not retain special tax privileges. Any tax benefits should be tied to raising and rearing children as that can be seen as a societal good in that it is a resource investment that should provide long term tax returns to the government.