FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Civil Unions vs "gay marriage"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!
Because they are politicians.
(04-24-2013, 07:33 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!

There wouldn't be anything inherently sinful about civil unions.
(04-24-2013, 08:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 07:33 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!

There wouldn't be anything inherently sinful about civil unions.

I don't see any issue with contractually obligating yourself to someone for whatever reason as in the case of civil unions.  if they can have all the "rights" married couples have, such as the ability to file taxes jointly, hospital visitation rights, insurance, the ability to collect benefits, etc, without calling it marriage, I do think this is better.  This will never satisfy the gay lobby.  They are campaigning and arguing for gay marriages for a reason--they want to circumvent the meaning of marriage and destroy what is left of of the family.  I used to think, "maybe if they could just have civil unions they would shut up and everyone would calm the f*ck down" but there's no way the gay rights lobby is going to be complacent until gay relationships are not just legally sanctioned, but celebrated and "affirmed" by everyone.
(04-24-2013, 08:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 07:33 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!

There wouldn't be anything inherently sinful about civil unions.

A friend of mine asked "can two lesbians live together so long as they do not engage in sexual relations?" I replied "technically I think they could, but the whole 'near occasion of sin' thing would cause issues.  Plus it could scandalize others".

I can see though how technically, two people who live together in a chaste manner and do so in a long-term fashion would want civil benefits.  Like Chest said though, I highly doubt anyone would want it to end there.  Marriage and subversion of the family structure is what people want, and that's what they will gun for.
(04-24-2013, 08:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 07:33 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!

There wouldn't be anything inherently sinful about civil unions.

Although there is something intrinsically evil in creating a substrata of Second Class citizens; hence Marriage Equality being vital.
(04-24-2013, 08:36 PM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 08:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 07:33 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!

There wouldn't be anything inherently sinful about civil unions.

A friend of mine asked "can two lesbians live together so long as they do not engage in sexual relations?" I replied "technically I think they could, but the whole 'near occasion of sin' thing would cause issues.  Plus it could scandalize others".

I can see though how technically, two people who live together in a chaste manner and do so in a long-term fashion would want civil benefits.  Like Chest said though, I highly doubt anyone would want it to end there.  Marriage and subversion of the family structure is what people want, and that's what they will gun for.

In the modern World, who could be or is left to be scandalized?
(04-24-2013, 08:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 07:33 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!

There wouldn't be anything inherently sinful about civil unions.

Whether it is sinful or not, civil unions are unjust. 

Marriage is accorded rights and privileges by the state because marriage predates the state. 

To the extent that the rights and privileges of marriages are diffused to unmarried people, the cost to society as a whole increases.  You can see this in a basic way with universal education of children.  It has become expensive, because it is now an entitlement that all children receive.  In the U.S., the home mortgage deduction is another good example of a widely diffused entitlement fueling higher cost. 

There is no reason in justice why society should have to foot the bill for same sex couples to live together.  If they wish to, no one is stopping them.  But they should do so on their own dime.

(04-24-2013, 08:47 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 08:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 07:33 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!

There wouldn't be anything inherently sinful about civil unions.

Whether it is sinful or not, civil unions are unjust. 

Marriage is accorded rights and privileges by the state because marriage predates the state. 

To the extent that the rights and privileges of marriages are diffused to unmarried people, the cost to society as a whole increases.  You can see this in a basic way with universal education of children.  It has become expensive, because it is now an entitlement that all children receive.  In the U.S., the home mortgage deduction is another good example of a widely diffused entitlement fueling higher cost. 

There is no reason in justice why society should have to foot the bill for same sex couples to live together.  If they wish to, no one is stopping them.  But they should do so on their own dime.
By that reasoning, then all marriage is inherently bad for the State.
(04-24-2013, 08:51 PM)Lateran15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 08:47 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 08:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2013, 07:33 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Why are certain churchman playing games with these 2 distinctions when both are sinful, i can see politicians playing these games but the church must teach and preach THE TRUTH period!

There wouldn't be anything inherently sinful about civil unions.

Whether it is sinful or not, civil unions are unjust. 

Marriage is accorded rights and privileges by the state because marriage predates the state. 

To the extent that the rights and privileges of marriages are diffused to unmarried people, the cost to society as a whole increases.  You can see this in a basic way with universal education of children.  It has become expensive, because it is now an entitlement that all children receive.  In the U.S., the home mortgage deduction is another good example of a widely diffused entitlement fueling higher cost. 

There is no reason in justice why society should have to foot the bill for same sex couples to live together.  If they wish to, no one is stopping them.  But they should do so on their own dime.
By that reasoning, then all marriage is inherently bad for the State.

No, because as I said, the state is constructed of married persons. 

However, early communists arrived at the same reasoning you do, because they sought to deny the building blocks of the state. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15