A polite discussion of religion, sin and civil rights

[Pirata]

That case is a little different.
A business was challenging that the federal government can not make a law which voilates their religious beliefs.

The equivalent would be a challenge to the supreme court that states do not have the right to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation based on religious views.

Just to clarity the distinction of, "discrimination based on sexual orientation".

From a Catholic perspective, not providing a service to someone because of their sexual orientation would be discrimination and also a sin on the part of the service provider.

Not providing services to a couple looking to perform the act of conducting a marriage ceremony that is not between a man and woman would not be discrimination and would viewed as choosing to not sin. Conversely, providing the service would constitute a sin.

I believe the difference is a material one and would have merit as a legal argument in the secular courts.

 

[Pirata]

Here is a slightly different framework for the gay marriage discussion.

I believe there are two separate debates, the secular and the religious.

From a religious perspective, my personal faith and belief is that marriage is between a man and woman. I do believe in God and do believe that the physical anatomy of a man and a woman and the human reproductive cycle support the religious position that God looks favorable in the union of a man and woman who love each other and commit to each other. When the two become one (Sexual intercourse) a potential outcome is the gift of life. I believe this is pleasing to God and is a fulfillment of the covenant of the gift of life.

From a secualr perspective it is a another story. Here is a situation to view gay marriage from a secular perspective. In Pennsylvania, there is a inheritance tax on any estate no matter the value. The tax is zero when the estate is passed to a surviving spouse. Legally, this requires proof in t he form of a marriage license. Here is listing of the 50 Sates regarding who can authorize a legal marriage.

https://theamm.org/marriage-laws/

For gay couples in Pennsylvania. The inheritance tax is 15%, the rate charged to "other heirs". I personally believe this is an unfair tax to gay couples. If two gay people have decided to love and commit to each other and do so for says 40 years, why should they not be entitled to the benefit of leaving the asset of one partner without having to pay a 15% penalty. A similar argument can be shown for medical decisions. Spouses can make medical decisions for their incapacitated spouse without a power of attorney or health care proxy in force. Why do not afford the same privilege (and dignity) to a committed gay couple.

It is for the above reasons that I wholly support legal civil unions that provide the same tax, medical, and other privileges of a marriage. I personally desire that the States not use the word "marriage" to describe and define these unions. I fall back to my religious belief and hope they maintain the sanctity of the word "marriage".

There is some momentum with the Pope to support civil unions. The church is cautious and is concerned about how that support will be interpreted.

It seems the church would embrace civil unions from the legal perspective but look for the couple to abstain from homosexual acts. The church would also not recognize the civil union as a marriage. A gay couple joined in a civil union would be welcome in the church. Whether or not they commit acts is a matter of choice and sin for that couple and a private matter for them to deal with as they see fit, i.e. if they are devout, they recognize it as a sin and avoid it or when they commit it, they go to confession,etc. It is none of anyone's business to monitor how they choose to handle this part of their faith.

I can see some gay couples telling the church to go take a hike and that is entirely up to the individual. Their are many straight couples that through sin tell the church to go take a hike; adultery, missing mass, lying, stealing, yada yada. We all make choices and accept consequences.

In short,

• Civil Unions for any gay couple with the same secular tax, legal, and medical privileges as a Marriage.
  
• Devout gay Catholics in civil unions are welcome in the church but embrace abstinence and seek forgiveness when they do not abstain.
  
• Non-Devout gay Catholics in civil unions are welcome in the church, sin to their hearts content and suffer the same consequences as straight Catholic couples when they sin.

I shall step down from my soap box. God Bless.

 

[HALL85]

John, great summary that sums up how I feel as well. In fact, I might be naïve, but my sense is most people would be in agreement with respecting the secular and religious positions. The problem is, 1) most American's don't have the attention span today to engage in this type of discussion, 2) the mainstream media just wants to dumb things down and pit one group against the other (ratings) and 3) the fringe groups at either end of this debate create the most noise that drowns out a reasonable and thoughtful discussion on the topic.

 

[Merge]

Not sure if any of you watch or listen to the intelligence squared debates but this topic was a recent debate there. I listened in the car this morning.

They only go over the protection clause as it applied to gay marriage, but worth a listen if you are interested in the topic. (and actually the format is great for most topics)
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/de...-require-states-to-license-same-sex-marriages

 

[Old_alum]

Here is a slightly different framework for the gay marriage discussion.


I believe there are two separate debates, the secular and the religious.


From a religious perspective, my personal faith and belief is that marriage is between a man and woman. I do believe in God and do believe that the physical anatomy of a man and a woman and the human reproductive cycle support the religious position that God looks favorable in the union of a man and woman who love each other and commit to each other. When the two become one (Sexual intercourse) a potential outcome is the gift of life. I believe this is pleasing to God and is a fulfillment of the covenant of the gift of life.


From a secualr perspective it is a another story. Here is a situation to view gay marriage from a secular perspective. In Pennsylvania, there is a inheritance tax on any estate no matter the value. The tax is zero when the estate is passed to a surviving spouse. Legally, this requires proof in t he form of a marriage license. Here is listing of the 50 Sates regarding who can authorize a legal marriage.


https://theamm.org/marriage-laws/


For gay couples in Pennsylvania. The inheritance tax is 15%, the rate charged to "other heirs". I personally believe this is an unfair tax to gay couples. If two gay people have decided to love and commit to each other and do so for says 40 years, why should they not be entitled to the benefit of leaving the asset of one partner without having to pay a 15% penalty. A similar argument can be shown for medical decisions. Spouses can make medical decisions for their incapacitated spouse without a power of attorney or health care proxy in force. Why do not afford the same privilege (and dignity) to a committed gay couple.

I agree with most of this. We had an extended discussion of just this view back a few months ago.


Here's the link:


http://setonhall.forums.rivals.com/threads/poll-gay-marriage.616/

It is for the above reasons that I wholly support legal civil unions that provide the same tax, medical, and other privileges of a marriage. I personally desire that the States not use the word "marriage" to describe and define these unions. I fall back to my religious belief and hope they maintain the sanctity of the word "marriage".

The primary exception I would take to this portion is the adverb "wholly". Most civil "rights", e.g. Inheritance taxes, are or should be sex-neutral. IMHO the science/statistics of which I am aware still indicate the psychological benefit to children from having both a father and a mother for atavistic (instinctive) implications.

There is some momentum with the Pope to support civil unions. The church is cautious and is concerned about how that support will be interpreted.

It seems the church would embrace civil unions from the legal perspective but look for the couple to abstain from homosexual acts. The church would also not recognize the civil union as a marriage. A gay couple joined in a civil union would be welcome in the church. Whether or not they commit acts is a matter of choice and sin for that couple and a private matter for them to deal with as they see fit, i.e. if they are devout, they recognize it as a sin and avoid it or when they commit it, they go to confession,etc. It is none of anyone's business to monitor how they choose to handle this part of their faith.

I would be very interested in seeing supportive evidence that there is any "momentum with the Pope to support civil unions". I have seen rampant personal-interpretations stating this as fact, but I can find nothing in the underlying statements of the Pope and/or the Bishops that leads me to such a conclusion.

Regarding the Family Synod there has been significant public discussion of the eligibility of certain divorced-and-remarried Catholics being granted some access to the Eucharist, but even that is highly speculative and based somewhat on the position of the German Bishops in general but IMHO primarily on a positive comment made by Pope Francis on the book by Cardinal Walter Kasper. See Link:

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892288


As far as persons with same-sex-attraction (as with divorced-and-remarried Catholics) the Church as I understand it has always welcomed full participation in the Sacraments for those who are committed to "abstain from homosexual acts" or to abstain from heterosexual acts forthe divorced-and-remarried.

That said, I sadly cannot believe that any Gay-Rights activist would find this "acceptance" to be compelling.

As we have repeatedly discussed the Catholic Church counsels against "actions" (and occasionally against, shall we say, prolonged "thoughts" as "sins") but not against proclivities or impulses.

I can see some gay couples telling the church to go take a hike and that is entirely up to the individual. Their are many straight couples that through sin tell the church to go take a hike; adultery, missing mass, lying, stealing, yada yada. We all make choices and accept consequences.

In short,

• Civil Unions for any gay couple with the same secular tax, legal, and medical privileges as a Marriage.
• Devout gay Catholics in civil unions are welcome in the church but embrace abstinence and seek forgiveness when they do not abstain.
• Non-Devout gay Catholics in civil unions are welcome in the church, sin to their hearts content and suffer the same consequences as straight Catholic couples when they sin.

I shall step down from my soap box. God Bless.

The only real question I would raise is whether the "welcome in the church" you propose would include full communion in the Sacraments?

The only practical constraint I would suggest is that your "abstinence" prerequisite would in all probability be totally disdained by the Gay community.

I will confess that I am personally undecided on whether and, if so, under which circumstances avowed "sinners" should be admitted to the Sacraments. Did Judas leave the Upper Room before or after the institution of the Eucharist? In Corinthians, are Paul's admonitions against the unworthy receiving of the Eucharist aimed at the recipients or at the celebrants? If the disavowal of a sinner to "amend (his) life" is grounds for the denial of Sacraments, then what about all those Pro-Abortion legislators who still attend Mass & receive as self-purported Catholics?

 

[Pirata]

I would be very interested in seeing supportive evidence that there is any "momentum with the Pope to support civil unions". I have seen rampant personal-interpretations stating this as fact, but I can find nothing in the underlying statements of the Pope and/or the Bishops that leads me to such a conclusion.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400916.htm


http://ncronline.org/news/politics/cardinal-dolan-pope-francis-opened-door-gay-civil-unions-debate

 

[Old_alum]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400916.htm


http://ncronline.org/news/politics/cardinal-dolan-pope-francis-opened-door-gay-civil-unions-debate

I do remember when that Italian magazine interview was first published in 2014. I also read the original article on-line. As I recall the Vatican quickly renounced the magazine's interpretation of the Pope's comments (and sadly no recording had been made). I believe the highlighted portion of Cardinal Dolan's remarks below point that out.

The Vatican quickly clarified that Francis was speaking in general terms and that people "should not try to read more into the pope's words than what has been stated."

Asked about civil unions on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dolan said Francis was telling Catholics that "we need to think about that and look into it and see the reasons that have driven" the public to accept them.

"It wasn't as if he came out and approved them," said Dolan, the nation's most prominent Catholic bishop and the former president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "But Francis was instead saying, 'Rather than quickly condemn them ... let's just ask the questions as to why that has appealed to certain people.'"

As I read and listen, one thing seems certain: Pope Francis does wants to encourage open and frank discussions-- primarily among the Bishops, but also among Penitentiaries (Catholic kind).

IMHO communication goes a long way to curing most ills.

That said, it is my understanding that the Pope has never specifically endorsed any types of Civil Unions or other specific changes. Rather I believe he has merely encouraged the Church and its members to dialogue among themselves and with others to better understand and sympathize with the feelings and hopes related to such affected groups of people.

But, as I say, that is merely my understanding, and time will tell.

 

[Pirata]

Like I said, there is some momentum.

 

[Pirata]

The primary exception I would take to this portion is the adverb "wholly". Most civil "rights", e.g. Inheritance taxes, are or should be sex-neutral. IMHO the science/statistics of which I am aware still indicate the psychological benefit to children from having both a father and a mother for atavistic (instinctive) implications.

Regarding your first point, I said, "I wholly support legal civil unions that provide the same tax, medical, and other privileges of a marriage.".

I did not say, "I wholly support legal civil unions."

Likely we are saying the same thing. In a perfect world I agree that a child is better off with a functional mother and father.

Reality is that not every kid gets that. Some parents die, divorce, are dysfunctional, abandon their kids, abuse their kids, etc.

I would much rather see a child raised by two caring functional gay people than an abusive alcoholic hetero.

I would like to put mechanisms in place to prevent gay couples who adopt from influencing a straight child to pursue a gay lifestyle. On the flip side, I would like to have mechanisms that straight couples are accepting of a a gay adopted child and nurture and guide that child accordingly.

 

[Old_alum]

Regarding your first point, I said, "I wholly support legal civil unions that provide the same tax, medical, and other privileges of a marriage.".

I did not say, "I wholly support legal civil unions."

Likely we are saying the same thing. In a perfect world I agree that a child is better off with a functional mother and father.

Reality is that not every kid gets that. Some parents die, divorce, are dysfunctional, abandon their kids, abuse their kids, etc.

I would much rather see a child raised by two caring functional gay people than an abusive alcoholic hetero.

I would like to put mechanisms in place to prevent gay couples who adopt from influencing a straight child to pursue a gay lifestyle. On the flip side, I would like to have mechanisms that straight couples are accepting of a a gay adopted child and nurture and guide that child accordingly.

I do believe we are very close on almost every aspect. We should avoid false dichotomies. Just as abortion is not the only alternative to an unwanted child, gay adoption is not the only and certainly far from the best alternative to undisciplined biological parents. Like the proverbial Mr. Smith, the seemingly hopeless "causes" are usually the more important ones to pursue. At every step we should seek the "good". Discipline and unselfishness are ultimately man's salvation. One step at a time..