I think this is where social conservatives made their biggest error, which was in their opposition to civil unions.
No matter what the beliefs about marriage are, and any moral and/or scriptural backing for them, from a framework of secular law for a pluralistic society with respect for separation of church and state, monogamy alone, in one fashion or another is still a preferable condition for any couple, on a number of different levels, beyond all the sciptural and moral reasons for preserving the human historical definition of marriage.
In fact, when it all started, the “gay” movement made the case for civil unions saying “marriage” was not for them. Yes they wanted (and got) civil union laws that provided most or all LEGAL matters equal with marriage, but with no confusion it was not marriage.
But, social conservatives case, and attack, that that amounted to “special rights” switched the debate to a move to change the terms of marriage itself.
It’s not too late, in my view, to get back to that point and get BROAD conservative backing in favor of civil unions. Why? I think the case for that is strong and I think the case for changing the definition of marriage is not as strong as some judges want to make it seem.
You are arguing for special rights for queers. You are fooling yourself in thinking there is a big difference between civil unions for homo’s and civil marriages for them.
You want conservative support for civil unions for queers? How about that same special right for polygamy, or allowing a state sponsored union for some perv and his goat?
No. There is never a “case” for promoting the vice of Sodomy in any type of “Justice” (virtue) System.
There is no “Right” from the Creator for this type of behavior which is dehumanizing (a vice). It strips sex of meaning and morality and reduces it to a dehumanizing “act” which actually does harm the Natural Family.
It is an intentional sexist concept devoid of Reason and Truth (Biology). It is irrational law-—which is unjust law and unconstitutional.
All cultures (and a true Justice System) has to promote Virtue in its citizenship. This is the slippery slope to promoting Vice in “Just” Law (can’t do it.).
It is the conditioning of children-—to flip Good and Evil-—which all Laws do because it “normalizes” whatever is promoted in “Just” Law.
Our Justice System is based on Natural Moral Law and sodomy can never be a virtue or “natural”.
If the CC accepts Civil Unions, it will be buried-—for there will be no Truth and it erases Natural Law Theory which is embedded in the Catholic Canon.
The concept literally removes Reason and Truth from the Catholic Canon. If the pope would endorse such an irrational concept which warps the meaning of sex and family in such an evil manner, he would be an Antipope.
Would you be for civil unions if the homosexual lobby wasn’t pushing for Sodomite “marriage”? Would you bring it up had no one else done so? Is it a good idea, or is it a compromise? If it’s a compromise, are far are you willing to go? This is how the left has made headway in this country.
Progressive: We want 5
Conservative: You can’t have 5
Progressive: We want 10
Conservative: Okay, you can have 5
Progressive: We want 10
Conservative: You can’t have 10
Progressive: We want 20
Conservative: Okay, you can have 10
(The conservatives high five!)
If you say yes to civil unions, then there is no reason not to accept polyamorous ‘civil unions’ or any type of union. What limits could there be?
I think there is a difference between individuals ( i.e. social conservatives ) TOLERATING an act they consider repugnant and CELEBRATING an act.
For instance, I personally disapprove of marijuana use, but that does not mean I want it criminalized.
So, to say that one tolerates civil unions ( i.e., the signing of a contract between individuals for the purpose of one inheriting the assets of another or giving another person the authority to decide to say, “pull the plug”, should something happen to the other ), does not mean one celebrates it.
Having said that, Pope Francis is in a different category. He is the head of a church with a worldwide membership of a billion people.
He should CLARIFY what he means by the church’s “support” for civil unions. He in fact, has an OBLIGATION to do so as the teaching magistrate of the church.
Does he mean by “support” -— not making civil contracts illegal?
Does he mean the church now declassifies sex between gay people who are now united civilly as NOT SIN?
So many questions that need answering and clarifying. I hope he does that now that he has opened the floodgates with his remark.
Regardless of your personal opinions there are gay men who have officially “come out” and said that the LGBT organizations are attacking families and don’t speak for all.
Conservatives, at least real Catholics, understand that families are under attack socially and we have to fight to defend it. Most men or women in civil unions have dealt with coverage issues with their insurance carriers. The problem is when they demanded the right to adopt babies. Catholic charities/orphanages refused.
We aren’t simply dealing with nice people with certain sexual preferences.
Homosexual activists aim to destroy the family, impose totalitarianism: gay pro-family activist
The real problem conservatives have is electing Soros compromised politicians just because they have an “R” at the end of the name.
I note the use of "their" instead of "our" concerning social conservatives. Clearly you are not one.
Here's the thing. God did not "err" when He said homosexuality is an abomination before Him. So you go ahead and sanction civil unions, or any other kind of union, between perverts, and see how far you get with your argument on Judgement Day.
I will NEVER support such a thing.