| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/03/2017 10:51:05 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Caucus members breaking guidelines and two posters made death threats to the Pope. |
Posted on 09/02/2017 3:12:33 PM PDT by ebb tide
My wife and I have been disenchanted with the various protestant denominations for years.
We had been observing the progress that John Paul and Benedict enjoyed in returning the Catholic Church back to basics. This led to us doing research, listening to Catholic radio and watching Catholic TV. We were debating taking classes at our local parish when Benedict stepped down.
The election of Francis gave us pause and we adopted a wait and see attitude due to his reputation. If the church cannot correct this situation, I cannot see us converting.
Let's call them delusions.
The civil union idea was around for a long time. But the original “civil union” proposal was meant to get a household of two people (including those such as an adult child living with and caring for an elderly parent, siblings living together, or just two people - who may or may not have been homosexuals or could have been a heterosexual couple in a “common law marriage” or even long-term roommates. This would have given them tax breaks and other perks, but was not the same as marriage and did not require a sexual relationship. I think it would have been fine, and I think the “civil union” concept should revert to this one and not be sexually based.
I bailed from the Episcopal Church because of this nonsense. I can imagine what the “sane” part of the Catholic church is thinking right now ... been there.
I wish you and everyone in Christendom every blessing in this undertaking. Even the bible isn’t very helpful without the witness of people with deep experience in living its message. I’ve found that out by knocking my head against just about every theological brick wall there is. Either you have the witness, or you learn — the hard way — to BE the witness.
I don't think it is fine. Tax breaks were meant for married couples raising children. This crap about siblings, friends, etc is a farce. What if one has more than one sibling or both parents are still living?
You're argument leads to legalized civil polygamy.
Pretty soon nobody will be paying their "fair"* share of taxes.
*N.B. I don't think the current progressive tax system is fair.
Well, I don’t think the current progressive system is right, either. However, the point I was making is that it originally had nothing to do with sex, but was purely about making life easier for households where the two principals weren’t a married coup,e. IIRC, it gave them some automatic legal rights, such as hospital visitation, too,
The problem is that the gays took it over and made it sound like it was all about them, which is why it never got off the ground and now they’re trying to take over marriage. And forget about all those other households that would have benefitted.
I'm sorry to disagree with you; but I don't that was ever the initial intent. It was a foot in the door for homos. Again, what if there are more than two "principals" living in the same household? What if I have two invalid siblings living with me so I can care for both of them?
As far as hospital rights, I think every patient can grant or deny permission to visitors. If you you're talking about the right to "pull the plug" that's far different.
How do you feel about child adoption in regards to homo civil unions?. They now have that right; and as result Catholic adoption agencies have been shuttered.
I firmly believe that less opportunities for adoptions leads to more abortions.
A civil union, also referred to by a variety of other names, is a legally recognized arrangement similar to marriage. These unions have been established in a number of countries since the late 1990s, often developing from less formal domestic partnership legislation. In Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, they have since been replaced, and in a number of other countries supplemented, by same-sex marriage. Civil unions are often seen by campaigners as a "first step" towards legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. While civil unions are predominantly established for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, in a number of countries they are available to same-sex couples only.
It’s time Frankie Boy was sleeping with the fish.
Maybe we crazy evangelicals ought to stay off the Catholic Caucus threads.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks. A lot.
The Pope might all homosexual unions but God doesn’t. Care to guess who has the last say on judgment day.
The Pope might allow homosexual unions, but God Doesn’t. Anyone care to guess who has the last say so on judgment day?
Obviously there is a communication problem here. The Pope did not endorse civil unions as marriage. The Church does not do civil unions. As for children being taught about trans-genderism, he did not endorse any such thing. I think there is a translation problem here. He is simply stating that marriage is between a man and a woman
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.