Pope Backs Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Brian Stoffregen]

Do you not recognize the legal and personal difficulties facing same sex partners? Or do you want them to be penalized for sharing their lives?

Do you not recognize the legal and personal difficulties throuples face?  Or do you want them to be penalized for sharing their lives?

See what I did there? I strenuously objection to your framing (again).  Not granting same-sex marriage or civil unions is not penalizing them for sharing their lives.  In a free society (one that thankfully no longer criminalizes adult consensual sex), they are free to do whatever they want.

Nope. Couples who live together are not free to do whatever they want. They do not have the benefits that married couples have, e.g., filing a joint tax return. Being on one's health insurance policy.

Of course, the way Obergfell has been decided by the courts has obscured the actual history of why traditional marriage exists (and predates government):  procreation.  Ignoring that, one can never obtain a reasonable answer.

People can and have procreated without marriage. Many of the offspring of Jacob that became the fathers of the twelve tribes did not come from a marriage relationship. Try again. Why does marriage exist?

[MaddogLutheran]

Nope. Couples who live together are not free to do whatever they want. They do not have the benefits that married couples have, e.g., filing a joint tax return. Being on one's health insurance policy.

You have the typical warped progressive view of freedom:  that people are not truly free unless the government gives them something they want.  Just like a single person can't file a joint tax return, because such person is not married, does not infringe on his freedom.  Not qualifying for an objective standard does not make one unfree.

In a few years, sooner than I want to think about, my oldest will no longer qualify to be on my health insurance when she turns 26 (if she doesn't have her own by then).  In your contorted language, she is no longer free.  That's because it's not about freedom.

Please stop with the nonsensical stream of consciousness posts.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Nope. Couples who live together are not free to do whatever they want. They do not have the benefits that married couples have, e.g., filing a joint tax return. Being on one's health insurance policy.

You have the typical warped progressive view of freedom:  that people are not truly free unless the government gives them something they want.  Just like a single person can't file a joint tax return, because such person is not married, does not infringe on his freedom.  Not qualifying for an objective standard does not make one unfree.

You are emphasizing "free." My point was about "whatever they wanted."

In a few years, sooner than I want to think about, my oldest will no longer qualify to be on my health insurance when she turns 26 (if she doesn't have her own by then).  In your contorted language, she is no longer free.  That's because it's not about freedom.

Nope. My argument is no matter how much she or you want her to remain on your health insurance, she can't. Neither you nor her are free to do whatever you want. 

Please stop with the nonsensical stream of consciousness posts.

Please stop misunderstanding my posts.

[MaddogLutheran]

People can and have procreated without marriage. Many of the offspring of Jacob that became the fathers of the twelve tribes did not come from a marriage relationship. Try again. Why does marriage exist?

Sigh.  Nowhere did I deny that procreation can exist outside of marriage.  Stop being obtuse.  Marriage exists to constrain the fundamental human impulse for sexual relations to the heterosexual couple, because of the new life that will inevitably result in most cases.

One need only look at the socioeconomic wreckage that has resulted when this has not been followed in many contemporary communities.  Having children out of wedlock is a prime indicator of poverty.  In cultures that practice polygamy, not just any man can have multiple wives...he must be able to support them and all the children that inevitably result.

Try again.  Just because you don't like a reason doesn't prevent that reason from existing.

[MaddogLutheran]

Please stop misunderstanding my posts.

I'm not misunderstanding your posts...you're misrepresenting mine, by playing your word games.  That was exactly my point mentioning the criminality of homosexuality.  In our past I previously referenced, homosexuals were not free to live with their partners and have sexual relations.  They faced the prospect of criminal punishment for doing so.  It was also generally not permitted to live with someone (not family) of the opposite sex if you were unmarried.  Hence the fiction of a rich man's "niece", or why unmarried couples would register at a hotel as "Mr. and Mrs. Smith".  Thankfully those laws have gone by the wayside.  No law prevents a gay couple from living together now, like it did then.  They do not require a marriage license, or a civil union certificate.

Stop being intellectually dishonest.

[Brian Stoffregen]

People can and have procreated without marriage. Many of the offspring of Jacob that became the fathers of the twelve tribes did not come from a marriage relationship. Try again. Why does marriage exist?

Sigh.  Nowhere did I deny that procreation can exist outside of marriage.  Stop being obtuse.  Marriage exists to constrain the fundamental human impulse for sexual relations to the heterosexual couple, because of the new life that will inevitably result in most cases.

One need only look at the socioeconomic wreckage that has resulted when this has not been followed in many contemporary communities.  Having children out of wedlock is a prime indicator of poverty.  In cultures that practice polygamy, not just any man can have multiple wives...he must be able to support them and all the children that inevitably result.

Try again.  Just because you don't like a reason doesn't prevent that reason from existing.

You wrote: Of course, the way Obergfell has been decided by the courts has obscured the actual history of why traditional marriage exists (and predates government): procreation.


I don't disagree that marriages exist and have existed before governments. I disagree that procreation is why marriages came into being. Even Genesis 2 talks about helping one another, a cure for loneliness; rather than the "be fruitful and multiply" that is found in Genesis 1 (a command that was also given to animals - who do not marry).

[James J Eivan]

People can and have procreated without marriage. Many of the offspring of Jacob that became the fathers of the twelve tribes did not come from a marriage relationship. Try again. Why does marriage exist?

Sigh.  Nowhere did I deny that procreation can exist outside of marriage.  Stop being obtuse.  Marriage exists to constrain the fundamental human impulse for sexual relations to the heterosexual couple, because of the new life that will inevitably result in most cases.

One need only look at the socioeconomic wreckage that has resulted when this has not been followed in many contemporary communities.  Having children out of wedlock is a prime indicator of poverty.  In cultures that practice polygamy, not just any man can have multiple wives...he must be able to support them and all the children that inevitably result.

Try again.  Just because you don't like a reason doesn't prevent that reason from existing.

I can assure you that unmarried tax payers are free to file jointly by simply doing so.  I prepared taxes for a nationwide tax preparer for a few years ... the only about the only question asked is how they filed last year because flip flopping between single and joint and married filing separately has consequences.

[Michael Slusser]

Sorry if this has already been posted (I've been "away"); it contains what I think is an accurate interpretation of the often quoted words of Pope Francis:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/24/what-does-pope-francis-believe-about-same-sex-love/

Excerpts:

In context, especially listening to the rest of the clip, it seems the pope is discussing gay people's family of origin, rebuking parents who reject their gay children.

And many Catholic priests and other leaders still assume that gay people's biggest spiritual problem is lust, when in my experience the most common and deadly spiritual problem for gay Christians is despair.

Alongside some heterosexual Christians, we are rediscovering forms of non-sexual love. Anything the pope says on this topic is of great importance to us, and it's especially important to understand it in context.

Peace,
Michael