Homosexual Living Together

[dairygirl4u2c]

Is a sin for homosexuals to live together as long as they don't indulge in sexual activity? I imagine something about occasion to sin could be called for but.

Would it be wrong for a Catholic to allow civil unions, under the guise of thinking the homosexuals will simply be living together and not presuming that that are indulging in sexual activity? Probably related ot the last question.

Answer both questions in regards to what the CC teaches, and if there's room for interpretation, what you think. Be sure to say if it's the CC your citing or yourself.

Edited November 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[RC_]

Two problems:

Occassion for sin and scandal.

[KizlarAgha]

Giving gays civil unions instead of marriage is like black only restaurants being equal to white only restaurants in the segregated south. It's wrong and we shouldn't have civil unions.

[Didymus]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1108981' date='Nov 2 2006, 03:35 PM']
Giving gays civil unions instead of marriage is like black only restaurants being equal to white only restaurants in the segregated south. It's wrong and we shouldn't have civil unions.
[/quote]

now that's just the overused and completely misplaced analogy...

the color of your skin is a natural quality, whereas (although the stuck up, pagan, secular world has yet to 'prove' it) homosexuality is brought about enviromentally

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1108986' date='Nov 2 2006, 04:38 PM']
now that's just the overused and completely misplaced analogy...

the color of your skin is a natural quality, whereas (although the stuck up, pagan, secular world has yet to 'prove' it) homosexuality is brought about enviromentally
[/quote]

I don't believe that homosexuality is brought about environmentally, and even if it is, who cares? People who are paralyzed or lose their legs get that environmentally in most cases. So are you saying we shouldn't have wheelchair ramps for the disabled? Of course not. It's a pointless straw man argument either way. Gay people want to get married. They are citizens. They are consenting adults. That should be the end of it.

[RC_]

Let's get back to the subject at hand. Can "civil unions" and Catholic teaching go together hand in hand. [sic]

[Sojourner]

I'm confused.


Where's the poll?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

From a Catholic perspective, I would think civil unions are a cheap rip off of marriage. Marriage is a sacrament, don't devalue it by recognizing civil unions.

[Didymus]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1108989' date='Nov 2 2006, 03:41 PM']
I don't believe that homosexuality is brought about environmentally, and even if it is, who cares? People who are paralyzed or lose their legs get that environmentally in most cases. So are you saying we shouldn't have wheelchair ramps for the disabled? Of course not. It's a pointless straw man argument either way. Gay people want to get married. They are citizens. They are consenting adults. That should be the end of it.
[/quote]

but we don't leave paralyzed people with nothing. To help them, we do more then just put in a wheelchir ramp. There is plenty being done to get it to the point when we can undo a handicap and give the person another chance to have the full function of their legs.

If homosexuality was seen by society as the unnatural state that it is, then we would be one step closer to helping these people get back on the right track. Our culture has given up on the fact that homosexuality can be helped and in fact reversed because it no longer sees anything wrong or distorted with it.

So if I am a consenting adult, does that mean I could go rape a dog? or go slash peoples tires? what if I was brought up thinking that was okay?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1109026' date='Nov 2 2006, 05:06 PM']
but we don't leave paralyzed people with nothing. To help them, we do more then just put in a wheelchir ramp. There is plenty being done to get it to the point when we can undo a handicap and give the person another chance to have the full function of their legs.

If homosexuality was seen by society as the unnatural state that it is, then we would be one step closer to helping these people get back on the right track. Our culture has given up on the fact that homosexuality can be helped and in fact reversed because it no longer sees anything wrong or distorted with it.

So if I am a consenting adult, does that mean I could go rape a dog? or go slash peoples tires? what if I was brought up thinking that was okay?
[/quote]

You're forgetting that homosexuality involves two consenting partners. If the owner of a car thought it would be funny if you slashed his tires, and you wanted to do it, then it wouldn't be a crime. Dogs aren't sentient beings capable of making choices like that, so I'll just leave that one alone. Your silly little stock arguments don't hold water - find some new ones.

[RC_]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1109026' date='Nov 2 2006, 05:06 PM']
but we don't leave paralyzed people with nothing. To help them, we do more then just put in a wheelchir ramp. There is plenty being done to get it to the point when we can undo a handicap and give the person another chance to have the full function of their legs.

[/quote]

You'd be suprised at how little is actually done.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='RC_' post='1109036' date='Nov 2 2006, 05:13 PM']
You'd be suprised at how little is actually done.
[/quote]

That's a good point, RC. I actually was part of a coalition at my university to measure restrooms on campus and see if they actually met the requirements for handicapped accessibility. On the whole campus, only 4 restrooms met the requirements. It's scandalous.

[RC_]

The uni in my town, someone in a wheelchair would be unable to open the door to get it. Sure, the stalls are fine, but little good that does.

Back on topic though...

[Theoketos]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1109033' date='Nov 2 2006, 04:12 PM']
You're forgetting that homosexuality involves two consenting partners. If the owner of a car thought it would be funny if you slashed his tires, and you wanted to do it, then it wouldn't be a crime. Dogs aren't sentient beings capable of making choices like that, so I'll just leave that one alone. Your silly little stock arguments don't hold water - find some new ones.
[/quote]

Your analogy fails because it is still disordered to slash your tires at the very least because it is wasteful.

Additionally, I urge you to be even more charitable, in other words stop using pharses like "silly little stock arguments" as they are ad hominems.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1109093' date='Nov 2 2006, 05:48 PM']
Your analogy fails because it is still disordered to slash your tires at the very least because it is wasteful.

Additionally, I urge you to be even more charitable, in other words stop using pharses like "silly little stock arguments" as they are ad hominems.
[/quote]

Actually, ad hominem means directed at a person. The phrase "silly little stock arguments" clearly describes an argument, and therefore an idea or concept. So, it's kind of, not an ad hominem at all. :

[Groo the Wanderer]

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.


can it get any worse?

[RC_]

Budge could convert.

:

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='RC_' post='1109110' date='Nov 2 2006, 05:58 PM']
Budge could convert.

:
[/quote]

I love budge! She provides hours of mind-blowing entertainment.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1109113' date='Nov 2 2006, 04:59 PM']
I love budge! She provides hours of mind-blowing entertainment.
[/quote]
At no extra cost!

[Kosh]

I would claim that allowing gay marriage would be contrary to the common good. It would degrade the idea family even more and a homosexual environment is definetely NOT the best place for adoption. Very contrary to the common good. Let 'em live together, we can't leglislate morality, but let's NOT have the state endorse it.