Homosexual Living Together

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1108974' date='Nov 2 2006, 04:33 PM']
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.
[/quote]


Whatever happened to the concept of friends sharing expenses by renting an apartment?
It used to be people could share apartments without the world assuming there is a sexual relationship.

[Kosh]

yes, but thats not a Civil Union.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1109142' date='Nov 2 2006, 06:18 PM']
yes, but thats not a Civil Union.
[/quote]
I know I was just venting a bit

[Kosh]

oh. thats okay then.

[track2004]

I'd marry my best friend (a boy; i'm a girl) not because I like him (like that) but because it'd afford us quite a few benefits from the state that I'm uneligible for as a single person. The sex would be assumed but not actually happening. It happens like that for lots of straight couples. It might be an occasion to sin, but not near as much as people think. It wouldn't be scandelous because we're of different genders, but whatever, scandal happens. If a girl is a lesbian and living with other girls it doesn't mean they're all having crazy sex, it just means they're living together. Sometimes people assume too much about other people's [sex] lives.

I don't think the CC will ever really be okay with the gays, but that's just from what I've seen. Some Catholics are cool, but as an institution no.

[Kosh]

Well there is the minor problem of gay activity being wrong. However, while I understand that the state offers benefits for marriage, my understanding is that its for making raising a family easier. Obviously this shouldn't happen if your intent is not to raise a family. Plus I don't think that the state should authorize gay marriage in any way, state, or form whether or not gay sex is actually occuring.

That being said, kudos to all gays who practice restraint and abstinance. Not easy.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1108974' date='Nov 2 2006, 03:33 PM']
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?
[/quote]

That sentence is contradictory. The nature of a civil union is sexual.



Also, remember how the song goes:

"The purpose of a man is to love a woman
And the purpose of a woman is to love a man..."

Edited November 2, 2006 by Norseman82

[Kosh]

true dat

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1109251' date='Nov 2 2006, 07:43 PM']
That sentence is contradictory. The nature of a civil union is sexual.
Also, remember how the song goes:

"The purpose of a man is to love a woman
And the purpose of a woman is to love a man..."
[/quote]

but does the nature of a civil union have to be sexual?

can't it just be material, I want these benefits for my best friend?

[track2004]

It doesn't have to be sexual, but people will assume it is if there is any hint of it. I'd love to have those benefits with my best friend if we don't end up having anyone else because I want to be able to look after him and him me. You get all the nice POA and medical benefits which is what it would be about for best friends, but that's not how the media (or govt really) is painting what they want it to be. If it was just stuff like that they'd have civil unions for any 2 people, now they are just marketing it to gays.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1109857' date='Nov 3 2006, 01:34 PM']
but does the nature of a civil union have to be sexual?

can't it just be material, I want these benefits for my best friend?
[/quote]


Well then we get into issues of discrimination. If we grant 'benefits' to gay couples, then we would have to grant 'benefits' to roommates too.

I mean, if two hetero guys share an apartment (like most college students) and one holds a job with benefits, it would be wrong to deny the roomie benefits just because they aren't gay.

So...where does it stop? If we start allowing the legal definition of a 'married couple' or a 'family' to morph into anything, in theory I could 'adopt', 'marry', 'whatever' all the children of the world to give them access to my medical, dental, insurance, and retirement benefits.

Of course, if this premise is carried too far, then the benefits providers either go bankrupt or charge so high for the benefits that nobody can afford them.

Let's just leave it as it is, the way God intended and created it: one man one woman for the purpose of a lifetime monogamous union with the intention of raising children.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1109994' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:06 PM']
Well then we get into issues of discrimination. If we grant 'benefits' to gay couples, then we would have to grant 'benefits' to roommates too.

I mean, if two hetero guys share an apartment (like most college students) and one holds a job with benefits, it would be wrong to deny the roomie benefits just because they aren't gay.

So...where does it stop? If we start allowing the legal definition of a 'married couple' or a 'family' to morph into anything, in theory I could 'adopt', 'marry', 'whatever' all the children of the world to give them access to my medical, dental, insurance, and retirement benefits.

Of course, if this premise is carried too far, then the benefits providers either go bankrupt or charge so high for the benefits that nobody can afford them.

Let's just leave it as it is, the way God intended and created it: one man one woman for the purpose of a lifetime monogamous union with the intention of raising children.
[/quote]

You don't think God intended all the millions of homosexual people He created? If you believe in a god that is.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='track2004' post='1109989' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:54 PM']
It doesn't have to be sexual, but people will assume it is if there is any hint of it. I'd love to have those benefits with my best friend if we don't end up having anyone else because I want to be able to look after him and him me. You get all the nice POA and medical benefits which is what it would be about for best friends, but that's not how the media (or govt really) is painting what they want it to be. If it was just stuff like that they'd have civil unions for any 2 people, now they are just marketing it to gays.
[/quote]

The minute its legal people should start suing for their roommates, an aging parent living with them, a brother or sister crashing on the couch cause they're out of work etc, anybody they want. If it passes lets take it to its logical conclusion.

[KizlarAgha]

Yet another reason I oppose civil unions. Marriage for all.

[track2004]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1110064' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:57 PM']
The minute its legal people should start suing for their roommates, an aging parent living with them, a brother or sister crashing on the couch cause they're out of work etc, anybody they want. If it passes lets take it to its logical conclusion.
[/quote]

But if it's as serious as POA and all the other stuff it and would then be hard to dissolve and, one would assume, you could only have the one with one other person I think people would take it more seriously than their slacker siblings. It's not like any pair of men or women are going to have to prove how gay they are to get one either, right, I mean all I have to prove before marrying a boy is that we're not cousins. Sure you could give your POA, et al. to anyone you want, but I wouldn't reccomend it...

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110080' date='Nov 3 2006, 05:02 PM']
Yet another reason I oppose civil unions. Marriage for all.
[/quote]
The reason the state recognizes marriages (as they have always been understood, between a man and a woman) is primarily, as Kosh pointed out, because of the issues concering raising a family. This (much as Kizlar may protest to the contrary) is the main purpose of marriage. It is not simply about two people sharing stuff legally , or simply an official recognition of people's lovey-dovey feelings for each other. (Much as marriage may have thus been debased in recent decades).

Screaming that this is unfair because it denies "rights" to homosexuals is just ridiculous. I am currently single, and enjoy no legal benefits of marriage. Yet I do not begrudge my married friends for having these benefits. A married couple has to raise children, and often one parent must stay home with the children while the other works.

If I decided to "go gay" and hook up with some other dude, the state would not owe me any kind of benefits I do not already have.

(And if you'll notice, hardly any single "straight" people are pressing for same-sex "marriage" or "civil unions" for themselves. The issue almost always involves homosexuality.)

There is no reason for anybody to have "marriages" or "civil unions" other than a man and a woman. This is true whether it is two people committing homosexual acts with one another, six straight guys sharing a house, or a mother and her grown daughter living together.

Inheritance and other legal matters can be arranged without marriage. The real reason homosexuals are demanding "gay marriage" is simply that they want to demand that society officially sanction their activity as being the same as aheterosexual, procreative union, which it can never be in reality.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1110348' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:42 PM']
The reason the state recognizes marriages (as they have always been understood, between a man and a woman) is primarily, as Kosh pointed out, because of the issues concering raising a family. This (much as Kizlar may protest to the contrary) is the main purpose of marriage. It is not simply about two people sharing stuff legally , or simply an official recognition of people's lovey-dovey feelings for each other. (Much as marriage may have thus been debased in recent decades).

Screaming that this is unfair because it denies "rights" to homosexuals is just ridiculous. I am currently single, and enjoy no legal benefits of marriage. Yet I do not begrudge my married friends for having these benefits. A married couple has to raise children, and often one parent must stay home with the children while the other works.

If I decided to "go gay" and hook up with some other dude, the state would not owe me any kind of benefits I do not already have.

(And if you'll notice, hardly any single "straight" people are pressing for same-sex "marriage" or "civil unions" for themselves. The issue almost always involves homosexuality.)

There is no reason for anybody to have "marriages" or "civil unions" other than a man and a woman. This is true whether it is two people committing homosexual acts with one another, six straight guys sharing a house, or a mother and her grown daughter living together.

Inheritance and other legal matters can be arranged without marriage. The real reason homosexuals are demanding "gay marriage" is simply that they want to demand that society officially sanction their activity as being the same as aheterosexual, procreative union, which it can never be in reality.
[/quote]

I guess it's a fair point that many of the benefits of marriage can be settled by power of attorney. I wonder how many homosexuals are widely aware of that. At any rate, gay people can adopt children in any state except Florida. In those cases, the benefits of marriage should apply as they then would have a family, right?

[mariahLVzJP2]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1109999' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:09 PM']
You don't think God intended all the millions of homosexual people He created? If you believe in a god that is.
[/quote]
to marry....um no.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='mariahLVzJP2' post='1110351' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:47 PM']
to marry....um no.
[/quote]

What does it hurt?

[mariahLVzJP2]

what do you mean?

God did create MAN and WOMAN...and they can procreate

Edited November 4, 2006 by mariahLVzJP2