Pope officially endorses Same Sex Civil Unions
- Thread starter Drakle
- Start date
mitsho
Deity
The important thing in his statement isn‘t about doctrinal change or civil unions or marriages, since that changes a lot based on the local context: Rules and Regulations lie in the domain of the states and you can‘t really answer to it with a theological, philosophical or sociological thought.
But he did say, that we have a „right to be in a family“ which is a warm embrace, a stampf of approval and moves the overton window. That‘s the thing he contributed to with this statement.
But he did say, that we have a „right to be in a family“ which is a warm embrace, a stampf of approval and moves the overton window. That‘s the thing he contributed to with this statement.
If you mean my post, it's just history. The pope tried to prevent one partition of Poland, and ridiculously failed.
As Stalin said "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
shadowplay
your ad here
Same sex marriage was legalised in Canada by the courts and was opposed by the so-called Liberal party at the time. It was hardly just "Abrahamics and homophobes" who were opposed to it.
You're misremembering the timeline, or (more clearly) you'd need to quote my entire post. Our Constitution and the various Bills of Rights in the provinces implicitly provided for SSM, but it was being slow-walked in through court decisions through the provinces. Martin won his last election by a hair, and was able to get SSM introduced by federal law and it was phrased in such a was as to make it pretty resistant to later takeaway (Harper trying to do so was just show for his base, everyone in the upper echelons knew that our Charter would protect SSM).
Strategically, we were often commenting to each other that the conservative elements of society could have set the tone by doing a center-line rush for Civil Union. They failed to do so, and so we were able to avoid the 'compromise' by getting the Federal legislation passed.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I think that the primary purpose of this is to assure observant Catholics in public institutions that they aren't stumbling into some sort of sin by recognising same-sex unions as valid. It allows them to carry out their duties, which will to some extent entail recognising the practical fact that some part of the population they serve are in same-sex unions (whether formally described as "marriage" or by another term), or have parents or family-members in such unions, without feeling like they have had to concede any important religious principle.
How far the stated explanation represents the Pope's sincere personal belief is debatable, but probably immaterial for anyone who isn't an observant Catholic.
How far the stated explanation represents the Pope's sincere personal belief is debatable, but probably immaterial for anyone who isn't an observant Catholic.
Last edited:
stinkubus
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,845
What I'm not understanding is what that has to do with the Catholic Church's complicity in the holocaust.
There has been a CFC Poland meme running round for... um, decades, and its heyday was prior to your arrival. I think the radioactive monkey and the tank-beating spearman took it out back and buried it recently.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
Not sure I would call the Catholic Church complicit in the Holocaust, merely exhibited a nearly unforgivable case of moral cowardice when confronted with the closest humanity has come to pure evil.
Ultimately, the result would have been the same, just years later. It does not make much sense to have a legal distinction between civil union and marriage and sooner or later enough people will realize this.
warpus
In pork I trust
Catholic church head confirms that God loves everyone. But not quite yet really
More at 11
More at 11
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,669
There wasn't to be a legal distinction. The law would simply strike "marriage" or whatever out of all language, by statute, and replace it with a the civil phrase so people would stop getting bent. But people like getting bent, so it would never have worked. If I remember the conversations it was like 80% "that's my word you can't have it" and 80% "the rights aren't enough, you must have your face officially rubbed in the word." Far as I'm still concerned anyone with a huge issue either way, so long as the rights are intact, can get bent over. Elsewhere may have been or still be different.
Last edited:
What matters is rights achieved by the union/marriage. If the rights (tax, other privileges) gotten by the civil union are identical to the one by marriage, it is the same.
By rights, treatment of the individual by the state/country is meant; not issues pertaining to how private individuals act, which is a different matter.
In the case of the catholic church, a supranational organization with its HQ in a different country, I suppose there is little to no effect of any such legislation as it's not within its scope.
By rights, treatment of the individual by the state/country is meant; not issues pertaining to how private individuals act, which is a different matter.
In the case of the catholic church, a supranational organization with its HQ in a different country, I suppose there is little to no effect of any such legislation as it's not within its scope.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,071
Please let's stop with that, will we? There is no need to make up stuff about how real people today behave just so that a 2000 year old religious (as in someone's fantasy, opinion) text can be twisted in some way.
Whatever some man might have said to his followers 2000 years ago, let his followers now follow in their own private activities as they will. Marriage is a civil, public affair and the church ceremonies a private one. The church does not have to do ceremonies to anyone but its members. As as a club they get to choose their members, nothing wrong with that. The current status quo works fine.
This too is relevant and is as far as it will pushed in that club. And far enough for its members who are gay, at least those I know. Further than many had hoped.
Standing in the way of monetizing? Try seeing who are the owners of many of the buildings that make up the red light areas of Rome, and many of the patrons of the gay ones
Last edited:
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,071
Oh just go and say a hail Mary. What are you, a protestant to be so stuck up about a little sin?
The stuck-up church is mostly a product of the reformation, good to see that luggage being thrown out.
Lesser-evilism, I too fall for that! And social improvements are not something to dismiss.
Last edited:
Similar threads
