Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[stevevw]

The Doctrine of Faith released this today.

Francis has called for civil unions -- a legal, government union. But these unions cannot be blessed by the Church.

Then why all the fuss of the OP like its some sacreligious announcement that some are complaining about. Its just stating what the church as supported for some time that state sanctioned unions are recognized. Thats just acknowledging the seperation of church and state. It has been the same for many issues for years. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and to God what is Gods.

 

[stevevw]

There is no inconsistency if the Pope does not oppose same-sex civil unions but still denies gays the right to marriage by the church. There is a difference between secular marriage and the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

OK well thats understandable. To uphold the faith they need to protect Holy Matrimony. The church can also acknowledge the state sanctioned civil unions as well.

 

[Strathos]

And I don't get how you conclude that I must believe that this applies in ALL cases.

Because you didn't try to justify why it was bad in this specific case.

 

[Kylie]

Because you didn't try to justify why it was bad in this specific case.

I gave one example of how it is bad to disrespect trans people in post 767, that not using their correct pronouns or the names they wish increases the chance they will take their own lives.

 

[Kylie]

...

 

[Strathos]

I gave one example of how it is bad to disrespect trans people in post 767, that not using their correct pronouns or the names they wish increases the chance they will take their own lives.

Do you apply that logic across the board? There are Christians who have committed suicide and self-harm after being exposed to atheist ideas, suggesting that God does not exist.

 

[Kylie]

Do you apply that logic across the board? There are Christians who have committed suicide and self-harm after being exposed to atheist ideas, suggesting that God does not exist.

And here you are trying to muddy the waters. It does not matter whether I apply this reasoning to other issues, because we are not talking about those other issues in this thread.

If you can't confine your discussion to the topic actually being discussed, I suggest you would be happier in another thread.

If you want, feel free to make a thread about the topics you seem intent on discussing. I will even come in there and join that discussion, but for this thread, let's keep to the discussion at hand, okay?

 

[Strathos]

And here you are trying to muddy the waters. It does not matter whether I apply this reasoning to other issues, because we are not talking about those other issues in this thread.

If you can't confine your discussion to the topic actually being discussed, I suggest you would be happier in another thread.

If you want, feel free to make a thread about the topics you seem intent on discussing. I will even come in there and join that discussion, but for this thread, let's keep to the discussion at hand, okay?

I'm just seeing if your positions are consistent.

If you're going to say that you can't say X because it might upset people, that kind of thing cuts both ways.

 

[Kylie]

I'm just seeing if your positions are consistent.

If you're going to say that you can't say X because it might upset people, that kind of thing cuts both ways.

But the thread isn't about that, is it?

Keep to the topic or don't expect me to answer you. If you want to discuss with me the consistency of my position, go start a new thread about it.

 

[stevevw]

The issue that concerns me and many other Christians is that though the church may acknowledge same sex civil unions and accept the right of state sactioned civil unions that some want to call marriage the same right for religions to only marry people according to their belief may not be afforded to the church the way things are going. Since the same sex marriage laws came in some activists are taking this as a right to push this into every corner of society by forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

This may not be the case right now though there have been a few cases where this has happened it seems to be part of a trend that may eventually make it happen. This is based on the way in which some are attacking religious belief generally but also are attacking the Christian position on same sex marriage and other issues like trans ideology specifically. It seems if the trend continues then anyone even expressing their disagreement on gay rights will be seen as denying rights and therefore the church would be made to conform to those rights.

 

[Speedwell]

The issue that concerns me and many other Christians is that though the church may acknowledge same sex civil unions and accept the right of state sactioned civil unions that some want to call marriage the same right for religions to only marry people according to their belief may not be afforded to the church the way things are going. Since the same sex marriage laws came in some activists are taking this as a right to push this into every corner of society by forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

This may not be the case right now though there have been a few cases where this has happened it seems to be part of a trend that may eventually make it happen. This is based on the way in which some are attacking religious belief generally but also are attacking the Christian position on same sex marriage and other issues like trans ideology specifically. It seems if the trend continues then anyone even expressing their disagreement on gay rights will be seen as denying rights and therefore the church would be made to conform to those rights.

Absolute nonsense. Maybe it can happen in Australia, but no church in the US has ever been forced to perform a gay marriage and such a thing is prohibited by our Constitution.

 

[Kylie]

Absolute nonsense. Maybe it can happen in Australia, but no church in the US has ever been forced to perform a gay marriage and such a thing is prohibited by our Constitution.

I'm not aware of any church in Australia that has been forced to perform a same sex marriage ceremony if they didn't want to.

 

[stevevw]

Absolute nonsense. Maybe it can happen in Australia, but no church in the US has ever been forced to perform a gay marriage and such a thing is prohibited by our Constitution.

I never said it is happening at the moment but rather the idea is being pushed which is a natural prgression since same sex marriage has been legalised. We have seen several examples where lawyers, individuals and even government ministers have pushed the idea that because same sex marriage is now law religions should not have the right to deny people based on their beliefs IE
University of Illinois law professor Robin Fretwell Wilson says it’s possible that institutions will be pressured to give ground on gay marriage by federal authorities.
the federal government now reads its laws against sex discrimination “to include sexual orientation discrimination, which opens a whole layer of potential threat” to religious organizations.
How the Supreme Court's decision for gay marriage could affect religious institutions

Commenting on a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), discrimination law expert Neil Addison said that in countries that have redefined marriage: the partners… are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. This means that if same-sex marriage is legalized in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises.61 This is being interpreted as an indication that, in any country under ECHR jurisdiction that redefines marriage, churches will be forced “to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies” of same sex couples.

The United Kingdom’s Civil Partnerships Act 2004 originally disallowed civil partnership ceremonies from being conducted in “religious premises” or for a “religious service” to be used while the registrar was officiating at the signing of the civil partnership.63 This was to avoid pressure on the churches to conduct or participate in ceremonies which breached their religious conscience or theology, and was meant to give them confidence in the passing of the law. However, predictably, campaigning by activists has now led to the law being changed so that churches may participate in the ceremonies.64 In a predictable consequence of this accommodation, Conservative MP Mike Weatherley immediately claimed that the law remains “unfair”, and that it must be changed to compel churches to register civil partnerships. Mr Weatherley said “[a]s long as religious groups can refuse to presideover ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality”.

Lord Waddington, backed by Lord Tebbit, argued that it “would only be a matter of time before it was argued that it was discriminatory” for clergy to refuse same-sex ceremonies when the law allowed it. He added that clergy who would register marriages but not civil partnerships would “be accused of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of services”.69 As discussed above, lawyer Neil Addison agrees redefining marriage would threaten the religious freedom of churches.70

A submission from the Discrimination Law Experts’ Group recommended that “the religious exceptions be repealed”.76 They said further: We believe that the religious exceptions should be removed because we do not accept that religious rights should prevail over the rights of individuals to be treated in a nondiscriminatory way in public sphere activities.77 Equality Rights Alliance recommended in their submission that exceptions “for religious organizations which would enable them to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity should not be included in the consolidated [anti-discrimination] Act”.78 Organization Intersex International similarly recommended that religious “persons, bodies or organizations” not be able to discriminate on “grounds of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity”.79 The Human Rights Law Centre was particularly harsh on religious exemptions.80 It acknowledged “with disappointment... the Government’s pre-determined position on the maintenance of permanent exemptions for religious bodies” and said such exemptions are “manifestly inappropriate and inconsistent with Australia’s human rights obligations and international best-practice”.

With these kinds of views being submitted by “mainstream” human rights organizations, the concern among many Christians that same-sex marriage would ultimately curtail their right to religious freedom appears well-founded.

Some examples are given in this article of where priests and religious organisation have been made to allow same sex marriages on religious premesis including facilities attached to churches which people say is more or less forcing religions to perform same sex marriages in churches. Like I said it seems only a matter of time where this is then forced on churches themselves regardless of religious freedom.

What we have is civil rights pitted against religious freedoms. As we are seeing there are more and more challenges to religious freedoms and it seems only a matter of time where the same principle of law will apply to churches themselves. If the law is being applied to all areas around churches denying religious freedom then it seems logical that this will extend to the churches themselves. Otherwise what we will end up seeing is churches being ostrisized into small corners of society.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not aware of any church in Australia that has been forced to perform a same sex marriage ceremony if they didn't want to.

It may not be the church itself at the moment but we are seeing the priests themselves and any associated entity of the church like Church owned buildings, schools, reception venues being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions. I cannot see the difference as they all belong to the church and are extenstions of the church and therefore the same religious rights should apply. It seems only a matter of time that the same logic be applied to the church itself.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think it is possibly an attempt to position the Church as an/the arbiter of marriage. If the pope promotes civil unions, he can grant rights to the married without having to recognize civil-union couples.

Call me cynical.

Called it. (Kind-a.)

 

[Speedwell]

It may not be the church itself at the moment but we are seeing the priests themselves and any associated entity of the church like Church owned buildings, schools, reception venues being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions. I cannot see the difference as they all belong to the church and are extenstions of the church and therefore the same religious rights should apply. It seems only a matter of time that the same logic be applied to the church itself.

I don't see any logic in that post at all. In the first place, I don't believe any Christian priest in Australia has been forced to officiate at any marriage against his will. I think you are making that up.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't see any logic in that post at all. In the first place, I don't believe any Christian priest in Australia has been forced to officiate at any marriage against his will. I think you are making that up.

Facts has never stopped him before.

 

[Kylie]

It may not be the church itself at the moment but we are seeing the priests themselves and any associated entity of the church like Church owned buildings, schools, reception venues being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions. I cannot see the difference as they all belong to the church and are extenstions of the church and therefore the same religious rights should apply. It seems only a matter of time that the same logic be applied to the church itself.

Please give an example of this, where a church has been forced to host a same sex marriage, ceremony or reception against their will.

 

[Strathos]

I've heard this song and dance before, that churches will be forced to perform weddings against their beliefs. It's just pure scaremongering.

 

[FireDragon76]

The State, properly constituted, has only one job: to provide security and order to the citizens such that they can carry out their lives in relative peace and safety. That's it. It's not the government's job to make people "happy" (an impossible task for any government).

If you believe in limited government, I don't understand why you think its the government's job to enforce religious prohibitions on those of us who simply don't believe.