NYT: Pope Francis Pressed For Civil Unions

The Catholic Church will never endorse gay marriage. HOWEVER, during his time in Argentina, Pope Francis (then Bishop and Cardinal) pressed for Civil Unions to be legal. Eventually (2010) Argentina legalized same sex marriage, but prior to that, Pope Francis thought legalizing Civil Unions in that 'Catholic Country' would be a good thing. He pushed for it.

I know some will say that Civil Unions "arent enough" and that it has to be full and equal marriage rights for all. But considering that the Catholic Church will never approve of 'gay marriage', this compromise that Pope Francis pushed for is really a big thing. It's really a major concession. He was stepping on the toes of the church itself in order to make a peaceful compromise between the church and the secular.

As the issue of 'gay marriage' (I prefer to call it 'marriage equality') becomes more heated here in the USA, I think we can see the Catholic Church taking a softer tone and perhaps pushing for at least Civil Unions. That isn't full 'equality', but it's a step in that direction.

Taking baby steps in the right direction ...

Pope Francis Pressed for Civil Unions

Pope Francis pressed the Catholic church to support civil unions for gay couples in Argentina as a way to prevent the country adopting same sex marriages, a new report reveals.

As Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, the new Pope believed civil unions were “the lesser of two evils” and acceptance would head off pressure in the country to allow homosexual couples to wed, The New York Times reports.

His handling of the issue may give an insight to his leadership style that will likely mix an embrace of the church’s positions on core social issues with a willingness to compromise with opposing sides, the paper said.

Reply to post by FlyersFan

Why would he do it again?

If his goal is to stop gay marriage but allowing civil unions failed to stop gay marriage, then what's the point?

Unless he is secretly for gay marriage?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Unless he is secretly for gay marriage?

A lot of Catholics don't have a problem with it. So he could be, even though he says it's against church teaching. There isn't a whole lotta' difference between a legal civil union and 'gay marriage'. Ya' know?

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Why would he do it again?

If his goal is to stop gay marriage but allowing civil unions failed to stop gay marriage, then what's the point?

Unless he is secretly for gay marriage?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

His goal is not to "stop gay marriage"... what you think the issue is that important and the pope has made it a personal crusade? lol no... his goal is not to "stop gay marriage" hes just against gay marriage, then it becomes a civil issue which he can manifest his disapproval but due to the separation church and state has no real power (can have some influence but nowadays its pretty much dead) , but by the church's standards, it will never be allowed.

In argentina you can get to an office with your same-sex mate and get married, through civil means, not under a church's roof - theres quite a difference specially if you're religious.

I like this guy, he seems sincere. I am in no way saying that we are to submit ourselves to any man or organization but maybe he is voicing his own beliefs. marriage equality is a good thing, maybe civil unions are the way to go for all of us. just a thought.

Pope Francis is impressing me a lot!

Did you hear about his meeting with world leaders the other day? He sat in an armchair rather than the "throne". He even addressed non-believers as allies, and is (still) speaking about honoring and caring for all creation.

I think he's a good man. Seems very genuine.

When civilisation began for mankind, it always began through the teachings of an advanced being, who gave our ancestors moral and ethical guidelines to progress till today, across EVERY civilisation on Earth.

No civilisation ever claimed that they came into this world all-knowing on their own, except current day fellow human brothers and sisters of the atheist faith.

And every civilisation that began viewed MARRIAGE as a SACRED act, with a DIVINE and pragmatic purpose - populate the earth and fulfill our destiny to the stars.

Same sex unions were FROWNED upon by ALL societies at ALL ERAS. Those that don't frown upon them - gets wiped out, such as ancient homosexual greece and barbaric ancient tribes that left only a few stone records of their existance once on planet Earth.

It is true that as we progress and evolved, we have to discard some of the older and often archiac scriptures that were meant for a different time. We had booted out monarchs, replaced cows with machines as farm tools, removed bows and arrows with Nuclear bombs that can wipe out entire civilisations in one stroke, etc.

However, we MUST ENSURE that the ESSENCE of the scriptures are still kept, even if its context no longer fits in our modern world. It was such essence that gave the world the US Constitution, which many of democratic countries applied to their own. Times change, but moral and ethical guidelines for humankind remained the same, as human nature had equally remain the same, sadly.

Thus, MARRIAGE - the union between a man and a woman for pragmatic purposes, is an essence we mankind must maintain.

Unfortunately, there is a loud and vocal minority whom wants that essense changed, either for selfish reasons, or for political mileage, grandstanding and demogoguery gains.

I agree that homosexuals should NOT be discriminated in any way. Nor should they be prejudiced just for their sex acts, which happens behind closed doors and IS PRIVATE, and not for public consumption.

Homosexuals are as human as anyone else. They work, contribute and defend the nation equally as anyone else. They too are capable of love, just like anyone else.

But their reason for wanting the sanctity of Marriage to be applied to them is simply because they want the protection, benefits and rights of such unions be granted to them, and not for the original purpose of which marriage is about - reproduction, care and concern, growth and evolution.

They claim they can adopt kids, but why subject kids to such unnecessary ridicle from others when they grow up pondering upon mankind's role on Earth? They claim they can use IVF, but then, IVF, like adoption, still needs a woman to give birth. When homosexuals become the norm, are real women then enchained FORCIBLY to horrifically become BABY FACTORIES, to fill greying population for economic purposes?

Perhaps a moratorium of 50 years be set aside for the decision on homosexual marriages, with no sides wasting court and precious society time - no challenges and no staged protests, so that ALL nations and mankind can study it objectively and peacefully - its pros and cons.

The homosexual lobby can try to show their side of the story, while the hetrosexual side can reflect on the causes of homosexuality such as mental issues, economic issues, etc, its attractions, and how to steer the new generation back into the essences of our moral and ethical guidelines given.

Ultimately, each human has free will, and must be allowed the freedom to choose, for evolution, or for its demise. But let no human be discriminated.

In the meantime, if homosexuals desire for the rights entitled to marriage, they should be allowed instead to form civil unions, based upon contractual oaths signed and recognised by the courts.

They can still gain State benefits, provided the govt gives benefits to them, but of a lesser scale as they are not able to procreate and when they grow old, they will become the burden of others' young to take care of them.

Once 50 years are up, mankind would have the wisdom based upon informed opinions from both sides to decide if they should crack the sanctity of marriage to include homosexual unions, OR, maintain that ancient tradition and essence to protect the growth and evolution of mankind.

Let us not be hasty, or allow bleeding hearts and ignorant empathy to corrupt our actions over this issue now. It involves our very existance.

The insignificant nobody me humbly apologises here to anyone who is offended by my post. I mean no one any harm.

Peace.