Pope back same sex civil unions

[LONDONER]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/o...vil-unions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eur...story.html

[andy]

About time!

[LONDONER]

About time!

Yes Andy, but some of the more traditonal and conservative members of the church want him removed!

[LJay]

The papal statement is actually a fairly complicated fence-sitting. He seems to be suggesting civil unions as a way for gay people to have a legally recognized status that is not religious in the same way as marriage.

Those against might want to look closely. This is not quite as radical as it may seem.

[Bhp91126]

It’s only a small, way late step for mankind, but a big step for the Catholic Church.

[Chase]

I'd prefer a Catholic Church that supports same-sex civil unions over one that doesn't, but at the same time, I still see them opposing the recognition of marriage as a condescending, holier-than-thou, load of bull crap. I've heard Christians go so far as say that marriages between divorcees and non-Christians shouldn't have the legal label of marriage. No religion should have the right to say who is legally married under the law. They can cling to their religious laws all they want, but they shouldn't control the laws of the land.

I'm glad Pope Francis, AT LEAST, has voiced support for civil unions, as well as support for the poor. All of these American Catholics who are saying homosexuality is so sinful, we shouldn't even have the right of "civil unions," are hypocrites who haven't even read their own Bible.

The Bible, as clear as day, says that all rich people are going to Hell - there's the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and Jesus frankly stating it's easier "for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven" - which I guess is supposed to mean either a camel going through some type of tight passageway or threading a chain through a needle. And yet, the vast majority have focused on Paul of Tarsus - a confessed persecutor - stating all gay people go to Hell, and completely ignoring what Jesus (the son of God, and God-incarnated to many doctrines) said is the fate of rich people. Now, I might be progressive/liberal, but even I don't think most rich people should be subjected to an infinite level of suffering for an infinite period of time, but I've long found it strange that many so-called Christians often focus on gay people going to Hell while ignoring rich people going to Hell. Just saying.

At any rate, when I die and presumably go to Hell, I'll be giving wide smirks to all the televangelists and mega-church pastors I'll pass by in the stretch rack lines.

[LJay]

I'd prefer a Catholic Church that supports same-sex civil unions over one that doesn't, but at the same time, I still see them opposing the recognition of marriage as a condescending, holier-than-thou, load of bull crap. I've heard Christians go so far as say that marriages between divorcees and non-Christians shouldn't have the legal label of marriage. No religion should have the right to say who is legally married under the law. They can cling to their religious laws all they want, but they shouldn't control the laws of the land.

I'm glad Pope Francis, AT LEAST, has voiced support for civil unions, as well as support for the poor. All of these American Catholics who are saying homosexuality is so sinful, we shouldn't even have the right of "civil unions," are hypocrites who haven't even read their own Bible.

The Bible, as clear as day, says that all rich people are going to Hell - there's the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and Jesus frankly stating it's easier "for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven" - which I guess is supposed to mean either a camel going through some type of tight passageway or threading a chain through a needle. And yet, the vast majority have focused on Paul of Tarsus - a confessed persecutor - stating all gay people go to Hell, and completely ignoring what Jesus (the son of God, and God-incarnated to many doctrines) said is the fate of rich people. Now, I might be progressive/liberal, but even I don't think most rich people should be subjected to an infinite level of suffering for an infinite period of time, but I've long found it strange that many so-called Christians often focus on gay people going to Hell while ignoring rich people going to Hell. Just saying.

At any rate, when I die and presumably go to Hell, I'll be giving wide smirks to all the televangelists and mega-church pastors I'll pass by in the stretch rack lines.

@Chase:

Oh bloody hell, I just  wrote two paragraphs and punched the wrong button which deleted them.  Suffice it to say that no church  controls the laws of the land, they simply control the laws of the church.

[marshlander]

Oh bloody hell, I just  wrote two paragraphs and punched the wrong button which deleted them.  Suffice it to say that no church  controls the laws of the land, they simply control the laws of the church.

Hmm, almost true. The UK and Iran are the two countries in the world where the clerics have a say in making the laws of the land. We have twenty-six bishops from the established church sitting as "Lords Spiritual" in the House of Lords. I don't know whether there are other clerics there primarily as "Lords Temporal" who are there simply because they are lords.

[eastofeden]

My first thought is that he was supporting out newest Supreme Court Justice ahead of the moment she helps overturn gay marriage so she can parrot the pope and suggest civil unions. He knows the backlash that will happen against the church so he is doing damage control now - and it will fail. The damage they will do will cost them alot more than they realize.

In other words equal but not equal.

Despite the church's wishes - most people do not want to return to 1955. in order to continue to control the masses though - they need villains. LGBT+ people and women who have abortions have both been fabulous boogeymen for a long time now so they aren't going to give us a break anytime soon

[Insertnamehere]

I'm not sure what got into you Francisco, but I don't trust a single word that comes out of your mouth. This is so not in line with what you have been saying about LGBT rights since you got elected.

When you visited SA, you kindly payed us a visit. Remember when you scoffed at the idea that a newly appointed (by you) bishop was one of the main guys covering up decades of minor abuse by a network of priests?

I remember. I also remember your half assed attempts to "investigate" the situation. Hey at least a few years later you agreed to remove the vow of secrecy priests always use to deny declaring for investigations. Something that you upheld until then.

You, sir, are not exactly trustworthy. Neither is the lot of ultraconservative cardinals at your neck.

No, we don't need your seal of approval for anything, thank you. Your church no longer controls lawmaking.