MORE HERE:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/05/pope-civil-unions/6079507/
Pope Francis leaves door open for same-sex unions
AND HERE:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-pope-francis-open-the-door-to-same-sex-civil-unions/
Did Pope Francis open the door to same-sex civil unions?
whoooah! Hope he’s being taken out of context.
Male to male sexual contact is a sick and gross sin in any context.
This is appalling.
No he didn’t. It’s an attack on the church. Fingers in your ears brothers WAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA!!!
Why should the church support civil anything??? Render unto God ... let Caesar worry about the rest.
So, Il Papa, what do you say about “common law” marriage (”shacking up”) and pre-marital fornication?
As long as you are opening the floodgates?
/s
Marriage is not only a covenant between one man and one woman, it is an oath before God and witnessed by the respective families, the church, the community and the state.
to be teach against Christ’s teachings or God laws is to be an anti-Christ.
If this is true (and not another distortion by the media) then this “pope” has revealed himself as an anti-Christ
Well, that is officially over.
Headline “Catholic Church willing to accept some evil!”
Once again, his remarks have been taken out of context and spun to mean something he did not say.
Disgusting. He will destroy the church with this.
Has Francis become an Episcopalian?
Guarantee this is a LIE!!! CNN LIES!
I think this is where social conservatives made their biggest error, which was in their opposition to civil unions.
No matter what the beliefs about marriage are, and any moral and/or scriptural backing for them, from a framework of secular law for a pluralistic society with respect for separation of church and state, monogamy alone, in one fashion or another is still a preferable condition for any couple, on a number of different levels, beyond all the sciptural and moral reasons for preserving the human historical definition of marriage.
In fact, when it all started, the “gay” movement made the case for civil unions saying “marriage” was not for them. Yes they wanted (and got) civil union laws that provided most or all LEGAL matters equal with marriage, but with no confusion it was not marriage.
But, social conservatives case, and attack, that that amounted to “special rights” switched the debate to a move to change the terms of marriage itself.
It’s not too late, in my view, to get back to that point and get BROAD conservative backing in favor of civil unions. Why? I think the case for that is strong and I think the case for changing the definition of marriage is not as strong as some judges want to make it seem.
How could any Christian support any kind of “union” that is called an affront to God in the Bible?
As a matter of civil law “unions” may be a way for conservatives to accept a truce without support same sex marriage, but that doesn’t men WE as Christians accept those unions as OK. To be a leader of a Christians “Church” and say he could accept that is evil!
TIME spin: “evaluate”
http://swampland.time.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-willing-to-evaluate-civil-unions-but-no-embrace-of-gay-marriage/
If true, the Catholic Church is done. Once you accept this, everything else will be forced.
Destroyed from within, after about 2,000 years.
this will not go well for the catholic church.
Answer:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.