6 ms·

Pope endorses same sex civil unions

35 points by nsoonhui 6y ago

stevespang 6y ago
Really ? Would you expect less from the #1 organization in the world for pedophilia ?
diegof79 6y ago
This news is a surprising change from Bergoglio (Pope Francis). I live in Argentina. During 2010 the congress approved the same sex marriage. The opposition from the Catholic Church was fierce; and Bergoglio was his main leader. The Wikipedia page in Spanish has more context about it: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonio_entre_personas_del_mismo_sexo_en_Argentina https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonio_entre_personas_de... Edit: typo
vmception 6y ago
That is a whole lot of energy being used on an underlying issue of nation states conveying benefits to people that support each other and tying that to a religious concept of the same name called marriage. Decoupling those concepts removes the whole debate. The reasons for the state incentivizing men and women getting married are gone or at least no longer prerequisites. So since we like the financial benefits, even though the reasons are gone, just expand the state-sponsored concept to any combination of humans that want them. Any opposition is clearly religious people viewing their government as an extension of their religion, or just completely conflating the concepts that coincidentally have the same name, and they out themselves making it easy to ignore.
- panny 6y ago
  Why punish people who prefer to remain single then? Why can't everyone have these extra financial benefits?
  - nbm 6y ago
    In general, the two biggest financial benefits have to do with reduced health (and other) insurance rates, and not paying taxes on all or some of gifts, inheritance, or other wealth transfers between spouses (similar to those between parents and children). The largest financial penalty in many countries is that spouses will pay more income-related taxes in dual-income families vs. if they were single, due to how progressive taxation bands are set up. The benefits of government recognition for most people who marry aren’t financial - they’re to do with parental, health, estate, citizenship/immigration-related, and other rights that largely can’t fully be reliably created by contracts.
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      In the US, marriage is tax neutral or decrease except for when two $200K+/yr earners are married.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    A lot of them don't apply to single people, like the laws about inheritance or social security or medical decision making. The laws specifically refer to a spouse who just doesn't exist for single people (but which could apply equally well to a male or female spouse). In some cases, a single person could specify somebody in particular, but it's more flexible. This is a common default case that applies widely, and those who choose not to get married can apply the same overrides that others can. In the case of social security survivor benefits, there's a definite asymmetry where married people get a benefit that single people don't. It covers a common case for two people who have their finances so tightly linked that the salary really is joint between the two of them, such that the social security payment really is intended to cover both. There should perhaps be a similar rule for people who have a similar arrangement without the benefit of legal marriage, but it wouldn't be easy to recreate the entire legal apparatus that joins the two, which is what makes that survivorship benefit reasonable. Effectively you'd need to create a state of civil union, and now you're just playing semantics with the difference between civil union and marriage.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 6y ago
  While I agree with you in principle, especially as regards decoupling the legal benefits of marriage from the religious union, it doesn't remove the whole debate on the part of gay couples who feel that "civil unions only" still relegates them to second class status, and they would rather religious people get past their bigotry instead.
  - rebuilder 6y ago
    At least the state wouldn't be putting them in a different class than heterosexuals, then. Of course it wouldn't solve bigotry, but what legislation could?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 6y ago
      Legislation can't solve bigotry, and it shouldn't be expected to. What it can do is delegitimize it and deny bigots the power of the state.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Then the state should call their civil union a marriage or make them have the exact same benefits of marriage, and not just similar
    - krapp 6y ago
      Assuming the state also refuses to confer any legal validity to any religious ceremony, and to legally define marriage as a heterosexual union, then fine. Otherwise it still winds up being "separate but equal" but for sexual orientation instead of race. Benefits and legal status are important, but social and cultural equality is important as well.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > and tying that to a religious concept of the same name called marriage. Marriage was originally a financial/economic arrangement; it was originally of both religious and civic character because while it was a legal/financial arrangement, the idea of the religious space being separate from the civic was literally thousands of years in the future. As religious and civic spheres much later did split, both of them continued to concern themselves with marriage, for different reasons. > Any opposition is clearly religious people viewing their government as an extension of their religion People can legitimately have different views about whether and what the civil purpose of marriage is and consequently whether and with what parameters it should be offered, without either side viewing the government as an extension of their religion. Now, certainly, there are positions in civil marriage that are frequently taken for that reason, but that's not the same thing as what you are suggesting.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  It's strange that a comment that paraphrased the words of the subject of the OP article is being downvoted.
aaron695 6y ago
> Pope endorses same sex civil unions This is simply not possible. This would be like the church endorsing Ashley Madison. They can support the rights of people in these positions. But they can't support the position. He could support civil union laws perhaps, just like he could and should support adulterous people having rights. Seems like fake news that's twisting the intent of the words he actually says (Which we can't hear for ourselves yet to check?)
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  NYT wrote an article to clarify: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/world/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-civil-unions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/world/europe/pope-francis... The Pope promoted the separation of church and state.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    "Render unto Caesar" is not a new idea.
igni 6y ago
How magnanimous! I wonder if there are more shell corporation out there waiting to _almost_ support basic human rights?
NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
Flagged not related to tech.

35 points by nsoonhui 6y ago

Really ? Would you expect less from the #1 organization in the world for pedophilia ?

This news is a surprising change from Bergoglio (Pope Francis). I live in Argentina. During 2010 the congress approved the same sex marriage. The opposition from the Catholic Church was fierce; and Bergoglio was his main leader. The Wikipedia page in Spanish has more context about it: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonio_entre_personas_del_mismo_sexo_en_Argentina https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonio_entre_personas_de... Edit: typo

vmception 6y ago

That is a whole lot of energy being used on an underlying issue of nation states conveying benefits to people that support each other and tying that to a religious concept of the same name called marriage. Decoupling those concepts removes the whole debate. The reasons for the state incentivizing men and women getting married are gone or at least no longer prerequisites. So since we like the financial benefits, even though the reasons are gone, just expand the state-sponsored concept to any combination of humans that want them. Any opposition is clearly religious people viewing their government as an extension of their religion, or just completely conflating the concepts that coincidentally have the same name, and they out themselves making it easy to ignore.

panny 6y ago
Why punish people who prefer to remain single then? Why can't everyone have these extra financial benefits?
- nbm 6y ago
  In general, the two biggest financial benefits have to do with reduced health (and other) insurance rates, and not paying taxes on all or some of gifts, inheritance, or other wealth transfers between spouses (similar to those between parents and children). The largest financial penalty in many countries is that spouses will pay more income-related taxes in dual-income families vs. if they were single, due to how progressive taxation bands are set up. The benefits of government recognition for most people who marry aren’t financial - they’re to do with parental, health, estate, citizenship/immigration-related, and other rights that largely can’t fully be reliably created by contracts.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    In the US, marriage is tax neutral or decrease except for when two $200K+/yr earners are married.
- jfengel 6y ago
  A lot of them don't apply to single people, like the laws about inheritance or social security or medical decision making. The laws specifically refer to a spouse who just doesn't exist for single people (but which could apply equally well to a male or female spouse). In some cases, a single person could specify somebody in particular, but it's more flexible. This is a common default case that applies widely, and those who choose not to get married can apply the same overrides that others can. In the case of social security survivor benefits, there's a definite asymmetry where married people get a benefit that single people don't. It covers a common case for two people who have their finances so tightly linked that the salary really is joint between the two of them, such that the social security payment really is intended to cover both. There should perhaps be a similar rule for people who have a similar arrangement without the benefit of legal marriage, but it wouldn't be easy to recreate the entire legal apparatus that joins the two, which is what makes that survivorship benefit reasonable. Effectively you'd need to create a state of civil union, and now you're just playing semantics with the difference between civil union and marriage.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
krapp 6y ago
While I agree with you in principle, especially as regards decoupling the legal benefits of marriage from the religious union, it doesn't remove the whole debate on the part of gay couples who feel that "civil unions only" still relegates them to second class status, and they would rather religious people get past their bigotry instead.
- rebuilder 6y ago
  At least the state wouldn't be putting them in a different class than heterosexuals, then. Of course it wouldn't solve bigotry, but what legislation could?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 6y ago
    Legislation can't solve bigotry, and it shouldn't be expected to. What it can do is delegitimize it and deny bigots the power of the state.
- vmception 6y ago
  Then the state should call their civil union a marriage or make them have the exact same benefits of marriage, and not just similar
  - krapp 6y ago
    Assuming the state also refuses to confer any legal validity to any religious ceremony, and to legally define marriage as a heterosexual union, then fine. Otherwise it still winds up being "separate but equal" but for sexual orientation instead of race. Benefits and legal status are important, but social and cultural equality is important as well.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> and tying that to a religious concept of the same name called marriage. Marriage was originally a financial/economic arrangement; it was originally of both religious and civic character because while it was a legal/financial arrangement, the idea of the religious space being separate from the civic was literally thousands of years in the future. As religious and civic spheres much later did split, both of them continued to concern themselves with marriage, for different reasons. > Any opposition is clearly religious people viewing their government as an extension of their religion People can legitimately have different views about whether and what the civil purpose of marriage is and consequently whether and with what parameters it should be offered, without either side viewing the government as an extension of their religion. Now, certainly, there are positions in civil marriage that are frequently taken for that reason, but that's not the same thing as what you are suggesting.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
alisonkisk 6y ago
It's strange that a comment that paraphrased the words of the subject of the OP article is being downvoted.

aaron695 6y ago

> Pope endorses same sex civil unions This is simply not possible. This would be like the church endorsing Ashley Madison. They can support the rights of people in these positions. But they can't support the position. He could support civil union laws perhaps, just like he could and should support adulterous people having rights. Seems like fake news that's twisting the intent of the words he actually says (Which we can't hear for ourselves yet to check?)

alisonkisk 6y ago
NYT wrote an article to clarify: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/world/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-civil-unions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/world/europe/pope-francis... The Pope promoted the separation of church and state.
- anoncake 6y ago
  "Render unto Caesar" is not a new idea.

igni 6y ago

How magnanimous! I wonder if there are more shell corporation out there waiting to _almost_ support basic human rights?

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago

Flagged not related to tech.