Pope calls for same sex 'civil union' laws.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good. But the peronist pope is still trash

I feel proud that the pope proposing so many socially progressive reforms for the Catholic Church is the first Latin American pope, I can’t understand how most Argentinians I see talking about him don’t feel a much larger sense of pride when he comes on the news, even considering political differences. I mean, it’s basically Argentina changing the world for better in some ways!

The word "Peronist" in "Peronist Pope" goes some way towards explaining this, doesn't it? He has a long and checkered history in Argentinian domestic affairs that somebody on another "side" of Argentinian issues might very reasonably take exception to.

[Red Velvet]

Good. But the peronist pope is still trash

I feel proud that the pope proposing so many socially progressive reforms for the Catholic Church is the first Latin American pope, I can’t understand how most Argentinians I see talking about him don’t feel a much larger sense of pride when he comes on the news, even considering political differences. I mean, it’s basically Argentina changing the world for better in some ways!

The word "Peronist" in "Peronist Pope" goes some way towards explaining this, doesn't it? He has a long and checkered history in Argentinian domestic affairs that somebody on another "side" of Argentinian issues might very reasonably take exception to.

How does his “peronist” history in Argentina relates to his role and activities as the Pope though?

It’s just a general impression of mine that Argentinians in general love criticizing this pope and not necessarily it’s always because of politics. I’ve seen multiple different reasons to play his accomplishments down, one of them was that he wasn’t coming home because he was afraid of the reception, at the same time they said they didn’t care whether he came to visit or not hahaha. Almost as if he was regarded on a different and more negative standard from other popes precisely because he’s from Argentina, idk.

[Xeuma]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

[TJ in Oregon]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

[Xeuma]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

Yep I've been hearing the same stuff. It's known that he supported civil unions as Archbishop of Buenos Aries, so I'd say its most probable that part of the splice came from his time there. If this turns out to be the case, a *ton* of people owe him an apology for so breathtakingly misconstruing what he said.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

I would also like to know the difference between "civil union" and "civil coexistence" in Argentine law, assuming the latter even exists. Is there effectively any non-semantic difference between the two, much less compared to that between "civil unions" and "marriage", both of which are essentially the government acknowledging and protecting unions between individuals under the law, which exactly is what Pope Francis is being reported to have endorsed?

And this would still run contrary to the Vatican’s 2003 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which directly states that homosexual unions cannot be legally recognized. I don't know if the Pope has unilateral authority to change that doctrine (although it was written at the direction of JPII), but even still, the Pope taking an alternative perspective to church teaching certainly casts ambiguity as to the Church's real stance.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

I asked a Hispanophone friend and was told that "unión convivencial" and "unión civil" are both terms for civil union in Argentinian law. Presumably Edu can confirm or disconfirm this. My guess given this is that what Francis was doing here was confirming the open secret that this was his position during Argentina's SSM debate in 2009-2010, and saying that he still feels that was the correct approach.

[TJ in Oregon]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

I asked a Hispanophone friend and was told that "unión convivencial" and "unión civil" are both terms for civil union in Argentinian law. Presumably Edu can confirm or disconfirm this. My guess given this is that what Francis was doing here was confirming the open secret that this was his position during Argentina's SSM debate in 2009-2010, and saying that he still feels that was the correct approach.

Perhaps? I have definitely heard that "conviviencia civil" (which is what he said rather than "unión convivencial") can refer to civil unions but is that unambiguously the case? It would also be nice to have the context of the second interview rather than it being (seemingly disingenuously) presented as the next sentence from the first.... but here we are.

[Edu]

I asked a Hispanophone friend and was told that "unión convivencial" and "unión civil" are both terms for civil union in Argentinian law. Presumably Edu can confirm or disconfirm this. My guess given this is that what Francis was doing here was confirming the open secret that this was his position during Argentina's SSM debate in 2009-2010, and saying that he still feels that was the correct approach.

I actually had no idea about this so I had to search for a bit. What I found is that "union convivencial" and "union civil" are actually slightly different things and obviously different from full fledged marriage.

The main difference between the 2 unions and marriage is that if you are married and die, your spouse will automatically inherit everything you have, while in the unions you have to specifically make a will to that effect.

Apparently the "unión convivencial" doesn't require it to be formally registered as the other two options (with witnesses and everything) which means that you can end the relationship just by saying so, no need for anyone else to intervene.
The "union civil" requires you to do some legal stuff to end the relationship but nothing major and marriage of course involes the courts.

Still not sure about the details and frakly I don't care to search for it now since it's 5 AM here and I'm a bit drunk lol but I'll ask my dad later if he can shed some more light.

[afleitch]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

I asked a Hispanophone friend and was told that "unión convivencial" and "unión civil" are both terms for civil union in Argentinian law. Presumably Edu can confirm or disconfirm this. My guess given this is that what Francis was doing here was confirming the open secret that this was his position during Argentina's SSM debate in 2009-2010, and saying that he still feels that was the correct approach.

Perhaps? I have definitely heard that "conviviencia civil" (which is what he said rather than "unión convivencial") can refer to civil unions but is that unambiguously the case? It would also be nice to have the context of the second interview rather than it being (seemingly disingenuously) presented as the next sentence from the first.... but here we are.

It seems a bit pedantic to try and pick apart the Pope's comments with respect to the 'broader' meaning of Argentinian legalese.

[Santander]

The biggest takeaway from this, as afleitch said, is not the legal definition of civil union, but that Pope Francis acknowledged the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships and said they should have the right to form recognized families.

[afleitch]

The biggest takeaway from this, as afleitch said, is not the legal definition of civil union, but that Pope Francis acknowledged the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships and said they should have the right to form recognized families.

Exactly. Which is the bolder move.

The Church already acknowledges gay people exist as individuals but didn't show the recognition that they form couples/families which, by extension is because they are both gay/bi etc. Otherwise there wouldn't be a coupling.

It's very base, very quaint and still very frustrating. I still expect a walk back. But as Al also said, this is just very conservative incramentalism. And it doesn't alter, sadly, what the Church expects of Catholics.

Basically the Church doesn't 'recognise' my three siblings' humanist marriages as there has been no convalidation. It didn't recognise mine and still won't after this. But to at least recognise my relationship as a family is meaningful even to this crusty soul and will delight my 92 year old nana.

[Mr. Illini]

For those claiming he was misquoted, surely there would be a statement put out by the Holy See clarifying the Pope's position given how much this has blown up. Absent of a clarification, it is fair to assume that it has been interpreted correctly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

For those claiming he was misquoted, surely there would be a statement put out by the Holy See clarifying the Pope's position given how much this has blown up. Absent of a clarification, it is fair to assume that it has been interpreted correctly.

It's possible that ambiguity about this serves Francis's longer-term aims for this issue regardless of whether this particular remark was supposed to mean what it's been presented as meaning.

I want you to know
I'm a mirrorball
I'll show you every version of yourself tonight

People who think that Pope Francis doesn't support any kind of legal protection by "the secular arm" for non-marital (including same-sex) partnerships and that this quote couldn't possibly mean what it's being reported as meaning are straining at gnats and are just not familiar with his record. The same, of course, is true of the POPE BLESSES GAY WEDDINGS gun-jumpers and people who think an offhand remark/informal teaching like this represents some sort of paradigm shift absent further developments.

[TJ in Oregon]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

I asked a Hispanophone friend and was told that "unión convivencial" and "unión civil" are both terms for civil union in Argentinian law. Presumably Edu can confirm or disconfirm this. My guess given this is that what Francis was doing here was confirming the open secret that this was his position during Argentina's SSM debate in 2009-2010, and saying that he still feels that was the correct approach.

Perhaps? I have definitely heard that "conviviencia civil" (which is what he said rather than "unión convivencial") can refer to civil unions but is that unambiguously the case? It would also be nice to have the context of the second interview rather than it being (seemingly disingenuously) presented as the next sentence from the first.... but here we are.

It seems a bit pedantic to try and pick apart the Pope's comments with respect to the 'broader' meaning of Argentinian legalese.

Does it even refer to Argentine legalese? Or this this statement of universal applicability? Was this a last-ditch attempt to avoid gay marriage that was going to pass otherwise, or something that should be seen as a positive good? How should Catholics reconcile this statement with the Church's teaching that homosexual unions are disordered and the faithful should not partake in them? Is this meant to be a statement that the government should not enforce restrictions against homosexuality despite it being immoral? To each of these questions, I can think of many possible speculations, but without any context whatsoever it is essentially impossible to venture any serious answer.

[John Henry Eden]

A nothing burger as usual with the mediahttps://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-homosexuality-comments-heavily-edited-in-documentary-no-vatican-comment-on-civil-unions and Pope Francis.

[7,052,770]

Does it even refer to Argentine legalese? Or this this statement of universal applicability? Was this a last-ditch attempt to avoid gay marriage that was going to pass otherwise, or something that should be seen as a positive good? How should Catholics reconcile this statement with the Church's teaching that homosexual unions are disordered and the faithful should not partake in them? Is this meant to be a statement that the government should not enforce restrictions against homosexuality despite it being immoral? To each of these questions, I can think of many possible speculations, but without any context whatsoever it is essentially impossible to venture any serious answer.

They ashamed of themselves if they ever took that garbage seriously, as it is so clearly antithetical to the basic tenets of Christianity and just common decency, that even the pope thinks so

[afleitch]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

I asked a Hispanophone friend and was told that "unión convivencial" and "unión civil" are both terms for civil union in Argentinian law. Presumably Edu can confirm or disconfirm this. My guess given this is that what Francis was doing here was confirming the open secret that this was his position during Argentina's SSM debate in 2009-2010, and saying that he still feels that was the correct approach.

Perhaps? I have definitely heard that "conviviencia civil" (which is what he said rather than "unión convivencial") can refer to civil unions but is that unambiguously the case? It would also be nice to have the context of the second interview rather than it being (seemingly disingenuously) presented as the next sentence from the first.... but here we are.

It seems a bit pedantic to try and pick apart the Pope's comments with respect to the 'broader' meaning of Argentinian legalese.

Does it even refer to Argentine legalese? Or this this statement of universal applicability? Was this a last-ditch attempt to avoid gay marriage that was going to pass otherwise, or something that should be seen as a positive good? How should Catholics reconcile this statement with the Church's teaching that homosexual unions are disordered and the faithful should not partake in them? Is this meant to be a statement that the government should not enforce restrictions against homosexuality despite it being immoral? To each of these questions, I can think of many possible speculations, but without any context whatsoever it is essentially impossible to venture any serious answer.

Just a quick question.

I've been married 8 years. On what basis is my marriage 'disordered'? This isn't a 'gotcha'. Are you measuring it on value, on net benefit to the participants (and if so, how) or solely on the basis of it being two men?

[TJ in Oregon]

This is a one-off sentence, possibly far out of context, in a documentary that hasn't aired yet. This is not a formal teaching changing any current practice or doctrine of the Church. For better or worse, I think a lot of you are over-hyping this. I say this as somebody who would generally be in favor of civil unions as a "solution" for the Church in this matter.

I was going to write up a big effortpost to discuss what official church teachings are, what possible ways this can be reconciled with it as a prudential judgment (even if very tenuous and seemingly ill-advised), in what circumstances popes can be wrong about stuff, what Pope Francis's possible aims are, etc etc.

Then it was presented to me that "civil unions" is a questionable translation of what he said in Spanish.* And secondly, the sentences in that documentary the Pope is shown saying are spliced together from multiple interviews and weren't actually said in the sequence in which they were presented. If this is in fact fake news, it seems astonishing that it would get this far by simply being taken out of context and mistranslated, but the more digging I do, it really seems to be spliced at least.

*I've heard other sources saying that "civil unions" is a valid interpretation of "convivencia civil" but it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. A simple google search seems to take it to be "civil coexistence" in every context I can find. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have found the context from the second interview from which that sentence was plucked, as it is not from the same interview as the rest of the statement that is being quoted (that should raise some questions at the very least). Perhaps some of the Spanish speakers here could shed some light on whether "convivencia civil" strictly refers to civil unions or if it can have some broader meaning?

I asked a Hispanophone friend and was told that "unión convivencial" and "unión civil" are both terms for civil union in Argentinian law. Presumably Edu can confirm or disconfirm this. My guess given this is that what Francis was doing here was confirming the open secret that this was his position during Argentina's SSM debate in 2009-2010, and saying that he still feels that was the correct approach.

Perhaps? I have definitely heard that "conviviencia civil" (which is what he said rather than "unión convivencial") can refer to civil unions but is that unambiguously the case? It would also be nice to have the context of the second interview rather than it being (seemingly disingenuously) presented as the next sentence from the first.... but here we are.

It seems a bit pedantic to try and pick apart the Pope's comments with respect to the 'broader' meaning of Argentinian legalese.

Does it even refer to Argentine legalese? Or this this statement of universal applicability? Was this a last-ditch attempt to avoid gay marriage that was going to pass otherwise, or something that should be seen as a positive good? How should Catholics reconcile this statement with the Church's teaching that homosexual unions are disordered and the faithful should not partake in them? Is this meant to be a statement that the government should not enforce restrictions against homosexuality despite it being immoral? To each of these questions, I can think of many possible speculations, but without any context whatsoever it is essentially impossible to venture any serious answer.

Just a quick question.

I've been married 8 years. On what basis is my marriage 'disordered'? This isn't a 'gotcha'. Are you measuring it on value, on net benefit to the participants (and if so, how) or solely on the basis of it being two men?

I would say there are two factors: one is that it is between two men and the other is that it is a sexual union (as opposed to some kind of platonic relationship). The specific use of the word "disordered" refers to there being some proper order and recognizing that an instantiation is ordered differently. A sexual union between two men is disordered because the proper ends of human sexuality is toward the "marital embrace" between a man and a women open to bearing children. Two men are not able to do the same act. The union is disordered in that it is ordered towards some alternate ends of sexuality. You almost certainly disagree that those are in fact the proper ends of human sexuality, but I am a little surprised you have never heard this before given your many years of argument and discussion on the topic.

[afleitch]

Oh I know the arguments that are made. I just prefer them to be made directly to someone based not on the hypotheticals of same sex marriage but the reality of them. When it comes to 'marital embrace' (let's just call it sex) is that what validates the marriage? So if there's a lot of embracing going on, but no children either by circumstance or design, is that marriage still valid? Who checks up on it? What about the same sex couple who adopts?

It just seems rather a tenuous distinction to call my childless marriage disordered, but not say, my older brother's childless marriage when both are 'ordered' towards not currently having children.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh I know the arguments that are made. I just prefer them to be made directly to someone based not on the hypotheticals of same sex marriage but the reality of them. When it comes to 'marital embrace' (let's just call it sex) is that what validates the marriage? So if there's a lot of embracing going on, but no children either by circumstance or design, is that marriage still valid? Who checks up on it? What about the same sex couple who adopts?

It just seems rather a tenuous distinction to call my childless marriage disordered, but not say, my older brother's childless marriage when both are 'ordered' towards not currently having children.

For a marriage to be valid, there are other requirements in addition to sex, but yes, having sex (normal intercourse and it also has to be consensual) is one of the requirements. While marriage is indissoluble once validly ratified and consummated, it can actually be dissolved still after a wedding but prior to consummation. It has not yet been completed at that point. Although, the couple must also be open to children, they do not necessarily need to have born them for the marriage to be valid.

As for who checks up on it, in typically no one. Practically I do not see how they could in general unless some controversy arose, such as one party claiming the marriage is not valid for one reason or another, or if some impediment is publicly known.

[afleitch]

Oh I know the arguments that are made. I just prefer them to be made directly to someone based not on the hypotheticals of same sex marriage but the reality of them. When it comes to 'marital embrace' (let's just call it sex) is that what validates the marriage? So if there's a lot of embracing going on, but no children either by circumstance or design, is that marriage still valid? Who checks up on it? What about the same sex couple who adopts?

It just seems rather a tenuous distinction to call my childless marriage disordered, but not say, my older brother's childless marriage when both are 'ordered' towards not currently having children.

For a marriage to be valid, there are other requirements in addition to sex, but yes, having sex (normal intercourse and it also has to be consensual) is one of the requirements. While marriage is indissoluble once validly ratified and consummated, it can actually be dissolved still after a wedding but prior to consummation. It has not yet been completed at that point. Although, the couple must also be open to children, they do not necessarily need to have born them for the marriage to be valid.

As for who checks up on it, in typically no one. Practically I do not see how they could in general unless some controversy arose, such as one party claiming the marriage is not valid for one reason or another, or if some impediment is publicly known.

You do realise there's people in a marriage TJ. Love ? You know that bit is really important; more so than 'consummation' and babies? You come off like someone reading about it in a pamphlet for the first time.

[7,052,770]

For a marriage to be valid, there are other requirements in addition to sex, but yes, having sex (normal intercourse and it also has to be consensual) is one of the requirements. While marriage is indissoluble once validly ratified and consummated, it can actually be dissolved still after a wedding but prior to consummation. It has not yet been completed at that point. Although, the couple must also be open to children, they do not necessarily need to have born them for the marriage to be valid.

As for who checks up on it, in typically no one. Practically I do not see how they could in general unless some controversy arose, such as one party claiming the marriage is not valid for one reason or another, or if some impediment is publicly known.

I suspect this is using some made up definition of "normal" (devised by celebate men who have no idea what marriage and sex are like) and not by kind of statistical data gathering.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A nothing burger as usual with the mediahttps://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-homosexuality-comments-heavily-edited-in-documentary-no-vatican-comment-on-civil-unions and Pope Francis.

     Somehow, I don't expect the evidence that the bombshell clip was falsified to get nearly as much play as the original story of the clip. As it happens, "Pope advocates for Civil Unions" gets clicks and any retraction of that story (and thereby a maintenance of the status quo) does not.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

A nothing burger as usual with the mediahttps://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-homosexuality-comments-heavily-edited-in-documentary-no-vatican-comment-on-civil-unions and Pope Francis.

     Somehow, I don't expect the evidence that the bombshell clip was falsified to get nearly as much play as the original story of the clip. As it happens, "Pope advocates for Civil Unions" gets clicks and any retraction of that story (and thereby a maintenance of the status quo) does not.

Pope Francis has a long history of giving easily misinterpreted quotations that grab the media's attention and that end up being intentional nothingburgers, especially on LGBT rights in recent years