Alternatives to civil marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

No, not every case would be as I state. In some instances the family may have approved of the illicit relationship. In those cases it would be their right and nobody else’s to bestow portions of the property on the same-sex survivor. I think a homosexual relationship can be discovered by preponderance of the evidence. Did the couple live together? Did they belong to any organizations known to be sympathetic to gay rights? Did the house contain any pornography of a homosexual nature? Did they write any letters or make any statements anywhere that they were, in fact, homosexual? The answers to questions such as these should render the illicit contracts we mean to void pretty apparent.

This is how we will know whose rights to terminate. The alternative is to gamble on our children’s future as a means of providing ill-deserved comfort to a same-sex couple.
Well, I am all for returning to a time when the civil law more closely reflected the moral law. Adultery was illegal, fornication was illegal, sodomy was illegal. Now, if you wan to criminalize these acts then you may have a point.
 
Here is a new angle on this question. People have discussed at length the property law and contract law aspects of this question. Far more pressing is law concerning power of attorney for substitution decision-making in health care. Bishop Henry suggests this:

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060804.html

Canadian Bishop Proposes Solution to Same-Sex “Marriage” Dilemma
No gay marriage, no civil unions but recognize adult interdependent relationships

OTTAWA, June 8, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the House of Commons committee hearings on the same-sex ‘marriage’ Bill C-38 Monday, Calgary Bishop Fred Henry was asked by Liberal MP Anita Neville for suggestions on possible action by government on the issue.

Neville, who has voted in support of homosexual marriage asked, “how do you see some potential reconciliation of the government’s desire to honour the individual human rights of all Canadians with your own faith-based beliefs?”

Bishop Henry, a man very attuned to human suffering proposed a solution which, while being consistent with Catholic teaching, would also accommodate the basic needs of any adults in interdependent relationships. Thus homosexual couples would fall under this category of interdependent relationships along with, for instance, two adult siblings who live together with one looking after another with a disability. His basic message: no gay ‘marriage’, no civil unions, but adult interdependent relationships.

Bishop Henry responded, “Well, I think there are a number of things that could be done. One, I would hope that the government would decide to define the traditional understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others and not go in the direction of talking about some kind of analogous marriage such as civil unions, but look for those social rights deemed to be denied to members of the gay and lesbian community under an umbrella such as adult-interdependent relationships.”

The Bishop explained, “I think that desexualizes it and it puts it within a context where it also take into account, say, my niece who is currently committed to sacrificing her own life to look after grandma. Inheritance rights ought to be accorded to her, visiting rights when she goes to the hospital and so on ought to be acknowledged, and she shouldn’t be barred from doing so.”

Neville responded curtly rejecting the Bishop’s proposal: “Basically I hear that as no reconciliation between . . .” Sensing her gist, Bishop Henry cut in saying, “You’re right. If you’re asking me to accept a watered-down understanding of the institution of marriage, that’s not going to happen.”
 
Bishop Henry responded, “Well, I think there are a number of things that could be done. One, I would hope that the government would decide to define the traditional understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others and not go in the direction of talking about some kind of analogous marriage such as civil unions, but look for those social rights deemed to be denied to members of the gay and lesbian community under an umbrella such as adult-interdependent relationships.”

The Bishop explained, “I think that desexualizes it and it puts it within a context where it also take into account, say, my niece who is currently committed to sacrificing her own life to look after grandma. Inheritance rights ought to be accorded to her, visiting rights when she goes to the hospital and so on ought to be acknowledged, and she shouldn’t be barred from doing so.”

Neville responded curtly rejecting the Bishop’s proposal: “Basically I hear that as no reconciliation between . . .” Sensing her gist, Bishop Henry cut in saying, “You’re right. If you’re asking me to accept a watered-down understanding of the institution of marriage, that’s not going to happen.”
This is exactly what I have been telling Eric.
 
40.png
fix:
This is exactly what I have been telling Eric.
Hi fix!

How does the bishop’s proposal not water down marriage? His “adult-interdependent relationships” are just another way of saying “civil union.” At the end of the day it appears that what you are defending is not the use of an institution. You are defending the use of a word. You are claiming victory merely because your gay marriage is called something else.
 
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

How does the bishop’s proposal not water down marriage? His “adult-interdependent relationships” are just another way of saying “civil union.” At the end of the day it appears that what you are defending is not the use of an institution. You are defending the use of a word. You are claiming victory merely because your gay marriage is called something else.
That two people have a contract that assigns a proxie is not a marriage, “gay” or otherwise. Will you stop two non “gay” men from having a contract?

The contract does not equal a marriage, it never has in the past and will not in the future. That is the point. The state must not recognize any civil unions. Private contracts are nothing new and are essential items in this society.
 
40.png
fix:
That two people have a contract that assigns a proxie is not a marriage, “gay” or otherwise. Will you stop two non “gay” men from having a contract?

The contract does not equal a marriage, it never has in the past and will not in the future. That is the point. The state must not recognize any civil unions. Private contracts are nothing new and are essential items in this society.
Hi fix!

What I am saying is that private contracts between two individuals of the same sex that attempt to confer the incidents of marriage must be void. You are right that private contracts have never been understood to be confused with marriage and denying inheritance rights and the ability to choose a healthcare proxy formalizes this understanding by not allowing homosexuals to confuse the two as they have already confused the conception of marriage itself.
 
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

What I am saying is that private contracts between two individuals of the same sex that attempt to confer the incidents of marriage must be void. You are right that private contracts have never been understood to be confused with marriage and denying inheritance rights and the ability to choose a healthcare proxy formalizes this understanding by not allowing homosexuals to confuse the two as they have already confused the conception of marriage itself.
Incidents of marriage? What is unique to marriage? Healthcare proxie? Transfer of property? Nope. They do not make a marriage.
 
40.png
fix:
Incidents of marriage? What is unique to marriage? Healthcare proxie? Transfer of property? Nope. They do not make a marriage.
Hi fix!

You’re right. These things don’t make a marriage in and of themselves. In the case of a same-sex couple they are counterfeits and therefore must be void.
 
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

You’re right. These things don’t make a marriage in and of themselves. In the case of a same-sex couple they are counterfeits and therefore must be void.
Married people drink water, should homosexuals be denied water because such an act is common to married people?
 
40.png
fix:
Married people drink water, should homosexuals be denied water because such an act is common to married people?
Hi fix!

People drink water independent of any legalized union. This is a red herring.
 
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

People drink water independent of any legalized union. This is a red herring.
And people pass on property without being married.
 
40.png
fix:
And people pass on property without being married.
Hi fix!

ingle people who don’t otherwise specify how their property will be disposed of will have it disposed of by the government. If there are no family members, the government assumes control of the property. Married people have a presumed right of inheritance that trumps the inheritance rights of the family. If by private contract a same-sex couple means to mimic this presumed right of inheritance, the contract is void because to legally sanction it would effectively be conferring an incident of marriage onto a relationship that cannot have any legal recognition.
 
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

ingle people who don’t otherwise specify how their property will be disposed of will have it disposed of by the government. If there are no family members, the government assumes control of the property. Married people have a presumed right of inheritance that trumps the inheritance rights of the family. If by private contract a same-sex couple means to mimic this presumed right of inheritance, the contract is void because to legally sanction it would effectively be conferring an incident of marriage onto a relationship that cannot have any legal recognition.
No private contract can be assumed to mimic marriage. That is absurd. Anyone that has a contract outside of marriage would, by your standards, be mimicing marriage.
 
40.png
fix:
No private contract can be assumed to mimic marriage. That is absurd. Anyone that has a contract outside of marriage would, by your standards, be mimicing marriage.
Hi fix!

It depends entirely on what the provisions of the contract are.
 
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

It depends entirely on what the provisions of the contract are.
The provisions do not mention sexual acts and some of the contracts mention things that are common to married folks and ummarried folks.
 
40.png
fix:
The provisions do not mention sexual acts and some of the contracts mention things that are common to married folks and ummarried folks.
Hi fix!

Neither does a marriage license or a certificate of marriage mention sexual acts.
 
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

Neither does a marriage license or a certificate of marriage mention sexual acts.
Yes, but those specfically are issued to say one is married. The contract does no such thing.
 
40.png
fix:
Yes, but those specfically are issued to say one is married. The contract does no such thing.
Hi fix!

A contract that means to mimic the effects of marriage attempts to create an illicit union. No legal recognintion of a same-sex union means that such a contract must be void.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top