atheism

[StillWondering]

You said that you were a refugee; did that have something to do with it? From what I’ve been told, not just anyone can sponsor a regular immigrant.

Yes, being a refugee does help. If I was not a refugee and I wanted to enter the country I would use a passport. So I’m not sure what a regular immigrant is. Anyone with legal status in their country can enter the states if their country has legal relations. At that point they can apply for citizenship, amnesty, or a green card.
The reason I was a refugee is because Vietnam did not have legal relations that I could use to enter the country. In fact I was smuggled out and stayed as a refugee in camps in Malaysia and Phillipines until I found a sponsor to come over here.
So I’m not sure what you mean by a regular immigrant. What other cases are available?

Off the top of my head, here are some major differences between civil unions and marriages:

• out-of-state marriages are recognized; civil unions aren’t.
• civil unions aren’t recognized at all by the Federal government, so they get none of the Federal rights, responsibilities or benefits of marriage.

Here’s a list of some of the many Federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that civil unions don’t receive. I know people sometimes have issues with Wikipedia, but the original sources are listed so you can confirm:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

As for state benefits, IIRC, civil unions offer all the same state benefits as marriage, but domestic partnerships don’t… but the specific differences between a domestic partnership and a marriage vary from state to state.

I should have already looked at this myself. But I’ll check again. Thanks for the links.

No, it implies that flawed, inferior compromises are better than nothing at all. It doesn’t mean that domestic partnership legislation is ideal.

Inferior compromises is flawed if the relationship is the same, I can see that. But the relationship is not the same though. Marriage has many components, including family, financial, legal, and children. Unless Marriage does not relate to all of that, I’m not sure. Some older couples get married when they cannot have kids. This is true, though this may be different then both the cases we are talking about.

What do you mean? I don’t see what you’re getting at. How do you think same-sex marriage would affect churches, hospitals or schools?

This is my question. There are a lot of legal ramifications. What rights will churches, hospitals and schools retain?

Churches already have a “conscience clause”: the First Amendment. As for hospitals and schools, what effects are you worried about?

Are you sure the first amendment is enough? Can I not call someone a husband and not get sued? Can I not teach that homosexual relationships are part of the evolution of human social contracts? I’m not really sure where to start. It is a lot of issues.

I think the general consensus is that individual religions should be free to decide amongst themselves to grant or deny same-sex marriages based on their own teachings. I think there’s some division in the same-sex marriage camp about whether public officials involved in marriages (e.g. town clerks or justices of the peace) should be free to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages.

If this is the case, can two people be legally married to the state and then when they come to Church the community can see them as not married? If I was a therapist and someone went up me and asked for couple consoling and I told them politely refuse service? I think until issues about conscience causes are clearly defined, there is a lot of issues unresolved. Even then, if there is a civil union that the states allow with all the rights of marriage except the term, would gay activists be happy with this? I’m not saying this is the Church’s point of view, I’m just wondering.

The key words there are “legal guardian”. Also, there tends to be much less intolerance for people who help refugees than there is for homosexuals. And that’s only one way that the issue affects people.

I cannot speak for the tolerance of others. I can only say that we should all be tolerant of others. As for less intolerance. Just in recent history there is a lot of anti-immigration issues. Now just in the last decade but throughout American history there has been quota limits and bigotry against foreigners. I was lucky to have my sponsorship approved. In one of the camps, there were three thousand people Vietnamese or so that committed suicide in 1993. They did so because the American government was refusing to accept new immigrants. Canada has their doors open still but it was limited to only a few remaining camps. Other countries have closed their doors except to special cases at this point.

I do not support them committing suicide, but I truly understand. They would be worst then dead, in the secular sense of the word, when they are deported back home to Vietnam. The refugee camps have always been a temporary measure after all and so they would be deported a just a few weeks later. They tried to make legal pleas for months.

---

Either way, would it be enough if gay activists fight for a different option other than marriage. It could have the same rights or similar rights that are more important to them and respect our freedom to continue to use the term as we always have?

 

[StillWondering]

I was looking through the list of rights. There are legal means to most of them that I can see. Ones that I do not know of personally are tax issues as a couple. So is this the reason, those legal issues. Most of which are obtainable by other means (I did not need a lawyer, just a notary for my needs and a court fee).

 

[gearhead]

Yes, being a refugee does help. If I was not a refugee and I wanted to enter the country I would use a passport. So I’m not sure what a regular immigrant is.

Anyone who doesn’t have family ties in the US, isn’t a refugee, and doesn’t qualify for a special program.

Anyone with legal status in their country can enter the states if their country has legal relations. At that point they can apply for citizenship, amnesty, or a green card.

It’s not that simple. I’m no expert in US immigration law by any means, but I know that with many (most?) types of temporary entry visa, you aren’t eligible to apply for permanent residence while in the United States; you have to go back to your home country and apply from there.

However, if a person on a visa marries an American, then they can apply for permanent residency without leaving the country. But since same-sex marriage isn’t recognized by the federal government, this option isn’t open to same-sex couples.

Inferior compromises is flawed if the relationship is the same, I can see that. But the relationship is not the same though. Marriage has many components, including family, financial, legal, and children. Unless Marriage does not relate to all of that, I’m not sure.

Same-sex marriage includes all those elements. I know several same-sex couples who have families and are raising children.

This is my question. There are a lot of legal ramifications. What rights will churches, hospitals and schools retain?

All the ones they have now? It’s hard for me to be more specific without something from you about what your concerns are.

Are you sure the first amendment is enough? Can I not call someone a husband and not get sued?

Can’t you do this now? Say a woman divorces and remarries outside the Church; what law requires you to call her husband “husband”?

If you look through the “Ask an Apologist” section here, you’ll find several examples of people being told that the person who they’re civilly married to isn’t their spouse in the eyes of the Church.

Can I not teach that homosexual relationships are part of the evolution of human social contracts?

Not sure what you mean. I think it would be silly to pretend that they don’t exist, but I don’t see why public schools would be handing out moral judgements about same-sex marriage.

If this is the case, can two people be legally married to the state and then when they come to Church the community can see them as not married?

Yes. This already happens.

If I was a therapist and someone went up me and asked for couple consoling and I told them politely refuse service?

I’m not sure of the various laws on this, but I don’t see how it would be affected by same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples already exist.

I think until issues about conscience causes are clearly defined, there is a lot of issues unresolved. Even then, if there is a civil union that the states allow with all the rights of marriage except the term, would gay activists be happy with this? I’m not saying this is the Church’s point of view, I’m just wondering.

Some would, some wouldn’t. For some people, the word itself is important. For others, they don’t care what it’s called as long as they get their rights.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I have read that there are 1 million abortions performed in America a year or some large number as such. How many of these are emergency cases? Well I read that about 2-3% are. Well, if this is the case then what you said is not true.

No, I referred to hospitals (as distinguished from abortion clinics). A convenience abortion is an outpatient procedure, which is almost exclusively performed at clinics. While I’m not saying no convenience abortions are performed in hospitals, you should understand that hospitals are typically places that treat serious illnesses where treatment is not feasible on an outpatient basis (this is particularly true in today’s cost conscience environment). Therefore, it is exceedingly true that when hospitals are called on to provide an abortion it is to mitigate an emergency medical condition.

There are surely enough facilities to perform 2-3% of the abortions for emergency cases if there are more then 95% other abortions being performed. So I guess, I need proof of what you say. Can you find documentation that states that most abortions done are such or even only in hospitals. Well, there are plenty of non Catholic hospitals out there. I do not think what you are saying is practically true. If we do not mandate abortion rights for all hospitals, there are still *plenty *to provide for your needs despite any feelings I may have.

What about administration of the morning after pill to a rape victim? Presumably the CC would also find this offensive, so it stands to reason we can’t count on Catholic hospitals to treat rape victims at all (unless the victim is willing to have her attackers child). What else might the CC find offensive? How can we count on an institution that basis its medical practices on something as illogical and subjective as religion to administer quality health care professionally?

We cannot run our medical system based on medieval mythological dogma. Therefore, on balance I think if the CC isn’t willing to provide a full range of medical services then it should get out of the medical business in the United States.

I think it would be very interesting to see what comes out of it. Currently Catholic hospitals already provide a great deal of free or low cost care. It is taking financial hits to continue to provide. One thing that many forget its that Catholic hospitals were the predominant ones before and now are only 1/6 hospitals. This is not due to bad practice =). It is due to government regulations and health care systems that are taking away and preventing Catholic hospital growths over the last 60 years. So there are definite choices for everyone, but Catholics had to give up on many things for this nation already.

It’s always a government conspiracy isn’t it? Why not simply acknowledge that Catholic hospitals either haven’t tried to grow, or simply aren’t competitive in today’s health care environment.

 

[StillWondering]

Anyone who doesn’t have family ties in the US, isn’t a refugee, and doesn’t qualify for a special program.

It’s not that simple. I’m no expert in US immigration law by any means, but I know that with many (most?) types of temporary entry visa, you aren’t eligible to apply for permanent residence while in the United States; you have to go back to your home country and apply from there.

However, if a person on a visa marries an American, then they can apply for permanent residency without leaving the country. But since same-sex marriage isn’t recognized by the federal government, this option isn’t open to same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage includes all those elements. I know several same-sex couples who have families and are raising children.

All the ones they have now? It’s hard for me to be more specific without something from you about what your concerns are.

Can’t you do this now? Say a woman divorces and remarries outside the Church; what law requires you to call her husband “husband”?

If you look through the “Ask an Apologist” section here, you’ll find several examples of people being told that the person who they’re civilly married to isn’t their spouse in the eyes of the Church.

Not sure what you mean. I think it would be silly to pretend that they don’t exist, but I don’t see why public schools would be handing out moral judgements about same-sex marriage.

Yes. This already happens.

I’m not sure of the various laws on this, but I don’t see how it would be affected by same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples already exist.

Some would, some wouldn’t. For some people, the word itself is important. For others, they don’t care what it’s called as long as they get their rights.

I’ll reply to your post as a whole.

If you are not any of the special cases above, you can enter the country even with a temporary visa. So then you have entered the country. If you mean to become a citizen, I’m not sure the details, but I became a citizen by taking the naturalization process. There is a test and a promise to be a citizen. This is independent of the fact that I was a refugee. So I guess I still do not see what you mean by immigration. There has been plenty of people that immigrated to America that did not have spouses already here and are not special cases. If this was not the case then the population would be a great deal smaller. I’m not sure if there is a particular example you have.

I hear of same sex families with children they are raising. But the couple cannot have children themselves form their own flesh.

Well on a one on one basis usually I do not have to call anyone anyone’s husband. But in legal matters if they are state supported, then I would. That’s what gay activists are advocating for and that’s something I, personally, could not do unless there is some mitigation of culpability.

Would a private school be required to teach about homosexuality? Already there is a civil case attempting to require a Catholic university to provide contraception options. That is against Catholic teaching and yet there are others trying to impose this moral decision on the University. Are you saying that private institutions would really be free to work and worship as they wish?

I just hope my rights are protected through out this. You mentioned that I do not have clear concerns. Well, I am looking at this as a projection to the future, there will be a lot of current legal issues that are resolved today but would not be resolved tomorrow. I’m not only talking about the rights of individuals who are gay, but also the rights of individuals who are Catholics.

Right now, I want to tell you how I understand Catholic teaching on this and end it since I have to leave and this tread is not about atheism anymore.

Basically how I understand it is every licit sexual act needs to be both unifying and procreative in intent while under the context of marriage. While an old couple could be said to not be fertile, I am not worried about this since within the bible there are instances of women pass their childbearing age having children. As for man and man relationships or woman and woman relationships, I do not see how it is naturally possible. Nothing is impossible for God, true. God is also consistent in his creation. And so far in his creation he has bound a man and woman and gave them the ability to have children.

I guess I would take pause if evolution is true and homosexual relationships are true, allowing then man and woman to evolve in such a way as to be able to have kids with the same sex. Until then it seems very clear to me what a body of a man is and what a body of a woman is. And that these bodies do not produce children by themselves. It is an instinctively non procreative union so I do not understand the term marriage for these unions.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I guess I would take pause if evolution is true and homosexual relationships are true, allowing then man and woman to evolve in such a way as to be able to have kids with the same sex. Until then it seems very clear to me what a body of a man is and what a body of a woman is. And that these bodies do not produce children by themselves. It is an instinctively non procreative union so I do not understand the term marriage for these unions.

There’s a bunch of stuff other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (which harms no one) that I don’t understand … however, I certainly don’t presume the right to try and regulate away what I don’t understand. I think people who do are anti-freedom.

 

[StillWondering]

There’s a bunch of stuff other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (which harms no one) that I don’t understand … however, I certainly don’t presume the right to try and regulate away what I don’t understand. I think people who do are anti-freedom.

I feel the same way though I do admit there are some things that human decency needs to put a stop to. Law officers are allowed to enter a home if a neighbor reports suspicious activity in the home. This includes domestic violence, drug labs, and other things. Some BSDM (I think that’s the term) in practice has a special speed dial to hospital and police if they encounter real danger. At this point paramedics and law enforcement can enter the home to mediate or resolve situations.

Catholics do not barge into other homes-- non-derange ones anywyas --unless there is a just legal reason or medical reasons. So I am not advocating this. If gays feels they need tax rights (the only list of rights that I do not know of normal legal channels to obtain), they should petition for such things. But if they wish to force the term marriage on others, then it will effect me in my home. I’m not taking this personality, I’m using me as a reference to people in general with a personal tone to display the realism.

 

[josie_L]

So it isn’t the redefining of marriage that you have a problem with, it is only THIS incarnation of redefinition.

It is only when gays are involved that you mind. You didn’t mind when they redefined it to allow blacks to marry whites, you didn’t mind when dowries were no longer required, you didn’t mind it when women were given rights in marriage that they had been denied, you only mind it when it involved a group that you don’t like.

Nice.

What exactly is your problem with it? Where is the harm in letting people love and share the rights that everyone takes for granted while in a moral, loyal and monogomous relationship?

Besides, if you dont’ like gay marriage, don’t marry a gay.

Again, what you’ve mentioned above is not a redefinition of marriage, moreover I have given a clear explanation as to why I would refuse gays marriage, suffice it to say, I want them to have all the rights afforded to a married couple within a civil union. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

See you’re arguement sounds a lot more logical then the other argument just now. Basically you are willing to share to availability of unrestrained freedom across the board. While another pro-homosexual marriage here says it is unfair to talk about what “others will do”.

First, I want you or the other person to clarify, which one is the truth. That it does not matter what I will do because I will do it in love and kindness, as long as I do not fall (pray that I won’t if you are so willing), or that it does not matter what others may do with this precedence?

Hi StillWondering, I’m ever so glad to see you here. I can’t believe how many people posted in the last several hours, and I see that you’ve been busy refuting. Thanks. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

You say these things now, but the tone in which you wrote does not match the tone in which you write now. However I will chaulk it up to difficulties in determining such things on the internet.

Please, instead of putting your hands together, DO something. If you think that I am misguided then tell me why, explain, show evidence, don’t pray and hope that god MAKES me see.

I never said that the Pope was stupid, only that he is blinded by dogma. He supported the excccommunication of a 9 year old girls (who was raped by her step father) family because they gave her an abortion (she wouldn’t have survived the pregnancy she was 65 pounds) and said that if she had died she would have been watched over by angels. Death is better than abortion? He didn’t excommunicate the step father because he believes that the step father can be saved, but not the family whose only concern was the safety of their little girl. Moral?

Peace

I remember the bishop asking for the excommunication of the mother not the children. And I have to wonder how both her children were raped and yet she knew nothing about their sexual abuse?

 

[josie_L]

This is a pretty difficult and challenging legal question. On its face I wouldn’t be inclined to compel any health provider to provide a service they believe unethical (i.e. abortion). The obvious problem is what if every health facility were to opt out of providing abortion services? The aggregate impact would be a lack of providers to provide emergency abortion services (particularly in cases such as rape or to save the life of the mother during surgery or some sort of illness … which are usually the cases where a hospital would perform an abortion procedure).

First the only legal basis under which the federal government could compel such a thing is where it’s providing funding to the facility. If a Catholic health care organization is receiving public funds, then it’s permissible for the government to attach mandates to those funds. Arguably congress might be able to enact such a regulation under its commerce power, but it’s pretty questionable (and sketchy if you ask me).

This is probably a case that will appear before the Sup. Court in the coming years … it will be interesting to see the outcome.

This doesn’t make any sense, i.e., to believe no health facility would provide emergency abortion services because others object to it. Isn’t this the system we have presently and yet there seems to be enough abortion providers to have, oh, a million abortions per year. Do you think there’s going to be a greater demand for abortions in the future? Are you worried supply can’t meet demand?

 

[gearhead]

Again, what you’ve mentioned above is not a redefinition of marriage,

The change of marriage from basically an exchange of property between families to a partnership of equals was most certainly a redefinition of marriage.

This doesn’t make any sense, i.e., to believe no health facility would provide emergency abortion services because others object to it. Isn’t this the system we have presently and yet there seems to be enough abortion providers to have, oh, a million abortions per year. Do you think there’s going to be a greater demand for abortions in the future? Are you worried supply can’t meet demand?

That works fine in a big city, but even many medium-sized cities have only one hospital. If that hospital doesn’t provide the services a patient needs, then the patient probably has to do without, unless it’s a matter of life and death.

 

[yankee_doodle]

This doesn’t make any sense, i.e., to believe no health facility would provide emergency abortion services because others object to it. Isn’t this the system we have presently and yet there seems to be enough abortion providers to have, oh, a million abortions per year. Do you think there’s going to be a greater demand for abortions in the future? Are you worried supply can’t meet demand?

When you say a number like a million abortions per year (which is itself inaccurate) you’re not distinguishing between convenience abortions (the majority of all abortions performed in the US) and “emergency” abortions.

Emergency abortions are almost exclusively performed in hospitals. They’re usually done because of a significant health risk to the mother. It’s certainly conceivable that a woman might be in such a bad state that there’s no time to transport her to another hospital. In a Catholic hospital this might result in her death.

I have no idea what the statistical incidents of this might be; but it seems reasonable for the state to say they will not license a facility that fails to offer these services under emergency circumstances. That being said, a hospital can certainly choose not to be in the business of providing abortions (which is usually done at clinics anyway); they simply cannot refuse to provide an emergency abortion in cases where failing to do so would put the mother in jeopardy.

Anyone who endorses the right of a hospital to refuse these sort of emergency services to a potentially dying woman is not someone I would lend any credibility to. To veil that sort of twisted logic using a religion that’s supposed to be about peace and love is about as ironic as it gets.

 

[josie_L]

The change of marriage from basically an exchange of property between families to a partnership of equals was most certainly a redefinition of marriage.

But the fact still remains that at it’s core marriage as always been (with the exception of the early roman empire and even then we do not know if the people supported such marriages) a covenant/contract between man and woman for the formation and protection of rearing children (this has not changed no matter how you dress it).

That works fine in a big city, but even many medium-sized cities have only one hospital. If that hospital doesn’t provide the services a patient needs, then the patient probably has to do without, unless it’s a matter of life and death.

All right then let’s get rid of the conscience clause and force people to do things they don’t wish to do because there may be the possibility that someone won’t be able to find an abortion clinic to provide them the necessary “surgery” to remove “the blob of tissue” in her womb.

 

[josie_L]

when you say a number like a million abortions per year (which is itself inaccurate) you’re not distinguishing between convenience abortions (the majority of all abortions performed in the us) and “emergency” abortions.

Emergency abortions are almost exclusively performed in hospitals. They’re usually done because of a significant health risk to the mother. It’s certainly conceivable that a woman might be in such a bad state that there’s no time to transport her to another hospital. In a catholic hospital this might result in her death.

I have no idea what the statistical incidents of this might be; but it seems reasonable for the state to say they will not license a facility that fails to offer these services under emergency circumstances. That being said, a hospital can certainly choose not to be in the business of providing abortions (which is usually done at clinics anyway); they simply cannot refuse to provide an emergency abortion in cases where failing to do so would put the mother in jeopardy.

anyone who endorses the right of a hospital to refuse these sort of emergency services to a potentially dying woman is not someone i would lend any credibility to. To veil that sort of twisted logic using a religion that’s supposed to be about peace and love is about as ironic as it gets.

What gave you the idea that a Catholic hospital would refuse a woman potentially dying (in this instance they would try to save both the mother and the child, but if it were not possible to save the child then they would save the mother or vise versa)?

 

[gearhead]

But the fact still remains that at it’s core marriage as always been (with the exception of the early roman empire and even then we do not know if the people supported such marriages) a covenant/contract between man and woman for the formation and protection of rearing children (this has not changed no matter how you dress it).

Through most of history, I’d say it was more accurately a contract between the man’s family and the woman’s family, or between the man and the woman’s family, not between the man and the woman.

All right then let’s get rid of the conscience clause and force people to do things they don’t wish to do because there may be the possibility that someone won’t be able to find an abortion clinic to provide them the necessary “surgery” to remove “the blob of tissue” in her womb.

No need for a conscience clause, because nobody’s forced to do anything that they don’t wish to do. Nobody forces a person to take a particular job; if they’re uncomfortable with the duties of the job, they’re free to resign and find another job that’s more suited to them.

 

[josie_L]

Through most of history, I’d say it was more accurately a contract between the man’s family and the woman’s family, or between the man and the woman’s family, not between the man and the woman.

Yes I’m sure this changes the fact that the married couple is one woman and one man.

No need for a conscience clause, because nobody’s forced to do anything that they don’t wish to do. Nobody forces a person to take a particular job; if they’re uncomfortable with the duties of the job, they’re free to resign and find another job that’s more suited to them.

Quite frankly I’m appalled by this statement. If I have kids I’ll be sure to remind them they can’t be doctors because doctors need to absolutely perform abortions (by then euthanasia might be on the list of necessary duties). And rather than saying the hippocratic oath, they can say the hypocritic oath that states all life is up to the doctor/state who stands as God and wills life to live or die. God bless.

 

[yankee_doodle]

What gave you the idea that a Catholic hospital would refuse a woman potentially dying (in this instance they would try to save both the mother and the child, but if it were not possible to save the child then they would save the mother or vise versa)?

I’m not sure that’s the case; but if it is then great! Like I said I wouldn’t be inclined to force a religious institution to get full fledged into the business of abortion. If, however, they refuse to perform an abortion under any circumstances … that’s a problem IMO. I guess there’s not much more to say on this topic unless someone wants to provide a link explaining what the policy of Catholic hospitals actually is in this area?

 

[gearhead]

Yes I’m sure this changes the fact that the married couple is one woman and one man.

It isn’t in all places.

And what it does change is your claim that your definition of marriage has been constant over time.

Quite frankly I’m appalled by this statement.

If it makes you feel better, I think the same principle applies across the board. If, say, a firefighter refuses to respond to a fire in a Catholic church because he thinks that the Pope is the antichrist, then he should be shown the door, too.

If I have kids I’ll be sure to remind them they can’t be doctors because doctors need to absolutely perform abortions (by then euthanasia might be on the list of necessary duties). And rather than saying the hippocratic oath, they can say the hypocritic oath that states all life is up to the doctor/state who stands as God and wills life to live or die. God bless.

Or tell them to be oncologists; they don’t perform abortions. Or family physicians. Or dermatologists. Or any number of specialties that have nothing to do with abortions.

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure that’s the case; but if it is then great! Like I said I wouldn’t be inclined to force a religious institution to get full fledged into the business of abortion. If, however, they refuse to perform an abortion under any circumstances … that’s a problem IMO. I guess there’s not much more to say on this topic unless someone wants to provide a link explaining what the policy of Catholic hospitals actually is in this area?

Why would you question what I’ve said, are you that bigoted against the Catholic church that you would think they’d refuse to help a woman who was potentially dying?