Bishop Barron's statement on same sex marriages

[Rau]

Well I guess I would ask: how else could I have my friendship with my best friend elevated and recognized, except through the government declaring it to be?

Elevated to…what?

You see, it is not the logic that is flawed (in pursuing SSM recognition), but the premise.

 

[edwest2]

Well I guess I would ask: how else could I have my friendship with my best friend elevated and recognized, except through the government declaring it to be?

Good question. What if two best friends live together while one is out of work? Or just to help pay the bills? It appears that two men who like women should get benefits, right?

Ed

 

[Rau]

… I’d like to see them go to an SSM couple in another country and say “You’re not validly married unless your government recognizes it!”

Perhaps I don’t understand you…but I think that they would hold they are married so long as a ceremony occurred in some jurisdiction where it is recognized.

 

[PRmerger]

Elevated to…what?

You see, it is not the logic that is flawed (in pursuing SSM recognition), but the premise.

Well, now I’m confused. It sounds like you’ve come over to my side in understanding that the premise is flawed.

“I need the government to legitimize my relationship!”

You see that it’s flawed when I say this where “best friends” are the relationship.

You should also see that it’s flawed when I say this where “gay men” are the relationship.

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps I don’t understand you…but I think that they would hold they are married so long as a ceremony occurred in some jurisdiction where it is recognized.

I meant if it was elsewhere.

 

[Peter_J]

Good question. What if two best friends live together while one is out of work? Or just to help pay the bills? It appears that two men who like women should get benefits, right?

Ed

I think this came up on a thread a few months ago … In any case I agree with you: if SSM couples get the same tax benefits etc. as OSM couples, then the same benefits should be extended to all the unmarried.

 

[Rau]

Well, now I’m confused. It sounds like you’ve come over to my side in understanding that the premise is flawed.

“I need the government to legitimize my relationship!”

You see that it’s flawed when I say this where “best friends” are the relationship.

You should also see that it’s flawed when I say this where “gay men” are the relationship.

Not the premise to which I refer! (BTW. I’ve not used the word “legitimize”)

The flawed premise is the wrong understanding of the nature of marriage (which SSM proponents hold).

The gay rationale is simply that the civil (marriage) process open to man+woman should be open to man+man. If one rightly understands marriage, this is nonsense. If one takes another view about marriage, this appears reasonable.

You remarked earlier that governments only record marriages in light of the prospect of children. Now by and large that’s true, but it’s not the sole reason. Civil marriage does set in train various civil/legal arrangements not directly connected with (prospective) children. If one accepts a hollowed out view of marriage - asset sharing, mutual care, social acceptability, etc etc - then it can follow that the sex of the participants is not of primary relevance. At which point, my response is that such thinking removes the very thing that makes marriage “marriage”.

 

[Rau]

I think this came up on a thread a few months ago … In any case I agree with you: if SSM couples get the same tax benefits etc. as OSM couples, then the same benefits should be extended to all the unmarried.

Are there tax benefits in the US just for being married?

I don’t know US tax law at all, but presumably any benefits attached to joint filing or spousal relationships are intended (in the main) to assist family formation, care of children etc. Hopefully, those benefits are minimal until there are actually children, or otherwise the benefits may leak to unintended recipients.

 

[mVitus]

Are there tax benefits in the US just for being married?

I don’t know US tax law at all, but presumably any benefits attached to joint filing or spousal relationships are intended (in the main) to assist family formation, care of children etc. Hopefully, those benefits are minimal until there are actually children, or otherwise the benefits may leak to unintended recipients.

There are deductions you can take out per child so a married couple with four children will have lower taxes than a married couple without children. (Assuming same incomes.) But there are benefits to joint filing prior to children too.

 

[Peter_J]

What mVitus said.

 

[Peter_J]

P. S. Have you ever noticed that if you say “What did mVitus say?” it sounds German?

 

[PRmerger]

Not the premise to which I refer! (BTW. I’ve not used the word “legitimize”)

The flawed premise is the wrong understanding of the nature of marriage (which SSM proponents hold).

The gay rationale is simply that the civil (marriage) process open to man+woman should be open to man+man. If one rightly understands marriage, this is nonsense. If one takes another view about marriage, this appears reasonable.

You remarked earlier that governments only record marriages in light of the prospect of children. Now by and large that’s true, but it’s not the sole reason. Civil marriage does set in train various civil/legal arrangements not directly connected with (prospective) children. If one accepts a hollowed out view of marriage - asset sharing, mutual care, social acceptability, etc etc - then it can follow that the sex of the participants is not of primary relevance. At which point, my response is that such thinking removes the very thing that makes marriage “marriage”.

Still not sure what the point is you’re making in response to my posts?

We are agreed, then, that it’s useless to have a government registry for certain relationships, yes?

 

[Rau]

…We are agreed, then, that it’s useless to have a government registry for certain relationships, yes?

Sure, but (civil) marriages do need to be recorded. The legal implications of civil marriage are themselves sufficient reason for the government to know the parties to that kind of relationship.

But the question is not that - it is “why does the government ‘need’ to extend its marriage provisions to same sex couples”? They “needed” to do so because enough people demanded it, and they demanded it for the reasons I’ve given.

My point is that your assertion that gay people have no basis to seek “marriage” is wrong. From their perspective - given their flawed understanding of marriage - it is understandable.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, but (civil) marriages do need to be recorded. The legal implications of civil marriage are themselves sufficient reason for the government to know the parties to that kind of relationship.

But the question is not that - it is “why does the government ‘need’ to extend its marriage provisions to same sex couples”? They “needed” to do so because enough people demanded it, and they demanded it for the reasons I’ve given.

My point is that your assertion that gay people have no basis to seek “marriage” is wrong. From their perspective - given their flawed understanding of marriage - it is understandable.

Sorry–I have no idea how this addresses my position.

Dialogue with you is always a bit murky because I never really understand if you’re objecting, critiquing or agreeing with my points.

Out of here.

 

[Rau]

Sorry–I have no idea how this addresses my position.

Fairly directly I would have thought.

Dialogue with you is always a bit murky because I never really understand if you’re objecting, critiquing or agreeing with my points.

Sometimes it is necessary to stand in a position (one would not normally choose) in order to understand how others arrived at their conclusions. That is how it is with gay marriage. The gay person reasons soundly but from a false premise.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

To be clear, I am not claiming Jesus approved of gay marriage. It’s impossible to say he approved or disapproved given that he didn’t address the topic at all.

Wrong. Mathew 19. Jesus endorsed the original Genesis account of marriage, one man, one woman.

 

[chloride]

The question remains, why is it required?

All legal benefits can be achieved without the benefit of marriage.

Arguable, at least not without some extra legal wrangling for things like power of attorney, etc. And the “secular” alternatives such as civil unions didn’t provide the federal benefits that are granted to married couples, because civil unions were state institutions. The benefits granted to civil unions depend largely on the state, ranging from non-existent (no recognition of civil unions) to being on par with the benefits of a full marriage. Suffice to say, much like the concealed carry permit issue, many folks aren’t big fans of suddenly losing legal protections when you cross state lines. And even then, you were still missing federal benefits.

So no, there were legal benefits that were not available outside of marriage.

Frankly I’m of the opinion that SSM wouldn’t have become a thing had federal civil unions been recognised and given the same benefits as marriage.

 

[Rau]

…Frankly I’m of the opinion that SSM wouldn’t have become a thing had federal civil unions been recognised and given the same benefits as marriage.

I don’t believe they would have been accepted - they draw a distinction - a “second class” kind of arrangement - that would have been rejected in the end. There are other non-US jurisdictions where the financial benefits do match marriage, and yet marriage is demanded.

What position does your local church/Minister take on SSM?

 

[Peter_J]

Frankly I’m of the opinion that SSM wouldn’t have become a thing had federal civil unions been recognised and given the same benefits as marriage.

You may be right. Let’s face it, people can be pretty reactionary … and what better way to react to not getting what you want than wanting something even less reasonable? (Sarcasm.)

 

[edwest2]

Arguable, at least not without some extra legal wrangling for things like power of attorney, etc. And the “secular” alternatives such as civil unions didn’t provide the federal benefits that are granted to married couples, because civil unions were state institutions. The benefits granted to civil unions depend largely on the state, ranging from non-existent (no recognition of civil unions) to being on par with the benefits of a full marriage. Suffice to say, much like the concealed carry permit issue, many folks aren’t big fans of suddenly losing legal protections when you cross state lines. And even then, you were still missing federal benefits.

So no, there were legal benefits that were not available outside of marriage.

Frankly I’m of the opinion that SSM wouldn’t have become a thing had federal civil unions been recognised and given the same benefits as marriage.

I go to LGBT sites. One term used was “marriage equality,” which meant a same-sex marriage was 100% equivalent to a heterosexual marriage. They did not want to settle for
“civil unions” because that’s less than marriage. They would be “second-class citizens.”

Ed