Canadian same-sex marriage... between two straight men?

[Petergee]

I disagree with those who argue that the Stae should have nothing to do with marriage and/or treat marriage the same as any two interdependent people living together (as virtually happens in France), and that we should stop worrying about what sort of faux “marriages” nonbelievers get up to.

Marriage existed before the State, yes, but it deserves the State’s recognition and support, if the State wants to survive as a meaningful human society. I still believe marriage is worth saving. Maybe this latest mockery of marriage will finally make people come to their senses and realise that we have achieved nothing by downgrading marriage to “just recognising that two people love each other”.

 

[walstan]

What is marriage?

Marriage is the union of two people, for life in the site of God.

Now if God ain’t there, like in a civil “marriage” it doesn’t matter what the law says or what tax breaks they earn or even if they think their married, they ain’t!!

so call it what you will, only one marriage exists and that is the one sworn before the Lord and entered into in love of him.

 

[Hildebrand]

vern humphrey:

They have a strange relationship in the US, too.

For example, when I die, my wife pays no taxes on what I leave behind. But when SHE dies, the estate she passes on to the children and grand child is heavily taxed.

So if two people of the same sex can get married, why not several people of assorted sexes?

We marry our children and grand child and out-fox the IRS.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

That’s actually a good idea. :bounce:

And maybe the Catholic Church will support mercy marriage. Where a single adult marries a homeless person with medical problems, so the homeless men and women can get health coverage. Once the homeless person is healthy, divorce him or her and move onto the next homeless sick person. Of course, you would have to have a prenuptial agreement.

The Holy Father cannot be opposed to helping the homeless now can he?

 

[Richardols]

Hildebrand:

That’s actually a good idea. :bounce:

And maybe the Catholic Church will support mercy marriage. Where a single adult marries a homeless person with medical problems, so the homeless men and women can get health coverage. Once the homeless person is healthy, divorce him or her and move onto the next homeless sick person. Of course, you would have to have a prenuptial agreement.

The Holy Father cannot be opposed to helping the homeless now can he?

If the marriage were to be a civil ceremony, without subsequent sexual relations, it wouldn’t seem to violate any Catholic belief.

 

[Ahimsa]

Richardols:

If the marriage were to be a civil ceremony, without subsequent sexual relations, it wouldn’t seem to violate any Catholic belief.

According to the Church, marriage requires consummation (sexual relations), no?

 

[Jennifer123]

Cubsfan:

The implications are to huge to imagine. I predict that every country that passes gay marriage will eventually be seamped in a benefits crisis both public and private. Eventually employers will have to stop offering them as they will become such a burden.

Exit employers, enter the gov’t. Perhaps a way to usher in the socialist agenda?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

walstan:

What is marriage?

Marriage is the union of two people, for life in the site of God.

Now if God ain’t there, like in a civil “marriage” it doesn’t matter what the law says or what tax breaks they earn or even if they think their married, they ain’t!!

so call it what you will, only one marriage exists and that is the one sworn before the Lord and entered into in love of him.

walstan, I agree completely. No argument from me about ‘marriage.’

But I am not sure that people understood me about the adult dependent unions. What I suggested was this:

The major basis on which same sex couple argued for civil ‘marriage’ was because they thought they were receiving differential treatment on the basis of a prohibited ground. That is: discrimination.

The red herring thrown in was the sexualization of their relationship. The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

In the event of an adult caring for another adult, then this is a good solution for a huge huge huge need. But the State puts up barriers to achieving this.

Now there is a huge huge huge problem in Canada about how the disabled are treated. Saying the disabled are covered under the Human Rights Act is not sufficient. Why? Because the laws are complicated and draconian.

For a person to take care of a disabled person, a whole set of hoops have to be jumped through. It is exhausting navigating stupid laws just to get the necessary things done for the loved one who is disabled. Sooner or later most of us will become disabled.

The gay lobby’s insistence on going beyond achieving parity in the eyes of the State resulted in a big red herring: the sexualization of State-sanctioned unions. And this has obstructed the interests of the disabled.

The licitness or non-licitness of a couple having sex or not is the domain of religion, not secular life.

It so happens that whether an adult extends charitable works toward another adult is also the domain of religion. But, in this respect, the Church shares its concern with the State. However, it is the State and only the State which has the authority to facilitate adult dependent relations through changes in the law.

1. I am for marriage remaining within the exclusive jurisdiction of religious institutions.
2. I am against the State having the power to marry people.
3. I am for the State simplifying the law and beefing up the law to make it easy for one adult to give care on an ongoing basis to another adult.

So, what does this look like?

a) From now on everyone ‘married’ by the State is no longer married. They are in adult dependent unions. This includes man/woman couples.

b) People in adult dependent unions may have consentual sexual relations or no sexual relations. The State will not concern itself with sexual relations unless they are non-consentual.

c) Those people in adult dependent unions who want to also be married, must conform to the requirements of the religious institutions in which they wish to be married. And, if the Church says that same sex-couples may not be married, may not have sexual relations, then that’s that!

This leaves the cost of adult dependent care. The cost of home care under this scheme is dramatically less expensive than in the current scheme. Fewer institutional health care costs. Fewer legal costs.

The Canadian government has made a commitment to deal with its aging baby boomer population by promoting aging-in-place. The vision may be good. But the means to get there are exceedingly stupid, blunt, costly, ineffective, and cruel. Creating the adult dependent union law would change that.

But this change has been blocked by the gay lobby’s big brou-ha-ah over sex, and their big sturm and drang over achieving a parody of Catholic marriage. And yes it is Catholic marriage we are talking about.

Yes, it will be a shock to many to find out that the State cannot marry them. They will be lumped in with Aunt Peggy and cousin Norman; neighbour Bob and friend Elmo; and every variety of folks who don’t have the appearances of being a ‘sexual couple.’ Good news! Maybe that will shock common law couples into joining the Church!

It is this very appearance of being married – while never actually having made that covenant with God – that has seen the advent of whole nations of children who are abused, neglected, and all but orphaned. That’s not good. Civil marriage is neither civil nor marriage. And never has been.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ani Ibi:

1. I am for marriage remaining within the exclusive jurisdiction of religious institutions.
2. I am against the State having the power to marry people.
3. I am for the State simplifying the law and beefing up the law to make it easy for one adult to give care on an ongoing basis to another adult.

So, what does this look like?

a) From now on everyone ‘married’ by the State is no longer married. They are in adult dependent unions. This includes man/woman couples.

b) People in adult dependent unions may have consentual sexual relations or no sexual relations. The State will not concern itself with sexual relations unless they are non-consentual.

c) Those people in adult dependent unions who want to also be married, must conform to the requirements of the religious institutions in which they wish to be married. And, if the Church says that same sex-couples may not be married, may not have sexual relations, then that’s that!

I agree with much of this.

In other words, there should be a civil agreement available that allows for people to care for other people, with all financial and property considerations taken care of. There is no need to call this “marriage”, because sexual relations is not part of the civil agreement. If the parties concerned want to have sex, then that’s their option as human beings, independently of whether they entered into a civil agreement or not. Whether the parties concerned are hetero- or homosexual, is a moot point.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

No doubt the next step in Canada will be for old ladies to marry their cats. Maybe hey’ll have trios instead of couples, too.

Nightmarish at best…

 

[Neithan]

I second Ani Ibi’s movement for a radical overhaul of marriage legislation in Canada–awesome idea! ‘Civil Union’ should apply to *any *legally recognized relationship.

The radical gay lobby has ‘hijacked’ the definition of marriage in Canada through the State. It’s time we invoke the true “separation of Church and State” which secular society is so clamouring for and take marriage out of the State entirely.

 

[batteddy]

Two gay men, two straight men, two spinster sisters, mother-daughter, mother-son, brother-brother, odd couple, two business partners, etc. Canadian law doesn’t discriminate, does it? Marriage for everybody.

Sadly true.

But that is what is so wrong about this agenda.

The tax benefits were orginally given to ENCOURAGE and PROMOTE a specific institution.

But if you give the benefits to everyone, then they are no longer promoting any specific model, and so there is no longer any reason to give the benefits to anyone…

 

[JimG]

batteddy:

Sadly true.

But that is what is so wrong about this agenda.

The tax benefits were orginally given to ENCOURAGE and PROMOTE a specific institution.

But if you give the benefits to everyone, then they are no longer promoting any specific model, and so there is no longer any reason to give the benefits to anyone…

I agree. The very reason that the State has historically granted tax and other benefits to (heterosexual) marriage is that the institution of marriage is a benefit to society, by providing stability, and providing for procreating and raising of children.

Any alternative form of marriage provides no such societal benefits–in fact, it makes social problems worse.

Consequently, if we are going to recognize gay marriage or other alternative forms of marriage, I would suggest that the state provide no benefits of any kind to any marriages whatsoever. Treat everyone alike as single people.

 

[Jennifer123]

JimG:

I agree. The very reason that the State has historically granted tax and other benefits to (heterosexual) marriage is that the institution of marriage is a benefit to society, by providing stability, and providing for procreating and raising of children.

Any alternative form of marriage provides no such societal benefits–in fact, it makes social problems worse.

Consequently, if we are going to recognize gay marriage or other alternative forms of marriage, I would suggest that the state provide no benefits of any kind to any marriages whatsoever. Treat everyone alike as single people.

I agree with what you are predicting but can’t help but think it will have negative consequences on the economy. A lot of those breaks go right back into the system. Maybe the govt could still give breaks to those with dependant children.