K
K9Buck
Guest
Who did that? I must have missed it.
K
K9Buck
Guest
Oh, ok.
@camoderator informed me that someone reported this thread. Apparently they oppose this discussion. They’re likely the same folks that favor a Catholic theocracy ruling America with an iron fist. They scare me as much as the atheist communists that want totalitarian rule.
P
PetraG
Guest
It changes who will inherit your wealth when you die, whether there will be estate taxes due on it, what sort of standing you each have with regards to health insurance benefits or medical decisions if you are incapacitated, what kind of Social Security benefits you can claim, even if you have never held down a paying job personally, how your retirement accounts will be handled, how much tax you will owe, whether or not you can be expected to testify against one another in court, and so on. It changes who can be pursued if one of you runs up a debt. It affects what gifts you can give each other without being subject to a gift tax. It is an extremely long list!How does my marriage to my wife (incidentally, we are a heterosexual, Catholic couple) affect you?
The GAO estimated there are over 1,000 statuatory provisions in the US which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. As it turns out, then, whether or not you are married affects a lot besides the two of you.
Meanwhile, it is recognized in law that neither spouse has the right to force the other spouse to engage in sexual activities without the ongoing consent of the other spouse. Civil law does not recognize that anybody has a right to demand sex from anybody, whether they are married or not. As defined in civil law in the US, marriage is, rather, an legal arrangement of mutual care and mutual primary personal standing between adults.
Other people do have to respect that mutual personal standing. It does affect society, then, because society really isn’t free to not care whether you are married or not.
Last edited:
P
PJM
Guest
Perhaps: If one were to take out the word “impose” and replace it with share; then count Me In.
GBY,
Pjm1
GBY,
Pjm1
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
Why are you saying that?
K
K9Buck
Guest
Thank you @camoderator for removing the timer on this quality, polite discussion. Moderators should always strive to engender such discussion, not annihilate it.
T
TK421
Guest
For the record: it wasn’t me. I am loving the conversation and also having a good time. These forums are very stimulating which is why I spend more time here than what I should.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
It is impossible to take away somebody’s free will.
As far as permitting people to do certain things: it depends. There are heinous crimes which are illegal and enforced by civil authorities for the common good of mankind. Assault, sexual assault, robbery, etc. Some things cause harm to the common good but it is imprudent and harmful to criminalize them, such as premarital sex or unkind speech.
There are also some thing that should or should not receive equal legal recognition. A friendship doesn’t need to be legally recognized by the state. There are valid reasons for why a marriage between a man and a woman ought to be recognized by the state, and why a same-sex relationship should not, because the two are not analogous to one another.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
@Dan123
- The ideal environment for a child is to be raised by a mother and father in a permanent married relationship.
- Sexuality is malleable and not binary. We know now this from modern science and psychology and many people who are supportive of the LGBT agenda admit to this. In ancient Greece, prior to its political disintegration, it is estimated that up to 50% or more of men had engaged in a homosexual relationship. Sexuality exists on a spectrum and the vast majority of people are not strictly homosexual or heterosexual. If they are exposed to homosexuality in early childhood, they are far more likely to develop bisexual behavior as a teenager and adult.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Perhaps, but I asked if it would form a more stable home. You seemed concerned with the well-being of children. Would you have gone against the wishes of the child’s parents and put the child with strangers instead of family because of what you think the ideal situation is?
T
TK421
Guest
@Dan123
That’s a bit of a complex legal question you’re giving me and I’m not sure how comfortable I am in answering it. I don’t know how practical or possible it is to control such unfortunate occurrences in a country where the effects of the sexual revolution are already epidemic and on a wide scale. Hundreds of millions of people are already suffering from it.
However, the child is worse off for being with two people in a disordered relationship versus a loving, nuclear family. We are just beginning to see the differences because the changes to society are still young, although the more time that passes, the more solidified the data will become.
That’s a bit of a complex legal question you’re giving me and I’m not sure how comfortable I am in answering it. I don’t know how practical or possible it is to control such unfortunate occurrences in a country where the effects of the sexual revolution are already epidemic and on a wide scale. Hundreds of millions of people are already suffering from it.
However, the child is worse off for being with two people in a disordered relationship versus a loving, nuclear family. We are just beginning to see the differences because the changes to society are still young, although the more time that passes, the more solidified the data will become.
Last edited:
K
K9Buck
Guest
Not really.
T
TK421
Guest
Sure it is. Last time I checked, somebody can’t become an attorney with a high school diploma.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
I’m going to admit my blood boiled for a moment that you attached ‘loving’ only to the second example there but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t trying to suggest that the couple raising her isn’t loving, is something to be considered carefully.
I understand the reluctance to answering the question, certainly suggesting that a child be taken from family and placed with strangers, even if those strangers represent your idea of what a ‘good’ family structure is.
Addressing the earlier comment about how you slipped in loving only the second time you mentioned it, do you think the wellbeing of the child would be better off in a home with a loving, lesbian couple, or an unloving heterosexual couple? What if beyond unloving they’re verbally abusive?
What if only one of the original biological parents had died, leaving the other a single parent. Would you think taking the child away from that parent to put with a married couple to be a ‘difficult legal question’?
And my original question which I don’t feel was answered, if the child is being raised by her aunt and the aunt’s female partner, assume for a moment that isn’t up for debate, does it add to or subtract from the child’s wellbeing for that couple to be married?
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
I wasn’t really asking from a legal perspective more a ‘what would you do if you had to make the choice’ one
T
TK421
Guest
To love is to will the good of another. It is entirely independent of a person’s feelings or sentiment. Because same-sex relationships are disordered, it is not an act of love to willfully put a child in a harmful environment.
I am sorry if I caused your blood to boil. Mine hasn’t. I realize your intention is to understand.
I don’t know to what extent a same-sex couple understands this, especially if they are raised in a declining, post-Sexual Revolution culture where they are given a lot of propaganda from an early age that supports hypersexuality, objectivity, non-permanence, and viewing marriage as being something strictly for companionship. So perhaps their intentions are good or perhaps they are not. But, objectively speaking, the situation is bad.
It depends on the exact environment, but a verbally abusive home is indeed harmful to children and parents who do this commit sin, possibly grave sin. The difference, however, is that verbal abuse can be rectified, whereas there is nothing that can rectify the situation of a same-sex couple.
Not really, because the child legally belongs to the mother/father from the beginning and taking the child away would cause severe psychological harm for both the child and the parent.
It would subtract to the well-being of the child as well as to the well-being of society, because it creates a fictional, alternate reality that pretends that same-sex couples can be married in the way that heterosexual couples can be married.
Peace.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Can you demonstrate this harm objectively or is it just presupposed because it disagrees with church teaching?
As one of the folks around here often arguing ‘the other side’ I’m often asked to consider how I know I’m right, and the consequences if I’m wrong. I’d like to do the same for a moment here.
What if the reason same sex couples (and heterosexuals who support fully equal rights for such persons) “don’t understand it” is simply because you’re wrong?
The child is 5 now, does that mean at least for my specific scenario taking the child away to put with a heterosexual married couple would be a bad idea (even if you want to reserve that it might be for the best in some other situations) as it would cause psychological harm for the child and the two women raising her?
This just speaks to my comment above about demonstrating the harm.
The issue I think we’re going to have is you’re likely to see any societal movement away from an ideal Catholic society to be ‘harm’, non catholics and especially non-believers would obviously not.
Addendum:
Except the scenario is they’re raising a child together, not just companions.
Last edited:
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
It is the opposite of charitable when we do not attempt to lead people to truth. When we fail to speak to sin, or when we act like sin is ok, it is the opposite of charitable.
blackforest
Well-known member
How would you define “traditional?” Whose tradition? In the Old Testament and countless other times and culture, polygamy and polyandry have defined marriage. More recently in history, until Loving vs. Virginia (1968), “traditional” marriage meant that everybody was to marry within their own ethnicity. “Traditional” marriage has involved men beating their wives with the law behind them. “Traditional” marriage has involved arranged marriages instead of marrying for love.
If you’re defining marriage by your personal traditions, and perhaps those of your own ancestors, should the law then impose that definition on the rest of society?
R
Rau
Guest
Well, the proposition is merely about the scope of marriage adopted by the State. So that appears to be something within the purview of the majority to decide.
It has been already.