Just a word from a straight man who knows his sex isn't female

  • Thread starter Thread starter ett
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ett

Guest
right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital,
dignity as a citizen of this country,
healthcare,
right to inherit,
mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth

Someone brought up these issues to bend people towards belief in gay marriage.

The first of these kindof has a point, but couldn’t this simply be a right for domestic partners?

The second, I really don’t understand. They have the dignity already of those who believe in them, they shouldn’t get dignity from those who don’t believe, and certainly not from governmental control. This also goes for mental welfare and emotional well-being; mental welfare? What is that exactly? It has the word “welfare” in it, so I’d like to know. Emotional well-being should have nothing to do with government, it’s emotions!

What does healthcare have to do with this? Are homosexuals (or same-sex attracted) entitled to less healthcare currently?

As far as inheritance, can’t they just do that their will, regardless of any marriage or partnership?
 
All these rights they say they are being denied is completely false, they can currently do all of these things.

You can get legal documents for inheritance, custody issues, and in my 12 years in health care have never seen anyone denied of seeing a loved one (gay or straight). Also the vast majority of insurance companies provide domestic partner coverage as well.

It’s all a farce to further the Anti-Christian, particularly anti-Catholic agenda of certain groups. They would love nothing more than to have marriage between gays be legal so they can then sue Catholic churches for not renting a church or facility to them or perhaps get the charitable tax exceptions for religious entities taken away.

Don’t forget that these types of people never have a single, isolated goal in mind…this is just a step to another, larger agenda.
 
The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon had no objection to a legal solution which would allow consenting adults who could not marry to automatically set up the rights and obligations appropriate for mutual care (which are expensive to set up piecemeal) provided it is available to all consenting adults, including siblings and so on, and does not imply a sexual relationship. It would essentially be a way to define a “family member” who would be eligible to be on employer-provided health care policies and so on. Those lobbying for homosexual rights rejected this option.

In other words, it is not the lack of a sufficiently convenient way to set up this kind of mutual support that is the issue. It is the lack of a means to make homosexual relationships “legitimate” as sexual relationships. The ultimate goal is to erase distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

The Church doesn’t intend to deny anyone dignity. The intention is to deny falsehood, and the contention that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are no different in their effects in society is false. This is not a religious belief, and it doesn’t take a belief in a deity to see it.
 
The argument (not that I agree with it - just playing Devil’s advocate here) is that the law in most jurisdictions makes all sorts of automatic presumptions on favour of married couples - that a spouse gets first dibs on life insurance, property of the spouse if they die without a will, first say in healthcare when the spouse is incapable of making their own decision and so on.

Now the law does allow, but not always, homosexual partners to make the same or similar arrangements - but it can be a convoluted and expensive process, especially in regards things like allowing a partner to have the final say on healthcare issues. And even where the arrangements are made they are less certain than the automatic presumptions made in favour of a spouse.

So the argument would be - ‘why should I have to jump through hoops and spend time and money having documents drawn up making these arrangements when married people get them automatically and for free’?
 
LilyM said:
The argument (not that I agree with it - just playing Devil’s advocate here) is that the law in most jurisdictions makes all sorts of automatic presumptions on favour of married couples - that a spouse gets first dibs on life insurance, property of the spouse if they die without a will, first say in healthcare when the spouse is incapable of making their own decision and so on.

Now the law does allow, but not always, homosexual partners to make the same or similar arrangements - but it can be a convoluted and expensive process, especially in regards things like allowing a partner to have the final say on healthcare issues. And even where the arrangements are made they are less certain than the automatic presumptions made in favour of a spouse.

So the argument would be - ‘why should I have to jump through hoops and spend time and money having documents drawn up making these arrangements when married people get them automatically and for free’?
Click to expand...
I work in health care and I can say that most of the related arguments are bogus. Nobody is guaranteed the right to make decisions about their spouse’s condition without power of attorney, living will, or health care directive. It is no more difficult for gays to get these documents than it is for straight people.

The other issues may have some validity as married people always inherit their spouse’s belongings unless their is a will stating otherwise and the same with custody in the event of a death. So, yes, it may cost more but they can do it. Perhaps the better way to do this would be to (as stated above) have a simple way to elect someone to be a family member who inherited all of your belongings, takes custody of children…ect in case of death.

Of course, gays will not accept anything less than marriage so I doubt it will ever happen.
 
mcrow said:
I work in health care and I can say that most of the related arguments are bogus. Nobody is guaranteed the right to make decisions about their spouse’s condition without power of attorney, living will, or health care directive. It is no more difficult for gays to get these documents than it is for straight people.
Click to expand...
This is true.
 
mcrow said:
I work in health care and I can say that most of the related arguments are bogus. Nobody is guaranteed the right to make decisions about their spouse’s condition without power of attorney, living will, or health care directive. It is no more difficult for gays to get these documents than it is for straight people.

The other issues may have some validity as married people always inherit their spouse’s belongings unless their is a will stating otherwise and the same with custody in the event of a death. So, yes, it may cost more but they can do it. Perhaps the better way to do this would be to (as stated above) have a simple way to elect someone to be a family member who inherited all of your belongings, takes custody of children…ect in case of death.

Of course, gays will not accept anything less than marriage so I doubt it will ever happen.
Click to expand...
A trip to Office Depot or Staples and less than $ 15.00 will provide you with the “kit” to write a will and if you have a bank account you can notarize it for free.

Unless you bequith millions and need to set up trust funds and what have not in which case (a) you need a lawyer and (b) money is not an issue 😉
 
What I find missing in any of these discussions is the relationship between platonic friends.
A fictional example would be the relationship between Cal and Woodrow in Lonesome Dove. Legally, it should be possible to select a “best friend” to handle financial and other legalities for individuals who may not have a spouse. This best friend should have the right of visitation, etc. in case of hospitalization.
 
JerryZ said:
A trip to Office Depot or Staples and less than $ 15.00 will provide you with the “kit” to write a will and if you have a bank account you can notarize it for free.

Unless you bequith millions and need to set up trust funds and what have not in which case (a) you need a lawyer and (b) money is not an issue 😉
Click to expand...
Actually, inheritance laws vary, and in some areas you are limited in the amount you can bequeath to a non-family member.

Also, some of the other rights not covered by independent legal documents would be Social Security death benefits, Child tax credits for a partner’s child, Family Medical Leave Act to care for a domestic partner, etc.

I am just pointing out that there are a number of governmental/legal benefits that accrue to married couples that are not possible to acquire through any amount of separate paperwork.
 
EasterJoy said:
The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon had no objection to a legal solution which would allow consenting adults who could not marry to automatically set up the rights and obligations appropriate for mutual care (which are expensive to set up piecemeal) provided it is available to all consenting adults, including siblings and so on, and does not imply a sexual relationship. It would essentially be a way to define a “family member” who would be eligible to be on employer-provided health care policies and so on. Those lobbying for homosexual rights rejected this option.

In other words, it is not the lack of a sufficiently convenient way to set up this kind of mutual support that is the issue. It is the lack of a means to make homosexual relationships “legitimate” as sexual relationships. The ultimate goal is to erase distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

The Church doesn’t intend to deny anyone dignity. The intention is to deny falsehood, and the contention that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are no different in their effects in society is false. This is not a religious belief, and it doesn’t take a belief in a deity to see it.
Click to expand...
I’m not surprised the homosexual community rejected that. Portland does have St Andrews church, a notorious church in the area for encouraging same-sex relations. I have been praying that we get a faithful Catholic bishop who will straighten Portland’s churches out once and for all.
 
It seems ridiculous that laws and regulations vary so greatly in regards to property, healthcare, and other rights afforded to legally (Catholic and otherwise) married individuals depending on their location within one nation; these things need to be unified across the nation and should have nothing to do with “marriage.” It also seems that the government having any involvement with the tradition of “marriage” is ridiculous; as a religious tradition (in many faiths), it has no place in the government, either to be regulated/defined or used for administration of benefits and taxation. Religious moral arguments aside, the state has no right to discriminate in its tax practices or its regulation of benefits based on the genders and relationship of two individuals.

For a more plain answer: yes, in many places in the US, there are forms of legislation that exclude certain benefits from same-sex couples, even in places where same-sex marriage is legal in that state. The “marriage” system is broken; the solution should be an acknowledgement that “marriage” is a religious tradition which should no longer be used as a way to dish out benefits to citizens regardless of orientation. Let each religious group decide what is or is not a marriage for themselves; after all, a Catholic marriage is not a Protestant marriage is not an Islamic marriage, etc… If any two persons capable of giving any form of legal consent wish to reciprocate benefits to one another, whether married in a religious fashion or not, there should simply be a system of “domestic partnership/civil union” in place of the chaotic and inconsistent thing called a civil marriage.

I do take issue with the comment below claiming that “gays will never accept anything less than marriage;” I am a person of homosexual preferences who, for reasons entirely secular, neither desire to engage in nor approve of the legalization of same-sex marriage. The government should not interfere with a religious tradition (such as marriage), but more importantly, it should not adopt a standard of administering benefits that discriminates (both in religion and sexual orientation) from any religious tradition. Neither traditional, religious marriage nor “same-sex marriage” have any place in the US government.
 
AnnArbor said:
Actually, inheritance laws vary, and in some areas you are limited in the amount you can bequeath to a non-family member.
Click to expand...
Then those laws need to be changed. It’s my money/property, I should have the right to leave it to whomever I choose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top