Grace & Peace!
Sorry, but your whole argument is based on the supposed fact that gay households are financially stable (in fact, you made a statement that the household income in a gay “family” is higher that that of their heterosexual counterparts. I’ve read articles that say just the opposite.
…snip…
So, you’ve heard/read one thing…I another. Let’s just both give a little & say that the household income of gays & heterosexuals are approximately the same.
This is reasonable.
The facts show that the health conditions are not. Statistics prove that gay men have health care costs that are much higher than heterosexual men.
Incidents of lung cancer & anal cancer are much higher with gay men, as are cirrhosis, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Diseases of all types. (Gonorrhea is becoming an epidemic among Homosexual men.) Then, of course, there is the long & expensive treatment for AIDS.
Your logic here, however, is not so reasonable. The statistics to which you refer, do they speak to single gay men or partnered gay men / gay households? This would be an important distinction. Because, among other things (and particularly in the area of veneral disease) state recognition of gay partnerships would be an incentive to monogamy.
Regarding the long, expensive treatment for AIDS, someone in a state recognized relationship may have recourse to their partner’s health insurance, thus limiting their dependence on state-based healthcare resources. More than that, being in the relationship opens up the possibility that someone else will be looking after the HIV+ partner in their time of need, making medical decisions if need be, etc. On a more humanitarian level (and, granted, we’re not talking about what is and is not humane–we’re talking about the state), on a humanitarian level, the subtext of your argument assumes that very ill people are better off in their time of need suffering alone, particularly if they’re homosexual. But, again, being nitpicky about this sort of little cruelty is not what’s being debated here.
The real reason your logic is a bit off is that you make more of a case (from the state perspective) for disallowing state recognition of a relationship in which either partner (homosexual or heterosexual) is ill, could maybe become ill, or who statistically might be disposed to engaging in a behavior that could make them ill. Your argument is not an argument against state recognition of homosexual relationships, but an argument
for discriminating against people (homosexual or heterosexual) who have some sort of illness or any predisposition to illness (a genetic predisposition to heart disease, for instance, or eating habits that might lead to diabetes), particularly against the terminally ill. That sounds absurd, though, doesn’t it. And it sounds absurd, because it is absurd.
rwoehmke:
Every single one of them have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Makes them equal to everyone else.
Then, rwoehmike, do you agree with the premise I spelled out earlier–that romantic love as an expectation in marriage is only a relatively recent (since the middle ages, roughly) fad and that the true purposes of marriage deal fundamentally with building political alliances, controlling wealth, ensuring the transfer of property and resources to offspring, etc? Do you favor a re-evalutaion of marriage which would separate it from the demands/expectations of romantic love? Would you say that the ideal marriage is largely loveless and purely utilitarian? Because what I get from your statement is that you believe (somewhat anachronistically, but good for you!) that love is not a prerequisite of marriage–love between two people is not necessary for marriage. Or at the very least, not loving someone is no reason not to marry them.
NJLayDomincan:
There’s no talk of man and man and man or woman and woman or any other combination thereof from our Lord. Anything other than a union between one man and one woman is not a marriage.
NJLay, if the church wishes to define marriage as a sacramental union between a man and a woman, that’s fine. No one is arguing with that. The argument is with whether or not the pluralistic state is required to use the same definitions the church does when defining what unions it will recognize, and whether or not it can or should do so using the same reasons.
My argument is that it is not so required and that, moreover, it is out of its league if it chooses to do so–and for the same reasons that the state has no right to determine what constitutes Baptism or what makes the Eucharist valid. Putting the definition of a sacrament to the vote, or arguing about it in a secular court is just plain ludicrous. The state has no jurisdiction over moral, metaphysical, sacramental, sacred or supernatural realms or realities. Following the referendum on marriage, why don’t we put the doctrine of the Trinity up for a vote? Or why not let the people of the nation decide on whether or not the words of institution are a necessary part of the Eucharistic canon? Ludicrousness! So why is it necessary for the state to confirm in any way church teaching on marriage if the necessity of state confirmation of the other sacraments and doctrinal teachings of the church is unnecessary, pointless and the height of folly?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy–Deo gratias!
