Question about Homesexual/Lesbian couples receiving health benefits

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaMaMaXiMuS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DaMaMaXiMuS

Guest
Greetings Everyone, Peace unto you all.

I was watching a newscast here in NYC with one of the democratic candidates being interviewed by the panelist. The candidate spoke at one point about how he supports same sex marriage and how he even supported legislation that would make it legal for same sex marriage partners to receive health benefits.

Now I do not support any life style that contradicts God’s natural order for marriage. From what I’ve studied so far as to the Catholic teachings of this matter, I’m in complete support.

So I began to ponder this issue which the candidate happen to mention.

Here’s what I would like us to discuss, in cases where same sex individuals have actually been able to get married. Lets assume that legislation exists to allow the individuals to be covered by the health insurance of their partner.

Would it be a sin to provide the members of this unlawful union health benefits, which is normally reserved for spouses of a male female marriage?

At first I think, NO. This will only stregthen the position of those people who support same sex marriage.

And then I think, but what if one of the individuals has not health coverage, or worse, not only has no health coverage but is in need of coverage due to illness.

I wonder if its charitable to deny someone health coverage because they are in the midst of a mortal sin such as homosexuality.

But then I think, there is no way a sincere Catholic can support that individuals of a same sex marriages receive health benefits. To do so, would ultimately be validating the marriage.

In the end I look at this situation and conclude that more harm would be done to accept the idea of providing health coverage for same sex marriages, than there would be if the individuals are refused coverage.

What say you all? Am I right on target or am I off base? What does the Church say about this issue?

God Bless You All,

Nelson
 
40.png
DaMaMaXiMuS:
Greetings Everyone, Peace unto you all.

I was watching a newscast here in NYC with one of the democratic candidates being interviewed by the panelist. The candidate spoke at one point about how he supports same sex marriage and how he even supported legislation that would make it legal for same sex marriage partners to receive health benefits.

Now I do not support any life style that contradicts God’s natural order for marriage. From what I’ve studied so far as to the Catholic teachings of this matter, I’m in complete support.

So I began to ponder this issue which the candidate happen to mention.

Here’s what I would like us to discuss, in cases where same sex individuals have actually been able to get married. Lets assume that legislation exists to allow the individuals to be covered by the health insurance of their partner.

Would it be a sin to provide the members of this unlawful union health benefits, which is normally reserved for spouses of a male female marriage?

At first I think, NO. This will only stregthen the position of those people who support same sex marriage.

And then I think, but what if one of the individuals has not health coverage, or worse, not only has no health coverage but is in need of coverage due to illness.

I wonder if its charitable to deny someone health coverage because they are in the midst of a mortal sin such as homosexuality.

But then I think, there is no way a sincere Catholic can support that individuals of a same sex marriages receive health benefits. To do so, would ultimately be validating the marriage.

In the end I look at this situation and conclude that more harm would be done to accept the idea of providing health coverage for same sex marriages, than there would be if the individuals are refused coverage.

What say you all? Am I right on target or am I off base? What does the Church say about this issue?

God Bless You All,

Nelson
Click to expand...
First let me say that “in cases where same sex individuals have actually been able to get married.” It is not possible from a Catholic point of view for same sex individuals to enter Marriage. They can by definition of law enter some form of legal relationship that some want to equate to Marriage. The same with Health coverage civil law can provide a means for an individual to cover one other unrelated individual. I would think that would be a disaster for the insurance industry. It would have nothing to do with Marriage or the moral teaching of the Church. What we need is for every individual to have some access to minimal medical coverage as a basic human right.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
. What we need is for every individual to have some access to minimal medical coverage as a basic human right.
Click to expand...
Yes, this would solve the problem. 👍
 
There is simply no real way to know and judge the correctness of the relationships that are covered by insurance. There might be same sex couples, different sex couples who are not married, married couples who are in horrendous abusive relationships, people practicing open marriage etc.

There is no good way for an insurance company or employer to decide who they feel they can morally offer insurance to. Nor is it an employers place, for the most part to dictate morality in their employees private lives. To start that precident is REALLY a dangerous situation.

Equal opportunity employment protects US as well as THEM.
If one group starts refusing benefits to people who’s lifestyle they don’t agree with, then so can another. There would be atheist or Baptist employers who would refuse benefits to Catholics etc. etc.

If we think about it, I find it hard to believe many of us would want to live in a culture where our employer has the power to poke around in our private lives and reward or punish us based on that rather than our work performance.

cheddar
 
Gay activists are using this seeming reasonable, compassionate argument about obtaining health benefits to push their gay-marriage agenda. Like similar arguments regarding retirement benefits, guardianship, inheritance etc. it is a smokescreen. All of these issues could be handled by good estate planning, including insurance coverage, health care power of atty etc., and do not require state-sanctioned marriage. The one issue that is relevant is tax status, and they are going to find out that the marriage penalty incurred by couples where both work is a liability, not an asset. The real agenda, as all of their websites, literature, propaganda makes very clear, is to destroy real marriage and family, to have the state sanction their lifestyle choices as “normal” and “healthy” and to use state resources to promote them, with the INTENDED consequence of making true marriage and family values abnormal or at least a merely tolerated deviation from normal. This consequence is already being experienced in countries that have allowed gay marriage. Since the same advocacy organizations lobbying for gay marriage are also lobbying to lower the age of consent for sex, and for legalizing sex with minors, it is no secret where this is headed. If you don’t take my word for it, buy a bottle of strong drink (you will need it) and cruise the websites of the major gay-leb lobbying and advocacy groups.
 
Hello,

I like Br. Rich SFO’s solution. And puzzleannie I have no doubt that the points you made are at the bottom of it all.

Thank you all,

Nelson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top