Question for proponents of same sex marriage

[ALLGIRLS]

Most of the arguments I hear for same sex marriage is that homosexual couples should have the “right” to the same benefits that married heterosexual couples have. Things like insurance coverage, access to medical information and hospital visitation, the right to leave all their property to that person, tax benefits, etc. Ok. So, do you favor the granting of “civil unions/contracts” that would extend those same benefits to people not sexually involved? Say I’m single with no children (“an old maid”/“spinster”), and want to have such an arrangement with a sibling or best friend. Isn’t that “unfair” that people can’t do that? Or does sex have to be involved? I’m sincerely wondering.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[BillP]

Most of the arguments I hear for same sex marriage is that homosexual couples should have the “right” to the same benefits that married heterosexual couples have. Things like insurance coverage, access to medical information and hospital visitation, the right to leave all their property to that person, tax benefits, etc. Ok. So, do you favor the granting of “civil unions/contracts” that would extend those same benefits to people not sexually involved? Say I’m single with no children (“an old maid”/“spinster”), and want to have such an arrangement with a sibling or best friend. Isn’t that “unfair” that people can’t do that? Or does sex have to be involved? I’m sincerely wondering.

In Christ,
Ellen

Unlike the Church, there is no requirement in civil marriage participants have sex. Right now, if you are a single female (going from your screen name) you can marry ANY presently unmarried male who agrees to marry you, except your dad, brother or first cousin (in some states) without having to prove, or even assert, that you’re in (or intend to be in) a sexual relationship with that person.

So, in point of fact, we ALREADY have such “civil unions/contracts”. And I’m okay with it.

 

[ManOnFire]

Is gender xenophobia involved?

 

[shainski]

I think that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.

I think that marriage as currently defined is two things - firstly a religious institution, and secondly a civil matter.

I think that the state should define civil unions in whatever way that society deems appropriate (and that may include couples as you define).

then, I think religions should sanction marriage in what that instution defines. (Catholicism already does this, and a Catholic marriage may not always coincide with what society deems a marriage).

Society may (and in my opinion should) give priests, ministers and others the right to create these civil unions (as well as justices of the peace) - and it may be done concurrently at the same ceremony as the marriage. But the state would not define marriage.

If we separate these two elements, then we would avoid much of the problems on both sides of this issue. Sure, as a society, we will eventually probably condone gay unions. But we could also accommodate elderly couples who want to marry in the church, but don’t want their assets co-mingled. (Right now, you do have older couples who don’t want to remarry (after a death of a spouse) because of the legal obstacles that would ensue.

It could then be debated as to exactly what legal and tax benefits should a civil union convey.

I suppose people will say that they are married (because saying they are “civily united” doesn’t have the same right to it). But we will recognize that they mean something different.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Unlike the Church, there is no requirement in civil marriage participants have sex. Right now, if you are a single female (going from your screen name) you can marry ANY presently unmarried male who agrees to marry you, except your dad, brother or first cousin (in some states) without having to prove, or even assert, that you’re in (or intend to be in) a sexual relationship with that person.

I thought a civil marriage could be annulled if the couple never consummates it? Also, then why does someone marrying a noncitizen have to prove they’re really married, and not just doing it so the immigrant can stay in the U.S.? (I had to write a letter to the ICE, it was still called INS back then, corroborating that my friend’s marriage to her South African husband was indeed “real” and not just to keep him in the country). Even from a nonCatholic standpoint, I’m thinking the government isn’t going to be ok if 2 heterosexuals of the same gender “marry” to get the benefits (they could always divorce and marry people of opposite sex if they meet someone and fall in love).

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Is gender xenophobia involved?

What does that mean?

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I think that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.

I think that marriage as currently defined is two things - firstly a religious institution, and secondly a civil matter.

I think that the state should define civil unions in whatever way that society deems appropriate (and that may include couples as you define).

then, I think religions should sanction marriage in what that instution defines. (Catholicism already does this, and a Catholic marriage may not always coincide with what society deems a marriage).

Society may (and in my opinion should) give priests, ministers and others the right to create these civil unions (as well as justices of the peace) - and it may be done concurrently at the same ceremony as the marriage. But the state would not define marriage.

If we separate these two elements, then we would avoid much of the problems on both sides of this issue. Sure, as a society, we will eventually probably condone gay unions. But we could also accommodate elderly couples who want to marry in the church, but don’t want their assets co-mingled. (Right now, you do have older couples who don’t want to remarry (after a death of a spouse) because of the legal obstacles that would ensue.

It could then be debated as to exactly what legal and tax benefits should a civil union convey.

I suppose people will say that they are married (because saying they are “civily united” doesn’t have the same right to it). But we will recognize that they mean something different.

This sounds like a good idea to me, I don’t know why more Catholics don’t support it. IMO, we should have a flat tax for everyone (no tax breaks or penalties based on marital status), and people should be allowed to put whoever they want on their insurance and allow whoever they want access to medical records and hospital visits, and beneficiaries of their wills. Those things should have nothing to do with sexual attractions or romantic feelings or sacrificial love or procreating. The churches can then officiate weddings for whoever they want to based on their individual doctrines.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[BillP]

I thought a civil marriage could be annulled if the couple never consummates it?

I think that, while that may have been true at one time, it is no longer the case. I GA for instance one can only obtain an annulment if the parties were too closely related, or if either party were co-erced, underage, mentally incapable or induced by fraud.

Also, then why does someone marrying a noncitizen have to prove they’re really married, and not just doing it so the immigrant can stay in the U.S.? (I had to write a letter to the ICE, it was still called INS back then, corroborating that my friend’s marriage to her South African husband was indeed “real” and not just to keep him in the country).

No, the INS/ICE process is to ensure that the couple are actually sharing their lives together. I went through the process to naturalize my Canadian wife and while we were asked all sorts of questions about mortgages, utilities, joint bank accounts and vacations as a couple, we were never asked about sex. Think about it this way. If sex were the defining characteristic, then a couple could just have sex once to avoid charges of immigration fraud. That’s obviously not the case.

Even from a nonCatholic standpoint, I’m thinking the government isn’t going to be ok if 2 heterosexuals of the same gender “marry” to get the benefits (they could always divorce and marry people of opposite sex if they meet someone and fall in love).

How would they tell? Seriously?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Unlike the Church, there is no requirement in civil marriage participants have sex. Right now, if you are a single female (going from your screen name) you can marry ANY presently unmarried male who agrees to marry you, except your dad, brother or first cousin (in some states) without having to prove, or even assert, that you’re in (or intend to be in) a sexual relationship with that person.

I thought a civil marriage could be annulled if the couple never consummates it? Also, then why does someone marrying a noncitizen have to prove they’re really married, and not just doing it so the immigrant can stay in the U.S.? (I had to write a letter to the ICE, it was still called INS back then, corroborating that my friend’s marriage to her South African husband was indeed “real” and not just to keep him in the country). Even from a nonCatholic standpoint, I’m thinking the government isn’t going to be ok if 2 heterosexuals of the same gender “marry” to get the benefits (they could always divorce and marry people of opposite sex if they meet someone and fall in love).

In Christ,
Ellen

There is nothing stopping two single buddies from doing this for the tax breaks. It has been done numerous times, despite lawsuits against the friends in questions. Guys or girls who simply want health coverage or tax benefits can get a civil union, then dissolve it once they decide to marryt their fiance.

Not sure how any could oppose that assuming they endorse civil unions to begin with.

I know people who do it for COSTCO memberships, gym memberships, and whatnot, sadly.

I find the entire thing repulsive, myself.

 

[Lancer]

From the “horse’s mouth”…so to speak… United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Bottom line of the Catholic Church’s Authoritative position:
Truth in Charity (Teaching God’s Word) & Truth in Charity (Standing up for the Dignity to Human Person)…and only the Catholic Church has this Authoritative voice…on all matters of the Christian faith and the moral life…as God so designed/designated.

Luke 10:16
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSV-CE)

Jesus sends out Apostles

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who** rejects me rejects him who sent me**.”

Pax Christi

Frequently Asked Questions About The Defense Of Marriage

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

What about “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” between two persons of the same sex?

Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships**” should never be treated as analogous to marriage**. Such legal approval of “civil unions” contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable. Basic human rights are not protected but violated by the erosion and redefinition of marriage.

What does marriage have to do with children?
Children are at the very heart of marriage. The “supreme gift” of marriage, a child (GS, no. 50), comes precisely through the mutual, loving self-gift exchanged between husband and wife. It is only because of their sexual difference that spouses are able to cooperate with God in the awesome adventure of welcoming a child into the world.** Marriage is not just about satisfying adult desires, but is a pro-child institution. The community of the family is built upon the communion of the spouses **(see LF, no. 7).

What’s the difference between a husband and wife who can’t have children, and two persons of the same sex, who also can’t have children?

Only a man and a woman, as husband and wife, can enter into the two-in-one-flesh communion of persons. Only a man and a woman are able to conceive a child through each other. That is to say, only a man and a woman can be joined so intimately that their bodies work together in the common task of procreation. Even when a husband and wife do not in fact conceive a child (due to infertility, age, and so on), their sexual acts are still the kind of acts by which children are naturally conceived. In contrast, two persons of the same sex may be perfectly healthy, but will never be able to enter a one-flesh communion and thus unite in such a way that a child is conceived.

The Common Good and Human Dignity

What does “intrinsic dignity of the human person” mean?

The Church firmly teaches that each and every human being is a unique and irreplaceable person, created in the image of God (see Gen 1:27). Because of this, every man, woman, and child has great dignity and worth, a dignity that can never be taken away (i.e., it is intrinsic and inviolable). Respecting a person’s dignity means treating them justly. It also means helping them to flourish as a human being. The intrinsic dignity of the human person should be the starting point for all moral principles.

What does marriage have to do with human dignity?

Marriage protects and promotes the dignity of men and women, the dignity of children, and the dignity of all persons in society. First, the lifelong partnership of marriage is the only place where men and women can truly “speak” the language of sexual love – total, faithful, forever, and open to children. Only within marriage can sexual relations mean what they are supposed to mean as an expression of self-giving love between a man and a woman (not selfish use). The promises of a husband and a wife speak a high level of mutual trust and invite the confidence that sex will not be exploitative but will manifest true union and life-giving love. Second, marriage provides a context within which the rights of children to a mother and a father are legally protected. Marriage also helps assure that children will be welcomed as gifts; apart from the life-long commitment of marriage, children are likely to be viewed as threats or acquired as products. Finally, the family, founded on marriage, is a place where a person can exist for his or her own sake (see LF, no. 11). Marriages teach society not to value persons only for their usefulness.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

There is nothing stopping two single buddies from doing this for the tax breaks. It has been done numerous times, despite lawsuits against the friends in questions. Guys or girls who simply want health coverage or tax benefits can get a civil union, then dissolve it once they decide to marryt their fiance.

Not sure how any could oppose that assuming they endorse civil unions to begin with.

I know people who do it for COSTCO memberships, gym memberships, and whatnot, sadly.

I find the entire thing repulsive, myself.

I agree, and I don’t see how the government will be able to stop it, outside of requiring a sexual relationship (which would be on the “honor system”, obviously). That’s why I don’t understand the push for “marriage” when we can easily just change the laws so that people can still get the benefits they’re after (the sob story I aways hear is that someone’s partner is dying, and his family won’t let him in the hospital room to say goodbye, then they deny him custody of the child they adopted together). All that can be remedied without changing the defination of marriage.

In Christ
Ellen

 

[Lancer]

I think that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.

I think that marriage as currently defined is two things - firstly a religious institution, and secondly a civil matter.

I think that the state should define civil unions in whatever way that society deems appropriate (and that may include couples as you define).

then, I think religions should sanction marriage in what that instution defines. (Catholicism already does this, and a Catholic marriage may not always coincide with what society deems a marriage).

Society may (and in my opinion should) give priests, ministers and others the right to create these civil unions (as well as justices of the peace) - and it may be done concurrently at the same ceremony as the marriage. But the state would not define marriage.

If we separate these two elements, then we would avoid much of the problems on both sides of this issue. Sure, as a society, we will eventually probably condone gay unions. But we could also accommodate elderly couples who want to marry in the church, but don’t want their assets co-mingled. (Right now, you do have older couples who don’t want to remarry (after a death of a spouse) because of the legal obstacles that would ensue.

It could then be debated as to exactly what legal and tax benefits should a civil union convey.

I suppose people will say that they are married (because saying they are “civily united” doesn’t have the same right to it). But we will recognize that they mean something different.

Your proposal sounds good in a pragmatic sense… in a utilitarian way…but ignores The Common Good of Society which is the State’s fundamental responsibility…the reason we choose to live in a governed society/culture.

What does “the common good” mean?

Quoting Pope Benedict XVI, the common good is “the good of ‘all of us,’” the good of every member of society (CV, no. 7). A society focused on the common good upholds the fundamental dignity of each person, and progresses “from less than human conditions to truly human ones” (PP, no. 20; cf. CV, no. 8).In short, the common good is “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (GS, no. 26).

Isn’t marriage just a religious issue that the government should stay out of?

No. The social value of marriage is great and is apparent even to those who do not share the Catholic understanding of its religious meaning. Marriage as a lifelong, faithful, and fruitful union between husband and wife serves the good of all – it serves the good of the spouses, the good of the children who may issue from their marital union, and the good of society in assuring that reproduction happens in a socially responsible way. To be sure, these goods are affirmed and reinforced by most religions. But they do not rely on any religious premises; they are based instead on the nature of the human person and are accessible to right reason. The government has the responsibility of promoting the common good and the best interests of all people, especially the most vulnerable, and upholding authentic marriage does precisely that. The fact that the responsibility of government to promote and protect marriage coincides with widely held religious convictions is not a reason for government to abdicate that responsibility.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm#d4

Pax Christi

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Let’s think: Why are we attaching special government benefits to marriage anyway?

If you’re having trouble thinking of an answer, well, that’s part of the problem.

 

[Kevin_B]

Most of the arguments I hear for same sex marriage is that homosexual couples should have the “right” to the same benefits that married heterosexual couples have. Things like insurance coverage, access to medical information and hospital visitation, the right to leave all their property to that person, tax benefits, etc. Ok. So, do you favor the granting of “civil unions/contracts” that would extend those same benefits to people not sexually involved? Say I’m single with no children (“an old maid”/“spinster”), and want to have such an arrangement with a sibling or best friend. Isn’t that “unfair” that people can’t do that? Or does sex have to be involved? I’m sincerely wondering.

In Christ,
Ellen

First of all, as a same sex marriage proponent, yes, I feel that anyone should be able to enter into these contracts with anyone they like. Despite what the church would have you believe, a paper signed by a justice of the peace is NOT a religious sacrament.

But why are you trying to use logic in this debate anyway? Most same-sex marriage opponents claim marriage should be about having children, but balk at the obvious logical step off banning marriage of sterile couples.

If you guys can have the double standard of letting sterile couples marry, then or side should be allowed a double standard as well.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

First of all, as a same sex marriage proponent, yes, I feel that anyone should be able to enter into these contracts with anyone they like. Despite what the church would have you believe, a paper signed by a justice of the peace is NOT a religious sacrament.

But why are you trying to use logic in this debate anyway? Most same-sex marriage opponents claim marriage should be about having children, but balk at the obvious logical step off banning marriage of sterile couples.

If you guys can have the double standard of letting sterile couples marry, then or side should be allowed a double standard as well.

Sterility is not permanent per se. Sterile men have had kids. Men believed to suffer from impotence have conceived. Older, infertile women, and even barren women have had children.

Guys being able to not impregnate another man is to this day a permanent condition.

It’s like equating nerve damage in one’s leg to not having a leg.

The onus is on those who wish to change the legal and traditionally accepted definition to explain what the benefit to society is by allowing to men to “marry.” I realize we play this game of having to explain our position, which is the defacto norm and which has thousands of years of history and tradition behind it, but when seeking to change the norm, you have to justify why that change should take place.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Unlike the Church, there is no requirement in civil marriage participants have sex.

Sex was not necessarily required in the past, but the refusal of one of the parties to have sex with the spouse could be cause for divorce. In the U.S., all states now have no-fault divorce, so that point is no longer relevant.