Responding to a Couple of Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

[ClemtheCatholic]

I’m looking for your thoughts on responding to this:

*The purpose of legalizing gay marriage? One very good purpose is to provide same sex couples with the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Hospital visitations during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending are all available to heterosexual couples and not to same-sex couples. It has been estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime that heterosexual couples wont.

With regards to your second point, the idea of “traditional marriage” being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. There are a number of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses, not to mention the commonality of prostitution. Heterosexual monogamy could actually be arguably considered "unnatural.”*

Thanks!!
Clem

 

[MattofTexas]

1. Equal economic benefits do not provide justification for Catholics and other Christians or people of traditional sexual morality (in Christian Western Civilization) to use his or her democratic influence to institute legal recognition of, and thus implicit encouragement of, immoral behavior. Furthermore altering the definition of marriage for the benefit of same-sex couples establishes a precedent that the definition of marriage can be changed to fit whatever is popular or acceptable at any given time thus providing the possibility of future legalization of group marriage, polygamy, polyandry, etc. With no consistent definition of what a marriage or a family is these terms will be without meaning, perhaps leading to the abandonment of marriage all together.
2. So we should abandon progress because a minority population wants to go back to the old ways? That argument wouldn’t fly in any other situation.

 

[ahs]

1. Those benefits can be granted without redefining Marriage.
2. Marriage has always and everywhere been understood as between opposite sex persons. Why do we need to change that?

The SSM debate is NOT about equality. It’s about the meaning of Marriage adn why the State should support it. Why DOES the State promote Marriage? (That’s a good question to ask.)

Here’s a helpful resource:
osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx

 

[_Abyssinia]

Marriage rights are not needed for homosexuals to be joint owners of property and you can leave property or other items to the person of your choice with a will. Neither are marriage rights needed to visit each other in hospital. They can also grant each other power of attorney or health care proxy. The patient always gets to decide who visits then, regardless of sexuality unless the doctor for some prohibits visitors because of medical issues.

 

[_Abyssinia]

1. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.
(17)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Marriage rights are not needed for homosexuals to be joint owners of property and you can leave property or other items to the person of your choice by creating a will so that their choice in who they leave their items too is not overridden by family relations. Neither are marriage rights needed to visit each other in hospital. They can also grant each other power of attorney or health care proxy. A patient always gets to decide who visits them, unless a doctor for some reason prohibits visitors because of medical issues.

Documented evidence over decades has shown the benefits that marriage between one man and one woman brings to society, the economic benefits, the benefits for children, health benefits etc.

What evidence is that any of the type of arrangements have such benefits?

There are multiple studies for example, that show negative effects from polygamy, so why should something be legal or encouraged in society, when it has this negative effects.

A study comparing Bedouin women in polygamous marriage to those in monogamous marriages concluded

Findings reveal differences between women in polygamous and monogamous marriages. Women in polygamous marriages showed significantly higher psychological distress, and higher levels of somatisation, phobia and other psychological problems. They also had significantly more problems in family functioning, marital relationships and life satisfaction.

isp.sagepub.com/content/52/1/5.abstract

Utah Supreme court said in 2004 that polygamy

often coincides with crimes targeting women and children, including] incest,sexual assault, statutory rape, and failure to pay child support

leagle.com/decision-result/?xmldoc/200491999P3d820_1915.xml/docbase/CSLWAR2-1986-2006

British Columbia university study:

In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m looking for your thoughts on responding to this:

*The purpose of legalizing gay marriage? One very good purpose is to provide same sex couples with the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Hospital visitations during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending are all available to heterosexual couples and not to same-sex couples. It has been estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime that heterosexual couples wont.*I would turn the tables on this argument and ask why single people can’t get the same taxation benefits as gay “married” couples? Or add whoever they want to their health coverage? Why can’t I visit whoever wants me to visit them at the hospital? Why are single people treated unequally??!!! Ugh! The bigotry!! They are preventing single people from loving someone!!! That could open the door to explaining why it is in the state’s best interest to support stable, actual marriages between a man and woman. I assembled some data and arguments touching on this in a blog post Replies to gay “marriage” arguments 1 and 2 if that helps.

With regards to your second point, the idea of “traditional marriage” being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. There are a number of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses, not to mention the commonality of prostitution. Heterosexual monogamy could actually be arguably considered "unnatural.”

Some of these are wrong, I suspect - I doubt “communal child-rearing” was called “marriage” even if it existed. But, overwhelmingly, marriage has been recognized as one man and one woman. Your friend pointing to exceptions somewhat proves the rule. But regardless, the definition of a marriage is not dependent on whether or not there existed inconsistent arrangements in history. It begs the question, on what is marriage defined then? If marriage is “defined based on whatever whichever government feels like defining it” then on what basis is marriage defined that way? And why does government X’s definition trump government Y’s? And if it is a transcendent concept rooted in the natural law screaming that the two genders go together and form families when they do so, and that the stability of commitment of such stable families is the ordered evidence for the concept of marriage, then we have something to work with.

 

[ClearWater]

I’m looking for your thoughts on responding to this:

*The purpose of legalizing gay marriage? One very good purpose is to provide same sex couples with the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Hospital visitations during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending are all available to heterosexual couples and not to same-sex couples. It has been estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime that heterosexual couples wont.

With regards to your second point, the idea of “traditional marriage” being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. There are a number of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses, not to mention the commonality of prostitution. Heterosexual monogamy could actually be arguably considered "unnatural.”*

I saw that you listed yourself as “Catholic”. That seems to be inaccurate.

Thanks!!
Clem

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Clem

With regards to your second point, the idea of “traditional marriage” being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. There are a number of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses, not to mention the commonality of prostitution. Heterosexual monogamy could actually be arguably considered "unnatural.”**

What has any of this to do with justifying same-sex marriage?

Never in the previous history of the world has same-sex marriage ever been approved by any society?

The reason? It’s a laughably insane arrangement.

 

[ClearWater]

I’m looking for your thoughts on responding to this:

*The purpose of legalizing gay marriage? One very good purpose is to provide same sex couples with the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Hospital visitations during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending are all available to heterosexual couples and not to same-sex couples. It has been estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime that heterosexual couples wont.

With regards to your second point, the idea of “traditional marriage” being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. There are a number of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses, not to mention the commonality of prostitution. Heterosexual monogamy could actually be arguably considered "unnatural.”*

Thanks!!
Clem

One inaccuracy seems to be that you consider yourself Catholic.

 

[MarcoPolo]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Marriage rights are not needed for homosexuals to be joint owners of property and you can leave property or other items to the person of your choice by creating a will so that their choice in who they leave their items too is not overridden by family relations. Neither are marriage rights needed to visit each other in hospital. They can also grant each other power of attorney or health care proxy. A patient always gets to decide who visits them, unless a doctor for some reason prohibits visitors because of medical issues.

Documented evidence over decades has shown the benefits that marriage between one man and one woman brings to society, the economic benefits, the benefits for children, health benefits etc.

What evidence is that any of the type of arrangements have such benefits?

There are multiple studies for example, that show negative effects from polygamy, so why should something be legal or encouraged in society, when it has this negative effects.

A study comparing Bedouin women in polygamous marriage to those in monogamous marriages concluded

isp.sagepub.com/content/52/1/5.abstract

Utah Supreme court said in 2004 that polygamy

leagle.com/decision-result/?xmldoc/200491999P3d820_1915.xml/docbase/CSLWAR2-1986-2006

British Columbia university study:

publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures

Great resources, fortifying the root concept of natural law here.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m looking for your thoughts on responding to this:

The purpose of legalizing gay marriage? One very good purpose is to provide same sex couples with the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Hospital visitations during an illness,* taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending*** are all available to heterosexual couples and not to same-sex couples. It has been estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime that heterosexual couples wont.

With regards to your second point, the idea of “traditional marriage” being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. There are a number of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses, not to mention the commonality of prostitution. Heterosexual monogamy could actually be arguably considered "unnatural.”

Thanks!!
Clem

My thoughts on responding to it: don’t respond to each point. Perhaps make some type of comment about how you oppose giving tax breaks for sodomy. It seems suddenly people who usually oppose cutting taxes now somehow want to see inheritance taxes cut and other tax breaks given out–and they never mention how much those tax breaks are going to “cost” the government. PLUS there will be some real costs as spousal benefits are added for same sex partners of government employees AND there will be additional court costs as our overburdened family court system will have to deal with same-sex divorce, so this will COST tax payer money while lowering the amount of taxes collected. The country is in a fiscal crisis and we can’t afford to give out tax breaks and overburden our system with this nonsense.

 

[Rau]

1. Those benefits can be granted without redefining Marriage.
2. Marriage has always and everywhere been understood as between opposite sex persons. Why do we need to change that?

The SSM debate is NOT about equality. It’s about the meaning of Marriage adn why the State should support it. Why DOES the State promote Marriage? (That’s a good question to ask.)

Here’s a helpful resource:
osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx

Point (1) is correct. Various jurisdictions around the world have legislated to extend the kind of benefits the OP listed to defacto (including Gay) couples.

Many of the Gay persuasion believe a right to marry would extend to them the same acceptance and privileged status that married couples enjoy. It would provide an affirmation that they are not “deficient” in some way, that they are ‘normal’ and can have relationships equivalent to heterosexual couples, form family units, and so on.

As understandable (from the Gay person’s perspective) as this reasoning may be, it is flawed. We do not discriminate against the Gay couple by “denying” them marriage, we just recognise that they - as a gay couple - are not eligible for marriage.

 

[vsedriver]

Point (1) is correct. Various jurisdictions around the world have legislated to extend the kind of benefits the OP listed to defacto (including Gay) couples.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Thanks guys!!

 

[edwest2]

I’m looking for your thoughts on responding to this:

*The purpose of legalizing gay marriage? One very good purpose is to provide same sex couples with the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Hospital visitations during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending are all available to heterosexual couples and not to same-sex couples. It has been estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime that heterosexual couples wont.

With regards to your second point, the idea of “traditional marriage” being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. There are a number of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses, not to mention the commonality of prostitution. Heterosexual monogamy could actually be arguably considered "unnatural.”*

Thanks!!
Clem

This is in direct contradiction to clear Church teaching.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[manualman]

I’m looking for your thoughts on responding to this:

*The purpose of legalizing gay marriage? One very good purpose is to provide same sex couples with the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Hospital visitations during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending are all available to heterosexual couples and not to same-sex couples. *

The basic issue overlooked in this whole issue is “Why were these benefits established in the first place?”

Seriously. Why on earth should the state give perks to people who feel gushy about each other? Why can’t I be covered under my non-romantic best friend’s health insurance (assume I’m single here)?

All these benefits were originally granted to married couples back in the day when society was sane enough to recognize that marriage is a relationship that is intrinsically ordered towards making and raising healthy, happy, productive citizens. The state granted these perks precisely because parenthood is brutally expensive in both time and energy. They were given to partially offset these costs.

“But not all married people have kids” is the immediate objection. No. The dealer doesn’t always win in Blackjack either. But some games are innately rigged. Real marriage leads to parenthood. Gay relationships are NOT innately inclined that way. Even if some vanishingly tiny percentage choose to adopt, it’s not because the nature of their relationship is by its nature inclined in that direction.

In short, the argument that gay couples ought to be entitled to all the perks of marriage is as unreasonable as the argument that two lifelong, but non-romantic best friends ought to be so entitled. If the only difference is the romance, why not? The difference is that real marriage is stacked towards making babies. Civilization can’t survive without that, so we reward it. That’s all.

 

[buffalo]

defeating “gay” arguments with simple logic

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. Those benefits can be granted without redefining Marriage.

Some of the benefits can be granted without redefining the civil contract of marriage. There are some that are not available, such as 5th amendment spousal rights, survivor benefits, or shared health benefits that are not available to people that are considered married by their state. Until the Supreme Court ruling a few months ago there were some that were not available at a federal level if if two were considered marriage by their state. I’ve not yet looked at the details of what may be available now that wasn’t before.