Rights homosexuals miss out on

[Rau]

It is impossible and immoral which i guess is the whole point of marriage, to procreate, but there is also a point of loving one another on the side and marrying because they are in love with each other. Not supporting them btw, just expressing doubts to get to final result.

Love is good, but it is not enough for marriage. Marriage is a sexual relationship. Why marry if you love someone but don’t plan to have sex? That wouldn’t make sense! And why would 2 men have sex? That doesn’t make sense either!

 

[DrTaffy]

Love is good, but it is not enough for marriage. Marriage is a sexual relationship. Why marry if you love someone but don’t plan to have sex? That wouldn’t make sense! And why would 2 men have sex? That doesn’t make sense either!

So according to you Joseph and Mary:
A) had a sexual relationship
Or:
B) were not married

 

[Made]

So according to you Joseph and Mary:
A) had a sexual relationship
Or:
B) were not married

B) were not married

Mary and Joseph did not have a valid marriage as did several saints of the catholic church who were living abstinent in their “marriages”.

 

[Rau]

So according to you Joseph and Mary:
A) had a sexual relationship
Or:
B) were not married

Had Mary been a man, then most definitely (B)!

There is no reason to think that they did not intend a sexual relationship when they committed to each other. How things may have changed when they learned of God’s intentions for them, I cannot imagine. So, there is no cause for confusion - wonderment perhaps, but not confusion.

 

[benotagoat]

I wanted to add also, why else should it be illegal especially if its true love between two people, I mean it is true love but I don’t want to support it because it isn’t right and moral, it isn’t the same as heterosexual marriage. It is basically saying once it is legal that it is the same as heterosexual marriage which isn’t true.

Why else should it be illegal, especially if the two are in love with each other.

I feel like another reason they get married is because of love.

When we legalise something it is meant to say that it is a 'good ’ for society ,and will have long term benefits ,in other words we can relax ,as the ‘law’ has stated it is 'good therefore we must all obey it or be punished . This is why God said that when we say something is good when it is in fact bad we will be punished much more severely than if we make a sin ,but do not state it to be a ‘good’ .
The purpose of making this legislation is to change the structures of God’s creation and is I believe the original sin, because no sin such as stating that two people of the same sex
can marry and be entitled to therefore to create children in laboratories into the future has such serious conséquences .
It in time will force people to go underground because they are against it .Children will be brought up to believe it is not only normal but encouraged to practice it ,ad since sin begets a whole descent downwards if it is not stopped at some point ,it ends in ‘hell’ .

 

[Memaw]

To rephrase this…What I am basically saying is, what if two gay people are romantically in love with each other and choose to get married because of that reason. What should we do then?

True love doesn’t ask the other person to sin with you !!! It is unnatural and I believe even those who do not say they believe in God, know that. God instituted Marriage, male and female only, and it has to be done HIS way. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Compared to heterosexual married couples, what rights do homosexuals miss out on in a state where gay marriage is illegal. Other than economy rights and things related to that what do they miss out on, can they still do Public Displays of Affection and do homosexual things privately and publicly? Is gay marriage illegalization simply the state stating that they don’t recognize it the same as heterosexual marriage or is there more to this?

The most important “right” they miss out on is God’s Grace !!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[_Abyssinia]

This can be taken as a response to homosexual couples not having the same benefits as heterosexual married couples:

It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals–non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers–share those benefits, either. Why should they? If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved? The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families ease the financial burden children make on paycheques. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she–and they–are still covered).These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilise” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

str.org/Media/Default/Publications/June%202004-2.pdf

If you then question, what about homosexuals who raise children, frankly, that is not something that should be encouraged. This is not to say homosexuals raising children don’t love them, but children surely deserve to be raised by those who are they biologically attached too, their mother and father, and for their mother and father to be permanent in their lives ideally. Giving a child to a homosexual couple either through adoption or surrogacy probably means that that child is denied a permanent father or mother in their lives.

I am not sure of the percentage, but I imagine that a lot of children that are raised by homosexual parents do not know or have the permanent presence in their lives of at least one of their parents, their mother or their father, or perhaps both. In some cases, such as when adoption happens, the children may not find out anyway, regardless of whether those who are raising them are homosexual or heterosexual, but surrogacy is something that homosexuals have turned to as a path to bring a child or children into the world to raise, and not only is this ethically concerning, but even if the child or children has knowledge of who are they biological related too, they may never meet them or know what is like to be raised in a home with their biological parents.

 

[ignatius777]

Compared to heterosexual married couples, what rights do homosexuals miss out on in a state where gay marriage is illegal. Other than economy rights and things related to that what do they miss out on, can they still do Public Displays of Affection and do homosexual things privately and publicly? Is gay marriage illegalization simply the state stating that they don’t recognize it the same as heterosexual marriage or is there more to this?

I think the real question is what properly constitutes a “right”? Regardless of what the courts have decided I dont believe marriage is a “right”. So what is a “right”?

 

[Jon_S_1]

What I meant about me asking about “well what if they’re in love” I meant to say what if they’re -romantically- in love. Like a heterosexual couple would be. For gay people I know they can do this, and they don’t need to display intimacy to prove this.

So the point of asking this is, is it impossible to let them marry because they are in love with each other romantically? Obviously yes because it doesn’t work that way, they can only prove that love through only being male and female. But is it impossible for them to be allowed to marry…to show that as a symbol of their love, isn’t that what married people of the heterosexual division already do, don’t heterosexual people marry to show that as a symbol of each others love.

Please don’t be harsh I am just wondering about this, just doing this to make sure all doubts are addressed before I vote for it to be illegal. Thank you.

No, heterosexual people marry to be committed to each other, to create a family and to sacrifice for each other so that they become a strong team.

On the surface a gay couple can do this. But they cannot have kids and that is a critical aspect of marriage. At least the principle of reproduction.

The only reason the state is involved in marriage is because they need the state to grow in population for its success. If there aren’t new babies being born the state will fail and collapse. Likewise if the next generation is emotionally wrecked the state will fail.

This is the only reason the state has been involved in marriage. So redefining marriage as a label of cohabiting romantically involved people, makes no sense.

If in 20 or 30 years the state sees drastic population decline (like Japan and Russia) you will see the state give benefits to people having kids and being in fruitful child filled relationships. They may call it something else but essentially they will be calling it traditional marriage because that is what marriage is.

 

[madtom]

The most important “right” they miss out on is God’s Grace !!! God Bless, Memaw

I get you point, but that’s not really true. Being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin. engaging in homosexual acts is. But even then, we are all sinners, yet we all have the opportunity to experience God’s grace.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t understand this concept that homosexuals CAN’T get married. of course they can. every single adult male can marry any other adult female. there is no law against a gay man marrying a woman. and non-married heterosexuals miss out on benefits just as non-married homosexuals do…

Precisely. There is no question on marriage licenses asking what sex you like to have sex with. It is such a simple thing to disprove you’d think judges would not be persuaded by such sophistry. But then you’d be having to much respect for the intellect of judges.

As for your argument about state involvement I think the state not being involved with marriage could be a good thing. But the state likely got involved because of property inheritance and child welfare. For instance the tradition, common law, has been that any child born to a married couple is considered to be a husbands. I read about a case where a man realized one or more children his wife had were not his. He realized this due to their eye color. But the law says he is responsible for the kids no matter what. I don’t see laws like that going away anytime soon because the law is biased against men. And I don’t see the state getting out of equally private issues anytime soon. So I see no reason to yield on the issue of marriage unless we are truly rooting the state out of all private matters.

 

[Jon_S_1]

B) were not married

Mary and Joseph did not have a valid marriage as did several saints of the catholic church who were living abstinent in their “marriages”.

This is not true. There marriage was valid although not consummated. Big difference. There marriage was valid and ordered to the raising of children (Jesus)

 

[Memaw]

B) were not married

Mary and Joseph did not have a valid marriage as did several saints of the catholic church who were living abstinent in their “marriages”.

What a strange thing to say about the sacred Marriage of Mary and Joseph, sanctioned by God Himself!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[pensmama87]

As far as legality goes, marriage has existed throughout human history as a way to formally establish kinship ties between people who were not blood-related (or at least, not very closely blood-related. ) The primary reason for this is because marriages normally produce children, and children and spouses could be assured of their familial rights in this way.

Gay couples, by definition, cannot produce children of their own, and any children that a gay couple may raise have to have a third party involved.

I can’t think of any government in human history that has had any interest whatsoever in recognizing and regulating human relationships on the sole basis of how people feel about each other. There’s always been another purpose. Recognizing marriage to safeguard family ties and protect children provides a benefit to the government (helps ensure survival of the next generation). From strictly a legal standpoint, what interest does the government have in offering tax incentives and benefits to same-sex couples?

I also don’t understand why, since most of the rights of marriage can be arranged by other methods for any two people who want to (whether that’s gay couples or roommates or simply friends who don’t have spouses or other relatives to look out for them), some gay couples (some, not all want legal marriage) care so much about the government saying “OK, you’re legit.” I don’t look to the government to say “you’re OK” about any aspect of my life, although I do comply with the law. But the government doesn’t give me dignity and while they can certainly facilitate methods to give me my natural human rights, they are not the source of those rights.

 

[edwest2]

Why is government bad when it is involved in natural marriage but the same government is good when it grants what homosexual persons call rights?

Ed

 

[Memaw]

I get you point, but that’s not really true. Being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin. engaging in homosexual acts is. But even then, we are all sinners, yet we all have the opportunity to experience God’s grace.

I do think we were talking about gay marriage, not chastity. God Bless, Memaw

 

[frobert]

A durable power of attorney can be given to any person and would erase all of the above “problems” except tax benefits and sharing medical benefits. Neither of those are rights though.

I am divorced and have no “right” to marriage tax benefits. Perhaps that means I’m discriminated against.

Some states do allow sharing of medical benefits with a registered domestic partner which can be homosexual, heterosexual or not sexual in any way.

Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.

Source: hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couple

 

[Rau]

Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.

Source: hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couple

Wow! Can’t single people access any of those?

 

[frobert]

Your wording is too difficult for me to understand. Sorry.

Ask yourself this question - “what would be the reason for the State to want to recognise the sexual relationship between 2 men (or 2 women)?” Why does the State care about that relationship? Should it take any more notice of that relationship than, say, the love between 2 sisters, or 2 “best friends”.

the state benefits in the same manner that it benefits from a man and woman who marry and do not have biological children.

There are laws against incest. Their are no laws against two friends getting married. So what is your point?