- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Why are 2 men, say, good friends, having sex?
R
Rau
Guest
In other words, singles can’t !
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
How many of those cannot be obtained in other ways???
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I’m single and so sick of the government giving rights to married people.
Maybe I will sue for single person rights.
I’m guessing though (the link is broken) that out of that 1,000 plus benefits, a single person can obtain most of not all of them through other means.
M
madtom
Guest
actually, as I have already noted, gays can already get married in all 50 states. there are no laws against a gay person getting married. you want to argue for gay marriage, go for it, but this marriage “equality” thing is a complete sham.
R
Rau
Guest
I read a document from your Church in support of gay marriage.
uccfiles.com/pdf/2005-EQUAL-MARRIAGE-RIGHTS-FOR-ALL.pdf
It starts off with references to God, ignores entirely what God says about marriage, glosses over the absence of any positive references to models of same sex (sexual) relationships in Scripture, and focuses largely on secular matters of "civil rights"and the like. It proceeds as though marriage were just a convenient societal arrangement for some, rather than the intrinsically sexual relationship it is.
What is the UCC understanding of marriage?
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Indeed, a durable power of power of attorney, a healthcare directive, a will or trust, changing the beneficiaries on your life insurance or other payment after death assents, a joint bank account, a jointly held property are all accessible to two people of the same sex. The only things that aren’t are federal or potentially some state benefits. Tax (though sometimes being married is not a tax benefit depending on one’s situation) and social security are the big ones. Sometimes a pension (gov) but even those you can usually designate beneficiaries.
I don’t know about other people, but I didn’t get married for the financial benefits. I got married for love (I wanted to commit and I wanted him to commit, love, fidelity, fecendity) and because I knew that I wanted to have children with my husband. Marriage, besides being the moral way to do this, is also convenient for paperwork. My husband is the presumptive (and real
) father and guardian to my children, making things like getting the child a birth certificate, ss number, health care, and educational services easier. As a bonus, it was a convenient way to change my name and to make each other next of kin, though not the only way.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you. Some people think getting married is “What can I get out of it, especially financially?” I know a lot of people who are married who don’t have a lot and I grew up around a lot of the same kind of people. The difference? It’s called “being content with what you have,” followed by “willing to do without.”Indeed, a durable power of power of attorney, a healthcare directive, a will or trust, changing the beneficiaries on your life insurance or other payment after death assents, a joint bank account, a jointly held property are all accessible to two people of the same sex. The only things that aren’t are federal or potentially some state benefits. Tax (though sometimes being married is not a tax benefit depending on one’s situation) and social security are the big ones. Sometimes a pension (gov) but even those you can usually designate beneficiaries.
I don’t know about other people, but I didn’t get married for the financial benefits. I got married for love (I wanted to commit and I wanted him to commit, love, fidelity, fecendity) and because I knew that I wanted to have children with my husband. Marriage, besides being the moral way to do this, is also convenient for paperwork. My husband is the presumptive (and real
It goes with the Marriage vows, “for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health…” but why sacrifice for anything? Right
Marriage is marriage and will always remain marriage. Love is a mutual gift.
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
If they have a foreign partner, then they cannot get the usual immigration/residency waivers for a foreign spouse that would be available if they were a heterosexual couple.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
This is not a good argument. The Supreme Court has already rejected it in Loving v Virginia (1967). Better to find a different argument, one that hasn’t already failed.
rossum
M
madtom
Guest
uh huh. the supreme court also gave us roe v wade. I did not present an argument to try and win some court case. I presented irrefutable facts.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s because they are not really married.
Your example is not an example of a right that is possessed by heterosexuals but not by homosexuals. For to assume it is the same right, you first have to assume it is the same relationship at stake. But that is exactly what is being debated. So you can’t assume it in order to prove it. That would be circular.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Many of the rights discussed in this context, like inheritance and hospital visitation and medical decision-making, are rights that have been “incidentally” tied to marriage. That is, they are rights that seemed to be the easiest to administer by using the state of matrimony as a convenient criteria. But many of these rights could reasonably be extended to other relationships. There is nothing essential about marriage that would prevent their extension. Therefore when examples of these rights are presented as evidence, there are two possible ways to grant these rights. One is to explicitly extend them as appropriate to the specific right involved. The other way is to extend the definition of marriage to include other relationships.
While method #2 does appear to be temptingly simple, as opposed to the right-by-right consideration of method #1, I think method #1 is the preferable one. It allows the various rights to be optimally extended to just the relationships that are most appropriate for those rights, and avoids the unintentional consequences of the wholesale redefinition of marriage everywhere in law.
While method #2 does appear to be temptingly simple, as opposed to the right-by-right consideration of method #1, I think method #1 is the preferable one. It allows the various rights to be optimally extended to just the relationships that are most appropriate for those rights, and avoids the unintentional consequences of the wholesale redefinition of marriage everywhere in law.
I
ignatius777
Guest
Strange part is all those things you mentioned that gays say they want from marriage were available to them through legal means long before the whole gay “marriage” thing. This is not about rights its about fundamentally changing the basic building block of society.
R
rossum
Guest
Please look again at the OP:
I gave an example of a right that homosexuals miss out on by not being able to marry, exactly as requested.
As to “the same relationship”, it is the same relationship in legal terms. It is not the same relationship in Catholic terms, but that is different. In Catholic terms a marriage between two divorced heterosexuals is not a true marriage, but adultery. However, in legal terms such a marriage is treated exactly the same as all other civil marriages.
Since the OP is obviously talking about the legal rights gained from civil marriage, then it is the definition of civil marriage, as defined by the state, which is relevant here.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Not all rights. The Windsor case (which struck down part of DOMA) was about inheritance taxation. A waiver on estate duty was available to a heterosexual couple married in Canada, but not to a homosexual couple married in Canada. There is no way, other than marriage, to get that particular tax waiver.
rossum
I
ignatius777
Guest
Then change the law not marriage.
R
rossum
Guest
Since civil marriage is not “true Catholic marriage”, due to the treatment of divorce, then changing the civil law on marriage has no effect on true Catholic marriage.
In effect, same sex civil marriage is changing just the law, and not marriage.
Laws related to civil marriage have changed in the past, are changing now and will change in the future. Divorce used to be impossible in civil law, while now it is allowed. That was a change to civil marriage, and one which affected more people than SSM will.
rossum
- Status