Rights homosexuals miss out on

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ilovejesus1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Who can say that 2 men can Marry? Only those who confuse the framework with marriage itself.
The social framework is civil marriage. That is how civil marriage is defined, by the civil laws in operation at the given time and place. Those laws can, and do, change, and so the definition of civil marriage also changes.

Religious marriage has a different set of definitions, which look to religious authorities rather than to civil authorities. A Muslim can marry up to four wives in his local mosque. He can only marry one of those wives in his local registry office.

A civil marriage allows divorce, and remarriage after divorce. A Catholic marriage allows neither.

Marriage is a collection of similar things, it is not one thing. Some of the things in the collection change over time.

rossum
 
Marriage is a collection of similar things, it is not one thing. Some of the things in the collection change over time.
But not always for the better, as we are seeing today.
 
The social framework is civil marriage. That is how civil marriage is defined, by the civil laws in operation at the given time and place. Those laws can, and do, change, and so the definition of civil marriage also changes.

Religious marriage has a different set of definitions, which look to religious authorities rather than to civil authorities. A Muslim can marry up to four wives in his local mosque. He can only marry one of those wives in his local registry office.

A civil marriage allows divorce, and remarriage after divorce. A Catholic marriage allows neither.

Marriage is a collection of similar things, it is not one thing. Some of the things in the collection change over time.

rossum
That’s because you’re ok with it being anything as long as same sex unions are regarded as equivalent to marriage. The thing that the framework used to be ancillary to is now entirely forgotten - the framework is now itself an end! Anyone feeling a claim on the framework (two sisters perhaps) should therefore have no lesser claim than anyone else.

I’ve not addressed religious ceremonies at all.
 
Tax benefits, sharing of medical benefits, being recognized as immediate family in the case of one of the individuals falling seriously ill, being recognized by the state and country as a legal family unit, and will and estate planning issues are what comes to mind off the top of my head.
Are these rights or are they benefits the state granted over time because it had an interest in protecting relationships that produced children and benefited society? Regarding tax benefits–ever heard of the marriage penalty? Will and estate issues are best handled by planning and proper legal documents–no one really wants the various states laws regarding those who die intestate doing that for them–and last time I checked homosexual couples were not precluded from doing this type of planning. Durable poa’s should cover medical decisions. Many insurance co’s provide benefits regardless of state law. Most retirement plans these days are things like IRA’s and 401(K)'s which can be left to anyone. Now when it comes to pensions with survivors benefits and social security–that’s a different matter. But lets not confuse rights with benefits.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
Are these rights or are they benefits the state granted over time because it had an interest in protecting relationships that produced children and benefited society? Regarding tax benefits–ever heard of the marriage penalty? Will and estate issues are best handled by planning and proper legal documents–no one really wants the various states laws regarding those who die intestate doing that for them–and last time I checked homosexual couples were not precluded from doing this type of planning. Durable poa’s should cover medical decisions. Many insurance co’s provide benefits regardless of state law. Most retirement plans these days are things like IRA’s and 401(K)'s which can be left to anyone. Now when it comes to pensions with survivors benefits and social security–that’s a different matter. But lets not confuse rights with benefits.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
IMHO, rights and benefits are not the issue for the majority of persons seeking same sex marriage, but rather a tangible basis on which to mount an argument. IMHO, the desire for marriage, and the total rejection of any (legally) equivalent facsimile, arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of marriage, and a deep desire for acceptance and justification.
 
There will always be a gender distinction. For all the so-called spousal duties you have described, there are two that can never overlap. The man must always supply the sperm and the woman must always supply the egg.
Actually, you are confusing religion and legality once again. There is absolutely no legal requirement for a marriage to produce children, and there never has been.
 
Actually, you are confusing religion and legality once again. There is absolutely no legal requirement for a marriage to produce children, and there never has been.
He did not say otherwise!
 
He did not say otherwise!
I stand corrected. I did not take the time to read who the poster was, and I meant my response for you, Rau, thinking that you had made that comment. I apologize.

But, this thread topic refers to the “rights” of gay people in relation to marriage.

A right is a privilege allowed by law. While moral principles may inform the law, there is no direct linkage to religion. Condemnation and persecution of homosexuals has most commonly come from religious sects of one flavor or another. So, this topic can easily get muddled up with religious points of view.

The secular view would be that we know enough about human sexuality, and that the legal status of gender distinction has progressed, to the extent that it is time to change the law. And, that is what is happening.

Going off on a tangent about religious beliefs, or about biology, or about personal POV’S may be interesting and informative (at times). But, if the intent is to clarify what the “rights” are (or, are not), then the discussion is one about legalities, legal trends, and so forth.

It seems to me that a lot of people raise their voices and get very frustrated when they lose sight of this.
 
I stand corrected. I did not take the time to read who the poster was, and I meant my response for you, Rau, thinking that you had made that comment. I apologize.

But, this thread topic refers to the “rights” of gay people in relation to marriage.

A right is a privilege allowed by law. While moral principles may inform the law, there is no direct linkage to religion. Condemnation and persecution of homosexuals has most commonly come from religious sects of one flavor or another. So, this topic can easily get muddled up with religious points of view.

The secular view would be that we know enough about human sexuality, and that the legal status of gender distinction has progressed, to the extent that it is time to change the law. And, that is what is happening.

Going off on a tangent about religious beliefs, or about biology, or about personal POV’S may be interesting and informative (at times). But, if the intent is to clarify what the “rights” are (or, are not), then the discussion is one about legalities, legal trends, and so forth.

It seems to me that a lot of people raise their voices and get very frustrated when they lose sight of this.
You will not really be surprised to see a thread canvassing and debating all manner of issues around the explicit topic. In this case, the answer to the explicit topic is entirely evident, assuming the rights and benefits and obligations assigned by the law are known.

I must say, you refer to religion far more than I do! A bit like seeing reds under the bed? 🙂
 
Yes but debates are not supposed to be forceful but gentle. Goodnight I will see you all tomorrow, hopefully we will come to a conclusion then, I advise you all to do the same mainly for church tomorrow.
I hear you ilovejesus1234 - I too am the type who wishes we could all just get along, but I just want to mention that, as you said you are new to this, you should know that the gay marriage topic is one of those things people argue about endlessly. They’ve been doing it for years and there is no end in sight. So I hope you will not let it upset you too much. The fighting will go on long after you’ve become bored with the topic. Just try to learn what you can from it and move on. If you are waiting for us to “come to a conclusion” you will never see that happen on this topic.

I don’t recommend wasting too much time doing so, as it is quite tedious, but if you go through the history of this topic’s discussion on this forum, you will see it doesn’t matter how many objections get answered, there are an increasing number of people who have basically become disciples of the Culture, and feel they cannot rest until homosexuality is treated exactly the same as heterosexuality, even though they are two very different things. These homosexuality advocates feel they are on a mission, and they are, but not one of truth, they have somehow been blinded to the most simple truths in this area. And anybody who points out basic truths to them they cannot trust because in their mind anything putting homosexuality below heterosexuality in any way equals “hatred”.

The Catholic church can’t pretend homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal, because they are not, and this is for religious as well as rational reasons. Religious reasons being the clear commandments of God regarding sexual conduct.

But beyond the religious reason there is the rational reason, that being simply that 2 men are not the same thing as husband and wife. That is the bottom line that gay marriage activists can’t answer, so they don’t, they endlessly dodge that point. But when we as a society try to pretend that two different types of relationship are the same, even though in reality they are not, that falsehood become magnified as the legal process progresses, and we try to carry an irrational premise to its logical conclusion in the courts.

This is why you now see more and more gay people CONVINCED that they have a RIGHT to a child. This has been one of the “Rights homosexuals [think they] miss out on”, and which the gay marriage movement has sought to redress. The problem though in trying to make homosexual and heterosexual relationships have “equal” access to children, is that these different types of relationships are intrinsically very different with regard to children. Children’s rights to their parents are also in the mix (or should be), but we see children’s rights ignored and rarely mentioned by gay marriage activists, or mentioned in a truncated way so as to support the argument for treating same-sex relationships as if they were husband-wife relationships, and ignoring the intrinsic natural connections between the concepts of father, mother, and child.

The end result of trying to logically force a square peg through a round hole, so to speak, using legal gymnastics, is that you have court decisions which perpetuate an increasing number of irrational injustices against children, against the dignity of procreation itself by making it more of a turkey-baster test tube industry, and even against rational thought as much as against people of faith, who are increasingly accused of hatred just for sticking to ancient religious beliefs which recognize observable gender realities and the important differences between husband-wife relationships and any other kind.
 
I hear you ilovejesus1234 - SHORTENED BECAUSE OF LONG CHARACTER LIMIT.
Okay that makes complete sense, thank you for rationally telling me the answer. To the others, please, don’t be harsh with this topic, we are only learning about it and it is hard for us to learn the right thing to do, if you guys are very unkind.

As for the topic, all I am stuck with William, is that I see how gay marriage should not be treated as equally as regular heterosexual marriage. But I am still stuck with, should we go ask far as to make it illegal, that is why I want to sit on the fence on this one. I think it is unethical/immoral how homosexual couples try to be the same as heterosexual couples, and that no matter what, I won’t agree with them having kids, being parents, marrying, or anything else, I won’t agree with what they do. Unless they just love each other without any immorality.

But why should we make it illegal, I personally don’t want to make it illegal or legal but sit on the fence. I agree abortion should be illegal because you are murdering your son or daughter, no matter what box you put it in. It is still murder in or out of the womb. Birth Control is sorta the same for people in the world, Birth Control prevents life from being formed in “man’s” hands not God’s hands.

That is sorta why in my opinion he made the menstrual cycle(and NFP) with its points that woman can and cannot produce young as a natural “self controlling” way of birth control. The pill pretty much allows people to have sex all the time, in a way of modifying the sexual organs to be infertile almost all the time. It is unethical because we are playing God and being a bit selfish, and stopping the natural order of things. It is immoral because we are sorta forcing a baby to not be conceived, but it is probably more venial and less of a mortal sin, for gentiles(people who are not inside the church, or who are inside the church but don’t follow some of its teachings). I think of it as less severe and less immoral/unethical than abortion for gentiles (symbolism), I doubt God condemns them for it. But abortion I am sure God gets kind of upset at to the gentiles.

Does this make sense? These are my understanding of Church teachings, correct me if I am wrong. I am still learning, but I mainly take my understanding of god not condemning other gentiles from these verses. Or condemning them differently because they have a different law then we do because they don’t follow church teachings.

Verses: John 12: Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me, 45 and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me. 46 I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness. 47 **And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, **for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. 48 Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, 49 because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me.”

Romans 2 : 2 All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts,[f] while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.
 
Okay that makes complete sense, thank you for rationally telling me the answer. To the others, please, don’t be harsh with this topic, we are only learning about it and it is hard for us to learn the right thing to do, if you guys are very unkind.

As for the topic, all I am stuck with William, is that I see how gay marriage should not be treated as equally as regular heterosexual marriage. But I am still stuck with, should we go ask far as to make it illegal, that is why I want to sit on the fence on this one. I think it is unethical/immoral how homosexual couples try to be the same as heterosexual couples, and that no matter what, I won’t agree with them having kids, being parents, marrying, or anything else, I won’t agree with what they do. Unless they just love each other without any immorality.

But why should we make it illegal, …
Well, if you think about it, that is a trick question. There are actually a lot of tricky phrases. Like even calling gay marriage, marriage. That in itself is a trick phrase. If marriage means husband and wife, calling 2 men a marriage doesn’t make any sense. But we keep hearing it over and over and over … until now we all use that phrase. It puts it in our heads that 2 men really can be a marriage. But the only way that makes any sense is to make “marriage” mean something other than husband and wife. Which is what we know it to mean. Bingo. They’ve tricked us into redefining marriage in our own minds, by simply repeating it over and over and over on TV, in the newspaper, everywhere you look.

That’s why I think the best way to cut through all the tricky phrases all at once is simply to keep it in our minds that marriage means husband and wife.

So really there is no making it illegal or legal. That is a trick question. It is not illegal for gays to do anything they want. They can already have marriage ceremonies and call their relationships a marriage if they want. So “making it legal” doesn’t allow them to do something new, they were always able to do that. What “making it legal” really means is forcing other people by law to call it marriage, because that is the effect of gay marriage laws.

They will say they want benefits, and actually that is the loophole they used to get marriage redefined in the courts. You can simply say marital benefits are for married people. If you want marriage-like benefits, put together a package and call it a civil union where you can have the same type of benefits, and try to get the society to vote that in, since it will be the society who provides the benefits. I don’t think they really need such benefits, but if they think they do, that would be the logical answer. Not to redefine marriage.

Hope that helps. Basically, I would say instead of asking “should gay marriage be legal” we should say it a different way. We should say “marriage means husband and wife, and the law should reflect that”.

One argument for keeping the law that way is that everybody, 100% of people, even gay people know that husband and wife make a marriage. So with a minimal definition of marriage, at least nobody will be forced to pretend something is a marriage which they don’t think really is one. I already know how people object to this, and instead of going on all night, I’ll just point out that we are already starting to get into the complexity of the endless debate. It’s true, gay people won’t get everything they want if we don’t redefine marriage. But nobody gets everything they want. They are getting all the compromises they need with civil unions. The injustices to Christians and children which come about through gay marriage laws makes them an unacceptable solution.

So I think if you stick with “I think marriage means husband and wife, and I think the law should reflect that,” you’ll be able to defend yourself against opponents on this issue. You’ll get some objections and do the best you can with that. But in the end they are asking for everything they want, why shouldn’t we do likewise? At least we are offering them compromises with civil unions. It may all be a moot point anyway since it looks like all the states may have to change the definition of marriage soon. But at least you will have it straight in your own mind, and that is worth a lot in itself.
 
Well, if you think about it, that is a trick question. …“making it legal” doesn’t allow them to do something new, they were always able to do that. What “making it legal” really means is forcing other people by law to call it marriage,
That’s right William. “Making it Legal” requires everyone in society to view 2 men (or 2 women) entering into a sexual relationship as a natural societal unit. And calling it marriage is to require us to view it as a normal means of family formation, identical to the man+woman union intrinsic to our nature. It requires us to acknowledge it to be just the same as man+woman, and failure to acknowledge it as such may be grounds to be prosecuted.
They will say they want benefits, and actually that is the loophole they used to get marriage redefined in the courts. You can simply say marital benefits are for married people. If you want marriage-like benefits, put together a package and call it a civil union where you can have the same type of benefits, and try to get the society to vote that in, since it will be the society who provides the benefits. I don’t think they really need such benefits, but if they think they do, that would be the logical answer. Not to redefine marriage.
Yes, though anything that is not ‘marriage’ does not provide the validation that a same-sex couple want.

Civil Unions may not meet all demands, but they are a sensible idea. There is no need to incorporate the presumption that the union is sexual, simply that the persons will satisfy the requirements to be treated as a “unit” for various purposes, be that taxation, asset ownership and transfers, medical care and the like.
 
Can you show me the proof, that they can still have a marital ceremony, and do stuff married couples do, even if the state says its illegal for gays to get married?

Also show me the side by side links compared to a civil union and marital union, and how they are different and the same?

Also if it is illegal in their state, what do they miss out on, just the state not recognizing it as a true marriage and not having equal economic rights as heterosexuals?

Also a note, some I know may still argue," well why can’t we(the gay people) have the same rights as heteros do? What makes you different than us?"

Hope I am not pressuring you guys…
 
Can you show me the proof, that they can still have a marital ceremony, and do stuff married couples do, even if the state says its illegal for gays to get married?

Also show me the side by side links compared to a civil union and marital union, and how they are different and the same?

Also if it is illegal in their state, what do they miss out on, just the state not recognizing it as a true marriage and not having equal economic rights as heterosexuals?

Also a note, some I know may still argue," well why can’t we(the gay people) have the same rights as heteros do? What makes you different than us?"

Hope I am not pressuring you guys…
Look at my previous post. You decide what you want to Accept.
 
Can you show me the proof, that they can still have a marital ceremony, and do stuff married couples do, even if the state says its illegal for gays to get married?
Well, the proof is that they do it. Gays do have marital ceremonies in states that have not redefined marriage. Have you ever heard of gays being put in jail for having a marriage ceremony in a state where marriage still means husband and wife only?
Also show me the side by side links compared to a civil union and marital union, and how they are different and the same?

Also if it is illegal in their state, what do they miss out on, just the state not recognizing it as a true marriage and not having equal economic rights as heterosexuals?

Also a note, some I know may still argue," well why can’t we(the gay people) have the same rights as heteros do? What makes you different than us?"
What they miss out on, is that their relationships are not man-woman. That is really all you need to remember. Civil unions can be constructed any way gays want. Just put it all down on paper and submit it as a referendum and have people vote on it. One thing to consider, though, is if marital benefits were designed for male-female unions, which are by nature procreative, and therefore need that special situation dealt with, why should gay civil unions be EXACTLY the same when they do not have that very important element as part of their relationship make-up?
 
A right is a privilege allowed by law.
We hold these truths to be self-evident…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…That to secure these rights, Governments are so instituted among Men…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it…

A Right is much more than a privilege allowed by law.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
So wait do you guys believe we should ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any other unions between same sex couples? Some states have this as their banning. Look it up.
 
Also doesn’t banning same-sex marriage and other bans basically go against some amendments? Forgive me for saying this but I know for sure there is something in our constitution saying we can’t mess with certain rights for a person or people. I am not to informed on this so you guys may need to correct me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top