Should the state marry gay lovers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mulepadre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While I appreciate the offer in the spirit I do hope it was intended…

Please, DON’T help me! 😃
 
Most assuredly! you may not have run across me on the forum before, but I think, by most accounts, you’ll find I’m very reasonable and easy to get along with, although I freely admit to having a sharp tongue and being somewhat unusual in my personal views than many here.

Okay then, back to the topic. I really did mean it - why, precisely, is there any problem with two people of any sex forming a legally binding union, with the same legal set of rights as any other two adults, in any way legally unfeasible or undesirable?

Note that what the faiths of said people is NOT what is being discussed here - whether or not the RCC or any other faith accepts that union - simply the practical legality, in order to provide better and more comprehensive civil rights in a society of (supposedly, and ideally) legal equals.
 
Nepenthe said:
Most assuredly! you may not have run across me on the forum before, but I think, by most accounts, you’ll find I’m very reasonable and easy to get along with, although I freely admit to having a sharp tongue and being somewhat unusual in my personal views than many here.

Okay then, back to the topic. I really did mean it - why, precisely, is there any problem with two people of any sex forming a legally binding union, with the same legal set of rights as any other two adults, in any way legally unfeasible or undesirable?

Note that what the faiths of said people is NOT what is being discussed here - whether or not the RCC or any other faith accepts that union - simply the practical legality, in order to provide better and more comprehensive civil rights in a society of (supposedly, and ideally) legal equals.
Click to expand...
Ok, but homosexual couples already have the same rights as married persons do.
 
Sure, in California…and ‘pretty much’ is not the same thing as ‘yes, they do.’ In much of the US, that is not the case, and sadly, some are heartless enough to deny a person and their lifelong partner that humaneness and dignity, simply because they have the ‘wrong’ set of bits and cannot legally claim to be next-of-kin as a legally married male/female couple may, and do so frequently. I cannot imagine how anyone could be so callous, but many, many people are.

That sort of awfulness is a large part of my original argument that the entire legal system regarding marriage (or legal union, if you prefer the term, which some may well) needs massive reworking, and particularly in respect to interstate matters.
 
Nepenthe said:
Sure, in California…and ‘pretty much’ is not the same thing as ‘yes, they do.’
Click to expand...
The topic says state. Not world or US. I think its safe to say it hints of California and the recent Prop 8. “The” gay movement in the US is in Cslifornia, maybe even movement in the world.

As for pretty much I meant “yes they do.”

Because well, they do. I’m sorry you are uninformed on the issue.
Nepenthe said:
In much of the US, that is not the case, and sadly, some are heartless enough to deny a person and their lifelong partner that humane dignity, simply because they have the ‘wrong’ set of bits, and do so frequently.That is a large part of my original argument that the entire legal system regarding marriage (or legal union, if you prefer the term, which some may well) needs massive reworking, and particularly in respect to interstate matters.
Click to expand...
Or some heartless person wants deny married couples humane dignity, and the country and people the right to protect/say so.

See I can do it too.
 
You are correct that I am not as concerned or informed California state law as I was during the…hmm…20? years that I lived there. However, I still fear that there may be possible exploitable loopholes and lack of certain precedents, even in CA. As for any ‘gay movement’, would you have had any qualms about being an activist for the civil rights of black people not so very long ago, or even now for that matter, whether or not you are black yourself?

As to that last bit, I don’t know what you are trying to say. How does one couple’s equality under the law (humane, dignified, and so forth) in any way detract from another couple’s, no matter what sex any of those people are? Living, loving, working, and aging together are essential to all humankind and deserving, no - more than deserving, demanding the immense respect due to all in our legal code.
 
I don’t really see the point of legal gay marriage.

Marriage gives people a bunch of legal benefits, right? Benefits that I, as an unmarried person, don’t get.

Why does the state grant such benefits? What is the purpose? Things like the right to leave property to your spouse without having to pay huge taxes. Or the right to get your spouse’s social security benefits, if they are killed.

Why does the state do this? The state doesn’t just grant legal benefits to anybody; what does the state get out of it??

I always assumed that the state gains stable families. The heterosexual, married family unit is the best place for children to be born and raised in, and therefore the state has an interest in promoting such a thing. (Of course, not all married couples produce children, but homosexual couples are intrinsically incapable of reproduction.)

Many (not all, but many) of the benefits granted to married couples would seem to make things easier for the remaining spouse to raise the children alone, if the first spouse died.

(Personally, I think hospital visitation rights need a complete makeover. Any person should be able to easily designate who they want to visit them; related or not.)

How, exactly, would gay marriage benefit the state?? :confused:
 
Nepenthe said:
You are correct that I am not as concerned or informed California state law as I was during the…hmm…20? years that I lived there. However, I still fear that there may be possible exploitable loopholes and lack of certain precedents, even in CA. As for any ‘gay movement’, would you have had any qualms about being an activist for the civil rights of black people not so very long ago, or even now for that matter, whether or not you are black yourself?

As to that last bit, I don’t know what you are trying to say. How does one couple’s equality under the law (humane, dignified, and so forth) in any way detract from another couple’s, no matter what sex any of those people are? Living, loving, working, and aging together are essential to all humankind and deserving, no - more than deserving, demanding the immense respect due to all in our legal code.
Click to expand...
What if someone was having dinner with his family, and afterward remained behind watching his wife walk off to tuck his children into bed. He thinks about his life and that it is good. He cleans the table and takes out the trash. Outside he sees his neighbors kissing on the balcony. They are both men.

He thinks to himself. Am I going to be cast into the same catergory as them. I will now carry that title. Male and male. Sodomy. Unable to pass both their DNA to a child.

No way.

That is what I mean. This goes both ways. It’s not this big one sided pity party. Both are effected.
 
How, exactly, does anyone’s marriage/union directly benefit the state? We live in a nation where the government was designed to serve the citizens - yes, all of them, even black (or any other shade) people, gay people (of any stripe), and gasp women once we started getting into the implications and realities of constitutional law, not the other way round, hence the term ‘public servant’.

Perhaps we should, instead, as a matter of duty, renounce any rights besides those of constant work and reproduction, and become the ultimate assembly-line society in order to enrich Our Glorious Republic? I’m not sure whether to say ‘Heil’ or ‘Khorosho, tovarishch’ to that, or possibly ‘Buy More Stuff Now, All Credit Accepted’. :o

Oh, and by the way, when people talk about THE state, as opposed to A state, let’s assume we all mean the US as a nation, not a dinky little part of it, okay? Unless we are talking about another country.
 
Nepenthe said:
How, exactly, does anyone’s marriage/union directly benefit the state?
Click to expand...
If marriage doesn’t benefit the state…then why does it exist?
Oh, and by the way, when people talk about THE state, as opposed to A state, let’s assume we all mean the US as a nation, not a dinky little part of it, okay? Unless we are talking about another country.
Click to expand...
Yes, “the state” = “the country” 👍

After all, if we do break up the country into states with different laws, then gay marriage (if allowed in state #1, and not in state #2), could be said to benefit state #1 in tourism dollars!! I know that we got plenty of extra tourism here in VT when that “civil union” law passed. I suppose that could be considered a benefit, lol. :rolleyes:
 
Why, indeed? Because it is a human need, perhaps? Because it promotes stability and prosperity, perhaps? Because it facilitates decisions regarding human rights, perhaps?

Why? Keep asking yourself that question.
 
Nepenthe said:
Oh, and by the way, when people talk about THE state, as opposed to A state, let’s assume we all mean the US as a nation, not a dinky little part of it, okay? Unless we are talking about another country.
Click to expand...
Let’s not. It’s fairly obvious ‘the’ state is referencing California. Especially with the title, “Should the state marry gay lovers?” Which goes in perfect conjunction with the Prop 8 debate.

San Francisco, Hollywood/the media(you know I mean), the gay movement, prop 8, etc… all here.

But at the same time I can’t dismiss your point either so. 😛
 
Maybe you did not see the thread in which mulepadre (the Fr. Michael I referred to earlier) decided to start this one. No, it is neither obvious nor likely that ‘the state’ referred to is ANY single state of the US, but the entire US itself.

All your nudging and winking about ‘Californians, eh?’ does not mean I have any idea what you are talking about. I have lived all over this country, including Bay Area CA, New England, Texas and Indiana and I can’t say i have found any part of it ‘gayer’ than any other part - only that some parts are more civilized and respectful of their fellow citizens.

If some areas have larger, more visible, less-fearful lgbt communities than others, it is because in some kindly and civilized areas, they need not live in constant fear of others harming them. And whether or not I am gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or straight, I too prefer to live in accepting and neighborly communities.
 
Nepenthe said:
Maybe you did not see the thread in which mulepadre (the Fr. Michael I referred to earlier) decided to start this one. No, it is neither obvious nor likely that ‘the state’ referred to is ANY single state of the US, but the entire US itself.

All your nudging and winking about ‘Californians, eh?’ does not mean I have any idea what you are talking about. I have lived all over this country, including Bay Area CA, New England, Texas and Indiana and I can’t say i have found any part of it ‘gayer’ than any other part - only that some parts are more civilized and respectful of their fellow citizens.

If some areas have larger, more visible, less-fearful lgbt communities than others, it is because in some kindly and civilized areas, they need not live in constant fear of others harming them. And whether or not I am gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or straight, I too prefer to live in accepting and neighborly communities.
Click to expand...
That’s fine. The whole country then. I took it as California. I still do as it really doesn’t say all states, one state, country, nation, etc.

A lot has changed since you used to live in California some 20 years ago. I absolutely disagree about no part grayer than others.

California is a country unto its self. Almost anyways. 😃
 
Actually I lived there a total of approximately twenty years during two different time periods, so it wasn’t all that long ago - and nah, it hasn’t changed all that much from what I read. Actually, if anything, it’s TWO countries unto themselves, unequally yoked. You couldn’t pay me to live in SoCal…well, maybe, but it’d take hella money, dude! 😉 I do have quite a few very dear friends who live there, but I find the overall culture of Socal to be horribly crass and tacky, not to mention just ill-mannered. Just personal preference, I suppose.

Okay, once this thread is back in the hands of people who really can stay on-topic, unlike myself, I’ll be back! 😊
 
Nepenthe said:
Why, indeed? Because it is a human need, perhaps? Because it promotes stability and prosperity, perhaps? Because it facilitates decisions regarding human rights, perhaps?

Why? Keep asking yourself that question.
Click to expand...
shrug Many of those needs could be met by religious, or other “non-legal” forms of marriage.

I suppose marriage would promote prosperity, but following that logic, 15 people being married collectively may be more prosperous (economically) than only 2, so number would be as irrelevant as gender.

I still think that the primary purpose of legal marriage is for children. 🤷

Also, if one accepts the notion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder (or something like that), then you could argue that gay “marriage” is not in anyone’s best interest. (As it would “normalize” the disorder, and get in the way of treatment.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top