Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I meant she didn’t learn what was being taught. Either that or the teacher didn’t teach correctly. Learning about gender fluidity and transgenderism is nothing for anybody to cry over.
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
Or she is too young to understand that twisted stuff!!
And a supreme court judge who thinks two same sex couples can be married, failed that test!
And a supreme court judge who thinks two same sex couples can be married, failed that test!
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
LOL.
My husband did point out we tend to use “civil union” more than marriage.
The supreme court looked at what a legal marriage does. Quite frankly there’s no reason why two non-dependants can’t forge a contract and get the benefits that have been allocated to married couples. Before you say that married people should receive social benefits because they are responsible for minors, please note that many of the benefits extend well beyond the scope of a child’s 18-25 years as a dependant.
Insurance, inheritance and health care are all matters for those 50+ who have no minors in their care should not be notably different, but it is. If “marriage” is the only way for them to get those legal benefits then it’s a civil issue, not a spiritual one.
R
rcwitness
Guest
What a legal marriage “does” and who “can be” married are two different things.
You can call it “civil union” but the State calls it marriage, just like your’s.
You can call it “civil union” but the State calls it marriage, just like your’s.
Except mom isn’t wrong. Obviously she needs to explain that the state accepts SSM.
But Catholic parents should ensure that the child understands that real marriage is one man and one woman. Gay marriage is simply not marriage. It’s a bad imitation.
Or they attempted to tell lies to a child and the child became confused.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Which is why the state has permitted the definition of who can get married to change. The government has changed the meaning of what benefits a married person receives a nearly infinite number of civil benefits. This goes from cheaper auto insurance to medical decision making. Married people were contented to soak up and reap these benefits and grow them into a near dynasty. Yet, it had very little to do with the raising of children. So other people want in?
Let them. It was us who decided to build and build these benefits and who wanted them to be termed “marriage” benefits. It shouldn’t be any surprise that due to the scope and depth of these benefits others who have a similar lifestyle.
Yeah but part of the reason we had “benefits” for marriage was because society once recognised marriage as something that was special and important for society. The state had no interest in consenting adults’ sexual arrangements until the LGBT movement came along. Now the state recognises marriage as simply a sexual relationship and nothing more.
R
rcwitness
Guest
You are buying into the deception on account of circumstantial details (not sure if that’s a fitting phrase?)
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Marriage was termed important for children and the benefits reflected that. However, at least in America, the benefits go far, far beyond that. It has nothing to do with those things and it’s really extravagant.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Yeah but part of the reason we had “benefits” for marriage was because society once recognised marriage as something that was special and important for society. The state had no interest in consenting adults’ sexual arrangements until the LGBT movement came along. Now the state recognises marriage as simply a sexual relationship and nothing more.
No, no I’m not. In fact, I think that laws should require that any two consenting adults of any relationship should be able to net the benefits given to married people upon contract.
R
rcwitness
Guest
But that encourages same sex lifestyles
Why, how does that benefit society at all.
I agree that “civil partners” should be able to be treated as married people in terms of tax, inheritance rights etc. But that could extend to brothers or friends living together too.
I really think there is a benefit to society of man-woman marriage being held on a pedestal.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
If those people aren’t providing any tangible benefit to society post child-rearing then why do they deserve benefits? You spend 18 years raisng a kid so you get the next 40 years full of socital perks?
R
rcwitness
Guest
So your answer is same sex marriages???
I would prefer zero benefits across the board than promoting and establishing ssm
I would prefer zero benefits across the board than promoting and establishing ssm
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I don’t think the state even cares about who is having sex and who isn’t. Marriage to the state is a contract and not much else. It is up the individuals marrying to decide what it means to them. Obviously, it doesn’t mesh with the Catholic understanding of marriage.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Quite frankly, if you’re older than 40 you had the choice to make that happen by getting involved in politics, shaping the law and making that happen.
If you’re younger you can advocate or the removal of all marital benefits, public and private with the end to civil marriage.
If you don’t want to do that you’re part o the problem. Either everyone gets it, or no one does.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Part of what problem?rcwitness:
Quite frankly, if you’re older than 40 you had the choice to make that happen by getting involved in politics, shaping the law and making that happen.
If you’re younger you can advocate or the removal of all marital benefits, public and private with the end to civil marriage.
If you don’t want to do that you’re part o the problem. Either everyone gets it, or no one does.
The problem isn’t whether or not married couples get benefits, but who is being declared married!
The Supreme Court decided this. And now we are being pressured to teach our children that same sex couples can be married. It’s a deception the supreme court fell into. We do not have to as well.
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
The supreme court weighed what the social and governmental benefits to marriage were. If marriage provided no benefits what-so-ever and was simply a religious service they wouldn’t have made the decision.
If people decided tomorrow that they wanted to become a Bar Mitzvah the Supreme Court wouldn’t care because there are no legal or social benefits to this.
If you want to say that marriage is purely a spiritual pursuit, then you need to start forgoing the societal benefits and work to dismantle them. I’m betting that if there were zero social benefits to civil marriage, secular marriage would disappear within a decade.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The financial benefits of marriage should not be the criteria for determining who is able to be married. Natural law, ethics, the family, history, morality, etc. should be criteria.rcwitness:
The supreme court weighed what the social and governmental benefits to marriage were. If marriage provided no benefits what-so-ever and was simply a religious service they wouldn’t have made the decision.
If people decided tomorrow that they wanted to become a Bar Mitzvah the Supreme Court wouldn’t care because there are no legal or social benefits to this.
If you want to say that marriage is purely a spiritual pursuit, then you need to start forgoing the societal benefits and work to dismantle them. I’m betting that if there were zero social benefits to civil marriage, secular marriage would disappear within a decade.
You keep drifting away from the issue with irrelevant stuff
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
I don’t think you understand at all what the results of being married do for a person in this society. Some of it is very sneaky and simple. My husband paid X amount for car insurance. I paid Y amount (which was about 30% less than X). When we got married our annual bill, with the same exact cars and clean driving records our combined bill was around X-10%.
And there’s so much more. Health insurance, home insurance, medical decisions, taxes (we do benefit by being married), credit card rates and credit score, complicated inheritance matters, etc. That’s all a part of being married. It’s tremendous when you actually unpack it.
It’s decades of politicians with a vested interest in giving a select population an edge. It’s not irrelevant.
Again if marriage had zero benefits, if we stopped creating forms with “single/married/widowed” no one would care. It’s not irrelevant. It’s what the court hinged it’s decision on.
- Status