hwyangel
Member
- Jul 26, 2012
- 86
- 8
- 6
I'll go along with the 1st part of this - civil marriage is a legal definition of the actual contract where fundamental marriage is a church sacrament. They are, and should be, fundamentally different - especially in light of the fact that not many religions will define the legal ramifications of divorce. Some religions actually deal with that by expressly prohibiting divorce entirely - which raises even MORE questions.The government recognized institution of marriage has very little resemblance to holy matrimony. There are similarities, but fundamentally two separate concepts.
The same is true for Same gender and opposite gender couples. Not to say that either is better or worse than the other, but the inability to comprehend the difference is only proof of how "sex education" has failed to communicate some very basic information.
Sex for procreation is only 1 small part of the act of marriage. I think it takes higher priority as well since one may have a child without marriage, but one doesn't need marriage to make a baby. Looking at the (Christian) scripture which discusses marriage in detail, procreation is a minor aspect. Love and respect for one another are the stars.
Regardless of how anyone feels about pro-creation it directly effects the lives of every living, breathing, human being on the planet, and not something that can be swept under a rug. After all, there is a reason why we want young pregnant women to get married and it's not because we like to go to parties, lol. Us old fashioned folks call it "doing the right thing". Which translates as, we believe it's right for a man to be responsible for his family as opposed to burdening the welfare system. We believe that a child needs two parents to be a healthy, well adjusted citizen. We believe that a child has a right to a name that be identified with a medical history or ancestry, ( That info you put on medical forms and college applications). So we encourage this behavior by having them sign a legally bond document known as a marriage certificate.
I'm not sure I'm tracking this properly. Women have gotten pregnant with and without the "benefit" of marriage since forever. We "did the right thing" and married because that was expected behavior at the time, not that marriage was the correct option at the time. In some cases, marriage was actually the exact WORSE option. There was a period before that where women simply went "away" for a few months.
A child's name isn't as important today as it used to be. We don't care so much about our lineage today since we don't derive any special recognition as you'd find in Europe.
And finally, there are studies which argue the point that children fare better/worse/the same in hetero- versus homosexual relationships. It all depends on who you read and whether there's an axe to grind. Maybe children actually DO become "well adjusted" in a 2 adult family, but there are plenty of single moms and dads. Limiting options arbitrarily doesn't seem like the right way to go.
However, same gender couples also deserve the same rights under the law. But with same gender couples there is a different set of needs and requirements. Like the "aids confidentiality Act" enacted through ACLU and the LGBT to fight discrimination. A very real, very basic need when there are teens committing suicide and the high susceptibility among gay men. This is good thing........for same gender couples. But blood test for an opposite gender couple could at least create awareness and possible prevention of disease, disability, and death to a pregnant woman and/or her children. Equally important issues, but very different.
And here another example: Two sisters, both divorced, both have children. They pool their money together to buy a house. They live there for 20 years and raise their children together. They have the same concerns as any other same gender couple. If one dies, the will loose her home because she will have to sell it pay the taxes.
Again, I'm failing to see the logic - and, to be honest, can't verify your claim that privacy legislation was enacted to prevent discrimination. There are quite a few privacy laws which supercede even marriage. Privacy laws make it necessary to be explicit about who should know YOUR affairs. I guess even married couples like to have a few secrets.
Let's go on with another example:
A man and a woman lived together without marrying (let's just say they simply saw no reason to be "traditional") for 40 years. During that time, they raise 4 kids. They lived in a very committed and loving family until he suddenly died at the age of 68. Since they considered themselves married in every respect - except religiously, what's the difference?
If we allow those related to marry we intentionally subject children to deformities and disabilities if its an opposite gender couple. But if they are not allowed to marry, then they face discrimination.
So here is the answer. Civil partnerships should be as unique to the specific needs and right of same gender couples as marriage is to opposite gender couples. Obviously you can expect to get the same results in a few years an institution like marriage that has been around for centuries. But I believe that if LGBT people spent as much time, effort and money to advocate for the amendments or rights they need instead of pissing in my yard..........
I fail to see where a special case needs to applied to any committed, loving, long-term relationship. From a civil aspect, it becomes simple contract law defining benefits, responsibilities, and penalties - all of which are already established. If a church would agree to marry a couple (or even a couple dozen), then that's a spiritual blessing and carries importance that's relevant only to the partners involved.
I really don't see the protection of individual choice as pissing in anyone's yard. In fact, restricting someone's choice is more like pissing in THEIR yard, don't you think?
UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.
.... A child of tender years shall not,save in exceptional circumstances,be separated from his mother....
... The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents...
The child shall in all circumstances be among the first to receive protection and relief.
(Childrens rights are not a matter of opinion )