Incomplete thoughts

[txnarmywife]

I've had a bunch of thoughts rattling around in my brain for a while now -wanted to get them out on "paper" to start making sense of them.  This entry doesn't necessarily come to a full-stop at the end, nor is every point fully fleshed out.  I would welcome your thoughts, if you have any.

I’ve been struggling a lot in light of the recent additional

Comments

[kupi99]

Real quick responce, then I'll write more thoughts. The Church, at least, does teach that people have a right to marry. It just defines marriage as between a man a women. Same sex couples cannot get married then, since they are not a man and women. The Church also teaches that we cannot change this defination of marriage, because it comes from our nature.
Here is a handy link. Scroll down for the bit on marriage rights (it has other info you might find interesting too).
Of course, feel free to reflect on the Church's teaching, and where you stand, but I thought I would just give you the info:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

[txnarmywife]

Sorry, what I meant is that not all people have the right to get married to each other. There are age limits, both physical and mental. There are boundaries in place due to familial ties. My point should have been that no single person can claim the "right" to marry whomever he/she wants - it's just not possible.

Thanks for the link.

[dtherese]

The problem with your defense of marriage to a secular person is your definition. Only Catholics (and some other Christians) will see marriage as permanent and requiring self-sacrifice. For the most part, what gay people want is a legal marriage - access to family health insurance, to be treated as spouses when their partner is in the hospital or has passed away, tax differences... Things married people take for granted. I have no problem giving them that. The church doesn't recognize civil marriage already, so changing the definition of civil marriage shouldn't affect the church's approach to marriage.

I chose not to get involved in the CFA debate. I didn't go to support them this week, but I'm not boycotting either.

[txnarmywife]

How many of the legal issues can be solved by getting a power of attorney? I know PoA won't solve some issues, but it would help when partner is in the hospital, for example.

So basicallly people are arguing for the benefits of secular marriage, not necessarily arguing for marriage itself. Is that a correct assumption?

[dtherese]

To answer your first question, probably not nearly enough.

I think that's probably a correct assumption.

[dtherese]

It's easy to forget when you stick within Catholic circles - most people don't think of marriage the way you do.

[el_cid_4ever]

Like dtherese said, I think what gays and any other "disenfranchised" folks want are the legal benefits of marriage. There are either one or two aspects to marriage, depending on the folks. If they are religious, then there is the holy part of marriage, and then there's the legal part.

I have zero compunctions about giving gays the legal rights of marriage, as long as it isn't marriage itself. Civil unions, sure, knock yourselves out. If two people want to engage in a mutually agreed upon legal contract between them, that's their business. I don't care what they do in that matter, and I believe that doesn't fall under the Church's purview, either.