I know that we cannot endorse gay marriage as it is contrary to the intended nature of sex and it is part of the over-sexualization of our culture. But my brothers spoke about how the June 26th Supreme Court decision was about having the basic needs to receive benefits if one member of a gay couple dies, or to have visiting hours (personally, I think anybody, no matter what relation, should be allowed to visit somebody in the hospital. I had a little beef with a hospital that only allowed two visitors in at a time to visit my mother when she suffered a concussion from falling off her horse). How do we handle these issues of compassion, reaching out to people who have been dealing with sickness and loss, while also avoiding promoting sexual relations that are contrary to nature’s main intention: procreation?
Does a perpetrator of a crime have a “right” to visit the victim in the hospital?
I think the hospitals are at fault here. They should clean up their act.
Right. The problem lies in some hospitals’ policies of only allowing immediate family to visit dying patients. Obviously, this is done to protect patient privacy, but sometimes, a patient has closer ties to certain friends than to his/her family.
But not only that, but because I believe it is unjust, as it ignores or tries to make irrelevant the important roles of a mother and father in family life, it renders ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ valueless and interchangeable in order to maintain the façade of equality. I believe it further adds to demeaning marriage (No fault divorce included) which will primarily harm children and those who are educated with the same faulty and superficial understanding of marriage.
In Australia, we currently have ‘Married’ or ‘De-facto’ and the homosexual union would be included in the ‘De-Facto’ relationship, thus both I believe have rights that pertain to things like that, which I believe is a very good setup and stops things like that from happening, however, many are still vehemently pushing for same sex marriage in parliament.
I hope this has helped
Thank you for reading
Every one of these things and more can be handled by estate planning, power of attorney, advanced healthcare directives, and other readily available legal means. Domestic partner and civil union laws can also give benefits and protections without redefining these arrangements as “marriage”.
The issues / rights you raise reasonably attach to the members of a marriage. But it is absurd to suggest that marriage of any persons must be available in order to receive such rights. If there is a gap in legal mechanics, then it should be addressed specifically.
Are you serious?
Presumably not, by virtue of the choice of the ‘patient’, who agrees he is a victim. Not the greatest analogy for the issue at hand…
Originally I was just questioning the assertion in the OP about ANYONE being able to visit someone in the hospital. Indeed there must be some sort of line or criteria set up. But the way that was taken actually can be used.
Sodomy(for the purposes of this discussion) is a violent and unsafe act and it does not really matter if one consents to it or not. Hospitals have rules about abusive spouses as well even if the patient has not recognized the abuse.
It is all an academic argument anyway as it was never about rights in hospitals, something I could give any one of you with the right legal document…
And what if the couple in questions is a pair of lesbians?
Part of the over-sexualization of our culture?
There have been gay couples around for thousands of years–in every culture, in every era, in every religion, in every country…
Inheritance can be handled for partners in the same way it is handled for anyone who dies without a spouse - a will. Hospitals set their own policies on visitation. Most hospitals allow the patient to decide who gets to visit. Issues arise when there are competing interests (parents vs. partners, for example). But the same thing happens with parents vs spouses and even with siblings.
There was a very successful lobby that tried to convince the public that same-sex partners were routinely being denied visits to the dying or having their inheritance stolen. I am sure there were some cases of this, just like there are cases of this with the married and non-married heterosexuals in our society. But same-sex “marriage” was a solution in search of a problem in this regard.
Those persons were not arguing that their relationship is identical to marriage. Were not arguing they were establishing a family. Were not arguing their “right” to acquire children.
Thank you for sharing.
I have heard the “we need gay marriage because a gay person is going to be denied visiting in the hospital” more times than I can count I am frankly sick of it. Sorry but with all Christian charity it is ridiculous.
(on a side note: I am sure you love your mother and wanted to visit her when she was in the hospital with a concussion. However I don’t know why you “had a beef” with them when they only allowed two visitors at a time. It’s routine for physicians to limit the number of visitors to minimize stimulation for their patients with head injuries and for patients recovering from serious surgeries and you said your mother fell off a horse?)
We don’t need gay “marriage” people can solve problems of inheritance, visitation, health benefits and other matters all sorts of other ways but that’s not the agenda and it never was. The idea is for us to embrace the homosexual lifestyle as the same as a man-woman marriage.
Thank you for bringing this topic up for discussion though, God bless you as you attempt to discuss it with your brothers, please be assured of my prayers.
True just as there have been adulterers, thieves, liars, and pedophiles. Sin is indeed rampant through humanity. It is our fallen nature. I don’t believe that there are any sins that haven’t been practiced in every culture, era, religion and country. The fact that it has come to the point of “marriage” is part of the result of the over- sexualization of our culture.