Why should gay couples be denied rights?

I’m talking about hospital visitation rights and stuff like that.

Nurses are generally pretty cool with that sort of thing, independent of what “rights” their partners might have. The real issues arise when it comes to things that involve money, like social security benefits and wills, and for child custody issues. Which is a shame, but looks likely to be changing, soon, though unquestionably not soon enough for some.

As ever, Jesse

It is the “stuff like that” which causes problems. And what do you mean by “denying rights”? What rights, EXACTLY are you talking about?

You will need to be very specific when discussing this topic, because vagaries are where the discussion really lies.

I don’t think that anyone would say that one homosexual person should be prevented from seeing or speaking for another homosexual person in the hospital. If they want to set up some sort of legal power of attorney to allow that, then have at it. But don’t call it marriage, because it isn’t, and it never will be.

~Liza

Except in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden … and Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. … and now New York.

Religious objections to same sex marriage don’t much matter to those of us who don’t share your religion.

As ever, Jesse

I suggest you take that up with the hospital.

If a nation declared that all triangles had 38 degrees and threatened dissenters with punishment, would it be the objective case that triangles have 38 degrees? No. Because triangles are ideas arising from nature, not agreed-upon manmade conventions. So, too, is marriage.

This is not a “religious” objection, by the way. It is simple natural law, the origins of which predate the Church.

Ahh, so the imprimatur of government is all that is required to legitimate an activity. The Confederate States of America would like to request an apology for the war over slavery that was waged against it.

It’s common sense that it shouldn’t exist. Lesbians can’t even really have sex, and male homosexuals can only do sodomy and oral sex, and none of them are pro creative. So what’s the point? Even if you do think it’s ok, call it parraige, not marraige. And since when did the government decide what marriage is? Since the 1700’s? So the country argument is moot.

sorry if it was too graphic.

Perhaps the state should distinguish between Marriage and Christian Marriage? Hmmmmmmmmmmm…:confused:

Homosexuals are not gay. Gay means carefree, frivolous, bright.

And please cite where and when a homosexual may not visit another in a hospital.

Probably not the right argument to pose to a maths professor. :wink:

Actually, it’s just another lame analogy, as marriages are not triangles — and mathematically naive, to put it gently. It is indeed possible to construct a triangle with interior angles of 38 degrees. You just embed it into a concave space such as the interior of a cone with the proper eccentricity. You can achieve greater than 60 degrees by laying your triangle on a convex space, such as a sphere. In projective non-metric spaces, angular measure isn’t even defined, but that doesn’t prevent us from populating them with triangles. Possibly, you’ve only dealt with Euclidean planar geometries, which, just by the way, are the only place you’ll find triangles of 60 degrees, as they don’t exist in nature itself. Triangles are mathematical abstractions. They don’t arise from nature.

Homosexual pairings, on the other hand, do arise in nature, which proves they exist in conformity with natural law.

As ever, Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Assuming you are speaking about animal behaviors, this proves no such thing. There is only one act for which the body is naturally oriented, and which has a natural purpose; to do any other thing against the physical makeup of the body goes against nature and human dignity. If animals, who have no power of self command, do something it does not mean it is natural or permissible for humans. Or is bestial behavior our standard?

God Bless,
Joan

It happens when non-relatives are not permitted to visit, regardless of whether they are half of the homosexual “couple”.

Such can be fixed through legal means, however. What some homosexuals object to is that they have to go through some legal manuvering that married couples do not.

I don’t believe the Church cares who gets to visit who in hospital, nor is it necessary to pretend that a partnership between homosexuals is a marriage in order for them to be able to visit each other in hospital, there are other laws that could be passed which would not require trying to redefine marriage if that was all this is really about.

First of all, there is really no such thing as a “gay” couple or a homosexual couple. People are homosexual, the entity of the partnership isn’t.

Hospital visitation is very rarely denied ot anyone. But is a person is worried about this, they can specify when they check in who they want to be alowed to visit or put documents in place in case of an emergency.

To me, the hospital visit issue is a red herring. I have spent more time than I care to in hospitals over the last few years. No one cared who visited who. Two of my dad’s friends from church popped into the ICU an hour before my dad died. They simply asked at the desk what room he was in and came on up. No one asked who they were or if there was any relationship.

I don’t doubt there are isolated cases of hospital personnel being obnoxious but it isn’t really an issue.

And homosexuals try to embed things in concave spaces. But they’re not the right thing and not the right spaces.

Liza’s point, which I think you probably understood, is that truth is objective. It does not depend upon the judgement of a government. The government can say that all monkeys should now be called dogs, or that all men should now be called women, or that marriage is simply two people who love each other and want to make some sort of commitment to each other. It can say whatever it wants and can even construct laws that force citizens to recognize these absurdities. That doesn’t change the fact that monkeys and dogs are different and that marriage can only be validly contracted by a man and a woman.

Homosexual pairings, on the other hand, do arise in nature, which proves they exist in conformity with natural law.

When we talk about natural law, we don’t mean merely that which appears in nature. Natural law means that people and things function best when they act in accord with how they were designed. For example, our bodies were designed to convert calories from food into energy. It is in accord with our nature, therefore, to eat food. This is true of human nature, even though some people are sadly born without stomachs or other vital organs needed for digestion.

The human sexual organs were designed for procreation. Exactly one man and one woman are needed to reproduce. Humans can act in conformity with natural law in respect to their sexual organs when they have sex with a member of the opposite sex. This is true of all human nature even if some people are unfortunately born with or develop an attraction to their same sex.

That’s an interesting idea, Brendan. I hadn’t thought of that before.

Those homosexual pairings could very well be abberations of the natural law/order and/or a product of the environment, i.e., not enough of females in the vicinity, so it proves nothing really.

Note: There is nothing that confirms that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, i.e., that there is a gay gene.

What basic human rights are homosexual couples being denied?

The right to life? God denied them that, not man.
The right to marriage? God denies them that but man has decided to ignore that.
The right to visitation? Nobody is denying them that - that I know of.

I’m not sure what rights you think they are being denied. :shrug:

Objections to gay ‘marriage’ are not all religious.

In marketing , there are people who would devote their greatest talent to come up with the perfect wrapping because the essence of the object or its objective truth can’t be changed.

A fake diamond is not a diamond. Fool’s gold is not gold.

Gay ‘marriage’ would be like circulating counterfeit bills in the money supply, and its backers insisting that it’s good for the economy.
,

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.