• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should gay people be allowed to bury their loved ones?

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Since I've never heard a good argument against gay-marriage I thought I would pose a common sense question to those who oppose it. Lawful Marriage (distinctly different from religious marriage) gives two people next-of-kin status with all the duties and responsibilities involved. Part of those duties and responsibilities are making live-or-death medical decisions and making funerary decisions. Also marriage has a slue of property and inheritance duties and privileges, for example, if your spouse owes dept, you will inherit that dept.

So my question is simple: should gay people be allowed to bury their loved ones?

This is a legal question, but also a moral one. We cannot hope to protect a vague concept of a "Christian Marriage" since gay-friendly Churches already preform homo-marriages and have done so since pre-1970. A Church will never be forced to preform a ceremony it doesn't want to; whether that is a funeral or wedding or bar-mitzvah or superbowl half-time show. But we shouldn't preclude homosexuals from basic human events such a Lawful marriage, the ability to inherit their spouses dept, the ability to make life-or-death decisions and ability to bury their loved ones and keep all their cool stuff.

Thanks.
 

Gipper

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think anyone should be buried by loved ones. I don't consider orientation to be a factor whatsoever.

Who'd have thought that three letters would cause such an uproar.
 

MajinLink

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You should be allowed to bury anyone as long as that person gave obvious implied, or written approval
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
You should be allowed to bury anyone as long as that person gave obvious implied, or written approval
Exactly, wishes just need to be known. That would also apply to any property. Just need a will.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Just need a will.
A will does not give you unlimited spousal deduction. Furthermore, wills can be challenged. Legal automatic transfer of assets to spouse upon death with no taxation cannot. There are more then a few pretty damn important rights that homosexuals cannot mimic under current law to substitute for marriage.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
A will does not give you unlimited spousal deduction. Furthermore, wills can be challenged. Legal automatic transfer of assets to spouse upon death with no taxation cannot. There are more then a few pretty damn important rights that homosexuals cannot mimic under current law to substitute for marriage.
That's true, but the original question was about burial. I'm for civil unions and I think that would take care of everything you mentioned. Including being responsible for any debt.
There should be no death tax to begin with. :) Too bad they will be back again in Jan. thanks to the Dems.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
That's true, but the original question was about burial.
Not entirely. Joe's OP was more then that.

I'm for civil unions and I think that would take care of everything you mentioned. Including being responsible for any debt.
Not entirely. Most civil unions do not grant the same rights, furthermore, civil union treatment is hardly equivalent to marriage at the federal level. The better option is for the state to entirely get out of "marriage" and treat it entirely as spouse blind civil unions granting equivalent rights to gays and straights. Let churchs, NGOs and whatever deal with marriage.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They should be allowed to of course, but without marriage licensing they will not necessarily be able to determine where their loved one gets buried, or to affirm that they have the right to buy a double lot so that they can be buried together when the surviving spouse dies. The next of kin could decide that, and if the deceased's family does not want to honour the same-sex relationship, they can legally act like it wasn't a real partnership in the first place. That's why wills lose power if same-sex relationships don't have official status. Asset transfers can be challenged by "real family members". All it takes is getting a civil judge who isn't sympathetic to gay rights and all of the property will go to the next of kin. It happens all the time.

Same-sex partners deserve social, material, and legal security and marriage licensing is the only way to grant them that in a completely equal fashion. Relationships shouldn't have to exist in secret or be defended from the mob. They are inherently human and that includes all of the rites that go along with them, like burial. This shouldn't even be a question. It's a given.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,809
Reaction score
20,630
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, they should be required to blast them into the sun.
I think gay cooties are very resistant to heat. We don't need a pink and lavander sun.
 

Alvin T. Grey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
839
Reaction score
203
Location
Dublin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As long as they are dead...yeah sure.
Otherwise. No.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Since I've never heard a good argument against gay-marriage I thought I would pose a common sense question to those who oppose it. Lawful Marriage (distinctly different from religious marriage) gives two people next-of-kin status with all the duties and responsibilities involved. Part of those duties and responsibilities are making live-or-death medical decisions and making funerary decisions. Also marriage has a slue of property and inheritance duties and privileges, for example, if your spouse owes dept, you will inherit that dept.

So my question is simple: should gay people be allowed to bury their loved ones?

This is a legal question, but also a moral one. We cannot hope to protect a vague concept of a "Christian Marriage" since gay-friendly Churches already preform homo-marriages and have done so since pre-1970. A Church will never be forced to preform a ceremony it doesn't want to; whether that is a funeral or wedding or bar-mitzvah or superbowl half-time show. But we shouldn't preclude homosexuals from basic human events such a Lawful marriage, the ability to inherit their spouses dept, the ability to make life-or-death decisions and ability to bury their loved ones and keep all their cool stuff.

Thanks.
only if they are dead.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am against ssm, but I have no problem with gays (or anyone) burying a loved one.
 

tlmorg02

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Louisville, Ky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I believe if the deceased has expressed desire for them to do so, then absolutely. Every individual should be totally free to decide who can be their proxy in any decision as to their own wellbeing or death decisions. Each person should be allowed that autonomy.
 

Ahlevah

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
8,344
Reaction score
2,831
Location
Pindostan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's true, but the original question was about burial. I'm for civil unions and I think that would take care of everything you mentioned.
What if the departed were a veteran and wanted his partner buried next to him in a national cemetery. I don't think a will or even civil unions would suffice in that instance, would it? :confused: I think that would require a change in federal law.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am against ssm, but I have no problem with gays (or anyone) burying a loved one.
I think most people who say that don't know the first thing about what Lawful Marriage is. Lawful Marriage, as I mentioned in the OP, makes two people legally next-of-kin. Therefore, you are saying you are against two homosexuals making a public contract which grants them the legal responsibilities associated with next-of-kin status. Matrimony provisions have nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with property rights, inheritance, medical decisions, funeral decisions, but mostly dept and credit transfer.

To oppose these lawful benefits and penalties for homosexuals is irrational.

You probably have some emotional reason for opposing these legal rights and penalties for homosexuals. What is it, may I ask? When we understand what Lawful Marriage is, a rational person would agree it's irrational to oppose it for homosexuals, hermaphrodites, and people born different from you and me. Legally, the concept of marriage is identical to the concept of a civil-union. Marriage literally means "union." So it is not a degradation of the word to include a union between two woman.

:peace
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
88,905
Reaction score
19,219
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Whenever I hear, "Should ________ people be allowed to..." my immediate reaction is "yes" without even knowing what the question is. (obviously nothing that the rest of society deems illegal and whatnot - that is a disclaimer to all the obtuse silly people out there. ;))
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
88,905
Reaction score
19,219
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Originally Posted by RightinNYC
No, they should be required to blast them into the sun.
That would be one bad ass funeral.
But it is bad to look directly into the sun... how would you know that they arrived and simply didn't follow the natural curvature of space/time, ending up floating through space forever. That seems cruel. You seem cruel.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
88,905
Reaction score
19,219
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think gay cooties are very resistant to heat. We don't need a pink and lavander sun.
I thought that there were only boy and girl cooties... and when I first read your post I thought it said "gay coyotes" and I was seriously lost as to why that would require a pink or lavander sun.
 

jambalaya

Cynical Optimist
DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
968
Location
Columbia, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think most people who say that don't know the first thing about what Lawful Marriage is. Lawful Marriage, as I mentioned in the OP, makes two people legally next-of-kin. Therefore, you are saying you are against two homosexuals making a public contract which grants them the legal responsibilities associated with next-of-kin status. Matrimony provisions have nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with property rights, inheritance, medical decisions, funeral decisions, but mostly dept and credit transfer.
To oppose these lawful benefits and penalties for homosexuals is irrational.

You probably have some emotional reason for opposing these legal rights and penalties for homosexuals. What is it, may I ask? When we understand what Lawful Marriage is, a rational person would agree it's irrational to oppose it for homosexuals, hermaphrodites, and people born different from you and me. Legally, the concept of marriage is identical to the concept of a civil-union. Marriage literally means "union." So it is not a degradation of the word to include a union between two woman.

:peace
Actually marriage originally had everything to with procreation and nothing to do with those things. Of course once the state started sactioning marriage and collecting fees for it that all changed.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,598
Reaction score
27,841
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You should be allowed to bury anyone as long as that person gave obvious implied, or written approval
If they assume room temperature, does that count as implied consent?
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,303
Reaction score
13,614
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Actually marriage originally had everything to with procreation and nothing to do with those things. Of course once the state started sactioning marriage and collecting fees for it that all changed.
Marriage has had many purposes throughout history, in every culture. Many cultures used marriage to establish family connections and/or social status, especially marriages in the upper echelons of pretty much any society of the past, and even some marriages today. A part of earlier marriages was establishing blood lines and procreation, but it was most likely not the most important part of marriage, and certainly not everything that marriage was.

And the only reason the state initially started sanctioning marriages was to limit who could get married. They could care less if the couple was going to have children, even if it was that they just didn't want to have children, as long as the couple was an appropriate couple.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
88,905
Reaction score
19,219
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually marriage originally had everything to with procreation and nothing to do with those things. Of course once the state started sactioning marriage and collecting fees for it that all changed.
SEX originally had everything to with procreation while marriage originally had everything to with clan/tribe stability...
 
Top Bottom