joe six-pack
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 1,123
- Reaction score
- 384
- Location
- Six-Pakistan
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You should be allowed to bury anyone as long as that person gave obvious implied, or written approval
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.
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.
No, they should be required to blast them into the sun.
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.
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.
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.
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.I am against ssm, but I have no problem with gays (or anyone) burying a loved one.
Originally Posted by RightinNYC
No, they should be required to blast them into the sun.
That would be one bad ass funeral.
I think gay cooties are very resistant to heat. We don't need a pink and lavander sun.
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.
eace
You should be allowed to bury anyone as long as that person gave obvious implied, or written approval
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?