• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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?

SEX originally had everything to with procreation while marriage originally had everything to with clan/tribe stability...
That's really the best--and simplest--answer.

Marriage has always strengthened the economic ties between people and their families. If you want to go old-school, we could go back to when women were property and marriage was slavery. But I think that's really besides the point. Marriage has always been a monetary consideration and current State-marriage perfectly reflects that. Since property is being protected through marriage, that's all the "State" cares about when regulating the institution. Do you think the State should remove all the property considerations? It might as well dissolve marriage Law altogether.
 
That's really the best--and simplest--answer.

Marriage has always strengthened the economic ties between people and their families. If you want to go old-school, we could go back to when women were property and marriage was slavery. But I think that's really besides the point. Marriage has always been a monetary consideration and current State-marriage perfectly reflects that. Since property is being protected through marriage, that's all the "State" cares about when regulating the institution. Do you think the State should remove all the property considerations? It might as well dissolve marriage Law altogether.

Correct. That, and it simply strengthened the tribe against enemies by creating bonds. I am not sure about removing all the property considerations, to be honest. I have to think about that some more, I am going through a divorce now, as it turns out.
 
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.
Yes, they should be allowed to bury their loved ones. :respekt:
 
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.

I don't oppose same-sex marriage with all of the protections that go with it. That being said, there aren't too many protections that aren't available to same-sex relationships. If these rights are important to people in gay relationships, they can allll be handled. We forget that people in male-female relationships who choose not to get married also lack these protections. Yet life goes on.

Being able to "call a burial spot" is an important issue? Really? Well, if it is, then both parties can specify where they wish to be buried in their wills. As for judges autocratically invalidating a will, I'd like some proof on this, since our court system holds one's Last Will & Testament to be sacred. To suggest that "it's done all the time" is opinion, and I seriously doubt you are correct.

Want your same-sex partner to inherit your property automatically and without fanfare, put his/her name on the deed. Want your same-sex partner to make your healthcare decisions? That's what Healthcare Powers of Attorney are for. There are very few protections same-sex couples can't enjoy.
 
I don't oppose same-sex marriage with all of the protections that go with it. That being said, there aren't too many protections that aren't available to same-sex relationships. If these rights are important to people in gay relationships, they can allll be handled. We forget that people in male-female relationships who choose not to get married also lack these protections. Yet life goes on.

Being able to "call a burial spot" is an important issue? Really? Well, if it is, then both parties can specify where they wish to be buried in their wills. As for judges autocratically invalidating a will, I'd like some proof on this, since our court system holds one's Last Will & Testament to be sacred. To suggest that "it's done all the time" is opinion, and I seriously doubt you are correct.

Want your same-sex partner to inherit your property automatically and without fanfare, put his/her name on the deed. Want your same-sex partner to make your healthcare decisions? That's what Healthcare Powers of Attorney are for. There are very few protections same-sex couples can't enjoy.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
bullet joint parenting;
bullet joint adoption;
bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
bullet status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
bullet inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
bullet veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
bullet decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
bullet crime victims' recovery benefits;
bullet loss of consortium tort benefits;
bullet domestic violence protection orders;
bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
bullet and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

Legal and economic benefits of marriage
 
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
bullet joint parenting;
bullet joint adoption;
bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
bullet status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
bullet inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
bullet veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
bullet decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
bullet crime victims' recovery benefits;
bullet loss of consortium tort benefits;
bullet domestic violence protection orders;
bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
bullet and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

Feeling like you're shooting at me. How do we do bullets, anyway?

We forget that people in male-female relationships who choose not to get married also lack these protections. Yet life goes on.

Must admit I hadn't thought about all of the things you list, Winson. Though many of them can indeed be handled with any sort of planning, many certainly cannot. Tom and I have been together for 12 years....I'm beginning to feel short-shrifted. ;-) Thank you for the education. Great post.
 
Feeling like you're shooting at me. How do we do bullets, anyway?

LOL
;)


Must admit I hadn't thought about all of the things you list, Winson. Though many of them can indeed be handled with any sort of planning, many certainly cannot. Tom and I have been together for 12 years....I'm beginning to feel short-shrifted. ;-) Thank you for the education. Great post.

A good friend of mine has been in the gay marriage issue for a long time. Him and his partner have built a life together over the past 35 or so years together. And they really want these things for each other just like a man and women would want these things.
 
Back
Top Bottom