Sunday, March 05, 2006

Do you have to be gay to enter a gay marriage?

Today I went down to Dayton for a special liturgy with the Bishop, called the "Rite of Election," at which the bishop recognizes those approaching baptism. After which, one of our RCIA team members and I went out for dinner.

He told me a story over a plate of ribs about two men who plan to contract marriage, in Canada, despite both being heterosexual! Why would they do this? Because they get tax benefits, and can still have fun with girls without having to marry them!

I have no idea if this is actually true, or how many heterosexual men would do this. But it raises a question for those who advocate "gay marriage," is this okay with you? Do you have to be gay to enter a gay marriage? And if so, why? And how exactly shall the state regulate this? Disgusting posts (as are all of them) are subject to deletion.

7 comments:

Anna said...

First, I am NOT an advocate for gay marriage.

I did read where one university which is offering benefits to same-sex couples talks about there must be sex involved. The logic is to prevent people who are roommates to claim benefits that they are not entitled to.

(But no indication for how they would know). Nor did the resulting discussion shed any light either.

Patrick said...

It kinda reminds me of that movie, In the Army Now, with Pauly Shore, where he and his friend are trying to get out of going to war in Chad by pretending to be gay. The officer that they were trying to fool simply said "OK, you can't go, but before you go Kiss him," and what followed was a funny awkward attempt that had no follow through ending with Pauly whining to the superior officer, Is it hot in CHAD?

Dan said...

Father - Always a delight to stop in on my lunch time cruise through the blogs. Yours is one of my favorites.

Even simpler is this: Can I "marry" my chronically ill and near death father-in-law so he can get my superior healthcare benefits and transfer tax free his assets to me upon death? Since one who would consider this has no conscience and even less Faith, they could still co-habitate with their wife who has her own job and healthcare package. Cake, eat it too and a tax free capital gain as spouses inherit w/out tax consequences except at the super high income levels.

Such thoughtless flights of fancy have a number of unintended consequences materially for society and even more for the soul. I shudder to think of what is to come.

Dan

Anonymous said...

Don't know why something like this would come as a surprise. As more companies offer health benefits for "domestic partners" many more people come out of the woodwork.

I had a good friend who did that when she was between jobs with her roommate. Was it illegal? No. There's no civil requirement for any sort of intimacy within marriage, even less so for a "domestic partnership." Even if there was one in the statement, like in Anna's university situation, the "Right to Privacy" makes it impossible to enforce if not illegal.

Was it unehetical? Maybe, but it's harder to pin down than one would think given the way that it was set up, all you needed was a joint bank account and to live in the same building or apartment.

We've managed to pretty much divorce marriage and procreation civilly. Once you do that, I don't really see much in the way of law that holds up traditional marriage. Want to "marry" your father for tax purposes Dan, go right ahead. Church wouldn't recognize it, but the law may.

Anonymous said...

It would be pretty sad that heterosexual people would be so dishonest to do this.

Still I am not sure of your point ? Are you suggesting that the dishonesty of heterosexual people should be the reason to deny gay couples rights ?

I tend to think that although we may feel uncomfortable or even fear gay relationships we still need to treat these people with dignity. We have gay couple in the wider family and they are good people and contribute to the family and society.

Andrew said...

Re: Anonymous
"Are you suggesting that the dishonesty of heterosexual people should be the reason to deny gay couples rights ?"

More often, the argument in favor of gay marriage is that they are just like us heteros. When we say, "well, they can't procreate", they respond, "so what, lots of heteros contracept, and there's always in vitro or adoption". So my line is usually "Are you suggesting that the dishonesty of heterosexual people should be the reason to CREATE gay couples rights?"

I think the answer is, the reason to deny gay "rights" should have nothing to do with "straight" (i.e. normal) people's actions, it should be based on the objective morality and social concerns related to homosexuality.

It's kind of like the arguments against married preists for all the "practical" reasons like inheritance, cost of living, time away from home, etc. While these are interesting, they are simply not compelling enough. The real reason for a celibate priesthood is because celibacy is a gift from God. And the real reason for denying gay marriage is because homosexuality is intrisically disordered. Leave out all the other practical considerations, it is a mainly spiritual question.

Father Martin Fox said...

Anonymous, Andrew:

Andrew makes most of the points I would have made; let me say this...

There is a lot of confusion about what marriage IS. Marriage IS a union between a man and a woman. That's what it IS.

Now, where does that come from? Before someone says, "that's religious dogma," let me point out that one arrives at that conclusion without ever looking at any sacred text: simply look at human development, and you will see marriage, universally, has been a man and woman.

(The religious element comes in when we talk about the number of partners -- monogamy vs. polygamy -- and the permanance: whether, and when, divorce is permitted.)

Now, you seem to operate from a different definition of marriage. And what I would say is, well, just what shall be the definition of marriage, if not what it has been since . . . well, so far back nobody knows how far back?

And who decides? When something as old as humanity itself is overthrown, tossed aside, tell me: who gets to decide this? This isn't like changing a zoning regulation, or even adding another amendment to the constitution; this is literally "radical" (from Latin, radix, root).

And once we start saying the definition of marriage is up for grabs -- and hence, arbitrary, rather than arising from essential human realities -- then who are you to say two straight men can't marry each other? That two siblings -- or three, or 10 -- can't marry each other? Why should your arbitrary standard prevail?