UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 5 on Meditation 149
What constitutes a marriage?

by Anthony DeLucchi

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

Actually Julia I am not sitting here with a mouthful of wooden teeth. Most of what you speak of applies to the United States of America. Marriage is not the sole property of the United States of America.

The benefits within a legal marriage is meritorious, even common-law partnerships in South Africa have the same benefits as a marriage, with the exception that the state only recognises a heterosexual common-law union. Recently a supreme court upheld a decision to allow same sex marriages full recognition, how this effects common-law unions I do not know. As far as Medical Aid goes, the Medical Aid has clauses within their contract for you to place your dependants on the scheme, obviously with conditions, but this does not preclude homosexual partners. I cannot comment on Social Security as we do not have Social Security in this country. Tax exemption for the surviving spouse is a new one to me, we pay tax whether we be married, single, widowed or half-dead. I will not even try to argue the merit or non-merit of allowing same sex unions, it would be needless for me to add my 2 cents to the debate. My starting point has nothing to do with the fiscal aspect of marriage, aside, I really do not think this has anything to actually do with marriage anyhow.

I cannot see why two people of the same sex should get married, full stop, it defies logic, my logic that is. In language when one "marries" two different ideas together, this means taking the best of both ideas and forming a more acceptable idea, now how would one "marry" two ideas when they are the same idea, this "marriage" would be pointless, not so?

The argument for same-sex marriages could at a stretch become a precedent for siblings to marry, for fathers to marry stepdaughters etc. etc. Using this argument one could go and fetch anything from behind the fence of morality and bounce it about the courtroom. If this becomes the modern trend we can say without any shadow of a doubt that we now live in an immoral society because then this morality we have built up over countless millennia becomes void as it would have no basis. I suggest that same-sex partners go and draw up legal papers, or contracts stipulating their commitment. The fact that they do not "qualify" for other benefits is just a result of their choice, and as it is with any choice you make, if you are big enough for the decision, you have to big enough for the consequences that follow that decision. By the way there is absolutely nothing wrong being heterosexual, I have been heterosexual all my life and I do not think I am different from anybody else! Let's hear about the lighter side of being heterosexual.