(November 20, 2017 at 6:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(November 20, 2017 at 5:17 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Except that my wish for my value system to be reflected in civil law does not extend misery to those oppressed and continue to deprive them of their rights.
Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.
In the "good old days" gay couples were denied a lot of specific rights: hospital visitations, child custody, adoption, parenting rights, medical decision-making power, automatic inheritance, standing to sue for wrongful death of a partner, spousal and child support, access to family insurance policies, exemption from property tax upon death of a partner, immunity from being forced to testify against one’s partner, domestic violence protections, etc.
But you knew that. You also know that elderly heterosexual couples who marry are not going to produce offspring but we never denied them the right to marry, so that's a non-starter. I suppose you have no problem with "civil unions" for gay couples. But that seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Language and institutions change and not always for the worse.
