Ok, lets perhaps, hopefully look at the issue from another angle,

Not if homosexuality is right or wrong, we each have a strong opinion on that.

But it is a fact in the US, that homosexuals are couples, they are living together. In most states ( if not all) they can adopt, some places offer domestic relationships. So we in effect have homosexual families, many having been so for 10 plus years ( I know some longer)

So can we discuss this from less a moral issue ( Ok I left it under religious since no one much goes to the other discussion boards) and more of a legal standpoint

But it is obvious that they are here, so should they be given the same ability that male/female couples have as to inheritance, taxes, discounts and to be allowed to have a marriage license.


And if you want, lets throw in plural marriage,
Since it is the behavior I disagree with, and as long as my right to preach against the behavior is protected, I can be on my soap box.

So without discussing the moral side of the issue, as we did in the one post, is there a legal reason, not to allow it.

I will address this from a states right view point and the will of the people,

Chuck : why do you insist to question a difference in value or intention between mixed-sex and same-sex marriages ? On what figures and data do you base that?
I see mixed-sex marriages breaking down after months or a few years.
And I know many same-sex marriages and/or relations already holding for many decades.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Ok, lets perhaps, hopefully look at the issue from another angle,

Not not if homosexuality is right or wrong, we each have a strong opinion on that.

But it is a fact in the US, that homosexuals are couples, they are living together. In most states ( if not all) they can adopt, some places offer domestic relationships. So we in effect have homosexual families, many having been so for 10 plus years ( I know some longer)

So can we discuss this from less a moral issue ( Ok I left it under religious since no one much goes to the other discussion boards) and more of a legal standpoint

But it is obvious that they are here, so should they be given the same ability that male/female couples have as to inheritance, taxes, discounts and to be allowed to have a marriage license.


and if you want, lets throw in plural marriage,
Since it is the behavior I disagree with, and as long as my right to preach against the behavior is protected, I can be on my soap box.

So without discussing the moral side of the issue, as we did in the one post, is there a legal reason, not to allow it.

I will address this from a states right view point and the will of the people,

---

Excellent point Fr.

Many seem to be of the opinion that the bedroom is sacrosanct territory in which Government has no say.

But marriage is not just about the bedroom. It is also about a societal unit which contributes to and is subject to the society in which it is engendered.

So, if the laws of that society define marriage as between man and woman and does not permit the marriage of same sex partners and if this is the will of the majority, why is that wrong?

I'm real interested in hearing your viewpoint.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Many seem to be of the opinion that the bedroom is sacrosanct territory in which Government has no say.

---

And those people are correct ! The Government is there for the people by the people. The Government is not some format of "higher entity" that dictates how people have to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

But marriage is not just about the bedroom. It is also about a societal unit which contributes to and is subject to the society in which it is engendered.

---

The main function of a marriage is to confirm and introduce the loving relation between two people into the many structures of society. Nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

So, if the laws of that society define marriage as between man and woman and does not permit the marriage of same sex partners and if this is the will of the majority, why is that wrong?

---

The laws of that society should reflect the current opinions of the entire society at that moment within the limitations of it's own backbone structure, called "Constitution".
Therefore the laws of society are not always a reflection of the majority of society, as the Constitution sets limits that override opinions that are based on democratic majorities.

===

Every human being should have the right to structure his or her life accordingly to his/her own personal wishes, subject to that structure not being at the expense of other peoples right to structure their lifes accordingly to their own personal wishes. Basically that is an adaptation of the "Golden Rule" that is also mentioned in the Bible.

Now unless you can prove with objective supporting evidence that any same-sex marriage comes at the expense of your right to marry a mixed-sex partner, what reason do objectors to same-sex marriages and relationships have other than their own opinion, on whatever that opinion is based?

:rolleyes:

One man and One woman.. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

And those people are correct ! The Government is there for the people by the people. The Government is not some format of "higher entity" that dictates how people have to live.

---

I'd have to agree. I know I don't want the government in my bedroom.

Quote:

---

The main function of a marriage is to confirm and introduce the loving relation between two people into the many structures of society. Nothing else.

---

Not so. Marriage is an institution. In the past, love was not a necessary quotient in the establishment of a marriage.

As such, I mean, as an institution, just like any institution in any society, there were expectations of that entity. The family would consist of productive citizens and produce children which would be raised to be productive good citizens.

Quote:

---

The laws of that society should reflect the current opinions of the entire society at that moment within the limitations of it's own backbone structure, called "Constitution".

---

It has always been impossible to reflect the opinions of the entire society unless the entire society were unanimous. That is why, the best form of government has been government by majority vote. That is how the United States was established. To be run by the majority. Not by the entire society. That is simply unrealistic.

Quote:

---

Therefore the laws of society are not always a reflection of the majority of society, as the Constitution sets limits that override opinions that are based on democratic majorities.

---

True. Because of a distrust of the common folk, the United States has always had a representative system whereby it is the majority of the representatives whose decisions are reflected.

However, this does nothing to support your contention of a government that reflects the opinions of the entire society. In fact, you have contradicted yourself.
===

Quote:

---

Every human being should have the right to structure his or her life accordingly to his/her own personal wishes, subject to that structure not being at the expense of other peoples right to structure their lifes accordingly to their own personal wishes.

---

Not necessarily so. We have to make many compromises in society. We don't have the right to structure our lives any way we want simply because we think that others should not be offended.

For instance, we are not permitted to walk around without any clothes. That custom does not hurt anyone, but it has ever been considered offensive to polite society.

Society makes many laws based on the will of the majority of the people, whether the individual consider the subject offensive or not.

Quote:

---

Basically that is an adaptation of the "Golden Rule" that is also mentioned in the Bible.

---

That is a basic misunderstanding of the Bible because you have interpreted the Bible without taking into account that the main subject of the Bible is the pursuit of union with God's Will.

Quote:

---

Now unless you can prove with objective supporting evidence that any same-sex marriage comes at the expense of your right to marry a mixed-sex partner,

---

That is besides the point, as you have pointed out above, if the will of the majority of the people decide that they don't want to see same-sex marriage, they can forbid it and have.

Apparently in California the proponents of same sex marriage have made an end around the will of the people by having this approved in their supreme court. But if they can muster enough votes, that decision can be overturned by a Constitutional amendment.

Quote:

---

what reason do objectors to same-sex marriages and relationships have other than their own opinion, on whatever that opinion is based?

---

Since people of any sex can love each other, the assumption is that same sex unions want permission to marry in order in part to legitimize their sexual intimacy with each other. With that in mind:

1. Same sex union is unhealthy and unnatural

Sex between males is intrinsically unhygenic and a review of all medical journals reveals that not only are they prone to AIDS but many other diseases and injuries.

Sex between females is unnatural. Although they claim to have a greater satisfaction than with males, the fact that they frequently strap on artificial implements which mimic the male anatomy belies that statement.

2. Same sex union is barren.

Same sex unions can't produce children.

Quote:

---

rrolleyes:

---

So, unless you can provide objective evidence that there is any added value to society from same sex marriage, why should society have to accept it?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

and if this is the will of the majority, why is that wrong?

---

Hello again, De Maria:

If we lived in a democracy, it WOULDN'T be wrong. But we live in a republic. In a republic, the majority DOESN'T rule. Therefore, you are wrong. I'm sorry to pop your balloon. I guess you were absent for civics 101.

After all, it was the will of the people to keep black children out of college in the south. But, it turns out, that even if one little black kid was discriminated against, HIS right NOT to have that happen, EVEN if he's the ONLY one being discriminated against, WILL PREVAIL - NOT "the will of the majority".

I know you either don't understand that, or you don't like that. I don't know which. But, that's the way it is here.

Therefore, if ONE person, in this great country of ours, is being denied rights that EVERYBODY else has, it doesn't matter that the majority like it that way. What matters is that HIS rights are being violated, this fellow who is a minority of one, and he WILL PREVAIL.

Not only is that the way it is. It's the way it should be.

excon

I view marriage as a religious institution, sponsored by the states.

I have no objection to same sex partners having the same rights regarding property, insurance, or things like being "next of kin" or "family" when it comes to things like hospital visitations and in allowing them to inherit estates just as a normal spouse would.

I just don't think it is proper to call it a marriage, I think that is reserved for a man and a woman, to be united in the eyes of God. Call it a Civil Union if you like, I have no problem with that.

Hey Ex, nice civics lesson, well stated, and totally accurate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

...02:19 AM...

---

You blew up a short post into one of your over-extended posts.
Too long, too nittpicking, too booring.
Keep you reactions short and to the point !

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, de Maria ....

---

Hear, hear, hear !
Applause!

:D

Would the system used in England, basically all weddings are civil with the exception of Church of England, and then blessed by their own denomination. We could do away with the churches actually doing the wedding, and then if a couple wants to be blessed in a church they could??

What do you call an institution that doesn't work half the time? Just who is it that defines marriage as between man and woman?? How about giving those civil unions a tax break like married people get?

Is it just me but as more and more people disdain the institute of marriage, and live together, there are those who wish to embrace it.

As time goes on more and more people will fight for their rights and win, that is the history of this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

One man and One woman.. ;)

---

You took the words out of my mouth.

I will add that laws of the land need to be followed. If the law of the land states that Marriage is between a man and women, then of course the law should be followed.

It is changing in some states but that is up to each individual state.

As far as having all of the rights, as far as taxes , etc... If they are not allowed to get married and they are not in a legal marriage then they do not have the same rights under the law as would a family unit that has a marriage liceance and are legally married.

Joe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Ok, lets perhaps, hopefully look at the issue from another angle,

Not not if homosexuality is right or wrong, we each have a strong opinion on that.

But it is a fact in the US, that homosexuals are couples, they are living together. In most states ( if not all) they can adopt, some places offer domestic relationships. So we in effect have homosexual families, many having been so for 10 plus years ( I know some longer)

So can we discuss this from less a moral issue ( Ok I left it under religious since no one much goes to the other discussion boards) and more of a legal standpoint

But it is obvious that they are here, so should they be given the same ability that male/female couples have as to inheritance, taxes, discounts and to be allowed to have a marriage license.


and if you want, lets throw in plural marriage,
Since it is the behavior I disagree with, and as long as my right to preach against the behavior is protected, I can be on my soap box.

So without discussing the moral side of the issue, as we did in the one post, is there a legal reason, not to allow it.

I will address this from a states right view point and the will of the people,

---

I think that homosexual couples should have some of the legal rights as hetero couples
- inheritance, power of attorney - which can be granted by separate legal proceedings already.

adoption - I want to see the evidence. Which is the best for a child / children: adoption by hetero couple vs homo couple vs single parent vs foster care.

Are there long term [ say > 20 years ] studies proving that homo couple adoption is better [ psych, academic, materially] than foster care or single parent?

regarding taxes - I don't think the government should encourage or give an incentive for homo union equal to hetero marriage.



As to polygamy, it dumbfounds me that this is not more "politically correct" than homo marriage.

Again - show me this is better or equal to monogamy.


I think the FLDS case proves that in a pre selected sample of over 400 children they have not found a case of abuse. That is a pretty good record. I would put money on... if the government can take a sample of 400 plus children from any random neighborhood in the US they will find more cases of abuse regardless of socioeconomic background.


Btw, my wife and I could not get married in a Baptist church because we both have been divorced. Church / biblical rule. We respect that, we did not get a state supreme court to make the church marry us. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Which is best for a child / children : adoption by hetero couple vs homo couple vs single parent vs foster care?

---

What is best for any child is a set of LOVING "parents" , be they hetero or homo.
All other options are less favourable.

Btw, my wife and I married near 40 years ago in a Roman Catholic church, although she is Roman Catholic and I Secular Humanist. If you love each other you should respect each others worldviews and show reciprocal tolerance! There are many ways that lead to Rome !

:rolleyes:

My county is suppose to be working on a thing where you can go to the courthouse and pay $25.00 to list as a couple so that you can legally have married couples rights --health benefits etc... with your significant other. It can be a gay couple or a guy and girl together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Would the system used in England, basically all weddings are civil with the exception of Church of England, and then blessed by their own denomination. We could do away with the churches actually doing the wedding, and then if a couple wants to be blessed in a church they could ???

---

As long as every one was treated the same, that sounds good to me.

This is getting scary, we are agreeing on something:eek: again!!!!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

What is best for any child is a set of LOVING "parents" , be they hetero or homo.
All other options are less favourable.

Btw, my wife and I married near 40 years ago in a Roman Catholic church, although she is Roman Catholic and I Secular Humanist. If you love each other you should respect each others worldviews and show reciprocal tolerance! There are many ways that lead to Rome !

:rolleyes:

---

The reason I ask, is that sometimes what sounds intuitive does not always bear out in practical reality.


For example, airbags, they made sense when they were mandated in 1986 - it was not till they were actually in cars that it was later found that they could injure or kill small people and children.


That is why, I ask for the empirical evidence about child welfare and adoption by homosexual couples. Do we have enough information, data?



Congrats on your 40 years. :)

I haven't googled that specifically, but do know many kids raised by their biological parents who happen to be gay, and have seen no evidence of trauma other than from the divorce. The ones that I know personally seem very well adjusted, and the relationship with the parents is a close one. I can't see adoption being too much different, but at the moment can't speak to that at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Congrats on your 40 years. :)

---

It was guided by mutual love, lot's of sex, and mountains of tolerance!!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, De Maria:

If we lived in a democracy, it WOULDN'T be wrong. But we live in a republic. In a republic, the majority DOESN'T rule. Therefore, you are wrong. I'm sorry to pop your balloon. I guess you were absent for civics 101.

---

Not quite. In a republic, the majority rules through representatives. In a democracy, the majority rules directly.

Quote:

---

After all, it was the will of the people to keep black children out of college in the south. But, it turns out, that even if one little black kid was discriminated against, HIS right NOT to have that happen, EVEN if he's the ONLY one being discriminated against, WILL PREVAIL - NOT "the will of the majority".

---

You're kind of bypassing a great deal of history aren't you?

For many years, abolitionists suffered ignonimity and violence because they believed that slavery was an evil institution. But, during those years, which I think I could characterize as centuries, the will of the majority was that slavery was necessary.

Only after centuries of protest did was the majority finally swayed to do the right thing and it took a Civil War to put the nail on the coffin of that institution.

Quote:

---

I know you either don't understand that, or you don't like that. I don't know which. But, that's the way it is here.

---

I beg to differ. You either don't know American history or have donned some rather pink shaded eyewear since you have painted our history a rather rosy color.

Quote:

---

Therefore, if ONE person, in this great country of ours, is being denied rights that EVERYBODY else has, it doesn't matter that the majority like it that way. What matters is that HIS rights are being violated, this fellow who is a minority of one, and he WILL PREVAIL.

---

Considering what you've been talking about before, you seem to have shifted context or you didn't communicate what you meant.

If any persons rights are being violated in this country, he has a right to sue for damages.

However, if the majority has not deemed that any particular group has a right, as for instance, the majority in most states have not deemed that homosexuals have a right to marry, then no rights are being violated since no such right yet exists.

Quote:

---

Not only is that the way it is. It's the way it should be.

---

No. And I thank God that the Founders of our nation were as smart as they were to establish a Republic based on representation through democratic principles rather than that strange procedure you've just described.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I'm thinking of marrying my cat.

[Oh, where will it all end, Billy Bob?]

LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I'm thinking of marrying my cat.

[Oh, where will it all end, Billy Bob?]

LOL!!

---

Now is this a same sex cat/person or opposite sex cat/person, that will make a difference

Nick or Nicole?
Hmmm I always assumed Nick was a male.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I'm thinking of marrying my cat. Oh, where will it all end, Billy Bob?

---

Cat or tomcat ? LOL

:D

A big ole 23 pound Tom-Cat. LOL!

So, I guess it's OK, guys? :D

Nah Choux Nick is your son that would be incest
Then again NAMBLA and others say that should be legal too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

And I thank God that the Founders of our nation were as smart as they were to establish a Republic based on representation through democratic principles rather than that strange procedure you've just described.

---

Hello again, De Maria:

That strange procedure is the Bill of Rights. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, De Maria:

That strange procedure is the Bill of Rights.

---

By strange procedure I meant your idea that each individual can decide what are his rights all by himself.

Quote:

---

I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it.

Excon

---

I've heard of it. The Bill of Rights contains amendments to the Constitution. You might want to read how our representatives voted for these amendments.

Article. V. - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The reason they added these amendments, which we call the Bill of Rights, is because otherwise, it would be deemed that we didn't have these rights.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hello again:

You're trying to slipppp around again. I did NOT say that he can decide for himself. I just didn't. I didn't say anything even REMOTELY like that..

But, as it turns out, I'm tired of such silly games. I love a good intellectual discussion. However, continually correcting you about what I said, isn't stimulating at all. You aren't capable of laying out competing ideas. You don't want to argue the merits of your case (because you have none), so instead you just misquote what was said, thereby trying to change the subject and slip away unscathed...

So, if you can't understand what I say, and I am VERY articulate and I write the kings English EXTREMELY well, then we don't have anything to talk about any more. After all, I have no trouble being understood by even the dullest reader. If you can step up to the intellectual plate, we can continue. But, I don't play in the bush league.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, I don't play in the bush league.

---

Heeeeh : what has George W to do with this all ?
But you got me thinking : there are indeed similarities between his level of thinking/argumentation and that by SasT and DeM...

:D

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by progunr

I view marriage as a religious institution, sponsored by the states.

I have no objection to same sex partners having the same rights regarding property, insurance, or things like being "next of kin" or "family" when it comes to things like hospital visitations and in allowing them to inherit estates just as a normal spouse would.

I just don't think it is proper to call it a marriage, I think that is reserved for a man and a woman, to be united in the eyes of God. Call it a Civil Union if you like, I have no problem with that.

Hey Ex, nice civics lesson, well stated, and totally accurate!

---

What would you call it then? And how would you differentiate?

So... ONLY marriages sanctioned by the church would be called "marriage", and the rest "civil unions"?

How about the fact that my religion has no problem with same sex marriage, and would "marry" homosexuals... would they then have the right to call it "marriage", since it was performed by a church? And then--would those couples who got married in the courthouse, in a civil ceremony--would they be called "civil unions" with "partners" instead of "husbands" and "wives", regardless of the genders of those involved in the civil union?

In other words--if the only difference is whether it's done in a church, then it should be the SAME for all "church marriages" and all "civil unions". Anything else would be discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Btw, my wife and I could not get married in a Baptist church because we both have been divorced. Church / biblical rule. We respect that, we did not get a state supreme court to make the church marry us. ;)

---

But I bet you found a church that would do it, right? Either that, or you had a courthouse wedding---a "civil union". How would you like it if you couldn't get all the rights and privileges you GET for being married--including other people respecting that institution (how many married men/women have been able to tell someone hitting on them to buzz off because they were married, and therefore not interested?)--were denied to you simply because you had to get married in a courthouse, and therefore couldn't call it marriage?

It just seems like a double standard for me. I have no problem with respecting the church's right not to recognize those marriages, or perform the marriage ceremony for anyone at all they don't feel should be "blessed" with the sanctity of marriage. What I have a problem with is that there ARE religions willing to perform and recognize those ceremonies, but are not allowed to because of civil laws.

If the state said that NO divorced person could get married because there were a lot of churches out there that don't believe that divorced people can get married--how would you feel about that?

I'm not belittling your marriage at all--please understand that I'm just pointing out that your marriage is a perfect example of why the church definition of marriage and the state definition--at least as far as who is allowed to be married--differ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I'm thinking of marrying my cat.

[Oh, where will it all end, Billy Bob?]

LOL!!

---

Your cat can not give consent.

Homosexual couples ARE able to give consent to each other. Same with polygamous marriages.

"Consenting Adults" is a pretty important phrase to keep in mind here.