[sassyT]

Thank you for giving me the obvious definition....that makes a person bi-sexual. I'm not the one that defined it as such. So is she a lesbian OR is she heterosexual? Neither, she's bisexual....

You are a very confused person, it seems.

She is envolved in Both. So she is both a lesbian and a heterosexual otherwise known as a bisexual. People who are bi-sexual fall under the same GAY classification so I am not going to split hairs about it.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Actually she's not... it was an example...

And by that theory she would also fall under the STRAIGHT category.

[smokedetector]

I don't believe homosexuality is "right," so I don't partake. I have friends that are homosexuals, and I treat them just like any of my other friends. I don't have anything against people who are homosexuals, just against the act of homosexuality itself. Likewise, I have friends that are underage and drink. I don't approve of it, so I don't do it, but I still hang out with them when they're sober. As for the act of homosexuality, I think that it's not "natural." A girl and another girl just don't "fit" together, and neither do a guy and a guy. It was obviously not the intention of nature. Some might rebutt this on the grounds that nature has caused homosexuals to swing that way and that is why they are homosexual, but nature has also caused for some pretty horrific genetic defects, and because they are not the norm, we don't generally view them as natural. No I realize that there are more than a few gay people in the world, but I'd be willing to bet that they all added up would not surpass the number of people living and dying with diseases. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that homosexuality is a disease, just making a point that just because it exists doesn't make it natural. If you ask me, which you indirectly did, I think it's population control. When there is more life on earth than it can support, people start dying off at a faster rate due to higher rate of disease transmission from being so close, and maybe more people are gay so they don't reproduce. As for bisexuals, they're just selfish. They want some of everything. (that was a joke... don't go grab a pitchfork on me)

[simoneaugie]

Society and it's laws, supports all humans or none. Human Beings are society. Your notions do not make you a better human unless you support all of society too. Yes, society includes even murderers, liars and those who hold differing religious view from you.

[Fr_Chuck]

People do have a right to sleep with who they want, but don't ask society to validate or support such behavior.

Right?? Who gives them such right?? The government ? Law ?
I challenge there is no such right, there is the ability to under the current law structure in the US and some other parts of the world.

[N0help4u]

Just wanted to make some points
Homosexuality is considered a sin according to the Bible (which I believe)
BUT the Bible also says that gluttony, arrogance, gossip, back biting, adultery and fornication are sin.
Most preachers that come against homosexuals fall in at least two of the groups of all the things the Bible calls sin.
Not that I am condoning two wrongs make a right or anything like that but simply that
sin is sin and we all fall short at pleasing God so we have no upper hand in 'removing the spec from someone else's eye when we have a log in our own'.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

But doesn't the bible also say that all sins are forgiven if you apologize (repent)?

[sassyT]

Nope. Not as long as legal precedence is set up for the occasion. I mean, any or all of those people could then make medical decisions for you, though you'd have to have a living will stating WHICH of those people has precedence. They could all also inherit from you. And any of them could then have custody of your children.

Where's the problem?

That where you and I differ. Allowing polygomous marriages such as allowing a woman to marry 50 men for example in the name of "rights" and forcing the state to recognise it, is absurd.
One woman being allowed to marry 50 men is just as absurd as allowing two men to marry and the state should not be forced to recognise such ridiculous unions lest the country become a lawless circus.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE=Synnen]So... since I've answered YOUR questions, Sassy, I would like you to answer mine:

1. Do you believe in divorce?

Personally no.. But I have no problem with others doing it.

2. Do you think that people should have sex (in ANY form) if they're not actively trying to have a child? Remember, this means that married couples past menopause would no longer be able to have sex, either.

To answer the real question you are asking, I couldn't care less if homosexualls have sex.

3. If you believe that sex is ONLY for procreation, do you think that birth control should be legal?

Sex is can be for pleasure too and if homos find pleasure doing it.. hey let them do it, everyone is free to do what pleasures them but don't force the state to recognise a marriage between them.

4. Do you really have 28 friends that would be willing to marry you? I mean, I thought I was doing well with having 2-3 friends that would be willing, if situations were different.

For the right kind of benefits and tax exeptions I can see 100 women and men wanting to marry me. People will take advantage of lose definition of marriage and it will cease to have meaning.

5. Do you understand the words "adult" and "consenting"?

Yes

Seriously--you say you're not prejudiced against gays, yet EVERY argument you give makes them sound like lesser people, like animals, in fact.

I do not hate gays at all, some them are pretty cool and yes like I said I do have gay friends but I find their life style abnormal and disturbing.

[JudyKayTee]

I disagree. Allow them to marry because they are human beings who deserve the same rights as the rest of the human beings in this country. They are consenting adults who can support eachother...

Do you think its okay for a gay couple who have been together for 10 or 15 years to not be able to make a medical decision for the other when that person is unable? That's their spouse whether the law wants to recognize it or not....It's not fair, it's discrimination..

You might as well say that inter-racial marriages shouldn't be legal....statements opposing gay marriage are equally as ignorant.

Here's my problem WHENEVER this "discussion" begins - the words "ignorant" and "confused" get thrown at people with opposite points of view. Suddenly it's a racial issue, too. I see no connection between gay unions and bi-racial unions, think it's a stretch, but, hey, maybe it's just me. And, by the way, for a very long time bi-racial unions WERE against the law in some States and people had to fight to change those laws and marry the person they loved.

I digress -

And as far as the legality is concerned - ANY COUPLE, straight, gay, that is together without marriage MUST make legal arrangements for a variety of "what ifs." The gay couple not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other is no different from the straight couple, never married, not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other. Neither category (gay nor straight) has the edge here.

I believe it's a mistake to throw the "medical decision" (and I've seen in here, on similar threads before, and have said nothing) argument into the discussion.

If you love your partner (again, married or unmarried, whatever the situation) and want that person to make your medical (and possibly legal) decisions PUT IT IN WRITING. If you love someone you owe it to them to protect them when you are too sick to make a decision and they might/could have a fight on their hands.

Mothers, fathers, children, try to step in front of legal spouses and make these decisions all the time - PUT IT IN WRITING. Anyone remember Terri Shiavo? I was MARRIED and we had mutual Powers/Attorney, Living Wills, Medical Authorizations, notarized letters - that's how my husband protected me when I was too grief stricken to focus on anything but him.

The ability to make a medical decision for someone else is NOT a gay/straight issue and should NOT be part of a gay/straight discussion.

Clunk! Off my soapbox!

[Synnen]

So... if you don't care if homosexuals have sex, and like and respect them--WHY do you care so much whether they get married? HOW will it lead to corruption of the country, and lawlessness, and circus-ness? If sex is for pleasure, and marriage is for love--where is the problem?

YOU don't like homosexual activities--so, like your stance on divorce, just don't do them! Don't stop others from leading happy lives just because YOU wouldn't do it!

I personally think that divorce should be illegal and that anyone should be able to marry anyone else they like--providing they realize that they're NEVER going to be parted. Maybe it would bring back some of the "sanctity" of marriage if you couldn't divorce!

If someone is willing to make a lifelong commitment to someone else, who CARES what sexual orientation they are? Why do YOU care? All recognizing gay marriages would do is give them the same rights as straight marriages--do you feel threatened by that or something?

It comes down to the fact that NOT allowing gays to marry is discriminatory. That's FINE, as long as you acknowledge that that's what you're really doing--discriminating against homosexual couples. And again--I have absolutely NO problems with the church not recognizing gay marriages. I do, however, take issue with the fact that the STATE is discriminatory, and that they are being discriminatory based on a RELIGIOUS view.

[Synnen]

Here's my problem WHENEVER this "discussion" begins - the words "ignorant" and "confused" get thrown at people with opposite points of view. Suddenly it's a racial issue, too. I see no connection between gay unions and bi-racial unions, think it's a stretch, but, hey, maybe it's just me. And, by the way, for a very long time bi-racial unions WERE against the law in some States and people had to fight to change those laws and marry the person they loved.

I digress -

And as far as the legality is concerned - ANY COUPLE, straight, gay, that is together without marriage MUST make legal arrangements for a variety of "what ifs." The gay couple not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other is no different from the straight couple, never married, not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other. Neither category (gay nor straight) has the edge here.

I believe it's a mistake to throw the "medical decision" (and I've seen in here, on similar threads before, and have said nothing) argument into the discussion.

If you love your partner (again, married or unmarried, whatever the situation) and want that person to make your medical (and possibly legal) decisions PUT IT IN WRITING. If you love someone you owe it to them to protect them when you are too sick to make a decision and they might have a fight on their hands.

Mothers, fathers, children, try to step in front of legal spouses and make these decisions all the time - PUT IT IN WRITING. Anyone remember Terri Shiavo? I was MARRIED and we had mutual Powers/Attorney, Living Wills, Medical Authorizations, notarized letters - that's how my husband protected me when I was too grief stricken to focus on anything but him.

The ability to make a medical decision for someone else is NOT a gay/straight issue and should NOT be part of a gay/straight discussion.

Clunk! Off my soapbox!

The ONLY reason I include it in my arguments, Judy, is that as a married woman, I CAN make medical decisions for my husband. I couldn't do that as his girlfriend, no--and that's one of the main reasons we got married rather than just continuing to live in sin ;)

As his girlfriend, I could not even get into his hospital room. I could get no updates on his well-being. Nothing. But hey presto! We get married, and the doctors are HAPPY to talk to me!

A living will, notorized letters, powers of attorney, etc--that only works so far. Granted, it's more effective in medical issues--but how many wills have been overturned by family members of gay couples? How much more often does it happen that people are sympathetic to the family of the sick/deceased/disoriented person than they are to the "long term partner" of that person?

Yes, as far as it goes with "dating" couples, gays and straights have the same rights. What bothers me is that a MARRIED couple (which gays don't have the "right" to--yet) has rights that "dating" couples don't--and are being denied to a class of citizen because of sexual orientation.

We have living wills too, and notorized copies of our medical wishes (my husband and I, that is). The lucky thing is that it's unlikely that the state would rule in favor of our families over us, even if we DID NOT have those documents.

I honestly wish I had documentation and statistics as to how often it doesn't work for gay couples (living wills and such). I just don't have time today to find those, though.

[JoeCanada76]

But doesn't the bible also say that all sins are forgiven if you apologize (repent)?

Repent and ask for forgiveness and do your best to walk away from that sin and never commit it again.

[JudyKayTee]

Not arguing with you, Synnen - I admire and respect your "work." At this moment in my life this subject is almost too painful for me to discuss - not a cop out, the truth. BUT:

Wills are challenged every day by parents, children, stepchildren. A binding Will, properly written and executed, is not going to be overturned by virtue of gay/straight. Straight Wills are overturned. A Will does not address sexual orientation - for that matter, I could leave my estate to my dog.

Marriage is not an automatic Power of Attorney -

And I respectfully suggest - and I do mean respectfully - that you are taking a lot for granted as far as medical decisions and who would prevail.

Again - this is almost too painful to speak of. My husband, my legal husband, was dying with all that documentation in place - and my stepdaughter tried to get an Order to void his living will. I suddenly found myself alone, fighting for what my husband expressly wanted, what he had legally addressed. When I wasn't sitting at the bedside of my husband I was on the phone with my Attorney. My husband died before the matter could be heard. I cannot begin to explain or express the pain and anguish of those weeks - or my loss.

I don't know why you think your State would NOT rule over the family instead of the partner, but perhaps that is the case where you live. It is NOT the case in NYS.

[Synnen]

My apologies for touching on a painful subject Judy--the admiration is mutual, I assure you.

[JudyKayTee]

My apologies for touching on a painful subject Judy--the admiration is mutual, I assure you.

No, no apologies necessary - I brought myself into the discussion. It is just that my experience with the legal aspect was so horrendous I thought other people should be aware what COULD happen.

[Moparbyfar]

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]

do not try to shift your religious beliefs unrequested onto others.

Ummm, I did say in my post.. speaking for myself ! I was not speaking for you or anyone else who has obvious differing opinions and if I appeared to be shoving my beliefs down your throat by simply typing in a few words and pushing 'enter' then please accept my humblest apologies. I don't think I force you to come to this site, do I? It's your choice, as is everything in life.

And I note that even christian people seem unable to keep to these guidelines, so why you don't start with yourself and your own and to start displaying how people should live, and show others the way by example?

I'm sorry, have we met already? Do you spy on me? Are you stalking me? :p I can think of no other explanation for you assuming me to be like every other "christian" out there. That is the whole problem with religion today. Too much hypocrisy. You're right on the button in saying that too many people don't set a good example for others, especially religious ones. The christian organisation I associate with, prides itself in being unhyprocritical and nonjudgemental. If willful badness is uncovered within our congregations, the wrongdoer is expelled. The reason being , there's no room for compromise where God's laws and principles are concerned. He loves us all but will not tolerate willful wrongdoing. If all so called christian churches followed the example set out by the 1st century christians, then we wouldn't have so much disharmony and confusion today. Mind you, Jesus did foretell that these things would occur so I accept these things as prophesy being fulfilled.



All comments made are not intended for use of force, slander, and or other and are entirely from the members own beliefs.
:D

[Credendovidis]

... I did say in my post..speaking for myself !

That may be true, but your statement was based on your religious beliefs and nothing else.
It was fair to point that out on a board like this one.

:rolleyes:

[Moparbyfar]

Crede: I don't think you need to point that out. I think it's quite obvious what my beliefs are according to what I post. That's why I post comments, to let others know what I believe. You make it sound like the people that read these posts are slow or something! Or maybe you need to reassure yourself that you are indeed right and I am so very wrong! Hih, fair enough.

[WVHiflyer]

Marriage is about becoming one and literally joining together as one. That can not be done with homosexuals.

How do you know? Marriage has also become about people sharing their lives because of a loving commitment to one another. One doesn't have to be hetero to fall in love - and that's what the "joining together as one" is all about, isn't it?