Homosexuals

sponger

callen wrote:

some old white guys did. ...in an attempt to control humans and for sure control their sexuality.....and it was affective...thousands of years later people are still reading and practicing by it....genius.

I've heard rumors that the bible was actually written by women. Maybe they decided to make homosexuality a sin because they were tired of all the "cute" guys turning out to be gay?

cornnifer

callen wrote:

it important??? for procreation? stability? Just asking...no flame here.

please, if you havn't already, do not get married... ever.

cornnifer

blackredyellow wrote:

In a religious sense, marriage is an important institution, and a connection of two people and god.... but in the legal sense, it is only important for things like hospital visitation, inheritence, taxes, etc. I think that is where the difference of opinion occur between your view and mine. That is why I would much rather seperate the two, and have a legal version of marriage (call it what you want) that a marriage license signifies, and then for those who want the religious meaning, they can have their ceromony and institution.

the concept of marriage goes back pretty much forever. it has been a virtual societal capstone for the religious as well as the non religious throughout world history. if you don't understand its significance and importance, then i encourage you, as i have someone else, to never get married if you havn't already.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

You can will your estate to whomever you want, but you cannot (at least in Ohio) completely disinherit your spouse without his or her consent. I'm not about to drone on and on about legal technicalities, I'd hope that people would take my word for it when I say that many of our laws are based on the assumption of a nuclear family joined in marriage. Yes, gay couples can provide many of the same privileges for themselves, but they have to jump through hoops to do it. If I die without a will, my husband automatically inherits my estate. If I had a "wife," that would not be the case ... she would get nothing. Same thing goes for who makes my medical decisions, who gets to visit me in the nursing home, who receives any unclaimed governmental benefits due to my estate, etc. For a couple that is legally prohibited from getting married, it requires that they hire an attorney to ensure that they have the necessary legal documentation to ensure that their wishes are carried out. This is not something that you and I are required to do, and in my opinion constitutes unequal treatment.

There is nothing discriminatory about continuing to have laws revolving around couples. The problem comes when we try to dictate who those couples can be.

i've given power of attorney and willed my estate to a non-family member. it wasn't hard at all. you mentioned the laws; we're re-writing the laws; remember? to make the benefits equal to all. this includes polyigamists. if we're re-writing the laws and changing family values it's time to allow all lifestyles. it is discrimination. there was a tv show about 2 men and a woman living as a "couple". one of those reality things. it's becoming more and more accepted.

sonicreducer

so what kind of implications are there for a gay married couple and adopting a child? they obviously can't have one naturally, and men can't at all.

how many of you support the adopting part?

onelongsong

cornnifer wrote:

the concept of marriage goes back pretty much forever. it has been a virtual societal capstone for the religious as well as the non religious throughout world history. if you don't understand its significance and importance, then i encourage you, as i have someone else, to never get married if you havn't already.

good point; but lots of non-religious people get married.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

i've given power of attorney and willed my estate to a non-family member. it wasn't hard at all. you mentioned the laws; we're re-writing the laws; remember? to make the benefits equal to all. this includes polyigamists. if we're re-writing the laws and changing family values it's time to allow all lifestyles. it is discrimination. there was a tv show about 2 men and a woman living as a "couple". one of those reality things. it's becoming more and more accepted.

Oh, I give up. If you can't see the difference between changing all of the current laws and other contractual arrangements that are set up on the assumption of a two-person couple, and reorchestrating everything to account for partenerships between an unlimited number of people, than I don't really have anything to say to you beyond "figure it out!"

You may have handled your estate to your satisfaction. All I can say is that if you have done it on your own, without consulting an attorney who specializes in probate law in your state, I hope that your estate is very simple, or you are almost certainly leaving a headache for your inheritors.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that most people want their entire estate to go to their spouse, and if they predecease their spouse, they want it to go in equal shares to their children. This is what happens automatically, at least in Ohio, if you die without a will. That means that couples who are allowed to marry need to nothing to have their wishes carried out, whereas couples who are prohibited by law from marrying must incur an additional expense if they want to ensure that their documents are binding and enforceable. This is discriminatory practice.

cornnifer

onelongsong wrote:

good point; but lots of non-religious people get married.

That was one of the main points in my post. Read it again

onelongsong

cornnifer wrote:

That was one of the main points in my post. Read it again

i understand. i was agreeing with you. the "but" in there was a mistake.

hippiemom

sonicreducer wrote:

so what kind of implications are there for a gay married couple and adopting a child? they obviously can't have one naturally, and men can't at all.

how many of you support the adopting part?

Gay people are quite capable of producing children naturally, and many of them do. They just don't enjoy the baby-making process as much as we do.

jeffbr

Nothingman54 wrote:

There is such a thing as too many rights and too much freedom.

Not in my world.

blackredyellow

cornnifer wrote:

the concept of marriage goes back pretty much forever. it has been a virtual societal capstone for the religious as well as the non religious throughout world history. if you don't understand its significance and importance, then i encourage you, as i have someone else, to never get married if you havn't already.

Thank you for your concern, but I am getting married in a couple of months. And while I don't buy into the religious aspect of it, I totally understand the life-long commitment that I am making to the woman that I love unconditionally. My soon to be married state has actually made me more of a supporter of gay marriage, because not only the fact that two gay people getting married will not affect or lessen the quality of my marriage whatsoever, but I can't imagine being this much in love with someone, and not be able legally to make that commitment and promise to share the rest of my life them.

hippiemom

blackredyellow wrote:

Thank you for your concern, but I am getting married in a couple of months. And while I don't buy into the religious aspect of it, I totally understand the life-long commitment that I am making to the woman that I love unconditionally. My soon to be married state has actually made me more of a supporter of gay marriage, because not only the fact that two gay people getting married will not affect or lessen the quality of my marriage whatsoever, but I can't imagine being this much in love with someone, and not be able legally to make that commitment and promise to share the rest of my life them.

This is the nicest post I've seen here in a long time.

I wish you and your lucky bride a lifetime of happiness

sonicreducer

hippiemom wrote:

Gay people are quite capable of producing children naturally, and many of them do. They just don't enjoy the baby-making process as much as we do.

natural is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman followed by conception. anything else is not natural. im not saying that they shouldn't be able to do these things. hey, it's their business and i am no one to tell them what is right or wrong. but it isn't natural.

hippiemom

sonicreducer wrote:

natural is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman followed by conception. anything else is not natural. im not saying that they shouldn't be able to do these things. hey, it's their business and i am no one to tell them what is right or wrong. but it isn't natural.

I personally know gay couples who have conceived children naturally, i.e. intercourse between a man and a woman. It happens.

jeffbr

sonicreducer wrote:

natural is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman followed by conception. anything else is not natural. im not saying that they shouldn't be able to do these things. hey, it's their business and i am no one to tell them what is right or wrong. but it isn't natural.

So if heteros have intercourse but don't conceive they've engaged in an unnatural act?

Ahnimus

This thread makes my brain mushy.

sponger

Since when has religion been a source of guidelines for what is "natural"? Abstinence for priests and nuns? Natural? Fasting periods? I don't think that's very natural. Having to take time out of your day to "worship"? How natural is that? The church, on the contrary, preaches the unnatural. In the case of J. Christ, we're talking about the supernatural.

sonicreducer

hippiemom wrote:

I personally know gay couples who have conceived children naturally, i.e. intercourse between a man and a woman. It happens.

ok, please explain. im thinking strikingly outlandish things here,...

sonicreducer

jeffbr wrote:

So if heteros have intercourse but don't conceive they've engaged in an unnatural act?

you gotta be shitting me,... i hope you are being a smartalic.