Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[arnisador]

Yes, i've yet to see a society that has traditionally viewed same-sex marriage as a common accepted practice.

Agreed; it's mostly a modern invention. But I think its time has come. The fact that marriage per se has not often been recognized between members of the same sex in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't do it now; that's not my point. I'm four-square behind the idea. But to say that one can look back and frequently find same-sex marriage, rather than same-sex unions of a lower social and legal standing, seems revisionistic.

 

[michaeledward]

The problem is that I just haven't gotten a clear, HONEST, answer about why it's so important that it be called marriage.

For those who missed post #19 .... let me repeat myself.

The word 'marriage' means more than a union ... here are a few words that are wrapped up within the term 'marriage' ...

... soul-mate
... lover
... partner
... better-half
... friend

Can't we just be clear. We want to call it marriage because we think that calling it marriage will give it legitimacy and will force the portion of society that doesn't agree with homosexuality to accept it? What we're really talking about here is altering people's prejudicies and beliefs through litigation. Is that so hard to admit to?

No ... we are not talking about altering peoples beliefs through litigation. If you choose to have a belief against homosexuals, that is your perogative.
Just let's be sure we call that belief by a clear definition; bigotry.

And, I don't think calling it 'marriage' will force anything on anyone. You yourself claim you prefer 'living in sin', you seemed to make the statement in a jovial manner. What does that position force on me? .... Zip. Nada. Nothing. Your arrangements are your own. They have no effect on me. The same thing will happen with 'gay marriage', when it is as commonplace as 'living in sin'. Today, its in the news. Next year ... it will be a yawner.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The waters continue to muddy, and non-important-to-the-argument issued brought in.

I gave past examples of past "accepted practices" that were overturned by government action, that is all.

It's 2 people because it's primarily 2 entities throughout nature. Nature BTW that has homosexual relations throughout the animal kingdom, humans being just another animal. Larger groups are also "normal" and will most likely someday have their own day in the spotlight. That battle is not this battle.

Not true at all. Many animals don't mate for life. There is even a primate or two that live with one female and two or three attached males, all of which she mates with. What's more, many human cultures have accepted multiple wives. So if your argument is 'It's done in nature at times' then you have to accept the argument that multiple mated pairs can exist as well, unless you only want to selectively apply accepted practices.

The idea of suddenly dropping all government sanctioning of marriage is ludicris. It will never happen.

Ludicrous 30 years ago was the idea that government might endorse same-sex marriage. If you had said that then, people wouldn't even have known what you were talking about. I think it's well past time government stopped endorsing marriage. It's a moral and religious institution, and the government has no place in it.

As to much of the rest, it's not applicable (though Sarge, if you want my opinion on the War of Northern Aggression, do a search here. I've gone over that before)

It's no more or less applicable than discussing slavery or nazism. You brought up slavery, and then insinuated that it was an institution that was common practice, and wrong. I merely pointed out a prevailing argument among many, even on this thread, that one society should not interfer with another.

We want to call it marriage because that is what it is. Ya obviously missed my earlier post.

It's only marriage if we decide to give it that label. For the sake of argument, give me a definition of marriage. I'm all ears.

Why shouldn't same gender relationships be allowed?
Why shouldn't they be given the same rights and called the same thing as OGR?

Bit of a ficitious argument, Bob, I didn't say same sex 'relationships' shouldn't be allowed, I questioned why it needed to be called marriage. You're altering the discussion.

I still haven't seen any strong arguments.
I see:
- I'm single, why give them special rights?
- Call it something else but give them the same privileges.
- It's wrong because "God" said so.
- etc.

Are you inferring that I said God said it was wrong? If so, you're putting words in to my mouth. I'm agnostic on my most believing day.

I'm questioning the need to grant homosexuals special government priveleges not granted a single person. If say 'because married people get it' then my argument is to strip those rights from married people to make it fair for ALL.

Why should it be called marriage?
Because there are years and years of work that went into building the rights, responsibilities and privileges surrounding it. Calling it something else will only confuse people, and create a nice cash cow for lawyers as thousands of court cases are refought to obtain these benefits again, when simply extending the coverage would avoid the confusion and heartache.

Wait, i'm sorry, I thought you listed a bunch of governmentally granted rights and legal issues as the reason to call it marriage. Now you want to argue that it's a social issue? That you want to call it marriage so others accept it?

Sarge,
If your girlfriend is hospitalized, you stand a good chance even if you have papers not being allowed in. Married couples have the following rights:
* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Then strengthen the living will law to give absolute authority to anyone that the person designates as being the person they want making choices. What if a woman had a very good platonic friend, who she had NO sexual relationship with, and they were good friends throughout life, and she wanted her friend to make decisions for her in times like that. Should they HAVE to be MARRIED in order to have their wishes granted? Or is that a right denied single people with no desire to marry?

If she is the victim of crime, you're SOL unless married. Married couples can receive crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

So your argument is two people should have to be married before they should be able to allow each other to make those life decisions? Basically, punishing ANYONE who decides, as a lifestyle decision, NOT to get married? How big of you.

If the worse should happen, even with proper papers you may not be able to Making burial or other final arrangements. You will not receive numerous estate and death benefits. Like, keeping the house if it's in her name.

So, again, special rights should only be given to married people?

Same gender couples have been evicted, separated from children, been denied health and life insurance, lost property, etc when their partner died. There are no provisions. Partners family hates you, you're screwed. It's that simple.

What happened to wills? Only married people should be protected?

The plain and simple fact is, separate but equal is not right. Creating a new term for the same thing is pointless and only serves to satisfy a small portion of the bigots. Stripping the rights from millions to satisfy a wish to continue to discriminate against thousands is flat out wrong, especially when used to complain about the lack of certain benefits for singles. People do not plan "partnerships", they don't buy books on "unions", they don't dream of someday "cohabitating". They plan Weddings, and dream of Marriage.

I agree, it's time we stopped this discrimination of people who aren't married, by those who desire to enforce their moral views on the rest of us through government endorsement. I'm convinced, Bob, thanks.

They should have the opportunity to pursue that dream, not have it blocked by a small group of bigots.

I agree, it's time the pro-marriage bigots got off our backs. I shouldn't have to be married, in order to insure that me and the woman I live with are given the same rights as a married couple. Thaks, Bob.

This government endorsment of a moral institution violates seperation of church and state.

 

[sgtmac_46]

For those who missed post #19 .... let me repeat myself.





No ... we are not talking about altering peoples beliefs through litigation. If you choose to have a belief against homosexuals, that is your perogative.
Just let's be sure we call that belief by a clear definition; bigotry.

And, I don't think calling it 'marriage' will force anything on anyone. You yourself claim you prefer 'living in sin', you seemed to make the statement in a jovial manner. What does that position force on me? .... Zip. Nada. Nothing. Your arrangements are your own. They have no effect on me. The same thing will happen with 'gay marriage', when it is as commonplace as 'living in sin'. Today, its in the news. Next year ... it will be a yawner.

Yes, which is exactly why government shouldn't be in the business of endorsing moral agreements between people.

If two people want to have a ceremony in a church that reflects their moral and religious views, so be it. But that ceremony should bestow on them rights and priveleges denied to those who don't desire to pursue that path. That the state sees it as it's mission to endorse what is, at it's core, a religious tradition, I feel is a mistake.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, which is exactly why government shouldn't be in the business of endorsing moral agreements between people.

If two people want to have a ceremony in a church that reflects their moral and religious views, so be it. But that ceremony should bestow on them rights and priveleges denied to those who don't desire to pursue that path. That the state sees it as it's mission to endorse what is, at it's core, a religious tradition, I feel is a mistake.

But the government IS in the business of endorsing this thing which you refer to as a 'moral agreement'.

The argument is being made, take government out of this business. The problem this creates, is the problem that has existed througout history. Marriage was the anthropological solution to show 'ownership of children'.

Earlier in European History, Queens used to give birth in the public square. The event could be viewed by all of her majesty's subjects. As the offspring of the queen was the future ruler, it was important to prove the child was the queens.

Yet, there was no way to prove the Fathers' participation in the child. Even if the King-Queen were to mate in public, there is no way to prevent the Queen from having another lover. This argument was also made for 'work-hands' on the family farm. Heiredity rights to the family business.

Marriage as a construct (common law) has been around for a long, long time to solve these problems. Governments have formalized this construct because one of the function of governments is to define the laws under which the citizenry will live.

So, let's take a look at the two options.

a) Eliminate a social construct that has been in existance for the 11,000 years of human agrarian societies (and probably longer).

b) Allow homosexuals to participate in the social construct that has been in existance for the 11,000 years of human agrarian societies.

Which will have the smaller impact on those societies?

As long as government is in the business of sanctioning what you call a 'moral agreement', where the limits of that sanctioning exist is also a moral agreement. Morally, treating some as less than equal, is, in my view, reprehensible.

 

[sgtmac_46]

But the government IS in the business of endorsing this thing which you refer to as a 'moral agreement'.

The argument is being made, take government out of this business. The problem this creates, is the problem that has existed througout history. Marriage was the anthropological solution to show 'ownership of children'.

So this is about children now? I think we're digging deeper and deeper in the psychological motives of this whole issue.

Earlier in European History, Queens used to give birth in the public square. The event could be viewed by all of her majesty's subjects. As the offspring of the queen was the future ruler, it was important to prove the child was the queens.

Yet, there was no way to prove the Fathers' participation in the child. Even if the King-Queen were to mate in public, there is no way to prevent the Queen from having another lover. This argument was also made for 'work-hands' on the family farm. Heiredity rights to the family business.

Marriage as a construct (common law) has been around for a long, long time to solve these problems. Governments have formalized this construct because one of the function of governments is to define the laws under which the citizenry will live.

None of which guaranteed parentage. Now we have DNA.

So, let's take a look at the two options.

a) Eliminate a social construct that has been in existance for the 11,000 years of human agrarian societies (and probably longer).

Is this an appeal to tradition?

b) Allow homosexuals to participate in the social construct that has been in existance for the 11,000 years of human agrarian societies.

Or c) End a discriminatory government sanction of a lifestyle that punishes those who refuse to participate in government sanctioned ceremonies.

Which will have the smaller impact on those societies?

The smallest impact on society would be to leave the situation as it is presently...if your concern is the smallest impact.

As long as government is in the business of sanctioning what you call a 'moral agreement', where the limits of that sanctioning exist is also a moral agreement. Morally, treating some as less than equal, is, in my view, reprehensible.

Seems a contrived argument, given your position on other issues. Treating unmarried people as unequal to married people is, therefore, reprehensible. I'm merely following an argument you constructed. Treating some as unequal because they choose a different lifestyle path is morally reprehensible.

 

[michaeledward]

The smallest impact on society would be to leave the situation as it is presently...if your concern is the smallest impact.

Seems a contrived argument, given your position on other issues. Treating unmarried people as unequal to married people is, therefore, reprehensible. I'm merely following an argument you constructed. Treating some as unequal because they choose a different lifestyle path is morally reprehensible.

Your 'smallest impact' leaves some 'unequal'. Which is fine, if that is what you want. Let's bring back segregation while we're at it, too.

Of course it is a contrived argument.
GOVERNMENT IS A CONTRIVED CONSTRUCT.
MARRIAGE IS A CONTRIVED CONSTRUCT.

There is also reason why we can't setup 'Straight' and 'Gay' public washrooms, and water fountains....

Everything is a Contrived Construct. Homo Sapiens are small group mammals. We perhaps thrive best in communities of 50 to 100 (I have seen ideas that show communities as large as 250). Having a government for 300,000,000 is quite a bit against what history has shown works best for our species. (Four Million Years of hunter gatherer v Eleven Thousand Years of agrarian existance).

But, since we are constructing these contrivances, we can certainly define them as we wish.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sarge, you can have most of those privilages. Just get ye to a lawyer and have him start writing things up for you. Most will probably be accepted. Maybe. It'll just take you alot of time, money, effort, etc. If you like, start a movement on equal rights for non-married couples. Course, you'd need some way of varifying your couple status....

The issue isn't your lack of rights and privilages and responsibilites. You chose to do that. These people are being denied a choice. One that you and I have.

 

[arnisador]

Ah yes, replace the one-size-fits-all concept of marriage by pre-nups for everyone! Define your marriage as you wish it. We could go that way...it seems to lose something, though!

 

[ave_turuta]

I just stumbled upon this. Hey, I guess they too can move to another state...

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/12/121905immigration.htm

Immigration Bill Could Destroy Binational Gay Couples
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff


(Washington) LGBT civil rights groups are calling on the Senate to reject portions of legislation aimed at protecting America's borders but as written could have a severe impact on binational same-sex couples.
The "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act" is awaiting Senate action. It cleared the House last Friday.
Immigration policies already prohibit gay, lesbian and bisexual citizens from sponsoring their foreign national partners for immigration benefits
Currently, a foreign national in a relationship with an American citizen is forced to live out of status and is committing a civil violation, not a criminal offense.
But the Immigration Control Act would criminalize anyone in the U.S. without documentation, including lesbians and gay men with no other way to keep their families together.
Because the bill dramatically expands the definition of "harboring," U.S. citizens living with undocumented partners could be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned, and have their homes and assets seized.
"Our nation should unify families, not tear them apart. Instead of moving in that direction, Congress has increased the barriers to allowing loving families to stay together," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
"This bill threatens the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive immigrants and asylum-seekers and the American citizens who love and care for them."
The bill also would jeopardize the safety of LGBT asylum-seekers fleeing persecution.
The bill makes many people ineligible for asylum, and eliminates almost all rights to federal judicial review of viable asylum claims.
These policy changes are particularly dangerous for LGBT/H asylum-seekers who often do not know when they first arrive that HIV status, sexual orientation and gender identity persecution are grounds for asylum Solmonese said.
"This bill cloaks a virulent anti-immigrant bias in the guise of sham 'security' measures," said Rachel B. Tiven, Executive Director of Immigration Equality, the only national LGBT immigrant rights organization.
"It will not make America safer," she added.
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) , the lead sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, legislation that would keep lesbian and gay families together, also has sent up warning signals about the Immigration Control Act.
"This latest anti-immigrant legislation poses an especially grave threat to LGBT immigrants. Whereas heterosexuals in binational relationships will be able to shelter their foreign partners by sponsoring them for legal status, LGBT partners will be powerless to stop the government from destroying their committed relationships. This is fundamentally cruel and unjust."

 

[sgtmac_46]

Your 'smallest impact' leaves some 'unequal'. Which is fine, if that is what you want. Let's bring back segregation while we're at it, too.

Oh, please, you always have to demonize don't you. You have a disagreement with someone, They're 'nazis' or 'slave owners' or 'segregationists'. Is there any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve demonization of any who disagrees with you?

Of course it is a contrived argument.
GOVERNMENT IS A CONTRIVED CONSTRUCT.
MARRIAGE IS A CONTRIVED CONSTRUCT.

That's right, and that's why it's not an absolute right that homosexual couples get the right to marry. Even if they didn't the Republic would survive, other rights would be enforced. All of this hyperbolic arguments really don't serve your cause.

There is also reason why we can't setup 'Straight' and 'Gay' public washrooms, and water fountains....

Again with the hyperbole. Can you ever have an argument that doesn't involve you equating the opposition with nazis or racists?

But, since we are constructing these contrivances, we can certainly define them as we wish.

Yes, and that certainly means NOT legalizing gay marriage, without it not necessarily mean we're turning in to Nazis, or slave traders, OR returning to segregation.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, when the issue of Gay Marriage showed up on the Missouri ballot, the idea of which was to define marriage as strictly that of a man and a woman, I decided to vote against it. Was it because I thought the world would enter a new dark age if homosexuals didn't have the right to marriage? No. Was it because I thought we'd suddenly become Nazi germany and start rounding up homosexuals?

Again, no. It was because it was an issue that really didn't effect me, and some homosexuals thought it would enrich their lives, so I figured why begrudge them that. There was no real harm involved in allowing it. That having been said, the idea that we are demonizing anyone who disagrees I find distasteful.

I have had a lot of fun playing devil's advocate on this debate. I appreciate the arguments.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, please, you always have to demonize don't you. You have a disagreement with someone, They're 'nazis' or 'slave owners' or 'segregationists'. Is there any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve demonization of any who disagrees with you?


That's right, and that's why it's not an absolute right that homosexual couples get the right to marry. Even if they didn't the Republic would survive, other rights would be enforced. All of this hyperbolic arguments really don't serve your cause.

Again with the hyperbole. Can you ever have an argument that doesn't involve you equating the opposition with nazis or racists?

Yes, and that certainly means NOT legalizing gay marriage, without it not necessarily mean we're turning in to Nazis, or slave traders, OR returning to segregation.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, when the issue of Gay Marriage showed up on the Missouri ballot, the idea of which was to define marriage as strictly that of a man and a woman, I decided to vote against it. Was it because I thought the world would enter a new dark age if homosexuals didn't have the right to marriage? No. Was it because I thought we'd suddenly become Nazi germany and start rounding up homosexuals?

Again, no. It was because it was an issue that really didn't effect me, and some homosexuals thought it would enrich their lives, so I figured why begrudge them that. There was no real harm involved in allowing it. That having been said, the idea that we are demonizing anyone who disagrees I find distasteful.

I have had a lot of fun playing devil's advocate on this debate. I appreciate the arguments.

I don't believe I have brought up the term Nazi. Please don't ascribe it to me.

I propose giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexual. Anyone who proposes otherwise, is arguing for segregation ... take part of the population, and group them apart from the rest.

Segregation does not mean 'Slave Owner', and I don't believe I have used that term, either.

So, please stop putting words in my mouth, to further your 'devil's advocate' argument.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't believe I have brought up the term Nazi. Please don't ascribe it to me.

Not this time you didn't. You just insinuated that my position was tantamount to racism and segregation. Again, three things that always get brought in to these discussions...Slavery, Nazism and Segregation. Just pointing out the other two. So please don't ascribe THOSE to ME.

I propose giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexual. Anyone who proposes otherwise, is arguing for segregation ... take part of the population, and group them apart from the rest.

Segregation is a loaded word designed to ascribe segregations CONNOTATION, not the denotation, so please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that wasn't your intent.

What's more, the denotation of segregation doesn't apply, because no one is recommending seperation in any sense between homosexuals and society, therefore segregation is only a word designed to provoke an emtional response that does not describe anything having to do with the debate. Again, don't insult my intelligence.

Segregation does not mean 'Slave Owner', and I don't believe I have used that term, either.

No, it means seperating homosexuals from the rest of society, which NOBODY in this thread has brought up but you.

So, please stop putting words in my mouth, to further your 'devil's advocate' argument.

Your words, michael, inaccurate words designed to build an ad hominem argument by labelling me a segregationist. I'd appreciate it if you stopped, please.

 

[michaeledward]

Not this time you didn't. You just insinuated that my position was tantamount to racism and segregation. Again, three things that always get brought in to these discussions...Slavery, Nazism and Segregation. Just pointing out the other two. So please don't ascribe THOSE to ME.

Segregation is a loaded word designed to ascribe segregations CONNOTATION, not the denotation, so please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that wasn't your intent.

What's more, the denotation of segregation doesn't apply, because no one is recommending seperation in any sense between homosexuals and society, therefore segregation is only a word designed to provoke an emtional response that does not describe anything having to do with the debate. Again, don't insult my intelligence.

No, it means seperating homosexuals from the rest of society, which NOBODY in this thread has brought up but you.

Your words, michael, inaccurate words designed to build an ad hominem argument by labelling me a segregationist. I'd appreciate it if you stopped, please.

Please stop ascribing the words 'Slavery' or 'Nazism'.

I will gladly accept another suggested term for denying one group of citizens the rights others have, if you have one available. For the moment, 'segregate', seems to fit. Seperate but Equal was thrown around, and I think we have shown that 'Civil Unions' are not Equal to Marriage.

So break out the Thesaurus.

I did not ascribe Slavery or Nazism to you, by the way. I did use the word "bigotry".

 

[Flatlander]

Mod Note:

I don't want to discourage this discussion, my intent is not to shut it down. But folks, we do need to focus more on the issue and less on the people. Please, can we keep this from getting personal?

Thank you for your attention.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Senior Mod-

 

[DeLamar.J]

Homosexual union is pretty a new concept. Never in thousands of years has this issue ever been brought up which is why there so little talk about it. Homosexuality in many cultures (especially Abrahamic cultures) is considered a wrong and a sin punishable by death. However, as we all know homosexuality does occur in Nature among other animals as well as humans. It may have something to do with upbringing, but it may also have to do with genes. In Brito-Indian culture today homosexuality is looked down upon strongly and yet there are more homosexuals there than here! So how can homosexuality be wrong if you are brought up with it?

But hey, believe whatever you want. Let gays do whatever they want and if you don't like them then don't be around them (although you should realize that it most likelly is not a wrong). Let gays do any sexual acts they want to each other.......oh yea now there is laws that protect this right . So then a couple or more decades ago sex between to consenting adults became legal. Great! Now homosexuals have all the rights they can ever have right?

Well according to some today no. Apparently they want their unions regarded equal as marriage. Well of course the truth is that marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. This tradition is more biological and dates back to homo erectus man (the first ape or our line to develop into monogamous and under rare circumstances polygamous but still devoted to a particular woman). But homosexuals in my eyes are going a bit too far want to change the definition of marriage.

Of course they will come at you with stuff like "Well marriage between two races was taboo" when in fact that was only something only taboo here in the states and Colonial Western Culture. And even if such things occurred, the bottom line remains marriage is between a man and a woman.

OK, so marriage is between a man and a woman. Yes, this is true. So why don't homosexuals create their own brand new traditional institutions of homosexual unions called "Garriage" or "Homunion" or something. Then homosexuals and homosexual "marriage" would answer back saying that they want it to be equal. Well you do have it equal, you get the same economic rights as straight married couples but it will just be called something different.

Then it hit. Why the heck are we debating the issue on what "marriage" is? Is it the government's job to set up institutions on out planet? NO, of course not! The government's job is to keep the peace and not to get too much involved with people's rights.

So why the heck are we even calling economic unions "marriage"? Why don't we just call it civil unions? Not just homosexual unions but ANY unions between two consenting adults (including man and woman). Let's leave it up to the people to decide what marriage is, not the government. It isn't the government's job to decide what is moral and immoral outside the universal moral issues as well as issues that relate more to life and death (such as euthanasia and abortion).

Don't you think this is the best solution? Let us put any of your conservative or liberal beliefs on what "marriage" is aside. Calling economic unions; civil unions will not force people to have on opinion toward a word marriage ? It’s just an union with governmental economic benefits in reality. And perhaps once this happen maybe economic unions can be extended further than the realms of sexual relation couples in love or wanting kids if you catch what I mean by that . Perhaps really close friends or best friends can get this economic union if they like too even if they are not gay. It doesn't have to relate to heterosexuality or homosexuality. I have my opinions (I believe marriage is between a man and a woman), as do others (like people who think it is okay to change the definition of marriage).

What do you think just calling it civil unions for all type of unions? I can't think of a better solution. The only way this would come to be is if liberals, conservatives, and statists come off their high horses and realize there are many ways to look at things. I myself am guilty some times of wanting things what I want right but my view is no more right than anyone elses in reality. I'm just a homo sapien sapien like anyone else .

People just need to leave the gay people alone and let them do there thing. It dont hurt me that joe and bob have sexual relations, so why should I care. As long as they are not breaking any laws or hurting anyone, then I dont see anything wrong with it. Now, the mental aspect of this issue I see a little different, but thats a whole different topic.

 

[DeLamar.J]

I was just wondering about something. Say in the future that gay becomes ok, they adopt kids, all get married, the works. As the child grows up being raised by gay parents, does he decide in kindergaten that he wants a boyfriend because daddy and daddy are gay, or a girlfriend?
Then I begin to wonder, if he chooses a boyfriend because the two role models in his life are gay, then is he really gay? Or just impressionable?
How would you feel if your son was the little boys boyfriend? Is gay ok then? This is very interesting to me and I hope that someone has the answers.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think it doesn't matter much on the parental genders, that a child will gravitate towards what they naturally want. As long as the child is raised in a loving family, it should turn out ok. I mean, how many 'gay' individuals were raised in a 2 gender home, yet discovered their own attractants?

 

[Kane]

What is the problem with just taking the word "marriage" out of government programs and economic unions? If marriage is such a relative term I ask again and again why does the government have to take a stance on it? Why can't we just have civil unions (or some other word instead of the word "marriage") for all types of consenting adults? Is this that difficult to solve? It is just a freaking word!

It’s ironic that some of the people in this thread who are arguing to keep marriage as a government term want to eliminate the word "God" out of everything in the government. God can mean many things too, it is a bit strange to me that some of you think the word god is harmful but marriage isn't.

 

[michaeledward]

What is the problem with just taking the word "marriage" out of government programs and economic unions? If marriage is such a relative term I ask again and again why does the government have to take a stance on it? Why can't we just have civil unions (or some other word instead of the word "marriage") for all types of consenting adults? Is this that difficult to solve? It is just a freaking word!

It’s ironic that some of the people in this thread who are arguing to keep marriage as a government term want to eliminate the word "God" out of everything in the government. God can mean many things too, it is a bit strange to me that some of you think the word god is harmful but marriage isn't.

Kane ... I will, again, make two points.

1 - Government is in the business of marriage and you aren't going to be able to change that. (and incidentally, our government is not in the god business).

2 - It is not just a 'freaking word'. There is an emotional and social context in that 'freaking word'. You proposal still denies those contexts to a portion of the population.

And, you continue to mischaracterize thoughts and attitudes. I don't think anyone has said that the word 'god' is harmful.

Call it what it is, Kane, "Bigotry: the acts or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and predjudices".