[angelize56]

More facts. Take care. angel

<b>Overview of the status of same-sex marriage in the U.S.</b>:

In North America, marriage has been a restricted institution. Currently, only one man and one woman can be joined in matrimony. It is likely to remain restricted in at least this way throughout the U.S. for at least the foreseeable future.

<b>As of early 2003, about 30 states have enacted "Defense of Marriage Acts" (DOMAs) that ban same-sex marriage. Other states have similar legislation pending. During 2000-MAR, 61% of California voters supported Proposition 22, which defined marriage as being restricted to between one man and one woman. But Proposition 22 and many of the DOMA laws only control the institution of marriage. They do not prevent a legislature from creating a new set of laws which cover a different type of relationship -- typically called civil unions or domestic partnerships -- for same-sex couples</b>. A state would then recognize committed relationships among its citizens in two ways:

It would retain the existing system of marriage for heterosexual couples -- for one man and one woman -- intact. Heterosexual couples who plan to marry in the future would find that nothing is changed; the regulations, privileges, obligations, benefits etc would be the same as always. Nothing would change for existing heterosexual couples who were married in the past. <b>States typically grant about 400 rights and privileges to each married couple. The federal government separately contributes an additional 1,000 benefits to them</b>. (Imagine trying to rework ALL of those to accomodate a minority.)

<b>A state legislature could then create a similar system, usually called civil unions, for same-sex couples</b> -- i.e. for two men or for two women. <b>These would grant some or all of the state benefits that have been previously granted only to married couples. But the over 1,000 federal rights and privileges would be withheld from "civil unionized" couples because of the federal DOMA law which prohibits the federal government from recognizing civil unions.</b>

[plschwartz]

val:
of course

[brushmaster1]

I've been away for a while... just catching up:

Several points have been made in this discussion since the last time I looked in, some valid, some driven by misconception and prejudice. I believe same sex marriages should be recognized for the same reason that heterosexual marriages are recognized;for protection of the marriage partners and/or offspring. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not doesn't really affect the issue, but that <B>is</B> the driving force behind this debate.
In much of the United States, only a very few years ago, interracial marriages were regarded with the same disdain. Now (although many people <B>still</B> don't believe interracial marriages to be "right", they are acepted legally. The time is coming (and soon!) when same sex marriages <B>will</B> be accepted, and rightfully so.

As for the side issues of multiple marriages, incestuous marriages, etc., such <B>have</B> been accepted in past societies, and usually without detriment to those societies. The one exception I can think of is the medieval practice of incestuous marriages among European royalty reinforcing undesirable genes (the common occurance of hemophilia is a good example of the results). I see ne <B>real</B> problem with <B>any</B> union that doesn't increase the risk of genetics problems.

A point was made in a previous post that multiple marriages are more stable and more nurturing for children than traditional single couple marriages. Although this is very true, most of western society does not recognize or accept such marriages <B><I>at this time</I></B>. I look forward with great longing to the day when <B>all</B> partnerships will be recognized and accepted!

[angelize56]

I wonder how the presidential candidates stance on this issue will affect their popularity in the polls if brought up.

[~Candy~]

Good question angel, since we all know that Hillary is gay

[angelize56]

^ I didn't know that! I thought she was just an emasculating wonder woman!

[plschwartz]

Jonesie:
This is your original post:
Therein lies the detriment, imho. It's NOT kept behind closed doors. Just look at the progression of rights thus far for homosexuals. Gay rights parades... for all to see. I'm sorry, but I personally don't want to see homosexual intimacy. That's not to say that I dislike them... I just don't want to see it!
This world is hard enough to live in. Try explaining to an innocent 5 year old boy, why those 2 men are sticking their tongues in each others mouths... Yikes, is all I can say...

Politically correct, I am NOT in this scenario... sorry if I've offended anyone.

I take this to mean that activities between two men, and betwen a man and a woman do not have the same effect. The former seems more objectionable.
That to make YOU feel better, some americans should refrain from a behavior you would allow to others. It is not yourproblem, it is theirs. It is not your problem, it is mine
You alone know what emotion is aroused in you were you to see such a scene. If you say it is not negative then so be it.
Perhaps on a different thread we will find ourselves on the same side. It has even happened with me and Chris.

[GoneForNow]

Well, I have to admit, after reading all this homosexual stuff I've decided to become a lesbian. Are there two women out there who would like to join me in a little of that "unspoken" love. Please be gentle as it will be my first time as a lesbian.

[angelize56]

Paul: To the majority of people a man and woman kissing in public is not as objectionable as two men kissing in public. Kath has shared an opinion shared my many, many others! Common sense tells you it is easier to explain to a 5 year old, if they ask, about a man and woman kissing, than a man and a man kissing. I bet lots of 5 years old sense the man/man kissing is not normal without even being told! Take care. angel

[pyritechips]

The following article may illustrate the debate and political climate in Canada. I offer the article without either endorsing or condemming the content:

CBC Canada Commentary


P.S.

Well, I have to admit, after reading all this homosexual stuff I've decided to become a lesbian.

Give it up GB! You don't have the legs for it to pull it off!

[angelize56]

Which leg?

[plschwartz]

Brushmaster:
Thanks for your post. I felt kind of lonely for a while.
Live and let live is my motto.:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

[valley]

Originally posted by gbrumb:
Please be gentle as it will be my first time as a lesbian.

hehehe! You needing someone gentle? since when?

[pyritechips]

I bet lots of 5 years old sense the man/man kissing is not normal without even being told!

I hate to pick at nits Marlene but this is incorrect. I mentioned in another thread that little children will happily pull all their clothes off to frolick on the beach. Modestly is not hard wired; it has to be taught.

Similarily, Achild cannot know that man/man kissing is not "normal". Your choice of that words is very telling. Without passing judgement, I can say that "normal" is how you judge the act, which is yor choice and right. By telling a child it is not "normal" is how we instill our beliefs, standards and yes, our prejudices also, into that child. We not only pass on our genes to our children but our value system too.

Telling the child that something is "not normal" enforces the idea that it is wrong. That is a value judgement.

I personally would tell children that the man/man kissing, as you put it, is not "common". I would let the children learn for themselves throughout their lives.

[angelize56]

By telling a child it is not "normal" is how we instill our beliefs, standards and yes, our prejudices also, into that child

I would tell my child it isn't normal and I definitely want my child to have my beliefs, values, morals and standards. I am not prejudiced against homosexuals, but I will not allow my child to see it as a normal way of life. It is not acceptable in my religious beliefs and nothing will change my opinion of that. Take care. angel