[Tuppence2]

Hello,

I believe that people should find love and companionship where they can, whatever their gender. kindness and love is very much needed in this world today.

I joined a church that agrees with my biblical beliefs, not one that forces theirs on me.

Valley

Valley, do I take you to mean that you have chosen your church to fit in with your beliefs of scripture?

Bye,
Penny

[hottesttotty]

Not to be a s*** disturber, but imho if 2 men or 2 women were meant to be parents, they would be able to do it naturally.

[Tuppence2]

Hello there,

Marriage need not produce children - many do not. Many people also marry for companionship.

Bye,
Penny.

[hottesttotty]

Granted Penny, and I don't condone or condemn the same sex marriages. It's something I do not feel strongly about either way, I was just adding my two cents in on the parenting issues that ultimately come along with the discussion of the issue.

[pyritechips]

imho if 2 men or 2 women were meant to be parents, they would be able to do it naturally

Well, logically, you would have to qualify the word "naturally". Have you ever heard of the old saying "If God had intended man to fly He would have given him wings"? By definition, very little of our modern society is "natural". Most of our food certainly is not. Humans' power is their brains; they make what they need for themselves. And I said earlier, homosexuality is not a "choice' of "lifestyle". It is the only argument that the moral "right" have left and they cannot release it; doing so would defeaet the only possible logical opposition to homosexuality. Homosexuality is some "flaw" in our development. To desire a member of the same sex is no more "immoral" than a person born with Spina Bifida.

[Davey7549]

Are we straying from the original intent of this topic into a very dangerous area of whether Homosexuality is Moral or Immoral? Doing so would remove it from the realm of logical discussion into emotional subjective feelings.

PC
As to your repulsiveness to Incest I agree however cousins is not an incestual relationship but was banned due to genetic inbreeding. The point here is not whether incest, polygamy, homosexuality, or close cousin marraige is repulsive.... the question is should it be considered under the definition of marriage.

My point is in doing so would put us in a slippery slope that we would never return from and would change this world forever.

Penny
There is nothing wrong with companionship! But companionship is different than marriage in society. That is why I suggested another catagory all together called a Union.


Note: Removing my bias out of this discussion is quite difficult for me so if I have made any slips of tongue it was not intentional.

Dave

[brushmaster1]

I have no problem with same sex marriages, nor do I have a problem with any kind of group marriage. It all boils down to custom, and to what works for you...

EXCUSE ME!
isn't marriage?
SAME SEX?

every day for years?

WEBFISH

[pyritechips]

Are we straying from the original intent of this topic into a very dangerous area of whether Homosexuality is Moral or Immoral? Doing so would remove it from the realm of logical discussion into emotional subjective feelings.

Bingo Davey!!

Exactly my point and I agree. My point is, it isn't me that's pushing the issue, but my government is. For me there is nothing moral or immoral about a same-sex couple, but the government is making an issue out it because of "emotional subjective feelings", not I.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by pyritechips:

I truely don't know val; I really struggle with this one. As soon as you wish to "impose morality", especially as a law, you had better be ready willing and able to define it or it will be challanged to death. And as far as imposing morality is concerned, I believe that responsibility should be taken by the family, not the government or any church.

Actually, almost all law has some basis in morality. Without applying a "societal norm" it is impossible to apply law--maybe it is not good to call that "morality", but we are really just dealing in semantics. Bottom line is the law is based on what society as a group believes is right and wrong. The key is to define as carefully as possible the acceptable conduct before hand so that morality plays as little a role as possible in applying the law. However, morality definitely plays a part in the definition of the law. Without some moral compass to determine what we as a society believe to be acceptable behavior vs. unaccepatable behavior, how would we ever decide on which is which?

My personal viewpoint is that I don't believe the argument that the benefits society as a group determines it wants to allow for the union of a man and woman should be the same as for same sex marriages and there are good reasons for that, which have nothing to do with morality. The protections provided traditional marriage partners evolved to protect the family unit, primarily because of children, and they come at quite a societal cost. Allow same sex marriages and now you open up a whole pandoras box of legal problems that are much more difficult to sort through, if nothing else, because you are significantly increasing the volume of problems (and there are other problems unique to that situation as well). Hey, the lawyers will love you all because you'll create a lot more work for them. But you will also create a lot more cost to society. The majority of the society doesn't like the idea of same sex marriage (that is true in every pole taken on the subject that I can recall) and they sure as hell don't want to incur all the additional costs of allowing that legality to exist. I'm fine with people loving each other and living together--I am even not oppossed to marriage, but I am oppossed to it being recognized by the law for the reasons I stated (again, which have little to do with morality).

[~Candy~]

Originally posted by Mulder:
Allow same sex marriages and now you open up a whole pandoras box of legal problems that are much more difficult to sort through, if nothing else, because you are significantly increasing the volume of problems (and there are other problems unique to that situation as well). Hey, the lawyers will love you all because you'll create a lot more work for them. But you will also create a lot more cost to society. The majority of the society doesn't like the idea of same sex marriage (that is true in every pole taken on the subject that I can recall) and they sure as hell don't want to incur all the additional costs of allowing that legality to exist. I'm fine with people loving each other and living together--I am even not oppossed to marriage, but I am oppossed to it being recognized by the law for the reasons I stated (again, which have little to do with morality).

What type of problems would be created that don't already exist?

Not taking a position here one way or another, just curiously wondering

[plschwartz]

Mulder say:
The protections provided traditional marriage partners evolved to protect the family unit, primarily because of children, and they come at quite a societal cost.

I would agree with you, but part of thast in our society was the understanding that marriage would be life-long.

The archbishop of Canterbury said when divorce was made legal in Britain, that now everything would have to be made legal.

Wouldn't it then be useful to society to shower the couple with the legal blessings of marriage only after they had children?
What actually is the difference between a childless hetero- and homosexual couple.
What about a homosexual couple that has a child either by adoption or from a previous heterosexual relationship of one of the members??

[twotugs]

The majority of the society doesn't like the idea of same sex marriage (that is true in every pole taken on the subject that I can recall)

Actually, yesterday's second hour of "Talk of the Nation" (NPR) had a guest who indicated that a professional poll showed 6 out of 10 Canadians approved of the legislation.

http://discover.npr.org/features/fea...l?wfId=1303884

Just for the record, I do support the idea that same-sex unions ought to be afforded the same legal benefits as traditional marriages. And I respect the opinion of those who don't agree with me.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by twotugs:
Actually, yesterday's second hour of "Talk of the Nation" (NPR) had a guest who indicated that a professional poll showed 6 out of 10 Canadians approved of the legislation.

http://discover.npr.org/features/fea...l?wfId=1303884

Just for the record, I do support the idea that same-sex unions ought to be afforded the same legal benefits as traditional marriages. And I respect the opinion of those who don't agree with me.

That's in Canada--you would not get that same result in the US.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by AcaCandy:
What type of problems would be created that don't already exist?

Ask one of our "formerly married" members who have gone through a bitter divorce what kind of problems were created when they decided to divorce. Right now, those living in same sex relationships don't have those problems because their union isn't recognized legally.

As for same sex marriages, a myriad of other problems would come up that don't currently exist because many of the laws and statutes on the book were written for heterosexual marriages. They cannot easily be applied to same sex marriages, so you would have an immediate problem of a lot of extra litigation in a same-sex breakup that would not occur in a heterosexual breakup. Trust me--the legal issue that would arise would be complex and very costly.