Gay Marriage

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And there are many in society that feel that the "common good" is to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

That's nice. Thankfully, one needs more than a "feeling" to establish civil law in a Cons***utional Republic.

Interesting that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother.

So "mother" = "religion"?

In any case, you're obviously reading what you want to read. Your source did not say that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother — it said that the word "matrimony" is derived from the word mother.

But, all these marriage ultimately are defined by a husband and wife in which offspring are a possibility as a result of intercourse. Not so with ****sexuality.

You're mistaken.

The government allows equal access to marriage to infertile couples, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to elderly couples (i.e., couples where the woman is post-menopausal), even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to intentionally childless couples, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to couples wherein one or more partners has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to couples wherein one or more partners is transgendered or asexual or hermaphroditic or having any number of physical or chromosomal anomalies that preclude reproduction—even if your religion disapproves.

It is how I see it. I see the government as raping the church of an ins***ution begun by it. Unless you can show otherwise...

You haven't offered anything except the imagery of violent sexual ***ault. You'd have to flesh out the metaphor a bit more before there's even anything to argue against.

And goes with it that more children will be helped by gay marriages when in fact, in reality, more children are hurt by it.

I'm afraid that reality does not agree with your perception of it.

You are speaking to a Mormon, remember..where the state came in and said that a marriage was between one man and one woman? Hence, the state does make it its right to define marriage. Or do you think that polygamists were being discriminated against as well?

You can throw in as many red herrings as you like. The fact remains that there are 1000+ rights and benefits under federal law that are automatically given to opposite-sex couples that are denied to same-sex couples.

And people are welcome to go where the laws comform to what they want in a society.

I'm afraid that's not how Cons***utional Republics work. You can't deny civil rights to a minority in one jurisdiction on the grounds that They Could Just Move.

It did not start as a "civil arrangement"--it started as a religious arrangement.

You have yet to establish that.

The rights came as laws to protect women and the offspring that may occur from a marriage.

Yes, the rights are beneficial to men, women and children. There is not, and never has been, a requirement that a couple reproduce naturally for their marriage to be authentic.

I do not disagree with "civil unions" in which gay couples can have those same protections.

That's good. Many of your co-religionists are still fighting that battle.

However, "separate but equal" has been ruled uncons***utional, so I don't believe that it will ultimately stand.

Again, you are personally free to regard a same-sex married couple as not-really-married, or civil-unioned, or whatever you'd like to think about when you think about them. It's just that your opinion on the matter is an insufficient basis for civil law.

Actually, the congress can undo the courts by creating a law.

Congress can check the power of the Supreme Court through the process of Cons***utional Amendment. While the Supreme Court can rule that a particular law is uncons***utional, it cannot rule that the Cons***ution itself is uncons***utional. If the Congress (and 3/4 of the state legislatures) approve a cons***utional amendment, it becomes the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court cannot overrule the Cons***ution.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_C...#ixzz1jaV9pl8J

Even the Supreme Court has a check and a balance.

Indeed, and ultimately that's what you would need in order to codify marriage discrimination in U.S. law—a 3/4 majority in the Congress to overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, which guarantee that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Have fun with that. And have fun telling yourself that you're "pro-Cons***ution" while actively working to overturn it.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by asdf

That's nice. Thankfully, one needs more than a "feeling" to establish civil law in a Cons***utional Republic.

Yes, which is why I don't agree that ****sexual couples can "feel" that their marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage and therefore claim it is a a right. I gave you research which shows that they are not the same and for many reasons.

So "mother" = "religion"?

No, offspring...which is why years ago, you weren't really considered "married" until it was consumated.

In any case, you're obviously reading what you want to read. Your source did not say that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother — it said that the word "matrimony" is derived from the word mother.

In which "marriage" is derived.

You're mistaken.

The government allows equal access to marriage to infertile couples, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to elderly couples (i.e., couples where the woman is post-menopausal), even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to intentionally childless couples, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to couples wherein one or more partners has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to couples wherein one or more partners is transgendered or asexual or hermaphroditic or having any number of physical or chromosomal anomalies that preclude reproduction—even if your religion disapproves.

Exceptions to the rule do not make the rule. Infertile couples may not stay infertile. Vasectomies can be reversed. The fact of the matter is, the rule (not the exception) of marriage is that offspring are a very distinct possibility. In fact, I think we could say statistically that married couples are 92% more likely to have children than a ****sexual couple (based on infertility rates). Which means that if a heterosexual couple gets married, their chances of having a child is 92% while the ****sexual couple is 0%.

I'm afraid that reality does not agree with your perception of it.

The reality in M***. is that more children were harmed by not receiving adoption services than were benefited by gay marriage---if that is your argument.

You can throw in as many red herrings as you like. The fact remains that there are 1000+ rights and benefits under federal law that are automatically given to opposite-sex couples that are denied to same-sex couples.

Easily solved by a "civil union."

I'm afraid that's not how Cons***utional Republics work. You can't deny civil rights to a minority in one jurisdiction on the grounds that They Could Just Move.

First it has to be established that it is a civil right. As noted, this is a behavioral issue. If we argue that a behavior is a civil right, then we could argue that a lot of behaviors that society does not like are a civil right.

You have yet to establish that.

Show me something older than the Bible that establishes relationships called "marriage" and we shall talk. I showed you my proof that marriage came from religion...show me your proof that it does not.

Yes, the rights are beneficial to men, women and children. There is not, and never has been, a requirement that a couple reproduce naturally for their marriage to be authentic.

Yes, there actually has been a requirement in past ages for a marriage to reproduce to be considered authentic...or at least attempt to reproduce....this is why someone can get their marriage annulled if it has never been consumated.

That's good. Many of your co-religionists are still fighting that battle.

However, "separate but equal" has been ruled uncons***utional, so I don't believe that it will ultimately stand.

Again, you are personally free to regard a same-sex married couple as not-really-married, or civil-unioned, or whatever you'd like to think about when you think about them. It's just that your opinion on the matter is an insufficient basis for civil law.

And so is your opinion an "insufficient basis for civil law." I showed you the research regarding the differences in ****sexual relationships to heterosexual relationships. I see a huge difference in these relationships. In fact, if a man or woman can see a difference when choosing a partner, then we as society should not be condemned for seeing a difference as well. If they do not see a difference when choosing a partner, then there is no reason to call themselves ****sexual.

Indeed, and ultimately that's what you would need in order to codify marriage discrimination in U.S. law—a 3/4 majority in the Congress to overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, which guarantee that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Have fun with that. And have fun telling yourself that you're "pro-Cons***ution" while actively working to overturn it.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the "law" is what is established by the cons***ution rather than thinking it comes out of thin air as you seem to keep arguing.

P.S. I noticed you skipped over the idea that the state has already defined marriage between one man and one woman when it came to polygamy. Are you now going to argue that polygamy is a "right" as well?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, which is why I don't agree that ****sexual couples can "feel" that their marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage and therefore claim it is a a right.

I agree. Marriage equality should not be based on feelings, but on objective reality.

I gave you research which shows that they are not the same and for many reasons.

You gave me propaganda from a religious website that disagrees with the scientific consensus.

No, offspring...

Wait, what? Now "offspring" = "religion"?

I think you've totally lost the plot. You were trying to substantiate your claim that marriage is rooted in religion. So far you've established that one of the English words derived from a compound Latin word involving "mother".

which is why years ago, you weren't really considered "married" until it was consumated.

Consummation ≠ childbearing. Your argument is all over the place.

In which "marriage" is derived.

That's not what your source says. Your source said that "marriage" comes from the Latin marītāre, and "matrimony" derives from the Latin mātrimōnium.

Exceptions to the rule do not make the rule.

They're not exceptions to any rule. They're examples that demonstrate that the rule doesn't exist.

Infertile couples may not stay infertile.

Vasectomies can be reversed.

And hysterectomies?

The fact of the matter is, the rule (not the exception) of marriage is that offspring are a very distinct possibility. In fact, I think we could say statistically that married couples are 92% more likely to have children than a ****sexual couple (based on infertility rates). Which means that if a heterosexual couple gets married, their chances of having a child is 92% while the ****sexual couple is 0%.

That's really not how statistics work. And it's all beside the point, because the government has no interest in whether a couple has children or not.

The reality in M***. is that more children were harmed by not receiving adoption services than were benefited by gay marriage---if that is your argument.

What? Children are harmed because they're not being placed in homes with stable, loving parents—because the Catholic Charities decided that discriminating against same-sex couples is more important than providing homes for children.

Easily solved by a "civil union."

Separate is (still) not equal.

But if you accept the premise (of the reality of the 1000+ rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under federal law), why are you not working to make these "civil unions" happen?

First it has to be established that it is a civil right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly established that marriage is a civil right. The U.S. is also a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family".

As noted, this is a behavioral issue.

You have "noted", but you have not established, that attractional orientation is a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, in reality, ****sexuality remains neither more nor less a behavioral issue than heterosexuality.

Show me something older than the Bible that establishes relationships called "marriage" and we shall talk. I showed you my proof that marriage came from religion...show me your proof that it does not.

You did nothing of the sort. You showed me that one of the English words for marriage ("matrimony") has Latin roots in a word for "mother". Not a word about religion was provided, as "proof" or otherwise.

This (still) remains your claim, your responsibility to support.

Yes, there actually has been a requirement in past ages for a marriage to reproduce to be considered authentic...or at least attempt to reproduce....this is why someone can get their marriage annulled if it has never been consumated.

Consummation ≠ childbearing.

Yes, marriages have been annulled because of a couple's infertility. Are you arguing that that's a good thing?

And so is your opinion an "insufficient basis for civil law."

Indeed. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, on the other hand, are excellent bases on which to establish civil law.

I showed you the research regarding the differences in ****sexual relationships to heterosexual relationships.

No, not really.

I see a huge difference in these relationships.

Correction: you imagine a huge difference in these relationships.

Do you know any same-sex couples?

In fact, if a man or woman can see a difference when choosing a partner, then we as society should not be condemned for seeing a difference as well. If they do not see a difference when choosing a partner, then there is no reason to call themselves ****sexual.

That's...utterly inane. If you can tell the difference between men and women, you're not gay. I don't even know where to start.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the "law" is what is established by the cons***ution rather than thinking it comes out of thin air as you seem to keep arguing.

If you'd been reading my words, rather than projecting onto me whatever it is you imagine, you might have noticed that my argument from the very beginning has been based in civil law, as established by We The People, in Cons***utional Republic of the U.S. of A.

P.S. I noticed you skipped over the idea that the state has already defined marriage between one man and one woman when it came to polygamy. Are you now going to argue that polygamy is a "right" as well?

It's a red herring, and I'm not biting.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by asdf

I agree. Marriage equality should not be based on feelings, but on objective reality.

And objective reality says that a relationship between two men or two women is not the same as the relationship between a man and a woman....that should be obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of human anatomy.

You gave me propaganda from a religious website that disagrees with the scientific consensus.

You have never provided your "scientific consensus" but the web-site I gave you had a very well researched document. It appears to me that you ignore research if it is not done by someone who does not have your bias.

Wait, what? Now "offspring" = "religion"?

And to be a "mother" you must have offspring...hence the root word of "marriage" is derived from the acknowledgement of offspring.

I think you've totally lost the plot. You were trying to substantiate your claim that marriage is rooted in religion. So far you've established that one of the English words derived from a compound Latin word involving "mother".

No, now I give you two examples of how it comes to be---one is that we can see it is found in religious texts and it is through religion that those in this country deemed "marriage' worthwhile to society and we can also see that "marriage" implies having offspring. This is a Biblical notion as well.

Consummation ≠ childbearing. Your argument is all over the place.

Where are you coming fomr---consummation creates children....or do you think they come into the world by some other means?

That's not what your source says. Your source said that "marriage" comes from the Latin marītāre, and "matrimony" derives from the Latin mātrimōnium.

Which is derived from the word mother---hence, implied in marriage is to have offspring.

They're not exceptions to any rule. They're examples that demonstrate that the rule doesn't exist.

Nope, the fact that not all couples will have children is an exception to the rule.....unless you think children come by some other means that a man and a woman.

That's really not how statistics work. And it's all beside the point, because the government has no interest in whether a couple has children or not.

Actually---it very much is concerned with whether a couple has children or not. That is why stats are kept on such things. In fact, if a nation does not have children, then it better start immigrating people as their government will fail...that is a proven fact. So, marriage is the ins***ution in which a society best sees to protecting its future generations.

What? Children are harmed because they're not being placed in homes with stable, loving parents—because the Catholic Charities decided that discriminating against same-sex couples is more important than providing homes for children.

Because less children are being serviced by Catholic charities adoption services and hence, more children are being harmed rather than helped by gay marriage. What---is now your argument going to also state that those who provide services must be forced to give up their civil liberties on how they provide services?

Separate is (still) not equal.

Skin color and behavior are two different things. This argument is silly. If behavior could all be determined as equal, that opens a whole slippery slope of what behaviors should be considered equal.

But if you accept the premise (of the reality of the 1000+ rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under federal law), why are you not working to make these "civil unions" happen?

I leave that up to those who want the rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly established that marriage is a civil right. The U.S. is also a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family".

The U.S. Supreme Court, also in the case of polygamy, determined it had the right to define what marriage was.

You have "noted", but you have not established, that attractional orientation is a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, in reality, ****sexuality remains neither more nor less a behavioral issue than heterosexuality.

Yes, hetersexuality is also a behavior. Marriage is an ins***ution that defines how society looks on that behavior and the possible ramifications (offspring) and what would be best boundaries for that behavior.

You did nothing of the sort. You showed me that one of the English words for marriage ("matrimony") has Latin roots in a word for "mother". Not a word about religion was provided, as "proof" or otherwise.

I give you the Bible as my proof that marriage is a religous ins***ution first and foremost. Please provide an older document that states otherwise if you think you have proof that marriage is not a religious ins***ution first and foremost.

Consummation ≠ childbearing.

Yes, marriages have been annulled because of a couple's infertility. Are you arguing that that's a good thing?

The fact that a marriage can be annuled for infertility or is never consummated shows that marraige is more than just what happens at a wedding. Marriage is for the protection of offspring. That becomes obvious when you see how the law surrounding marriage has always worked. The fact that you would ask me if this is a "good" thing makes me realize that your views of marriage are not congruent with why the laws of have been created in the first place. This is not whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but merely to acknowledge that marriage is for the protection of offspring---and if there no possibility of offspring or consumation of the marriage; then society do not look at is as a "marriage" and thus they can get the marraige annulled rather than a divorce.

Correction: you imagine a huge difference in these relationships.

Do you know any same-sex couples?

Yes, many---and well. Their relationships are not the same.

That's...utterly inane. If you can tell the difference between men and women, you're not gay. I don't even know where to start.

I am saying that if I gay person can tell the difference between a man and a woman when choosing a partner, we also can see a difference. It is wrong on one hand for them to say--I am gay because I see a difference and prefer the difference and on the other hand ask us to not see the difference that are the very criteria for their choice.

It's a red herring, and I'm not biting.

It is not a red-herring. This issue has been brought up before...does the state have the right to determine what is a "marriage" based on what they think is best for society. In the case of polygamy--it was decided. Now, you want to argue that there are basic fundamental rights that all humans have regarding marriage. If gays or lesbians think they have this right, then why not polygamists? That is a very real and pertinent question. The state decided against the civil liberties before of adults choosing for themselves how to define marriage---why do you think they should not decide in the case of gay marriage, but should in the case of polygamists marriages?

[Libby]

And objective reality says that a relationship between two men or two women is not the same as the relationship between a man and a woman....that should be obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of human anatomy.

I'm not going to get into a big debate about this, but I did want to make a couple of comments here.

People who are same sex attracted, actually, have exactly the same kinds of relationships that heteros do. They love someone, they commit to one another, they live their lives together and often even raise children together. No differences of any consequence, whatsoever. Not that I want to go into details, but they even enjoy sex in many of the same ways that heteros do. There is no observable differences in their relationships, as compared to heterosexual relationships, at all.

[Libby]

This is kind of a hot ****on issue for me (which is why I don't like discussing it with friends who differ, cause it makes me crazy!...) but, I have to say, the churches (not just LDS, but any who insert themselves in this issue) do so much harm, IMO.

****sexuality is not a sin, nor is it a "challenge", as so many like to try and present it. It is a natural way of being, put into nature, by God, himself, as a variation, an anomaly that God intended..and it is a test, not for the same sex attracted, but for those of us who are NOT. We have failed this test, to date, but I am hopeful that things are getting better (they ARE getting better) and we will someday all be enlightened on this topic, as most of us have become on race.

[BigJulie]

Libby---you are being mislead by the media and are not paying attention to the facts. Read the article I put on here as to the research behind same sex couples.

I will just give you one example---the human body is not made for ****sexual sex and between men, this means a mul***ude of diseases (and I am not speaking of AIDS). The body is not meant to be used in certain ways or it causes problems.

Another example, I have a good friend who is gay. She was trying to get into a university and asked me to read her life story. Can I say that she became both the victim and the perpetrator in her lesbian relationship. My way of helping her was to help her write out some of the obvious mental health issues she was having from her essay.

If you get to know someone one a very personal level who is gay, you will find that the research holds..you will recognize it. For me, this is not a religious issue as much as a society issue---what I think is best for children.

A gay couple, by its very nature, says that one of the biological parents are missing. Men and women are not the same...we have many differences both physically as well as emotionally. Children need both a man and a woman to raise them--and it is best if it is their biological parents. We see what happens to children who are the product of the desegration of marriage.

Read a book called "Gender Matters" by Leonard Sax, Ph.D., M.D.---note how many differences there are in men and women.

An interesting study about ****sexuality in men notes that ****sexual men do not have less testosterone, but more. This in and of itself has many implications.

[Libby]

Julie, I have read that kind of "research" (many years ago). It is nothing but right wing propaganda.

I have two relatives who are same sex attracted, plus one friend. I've been around them all of my life, so I know their lifestyles and that of some of their friends, very well. Their lives are not any different from ours, except they have suffered a lot more discrimination.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Julie, I have read that kind of "research" (many years ago). It is nothing but right wing propaganda.

I have two relatives who are same sex attracted, plus one friend. I've been around them all of my life, so I know their lifestyles and that of some of their friends, very well. Their lives are not any different from ours, except they have suffered a lot more discrimination.

This is why I gave the long list of the research references---they are not right wing propaganda as you suggest.

You know, years ago, a show came out about Brady bunch---it showed such a happy family who were the joining of two families---it all looked so good.

But the realities are much different. After years of research, it is found that children are not a resiliant as once hoped and the scars of divorce last a life-time. Trust issues, bonding issues---all of these are being manifest in our society.

So, you say you know your friends well. I don't think that is enough to undo the research. I agree that there is discrimination as far as how people treat people who are gay. That is not right. But to say that a union between a gay couple is the same as a straight couple is also not right. There are differences, the ability to procreate being the chief difference.

[Libby]

I agree that there is discrimination as far as how people treat people who are gay.

Yes, and that discrimination is, most unfortunately, based on religious views. People are seriously starting to rethink this issue (as they should), because it is being shown to be very harmful to people who are born same sex attracted.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, and that discrimination is, most unfortunately, based on religious views. People are seriously starting to rethink this issue (as they should), because it is being shown to be very harmful to people who are born same sex attracted.

Actually Libby---you do realize that a lot of things are genetic...alcoholism, many many types of mental health issues, many addictions (which is why we call them a disease), etc.

As I would never feel it is right to treat anyone badly with anyone type of problem, I would also not consider it right to treat someone who is ****sexual badly. That said, I would lie to them if I said that their ****sexuality will not lead to life long problems such as disease; the inability to have children in that relationship, etc. To me, this is not being prejudice, this is being realistic. I wish you would read the article I posted. It is an eye opener and my husband who was a therapist for years said that he has never experienced otherwise. He said the dirty little secret that every therapist knows that that ****sexuality does not lead to happiness and carries with it a myriad of problems. So, they ignore the ****sexuality and try their best to help them with all the problems that correlate with the behavior.

Now, lest you think that our countries cause problems by not accepting ****sexuality, many studies have been done in the Netherlands where ****sexuality is accepted.

And you know what is never discussed--****sexuality in prisons and in war torn countries where ****sexuality is not an expression of love, but of power.

[Libby]

Julie, heterosexuality doesn't, necessarily, lead to "happiness", either. I have known tons of heterosexuals who were very unhappily married, whose lives and the lives are their children were terribly dysfunctional....and why? Not because they are heterosexual, but because of choices those individuals made, within those relationships. I have heard of husbands bringing home AIDS and other sexual diseases to their spouses, physical and mental abuse, all kinds of problems, which is why the divorce rate stands at about 50/50. And, these problems can happen to anyone...religious, non-religious, hetero or other. Bad relationships and sexual disease are not, at all, caused by sexual orientation (and yes I have heard all the nonsense about more disease in the ****sexual group, which is nothing but propaganda, to make people feel better about discriminating against these people).

There are plenty of same sex couples who have perfectly normal "lifestyles", just like you and me. They work, raise kids, pay the bills and do the best they can, with what they've got, just like the rest of us.

Promiscuity causes disease, not sexual orientation.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Julie, heterosexuality doesn't, necessarily, lead to "happiness", either. I have known tons of heterosexuals who were very unhappily married, whose lives and the lives are their children were terribly dysfunctional....and why? Not because they are heterosexual, but because of choices those individuals made, within those relationships. I have heard of husbands bringing home AIDS and other sexual diseases to their spouses, physical and mental abuse, all kinds of problems, which is why the divorce rate stands at about 50/50. And, these problems can happen to anyone...religious, non-religious, hetero or other. Bad relationships and sexual disease are not, at all, caused by sexual orientation (and yes I have heard all the nonsense about more disease in the ****sexual group, which is nothing but propaganda, to make people feel better about discriminating against these people).

There are plenty of same sex couples who have perfectly normal "lifestyles", just like you and me. They work, raise kids, pay the bills and do the best they can, with what they've got, just like the rest of us.

Promiscuity causes disease, not sexual orientation.

Yes, it is sad that we have desecrated marriage to the point we have---but to me, that is not reason to ignore the ideal and what we are hoping for in marriage. The desecration of marriage has lead to many many problems for our society. To call ****sexual unions "marriage" is just one more nail in the coffin.

I feel bad that you think the discussion of "diseases" is just propganda. I can ***ure you, it is not. Fecal matter and sexuality do not mix and cause many problems with the bowels and otherwise. I wish you would read the article----it is very well researched and backed.

That said, how do you feel about polygamy? If you feel ****sexual marriage is a right, do you feel polygamy is as well?

P.S. The largest number of polygamists in the U.S. are not Mormon. According to studies, it is Islams who are the greatest practicer of polygamy in the U.S. as it is part of the religoin to this day.

[Libby]

Did you know that a large number of heterosexual couples have **** sex? And, that, a large number of ****sexual males..do not? Whether the stats are correct or not (and I doubt it), doesn't make ****sexuality right or wrong. It is just something for people to use as a club...seriously.

As for polygamy, I think it should be legal, as long as the partners are of consenting age. My problem with Joseph's polygamy had to do with the age of some of the girls he took to wife, and that he married already married women. Otherwise, I honestly would not have had a problem with it.

[Libby]

Prop. 8 overturned in California, court says State can’t ban gay marriage

celebration after the August 2010 decision (AP/Jeff Chalu)

The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as uncons***utional the state's voter-p***ed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially recl***ify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The Court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Gay marriage will still not be allowed in the state, leaving time for Prop 8 defenders to challenge the decision.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Did you know that a large number of heterosexual couples have **** sex? And, that, a large number of ****sexual males..do not? Whether the stats are correct or not (and I doubt it), doesn't make ****sexuality right or wrong. It is just something for people to use as a club...seriously.

As for polygamy, I think it should be legal, as long as the partners are of consenting age. My problem with Joseph's polygamy had to do with the age of some of the girls he took to wife, and that he married already married women. Otherwise, I honestly would not have had a problem with it.

While there may be some heterosexual couples that have **** sex and some ****sexual couples that don't--clearly, the largest group that does is ****sexual men. This is why I believe that when I went to a conference in a largely ****sexual area, all of the tables were covered with a pamplet discussing hepa***is and other diseases and the pamplet was obviously aimed at ****sexual men...had picture of two men half dressed on the front...

So, the exceptions, in my mind, should not make the rule. That said, I still wish you would read a book called "Gender Matters' by Leonard Sax Ph.D, M.D. The book is not about ****sexuality, marriage or anything of that sort. It just a book that discusses in depth the differences found between men and women.

I still strongly believe that as it takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world, the child is best raised by a mother and a father (as they are different). If a ****sexual couple wants children, by definition, the child is at least out of one of their biological parents. And I research shows that men and women are different enough that children benefit from both. Nature deems this as well.

It is interesting how you feel about polygamy. I wonder if this will open the door to openly polygamous relationships in which the state will need to recognize multiple mothers for welfare rights, rights to the estate, etc. I wonder how taxes would be figured out--child custody, etc.

[Libby]

Julie, the disease aspect, even if all of what you believe is true, is not a reason to declare ****sexuality "sinful" and most especially not a reason to declare marriage between two people, of the same sex, illegal.

Marriage between two people is about love and commitment. Studies have always shown that there is no significant difference between children raised with same sex parents and children raised with opposite sex parents. Both can have warm, nurturing families...or any number of problems, depending on individuals.

It's really time for America to stop discriminating against those who are same sex attracted. As was outlined in this latest court ruling, there is no good reason to deny rights to this cl*** of people. It is time to stop making them second cl*** citizens by trampling their rights, and start treating them, as we or anyone would want to be treated.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Julie, the disease aspect, even if all of what you believe is true, is not a reason to declare ****sexuality "sinful" and most especially not a reason to declare marriage between two people, of the same sex, illegal.

Marriage between two people is about love and commitment. Studies have always shown that there is no significant difference between children raised with same sex parents and children raised with opposite sex parents. Both can have warm, nurturing families...or any number of problems, depending on individuals.

It's really time for America to stop discriminating against those who are same sex attracted. As was outlined in this latest court ruling, there is no good reason to deny rights to this cl*** of people. It is time to stop making them second cl*** citizens by trampling their rights, and start treating them, as we or anyone would want to be treated.

I disagree that there is no difference in raising a child in a same sex relationship and one in a heterosexual relationship.

I personally find it arrogant for two women to say that a child does not need a father or two men to say a child does not need a mother.

To say that marriage is between a man and a woman is not descrimination, it is merely practical to recognize a difference for which even ****sexuals use gender as a qualification in what is attractive or not. How is it that they can claim to recognize a difference when choosing a mate, but then ask us to be blind when determining if that relationship is different based on the SAME qualifications they use when choosing a mate.

[Libby]

Well, there are all kinds of nurturing families that do not have your typical one mother, one father makeup, and the kids turn out great. It's not arrogant, if the person you love is same sex...that's just the way it is. It's not like they purposely set up that scenario and arrogantly proclaim there is no need for a mother or father. It just happens, and it is not bad for kids. Some really great kids have come out of same sex families. And some really awful kids have come out of hetero families (quite often, it seems).

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, there are all kinds of nurturing families that do not have your typical one mother, one father makeup, and the kids turn out great. It's not arrogant, if the person you love is same sex...that's just the way it is. It's not like they purposely set up that scenario and arrogantly proclaim there is no need for a mother or father. It just happens, and it is not bad for kids. Some really great kids have come out of same sex families. And some really awful kids have come out of hetero families (quite often, it seems).

Yes, I am sure there are all types of families where the children turn out great...but we need to look at what is best for children. For example, if you look at the "lost boys of Sudan"--they were ripped from their families, forced to travel by foot in horrific situations, thousands died, suffered from starvation, etc. Yet, in spite of all of this, there are some who came to America and there is one who graduated from college with his degree in Economics. Would I use him as an example that it is okay to raise children in war-torn countries, rip them from their parents, keep them near starvation and with little education because "some of them turned out great"?

I am old enough to have seen so many studies over the years. When it comes to traditional families--there has been "discrimination" going on for years. First there was the argument that if you lived with someone first, you could see if you were "compatible" or not. All the studies at the time were this, in the short-term, seemed like a good idea. Those who were against it were seen as freakishly old-fashioned, etc. Well, years later and now the studies are out that living together first increases a couple's rate of divorce. Does this mean that every couple who lived together are going to get divorced? No. Could I find one example of a great couple? I am sure I could.

Do you remember Candice Bergman (sp?) having a child with no known father? A sperm donor? Remember how that raised eye-brows and out come the same arguments. Why can't a single mother raise a perfectly happy child. Examples come out and studies backing this...and then, low and behold...so many woman follow suit and they don't need a man to raise a child. Forward this to many years later and more studies done. It turns out that a child does need a father...not just for sons, but for daughters as well. It turns out the father-child relationship is important to the growth and well-being of the child.

Do you remember the Brady Bunch? Remember the idea that divorced families could bring families together, join them--and do just fine. It was idealized on T.V. How many people got divorced and remarried thinking they could find some type of happiness in a new marriage. The studies at the time said that kids were resilient to divorce. I am sure we could even find examples of kids from divorced and remarried families who were doing great. Anyway, the years go by and more extensive studies are done and what are the findings? That divorce has long-term damaging effects on children.

What about the stats on adoption? Statistically, kids have a harder time when they are adopted. That is just the stats.

So, now here we are with the idea of gay marriage. Marriage--years ago, stopped being about the protection of children (and women who bear the children) and has become about "love, companionship, etc." People bounce in and out of relationships. The kids are just a by-product of this "love" in some instances.

Ask any school teacher the effects of these kids being the by-product of love rather than the cause of marriage. So, now I listen and hear the argument that two men can do as good of a *** raising a child or two women can. I am just waiting for the data to come out years from now---as it always has, that children really do best with a mother and father who--by nature, are not the same.

[Libby]

I bet I am way older than you!

Yes, studies come and go, and they are often biased, including the ones that favor the mother/father dynamic.

In this day and age we are seeing so many different family make ups, that I think it will be shown that all are viable ways of raising children (and not just the exceptions).

War, of course, will always be a terrible thing for children...but, not at all comparable to gay marriage...my goodness.

I'm sure we could argue this until the cows come home, but will probably be pointless, as I think we each hold strong opinions on this subject. It's not one of my favorites to argue with friends. It is a very sensitive subject.

The world is changing on this issue, though, and I am very glad to see it. So much harm has been done to people (and kids!) who are same sex attracted, it makes me beyond sad to think about it. I pray that things will continue to improve and they will not bear the stigma that has been imposed on them in the past.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

I bet I am way older than you!

Yes, studies come and go, and they are often biased, including the ones that favor the mother/father dynamic.

In this day and age we are seeing so many different family make ups, that I think it will be shown that all are viable ways of raising children (and not just the exceptions).

War, of course, will always be a terrible thing for children...but, not at all comparable to gay marriage...my goodness.

I'm sure we could argue this until the cows come home, but will probably be pointless, as I think we each hold strong opinions on this subject. It's not one of my favorites to argue with friends. It is a very sensitive subject.

The world is changing on this issue, though, and I am very glad to see it. So much harm has been done to people (and kids!) who are same sex attracted, it makes me beyond sad to think about it. I pray that things will continue to improve and they will not bear the stigma that has been imposed on them in the past.

I think the thing that we do agree on strongly is the way we treat people, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. While I do believe that marriage is for the protection of children, and I understand that on this point we disagree, I believe strongly in treating all with love and respect. I considered it an honor when a gay friend asked me to read his life essay that she wrote to get into a masters program and wanted my opinion. Regardless if somone knows my position on marriage, they should never question my love and concern for them as a person.

I think on this point, we agree.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I think the thing that we do agree on strongly is the way we treat people, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. While I do believe that marriage is for the protection of children, and I understand that on this point we disagree, I believe strongly in treating all with love and respect. I considered it an honor when a gay friend asked me to read his life essay that she wrote to get into a masters program and wanted my opinion. Regardless if somone knows my position on marriage, they should never question my love and concern for them as a person.

I think on this point, we agree.

Yes, we can certainly agree on that, Julie, that all people, regardless of orientation or any other aspect of their physical or spiritual makeup, deserve to be treated with respect.

And, I do not disagree that marriage is, at least in part, for the protection of children. That is just another good reason it should be extended to same-sex partners, many of whom have children. Why should they be considered second cl*** citizens? I saw a YouTube on this, just recently, as a matter of fact...kids of gay parents talking about how they felt like second cl*** citizens, different or less, because their parents couldn't marry. That's wrong, IMO.

But, I've said enough, already. I think I started out saying I didn't want to get deeply into this!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, we can certainly agree on that, Julie, that all people, regardless of orientation or any other aspect of their physical or spiritual makeup, deserve to be treated with respect.

And, I do not disagree that marriage is, at least in part, for the protection of children. That is just another good reason it should be extended to same-sex partners, many of whom have children. Why should they be considered second cl*** citizens? I saw a YouTube on this, just recently, as a matter of fact...kids of gay parents talking about how they felt like second cl*** citizens, different or less, because their parents couldn't marry. That's wrong, IMO.

But, I've said enough, already. I think I started out saying I didn't want to get deeply into this!

A child shouldn't feel like a second cl*** citizen...but a child should also have a mother and a father...as that is what it takes to have a child. I try to picture, who is not important in the equation? The mother? The father? Which one would you say was not important to your upbringing? Your mom? Your dad? What is the difference between a male role model and a female role model? Shouldn't a child have both?

[Libby]

I think every child should have loving parents, no matter the gender....or loving grandparents or whatever adults in their life, who really care about them and love them.