Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

[Smokey]

My modo is live and let live. But giving out full benefits of marriage and licences to gay couple might be where I might draw the line.

IMO, the institution of marriage is there not for uniting of a man and woman, but rather marriage is there to protect the children and create a suitable environment for them to grow and nourish. Gay couple can not create such an environment no matter how loving and affectionate they are.

I am all for civil union and partial benefits of marriage (such as joint taxation, inheritance, divorce procedures) awarded to gay couples, but not for giving out marriage license and recorded as such in the court house.

There should be a difference between marriage and civil unions not for the sake of couples that are getting married, but for the sake of children and family traditions as a whole

[shokhead]

The school district i work for supplies coverage for gay couples now for the last 2-3 years. I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs. I'm sure one doesnt have anything to do with the other.

[Smokey]

I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs.

So you are saying that school changed their policy because somebody is gay?

If that is the case, it is definitely a discrimination

[shokhead]

Because they have more people to use insurance and its costing the district more,others have been changed to crap company's to save money. I've even heard that i might start paying for mine now. I dont get a vote or am asked about it,just a letter that says,you've been changed and a new medical card will be mailed,end of story.

[Pat D]

The school district i work for supplies coverage for gay couples now for the last 2-3 years. I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs. I'm sure one doesnt have anything to do with the other.

Do you have any evidence that this is related to benefits due to homosexual partners? Just how much of an extra expense to the plan do you think this would be? Wouldn't they have to pay extra for family coverage, just as do heterosexual couples? Shouldn't that cover the quite minor extra expense?

[shokhead]

Beats me. I just know after the district said they would cover gay partners, mine changed. Maybe it had nothing to do with it but it all happened at the same time. Its not any different then the district wanting the non-teaching jobs at schools{not at the board building} to pay more into the general retirement fund then others. Suit and ties get 100% of there salary as retirement and i get around 70-75%. Ya see,suit and ties want to work less years and get more retirement but not pay and what better way then to have all the non-teaching jobs pay more and collect less. So they can work 20 years,be 50 and get 100% of there already inflated salary and i get to work until i'm 65,have 40 years in and get 70-75%. Somebody gets a good deal and theres nothing to stop them,i'm not union.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My modo is live and let live. But giving out full benefits of marriage and licences to gay couple might be where I might draw the line.

Being equal and fair to everyone in this country isn't popular with everyone. Everyone has their biases. If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.

IMO, the institution of marriage is there not for uniting of a man and woman, but rather marriage is there to protect the children and create a suitable environment for them to grow and nourish. Gay couple can not create such an environment no matter how loving and affectionate they are.

Smokey, straight couples are not perfect at either protecting children(we do have alot of unadopted children of abusive and drugged out straight parents) or providing a suitable environment. I for the first six years of my life was raised by an abusive mother and father. For the next 15 years I suffered mental torture at their hands as they even denied our existance to many folks, and wouldn't speak to us. My god-parents finally have to intervene to protect us from them. As many of my friends talk about their up bringing, I am discovering that none of them were in particularly healthy environments while growing up. Now adays, with 1-2 and 3 hour communtes, both parents working, and the mentality that drives folks to keep up with the Jonese, there is little or no time for creating any kind of environment, let alone one of nuturing and protection.

I am all for civil union and partial benefits of marriage (such as joint taxation, inheritance, divorce procedures) awarded to gay couples, but not for giving out marriage license and recorded as such in the court house.

If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women. If that is the case, then it should read liberty and justice for straight folks only. Fortunately is does not say that at all, and by right of the constitution we all should have equal rights.

There should be a difference between marriage and civil unions not for the sake of couples that are getting married, but for the sake of children and family traditions as a whole

Family traditions are just a buzz word now days. The traditional nuclear family never had working mothers. Now most all mothers are amoung the working. Traditional families are usually quite large, now a growing number of straight couples aren't even having children. Traditional families usually had Dad as the breadwinner. Nowadays the women can make more than the man. Things have changed quite a bit in this country. People need to stop looking at the stupid Pride parades as news clips as a way of judging the gay community. I have found as a straight male, gays are as diversified as people as straights are. They buy homes, live together a very long time, and are just as normal as you and I. Who they choose to sleep with should not be a gauge to how much equality they get in this country. Its a tough thing to evolve past our own biases and prejudices, and in this country, it is proving more difficult than any could imagine. If it isn't the black(and it still is) it will be the gays, but in this country we seem to have to find some group of people to deny rights too.

[shokhead]

Being equal and fair to everyone in this country isn't popular with everyone. Everyone has their biases. If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.




Smokey, straight couples are not perfect at either protecting children(we do have alot of unadopted children of abusive and drugged out straight parents) or providing a suitable environment. I for the first six years of my life was raised by an abusive mother and father. For the next 15 years I suffered mental torture at their hands as they even denied our existance to many folks, and wouldn't speak to us. My god-parents finally have to intervene to protect us from them. As many of my friends talk about their up bringing, I am discovering that none of them were in particularly healthy environments while growing up. Now adays, with 1-2 and 3 hour communtes, both parents working, and the mentality that drives folks to keep up with the Jonese, there is little or no time for creating any kind of environment, let alone one of nuturing and protection.



If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women. If that is the case, then it should read liberty and justice for straight folks only. Fortunately is does not say that at all, and by right of the constitution we all should have equal rights.



Family traditions are just a buzz word now days. The traditional nuclear family never had working mothers. Now most all mothers are amoung the working. Traditional families are usually quite large, now a growing number of straight couples aren't even having children. Traditional families usually had Dad as the breadwinner. Nowadays the women can make more than the man. Things have changed quite a bit in this country. People need to stop looking at the stupid Pride parades as news clips as a way of judging the gay community. I have found as a straight male, gays are as diversified as people as straights are. They buy homes, live together a very long time, and are just as normal as you and I. Who they choose to sleep with should not be a gauge to how much equality they get in this country. Its a tough thing to evolve past our own biases and prejudices, and in this country, it is proving more difficult than any could imagine. If it isn't the black(and it still is) it will be the gays, but in this country we seem to have to find some group of people to deny rights too.

Need to stop having the pride parades. So you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple,seeing the same sex hold hands,kiss and all that in the household and then out in the big world the straight way and i can see that kid confused. Things are'nt and wont be fair and equal in this country. How can it be? You've got so many differences wanting it there way. Men and women should be married and the same sex couples can have a civil union. You cant marry two male or female connections,you need a male and female. You try hooking up your HT with all male or female parts.

[Resident Loser]

...HT with all male or female parts"

Good one!

jimHJJ(...LMAO...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Need to stop having the pride parades. So you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple,seeing the same sex hold hands,kiss and all that in the household and then out in the big world the straight way and i can see that kid confused.

You are assuming that kids are not so bright. There are several gay couples with children in my neighborhood. From what I understand, the parents explain to their children that couples come in many forms now days. Some kids have two mothers, some two fathers, and some a mother and a father. Kids understand this quite well as evidenced by the gay couples children.

Things are'nt and wont be fair and equal in this country. How can it be? You've got so many differences wanting it there way.

When it is not fair and equal, everyone suffers. The blacks and hispanic are not treated equally in this country, and have suffered greatly for it, generations in the case of blacks. Is this right? No it is not, not in a country that states in its constitution that all men(meaning mankind) are created equal. If you do not support this by treating everyone equally, then the constitution is nothing more than a history document drawn up by a bunch of slave owning white men around a table.

Men and women should be married and the same sex couples can have a civil union. You cant marry two male or female connections,you need a male and female. You try hooking up your HT with all male or female parts.

Men and women are not HT components, so your analogy is a little off the mark. Men and women may have the right "connections" but they are piss poor at keeping the "components" connected together. I have said this before, I don't think gay couples give a rat's butt about the word marriage. I think they care about the equal rights more. If civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage, then it is unacceptable.

This country will never live up to its potential until it let's loose the notion that its people MUST discriminate, or things just won't be right.

[Pat D]

If civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage, then it is unacceptable.

You are quite right. And separate but equal simply will not work. Too many rights depend on marriage to be covered by civil unions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm

[Beckman]

What the heck does it matter if the government calls a Gay union a marriage or a union. It doesn't matter. Half of all marriages end in divorce anyway. The term marriage has no meaning anymore!

[Smokey]

If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women.

What about the rights of children?

We all talk about equal right for everybody, but meanwhile we denying children rights to a "normal" family environment. You said that kids are bright now day which I agree. But it might worth mentioning that kids are also very Impressionist at early age and they tend to copy their parents.
As Shokhead mentioned, how do you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple seeing the same sex hold hands, kiss and all that in the household, and then out in the big world the straight way and kid definitely become confused.

Beside we have to distinguish between Individual rights and rights to marriage benefits since the latter tend to involve children rights also

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What about the rights of children?

Smokey, there is no indication from anyone that the childrens rights are being violated just because they have same sex parents.

We all talk about equal right for everybody, but meanwhile we denying children rights to a "normal" family environment.

What is normal these days. Normal is whatever you adapt to. The concept of the nuclear family of the 50's and 60's is history. Kids are happy in a loving environment, not one defined by a television myth that never existed in real life. Kids learn to adapt to their evironment pretty easily whether it be an abusive one(they develope coping mechanisms) or loving ones with one supportive parent, two same sex parents, or a mother and father.

You said that kids are bright now day which I agree. But it might worth mentioning that kids are also very Impressionist at early age and they tend to copy their parents.

Smokey, don't tell me you think that kids from gay parents will turn gay when they grow up. That's nonsense. Either you are gay, or you are not. You cannot choose to be gay, it is a natural thing. Have any of us straights choose to be straight, or is that just what comes natural to us?

As Shokhead mentioned, how do you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple seeing the same sex hold hands, kiss and all that in the household, and then out in the big world the straight way and kid definitely become confused.

You do what EVERY parent should do. You teach your kids that parents NOW come in many forms. You teach them that little Joey's two dads love him just like you love your kids. You tell them that Joeys two dads love each other just like a mom and a dad love each other. You teach them to respect the people, not the sexual orientation. That is what I did with my boys, and I have raised three of the most open minded, accepting, and respectful boys myself based on this principle.

Beside we have to distinguish between Individual rights and rights to marriage benefits since the latter tend to involve children rights also

Rights to marriage benefits should have nothing to do with accounting for children. You don't marry just so you can have children, and you do not usually walk into marriages with a pre-made family(except in the case of divorce or child bearing before marriage). According to the latest statistics fewer and fewer married couples are even having children, a trend that has been going on for a little over a decade. Consider that people decide to get married to make a commitment to each other(just as gays would like to do) then there is no need to give straight couples(based on the sexual orientation) any more right than gays.

If you keep in mind that you are dealing with people and persons, and not sexual orientation, it should be a no brainer on how to make thing fair and equitable for everyone.

[bjornb17]

If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.

The last time i checked, everybody had the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. So it is equal rights

[JohnMichael]

The last time i checked, everybody had the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. So it is equal rights

That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

[davidb]

Sir Terrence, much as you might like to elevate yourself in your mind to some lofty perch where you can look down on those whose judgement is affected by bias, descrimination, and prejudice, judging by your writings in this thread you're right down with the rest of them/us. Go back and read your posts and see how many times you grouped all Europeans (past, present, and their descendants) so as to imply that any negative behaviors and actions perpetrated by anyone white are somehow damning of anyone who is in any way connected to the continent.

And the double standards abound! You claim that Europeans (i.e. white people) are unique in that they beleive themselves to be a master race, and that all other people and their needs should be subjugated to them. I can't think of ANY race that does not now, or has not at some point believed (and tried to assert) itself to be the master race or culture. European dominance is simply a bit closer to home.

One of your more rediculous assertions is the notion that Europeans have a UNIQUE predisposition to go around destroying other cultures. You back that up with the facts that other cultures didn't invade Europe. It may well be that they never attacked Europe, but does that change the facts that Japan has tried to stamp out both China and Korea, African nations and cultures frequently try to exterminate each other, and many (if not all) Muslim countries would collectively like to see Israel and all its inhabitants wiped out?

The fact is, historically speaking, every culture has had the desire to place itself atop the food chain, and has done so if they had the means to. The thing that , in the past, seperated the European nations was the fact that they had the ABILITY to dominate. The fact that they were predisposed to to desire to do so didn't make them any different from anybody else.
Furthermore, much as you may hate to admit it, the thing that makes us, in this modern age, historically unique is the fact that we have the means, but lack the desire, to dominate as we would see fit.

"Sorry, they were not forced at all, they relented under the pressure of more plagues, death and destruction."
Call me crazy, but I would say that giving in to a demand under extreme duress qualifies as being forced. If I wanted you to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and to facilitate this I proceeded to scare the crap out of you, attack your health and your food supply, and kill your firstborn son, and assured you that the hurt would only escalate until you caved, (and you KNEW there was nothing you or anyone else could do to stop me) and you finally voted as I wished, would you say that you had been forced, or that I had presented a very compelling argument? The Egyptians had the wrathful, biblical, smite-tastic equivalent of a gun to their heads. Their option was basically to let them go then and there, or have them leave of their own accord when they (Egyptians) were destroyed utterly by the holy wrath of God. Not forced at all?? How much more "forced" does it get?

Good discussion, btw, I'm pretty impressed with the debating abilities of both sides, but STT, you need to get off the whole "I'm only biased against people who descriminate" high horse. First of all, it's not true, and nobody expects it to be. Descrimination is not inherently evil, it is a tool that all possess and almost all misuse. Descrimination as a close synonym to "judgement", that is, not descrimination as all the various and sundry "isms". You can certainly descriminate without being a racist, sexist, whatever it is you're afraid of being. Don't take that personally , none of us want to be those things, but the fact is that we all suffer from it to some degree, so to try to convince people that you are speaking from such a moral high ground is nonproductive at best.

P.S. In advance, if this post didn' t really form a coherent thought or seemed like a personal attack, please remember that it's like 4:00 in the morning as I type. Cut me some slack!

[piece-it pete]

That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

John,

Marriage is by definition 1 man, 1 woman, so how can you be married? That's like me saying I want to be a woman, and not every man wants to be a man so it's not equal rights unless I am treated like one.

No I am not poking fun with that example, it's valid. We are discussing gender related issues.

I was going to let this go but imho decent folks like yourself (I assume ) are the strongest argument for gay "marriage". I'll let it go with this:

All issues you mentioned in your post are addressed through current legal vehicles; and

Loosening nuclear families has always historically been in the twilight of various civilizations. I don't know if it's a cause or symptom (though I suspect both). It doesn't matter, it needs to be fought vigorously - by you, too, because I'm not arguing to throw you in jail or out of the pale of society, and that in itself is a historical abberation - to protect fellow and future homosexuals from the historically regular state of persecution.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

...hey pete, I can't believe this ancient thread is still chugging along...thought I'd add some fuel to the fire just to keep it fresh...

jimHJJ(...'round and 'round she goes...you hetero sexist...)

[JohnMichael]

John,

Marriage is by definition 1 man, 1 woman, so how can you be married? That's like me saying I want to be a woman, and not every man wants to be a man so it's not equal rights unless I am treated like one.

No I am not poking fun with that example, it's valid. We are discussing gender related issues.

I was going to let this go but imho decent folks like yourself (I assume ) are the strongest argument for gay "marriage". I'll let it go with this:

All issues you mentioned in your post are addressed through current legal vehicles; and

Loosening nuclear families has always historically been in the twilight of various civilizations. I don't know if it's a cause or symptom (though I suspect both). It doesn't matter, it needs to be fought vigorously - by you, too, because I'm not arguing to throw you in jail or out of the pale of society, and that in itself is a historical abberation - to protect fellow and future homosexuals from the historically regular state of persecution.

Pete

First off definitions of words change. Marriage will one day mean two consenting adults who love and respect each other. As far as loosening the nuclear family that has already been done with high divorce rates. Look how many single parent homes there are in this country. The nuclear family is loose. The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling.

[shokhead]

That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

Not everything has to be or is equal.
The mutual relation of HUSBAND and WIFE.
MEN and WOMEN are joined.
Purpose of maintaining a family.

I have a saying. If you have to have a parade, then there's something wrong with being gay.

[GMichael]

I was originally against gay marriage. But as I read through this thread I changed my mind. Strangely though, it had nothing to do with anything anyone said FOR it. They didn't say anything I wasn't expecting. But after reading what the other people against it had to say, I started to realize how ridiculous I must have sounded.

[JohnMichael]

Not everything has to be or is equal.
The mutual relation of HUSBAND and WIFE.
MEN and WOMEN are joined.
Purpose of maintaining a family.

I have a saying. If you have to have a parade, then there's something wrong with being gay.

We have a parade for the same reason as the veterans and the Shriners. We are proud and want the community to know we are here. If you follow your logic about a man and a woman for maintaining family should every marriage that does not create children be disbanded. I am sorry no matter how much you love your wife you can not impregnate her so she will have to leave you and marry a man that can. Or if the wife can't get pregnant you will be given a different wife. As society becomes more enlightened we correct the wrongs of previous generations. We have learned the importance of equal rights and that everyone brings value to society. The ideas of people of color going to seperate schools or riding on the back of a bus or women not being able to vote seems abhorent to us now. And a little embarrassing. As more states and countries approve gay marriages another minority is achieving equal rights.

[Resident Loser]

...Sexual preference is not a "right" IMO...

If I as a male choose to live with two or three consenting women(harem?polygamy?), does that mean it should be recognized as a legitimate arrangement in some manner? Is my employer required to provide health benefits to my extended "family"? Should one of them be allowed to "pull the plug" if it comes down to that? Without any specific stipulation in a will, an estate will be divided among a "spouse" AND blood relatives i.e. parents...

Any homosexual relationship is just that...it requires no legal validation...why should it? Most likely both are employed and can fend for themselves...should they be allowed to file joint tax returns? Why should sexual proclivity be guaranteed anything whatsoever?

Two people who choose to live together(regardless of gender) are just that...it too requires no legal validation...Why should they be accorded the same rights and privileges as those who take it upon themselves to make what should be a lifelong commitment(divorce rates notwithstanding), who take the the biological responsibility to further the species(although a truncation of this line would seem to be more in order every day)?

You make a conscious choice to do what you do...you are aware of the benefits and pitfalls...

As far as the nuclear family is concerned...why are there less and less single breadwinner-type households? Because everyone wants everything right now! There is little or no self-restraint(fiscally or sexually)...everybody wants a cell-phone...or a second or third car(preferably a gas-guzzling behemoth of an SUV)...their idea of a home-cooked meal is a bag full of Colonel MacWendybelles...and it all costs $$$...so mom needs a job and the kids are over-indulged and consequently learn little about responsibility...and the purveyors of all things coveted, raise their prices due to market demand...and the wheel goes 'round and 'round and 'round...get my drift?

And finally, anyone who wishes to apply a 21st century mindset to the language of an 18th century document should do a little reading from a historical perespective..."men" for the most part were those who were land-owning adults...they had the right to vote, the right to govern, slaves were property and inventoried as such...and if there is a problem with slavery in general, I'd suggest we start with the neighboring tribes and villages who took captives, as slaves...sold or traded them to other tribes and eventually to the Portuguese who imported them into the New World, who in part established the "triangle trade" and the Spanish(who also subjugated the natives in like style) and the French and the English and three hundred or so years of precedent in the western hemisphere...not to mention the Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans...or perhaps more recently those who took slaves in eastern Europe and gave us the word "Slavic"...a long, proud history of humanity as a whole, not just a "bunch of slave owning white men around a table" as some would have us believe...

jimHJJ(...and people give Bill Cosby hell...)

[JeffKnob]

A big problem is that too many people are too ignorant to realize that being gay is not a choice. It is who they are. Gay people fall in love with who they are attracted to. How would a straight person feel if they were told they were supposed to be with someone of the same sex. We would be turned off because that is not who we are attracted to. As far as children growing up in same sex households, the children has just as much of chance of being gay as they do straight. Above all children need parents that care about them.

Gay people are different than you and I. Does that mean they are wrong? We are all God's children. The God I know love everyone. If you God doesn't love gay people too then I want nothing to do with your God.