Homosexual Living Together

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1109857' date='Nov 3 2006, 01:34 PM']
but does the nature of a civil union have to be sexual?

can't it just be material, I want these benefits for my best friend?
[/quote]


Well then we get into issues of discrimination. If we grant 'benefits' to gay couples, then we would have to grant 'benefits' to roommates too.

I mean, if two hetero guys share an apartment (like most college students) and one holds a job with benefits, it would be wrong to deny the roomie benefits just because they aren't gay.

So...where does it stop? If we start allowing the legal definition of a 'married couple' or a 'family' to morph into anything, in theory I could 'adopt', 'marry', 'whatever' all the children of the world to give them access to my medical, dental, insurance, and retirement benefits.

Of course, if this premise is carried too far, then the benefits providers either go bankrupt or charge so high for the benefits that nobody can afford them.

Let's just leave it as it is, the way God intended and created it: one man one woman for the purpose of a lifetime monogamous union with the intention of raising children.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1109994' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:06 PM']
Well then we get into issues of discrimination. If we grant 'benefits' to gay couples, then we would have to grant 'benefits' to roommates too.

I mean, if two hetero guys share an apartment (like most college students) and one holds a job with benefits, it would be wrong to deny the roomie benefits just because they aren't gay.

So...where does it stop? If we start allowing the legal definition of a 'married couple' or a 'family' to morph into anything, in theory I could 'adopt', 'marry', 'whatever' all the children of the world to give them access to my medical, dental, insurance, and retirement benefits.

Of course, if this premise is carried too far, then the benefits providers either go bankrupt or charge so high for the benefits that nobody can afford them.

Let's just leave it as it is, the way God intended and created it: one man one woman for the purpose of a lifetime monogamous union with the intention of raising children.
[/quote]

You don't think God intended all the millions of homosexual people He created? If you believe in a god that is.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='track2004' post='1109989' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:54 PM']
It doesn't have to be sexual, but people will assume it is if there is any hint of it. I'd love to have those benefits with my best friend if we don't end up having anyone else because I want to be able to look after him and him me. You get all the nice POA and medical benefits which is what it would be about for best friends, but that's not how the media (or govt really) is painting what they want it to be. If it was just stuff like that they'd have civil unions for any 2 people, now they are just marketing it to gays.
[/quote]

The minute its legal people should start suing for their roommates, an aging parent living with them, a brother or sister crashing on the couch cause they're out of work etc, anybody they want. If it passes lets take it to its logical conclusion.

[KizlarAgha]

Yet another reason I oppose civil unions. Marriage for all.

[track2004]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1110064' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:57 PM']
The minute its legal people should start suing for their roommates, an aging parent living with them, a brother or sister crashing on the couch cause they're out of work etc, anybody they want. If it passes lets take it to its logical conclusion.
[/quote]

But if it's as serious as POA and all the other stuff it and would then be hard to dissolve and, one would assume, you could only have the one with one other person I think people would take it more seriously than their slacker siblings. It's not like any pair of men or women are going to have to prove how gay they are to get one either, right, I mean all I have to prove before marrying a boy is that we're not cousins. Sure you could give your POA, et al. to anyone you want, but I wouldn't reccomend it...

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110080' date='Nov 3 2006, 05:02 PM']
Yet another reason I oppose civil unions. Marriage for all.
[/quote]
The reason the state recognizes marriages (as they have always been understood, between a man and a woman) is primarily, as Kosh pointed out, because of the issues concering raising a family. This (much as Kizlar may protest to the contrary) is the main purpose of marriage. It is not simply about two people sharing stuff legally , or simply an official recognition of people's lovey-dovey feelings for each other. (Much as marriage may have thus been debased in recent decades).

Screaming that this is unfair because it denies "rights" to homosexuals is just ridiculous. I am currently single, and enjoy no legal benefits of marriage. Yet I do not begrudge my married friends for having these benefits. A married couple has to raise children, and often one parent must stay home with the children while the other works.

If I decided to "go gay" and hook up with some other dude, the state would not owe me any kind of benefits I do not already have.

(And if you'll notice, hardly any single "straight" people are pressing for same-sex "marriage" or "civil unions" for themselves. The issue almost always involves homosexuality.)

There is no reason for anybody to have "marriages" or "civil unions" other than a man and a woman. This is true whether it is two people committing homosexual acts with one another, six straight guys sharing a house, or a mother and her grown daughter living together.

Inheritance and other legal matters can be arranged without marriage. The real reason homosexuals are demanding "gay marriage" is simply that they want to demand that society officially sanction their activity as being the same as aheterosexual, procreative union, which it can never be in reality.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1110348' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:42 PM']
The reason the state recognizes marriages (as they have always been understood, between a man and a woman) is primarily, as Kosh pointed out, because of the issues concering raising a family. This (much as Kizlar may protest to the contrary) is the main purpose of marriage. It is not simply about two people sharing stuff legally , or simply an official recognition of people's lovey-dovey feelings for each other. (Much as marriage may have thus been debased in recent decades).

Screaming that this is unfair because it denies "rights" to homosexuals is just ridiculous. I am currently single, and enjoy no legal benefits of marriage. Yet I do not begrudge my married friends for having these benefits. A married couple has to raise children, and often one parent must stay home with the children while the other works.

If I decided to "go gay" and hook up with some other dude, the state would not owe me any kind of benefits I do not already have.

(And if you'll notice, hardly any single "straight" people are pressing for same-sex "marriage" or "civil unions" for themselves. The issue almost always involves homosexuality.)

There is no reason for anybody to have "marriages" or "civil unions" other than a man and a woman. This is true whether it is two people committing homosexual acts with one another, six straight guys sharing a house, or a mother and her grown daughter living together.

Inheritance and other legal matters can be arranged without marriage. The real reason homosexuals are demanding "gay marriage" is simply that they want to demand that society officially sanction their activity as being the same as aheterosexual, procreative union, which it can never be in reality.
[/quote]

I guess it's a fair point that many of the benefits of marriage can be settled by power of attorney. I wonder how many homosexuals are widely aware of that. At any rate, gay people can adopt children in any state except Florida. In those cases, the benefits of marriage should apply as they then would have a family, right?

[mariahLVzJP2]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1109999' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:09 PM']
You don't think God intended all the millions of homosexual people He created? If you believe in a god that is.
[/quote]
to marry....um no.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='mariahLVzJP2' post='1110351' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:47 PM']
to marry....um no.
[/quote]

What does it hurt?

[mariahLVzJP2]

what do you mean?

God did create MAN and WOMAN...and they can procreate

Edited November 4, 2006 by mariahLVzJP2

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='mariahLVzJP2' post='1110356' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:51 PM']
what do you mean?
[/quote]

What harm does it do for homosexuals to have a secular marriage recognized by the government?

[mariahLVzJP2]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110357' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:51 PM']
What harm does it do for homosexuals to have a secular marriage recognized by the government?
[/quote]
its not natural. in marriage two become one...procreation.

nm

Edited November 4, 2006 by mariahLVzJP2

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110350' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:45 PM']
I guess it's a fair point that many of the benefits of marriage can be settled by power of attorney. I wonder how many homosexuals are widely aware of that. At any rate, gay people can adopt children in any state except Florida. In those cases, the benefits of marriage should apply as they then would have a family, right?
[/quote]
I'm sure many homosexuals (or at least as many as straight people) are aware of the power of attorney thing. I don't think that's the real issue with "gay marriage" -it's more about having homosexual sodomy "legitimized" in the public eye. It's really far more symbolic than practical.

Children naturally come from a "heterosexual" relationship of a man and woman. That is why men and women marry each other.
A homosexual "realtionship" in itself can never produce children.

And I'm against homosexual adoption as well, but that becomes another debate. Children should have a mother and a father.
Two "gays" should not me recognized as "married" simply because they can adopt a kid, anymore, than I should be recognized as "married" to a straight male roomate if I decide to adopt a kid.
(And again, adoption,doesn't really seem to be the main issue in most cases - I think adoption is used as leverage by the homosexual lobby to try to show how they are "just the same as straights".)

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1110362' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:02 PM']
I'm sure many homosexuals (or at least as many as straight people) are aware of the power of attorney thing. I don't think that's the real issue with "gay marriage" -it's more about having homosexual sodomy "legitimized" in the public eye. It's really far more symbolic than practical.

Children naturally come from a "heterosexual" relationship of a man and woman. That is why men and women marry each other.
A homosexual "realtionship" in itself can never produce children.

And I'm against homosexual adoption as well, but that becomes another debate. Children should have a mother and a father.
Two "gays" should not me recognized as "married" simply because they can adopt a kid, anymore, than I should be recognized as "married" to a straight male roomate if I decide to adopt a kid.
(And again, adoption,doesn't really seem to be the main issue in most cases - I think adoption is used as leverage by the homosexual lobby to try to show how they are "just the same as straights".)
[/quote]

They are the same. They're people who love one another.

[quote name='mariahLVzJP2' post='1110360' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:59 PM']
its not natural. in marriage two become one...procreation.
[/quote]

That doesn't tell me what harm it does. What's not natural about a naturally occurring phenomenon that also occurs in dozens of animal species?

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110363' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:04 PM']
They are the same. They're people who love one another.
That doesn't tell me what harm it does. What's not natural about a naturally occurring phenomenon that also occurs in dozens of animal species?
[/quote]
And I love my mother. I love my sister. I love my buddy. Doesn't mean I should marry any of them.

And the animal thing is a non-sequitor. Dozens of animal species practice cannibalism. Heck, various bug species even eat thier own mates! Should this start a movement to legalize wives murdering and eating their husbands?
And animal "homosexuality" does not produce offspring, nor is associated with "family." It's usually just a communication of a top dog putting the underdog in his place.

Edited November 4, 2006 by Socrates