Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All that can happen without relatives or marriages. A visit to the caregiving forum reveals most seniors don't even do POAs when they should and are completely in denial about their future needs. Then when they have a problem and the spouse is unable to do anything OR the right thing...it's still a MESS.
You're not really right about the protections of a POA or healthcare surrogates. Even married people need them, too. I had a nursing home threaten to take me to court to get a legal guardian for my mother because I wanted to honor her wishes to die at home. They said even with a FULL TIME RN in the house, they couldn't provide necessary care. She had a feeding tube after a stroke with diabetes. She did NOT have a DNR and once you get a feeding tube anyway, good luck getting a tube pulled out. She was self pay NO medicaid and could afford it. Why let the cash cow out of the institution?
I just feel that from the days of primitive hunter gatherers things have changed and it's all about CONTRACT law now.
Are you saying that the primitive hunter gatherer societies were somehow "better" than what we have now because of what? No written contracts? Wasn't Yaweh's covenant with the Israelites a "contract"? Just because marriage contracts weren't written down doesn't mean that there weren't "rules" as to how society and marriages were conducted.
As for your hunter gatherer society, we know that among the Plains tribes like the Sioux and Comanche, a potential husband offered his potential bride's father as many horses as he could muster ... a bride price. Even if it wasn't written down, it was a contract for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by runswithscissors
Finally....Let's face it - sex, cooking and babymaking are no longer any incentive for commitment.
Values are very passe.
I also realize none of this stuff I said will ever happen.
So, why are you opposed to allowing gays to legally marry since they are expressing their commitment and upholding positive values?
"Homosexual" is generally used by people with a bias against Gays & Lesbians.
Actually, "homosexual" is the pre-politically correct "name" for those who have since usurped the word "gay" as a moniker and covered both genders. There are also "lesbians" while male gays are still commonly referred to by the original appellation. Other words used off-and-on are "q***r, queen, dyke, butch, femme," sometimes also used by those to whom they may apply. I'm certain there are other terms used as epithets of which I'm not aware.
Overall, "homosexual" is now a non-gender specific catch-all term and I don't think its use is indicative of any bias. It's simply a descriptor.
Having said all that, one of my daughters is a lesbian and happily married to her wife and has been for years. My wife, who is not her mother, and I love both of them. I think it important to protect those rights as well as those religious.
Last edited by Curmudgeon; 05-08-2015 at 09:22 AM..
Oh, they preach, alright -- just not from a pulpit. :-) Honestly, I am over it with "gay rights" -- Seems like every special interest feels the need to hop on the "rights" bandwagon because they are "special." But really, the only "special" thing about it is that they are screaming for "rights" and the right they seem to be screaming for the loudest is to be able to rub other people's noses into some sort of acclaimation that "YES! GAY IS GOOD!"
Whatever. *shrug* Being attracted to someone of the same sex and preferring relationships with those of the same sex isn't that special. Sorry, but it's not. I don't care who you sleep with, I don't care who you love.
Here's the problem -- no matter how much we try to separate "church" and "state", there's still the a strong core of "church" that has served as a moral underpinning for the development of laws in this country, dating back to the Pilgrims and their flight from religious persecution in England. When two guys want to get married, or two girls want to get married -- people with a "church" ethos are disturbed -- because tradtionally, marriage was "in church" and in front of God, family, friends, etc. To them, marriage is a religious ceremony. The resulting pressure on churches to accept something that goes completely against the book/Book causes resentment among those who are straight, Christian/Catholic/whatever.
So why not separate the act of marriage and make it a strict civil procedure, rather than mixing it up with church and religious convictions? If two guys want to get married, have at it. Two girls? Hey, go for it. It doesn't give them any more "rights" that the husband-and-wife next door -- it just gives their relationship the same rights under the law. If a couple want to be married in a church with a religious blessing, then that's their religious preference, and that's THEIR right.
This^^ I can be on board for. Makes perfect sense to me. Being as SSM is outside of most religious boundaries, and there is zero need for it to be accepted by any church to be a legal and binding covenant between two people, then it just stays in the realm of civil law. As you say, the benefits that are desired are there, and there is no need or requirement for vows to be taken in a church. Thus, everyone is happy.
Hmmmm. Well, I am a Christian. I don't attend church, in the traditional sense. Every now and against I do, but I don't consider it central to my Faith. Gay people are not offensive to my faith, not by simply being gay, anyhow. I feel no need or desire to insult them, as a whole, and , generally, just look past the whole "gay" thing.
I do find generalizations, such as this quoted post, and the insulting connotations contained therein, to be a tad offensive, however, being human, I have said things out of anger and passion, without thinking it all the way through, as well. Boils down to how we view ourselves in the mirror. Are you merely human, or , by virtue of an affiliation or proclamation , that you see as defining to your identity, do you consider yourself to be something more? Something that elevates you past your humanity? Jesus says... decide.
So, I decided. I'm only human, and I have no right, nor does the Bible, my Faith, or my belief, give me any such, to sit in judgement on anyone for the way they live their life. So long as the way they choose to live does not lead them to attack me, in any manner, or to judge me and mine, and demean us, or attempt to shame us for not believing as they do.
The only homosexual people I have ever had issue with, gave me good reason for that issue. By injecting themselves and their beliefs and proclevities on me and mine, in a highly offensive and provocative manner. I didn't respond by quoting the Bible. I NEVER use the Bible as a basis for ...disagreement...with anyone's conduct or how they live their life. There are more Christians like me, out here, than you might think.
I don't judge all gay people by the conduct of those who offended me. Matter of fact, most other gay people I know, and I know a few, were as shocked, offended and angry about the conduct displayed, as I was. They do not wish to be viewed in that light, any more than I wish to be viewed as you describe in this quoted post. Surely, their are those who call themselves Christians, who are an offensive and judgemental crew. But they don't speak for me, or anyone I choose to associate myself with. Do thosehomosexuals, who project themselves onto people, and ccan't keep their hands to themselves, speak for you?
I agree 100%. My boss is a very religious Christian man. He is also probably one of the most caring people I have ever met, if not the most. He does not rub his religion in other people's faces or try to force his values on others. He hired me to work part time for him despite having a 6 year gap in employment and having major medical problems and allows me to work a flexible schedule. Additionally, he accepts Medicaid and VA patients which have the lowest forms of insurance reimbursement, and he allows patients to make payments on their exams and glasses if they can't afford to pay all at once. He feels that it is his duty as a Christian to help those less fortunate than he, and hardly any doctors accept these plans any more due to the low reimbursement rates. He's amazing. I wish more people were like him, no matter what their religion (if any).
Businesses serve the public, and the public is everybody, including gays and lesbians. As long as the customer isn't requesting something illegal or obscene, it's none of the proprietor's business what design the customer requests.
Non-essential businesses should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason, but I know all the do-gooders feel some much better when they force association on others.
So why not separate the act of marriage and make it a strict civil procedure, rather than mixing it up with church and religious convictions? If two guys want to get married, have at it. Two girls? Hey, go for it. It doesn't give them any more "rights" that the husband-and-wife next door -- it just gives their relationship the same rights under the law. If a couple want to be married in a church with a religious blessing, then that's their religious preference, and that's THEIR right.
I do believe that is the entire bone of contention. Right now there are states where that is not possible - and some people want to keep it that way because it is against their religion. Certain religious people - not all, though they speak as if they are speaking for all - want to deny marriage to a small group of people who do not share their religious beliefs. That is not right, and neither are business practices that discriminate in the name of religion.
Giving two men or two women the right to the benefits that marriage provides in the secular world in no way does anything at all to those who believe homosexuality is a sin.
I couldn't and didn't read the whole thing... but this really stood out for me....
By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.
What a slap in the face to every single family formed by adoption, mine included, whether to straight or gay parents......
Oh, they preach, alright -- just not from a pulpit. :-) Honestly, I am over it with "gay rights" -- Seems like every special interest feels the need to hop on the "rights" bandwagon because they are "special." But really, the only "special" thing about it is that they are screaming for "rights" and the right they seem to be screaming for the loudest is to be able to rub other people's noses into some sort of acclaimation that "YES! GAY IS GOOD!"
No, they don't preach hateful rhetoric such as calling for the killing of Christians, calling Christians vile and disgusting, calling them the downfall of civilization and generally being vicious toward them. I've also never heard of Christians being attacked and/or murdered by roving groups of gay people. It's mind-boggling to me how another person's sexual orientation can incite such ugliness in those who profess to live by a book which instructs them to "hate the sin, love the sinner". But considering the same book also advocates stoning people and keeping slaves and beating wives, and other charming directives, I am not surprised.
One should not have to defy their God to stay in business.
Admittedly it has been a long time since I immersed myself in the Bible but I don't recall any commandments prohibiting the making of wedding cakes, pizzas or flora arrangements for gay/lesbian weddings. In fact I don't recall any "thou shalts" about providing any kind of service to anyone for any reason. And one would think that after working as a carpenter for at least 15 years Jesus would have had plenty of opportunity to expound upon refusing to work for some sort of sinner or another but he doesn't. So what defying of god would be involved in any conceivable business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX Businesses serve the public, and the public is everybody, including gays and lesbians. As long as the customer isn't requesting something illegal or obscene, it's none of the proprietor's business what design the customer requests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Non-essential businesses should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason, but I know all the do-gooders feel some much better when they force association on others.
Not to be nit-picky, but what you quoted as posted by me, was not posted by me. I do agree with it, however.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
