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.
Your argument is silly. You can sit across from a dinner table with a woman and not make a baby either. Just because, occasionally, you choose to engage in non vaginal sex, does not negate the fact that men and women make babies.
I suppose your Menopause comment is supposed to mean we as a nation should nullify a marriage if a women goes into Menopause or suffered from ovarian cancer too. I've heard that specious argument before.
Marriage is about more then just the mother and father, it's also about the extended family, the grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc... We as a nation, want a strong extended family. When our citizens run into difficulties in life, we want a strong family to be their, to offer assistance, like food, shelter, financial and moral support. This relieves the burden on the state from having to resort to social welfare programs to look after people.
Raising, feeding, protecting and caring for children, and the social, moral and personal support afforded by a strong extended family, are all reasons why government supports, endorses and even subsidizes marriage. It is a secular idea, not a religious one.
About half of the married couples in the US are NOT raising children.
About 30% of lesbian couples and 20% of gay couples ARE raising children.
Gay and lesbian couples also have extended families.
So basically your argument is that gay and lesbian couples raising children can go jump, but straight couples with no children can get all the rights, benefits and protections.
But I not interested in making anyone a "protected class" or counting numbers for quotas or anything that makes gay people stand out as different. I don't think anyone needs to recruit gays for diversity in the workplace. I don't want to see a gay day, week, month or a gay centric curriculium in schools or even the dumb ass pride parades. I am so over sex being something that needs as spotlight on it. I don't want anyone defined by what they do with their sex organs. If this is the current fight then I want no part of it.
I agree with what you said about there being no 'need' for "protected class" or quotas. But at the same time one's sexual orientation should not be used as an excuse for firing them (or not hiring them) or refusing to rent them a home or discrimination in any form. Believe me, most of my glbt friends on Facebook don't want to be defined by what they do with their sex organs either - they just want to be treated as PEOPLE! But as long as there are those who refuse to treat them that way, there will be a need to point out the inequities they face, sometimes on a daily basis. There will be a need for things like gay/straight alliances in schools; there remains a need to defend them from those who would harm them for no reason other than their sexual orientation; there remains a need to point out the inaccuracies in the arguments their foes use against them. When my husband was ill, I needed no documentation as his wife to make medical decisions when he couldn't. (Actually, I found this rather irresponsible - as far as they knew I was just some woman who came in off the street! They never even requested to see my ID!) When my friend Roger had a heart attack, it was a constant battle with hospital personnel for his partner to be allowed to make those decisions. With every new person he spoke to, he had to show documentation that they shared an address, that Roger had "given him permission" to make those decisions, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on, listing the inequities I see and hear about on a daily basis. But I do want to get through the rest of this very long thread sometime today!
I am for gay rights as far as equality in employment, marriage and adoption. I would stop short of government-funded sex-changes, if that is commonly included in the definition of gay rights.
What makes you think gays want sex changes? What you're talking about are transgenders, not gays.
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken Great. I look forward to similar tolerant views on God in all your future postings. (But I won't hold my breath.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
Which god or gods are you referring to?
It would be obvious to any educated person to whom "God" with a capital "G" refers.
You may need to get out more and away from the computer. But I hope this helps.
Well... Either way, seeing as how we are not a theocratic nation, the concept of god(s) and religion has no bearing on the laws we make.
My statement was directed at your "tolerant" view on gay marriage,
and your insistence that we should all be so "rose by any other name." It had nothing to do with God and our laws. You may wish to reread.
Now let me spell it out:
It would be simply lovely if the "tolerance"' sentiment extended past, say, gay rights or illegal immigrants or health care for lazy people or whatever,
extended also to those of us who are more conservative.
For example, toward any references to God.
As you are well aware, God is often mocked or shot down here.
Now...substitute "gay" or "liberal" or whatever for "God" or "religion" or whatever.
Now...apply your same "tolerance" toward those posts as you have spouted about on this thread.
This last is something that cannot be forced upon people--they have deeply held values that cannot be legislated away at the stroke of a pen. For gays and their supporters to not recognize this is disingenuous.
Their personal values may not be changed, but their power over other people with those values certainly can. Keep in mind in 1967, when the Supreme Court made interracial marriage legal, 80% of Americans had "deeply held values" claiming it was wrong and against God. With the stroke of a pen, the United States Supreme Court forced every American in this country to deal with interracial marriage as a reality. Did everyone's values change? No, we still have people today who oppose interracial marriage. Is their impact significant? Not anymore. They are now viewed as outcasts and bigots. Just as conservatives will be viewed in 50 years over the gay issue.
Quote:
Changing the law to give SSM couples the same privileges and benefits while at the same time allowing those opposed to it to retain something that they hold dear to their own hearts is a WIN-WIN solution for everyone.
Once again. Why do conservatives hold exclusive rights to the word marriage?
LOL...I'm teaching Romans now in an adult Sunday School class. I took an intensive class on it last summer. I honestly believe I have a better grasp of it than you do.
I'm sorry...but you're making a lot of crazy jumps there to justify it. Sorry...but that's just not sound hermenuetics. Learn proper biblical hermeneutics and then we'll talk.
LOL! Talk about the blind leading the blind....
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.
