I disagree whole heartedly. The idea that objection to homosexual union is STRICTLY tied to religion is as false as the assertion that the objection to incest is. There are certain guidelines in place which allow marriage,,they dont permit immediate relatives to marry nor the marriage of minors. These were CULTURAL restrictions just as much as they were any other type. Relating to marriage being valid the law reads

Generally, for a marriage to be declared invalid, one of the following grounds for annulment must be met:


One or both parties were not old enough to enter the marriage contract;
There exists a close blood relationship between the parties;
One party was still legally married when the current marriage occurred;
One party was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage;
One of the spouse's didn't have the mental capacity to enter into a marriage contract. (i.e. due to drunkenness or mental disability)
One of the spouses entered into the marriage under duress, threat, or force.
The marriage was entered into fraudulently. This may be due to the concealment of impotence, criminal history, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.


A civil union would allow ANY two people, regardless of their relationship, to expand their privileges and unite their assets and resources. It would not JUST apply to homosexuals, but if two good friends chose to share assets, or if a mother and daughter, or if one party is already married but chooses a legal union of assets with someone else. A civil union would have no consideration of CONSUMMATION of marriage and only require two adults to agree to enter into it. In effect, civil unions would exist to fulfill CIVIL RIGHTS involving the choice of adults to choose partnerships in all their forms. It would open the door for ALL adult relationships(regardless of their 'sexuality') and is therefore not strictly religious in nature.

No worries. I know it's existed for just about as long as people have.

Like I said, I'm not a homophobe or think it's something abnormal. I don't really care much what people do in their personal lives. Unless they are going around putting babies on spikes, their lives just don't have any effect on mine.

It was just an observation. ;-)

At first, I thought you were talking about our country as well. Either way, it shouldn't be a surprise. I'm glad that modern society is getting more ok with homosexuality. It will still take a long time for many to be ok with it, though.

* playing Devil's Advocate here *

Why are you glad about that?

It seems to me that the issue is just one more wedge to drive into this country. Is that what this country needs at this point?

Why is that a good thing?

Although same sex couples are not allowed to " marry " and would, therefore, not be eligible for survivor benefits should one of them die, they still have access to life insurance which would provide for the other.

Have they not noticed that their attempts to have initiatives on the ballot have been struck down by a wide margin over and over and over?

Do they think that the more strident they become, the more they shout about it, people are finally going to just say " enough already " and let them have their way?

The " squeaky wheel " MAY get the grease....but sometimes it just gets taken off the car.

Why is it a bad thing? Because some people aren't ok with it?

It's a good thing because they should be treated just as anyone else is treated. Not differently because they happen to be attracted to the same sex.

" Some " people?? How about the majority of people. As proven many many times by ballot initiatives being struck down.



Who says they should??

They do. So what?

The majority of the people of this country say they shouldn't.

Just because a few supposedly " enlightened " people think they should have all the same rights as a heterosexual couple, does that mean the majority should be ignored?

The same thing was probably said when women wanted rights and when african-american first wanted their rights...

Should those rights have been kept from them because a majority said so?

How many more rights should be kept from american citizens in our "land of opportunity and equal rights"?

Even if they don't term it marriage, gay couples should be afforded all the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Just because the majority says so, doesn't mean they are right...

I personally feel that if you didn't pay into social security you shouldn't get the benefits.

If a woman worked her whole life paying into SSI and her lazy husband didn't work a single day why the hell should he get her money when she dies?

Im going to have to work until im 85 before I can collect any of my money, so enough with the freeloading we can't afford it anymore.

The lady in question...and her partner worked separate jobs for over 40 years while having a relationship that the govt. would not recognize. Her partner died and she is now destitute.....

Is she collecting the social security that she paid into for herself?

Fair enough point.

But when does the ignoring of the majority stop??

I mean, fine, let's let homosexuals get married. I couldn't care less. It doesn't effect me.

But what about Amnesty for Illegal Aliens? They broke the laws and the majority of people in this country do not want them to get rewarded for doing so.

Do we then ignore THAT majority as well?

There is a big difference about what you are talking about here simply because a woman or a African american is born into their sex or their race and it is impossible to change.A gay person can change their sexual status at any time for any reason.When you are born a female and being discrimated against because you are simply a female there is nothing this woman can do to change her position.I have said it many,many,times homosexuals and bisexuals have every right and the same rights every American has under the Constitution and the bill of rights.They are simply living a lifestyle that they have chosen by their own free will and can stop living that lifestyle at any time.I think you are getting into dangerous territory when a certain group of people want special rights above what the Constitution and bill of rights grants them.

The majority should always rule.I don't see how it makes sense to upset thousands of people and go against their will to accommodate a few people because they are the minority.Despite the majority of Americans disapproving of the gay lifestyle they can live their lives any way they want anywhere in the United states in peace.They also can legally marry in several states if they want to.

I agree people should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation. I believe that treated them DUE to their sexual orientation is the issue I have question with. EVERYONE regardless of sexual orientation can marry someone of the opposite sex. The laws werent written based in sexual orientation because , frankly, sexual orientation isnt quite as biologically EVIDENT as gender.

I dont see where the laws do treat anyone differently due to their sexual orientation.

In all actuality, the laws do not differentiate.

However, that's not the ' party line ' that the gay and lesbian community wants anyone to count.

They would rather, it would seem, stomp their feet and shout a lot about being " discriminated " against.

What they aren't understanding is that it simply isn't helping their case at all.

When the health Care bill was being rammed down our throats without any ( seemingly ) concern for what the people actually thought about it, people got angry.

The gay/lesbian community trying to ram their " right " to marry down our throats is doing nothing more than making people more and more reluctant to give them what they want.

well, I always feel you have to start with a common ground to build anything. If I were participating in the movement, I would start where there is a reasonable agreement,, equal civil rights. Leave marriage as an institution alone and start a seperate institution which addresses specifically legal rights and not romantic preferences.

That would probably work for them.

Unfortunately, that doesn't WORK for them.

Like I said, they have had gay marriage initiatives on the ballots of many states, and they have been regularly shot down.

So, rather than change tactics, which is what any good commander in a battle would do if what he/she has tried hasn't worked, they continually try to convince the masses that THEY are just ignorant or misinformed or racist or homophobic.

Let's see. The last time I checked, throwing insults at the people you are trying to talk into giving you your way wasn't a very bright idea.

Your wrong some of the most famous warriors in histoy were queer . . one was Alaxander the great was one , he had been molested before he became a famous person , his molester was one of his generals . most of the old time ship captains were puting it to the cabin boys . the young slaves were all molested I can go on an on with this our congress is well known for bumping the pages in congress even today . just in case you kids ever get a chance to be a page remember this . It's not new it didn't just start . It was once completly acceptable to do the slaves and others . alex kept a bunch of young boy and girls for his generals they could do which ever one they wanted . In most of the old royal courts they had the same thing . concubines ..
I personelly don't like it but if both agree i don't care . i don't want to hear about it but if they pay as much taxes as they are suppose to . then they should have the same rights .
I only get mad when people HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN EVERYONE ELSE ....

Gay relationships are as normal as hetero relationships, that is where the problem comes in at.

They should be considered the same because they are the same.

well I could give you a lot of reasons but to put it simply its the law .
Now i'm going to tell you one group who collect there whole life with out working .people with children collect without working and without any such as a husband doing it either .

If I may paraphrase to see if I understand your position: marriage is wrong between homosexuals for the same reason it is wrong between a parent and a child. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying can you explain how you have made this comparison? Or perhaps you can correct my understanding of your statement.



Cultures change – often for the better and mostly because we learn more about living life in a very diverse world made smaller by population growth and technology. The very fact that incest is distasteful in almost every culture in human history suggests that it will never be acceptable. However, homosexuality has found an acceptable place in a great many cultures throughout known human history. Just because the United States early history considered homosexuality a disease or sickness does not mean it is still appropriate for our law to reflect that old notion or to continue to allow its discrimination to exist.



ABSOLUTELY – I applaud that and agree that this would a great way to CHANGE the word in our legal system from marriage to civil union.

Of course all those who are already “married” even the homosexuals, will be grandfathered into the new ‘civil union’. But after civil unions are made the norm, marriage will only be a religious right once again and all citizens wishing to accept the responsibility and benefits of the laws that were once bound only to the word marriage will only be relevant to a 'civil union' license under the law because'marriage' will only be relevant to the religions that adhere to the ritual of that name.

Good Idea, I would certainly vote for that.