I guess it really is hoping against hope to think that people would see this as one MORE push for even MORE 'special rights' - NOT 'equal rights' ... Gays are already the MOST-ACCOMMODATED class of people in our society ... want proof? Compare the money for AIDS funding (a behaviorally-transmitted disease, btw) to CANCER funding or HEART research ... no comparison. Sorry, they can live with the idea of CIVIL UNION - not marriage.

It might be better if you don't know.

I am all for civil unions, as long as they give ALL the same benefits as marriage itself. From what I have read, civil unions do not grant all the same rights.

AIDS is not a special disease set aside just for gay people. It doesn't play favorites, anyone can get AIDS.

I don't know about all gay people, but where I put my thingie is not on the top of my list when I look for a boyfriend. Sex is just a bonus, it's not a requirement. Besides there are all kinds of things gays can do sexually.

Exactly. If religionists want to reserve the word marriage for male-female unions, that would be fine with me, if we first strip the word marriage of all of its legal implications.

In other words, the law would recognize civil unions, but not marriages. Churches would recognize marriages, but not civil unions. Most people would be getting both - a civil union when they file papers at the courthouse, and a marriage...um...maybe when their priest blessed their union. As an atheist, I would be getting a civil union (to a woman) and not a marriage. Religious homosexuals would get both, with the marriage coming from a gay-friendly church. Anti-government wingnuts might opt for marriage without civil union, forfeiting all the legal rights that go along with it.


I'm not advocating this system, I'm just saying that I would accept it. As long as 'marriage' has a legal meaning of any kind, then the gay community, IMO, can make a good argument that there is prejudice against them.

In my opinion, the gays who have this outlook have a more mature and ethical approach to relationship than most heterosexuals. Its bizarre to me that they are judged on the chromosomes of their partner, rather than their motives and values.

I dont think it is always that simple. Yes some are straight up bigots that judge people that way, but others can aknowledge someone having good motives and values while still not condoning BEHAVIOR that seems unhealthy or 'unnatural'.

Personally, it is certain behaviors which trouble me,, like sleeping with a relative or a same gender person,,,whom people love and what good things they do are still a part of who they are too, which is why I am not judging a person by having an opinion about what they are doing

I know homosexuals who are beautiful people and heterosexuals who are real jerks,,,but that does not mean that either never ACTS in ways or SAYS things that I disapprove of

I always try to remain open minded to everyone. I believe everyone deserves a chance. I like to get to know a person for who they are not for what they are. Many of my heterosexual, some of them religious, have supported me every step of the way when I came out. I was absolutely miserable as a closeted homosexual.

I have gotten to know a great deal of beautiful people and I have had to deal with my fair share of jerks. Throughout it all I have tried to be open minded and fair.

To me loving someone of the same gender as me feels natural and right. When I tried to pretend that I didn't I was disgusted with myself and felt guilty all the time. Probly do to the fact that i was dating a girl that I didn't love at all. Some people can live with those feelings and don't mind using someone to hide their sexuality but I am all about honesty and will NOT lie for anything.

I have always taken this same stand. But there are so many laws invoked through marriage directly and indirectly that we would be fighting supreme court battles for 100 years if we were to change the word from marriage to anything else.

I also had to laugh becasue I just had a new thought. If "marriage" were strictly the domain of religion, while "civil unions" became the subject of law ---- ready for this? ---- Then that would be separating church and state AND all those people who now have Federal protections related to marriage - would only have those protections for civil unions (under the law). If they wanted to absolve their religiously based "marriage" they would be subject to the laws which govern their particular religion.

You see, religion HAS evolved - it had to - in order to accomodate the social legal order. Would religions then revert and hold couples responsible for their religiouly stated vows????

There was no specific legal definition of marriage, although very often law reflected spousal connection to the terms husband and wife which are gender associated. It wasn't until the homosexual revolution and their attempts to marry that laws became specific.

What I find most alarming is that states have been successful in writing law into their constitutions which, in effect, prohibit marriage from EVER referring to, or recognizing same-sex partners as married. They have done so for the lack of federal law in this matter.

This is exactly the issue which caused the Supreme court to review the racial marriage situation, becasue the penalty in some states was quite severe for mixed race couples, while in another state they were allowed to marry. This does not make for friendly relations between states.

It was not 'legally' excused, it was socially acceptable because women and children were the property of the husband. A woman's personal assets before marriage were normally in the hands of the presiding male family figure. They were 'in trust' and doled out as necessary. Upon marriage the assets deferred to the husband (dowery). Children were a man's assets and women had no claim to them if she chose to divorce or leave the situation becasue they held 'value'.

Early, in U.S. history laws pertaining to division and oversight of 'assets' had to incorporate marriage. There had been much disagreement including physical harm over heritage rights and so the law stipulated the proper order of male heirs and in some cases even went so far as to require that funds for the wife and female children be held 'in trust' so that they could live.

Marriage has evolved - religiously because it was easier to allow the "law" to have oversight over this 'social' matter. And socially, becasue women fought for their independence and won it, because women fought for social and legal support in abuse cases, because racial and ethnic religious discriminations lost to the law.

So marriage - as it pertains to law - has always been influenced and modified by the socially acceptable. Social and cultural views are not stagnant and we are now faced with an inevitiable change in what is socially acceptiable.

Those who fight this change only bring open discrimination to the battle, because there are no other logical weapons to fight this battle with.

In actuality the birth rate remains in decline, the baby boomers ended in the 60's, and since then with 2.5 children born to parents deciding to concieve and bare children compared to the ration of 5-13 in history understandably for farm help etc, previously. The human population rate should make a decline. The biggest population to receive Social Security Retirement Benefits climbs to an all time high with the baby boomers, and should also show signs of decline in actual payments outgoing, eventually. But whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual remains that individual and by not allowing homosexuals to marry would not change the birth rates, due to the fact they would be the same despite marriage or non-marriage. What I truly do not understand here, is that marriage remains a religious aspect and since religion seems against homosexuality, why would they wish to engage in a religious ceremony. I believe it is the more governmental aspect of marriage they are truly interested in, tax breaks, medical, and other such benefits couples receive from that piece of paper.

You are correct - gold star for you.

There are well over 1,000 laws which are tied to 'marriage' and the benefits of which are denied homosexuals AND other 'family' units in which marriage cannot be an alternative.

There is another benefit to marriage for homosexuals which is just important. Many homosexuals are religiously inclined and want to make their commitments to each other under that format.

Aside from that are the social benefits of acceptance within the community for both partners and the families that their union brings together.

I am 'denied' the same pay as my boss,, presumably because it is ASSUMED his responsibilities and significance within the company are harder to replace.



It is hard to REPLACE the presence of a mother AND father in a childs life. ,,it can happen, but it is presumed that the responsibility and significance of the male female union to the family is one that is harder to replace or duplicate than any other


so in that, I feel mother and father unions SHOULD be held at an ESTEEM and encouraged above all others.

So hetero couples with children should be held in higher esteem than hetero couples without children?


And gay couples that adopt should be held in higher esteem than childless hetero couples.

I can agree with that.

Slowhand pointed out that the intended meaning beyond the statement in the OP may be completely different than how I, and many others took it. Just fyi. The lawyer may or may not have been talking about population growth when s/he said 'future of humanity', and I lean towards 'may not'.




Thank you for that information!



Could be, might not be exactly the same. If more gays marry gays, and stop pretending to be straight, we may have a decrease in births. If more gays marry and rather than adopt kids from orphanages, but contract others to have kids for them, there could be an increase in births. Either way, I think the effect would be small, and in the end there would be no significant change in birth rate.




Only some religionists are against gays. There are many religious gays.



Why would anyone want to engage in a religious ceremony? The reasons are probably the same for gay and non-gay believers.



For the most part, I agree. Despite what we are told, there are legal differences between marriage and civil union. I think it varies by state.

actually I said MOTHER AND FATHER, so that wouldnt apply to anyone with children

I hold the union of a MOTHER and FATHER (or potential mother and father) in higher esteem than other unions,

Unless we are going to start insisting mother and father be non gender specific titles,, that complement is of a unique significance in a childs life

You are correct, my post wasn't intended to imply otherwise. But the fact that it is sometimes that simple is bizarre to me.

So you, in fact, hold a hetero couple that births their children in higher esteem than a couple that adopts?

I have the opposite opinion. I salute those with the love and generosity to raise the lost and abandoned children, without insisting on the ego gratification of having 'their' own children, seeing themselves in their children's features.

You seem to be connecting your personal opinion of esteem with a justification for the double standard of heteros/homos. If so, should we apply that same standard to couples that can't have kids? Should sterile heteros be denied marriage just as gays are?

me too, I dont quite understand christians who behave hatefully towards their neighbor(figuratively speaking)

we can love a person without agreeing with everything they do or say(trust me, I have a teenage son,,lol), but as I posted elsewhere, there is a great divide between 'christian' approaches


one which feels they can judge a PERSON and look down upon them and the other which feels they are to judge SIN and look down upon IT

I hate noone and wish everyone well , even if I am in passionate disagreement about their choices or their words, my heart WANTS for them something better instead of being HAPPY with their suffereing.

One of my favorite sayings, which I learned from Christians, is "Hate the sin, love the sinner". Since I'm not keen on the Christian concept of sin, I translate it as "Recognize the negative consequences of certain behaviors and habits of thought, but accept and love the person who is caught up in the exercise of those behaviors and thoughts'.

Doesn't have the same ring.