Requiring Children...

[Sheherezade]

Let's try to keep the debate to the topic and refrain from judging each other's opinions. This is a heated topic. Just a heads up to all here......and I get to use this emoticon......

:adminpower:

I don't want this to turn to name calling.....

You're married to a doctor and you had sex!? You lucky person...

Now to put my envy aside...

In answer to your question - YES, your genes determine which gender you are attracted to. And yes, obviously you are able to choose whether or not to jump into bed together, too.

But the real point is, if your sexual encounter hurt noone, then can you name anyone who has the right to condemn, judge, or interfere? You are perfectly entitled to have sex with whomever you choose.

And I also believe that you should have the right to enter into a legally binding commitment with that person, if that is your choice. Is there any good non-religious and non-discriminatory reason why this should not be so? (The inability to produce children is, as we have seen, not sufficient!)

[Bluejay]

You're married to a doctor and you had sex!? You lucky person...

Now to put my envy aside...

In answer to your question - YES, your genes determine which gender you are attracted to. And yes, obviously you are able to choose whether or not to jump into bed together, too.

But the real point is, if your sexual encounter hurt noone, then can you name anyone who has the right to condemn, judge, or interfere? You are perfectly entitled to have sex with whomever you choose.

And I also believe that you should have the right to enter into a legally binding commitment with that person, if that is your choice. Is there any good non-religious and non-discriminatory reason why this should not be so? (The inability to produce children is, as we have seen, not sufficient!)

No, that sex was just an example.

As to your last two paragraphs, I don't have easy answers to your questions. To me, those questions are big, multi-faceted, and thorny... I guess that is why they heat up this debate so much. I just tried to clarify one small, somewhat logical piece of the puzzle; I was not even going near the big picture.

[pstone]

Not sure why we are talking about sex here, thought it started with marriage.

I have no problem with bill boinking bob, or sally and suzy, though I think the moral relativism is a slippery slope.

I personally think our country has MANY MANY MANY more things to spend our tax dollars on the affording 'benefits' to same sex couples. What about polygamy? and Bill, Sally, and Betty wanting to be married?

Sleep with any consenting adult you want, (I don't buy it is all genetic however, lots of other studies) but what does it benefit society that we should spend money on it?

If you don't like that hetero couples get it and homo don't then abolish it all. Lets not spend more money supporting personal choices. What about people that don't believe in marriage but live together? Do we force marriage on them to get benefits also?

What priavate companies do is up to them, offer and pay for whatever you want, but if Mr. and Ms. Religion think it is a sin, do you really tell them they are wrong and force them to pay for the retirement?

Perhaps I should just go away, perhaps I am close minded or whatever anyone wants to think, but Mom, Dad, and kids just seems like it keeps society going.

[Meenah]

:adminpower: :adminpower:

Deep cleansing breath. It is OK to disagree.[/i]

[DCJenn]

Except for Luanne and me. We will never disagree. pretty much about anything.

Jenn

[Gwendolyn]

So...It is time to get government out of marriage. Everyone ,like in most other countries, will have to get a civil union: Bill and Jane, Jane and Jill and Adam and Steve

The civil union will be what protects the rights we currently ascribe to marriage, insurance, child custody rights, medical decision making, etc. Clearly companies can continue to offer partner privileges...that is their gig.

Then is marriage as some godly ordained business is your thing, go to church and have it done. Churches decide who they want to marry and who they don't want to marry.

This whole "separate but equal" (you can marry if your hetro, civil union if your gay) business is not adequate.

It is tragic to suggest or claim proudly that a man and a woman is the only and/or best paradigm for raising a child, when actually income has much more to do with it...statistically speaking....probably we should sterilize poor people.

The point is that no matter which way you bend it, the only reason to not offer marriage to gays is because it (being gay) offends you in some way...which is not a good enough reason to deny someone basic civil rights.

[Auspicious]

This sounds catchy and altruistic, but I think it's a fallible argument. You're either a monogamous person or you're not. Govt. benefits or even recognition are not going to promote or change that for either BIL/partner or DH/myself. It's beyond the govt. influence or control.

So...It is time to get government out of marriage. Everyone, like in most other countries, will have to get a civil union: Bill and Jane, Jane and Jill and Adam and Steve Laughing
...
Then is marriage as some godly ordained business is your thing, go to church and have it done. Churches decide who they want to marry and who they don't want to marry.

I feel like if the response to same-sex couples wanting into the marriage game is to then take away stuff [rights, benefits, traditions] from heterosexuals so we can be equal, then that's just . . . like saying "our choices were to let gays in or burn down the house, so we burned down the house." It's just not the nation I want.

Finally, should I be allowed to enter the men's locker room with the other fathers?

Annie,

When I have a kid, you're welcome in the locker room. :P

[Auspicious]

I just like to argue. :>

I'd say it's fine by me if a woman wants the legal rights of a father (shouldn't she have them already?) and if she wants to call herself a father I can't think of a great reason to stop her.

And I'd definitely consider marriage a civil right. It's a nonpolitical personal liberty.

[pstone]

It is tragic to suggest or claim proudly that a man and a woman is the only and/or best paradigm for raising a child

It is tragic that we think kids don't deserve both a mom and a dad, that we in our PC world don't realize the HUGE difference between mothing and fathering.

[Bluejay]

Is there any good non-religious and non-discriminatory reason why this should not be so?

This sentence has been on my mind since I read it, and I've thought and thought about how to say what I want to say.

The gist of my feelings are: I feel discriminated against as a religious person. :|

Why should I not give a religious reason for my feelings?

I think there are negative stereotypes of religious people. For example, the idea that religious people are offended by homosexuals. I don't think I've heard a religious person say that to me. (Of course I'm evaluating my conversations, which may or may not be indicative of the general population.) I, personally, am not offended by homosexuals. As I said in a previous post, I feel this is a big, multi-facted and thorny issue... certainly not one that can be easily summarized and then dismissed.

Part of the reason I feel that way is that I feel that each homosexual is an individual person. They aren't a category: "homosexuals" any more than I am a category: "religious".

sigh. Does what I'm trying to say make any sense? :huh:

[Auspicious]

Why should I not give a religious reason for my feelings?

You are absolutely entitled to a religious reason for your feelings. Not to a religious reason for a law, though.

[pstone]

The gist of my feelings are: I feel discriminated against as a religious person.

Because the left thinks it is okay to mock religion me thinks.
It is always interesting to me that it is okay to say a view is wrong when it is religious, but not when it is based on what? social humanism?

[Bluejay]

Why should I not give a religious reason for my feelings?

You are absolutely entitled to a religious reason for your feelings. Not to a religious reason for a law, though.

I vote.