When individuals hold this view they are promoting a State Sponsored Religion. Please let me explain. The problem some folks seem to have with the "union" of homosexuals is in the word marriage.

Many would be happy to see EVERY legal responsibility and benefit of the laws currently bound in the word marriage to also apply to the concept called 'civil union'. Why? Because the word marriage for many people is also tied to their religion.

Asking the Government to consider the word in it's religious context ONLY is asking the government and ALL THE PEOPLE to allow the government to set legal code in conjucjion with specific religious values.

First of all - this is contrary to what ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE want and to what the Constitiution itself prohibits - state governance over religious values.

Secondly - this motion,to add a new concept and keep the word 'marriage' untainted for religious purposes, is an acceptance of the kind segregationist movements that have been so hard won in the last 150 years.

By adding a 'civil union' those who accept this notion are hurting themselves because they are setting the standards of the country and the poeple in it to accept bigotry, segregation, and discrimination as our right.

Now with that kind of mindset - by all means let us all have the right to carry semi-automatic weapons. (just saying!) THINK!

Sorry, I misread your post. Homosexuality has existed long before the modern society, we are the society trying to normalize it because people didn't worry about it before modern religion. The ancient greek had common everyday homosexual activity. Emperors would marry a man and not care what anyone thought. It's not a new issue, we just view it differently thanks to christianity and other modern religions.

Before you quote me,and before you do any " research " in trying to refute me, try taking a look at what I actually SAID.

I did not say we are the only " country ".

What I said was ( in case you have a slight comprehension issue ) is that we are the only society. A society is NOT relegated to any specific country. Society, as I used it, means humanity in general in a particular time frame.

Now, having seen Equus' post, perhaps it would have been better phrased to say the only modern society.

I'm glad that modern society is getting more ok with homosexuality.

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.

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.....

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...

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...

" 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?

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.

I asked this a while ago....and I'll ask again.

Has anyone noticed that OUR society is the only one in the history of the world to try normalizing homosexuality??

For thousands upon thousands of years, homosexuality was considered something abnormal. By many, it still is.

Is normalizing that behavior supposed to make us more ' enlightened '??

Now...before anyone starts ranting about me being a raging homophobe I would like to point out that my half brother is gay. I love him to death, and I don't consider him to be some kind of freak.

I am simply making an observation and asking a question.

I asked this a while ago....and I'll ask again.

Has anyone noticed that OUR society is the only one in the history of the world to try normalizing homosexuality??

For thousands upon thousands of years, homosexuality was considered something abnormal. By many, it still is.

Is normalizing that behavior supposed to make us more ' enlightened '??

Now...before anyone starts ranting about me being a raging homophobe I would like to point out that my half brother is gay. I love him to death, and I don't consider him to be some kind of freak.

I am simply making an observation and asking a question.

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.

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.

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

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.