Marriage is a civil right in the US

Yes. Perhaps new forms of contracts designed to accommodate their concerns. I don't mean a contract that "defines" them as a "state-recognized family unit" at all, however, just various legal provisions to cover some of the things they think marriage would do for them, concerning insurance benefits and kinship rights or whatever. There have to be other ways to solve these problems than making a mockery of marriage. They are welcome in church, to hear how they are sinners who need to repent and give up their sins.

I'm not talking about particular practices, which would get us into questions of sin rather than normality. I'm talking about the homosexual experience of "orientation" toward the same sex. This is what is abnormal -- and obviously so, I would think.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Divorce also makes a mockery of marriage. So does the common practice of unmarried couples living together and the complete disregard of any requirement to be married before indulging in sex. Marriage is in fact already pretty battered. But gay marriage would do it in for good I think. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've heard that that's a lot of propaganda, that it is not impossible for a gay partner to visit in the hospital, that the patient may designate who is allowed access. I'm sure that where it really is a problem, laws can be changed to accommodate such situations without having to involve marriage. And picturing a gay "couple" with children is really ridiculous. Where did they get them? If they are their own from a previous hetero relationship then they should have whatever benefits are available to single parents, if there are any, and if there aren't, they shouldn't get more benefits than single parents do. There is no reason their raising of children, whatever the reason for their having them, should be done as anything but a couple of uncles or aunts, who do in fact on occasion have that sort of responsibility.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gays should not be allowed to adopt except in cases where there is extreme need.

That's life, Doc, at least it was until the lefties decided that nobody should ever be prohibited from anything. It used to be that singles couldn't adopt either, and married heteros had to qualify.

I'm always amazed at the obtuseness of supposedly intelligent people. And if anyone wants to complain that that is a "personal" comment, I would point out that on this subject I've been personally accused of all kinds of things there is no evidence for, including the insinuation that I am a racist because I oppose gay marriage, calling me a bigot regularly, and crash's now saying I hate children.Oh well. Do I really have to explain that again? Gays are a travesty of a couple, and kids are going to figure that out eventually. Unnatural is the word. Fake. Makebelieve. Emperor's new clothes. Children ideally should have a male and a female parent, ideally their own. Sometimes it is necessary for children to be raised in less than ideal circumstances but it makes no sense to choose those circumstances when other options are available.I don't care if gays live together, I'm sure they can have nice enough lives together, but marriage is ludicrous. And if they happen to have their own children, I wouldn't take them away from them, although I'm sure you are aware that not too long ago our legal system would have, and that's really not an unintelligent law either. And again, whatever single natural parents must live with, gays deserve no better.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It was once absolutely true. And yes I'm aware of the liberalizing of the laws.

Really I think gays should get no benefits whatever. They should live as singles live, as roommates if they like, with absolutely no special accommodations. However, I appreciate the argument that a person should be allowed to have whoever they like visit them in the hospital, so I say if that is not allowed then rules should be changed to permit it. This does not necessarily have to involve anything to do with marriage or any particular kind of relationship. And if they don't want their blood relations in their lives, which I understand is frequently the case, they should be permitted to prohibit them from involvements that by law they are normally entitled to. Again, this has nothing to do with marriage. As far as spousal benefits like shared insurance goes, I think the claim is ludicrous. Why should they benefit from their unnatural relationship when singles must go without such benefits? But if insurance companies want to accommodate this sort of thing, and are going to be forced to if gay marriage becomes legal anyway, then ANYBODY should be able to pay for insurance for anybody of their choosing, and again, this has nothing whatever to do with marriage or the sort of relationship. If I have the money to help out a poor person of my acquaintance and would like to include that person in my health insurance, I should be allowed to. It makes just as much sense as gays wanting to help each other out. I do NOT agree that homosexual relationshiops should be legally recognized. Perhaps my previous paragraph will make it clearer. I'm trying to think of ways to accommodate the most common complaints that they say marriage will cure without the slightest concern about the nature of the relationship. I would have thought I'd made that clear time and time again. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELGIION OR ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION. ALL CULTURES IN ALL TIMES have had some form or another of marriage, which is a uniting of male and female (I include polygamy) and a setting apart of those to each other from the rest of the culture, which is recognized by the culture as a permanent union. I have understood that they often want to, not that they should. They hate having blood relatives have the right to visit them in the hospital instead of their gay partner, and to be their natural heirs, and that sort of thing. I doubt it's a huge deal but this is what I've heard in other debates on this subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

AS I SAID!!! Gays should be allowed to adopt WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS!Don't try to whitewash the word "bigot" The way it is used here is clearly a violation of Rule 10. Yes, you are a bigot and so are all the others who call me a bigot. Thank you for recognizing that much.Gays can do all right raising children in many cases. I never said they couldn't. I said children should ideally have both sexes for parents and only when there is no choice should gays be considered.

"Living the way you want" NEVER means to any rational intelligent person not having any restrictions at all!

"Research" is not "facts and reality." If I thought gays would do some kind of irreparable damage to children I wouldn't even be in favor of their adopting when there is no other choice. The fact that children grow up OK is not the point. Ideal is both sexes. This is obvious. Hang research. Research is only as good as its definitions and it will only measure the roughest indicators anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

For one thing, because women have historically needed the protection and support of men, and children are the natural issue of heterosexuals and need the protection of parents. This is in the nature of things. In our modern societies these facts of nature tend to be blurred. The need for protection is no longer quite so clear, and there are other ways of getting the protection when needed. Single mothers get the protection and support of the State instead of a husband, and so on and so forth. However, the basic natural situation is only one of the reasons for heterosexual marriage but it's a big one. The idea that two MEN need any kind of protection of each other is ridiculous. If that's the case then ANY two singles of the slightest acquaintance should be allowed to form some kind of mutual protection society. Where did I say that marriage is a "legal contract?" It's a cultural institution. Some cultures don't require any kind of legal anything. It's just a relationship that is recognized as exclusive and binding in the eyes of the community. This may or may not be officially legally established.I don't care what kind of contract homosexuals make between themselves, but society should not be required to treat them as a married couple. This is a CULTURAL thing. They do not deserve some kind of CULTURAL RECOGNITION of their unnatural relationship, benefits, percs etc. If they want to protect each other in various ways legally, no problem, they should do this on their own, and maybe some laws can be changed to make it easier, I don't know. But that's between them alone, and it does not involve the whole society, the rest of us, in being forced to regard their relationship as normal or right or anything of the sort.

If men need protection from each other, that would mean nongay men too, so let's have all single men partner up with each other to get health insurance benefits and all the other percs of marriage that gays complain they don't get.

Nobody is addressing me any more so I'd appreciate it if you'd change the subtitle to suit the actual content of the conversation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.