Homosexual unions or marriage?

[DKW 86 7,440]

I dont think anyone, Mike included has a "beef' with or claims that a gay couple should not have the right to insure, etc each other. We have legal unions, contracts and etc. etc. under contract law as remedies for this. My company allows for designation of a partner of the same sex. Contracts, unions, etc have to be honored by all states NOW!

What I dont get is WHY with all that out there we have to have this shoved down our collective Christian throats that we MUST ACCEPT calling a covenant decried by God okay for a gay couple that (most likely) could not care less about God anyway.

I have a better discussion for the Liberal bent on the board. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg wrote in 1976 that the age of consent should be lowered to age 12 for straight or gay sex. Wouldn't michael Jackson love to hear from her now....Basically, she wrote legal briefs supporting NAMBLAand pedophilia more or less.

Definition: Pedophilia involves reoccurring sexual arousal and desires or fantasies involving sexual impulses toward a pre-adolescent child or children. The pedophile must be above age 16, and the sexual attraction must involve a child of age 13 or younger who is at least 5 years younger than the adult.

I think and cncur with the idea that every basis or argument for "normalizing" homosexual activity can be used to "normalize" acceptance of NAMBLA.

1) We will always have a certain percentage of the population...

2) It appears in ancient literature...

3) Some truly great people were gay/NAMBLOIDS...

4) Attraction like this normally found in all animals...

5) It used to be practiced this way in ancient society...

6) We think there may be a gene associated with this...

7) How can we deny what is in an individual God created...

etc, etc.

So how do you accept homosexuality and deny other abberrant behaviors?

Do you have a line that you draw? Why? Why not let everyone do what feels right to them?

[Tiger Al 0]

So how do you accept homosexuality and deny other abberrant behaviors?Do you have a line that you draw? Why? Why not let everyone do what feels right to them?

If the behavior involves two (or more, if that's the case) consenting adults that are willfully engaging in that behavior, then it's really not any of my business to condemn them just because I choose, for whatever reason, not to engage in that behavior myself. It's called tolerance. And tolerance, for me anyway, extends beyond people with sexual deviations. For example, I hate it when Christians try to force others to abide by their "moral code". Religion is a personal choice one makes to, in part, define how that person conducts him or herself, not to be used as a sword to cut down others who haven't made that same decision. But, I try very hard to be tolerant of those people, too, because my freely chosen religious beliefs direct me to do so.

[DKW 86 7,440]

So how do you accept homosexuality and deny other abberrant behaviors?Do you have a line that you draw? Why? Why not let everyone do what feels right to them?

If the behavior involves two (or more, if that's the case) consenting adults that are willfully engaging in that behavior, then it's really not any of my business to condemn them just because I choose, for whatever reason, not to engage in that behavior myself. It's called tolerance. And tolerance, for me anyway, extends beyond people with sexual deviations. For example, I hate it when Christians try to force others to abide by their "moral code". Religion is a personal choice one makes to, in part, define how that person conducts him or herself, not to be used as a sword to cut down others who haven't made that same decision. But, I try very hard to be tolerant of those people, too, because my freely chosen religious beliefs direct me to do so.

152181[/snapback]

Al, that is the whole point. You just inflicted your OPINION here. Logic would state that if the same reasoning can be used for two narly identical topics than the outcomes of those discussions should inevitably be the same. Why only adults? Bader-Ginsburg's opinion is different from yours and I bet it doesnt have a religious side to it.

I hate it when Christians try to force others to abide by their "moral code"....If the behavior involves two (or more, if that's the case) consenting adults that are willfully engaging in that behavior, then it's really not any of my business to condemn them just because I choose, for whatever reason, not to engage in that behavior myself. It's called tolerance. And tolerance, for me anyway, extends beyond people with sexual deviations.

Al, you just put your opinion on to someone else's actions. Thought you said you would not do that? Do you approve of Bader-Ginsburg's decision to portray adulthood at 12?

Another thought, Why would a Supreme Court Justice say the age of consent is 12 and then define the age of holding teens to adult criminal punishment is 18? Sounds like an idea with holes in it to me.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, that is the whole point. You just inflicted your OPINION here.

Who elses opinion should I have given you?

Logic would state that if the same reasoning can be used for two narly identical topics than the outcomes of those discussions should inevitably be the same.

And...? I don't follow you here.

Why only adults?

Because there are some behaviors that involve choices that minors are not psychologically equipped to make or legally allowed to make.

Bader-Ginsburg's opinion is different from yours and I bet it doesnt have a religious side to it.

Two people having different opinions...I don't think that qualifies as a first.

Al, you just put your opinion on to someone else's actions. Thought you said you would not do that?

I have an opinion about other people's actions all the time. What I said was that I don't condemn them.

Example: I've said before that I think remarriage after divorce is wrong. That is one of the teachings of my church to which I've ascribed. I believe that it is just as sinful as homosexuality because I believe it is adultery. That's what the Bible says and that's what the Church says and, up until the last hundred years or so, yours probably did, too. So that's what I believe. Does that mean that I would support legislation that proposed to make remarriage a crime? Hell no! Not in America. Does that mean I would support legislation that would only take away a few rights of those who remarried? Hell no! Not in America. America says that I can practice my religion as I see fit but I can't make you practice my, or any, religion.

I don't agree with remarriage after divorce, like I don't agree with practicing homosexuality, as choices for myself. I can only CONTROL what I do, not what you do. You are responsible for your own choices. As a republican, I thought that was one of the hallmarks of the party, yet, republicans, for all their talk to the contrary, sure like to tell a lot of others what to do and how to do it.

Do you approve of Bader-Ginsburg's decision to portray adulthood at 12?

I doubt it.

Another thought, Why would a Supreme Court Justice say the age of consent is 12 and then define the age of holding teens to adult criminal punishment is 18? Sounds like an idea with holes in it to me.

I think you should ask her.