- This topic has 63 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
carlislematthew.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 18, 2006 at 7:27 AM #7932November 18, 2006 at 7:48 AM #40246
PD
ParticipantI think any two people (man/woman, woman/woman, man/man) who are in a committed relationship should be allowed to get married in the eyes of the law (and achieve all of legal protections, recognition and tax benefits that entails). As far as churches are concerned, they can choose not to recognize those unions.
I am very conservative in some areas but very liberal in others.
I am also a proponent of stem cell research. There are thousands of people out there who are sick and/or dying whose lives can be dramatically improved or saved by this research. All of those people have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, spouses, children and friends who are suffering along with them. How can the welfare of a handful of cells be more important than all of these other people? I say that the welfare of those living, breathing, thinking and loving should be far more important.
I predict that Perrychase will agree with me on civil unions and Powayseller will not. 🙂
November 18, 2006 at 10:50 AM #40257PerryChase
ParticipantYes, PD, I agree with everything you said above.
Let the churches do whatever they want. If gays want to get married they should be able to do so at City Hall. To be fair, I would require all couples to legalize their unions at City Hall, instead of vesting governmental powers onto religious leaders. The religious ceremony would not be legally binding.
Churches can call marriage whatever they want but the government should call it the same thing for gays and straights. Civil union is fine by me.
If we allow gay marriage, we will see more immigration due to that. The marriage and divorce rate will increase overnight. Lawyers, and financial planners should be jumping for joy.
November 18, 2006 at 11:03 AM #40260MANmom
ParticipantI am a conservative, more fiscal than religious, and I agree with you, society in general is better off with stable couple relationships than a free-for-all, regardless of what gender. I think civil unions are a good thing, I even think gays should be able to adopt children, but that priority of adoption of infants and small children be given to hetero couples first, simply for practical reasons. A man cannot be a mom and a woman cannot be a dad. To deprive a child of both is not optimal. Sure there are great books out there, but speaking as the mother of three boys and the sister of six brothers, I can no more tell my boys what it is to be a man as my husband could tell a girl what it is to be a woman. But better adopt out to a gay couple than live without any family. There are some pretty awful hetero families out there. All couples regardless of gender want the same thing, security, a partner in life, a family, and love. What’s so wrong with that?
MANmom
November 18, 2006 at 11:17 AM #40261equalizer
ParticipantThe feds dont want to approve because of the slight budget impact on the tiny deficit problem. Americans are generally pretty tolerant and respect liberties, but there is deep seeded vitriolic disapproval of gay adoptions among most people in general.
Even if people dont say this “all the kids will see 2 dads, think its ok and pretty soon nobody will look at paris :), that’s how the Roman empire fell, etc, etc”
many people still kinda feel that way.
November 18, 2006 at 12:02 PM #40263powayseller
ParticipantPD, I believe in sex, drugs, and rock’n roll. Hey, are you coming to the meet-up tonight?
November 18, 2006 at 12:13 PM #40265sdrealtor
ParticipantThat explains alot!;)
November 18, 2006 at 4:27 PM #40278vegasrenter
ParticipantWhat does this have to do with housing? Off-topic posts dilute the message of this blog/forum.
November 18, 2006 at 4:35 PM #40280Participantvegas renter, this thread was started in the off-topics forum. If you enter the forums via “user forums” on the left, you’ll see the topic you’re in, but not when you select the forum topic from the main page.
November 18, 2006 at 4:55 PM #40281Anonymous
GuestNo to embryonic stem cell research (but yes to adult stem cell research).
No to civil unions.
No to being openly gay in the military (it's coming, along with your civil unions, PD).
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061118/news_1n18dontask.html
No to gays adopting.
No to burqas in public (some Islamo Fascists hide bombs in there):
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061118/news_1n18burqa.html
Yes to tolerance and compassion; no to complicitness and acceptance.
November 18, 2006 at 5:36 PM #40282ParticipantMy mistake – thanks for pointing that out.
November 18, 2006 at 11:27 PM #40289CardiffBaseball
ParticipantSpeaking as a Conservative…
Yes to Civil Unions
No to adoption
November 19, 2006 at 4:56 PM #40314GuestYes to civil unions
No to adoption
No to Gays in the military (and no to women in the military, they are MUCH more of a problem than gays but it is not PC to say so).
November 19, 2006 at 5:09 PM #40316Guestdz, I’m almost with you on women in the military; women have a rightful place, but in support units, way back. They have no business in units exposed to the enemy. How stupid it was to have our women lose their lives and be injured in Iraq. Women in our society have a special place, as mothers and wives, and bring warmth and love to our lives. What a stupid decision it was in the 80s and 90s to put women in fighting units and near fighting units.
As my old Executive Officer said, about women on ships, “The women aren’t the problem, the men are the problem,” i.e., young men are easily distracted from the job at hand.
November 19, 2006 at 6:06 PM #40320GuestI’ll agree with you jg, it is women in a deployed status that makes no sense. On board a Navy ship out to sea is the most obvious misplaced political correctness in my opinion.
Although I don’t particularly care for gays in the military, I would much rather have gays fighting beside me than women.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.