Since the other threads have delved into this issue, I decided to check this thread out again just to take up more of my time on P&R! :lol:

 

But seriously, I was thinking on this subject and I came to this conclusion. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic (which is what this argument has primarily been based on) is relevant but missing the greater point.

 

My stance on homosexuality is nothing is wrong with homosexual urges at all- it is acting on those urges (a la nothing is wrong with urges to have relations with animals, but acting on it) that is wrong with it.

 

From a moral standpoint, what is the purpose of sexual relations? I would say primarily pro-creation, and secondarily intimacy. A healthy sexual relationship should have these two qualities. (This is not to say that it is wrong for a married couple to have sex with no intention of childbirth, but I believe at least the potential must be there)

 

Hopefully I am not re-opening a can of worms- or not :fire:

WOW! Landslide win for morally wrong.

Morally Wrong YES !!!!! and just Plain Wrong.

A lot of things we do are morally wrong and there is no laws against them. Other people being gay doesn't hurt me one bit. What two consenting adults want to do with each other is no one's business but their own. I may not agree with it but it's not my place to judge.

A lot of things we do are morally wrong and there is no laws against them. Other people being gay doesn't hurt me one bit. What two consenting adults want to do with each other is no one's business but their own. I may not agree with it but it's not my place to judge.

So, you agree it's morally wrong.

Yes I do b/c of my religious beliefs. Also believe that they should have all the rights that I have because there's no reason (other than one's religious beliefs) that they shouldn't. I believe it's wrong to lie, covet, and commit adultery, but there are no laws against that.

Yes I do b/c of my religious beliefs. Also believe that they should have all the rights that I have because there's no reason (other than one's religious beliefs) that they shouldn't. I believe it's wrong to lie, covet, and commit adultery, but there are no laws against that.

So do you believe that a homosexual couple should have all of the rights that a heterosexual couple that is married? Tax advantages, insurance advantages and the like?

My problem is how do you say yes to a homosexual about marriage and no to polygamists.

Yes actually I do. Give me a legal reason based solely on logic and devoid of religious reasons why they shouldn't. Give them civil unions an be done with it.

 

The thing with domestic partner benefits is very simple. It's their money let them use it the way they want to. I don't see any reason cohabitating hetero couples shouldn't be allowed the same benefits that married couples are given. Either drop the benefits for married couples or make it an equal playing field.

My problem is how do you say yes to a homosexual about marriage and no to polygamists.

 

I don't have an answer to that. If a bunch of consenting adults want to shack up it's none of my business. When you have things like the Warren Jeffs (sp?) case in which underage girls were being sent off to be "married" to older men against their will then that my friend is rape.

I don't have an answer to that. If a bunch of consenting adults want to shack up it's none of my business. When you have things like the Warren Jeffs (sp?) case in which underage girls were being sent off to be "married" to older men against their will then that my friend is rape.

 

It is rape because that is what this society has said it is. 150 years ago, it would have been on big deal for a 15 year old to be married. 150 years from now, a 15 year old may be looked on as an adult once again. Society's view on things changes. Other views on things do not.

Yes actually I do. Give me a legal reason based solely on logic and devoid of religious reasons why they shouldn't. Give them civil unions an be done with it.

 

The thing with domestic partner benefits is very simple. It's their money let them use it the way they want to. I don't see any reason cohabitating hetero couples shouldn't be allowed the same benefits that married couples are given. Either drop the benefits for married couples or make it an equal playing field.

 

Over in the P & P forum, it is argued that equal playing fields don't happen in real life.

Yes actually I do. Give me a legal reason based solely on logic and devoid of religious reasons why they shouldn't. Give them civil unions an be done with it.

 

The thing with domestic partner benefits is very simple. It's their money let them use it the way they want to. I don't see any reason cohabitating hetero couples shouldn't be allowed the same benefits that married couples are given. Either drop the benefits for married couples or make it an equal playing field.

Well, the movie Chuck and Larry is a good example of why. I don't think that any same sex couples should be afforded the same benefits as a married couple that raises their children. I'm not going to argue theology here, simply stating my opinion on why it would be a nightmare to monitor the system of those who are taking advantage. I mean, how do you determine between "domestic partners" and roommates? IMO, if you make that choice to be united as homosexuals, that's just part of the deal. The same as "cohabitating" heteros. If you cohabitate and want the benefits of married couples, go to the justice of the peace. Marriage is work, usually involves the rearing of children (not to say that cohabitation does not).

It is rape because that is what this society has said it is. 150 years ago, it would have been on big deal for a 15 year old to be married. 150 years from now, a 15 year old may be looked on as an adult once again. Society's view on things changes. Other views on things do not.

 

150 years ago teenagers married each other. It wasn't unheard of to have a 17 year old boy marry a 13 year old girl. Life expectancy was about half of what it is today and teenagers were expected to act as adults. 150 years ago 13 year olds fought in the front lines in wars, would that be acceptable today?

 

This is getting off topic though.

It is rape because that is what this society has said it is. 150 years ago, it would have been on big deal for a 15 year old to be married. 150 years from now, a 15 year old may be looked on as an adult once again. Society's view on things changes. Other views on things do not.

 

But being considered an adult, in any time, making your own decisions such as who you will marry and such, is a lot different from being told who you will marry and who you will have sex with, such as in the Warren Jeffs case.

 

People should not be treated as "property", And all deserve the right to be treated with respect.