In response to:

Marriage Best Left to Churches

Johnny L. Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 12:15 AM
I used to support civil unions for same sex couples until I thought more about what that implied. It's all well an dandy to allow people to contract to give each other hospital visitation and inheritance rights, and you can/should be able to do that between any two people regardless of relation. But when you get into things like tax benefits and ability to refuse to testify in court against your spouse, you are actually asking the state to subsidize and promote that behavior. Placing that relationship above even justice in criminal cases. States can and should have the right to decide for themselves whether they think sodomy is worth subsidizing. (The benefits of subsidizing heterosexual relationships is clear hopefully)
David3036 Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 4:35 AM
No contractual arrangement will grant all of the rights and privileges of marriage. Sure, you can leave anything to anyone in a will and have a power of attorney for hospital visits (those don't always work even if couples carry them everywhere). But those are not the main impediments to equality for gay couples. No contract will grant a gay widow or widower the right to survivors benefits based on the deseased earnings. No contract will grant immigration preference or military spousal benefits, veterans benefits, etc.,

Subsidizing sodomy? Are you kidding? It's none of your business what any couple, gay or straight, does in bed. Do you want the government investigating to be sure you are doing it "properly" and enot committing sodomy?
Johnny L. Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 12:22 AM
Heterosexual relationships have the unique potential to produce children and the state thus has an obligation to provide carrots and sticks that encourage such couples to remain together even after they fall out of love. (There would be no need for incentives if they remained in love forever) It is for the sake of the children.

But what reason is there to provide incentives for homosexual couples to remain together even after they fall out of love? Let homosexuals do what they want and call themselves what they want, but the state should not be subsidizing them through marriage or civil unions.
Homeschool Mom AZ Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 1:54 AM
The government should not be providing carrots and sticks. There are married couples who should not have children. When they know that parenthood isn't for them and they avoid conceiving, they should not be penalized for it with taxes. Plenty of married and unmarried people shouldn't have had kids. Stop rewarding them with tax breaks related to parenthood.

Want kids? Then take on the financial responsibilities that go with it and don't expect the government to subsidize that choice. Don't want kids? Don't make any. Make financial plans to take care of yourself in your own age and don't expect the government to subsidize that choice.
Homeschool Mom AZ Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:02 AM
Unique? What about adoption and donors? I have biological kids and an adopted kid and the bond is the same. Homosexuals privately adopt children and hire surrogates to carry children with donated eggs and/or sperm.

Children in homosexual households have just as much emotional connection to their homosexual parents as those of us who grew up with involved biological and step-parents. My step-dad (from the time I was 3) is just as much my dad as my bio dad. Losing him through separation or death will be just as tragic as losing by bio dad who was very involved. That's how it is with children of homosexuals even though I think homosexuality is a sin. Like it not, when those families break up the kids suffer just as much.
Bruce2397 Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 7:10 AM
The argument that conjugal marriage is different and should be the only version allowed because it has the potential to produce children falls apart quickly when you realize that over 50% of conjugal marriages don't produce children. If you won't allow same sex marriage because they can't produce children, will you prevent conjugal marriages that don't or can't produce children? Should we annul any marriages that don't produce children by the time the partners reach 45? 50? I didn't think so....so pooof! There went the rationale for preventing same sex marriage.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 11:42 AM
homosexuality is an unhealthy,destructive behavior(medically PROVEN),a mental illness(readily apparent),and NOT good for society,any society(recognized over millennia).
it is not to be accommodated,enabled,or encouraged.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 11:45 AM
most if not all heterosex,REAL marriages have the POTENTIAL to produce children.
People often change their minds during the course of a marriage. Thus,benefits for marriage is good for society.

OTOH,homosex "unions"(NOT true marriages) have no potential for producing children. they MUST go OUTSIDE their "union" to do that. There's no benefits to society for encouraging such destructive,unhealthy behavior.
Instead,it should be discouraged.

The current conundrum regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage is what happens when church and state are mixed -- the topics become confusing and confused.

When I married my husband almost 15 years ago, I did so out of love and out of a desire to witness before God my commitment to him and his to me. The legal and tax ramifications did not enter into my head.

But for couples of the same sex, the legal and tax ramifications can be very important because their legal rights differ from those of heterosexual couples in a number of ways,...