🚀 go-pugleaf

>From: jbfb2@aol.com  (Jbfb2)

>I have mixed feelings about it. I fully understand your argument. From a
>purely
>practical stand point it makes sense.
>
>Three things bother me, though.
>
>1. If we start making special laws for people who are outside the mainstream,
>where does it end? Gays and Lesbians are allowed to marry under our law, they
>just aren't allowed  to marry the same sex. So a law passed to recognize that
>would be making special dispensation for sexual preferences. If we make one
>exception, who's to say it won't be challenged by others with truly weird
>tastes? Where do you draw the line?
>
>2. I strongly believe that marriage and family have been the foundation of
>every civilized society since the beginning of human kind. For our very
>survival nature demands that we live as male and female, and this union must
>procreate. To recognize, as legal, the union of same sex marriage is to not
>only undermine the importance of marriage in our society, it fails to
>recognize
>the importance of male and a female roles in raising children.
>
>3. Statistically, gays and lesbians have far more partners in their lives
>than
>married heterosexuals. Their unions do not usually last as long as
>traditional
>couples'.
>If we recognize their marriages, we have to deal with the divorces, too. I
>can
>see this as an eventual nightmare for the already beleaguered family courts.
>
>From an emotional (PF would be disappointed) view point, I see nothing wrong
>with same sex marriages. From a legal, societal and practical stance, I see
>it
>as bad overall.
_______________
From: PF
Lol  I would be disappointed if it was from an OVERemotional view point.
_____________________________
>
>What I think may be a better idea than recognizing gay marriages as equal to
>heterosexual marriage, would be to allow same sex partners to share insurance
>benefits, especially if they are raising children. Recognizing partners as
>legal "next of kin" in emergency situations, or when one of them is sick
>would
>be reasonable and fair.
>
>Just my .2 worth. :)
>

________________________________

(PFusco1600)
I think I agree with everything you've said here Jb.
___________________________________
Glad I was sitting for that one, PF. :)
___________________________________

From PF
I think legal same-sex unions should be allowed, but not same-sex marriages.
A legal union or partnership will give all the rights to property and
ownership, benefits, inheritance, etc. that a marriage would have. In my view,
marriage is strictly heterosexual.
I see the family as the foundation of our society, marriage as the foundation
of the family. In these everchanging times when the traditional nuclear family
is waning, we have to choose what we want to hold up as standards for "family"
and "marriage."  Shall we open the door to a future of "anything goes" in our
society or shall we try to uphold our traditional values in a modified, up to
date form?
___________________________________
Couldn't agree with you more!!
___________________________________

I choose (very emotionally, I might add) to try and uphold our traditional
values in a modified, up to date form.
JMO
___________________________________
I do, too, and as anyone who's been married and raising kids for a while knows
it isn't always easy.
___________________________________

Oh yeah, I read this board too.
___________________________________
I know you do, and I'm glad.