A Serious WAY Off Topic Question

So long as the state and the church focus on securing marriage rights, rather than making rules for the sake of general bureaucracy and control, the only problems will come from people discontented with the natural institution of marriage. In California the state does in fact not enough to regulate marriage, and Nevada seems to be worse. If legislators would worry more about limiting marriage to serious intenders and making divorce juster we would have a better total marriage situation.

The law recognizes marriage between sexes as a special union with many laws, rules and regulations. I think it valid that these should not automatically apply to others not qualifying, and it is difficult to see how in the world they all should, or even could, apply.
If two grown brothers are living together, it is difficult to see why they should be denied tax benefits because they do not have a presumed sexual relationship of a gay couple. Similarly, a mother and son, or mother and daughter, all when grown do not necessarily have benefits nor obligations of marriage laws. Although marriage between sexes is presumed sexual, I cannot see that presumed sex by others should have the same legal basis.
Society sees a benefit in a marriage relationship between sexes, and so provides many rules and regulations. A father and daughter do not qualify even though they are of opposite sexes, nor two grown sisters living together.
So conventional marriage may require opposite sexes, but it also requires a presumed sexual relationship, both are necessary for marriage laws to apply.
If legal unions of gay couples are allowed, I see no reason that laws applying to marriage should apply, but instead set up new laws as needed for this relationship just as relatives have laws and rules differing from marriage rules and laws.
Descrimination because of a presumed sexual relationship is bad. Just as a father living with his son probably is not discriminated against, nor a rich matron with a live-in maid, or even boyfriend and girlfriend, presumed sex of a gay couple should not cause actions against them.
On the other hand, a boyfriend and girlfriend living together do not have the benefits/penalties of marriage laws, gay couples should not have automatically the benefits of marriage laws not intended for them, regardless of a legal union under whatever name.
If one can develop a need for laws, rules, and regulations for gay unions, perhaps by showing a benfit to society of the union, or even for fairness reasons, then new laws can be passed.
Laws, rules and regulations for married couples are constantly being changed, for whatever reason. The legal union of a gay couple can have its own laws, rules and regulations.

-Zzyp-

The case is in Utah. Apparently the mother was warned that if she gave birth vaginally one or both of the babies might be hurt, and in fact one of them died. The prosecution says she refused the Caesarean because she didn't want the scar; she says she had medical reasons for not accepting it. Part of my difficulty with this case is the prosecutors' assumption that doctors know best and are always competent and in good faith. The other angle which is interesting is that a Caesarean really is intererence in the mother's body, so that pro-abortion arguments could be used honestly in this case to defend the mother's "right to choose".

From Canadian news they are trying to make it a non-issue for a woman to have a c-section on request. Now I can understand if a woman or her child is at risk when delivering naturally but this is just going to turn into a cop out for body concious women (what's that 99.999%?).

They will opt for the c-section over the 'natural methods' for ease of delivery.

I know several dancers (aka strippers) that have been given c-sections by request. They can just lay there until the baby is delivered and then after little makeup and some time in the gym, they are back on stage, with everything looking 'normal'.

C-Sections are becoming the copout for pregnant women. Now I don't by ANY means want to say that child birth is easy or an effortless experience. I think every woman, prepares herself for this throughout her life and some even savour such moments (god help them).

Others just get knocked up and don't want to face the ordeal of child birth so they OPT for tha ZC-section.

This also takes SOME of the fear away from a girl getting pregnant due to unsafe sex. If they realized they would be forced to have natural childbirth, many wouldn't shrug it off as the cost of doing business.

In matters like these, all I can say is, THANK GOD WE DON'T HAVE A WOMB!!!!!

Funny but that brings back Monty Pythons Life of Brian, where the Jewish Professional Society (a clan of four Jewish people) have one male member wants to be treated and accepted as a woman. They agree out of human interest but can't get it through to this guy that he can't have babies as he hopes to.
"You dont have a womb! Where's the baby going to gestate, in a cardboard box?"

Reply: " I don't care, all I know is I want to be a woman and have babies!"

I have no interest in some one Else's preferences.....wiz-a-wiz this gay marrige ..

Just curious..

..should then be Humans allow to(legally) marry animals..
say pet dog, horse ...etc..etc...

whether you admit or not....there IS a lot of such bestality available on Net...implying...there is a demand or carving for such an interaction..

That the Bible only reference to "Homosexuality" involves males and it doesn't apply to females from a Straight Biblical point of view.

But then again this is in all likelihood because of the fact that men in those times had several wives so it was acceptable for the women to seek sexual relief away from the males but not the males to do the same with other males.

If you want to go forward almost 2000 years the same thing was prevalent in the Deep South of what is now known as the USA where it was considered better to get a female slave pregnant than to "Allow You're Seed to Fall Upon the Ground."

Seems to me that the more things change the more that stay the same.

Col

There's no relation at all to that and gay parriage either so the question is entirely irrelevant.

You did also mention that "according to Bible and Other Books...God destroyed whole cities/civilization for such behaviours..."

This discussion relates to a governmental acceptance nothing to do with th church, so how does God come into play?
If it is because the government uses a religious term to define rights, then that is something the church needs to addresss weith the government. Either refuse to call the bond between two humans 'marriage' in a government perspective (you can still be 'married' in your church) or allow the term marriage to be used loosely.

This isn't an issue of gays wanting to be accepted by the Christian church, so what the bible says has no bearing. GWB runs your government, not God.

As I've said before, if the government had called the coupling between two consenting adults 'bonding' or 'coupling' or something unrelated to God's definition of marriage, this wouldn't be an issue for discussion at all. In this case. members of the christian church would have screamed blue murder to be recognized as 'married' instead of 'coupled'.
Now what we are seeing is the exact opposite becuase the government DID use a religious term to define a political status. That's a major mistake.

No wonder other countries see America as a christian country, laws are defined around Christianity and reasons for war are defined around Christianity. The whole time, we bitch and complain that these guys are fighting a religious war and trying to push a single religion upon the people, a little hypocritical to say the very least.

I have never seen a justification or comment come from the US that is not focused on God or religions, I wonder where others get the idea that you are pushing Christianity and building your country around a religion?

Politics and reliogion have no place being lumped together. What ever god or destiny you believe in, I respect as it is YOUR belief. This isn't fit as a form of government though and should be removed along with any values or terms that target a specific religion. Now I would expect this to really upset a Christian, yet how is it so ridiculous that someone with a different belief would protest using a Christian belief to isolate them from the rest of your citizens? Do they not pay the same taxes? Do they not build communities and help neighbours? Do they not work and contribute to society? No, No and No.

Now, why should the government allow YOU to be considered 'Married'?

Who cares if God destroyed cities? This has nothing to do with YOUR God, it has everything to do with equality. I suppose we need to back up and make black people slaves again then, because at one time they were.