Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: sportage
My 32 year old cousin died of aids in 1991 and I could tell you of horror stories about his days in the hosp and how his family blocked his partner of 10 years of seeing him or even being mentioned at his funeral. It was like his partner never exisited to the family. I havent spoken to any of them since. Yeah... laws are badly needed and long overdue.
Generally speaking, most people don't have a problem with civil unions that would provide for visitation rights being mentioned, and which Obama alluded to tonight. And if it stopped there, people like me wouldn't have a problem with it.
But it doesn't stop there. The gays want me to accept "marriage" as meaning one man+one woman AS WELL AS two men, or two women which is a violation of natural law, nevermind the religious component that I have a problem with as well. This will in turn eventually lead to adoption of children by gay couples which I absolutely oppose in every sense.
There is the slippery slope to consider here and if I could be confident it would end at civil unions, I might be more amenable to a compromise position.
Sorry, but which "Natural Law" does that violate?
At the end of the day, ALL mariage goes against "Natural Law"...meaning that marriage is a function of culture and is not part of any inherent instinct.
As most tribal societies we have order--like other pack hunters that have alpha males and females. Actually human nature is to create order; we are a tribal society/animal. We just progressed tribes to what we call government. Marriage aids society by keeping order so marriage is actually human nature/instinct. Why is it that almost all humans/societies have/had a form of marriage; the native americans, middle east, the east, the west, etc.? Because marriage is human nature/instinct to keep order in the society.
Just my 2 cents.
