<p>Not true, kluge. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME to think carefully about the points made, research the facts disputed, and put together a coherent response today. Okay? I’ve already spent way too much time on this thread as it is today!</p>
<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>mathmom,
If homosexual “marriage” or civil union laws are passed in this country, I have no reason to believe that group “marriages” and unions will not be far behind, and I do believe that these moves, besides the continuing deterioration of heterosexual marriage will have a devastating effect on society, especially children. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not optimistic.</p>
<p>mini,
I’ve never heard anyone oppose laws to give individuals the right to determine these healthcare decisions. I think those who have the greatest concern are trying to solve the problem by changing the definition of marriage rather than dealing with those issues. As for your concern about your mother, I simply don’t share it. Weve never required that married couples have children in this country, nor should we.</p>
<p>“I’ve never heard anyone oppose laws to give individuals the right to determine these healthcare decisions.”</p>
<p>And I have never EVER heard a vocal opponent of Gay Marriage propose to do just that. Not once. Ever. And I’m in a state that gay marriage has been debated repeatedly.</p>
<p>“We’ve never required that married couples have children in this country, nor should we.”</p>
<p>So I’m waiting to hear the distinction you make between my mother and her next-door neighbor. You think her 75-year-old neighbors, who were in heterosexual marriages for as long as five decades would ENDANGER CHILDREN if they were married? A “devastating” impact? Why the hyperbole?</p>
<p>Do people really belive that if homosexuals marry, then heterosexuals will not want to marry any more? I simply fail to see why this provate decision is anybody’s business? Are peoples lives and marriages so wonderful that they have time to worry about other peoples relationships? Maybe I’m coming to this discussion late, but the whole thing baffles me.</p>
<p>mini,
Have you heard it suggested by homosexual activists? If it’s an immediate problem, I would think that they would be the ones to propose solutions rather than hoping to solve it by redefining marriage. I can’t see why anyone would be opposed to it.</p>
<p>mini,
The difference is that one is married and the other is not. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman and we give tax breaks to married couples in this country, presumably because as a society we have an interest in providing for the children which generally result from such a union. I suppose we could decide that we’re only going to give tax breaks to married people with children, but that’s not something I would push for. I’m not an expert on this, but there had been a marriage penalty which has, I believe, been corrected.</p>
<p>Yes, I do believe that the changes that I mentioned above would have a devastating impact on children.</p>
<p>I guess I was wrong about the marriage penalty being fixed:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000519.htm[/url]”>http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000519.htm</a></p>
<p>I’ve never had anyone explain to me how allowing gay marriage threatens the family. The relationship threats to families that I’ve seen most often consists of an extramural heterosexual relationship by one or both partners.</p>
<p>“Have you heard it suggested by homosexual activists? If it’s an immediate problem, I would think that they would be the ones to propose solutions rather than hoping to solve it by redefining marriage. I can’t see why anyone would be opposed to it.”</p>
<p>Yes, repeatedly, again and again, in every state I have ever lived in (New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, and Washington) for 35 years. And they have gotten absolutely nowhere with it, which is precisely why they have been going to court asking for the right to marry. Not to the legislatures, but to the courts, because they have been denied what they believe to be basic human rights.</p>
<p>mini,
So what rationale was given for not allowing people to make those decisions? Do you have a link to a news article about this? It sounds very peculiar.</p>
<p>The rights are determined by law - defined as spouses, next-of-kin, etc. Family members challenged the rights of gay partners to make those decisions, and the courts have ruled, in every case and in every state, that the gay partner, because they were not defined as married in law, had no legal rights.</p>
<p>Go to FindLaw and you will find dozens of such cases.</p>
<p>I understand that the usual person to decide would be the next-of-kin or spouse, but are you saying that there is no way to legally designate someone else to make those medical decisions?</p>
<p><a href=“http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635194021,00.html[/url]”>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635194021,00.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm[/url]”>http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html</a></p>
<p>Ive found wikipedia to be fairly accurate- as accurate as anything else- at least you can find original sources- I used the wiki article because it wasn’t as unwieldy as linking 8 or 9 seperate articles ( I have dial up- it gets a little slow sometimes)</p>
<p>Ive heard the lawyers are excited about the possiblity of more marriages- more marriages- more divorces? more vacation homes and Lalique crystal to divvy up?</p>
<p>I can understand if a church feels strongly against same sex marriage because of how they read the King james Bible. ( I don’t agree with it- but I know that some take parts of the Bible quite literally, and believe it very strongly)
But I dont understand arguments against same sex marriage because they don’t produce children without someone involved of other sex.</p>
<p>What about all those people who don’t want kids- but want to be married?
Are their marriages invalid?
Should those who can’t have kids be allowed to be married?</p>
<p>Its ok for someone to undergo expensive & painful procedures to concieve, ( like with IVF, where 7 embryos might be implanted-) and it is OK to have a surrogate bear your children if you are heterosexual but not if you are homosexual?</p>
<p>i don’t think the human race is in any danger of dying out- and allowing marriages to occur even if multiple children are not in the works isn’t going to threaten the stability of families in the US.</p>
<p>Since as far as I know offhand, I am the only one currently posting who actually has a dog in this fight-
I also want to say- that even though all studies have not concluded that all homosexuals are determined before birth- what if they were?
Do we want circumstances of conception to determine someones place in our society?</p>
<p>I see my daughter, an amazing person, who has come so far. She is bright and hardworking, and loving. She has worked with kids ever since she was 12, taught them how to read, how to care for and ride horses,taught inner city kids how to write a resume and apply for a job and even taught the tricks she learned to cope with having a math disability.
Despite having parents who had lots of their own issues to deal with, just one of which was that they weren’t educated, and had little idea of how to help her acheive her potential, she succeeded in graduating from one of the toughest schools in the country.
She may want to have kids some day, I hope she meets someone she wants to spend her life with and I hope that society will recognize her right to have a bond that is recognized by our society as equal to any other heterosexual who decides to get married.</p>
<p>I have posted before that she was premature- 10 weeks early- and I had been getting hormone shots to keep from going into labor for 14 weeks before she was born. Now some studies indicate that those hormones may have influence on adult sexual orientation- particulary on female sexual identification ( I can’t get all of the link- you have to subscribe-, but trust me 
)</p>
<p>We know life isn’t fair- a little boy next door has spinal bifida and while his parents hoped that surgery would eventually be able to help him gain mobility, it doesn’t look like that is going to happen.
It wasnt fair that our daughter had major surgery and she went down to 1lb9oz, and had to have multiple transfusions of platelets ( from blood that was not tested for HIV)</p>
<p>As hard as it is, to see your child fighting illness or injury, it is lot easier than to see them fighting injustice that is inflicted by those who have a knee jerk reaction to them for something that they “are”, not something that they “did”.</p>
<p>It isn’t just about what constitutes “marriage”, whether it be for the purpose of having children as some religious groups believe the Bible advocates, or if it makes the community stronger, by having members who are given its approval.</p>
<p>To me- its whether we are going to say to people- yes we will take your tax money- but we wont allow you to be a full participating member of our society. We will allow businesses to fire you for being gay, to not hire you because you are gay, we will keep you 2nd class citizens, without the ability to marry that an illegal immigrant or a felon just released from jail has.
If you are ill and need medical decisions made for you, your parents who threw you out on the streets when you were 14, will be heard over your life partner because they have the legally recognized relationship- you may not even be allowed to visit if the parents say so.
<a href=“Washington Supreme Court Fails to Uphold Marriage Equality | American Civil Liberties Union”>Washington Supreme Court Fails to Uphold Marriage Equality | American Civil Liberties Union;
<p>You can have a durable power of attorney , which will allow your partner to make decisions-
*You can also execute a document describing your wishes concerning end-of-life and life-prolonging medical care. This document is your directive to healthcare professionals about what measures you want them to take when you are no longer capable of communicating your choices.</p>
<p>Finally, hospitals generally permit visitation only by a spouse or blood relatives. However, a hospital visitation authorization allows you to name individuals who are not related by blood or marriage who you would like to be able to visit you in the hospital in the event that you are no longer able to communicate this yourself. You should carry a copy of your hospital visitation authorization with you at all times.*</p>
<p>So as long as you are always carrying your papers- and have copies for anyone who might need to see them- you could be OK-</p>
<p>What does that remind me of?</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be enough for the person who you designate to have a copy of those legal papers? Why would you have to personally keep them with you at all times?</p>
<p>I am going to jump back in to address this one, since it’s not a political question. The reason it’s recommended that you keep the papers with you is so that if you aren’t able to communicate, the hospital can contact the person you designate and let them know where you are, or if the person calls up looking for you, the hospital will know it’s OK to talk to them. Privacy regulations are much stricter than they used to be. But even before HIPPA, there were situations where people died (and in some cases, were buried as paupers) before the hospital and their loves ones were able to put two and two together. There ought to be some kind of wallet-sized waiver of confidentiality that should work though.</p>
<p>Thanks, conyat. Emergency contacts would be important for everyone to carry with them.</p>
<p>“I understand that the usual person to decide would be the next-of-kin or spouse, but are you saying that there is no way to legally designate someone else to make those medical decisions?”</p>
<p>I am saying that in each and every case where such designation, or even visiting privileges, was challenged by “blood relatives”, the designation is found to have no legal standing. It doesn’t matter what your wishes are, and it doesn’t matter what papers you have prepared.</p>
<p>This information indicates that people can designate another to make these decisions. Can you provide information on the successful challenges that you mention? Were the decisions appealed?</p>
<p><a href=“http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/living-together/partner-medical-decision.html[/url]”>http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/living-together/partner-medical-decision.html</a></p>
<p>You CAN designate durable powers of attorney. But the problem is that they can be, and are challenged. It’s not a problem when there is no challenge. It IS a problem when there are challenges.</p>