Gay couples to get joint rights

People just need to think things through more before they marry. There has only been one divorce in my family -ever- and that happened because my uncle became an alcoholic 20 years into a marriage and wouldn't change after 2 years of counseling.

I dunno....with one couple in my family on 72 years of marriage and another who has just celebrated 50 years....I was really shocked as a kid to learn that divorce even existed! I didn't hear about it until I was 11 or 12.

Edit: and I apparently need to read my posts before I post them, or I make all sorts of wierd errors.

When you divorce, you are breaking a covenant with God. Yes, I agree that sometimes you SHOULD leave someone (in the most dire of circumstances) but I believe that it is STILL a sin in the eyes of the Lord, and one that should not be entered into lightly. Sins are forgiven if we ask for forgiveness...

I'm divorced, and I'm a Christian. I know what the Bible says about it, but I am also a true believer in forgiveness. If God could forgive the worst of sinners (and the Bible says that he can), I'm sure he will forgive me for my divorce and give me that precious, second chance. I'm banking on that!!!! :)

God definitely forgives!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
Homosexuals should not be able to corrupt the holy union of marriage. End of story.

---

HUMANS have already corrupted the "holy union of marriage." And, it's not holy if you're not religious. It's legal, and, the legal rights should be fair and equal across the board.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Twisterdog
Really? So ... if a woman's husband beats her, or molests her children, she should still stay married to him "no matter what", or else she will commiting a sin?

My goodness.

---

YAYAYAYAY! Twisterdog, you rock.

But it only goes so far. I would hate to have a relative/friend whatever born gay, and treated as a second class citizen and worse! I cannot imagine the despair of a gay person that found out they had AIDs and the only person that didn't disown them was their signifigant other. But what rights do the lover's have when it comes to hospital care and eventual death? They can't even visit them from what I understand! :mad: At least it's a small step in the right direction, but ther's so much more that could have come of it all. Let the voters speak in the U.S! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Twisterdog
I don't agree with that woman's reasoning at all. If her and her opposite sex partner choose not the get legally married (and the operative word here is choose), then that is a choice they are making with full knowledge of the consequences. They can choose to get married, and reap all the benefits ... as well as possibly having to face the legal consequenses of a divorce. Or they can choose to simply live together, and avoid the legal aspects. But they have a CHOICE.

Many states in the USA (I don't know about other countries) recognise "common law" marriages, as well. If you live together for a specific number of years, then you are legally "married".

The way the law stands right now, same-sex couples do not have the same choice that opposite-sex couples have - to legally marry or not. They cannot legally marry at all. Therefore, this is a small token step in that direction.

IMO, if opposite sex couples choose not to marry, then they shouldn't complain about not getting the benefits of a married couple. It's a choice they are making. Just like people who choose not to have children shouldn't complain because they can't deduct a kid on their income tax.

---

I just read this thread again, and, I agree with you, completely. I'm an idiot when it comes to politics, the law, etc.....I love reading your posts, by the way. I like your honesty. And, I think you are tactful, as well, which is unusual. :)