North Carolina bans same sex marriage

[fj1200]

One can have a marriage without conjugal relations, at least according to one member of this forum. But my half sister was a stranger to me when we met, neither of us had any idea we were related. But we were so sympatico, so well in tune with each other's feelings and reactions, it was soul-stirring. We are clearly an excellent couple, far batter together than many couple you see nowadays.

But we are not allowed to marry, by law. As I said, this is no different from the situation faced by a small minority of members of the population: Those who want to marry close relations, those who want to marry the same sex, etc.

Complete equality. Learn it, live it... even if you don't love it.

That is a very interesting story but not of issue. Your offspring, presumably, run the risk of birth defects as being related which is the reason for being illegal. The original issue of this line of reasoning was based on family and providing a stable environment, kids are happening and will continue to happen so if a stable family is the argument for marriage then why doesn't it make sense to extend it to other definitions of "family"?

There is little reason to think that a couple together for the purpose of conjugal relations should be preferenced over another.

[jimnyc]

I'd never be questioned because male female marriages never are. That was some time ago, and Tom has died. What's unfortunate, is that gay and lesbian families aren't seen for what we are. Structures of love and caring for one another. No different than the best of any het marriage.

EVERY marriage by those committing fraud for a green card is done by male/female marriages - and they are continually questioned. Fraud is fraud. Don't act like gay folks would be sought out for fraud and heteros wouldn't be, it happens daily.

[Wind Song]

EVERY marriage by those committing fraud for a green card is done by male/female marriages - and they are continually questioned. Fraud is fraud. Don't act like gay folks would be sought out for fraud and heteros wouldn't be, it happens daily.

As disappointed as you are, that I escaped punishment for marrying Tom, a man I loved but was never lovers with, I never committed fraud. I loved him, I married him and I cared for him until he died.

[logroller]

That is a very interesting story but not of issue. Your offspring, presumably, run the risk of birth defects as being related which is the reason for being illegal. The original issue of this line of reasoning was based on family and providing a stable environment, kids are happening and will continue to happen so if a stable family is the argument for marriage then why doesn't it make sense to extend it to other definitions of "family"?

There is little reason to think that a couple together for the purpose of conjugal relations should be preferenced over another.

Two people with sickle-cell could still get married though. Why?

I say it's the concept of family.

[Missileman]

Absolutely! I am the boss of me; I decide what to do with my body. I in fact make the conscious decision to follow my inclinations or not to follow them. Not just in my sexual partner(s), but in my innate preference to have money. I've so far refrained from securing money through robbing a bank. Of course I'm BORN this way - with my desires. Instead of bending to whims or curiosities about destructive, poor-choices - if things got to the point where I wanted to do things to harm myself or my mind, I'd tend to seek help and understanding to assist in overcoming them. If I could NOT overcome my desire for money, I'd certainly NOT demand bank-robbing be legalized.

So you regularly have the "inclination" to have homosexual sex, but make the conscious decision to abstain? Seriously, how often do you have to fight this inclination?

[jimnyc]

As disappointed as you are, that I escaped punishment for marrying Tom, a man I loved but was never lovers with, I never committed fraud. I loved him, I married him and I cared for him until he died.

How am I disappointed? Is this YOU again making things up to be a victim and vilify me? I simply stated that what you did was fraudulent, but now you're changing your tune a bit. It was you who originally, and simply stated, that you did in fact marry to grant benefits to someone suffering from AIDS. Don't blame others for making statements that are factual, based on your own statements.

[jimnyc]

You presumed I had sex with the man I married. I didn't. I married him when he was HIV positive and about to lose his health insurance so that my policy could cover him. He was one of my closest friends in this lifetime.

Nothing about "for love" or any of that jazz. It was you yourself that told us that you married him so that your benefits would cover him. Admirable move and intentions, but based on your own words, also fraudulent.

[Little-Acorn]

That is a very interesting story but not of issue.

It is absolutely of issue. The constant whining that homosexuals are somehow "discriminated against" any more than any other groups, is the purest bunkum, as I have pointed out.

Your offspring, presumably, run the risk of birth defects as being related which is the reason for being illegal.

A presumption rapidly approaching obsolescence as more and more studies find minimal risk of birth defects or other health problems resulting from sexual relations between close relations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us...ted=all&src=pm

But since you brought up the subject, would you like to examine the frequency of health problems resulting from "sexual" relations (producing or not producing offspring) between members of the same sex, compared to the frequency of health problems resulting from sexual relations (producing or not producing offspring) between close relations?

The farther this thread goes, the more reasons to not allow "marriage" between same-sex partners come up.

[Wind Song]

How am I disappointed? Is this YOU again making things up to be a victim and vilify me? I simply stated that what you did was fraudulent, but now you're changing your tune a bit. It was you who originally, and simply stated, that you did in fact marry to grant benefits to someone suffering from AIDS. Don't blame others for making statements that are factual, based on your own statements.

I did nothing fraudulent. People marry for many reasons. I married for love, not sex. I took care of him. I don't regret it and I resent your implication that I did anything wrong.

You don't understand gay families. That's YOUR ignorance showing. You are close minded.

[jimnyc]

I did nothing fraudulent. People marry for many reasons. I married for love, not sex. I took care of him. I don't regret it and I resent your implication that I did anything wrong.

You don't understand gay families. That's YOUR ignorance showing. You are close minded.

Where did I say anything at all about these things in bold? And again, it was YOU who outright stated you married for benefits. Don't get mad at me for commenting on your own statements.

[MtnBiker]

Attachment 3433

Good thing in California your cousin does not need to be gay, just your cousin.

[Wind Song]

Nothing about "for love" or any of that jazz. It was you yourself that told us that you married him so that your benefits would cover him. Admirable move and intentions, but based on your own words, also fraudulent.

Not at all. Not fraudulent. I married Tom because I loved him, dearly. He was family, and by marrying him I could take care of him as family. You don't understand that because you're mind is too small to embrace the idea of families different from your own.

Plenty of people marry for money, tax reasons, convenience and lots of other less than pure intentions. It's not fraud. You're allowed to marry someone for any reason you choose.

Plenty of old people marry and never have sex. They are marrying for other reasons.

[Wind Song]

Where did I say anything at all about these things in bold? And again, it was YOU who outright stated you married for benefits. Don't get mad at me for commenting on your own statements.

It doesn't matter what reason I had for marrying Tom. There was no fraud. You're just pissed off that in case my family was taken care of. You only want rights for yourself.

[tailfins]

It doesn't matter what reason I had for marrying Tom. There was no fraud. You're just pissed off that in case my family was taken care of. You only want rights for yourself.

You convinced me that there was no fraud. However, I'm still against gay marriage. I would consider domestic guardian status where there is a practical need such as hospital visits, etc.

[Wind Song]

You convinced me that there was no fraud. However, I'm still against gay marriage. I would consider domestic guardian status where there is a practical need such as hospital visits, etc.

Fine. You don't value our families the way we do. I understand that. You'd prefer we have LESS rights than you do because you are against us legally marrying.