Catholic Governor Lynch signs Civil Union Bill in NH

[Suat]

No but they are forcing the hetersexual couples who are already struggling financially to pay taxes for many of the 400 benefits included:

This really all comes down to money, does it not? You want benefits for yourselves that you can then deny to those with whom you disagree.

As far as I know, homosexuals would have to pay into the exact same benefit schemes that you listed above. In fact, at the moment they are financing those for struggling heterosexual couples while not being able to reap the benefits for their partners. Are you truly stating that there are no struggling homosexual couples who also pay for the above? Or perhaps you think that because someone is homosexual instead of heterosexual they should pay double, once for themselves and once for their partner or that their partner should be forgotten upon their death?

By the way, I do not see how 5 and 6 will change with allowing civil unions .

 

[gam197]

The intention of these benefits were to help families with children. Please don’t give me that homosexals are the basic for family life. Many couples still have 5 or more children.

They are not entitled to monetary benefits.

We pay a fortune for medical for so we can take care of all the HIV/AIDS homosexual couples. It is about $30 thousand a year for an AZT treatment patient including doctors and hospitalizations.

There are 400 benefits and they do may a difference. Why should a teachers partner get his/her pension? Many married couples don’t get their partner’s pension in death. There is a clause in the pension system that many married couples take because they are poor. If the spouse(wife) signs off, they get a few more thousand a year to live on in a pension now but the spouse get nothing if her partner dies.

 

[Suat]

The intention of these benefits were to help families with children. Please don’t give me that homosexals are the basic for family life. Many couples still have 5 or more children.

Very few couples in the US currently have 5 or more children. Go the family life forum and ask them about it. It is also quite possible for a homosexual couple to have a family and many are taking that route.

We pay a fortune for medical for so we can take care of all the HIV/AIDS homosexual couples. It is about $30 thousand a year for an AZT treatment patient including doctors and hospitalizations.

Strangely enough we pay the same amount for heterosexuals infected with AIDS/HIV, and they account for the majority of HIV+ cases worldwide. Shall we stop treating them?

Why should a teachers partner get his/her pension? Many married couples don’t get their partner’s pension in death.

If they have lived together for many years as a married couple then I see no reason why they should not.

There is a clause in the pension system that many married couples take because they are poor. If the spouse(wife) signs off, they get a few more thousand a year to live on in a pension now but the spouse get nothing if her partner dies.

Well, that is the fault of the heterosexual couple for choosing this option, or of the governments and companies for having this choice, not of the homosexual couples who can afford not to take the option. Anyway, would not a struggling homosexual couple take the same option and then also not get benefits?

Again, I do not think that your churches should be forced to recognize homosexual marriages, that goes against the US constitution. However, I fail to see why you should be able to deny them the same rights that you have access to.

 

[gam197]

orignally posted by Suat
Very few couples in the US currently have 5 or more children.

There are still many couples that have many children whether they are their own or adopted. They need that money.

Strangely enough we pay the same amount for heterosexuals infected with AIDS/HIV, and they account for the majority of HIV+ cases worldwide

.

I am not into a WORLD view. I am concerned about a US view and the majority of HIV/AIDS patients in the US have been homosexual males. Citizens have paid and will continue to pay for a fortune for their treatment.

Well, that is the fault of the heterosexual couple for choosing this option, or of the governments and companies for having this choice, not of the homosexual couples who can afford not to take the option.

No it is not the fault of the heterosexuals for having a family so now they can’t afford not to take that option. You are rights that it is fault of the government in that heterosexual couples should not be even asked to take a lower amount. Governments do not respect families. They should be given the full amount not a homosexual who is single. Yes, the correct word is single.

 

[jmj603]

Back this up. Is 20 years long-term enough for you? I happen to know a few gay couples that’ve been together longer than that.

If they’ve never had “relations” with other people, not even once, then this is significant new academic knowledge. To date, not one such couple has been identified, and there have been many researchers who have looked.

n fact, I’d say I know of no real difference in fidelity between straight and gay couples

I’m sorry the straight “couples” you know are so wrecked. This is a consequence of the contraceptive culture which, as Paul VI predicted in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, wreaked havoc on the family and led to acceptance of homosexuality:

Consequences of Artificial Methods

1. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

and once again, you’re leaving out the lesbians. Why?

Because when I was asked about it, I was gravely insulted, so I chose to ignore the whole thing. The bill signed by the Governor of New Hampshire covers both male couples and female couples. If the bill covered only female couples, I wouldn’t object to a claim that there are some of them who have lived together for a long time and haven’t engaged in “relations” with other people.

Literary reference (to something else). Interpret it as you will.

You don’t want to disclose the reference, but you don’t mind people interpreting it wrongly? It seems like a living example of the insidious philosophy I cited, “let them be deceived”.

What right? It’s a privilege granted on an individual basis.

From the New Hampshire Revised Statutes:

170-B:4 Who May Adopt. – Any of the following adults may adopt:
I. Husband and wife together.

 

[emily47017]

oh for goodness’ sake. if the state were only willing to grant the civil rights associated with marriage (visitation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.) to couples who could demonstrate they’d never had sexual relations with other people, there’d be precious few civil marriages out there.

it doesn’t matter whether you or i or the church believe a marriage is healthy or not. if two people are expressing a desire to live together and take care of one another, there’s no reason why the government should interfere.

a little background on myself: i’ve identified as bisexual all of my adult life, and am leaving that behind. i’m living chastely now, and if i marry it will be with a man until death do us part. civil union in new hampshire, massachusetts, washington state (new!), denmark or timbuktu poses no threat to me.

 

[Suat]

No it is not the fault of the heterosexuals for having a family so now they can’t afford not to take that option. You are rights that it is fault of the government in that heterosexual couples should not be even asked to take a lower amount. Governments do not respect families. They should be given the full amount not a homosexual who is single. Yes, the correct word is single.

It is my personal belief that people should not have more kids than they can afford to take care of. That said, I also do not believe in punishing the kids for the sins of the parents, so maybe forced temporary sterilization for the people who continue to have kids and expect the government to give them money for it? That would go over well . However, if you want to give couples with children additional tax breaks, then fine, as long as homosexual parents get the same breaks that heterosexual parents get. You cannot call homosexuals in loving, long term relationships single simply because you believe the relationship to be immoral. They are a couple, not two single people. If they have children depending on them then they deserve the same rights that parents in long-term heterosexual relationships get. Even if they do not, they still deserve the same rights that childless heterosexual couples enjoy.

 

[Mirdath]

If they’ve never had “relations” with other people, not even once, then this is significant new academic knowledge. To date, not one such couple has been identified, and there have been many researchers who have looked.

Cite them.

I’m sorry the straight “couples” you know are so wrecked. This is a consequence of the contraceptive culture which, as Paul VI predicted in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, wreaked havoc on the family and led to acceptance of homosexuality:

It is a consequence of human nature. Look how many people post on this forum about upcoming divorces, annulments, separations, problems with spouses. It happens to you guys too, don’t try to deny it.

Because when I was asked about it, I was gravely insulted, so I chose to ignore the whole thing. The bill signed by the Governor of New Hampshire covers both male couples and female couples. If the bill covered only female couples, I wouldn’t object to a claim that there are some of them who have lived together for a long time and haven’t engaged in “relations” with other people.

Yet you object to a claim that male homosexual couples can do the same? And ignore the fact that this likely disqualifies well over half of heterosexual couples?

You don’t want to disclose the reference, but you don’t mind people interpreting it wrongly? It seems like a living example of the insidious philosophy I cited, “let them be deceived”.

Besides being true, it is the motto of the ruling family of Poictesme in James Branch Cabell’s novels.

 

[jmj603]

i’m living chastely now, and if i marry it will be with a man until death do us part.

Thanks be to God! You are a jewel in the crown of the Church!

civil union in new hampshire, massachusetts, washington state (new!), denmark or timbuktu poses no threat to me.

I’m truly happy to hear it. But how do you think a mostly homosexual woman trying to change her life might feel–a woman who does not yet have any sexual feelings at all for men–when she is bombarded with messages of social acceptance of lesbian couples, while at the same time the “ex-gay” identity is oppressed and villified?

 

[jmj603]

Cite them.

There is nothing to cite. That’s the point. Cite something that contradicts my statement. Or even, from your personal life, one single example of a long-term male homosexual couple that has been monogamous and faithful.

It is a consequence of human nature. Look how many people post on this forum about upcoming divorces, annulments, separations, problems with spouses.

Look at historical social statistics. The prevalence of these problems has increased dramatically in recent times. If it is simply a consequence of human nature, and not at all the environment in which we live, an environment shaped in part by civil laws, then the statistics would be flat.

It happens to you guys too, don’t try to deny it.

Since when did this conversation become us vs. them? What do you mean by “you guys”?

Yet you object to a claim that male homosexual couples can do the same?

Yes, because the truth is that they can’t. Isn’t it stunning? I mean, you’d think at least one couple would be able, but it hasn’t been documented.

And ignore the fact that this likely disqualifies well over half of heterosexual couples?

The prior intention to commit infidelity probably does disqualify someone from validly marrying. The potential to commit infidelity does not disqualify anyone. I was merely taking issue with a myth proposed by the previous poster, the myth that there are faithful, loving male homosexual couples in committed relationships somewhere in the world just like there are faithful, loving married couples, and we should do something for them.

Besides being true, it is the motto of the ruling family of Poictesme in James Branch Cabell’s novels.

Not all men desire to be deceived. Some want the Truth. That is my point.

 

[emily47017]

-when she is bombarded with messages of social acceptance of lesbian couples, while at the same time the “ex-gay” identity is oppressed and villified?

the ex-gay movement is growing fast and gaining huge momentum! there will always be people who hate the idea of changing one’s orientation, but pretty soon there won’t be any question of ex-gays being “oppressed”.

and this is the most appropriate response to social challenges like these. speak out! let people know what you think and what the church teaches; let people know that there are lots of ways to live, and one of them is chastely with jesus.

opposing legislation like this hurts people who aren’t yet ready to change, and who are, like all of us, doing the best they can to live with lovingkindness. it also hurts our image as christians, by making it seem like we care more about separating people who love each other than we do about loving our neighbors like ourselves.

we are our brother’s keeper, but not our brother’s master. all of us are answerable to the same master. let’s take care that we can face him without any beams sticking out of our eye sockets.

 

[Mirdath]

There is nothing to cite. That’s the point. Cite something that contradicts my statement. Or even, from your personal life, one single example of a long-term male homosexual couple that has been monogamous and faithful.

I happen to know some. Back up your statement or retract it.

Look at historical social statistics. The prevalence of these problems has increased dramatically in recent times. If it is simply a consequence of human nature, and not at all the environment in which we live, an environment shaped in part by civil laws, then the statistics would be flat.

The maximum is 25 divorces per thousand married women? Something’s wrong here…

And there are more things different about today’s society as compared with 1880’s America than birth control. For one thing, you know, women aren’t chattel anymore.

Since when did this conversation become us vs. them? What do you mean by “you guys”?

I’m a queer non-Catholic. You’re pushing all kinds of garbage about one group to which I belong, and holding one to which you belong up as a beacon of comparative perfection.

Yes, because the truth is that they can’t. Isn’t it stunning? I mean, you’d think at least one couple would be able, but it hasn’t been documented.

‘Truth’? I happen to know such couples personally. Your ‘truth’ is nothing more than plain libel unless you can confirm that, after interviewing every single male homosexual on planet Earth, none of them have been in a constant, committed relationship.

I was merely taking issue with a myth proposed by the previous poster, the myth that there are faithful, loving male homosexual couples in committed relationships somewhere in the world just like there are faithful, loving married couples, and we should do something for them.

Once again, show that this is a myth and erase my responsible, committed, loving male homosexual friends in stable relationships from existence or retract it.

 

[jmj603]

I happen to know some. Back up your statement or retract it.

Here (cache)

Snippet:

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

Married couples

· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]

· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]

· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]

Male Homosexuals

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]

“Commitment” in Male Homosexual Couples

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” or “monogamous” typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, “Gay culture allows men to explore different…forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”[16]

· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which “many self-described ‘monogamous’ couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern.”[17]

· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]

As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.

(To be continued)

 

[jmj603]

Continued from above:

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_4.gif
([]Image Link](http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_4.gif))

Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.

According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]

Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage:
Homosexuals…are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good “marital” relationship.[20]

While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

The maximum is 25 divorces per thousand married women? Something’s wrong here…

It’s per year.

And there are more things different about today’s society as compared with 1880’s America than birth control. For one thing, you know, women aren’t chattel anymore.

You might account for some of the increase, but not the doubling from 1960 to 1980, or even the temporary increases during the world wars.

I’m a queer non-Catholic. You’re pushing all kinds of garbage about one group to which I belong

Find one documented case of total fidelity and I’ll retract the claim about “none”.

holding one to which you belong up as a beacon of comparative perfection.

I never said anything remotely like that.

‘Truth’? I happen to know such couples personally. Your ‘truth’ is nothing more than plain libel unless you can confirm that, after interviewing every single male homosexual on planet Earth, none of them have been in a constant, committed relationship.

In case of libel, it’s up to the petitioner to prove it. It’s real easy to say, “I know some people”, just as you can say, “I saw Martians”. But no documentation exists. Either you do not know such couples personally, or if you do, they need to come forward and be documented in a non-anonymous setting. Again, the conclusion of The Male Couple, a book written for gays, is:

Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.

 

[RyanL]

…I happen to know such couples personally. Your ‘truth’ is nothing more than plain libel unless you can confirm that, after interviewing every single male homosexual on planet Earth, none of them have been in a constant, committed relationship.

Once again, show that this is a myth and erase my responsible, committed, loving male homosexual friends in stable relationships from existence or retract it.

M,

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know any homosexuals who were chaste until finding “that one, right person” who they would be with for the rest of their life?

Basically, what I’m wondering is if you personally (or impersonally, for that matter) know any examples of the gay counterpart to those of us heterosexuals who are virgins until marriage and faithful until death.

No back-talk coming – just interested.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Your statement is rather like me challenging you to prove that there are no blue swans on earth. Think you could prove that negative? Think that would change the facts about blue swans?

But if I were to *produce *a blue swan…well…that would make all the difference.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Suat
It is my personal belief that people should not have more kids than they can afford to take care of

.

This is relative. One couple may believe that each child need it’s own bedroom and everything that money can buy. Another may not place that much importance on material things.

.

That said, I also do not believe in punishing the kids for the sins of the parents, so maybe forced temporary sterilization for the people who continue to have kids and expect the government to give them money for it?

So only the rich will be allowed to have children, correct? Will it be a one-child policy like China?

That is exactly the point. The heterosexual couples need their money so they can take care of their children and they should not be paying a dime for single man’s partner. Single men and women pay for themselves and often single mothers carry the added burden of caring totally for their children.

Any man can get married but he must marry a woman.I do understand that homosexual feelings bring about a lot of issues but we can’t change society.

 

[goofyjim]

oh for goodness’ sake. if the state were only willing to grant the civil rights associated with marriage (visitation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.) to couples who could demonstrate they’d never had sexual relations with other people, there’d be precious few civil marriages out there.

it doesn’t matter whether you or i or the church believe a marriage is healthy or not. if two people are expressing a desire to live together and take care of one another, there’s no reason why the government should interfere.

a little background on myself: i’ve identified as bisexual all of my adult life, and am leaving that behind. i’m living chastely now, and if i marry it will be with a man until death do us part. civil union in new hampshire, massachusetts, washington state (new!), denmark or timbuktu poses no threat to me.

Hear, hear.

 

[goofyjim]

If married heterosexual couples don’t want to pay into the tax system for civil unions, why in the world are us single males paying into the tax system for other families. Everyone for themselves I say. I refuse to see why I have to pay a school district tax when I have no kids in school.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by** goofyjim**
Everyone for themselves I say. I refuse to see why I have to pay a school district tax when I have no kids in school

No it is not everyone for himself. You pay for your sister or brother’s children, your cousins, etc. It is a community giving to educate children. I do the same even though I have no children(homeschool) or grandchildren in the public school system at this time.

 

[Suat]

Did you bother to look up any of the references from the sections you listed? I did, starting with [12] (linky) as that is the first one that deals with homosexuals. What I find the most interesting is the objective listed for the article:

Objective: To assess the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partners in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).

So if I wanted to know the percentage of catholic men who cheat on their wives, I should start by looking only at those who have acquired STDs since the beginning of their marriage?

Sigh. Look to the first sentence of the paper and find out that the data used in it comes from another paper. So now we get to search for that one too. It happens to be Davidovich U, et. al AIDS 15:1303 (2001).

Objectives: To examine the share of steady versus casual partners as the source of HIV infection in gay male seroconversions between 1984 and 2000 and the effect of age at seroconversion on the source of HIV transmission.

Look at little further to find out who they included in the sample:

Our working sample consisted of 144 cohort participants who seroconverted within the study between 1984 and 2000. Of these, 10 seroconversions had to be excluded as, in these particular cases, the source of HIV transmission could not be established (see Measures section for more detail). The final working sample consisted therefore of 134 participants. There were no significant differences between the total cohort and the working sample of seroconverters in any of the characteristics noted above.

Again, it looks only at people who have acquired an STD, not a very good sample of the entire population.

I think that I can safely conclude that any of the conclusions obtained from the data in Xiridou can be ignored as it seems the author of the anti-gay article never actually bothered to read the paper.

Normally at this point I put the article away, but in an attempt at fairness I will read on. [14] I cannot access without going to the library, so I will skip onto [15]. From what I can gather of this article, it was interested only in people who had sexual relationships within the past 6 months. And it does state that ~20% of the men were in monogamous relationships, clearly not the 0% you think.

It never fails to amuse me that the people who claim the moral high ground are the same ones who are willing to lie, deceive and make false accusations against an entire group of people all in the name their God. Hypocrites.