their own tent and left on their own. That is the thinking that we must get rid of. We can’t push same-sex couples out of our society.

Leave the concepts of sinful, unnatural, kooky, and such to the psychologist and clergy on a personal basis. The rest of us need to worry about what is right under the law.

If we are going to reserve marriage for heterosexual relationships, then maybe we should reserve Binding Relationship for same-sex couples having common property interest.

Then we would receive invitations such as: John Murphy and James Henderson would like to have you join them in celebration of their Binding on September 15, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. at the town firehouse. Bring a covered dish and either a dessert o

Up here in Idaho the state is in the process of passing an amendment to the State Constitution to ban marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. This is Mormon Country and our influence (I’m a Mormon) may guarantee the passing of the amendment when it gets to the people.

Marriage to a Mormon is a God-ordained union between a man and women that can be eternalized in a Mormon Temple.

I think that most Idahoans would agree with the first part of that definition. They would accept that marriage is a God-ordained union between a man and a women that ends at death.

Marriage also has the definition of an intimate and close union.

Intimate has its own meaning. Two peas in a pod are intimate but probably not engaged in a sexual relationship.

The crutch of the current activity is anti-homosexuality. I’m against homosexuality from at least this point of view: The DNA of such folks is all too often not passed on. Talents and intellect are lost forever.

Our society has decided that when two women or two men live together that they are homosexuals. This may not be true. It’s not always true. Adults often like to combine resources to live better. For example, sharing the cost of a home makes it possible to have a better home.

Having someone to talk to is also a benefit.

No sexual relationship is required or need to be implied. School teachers that have never married often share a home.

We should not decide that every male couple living together is engaging in sodomy. We should give them the benefit of the doubt. Don’t you feel better when you feel that someone is not doing what you consider to be evil?

Anyway, here is the point. Same-sex couples living together have legal rights. They need to be protected in regard to property distribution in case of separation by agreement or by death. If children are living in the home, as they often are, they need to be protected. Such couples should have legal agreements to protect themselves.

In normal marriage, the state sets up legal agreements inherent in the marriage.

You get married, you have rights.

Same-sex couples living together have no inherent rights although I’m sure they can have an attorney write them up. But why can’t they go to the courthouse and get a license to join in a state sponsored legal agreement such as marriage? Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?

I know that some homosexuals want to be married and treated like other married couples. They want legal rights and they want to adopt children. They want permanent binding.

I think that we must remove the concept of sin from same-sex unions. It may be an incorrect assumption on our part. We should allow such unions to be protected by law. The problem is a conceived problem that is not going to go away until we solve it.

I’ve read that some American Indian tribes saw homosexuality as just a fluke of nature. Homosexual men were separated to their own tent and left on their own. That is the thinking that we must get rid of. We can’t push same-sex couples out of our society.

Leave the concepts of sinful, unnatural, kooky, and such to the psychologist and clergy on a personal basis. The rest of us need to worry about what is right under the law.

If we are going to reserve marriage for heterosexual relationships, then maybe we should reserve Binding Relationship for same-sex couples having common property interest.

Then we would receive invitations such as: John Murphy and James Henderson would like to have you join them in celebration of their Binding on September 15, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. at the town firehouse. Bring a covered dish and either a dessert or

ntimate but probably not engaged in a sexual relationship.

The crutch of the current activity is anti-homosexuality. I’m against homosexuality from at least this point of view: The DNA of such folks is all too often not passed on. Talents and intellect are lost forever.

Our society has decided that when two women or two men live together that they are homosexuals. This may not be true. It’s not always true. Adults often like to combine resources to live better. For example, sharing the cost of a home makes it possible to have a better home.

Having someone to talk to is also a benefit.

No sexual relationship is required or need to be implied. School teachers that have never married often share a home.

We should not decide that every male couple living together is engaging in sodomy. We should give them the benefit of the doubt. Don’t you feel better when you feel that someone is not doing what you consider to be evil?

Anyway, here is the point. Same-sex couples living together have legal rights. They need to be protected in regard to property distribution in case of separation by agreement or by death. If children are living in the home, as they often are, they need to be protected. Such couples should have legal agreements to protect themselves.

In normal marriage, the state sets up legal agreements inherent in the marriage.

You get married, you have rights.

Same-sex couples living together have no inherent rights although I’m sure they can have an attorney write them up. But why can’t they go to the courthouse and get a license to join in a state sponsored legal agreement such as marriage? Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?

I know that some homosexuals want to be married and treated like other married couples. They want legal rights and they want to adopt children. They want permanent binding.

I think that we must remove the concept of sin from same-sex unions. It may be an incorrect assumption on our part. We should allow such unions to be protected by law. The problem is a conceived problem that is not going to go away until we solve it.

I’ve read that some American Indian tribes saw homosexuality as just a fluke of nature. Homosexual men were separated to their own tent and left on their own. That is the thinking that we must get rid of. We can’t push same-sex couples out of our society.

Leave the concepts of sinful, unnatural, kooky, and such to the psychologist and clergy on a personal basis. The rest of us need to worry about what is right under the law.

If we are going to reserve marriage for heterosexual relationships, then maybe we should reserve Binding Relationship for same-sex couples having common property interest.

Then we would receive invitations such as: John Murphy and James Henderson would like to have you join them in celebration of their Binding on September 15, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. at the town firehouse. Bring a covered dish and either a dessert o

that every male couple living together is engaging in sodomy. We should give them the benefit of the doubt. Don’t you feel better when you feel that someone is not doing what you consider to be evil?

Anyway, here is the point. Same-sex couples living together have legal rights. They need to be protected in regard to property distribution in case of separation by agreement or by death. If children are living in the home, as they often are, they need to be protected. Such couples should have legal agreements to protect themselves.

In normal marriage, the state sets up legal agreements inherent in the marriage.

You get married, you have rights.

Same-sex couples living together have no inherent rights although I’m sure they can have an attorney write them up. But why can’t they go to the courthouse and get a license to join in a state sponsored legal agreement such as marriage? Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?

I know that some homosexuals want to be married and treated like other married couples. They want legal rights and they want to adopt children. They want permanent binding.

I think that we must remove the concept of sin from same-sex unions. It may be an incorrect assumption on our part. We should allow such unions to be protected by law. The problem is a conceived problem that is not going to go away until we solve it.

I’ve read that some American Indian tribes saw homosexuality as just a fluke of nature. Homosexual men were separated to their own tent and left on their own. That is the thinking that we must get rid of. We can’t push same-sex couples out of our society.

Leave the concepts of sinful, unnatural, kooky, and such to the psychologist and clergy on a personal basis. The rest of us need to worry about what is right under the law.

If we are going to reserve marriage for heterosexual relationships, then maybe we should reserve Binding Relationship for same-sex couples having common property interest.

Then we would receive invitations such as: John Murphy and James Henderson would like to have you join them in celebration of their Binding on September 15, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. at the town firehouse. Bring a covered dish and either a dessert o

ve an attorney write them up. But why can’t they go to the courthouse and get a license to join in a state sponsored legal agreement such as marriage? Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?

I know that some homosexuals want to be married and treated like other married couples. They want legal rights and they want to adopt children. They want permanent binding.

I think that we must remove the concept of sin from same-sex unions. It may be an incorrect assumption on our part. We should allow such unions to be protected by law. The problem is a conceived problem that is not going to go away until we solve it.

I’ve read that some American Indian tribes saw homosexuality as just a fluke of nature. Homosexual men were separated to their own tent and left on their own. That is the thinking that we must get rid of. We can’t push same-sex couples out of our society.

Leave the concepts of sinful, unnatural, kooky, and such to the psychologist and clergy on a personal basis. The rest of us need to worry about what is right under the law.

If we are going to reserve marriage for heterosexual relationships, then maybe we should reserve Binding Relationship for same-sex couples having common property interest.

Then we would receive invitations such as: John Murphy and James Henderson would like to have you join them in celebration of their Binding on September 15, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. at the town firehouse. Bring a covered dish and either a dessert o

their own tent and left on their own. That is the thinking that we must get rid of. We can’t push same-sex couples out of our society.

Leave the concepts of sinful, unnatural, kooky, and such to the psychologist and clergy on a personal basis. The rest of us need to worry about what is right under the law.

If we are going to reserve marriage for heterosexual relationships, then maybe we should reserve Binding Relationship for same-sex couples having common property interest.

Then we would receive invitations such as: John Murphy and James Henderson would like to have you join them in celebration of their Binding on September 15, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. at the town firehouse. Bring a covered dish and either a dessert or a salad.

Now don’t worry if men are dancing with men or women dancing with women. That happens at wedding receptions, doesn’t it? Would you go?

The End

copyright©2006 John Taylor Jones, Ph.D.