Gay marriages

[DN]

I don't think he's joking. Which is concerning.

 

Your right I'm not joking I'm deadly serious. Something has to be done, and sometimes it has to be drastic in order to make any real/effective change.

 

What alternative do we have? Let individuals have babies willy-nilly, then have generations upon generations of people perpuating misery? Having a child is a privelege not a right - for anybody.

 

A privilege granted by who? Who sets the standards to determine who is a fit parent? Politicians? Social workers? People like me? People like you? Who examines the examiners?

 

What you are suggesting is something that would have been dreamed up on some sort of totalitarian state, where human beings are considered to be the property of the State and have no individual rights at all.

 

The way things are may be imperfect - but it is infinitely superior to anything remotely similar to that which you are proposing.

[leicesterstreet]

A privilege granted by who? Who sets the standards to determine who is a fit parent? Politicians? Social workers? People like me? People like you? Who examines the examiners?

 

What you are suggesting is something that would have been dreamed up on some sort of totalitarian state, where human beings are considered to be the property of the State and have no individual rights at all.

 

The way things are may be imperfect - but it is infinitely superior to anything remotely similar to that which you are proposing.

 

Well that would be the hardest thing to figure out - the criteria on which licenses are given out. I mean there's a few basic things you could look at ie age, drug dependancy's, history of violent crime, as far as the rest goes I suppose that could be decided by civil committee's in conjunction with the government of the day.

 

Infinitely superior? based on what evidence? Your focus is on the rights of the parents - what about the rights of the child to a happy and successful life? I couldn't give a toss about the parents to be honest, I'm concerned about the child and taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the child.

[novaseeker]

I don't believe in unconditional love. If someone cheats on me, I will not love them anymore. If someone lies to me about their gender, I will not love them anymore. If someone murders a family member, I will not love them anymore. I think you get the point. To me, love is conditional.

 

Wow!

 

That in itself, as unrelated to the thread topic here, is a stunning, saddening thing to read. For me, in my own personal life, that kind of love isn't love at all ... I mean, actions have consequences in that lies, brutalities and the like can interfere with and wreck relationships, but not love ... I don't 'unlove' my ex because of all the bad things that happened ... I love her differently, but my love for her was not and is not conditioned on anything in particular, including our marriage actually working out. If it were, then it wasn't love, in my eyes. Of course, you're free to define love as you wish as it is relevant for your own life, but to be honest your statement there is quite shocking to me.

[novaseeker]

Gender is a superficial quality.

 

Amen.

[novaseeker]

Yes to both.

 

The thing about the kids issue is that gays and lesbians can adopt kids in many states now as it is, regardless of what people think about that. In my view, it's far better to have some kind of legal framework for this around committed relationships between the parents (ie marriage, civil unions or something like that) because it is protective of the child in the event the relationship breaks down, and provides a more solid framework for resolving those kinds of issues.

 

The current situation we have in the USA at the moment is fairly chaotic. Some states will marry same sex couples, others will grant civil unions, and a much larger number will allow gays and lesbians to adopt. Trouble is: what happens when folks move, as they typically do in the course of a lifetime. Many states have passed laws that say they won't recognize out of state same sex unions or marriages at all. There was recently a case in Virginia, which has this kind of law, where Virginia basically ignored Vermont's custodial decree relating to a Vermont civil union between two lesbian women ... the birth mother had moved to Virginia and sought to exlcude her ex from having any rights with respect to the child and Virginia issued a decree to this effect, totally ignoring what Vermont had decided should be the case with respect to custody, visitation, child support and the like. This is obviously chaotic. States are supposed to give 'full faith & credit' to the laws and judicial decisions of their sister states, and generally this is followed in family law such that if you are married in state X and move to state Y you don't have to pass state Y's test for getting married in ordero to be considered married. What we have now are actively discriminatory statutes on their face being passed in the more conservative tier of states, and the result can only really be a judicial showdown, or series of showdowns, in the federal court system here in the years to come.

 

Having said that, it does appear to me that the genie is out of the bottle on this. Just as has been the case for the emancipation of other downtrodden, disenfranchised groups ... women, black people, other minorities ... the march of LGBT people towards fuller equality under the law will be time-consuming, not done without intense social debate and conflict, but at the same time inexorable and unavaoidable. I have no doubt that 30-40 years from now we will look back on this day and age relating to gay rights the same way that we now look back on the 60s and 70s with respect to the civil rights movement and shudder at our society's capacity for prejudice.

[lillady898]

I don't believe in unconditional love. If someone cheats on me, I will not love them anymore. If someone lies to me about their gender, I will not love them anymore. If someone murders a family member, I will not love them anymore. I think you get the point. To me, love is conditional.

 

Wow!

 

That in itself, as unrelated to the thread topic here, is a stunning, saddening thing to read. For me, in my own personal life, that kind of love isn't love at all ... I mean, actions have consequences in that lies, brutalities and the like can interfere with and wreck relationships, but not love ... I don't 'unlove' my ex because of all the bad things that happened ... I love her differently, but my love for her was not and is not conditioned on anything in particular, including our marriage actually working out. If it were, then it wasn't love, in my eyes. Of course, you're free to define love as you wish as it is relevant for your own life, but to be honest your statement there is quite shocking to me.

 

It actually wasn't completely irrelevant- I was responding to a previous post and clarifying a comment that was made.

 

The statement I had made is all a matter of opinion (as is the entirity of this whole thread). I know many people who feel the same as me on the matter of unconditional love, as well as many who disagree. However, I am always happy to shock someone.

[DN]

 

Well that would be the hardest thing to figure out - the criteria on which licenses are given out. I mean there's a few basic things you could look at ie age, drug dependancy's, history of violent crime, as far as the rest goes I suppose that could be decided by civil committee's in conjunction with the government of the day.

 

Infinitely superior? based on what evidence? Your focus is on the rights of the parents - what about the rights of the child to a happy and successful life? I couldn't give a toss about the parents to be honest, I'm concerned about the child and taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the child.

 

You really believe that you, or a committee presumably made up of people who think like you, would have the wisdom to predict if a child would be happy and well looked after.

 

So, I assume, by your criteria, that parents who are both promiscuous, one of whom has syphilis, both of whom take little interest in the upbringing of their children, who either abuse or allow others to abuse their children, who offer little emotional support to them, would be ineligible for a licence to have children.

 

Congratulations - you just prevented the birth of Winston Churchill. Or you would have if your ideas had prevailed at the time of his conception.

 

Apart from the obvious disregard for human rights, my problem with your idea is that people would be prevented from having children not just because of an ill-defined and unfair test of suitability, but also because of prejudice, bigotry and ignorance.

 

I too support the rights of children - and I think the right of children to be brought up by loving parents, gay or otherwise, supersedes the right of 'society' to preemptively determine who those parents may be.

[Tigris]

Yes I think that gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children. They should have the same rights as heterosexual people.

[leicesterstreet]

 

Congratulations - you just prevented the birth of Winston Churchill. Or you would have if your ideas had prevailed at the time of his conception.

 

Apart from the obvious disregard for human rights, my problem with your idea is that people would be prevented from having children not just because of an ill-defined and unfair test of suitability, but also because of prejudice, bigotry and ignorance.

 

I too support the rights of children - and I think the right of children to be brought up by loving parents, gay or otherwise, supersedes the right of 'society' to preemptively determine who those parents may be.

 

I'm sorry but the conception of one great person (Churchill) does not justify the misery of thousands, possibly millions of others - that argument just doesn't wash with me.

 

It's not so much a disregard of human rights..... I have considered the rights to bear children, and I believe that to ensure healthy, happy children superceding these rights is appropriate in this case.

 

Just because you can have a baby doesn't mean you should. And anyway, who says it's a right to have children? Who made that rule? Humans are capable of many things but doesn't mean we have the "right" to do them by default.

[habitual_loser]

Absolutely I think gay people should be able to get married and adopt and have children, subject to the same restrictions as straight folks.

 

Marriage is about two separate things - the legal bit and the label. If they were _recognized_ as two separate things we wouldn't have a debate about it at all. For some reason, gay-marriage opponents tend to take offense at the idea that it might be clearer to think of it as just-a-contract as far as the state is concerned and let people deal with the social bit.

 

As for kids, straight people can be monsters, as the news has shown you. When ignorant people stop thinking of gays as demons and child molesters, I think they may recognize that gays can have long, stable, happy relationships, can be financially sound, and can make excellent parents. It's kind of hard to be have family and not pick up any parenting skills during the whole 'growing-up' part of your life.

[novaseeker]

Marriage is about two separate things - the legal bit and the label. If they were _recognized_ as two separate things we wouldn't have a debate about it at all. For some reason, gay-marriage opponents tend to take offense at the idea that it might be clearer to think of it as just-a-contract as far as the state is concerned and let people deal with the social bit.

 

Right. I suppose that's the logic behind having 'civil unions' or some other type of label for same-sex unions other than marriage. It's still a sop to the anti-gay-marriage crowd, but it's progress all the same.

 

When ignorant people stop thinking of gays as demons and child molesters, I think they may recognize that gays can have long, stable, happy relationships, can be financially sound, and can make excellent parents..

 

I actually think it's in part due to the reality that same-sex couples historically haven't been able to form recognized committed relationships (that is, legally and socially recognized and respected) that the gay community has been prone, in parts, to relatively unstable relationship patterns as compared with the straight community. I think with the possibility of recognized and respected LTRs offered by marriage and civil unions, the option of having a committed LTR will be open to more same-sex couples, and I would expect this will over time have an impact on behavior. To a certain extent it is a 'chicken and egg' problem, but at the same time I really do believe that a reason why the gay community, as a whole, has a reputation for engaging in more 'fringe' kinds of behavior is because the gay community, as a whole, has been banished to live on the fringe of society, in terms of acceptance, and that, while in some respects is demeaning it has also been 'liberating' in terms of allowing a lot of more fringe practices to proliferate within the gay community ... certainly more than would be the case if there were many same sex couples living in suburbia, raising kids, and attending PTA.

[annie24]

I actually think it's in part due to the reality that same-sex couples historically haven't been able to form recognized committed relationships (that is, legally and socially recognized and respected) that the gay community has been prone, in parts, to relatively unstable relationship patterns as compared with the straight community.

 

I think if you read the relationship posts about straight relationships and gay relationships, you'll realize that gay relationships are no more dysfunctional than straight relationships...

 

Just because you can have a baby doesn't mean you should. And anyway, who says it's a right to have children? Who made that rule? Humans are capable of many things but doesn't mean we have the "right" to do them by default.

 

I'm not sure what country you are in, but in America, freedom to procreate is considered one of our basic fundamental rights. It's so important that you can get an ANNULMENT of a marriage if a spouse suddenly changes their mind about having children. More than a divorce - an ANNULMENT!

[leicesterstreet]

I'm not sure what country you are in, but in America, freedom to procreate is considered one of our basic fundamental rights. It's so important that you can get an ANNULMENT of a marriage if a spouse suddenly changes their mind about having children. More than a divorce - an ANNULMENT!

 

I live in Australia FYI. So basically what your saying is because it's in America it must be right because Americans are right about everything? Come on that's not even a rational argument.

[leicesterstreet]

See now this was a well thought out, rational piece of commentary that I actually do agree might be true.

[RayKay]

I'm not sure what country you are in, but in America, freedom to procreate is considered one of our basic fundamental rights. It's so important that you can get an ANNULMENT of a marriage if a spouse suddenly changes their mind about having children. More than a divorce - an ANNULMENT!

 

I live in Australia FYI. So basically what your saying is because it's in America it must be right because Americans are right about everything? Come on that's not even a rational argument.

 

I don't think Annie was saying that at all. She was giving her example from where she DOES live, nor do I think in there anywhere she said thereforeeee it must be right.

 

Well for the record it's also a fundamental right in Canada, and many other countries around the world. The few countries where the freedom to have children as you wish or divorce, are often also those where certain segments of the population are devalued and not given autonomy of their own lives. Last time I checked in Australia too there were no limits on how many children you could have, or a ban on divorce even if only one partner wants it and so forth.

[leicesterstreet]

I don't think Annie was saying that at all. She was giving her example from where she DOES live, nor do I think in there anywhere she said thereforeeee it must be right.

 

Well for the record it's also a fundamental right in Canada, and many other countries around the world. The few countries where the freedom to have children as you wish or divorce, are often also those where certain segments of the population are devalued and not given autonomy of their own lives. Last time I checked in Australia too there were no limits on how many children you could have, or a ban on divorce even if only one partner wants it and so forth.

 

My question was not really literal but more metaphorical. I'm saying that......somewhere along the line the right to procreate has been made fundamental, which makes no sense to me. This decision was probably derived from the Church no doubt. Which in the US is ironic, considering laws and things of that nature are meant to be separate from any Religious leanings.

 

I will reiterate, just because we have the capabillity to do something, doesn't mean we should - this includes having a baby. I do not believe that this should be a fundamental right. If someone can give me a good reason why it should, then please explain.

[lillady898]

I will reiterate, just because we have the capabillity to do something, doesn't mean we should - this includes having a baby.

 

What your argument is now saying is completely irrellevant to the topic of this post.

 

And for the record, there are many things you could say that we should do because we have the capability.

[lanty3]

i must say no to both marriage and adoption. my view is that the concept of gay rights sends a message to society that GENDER DOESN`T MATTER.

this would be especially confusing for children. harmful even. yes,we are all "people", but we are MALE and FEMALE. there are differences. whether we are "created" that way or naturally developed as such. which ever you prefer to believe.

our laws have to recognize these differences(divinley ordained or natural) to promote a better society. i am in NO WAY saying homosexuals should be harassed or abused ,but i do not see how homosexuality can be identified as a distinct biological class of people. i see no biological imperative same sex attraction or physical relations. people are free to do as they wish but society should not be expected to turn itself inside out.

[UT]

i must say no to both marriage and adoption. my view is that the concept of gay rights sends a message to society that GENDER DOESN`T MATTER.

 

Quite the opposite, I think this does show that gender matters a lot. What you are saying is that the concept of accepting and treating people equally regardless of sexual preference sends the message that gender doesn't matter... peculiar..

 

By accepting the people of different gender who can fall in love with people of the same gender we are acknowledging that there are different genders and everyone can fall in love with everyone. If the gender wouldn't matter then anyone could fall in love with anyone else, meaning everyone would be bisexual. But then again bisexuality is quite normal in the nature (some by mistake and homo- and heterosexuality isn't "right" because we have mental blocks and in a way discriminate one gender.

 

 

this would be especially confusing for children. harmful even. yes,we are all "people", but we are MALE and FEMALE.

 

No studies have ever been able to prove that is would be harmful for the children. Children are very good at accepting and adapting. What IS harmful though, is prejudice. Other people not being able to accept it is harmful, not the homosexual couple.

 

Children do need both male and female role models, but that doesn't mean they have to be the parents. It can be an aunt or someone else, even a neighbour would do. The child just needs others to bond to and identify with.

 

there are differences. whether we are "created" that way or naturally developed as such. which ever you prefer to believe.

our laws have to recognize these differences(divinley ordained or natural) to promote a better society.

 

And it does. Society is accepting differences and welcoming diversity. just because the society change doesn't go the way you'd prefer doesn't mean that it's wrong development.

 

i am in NO WAY saying homosexuals should be harassed or abused

 

But you seem to be saying that we can't exist in a "normal" society. We shouldn't be abused, but discriminated.

 

,but i do not see how homosexuality can be identified as a distinct biological class of people. i see no biological imperative same sex attraction or physical relations. people are free to do as they wish but society should not be expected to turn itself inside out.

 

What "biological imperative" do condoms have? Homosexuals can't reproduce which by many is seen as the biological meaning of life, but when using a condom you're doing the same. We are in fact one of the few animals that have sex for pleasure and that changes a few things and we live in societies, human societies and many societies are very alike. For example ants, bees a.s.o. everyone is not needed to re-produce but they are all equally as important for the society to be successful.

[FoxLocke]

Cool, a thread ressurrection...lol.

 

I was reading where Dark Blue wrote that gay couples shouldn't adopt because "they can't reproduce children." (I'll bite my tongue on that, because I don't want to say anything belittling or condescending)...

However, if that is the case, then that is grounds for gays to marry...As two women can have babies without a man. All they need is a sperm bank. They don't have to adopt. Case closed end of discussion...

 

As it is Gays and Lesbians should have the right to marry...

 

Marraige stopped being about religion in the year 2 AD...Now it is nothing more than a legally binding contract that protects both parties in the event of death or divorce, period.

Gay couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples...

 

Gay couples are not allowed to visit their loved ones in hospitals because they aren't considered "family."

 

Gay couples can have their homes taken away, by immediate "family," members if their partner passes away...

 

and I could go on and on about the terrible injustices thrust upon tax paying citizens in, supposedly, "FREE" societies, but I digress...

 

So spare me those nonsensical, outdated, puritanical, Judeo Christian views...This is about civil rights, no more no less.

 

NO ONE should be treated like a second class citizen, regardless of whether or not their union will produce children.

 

i must say no to both marriage and adoption. my view is that the concept of gay rights sends a message to society that GENDER DOESN`T MATTER.

 

No, it is saying that we don't want children lost in the foster care system(especially when most straight marraiges are too consumed with having biological children...Someone has to care for the children out there who won't have a stable home). And I think that is a really selfish assertion...

 

this would be especially confusing for children. harmful even. yes,we are all "people", but we are MALE and FEMALE. there are differences. whether we are "created" that way or naturally developed as such. which ever you prefer to believe.

our laws have to recognize these differences(divinley ordained or natural) to promote a better society. i am in NO WAY saying homosexuals should be harassed or abused ,but i do not see how homosexuality can be identified as a distinct biological class of people. i see no biological imperative same sex attraction or physical relations. people are free to do as they wish but society should not be expected to turn itself inside out.

 

It isn't confusing to children. Children accept the reality they are in because they don't know anything different. So it really shouldn't matter if a child is being raised by two people of the same gender...If their reality is love and compassion then that is beneficial to kids...

 

What is confusing are divorced parents who shuttle their kids too and fro every weekend...That could be confusing.

 

So no, I am not for denying children love based on gender roles. This is the real world not Ozzie and Harriet.

[woah_jaxsta]

Yep I think that gay couples should be able to get married, and here in New Zealand you can get a civil union and I plan intend on doing that!

 

As for having kids, i believe its totally up to them. I don't want kids thereforeeee I wouldn't adopt them. But i think if i did want kids then I would definatly adopt them and I believe that if gay couples want to have children then its totally their decision.

 

I think that gay couples should be given the same rights as straight couples as we are all human and deserve the same amount of respect and rights.

[FoxLocke]

True.

 

If you don't want to call it marraige then call is something else...

 

But give Tax paying citizens equality under the LAW.

[lanty3]

yes,humans have sex for pleasure and apart from reproduction it can also be a way for the two genders to relate to one another.bonding if you will.this would be how the species both propogates and cares for itself.the question is are homosexual relationships the same thing.

[UT]

We've had the ability to enter into Civil union since 1995 here in sweden and only Denmark was before us I think (1994) bastage and adoption has been eligable for gay and lesbian since 2003.

 

 

yes,humans have sex for pleasure and apart from reproduction it can also be a way for the two genders to relate to one another.bonding if you will.this would be how the species both propogates and cares for itself.the question is are homosexual relationships the same thing.

 

I do believe it is although I don't think either staright or gay people could aswer that. the only one who could really answer would be someones who's 100% bi (likes males 50% and females 50%). But if you think about it, love is a feeling which in both gay and straight individuals provokes the same reactions, the same feelings. like I don't just want to have sex with my boyfriend but I also want to be there for him. Hold him, care for him. kiss him good night, see him smiling. I'm guessing that's the same thing you'd feel for a woman.

 

I think that fundamentally it's the same but love just like everything else is indivitual. I just don't see any difference in it because it might be between man and man or woman and woman.

[lil_kaila]

Well Lanty3, I'm sorry you feel that way about gay marriage but a lot of people in this world start to realise it's time for change. And more and more countries have already changed their laws.

 

Nations that recognize gay marriage

* Netherlands: The first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

* Belgium: The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

* Canada: In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

* Spain: Spain became the forth nation to allow gay marriage on June 29, 2005.

* South Africa: South Africa became the fifth nation to recognize gay marriage in 2005.

 

U.S. states that recognize gay marriage

* Massachusetts: On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.

 

Nations that allow same-sex partnerships

*Croatia: Civil partnerships for same-sex couples since 2003.

* Denmark: Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.

* Finland: registered partnership benefits since September 2001.

* France: “Civil Solidarity Pacts,” were instituted in 1999.

* Germany: Gay couples can register as "Life Partnerships".

* Great Britain: 'Domestic partnership' since since 2005.

* Hungary: protection under common-law marriages since 1995.

* Iceland: Registered partnership since 1996

* Luxembourg: Civil partnership legislation since 2004.

* New Zealand Recognition of same-sex civil unions since 2004

* Norway: Since 1996 protection under registered partnerships.

* Portugal: Common law marriage.

* Scotland: Civil partnerships since 2004.

* Sweden: Domestic partnership laws since 1995.

* Switzerland: Limited legal benefits with civil recognition.

Source: link removed

 

I'm going to quote Henk Krol on this (He is the editor of a gay newspaper in The Netherlands): " We don't have gay marriage here. We have civil marriage, and it's the same for everyone."

 

Right on!!!