| Quote: |
| Pop star Elton John makes English history as he is joined in official civil partnership with his long-time companion David Furnish. Later the couple are to host a lavish star-studded party at their home costing a reported $1.75 million. |
-CNN
YAY FOR GAY RIGHTS!
Though, admittedly, this is a little costly on the party. Shouldn't you be sending that to some sort of charity Elton?
Course, I'm sure he has more than enough to send to charity and spend that much..
But like I was saying...
YAY FOR GAY RIGHTS[/quote]yay for human rights too 
(which of course include rights of gay humans) I actually think its saddening that it has taken this long for same sex couples to have civil partnerships. I don't think it matters weather your gay or straight, couples should have rights that protect them in their life.
As to all the "fanatical" Christians, (not all Christians, just the fanatical ones) running around and going potty over this. All I can say is whatever happened to "Judge not, lest you be judged".
I'm not a fanatical christian, nor am i a christian at all, but i still think this is B.S. i am glad this was not called a marriage because that would really piss me off (not like you care). but marriage was founded on the basis that it was between a man and a woman. i dont mind if there are gays (as long as they dont hit on me) nor do i mind if they share the same rights as a married couple. joint bank accounts changing legal names the whole doo-dah is fine with me and i want them to have rights, but i as a straight male do not want it called a marriage. that is all.
| shr3dd wrote: |
| I'm not a fanatical christian, nor am i a christian at all, but i still think this is B.S. i am glad this was not called a marriage because that would really piss me off (not like you care). but marriage was founded on the basis that it was between a man and a woman. i dont mind if there are gays (as long as they dont hit on me) nor do i mind if they share the same rights as a married couple. joint bank accounts changing legal names the whole doo-dah is fine with me and i want them to have rights, but i as a straight male do not want it called a marriage. that is all. |
does gay marriage suddenly put you at some sort of risk? i don't understand your view.Well, its not called a Marriage because it isnt one.
They do differ in slightly differing ways.
More Info Here
For example;
| Website above wrote: |
| a civil partnership is formed when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is formed when the couple exchange spoken words. Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure. |
While only small differences they do make them quite different in a legal standing. Knape97
| Quote: |
| As to all the "fanatical" Christians, (not all Christians, just the fanatical ones) running around and going potty over this. All I can say is whatever happened to "Judge not, lest you be judged". |
I haven't seen any Christians doing either of those things. And it's not just Christians who appose “gay marriage”. Many people do that believe in tradition and sanctity. Both of which exist to protect society. Marriage has been a very important part of nearly every society for thousands of years and we should not take this for granted. A marriage between a man and a woman is the basis of the family unit, which is the foundation of society.
Of course there is the valid argument that making the definition of “marriage” include two men or two women would not cause anyone some degree of physical harm so why not. But it actually is, by harming the society, breaking it down. I’m not saying it would be the end of the world. I’m just saying it wouldn’t be an improvement.
Questions like this I believe need to be answered with regard more to the society than to a minority of people. In simple terms, is it better to validate this minorities acts or maintain our society? | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Questions like this I believe need to be answered with regard more to the society than to a minority of people. In simple terms, is it better to validate this minorities acts or maintain our society? |
This is precisely the argument used to justify segregation in the US during the Jim Crow days.
Our society is composed entirely of minorities, and minorities within minorities, and minorities within those. As soon as it's okay to disenfranchise one minority, some former members of the majority group become marginal, in line to become the next minority. If it's alright to deny gays some rights, that makes is easier to later on deny rights to single parents or to divorced people or to common-law couples. Our (Western, secular) society is based on respecting everyone's rights, regardless of whether you personally like them or not. As soon as we start sacrificing the rights of the few for the sake of the many, our society will have started on the slippery slope to being a totalitarian, aristocratic hellhole like some of the Middle Eastern theocracies, has thereby ceased to be worth preserving.
BTW, this is an argument strictly for *equal* rights without regard to gender, race, or sexual preference. I'm *not* suggesting that gays should be given special privileges in the vein of affirmative action. Those aren't properly called rights, those are subsidies, and I oppose them like I do all subsidies.I am impressed, though, that so many readers are reacting positively to this news.
When I was in high school, we were far more irrationally homophobic than you guys. It took me a long, long time to really see gays as just another type of person, no better and no worse than anybody else. I'm glad we're making progress.
Texas Al
| Quote: |
| This is precisely the argument used to justify segregation in the US during the Jim Crow days. |
This may be true. But that does not mean that it is not relavant to this issue.
| Quote: |
| Our society is composed entirely of minorities, and minorities within minorities, and minorities within those. As soon as it's okay to disenfranchise one minority, some former members of the majority group become marginal, in line to become the next minority. If it's alright to deny gays some rights, that makes is easier to later on deny rights to single parents or to divorced people or to common-law couples. Our (Western, secular) society is based on respecting everyone's rights, regardless of whether you personally like them or not. As soon as we start sacrificing the rights of the few for the sake of the many, our society will have started on the slippery slope to being a totalitarian, aristocratic hellhole like some of the Middle Eastern theocracies, has thereby ceased to be worth preserving. |
Let’s not get carried away here. No one is discriminating against gays by not letting them get "married”. Homosexuals can get married if they want. The issue is whether or not we should change the definition of a word used to describe a particular type of union that our society hold sacred, the union of a single man and a single woman.
No discrimination, no need to string together “race gender or sexual preference”. The institution has held for thousands of years and I don’t believe it has held do to homophobia or whether or not anyone likes anyone else’s practices. Also, if you want to be Mr. Slippery – Slope, imagining that preserving this sacred institution will somehow slip into some kind of discrimination against all the other groups you mentioned, I have an imaginative tale for you.
If we decide to declare marriage as being man and man or woman and woman then to keep from discriminating against other groups with other sexual preferences, because you did include that….right, we must also include this fellow who’s sexual preference is his dog, this person who’s preference is her brother, this person who’s preference is, oh…I don’t know…his 90 Mustang. They have a consenting partner to whom they are willing to commit so I guess it is hatred fear and bigotry that we don’t call their union MARRIAGE. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Let’s not get carried away here. No one is discriminating against gays by not letting them get "married”. Homosexuals can get married if they want. The issue is whether or not we should change the definition of a word used to describe a particular type of union that our society hold sacred, the union of a single man and a single woman.
|
I basically agree with you. If my calling a life partnership between gay people "marriage" offends a large number of straight people, I'll stop calling it that as a courtesy to them. Much like I don't call dark-skinned people "niggers" as a courtesy to them. Just remember that my choice of words is a courtesy, my small voluntary contribution to upholding the harmony of the civilization we love, not an obligation.
| Quote: |
No discrimination, no need to string together “race gender or sexual preference”. |
Sorry you don't like it when I say that.
| Quote: |
The institution has held for thousands of years |
Duration does not validate an institution. Slavery, despotism, and superstition have also held for thousands of years.
| Quote: |
imagining that preserving this sacred institution |
I'm not talking about the religious aspects of marriage. That's up to the churches, and nobody's forcing them to marry gays. What I'm talking about are economic and contractual rights. The right to next of kin status. The right to file taxes jointly. Stuff like that. And the one thing that is sacred in modernt Western society is equality before the law.
| Quote: |
If we decide to declare marriage as being man and man or woman and woman then to keep from discriminating against other groups with other sexual preferences, because you did include that….right, we must also include this fellow who’s sexual preference is his dog, this person who’s preference is her brother, this person who’s preference is, oh…I don’t know…his 90 Mustang. They have a consenting partner to whom they are willing to commit so I guess it is hatred fear and bigotry that we don’t call their union MARRIAGE. |
As I said, if it's all that important to you, I won't use the M-word. But your analogy is nonsense. Adult men and women are rational beings capable of understanding, entering upon, and abiding by the terms of an agreement. Being capable of responsibilities, they are also entitled to rights. Dogs and cars are not. As far as a man's sexual preference being his brother... well, I'm glad I'm not either of them, but if the feeling between them is mutual, how does that harm you or me other than grossing us out?I'm glad that now Elton John and that other dude will have the right to...
* Claim each other as beneficiaries on health insurance policies.
* Open joint bank accounts.
* Have next-of-kin status for each other in the event of death or medical emergency.
* File taxes jointly.
* Use the existing legal precedent of divorce should the partnership not work out instead of having to reinvent the wheel as some kind of massively complicated civil suit not grounded in precedent at all.
* ...add your favorite legal perks of partnership here.
I really don't care if their partnership is sacred or not. That's between their consciences and God.
Nor do I care what they call their partnership, as long as they have precisely the same legal rights recognized as a long term male-female couple and a long term female-female couple.
TexasAI
These points you make are all beside the point. Gay people can get married and have all of these rights.
If you think that there is some need for same sex unions similar to marraige than that is another issue. You can't just change the definition of a word this important.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
TexasAI
These points you make are all beside the point. Gay people can get married and have all of these rights.
If you think that there is some need for same sex unions similar to marraige than that is another issue. You can't just change the definition of a word this important. |
just because you have a certain idea of what a definition is, doesn't mean that suddenly the whole wide world will have the same definition as you.
obviously 'marriage' is a word that is up for interpretation at this point in time.
I can tell you that marriage definitely includes the union of same sex couples according to my definition and that of many other people 
so there you goearthchild
| Quote: |
just because you have a certain idea of what a definition is, doesn't mean that suddenly the whole wide world will have the same definition as you.
obviously 'marriage' is a word that is up for interpretation at this point in time.
I can tell you that marriage definitely includes the union of same sex couples according to my definition and that of many other people Wink so there you go |
It's not MY definition. It's a very very very long held definition. The one understood when writing many documents, policies, and laws that were written with a certain intent. To change the definition so long kept is to change each and every one of these as well.
The intention being to promote the family unit which strengthens out society. In other words promote a single male and a single female to unite under a single roof, have children, work together raising them, and sending them out as educated hard working well adjusted contributing members of society. Strengthening our clan.
The oposition toward changing the definition of marriage is not based in fear or intolerance. Nor is it based on dislike or misunderstanding. It is based on the needs of our society. A homosexual partnership is not productive in this way.
Next comes the question adoption and artificial fertilization. With regard to adoption I would quickly agree that living with two qualifying dads or mams is better than rotting in an orphanage in East Asia. Both of these issues are sensitive and in comparison to what we know works it has little precedents and should be entered carefully and not under a bright banner of "gay rights". He has not bothered about the media and went by his decision.
Will this encourage more 
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| It's not MY definition. It's a very very very long held definition. The one understood when writing many documents, policies, and laws that were written with a certain intent. To change the definition so long kept is to change each and every one of these as well. |
Exactly for that reason in some places it has to be gay marriage. If your government was simply not in the business of marriage, but only provided a civil union, I suppose you would be happy? Also, what do you care what other people call their relationship? For some people in the gay community you holding on to your definition is exactly why they want to apply the same moniker to their own relationship. To not be excluded from such an essential element of society life.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| The intention being to promote the family unit which strengthens out society. In other words promote a single male and a single female to unite under a single roof, have children, work together raising them, and sending them out as educated hard working well adjusted contributing members of society. Strengthening our clan. |
What are some other outdated customs you would bring back? The right of a man to beat his wife? Remove the right of women to vote? Conscription? Accepting the different lifestyles of others in no way forces you to not have a more traditional lifestyle. The same principles that protect them will protect you and your choices also.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| The oposition toward changing the definition of marriage is not based in fear or intolerance. Nor is it based on dislike or misunderstanding. It is based on the needs of our society. A homosexual partnership is not productive in this way. |
This and the previous would make me believe that you think marriage is for producing children. This is clearly not true.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Next comes the question adoption and artificial fertilization. With regard to adoption I would quickly agree that living with two qualifying dads or mams is better than rotting in an orphanage in East Asia. Both of these issues are sensitive and in comparison to what we know works it has little precedents and should be entered
carefully and not under a bright banner of "gay rights". |
"Rotting in an orphanage in East Asia" - nice, have you been lately? I would think not. Gay couples are already adopting and having that kind of families - and their children even grow up to be heterosexuals, sometimes.Feel free to say what you want, but this is my opinion on homsexuality.
Homosexuals tend to experience phsical changes when entering the transition into homosexuality. Men who become homosexuals early in their life tend to have less "man" hair" then a heterosxual male will and a young heterozeual woman turned homosexual early on, and taking a masculinated route in become a lesbian, tends to grow more hair. Also, the changes in voice indicate hormonal changes as hormones affect the thickness of an individuals vocal cords. As a result, gay men tend to have softer voices while lesbian women tend to have deeper voices.(Note that I write "tend", as everyone's body is different and the transition into homosexuality is never uniform, I'm simply stating a general majority)
So one can cocnlude that homosexuality is, or if not caused by, a hormonal imbalance which leads to such incosistencies that a normal heterosxual person would normally not have. When a person experiences hormonal imbalances, it is generally defined as a disorder which is to be treated. This isn't so for homosexuality for the reason that negative side effects are different from those of other hormonal imbalances such as depression, ADD, hyperactivity, or bipolarity. The only difference in these cases of hormonal imbalance is what is defined as the ailment. I would personally define this ailment as being the unusual affection for the same sex although many disagree with me here.
I would compare creating seperate civil unions for gay people the same as the High School in New York which was made exclusively for homosexuals. It's basis is incorrect. Why then, isn't there a school other "different people" such as those with red hair, or asians, or obsessive gamers or whatnot. People seem to view homosexuality different in all these contexts and I would have to say I feel you are incorrect.
Note however, that I've lived in New York my whole life as well as attend college there. I am speaking from a completely secular point of view so I hope this is not taken to harshly. Just stating my opinion and lookng for some feedback 
Among other things, schools are made for homosexuals because they are often persecuted in normal public schooling. It gives a place where they are free to be who they are. There are christian, jewish, and muslim schools. Being gay isn't quite the same thing as being redheaded. No one treats redheads in the same manner as homosexuals.
Secondly, I think it's pretty obvious a lot of people don't care about the definition of marriage. Marriage for many is the romantic union of two people. Many, including myself, could care less if they are the same sex or not. With the divorce rate near fifty percent, I don't think marriage is particularly sacred anymore--that argument doesn't hold water for a lot of people, especially the millions of kids who don't have two parents that live together and will never remember a 'family unit.' There are more and more kids to gay parents, it's certainly not a problem and there's been no substantial evidence that kids with gay parents grow up poorly. There will always be children to adopt and children who need a home.
If homosexuals can have a family unit and be together, then the only real difference in the name itself--man and woman. Its arbitrary and derogatory to belittle the love between gay people by calling it a "civil union." Call it what it is, a marriage. Because in reality, that's exactly what it is if you ignore gender. Their function in society isn't detrimental. It doesn't tear at the fabric of our world in the manner described. Divorce has changed our world far far more in the negative direction than gay marriage ever will.
Furthermore, what is the connection between the erosion of marriage and the erosion of society?
I'll be so bold as to say the US is not eroding. It has problems like any other culture that ever existed but if you look at the actual numbers we're doing fine despite our high divorce rates, large number of non-traditional families, and increasing tolerance for gay people. The employment rate is slowly improving, more people own their own homes than at any time since the 1980's, and over the last ten years crime rates have been falling according to DOJ statistics.
Where is this erosion that the hardline religious people keep talking about? Or are they just worried that the curches will lose their power because fewer and fewer people will take them seriously?
| benwhite wrote: |
| Among other things, schools are made for homosexuals because they are often persecuted in normal public schooling. It gives a place where they are free to be who they are. There are christian, jewish, and muslim schools. Being gay isn't quite the same thing as being redheaded. No one treats redheads in the same manner as homosexuals. |
The problem with separation in schools is that it does not foster tolerance. If the ideal is a society where we can indeed and truly coexist, then this "societies within society" can be very detrimental. A person could have an entire life within the confines of a particular ideology, which promote a narrow mind set and build the forces that would destroy an initially tolerant society. This is sometimes referred to as "pillar forming". There have to be some points in society where the different microcosms interact, and public institutions such as schools should be some of the first in my mind.
| Texas Al wrote: |
| Where is this erosion that the hardline religious people keep talking about? Or are they just worried that the curches will lose their power because fewer and fewer people will take them seriously? |
Churches are loosing power in the US, counter perhaps to what one might believe. In a recent article in a dutch (sorry) newspaper about the "war on christmas" in the US, it was mentioned that the number of non-religious young people is rapidly increasing. Not to the extend that exists in Europe, but certainly indicating a continuing secularization in the US. A good thing, I believe, but then I am biased .
http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/artikel/1135317648350.htmlWhether or not you agree with separation is irrelevent. If religions can and do, why not gays? Forcing people to run a gauntlet they don't want to won't solve any problems. I've lived in Texas, and I know plenty of white people who went to school with blacks but never really got to know any of them. Mixing people doesn't make tolerance blossom on its own. It's not our (heterosexuals) place to say whether that's okay or not just as it's no ones place to tell Christians that they shouldn't have separate schools in order to teach religion with education.
Unfortunately, with secularization comes extemism. While the fanatical right drives away a lot of people, it also makes religious activists and politics more of a factor than they normally otherwise would. It's a shame because honestly, the country can run without the ulterior agenda. No one needs religion to teach us morals, they're a part of culture now. Faith is great, but it doesn't need to be meshed with government or the rest of secular society.
are you guys ok if your kid lived in a neighborhood full of same sex families?
I'm happy for the gays in England. We live in 2006, so why gays cant marry if they want? In my country, The Netherlands, gay people can also marry, I think every country should make it possible that gays/lesbians can marry. Gay marry is a part of the human rights, I think! About the religious aspects, it's very difficult, but my opinion is that churches have to accept it. But that will be a long and hard way.
| withaar wrote: |
The problem with separation in schools is that it does not foster tolerance. If the ideal is a society where we can indeed and truly coexist, then this "societies within society" can be very detrimental. A person could have an entire life within the confines of a particular ideology, which promote a narrow mind set and build the forces that would destroy an initially tolerant society. |
We need tolerance and diversity. If everyone is forced to mix, we lose diversity. There will always be people who want to mix with others, and people who want to only stay with their own kind. They have a right to do both.
I'm in favor of hardline Christians, gays, women, men, ethnic minorities, and anybody else who wants to forming their own separatist communities (in fact, I think they're trying to do that in one of the Eastern Seaboard states). I wouldn't live in a separatist community myself, but as long as there are non-separatist places for me, I'm fine with people who want to be separate doing their own thing. Better separate and happy than forced to integrate and be forever angry at society.
But for this to work, certain universal rules would have to be observed. They would be something like...
* No aggression against neighbors.
* No fraud against neighbors.
* Nobody may be forced to remain in a community against their will.
* Though a community may refuse citizenship to anybody they want, people must be free to safely pass through it on their way to somewhere else.
In an ideal world. It may be a long, long time before governments are willing to let go of their power enough to let this happen. Then again, unexpected things happen. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| If we decide to declare marriage as being man and man or woman and woman then to keep from discriminating against other groups with other sexual preferences, because you did include that….right, we must also include this fellow who’s sexual preference is his dog, this person who’s preference is her brother, this person who’s preference is, oh…I don’t know…his 90 Mustang. They have a consenting partner to whom they are willing to commit so I guess it is hatred fear and bigotry that we don’t call their union MARRIAGE. |
First of all, marriage is an union between 2 human beings. Sexual discrimination would be not to allow two people of the same sex to marry, or the opposite: not allow two people of opposite sex to marry. Dogs and objects are not considered to be human beings, hence do not fit into this definition.
Of course, you could broaden the definition of a marriage to an union between 2 'intelligent beings'. With 'intelligent beings' meaning all human beings and potential 'intelligent' aliens. But as long as there are no aliens, then there is no need to adjust this definition. bondings, bondings...have you fallen in love with earths women?
wish em luck and happiness
its their choice afterall! | Bondings wrote: |
Of course, you could broaden the definition of a marriage to an union between 2 'intelligent beings'. With 'intelligent beings' meaning all human beings and potential 'intelligent' aliens. But as long as there are no aliens, then there is no need to adjust this definition. |
Yes, but technically, isn't 'intelligent' life anything that communicates? To be honest, I'm under the assumption that anything except algae, and possibly insects and worms are 'intelligent life'. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
---
Going back on topic though, I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage. If they love eachother, that's fine. I don't see why anyone should discriminate based on sexual preference just because of their religous preference. In the end, it's Elton John and David Furnish's life, not theirs.I thought intelligent life was one that was aware of its existence.
The bottom line is this, a point I believe I have already made. Our current definition of marriage is not discriminative. Homosexuals are aloud to marry!
| Manta wrote: |
Yes, but technically, isn't 'intelligent' life anything that communicates? To be honest, I'm under the assumption that anything except algae, and possibly insects and worms are 'intelligent life'. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
|
Well, words mean what you want them to mean. But some definitions are too broad to be useful. If intelligence is defined as merely the ability to communicate, then everything down to the level of viruses is intelligent. So we'll need a separate word to describe "life forms that can communicate well enough to negotiate an agreement with you, are capable of understanding and abiding by most basic types of agreements, and are capable of planning and executing retribution or rebellion against you if you violate their rights". Anything that falls under this definition-- man, woman, or space alien-- is fair game for marriage or civil union or whatever from a natural law standpoint.I think it's safe to say that "marriage" and "civil partnership" are different terms for different things (one for between a man and a woman, and one for between two of the same gender), but they both provide an equal amount of rights. Am I right?
well, not to hurt anyones feelings, me I am a firm believer in the bible
(im not trying to force what i believe onto anyone)
but I am against it, in my opinion it just isn't right but then again i am a firm beliver in the bible and it has alot about things like this
| Srs2388 wrote: |
well, not to hurt anyones feelings, me I am a firm believer in the bible
(im not trying to force what i believe onto anyone)
but I am against it, in my opinion it just isn't right but then again i am a firm beliver in the bible and it has alot about things like this |
This is all well and good. But to avoid making Christians in general sound like mindless automaton one should also mention reasons outside the Bible for ones beliefs. After all, the bibles’ teachings are not to make our lives more complicated for no apparent reason. Its teaching are the best way to live. Otherwise I don’t think Islam would believe Jesus to be a profit and Buddhists would refer to him as a spiritual genius. You certainly don’t need to believe in the bible to disagree with “homosexual marriage”.I dont see whats so wrong with gay or strait marriage? Partnership and Marriage is a differnt thing alltogether. If you say.. This is my girlfriend/boyfriend apposed to this is my husband/wife doesnt the later sound more concrete? Doesnt it give more evidence for their love of eachother? And just wondering.. I kno its a bit off topic but why is it so wrong for gay couples to adopt or get help with pregnancy (artificial insamination / surragate mothers) when strait couples or just strait singles can go and get help no questions asked? Hmm maybe there is a forum i can post this part in.
Only a homophobic bigot could deny the rights that heterosexual have to gay people.
Britain has taken a correct step in advancing gay rights. The US needs a constituational amendment, not to ban gay marriage, but to make a right.
| WoolmerHill wrote: |
Only a homophobic bigot could deny the rights that heterosexual have to gay people.
Britain has taken a correct step in advancing gay rights. The US needs a constituational amendment, not to ban gay marriage, but to make a right. |
First, it is ridiculous to say something like “Only a homophobic bigot would…..”
Second, gays DO have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Third, the issue is not whether to “ban gay marriage”. The issue is whether to change the foundational definition of marriage. This is a very difficult question! Marriage, and the family unit, is the foundation of our society. It is wrong to bulldoze over this issue waving rainbow flags, screaming homophobic bigot, and trampling on thousands of years of wisdom and experience.Gay marrage is a HUGE topic most everyone has different views, but personally I don't have a problem being its not thier fault, however do you think its right for gays and lesbians to have kids? I think it might make the children think that its right when really it not.
| Kai wrote: |
| Gay marrage is a HUGE topic most everyone has different views, but personally I don't have a problem being its not thier fault, however do you think its right for gays and lesbians to have kids? I think it might make the children think that its right when really it not. |
Indeed, this is a HUGE issue. An issue that should also not be approached screaming “gay rights” and “homophobic bigot”. Issues such as this should be resolved with regard to the children whom will soon make up our society and not to individuals have a certain life style. Those apposed to gays adopting and artificially having children are perfectly justified in there thoughts. To call them ignorant, bigot, or homophobe is to ignore wisdom and experience.
I am not aware of any laws prohibiting any woman from artificial insemination. With regard to gay adoption, ideally every orphan should be placed in a loving caring home with a mother and a father, a nice house, a back yard with a pool, and a college fund. This is not often the case, however. Perhaps a child would be better off with a gay couple, rather than in an orphanage, regardless of any social implications.Yes every orphan should have that chance in life. But, truely there is no difference between a single parent and gay parents. and yet legally single parenting is absolutely fine while gay parenting is not. If one is right, then how come the other isnt? What if a woman had a kid of her own but realises she is more happy in lesbian relationships? To the law, it is wrong. And yet.. It is her kid. Or the father got custody and later on has gay relationships? Will the court take the kid off his hands because of it? What conclusion can come out of it? Shouldnt we just accept gay familys? 
Its the new millenium. Most of us have accepted gay relationships. But what about gay marriages and familys? Why should there be a yes u can BUT you cant do this? While heterosexual couples dont need to worry about any of that. Havent we all agreed that we are all equal? | April_May wrote: |
Yes every orphan should have that chance in life. But, truely there is no difference between a single parent and gay parents. and yet legally single parenting is absolutely fine while gay parenting is not. If one is right, then how come the other isnt? What if a woman had a kid of her own but realises she is more happy in lesbian relationships? To the law, it is wrong. And yet.. It is her kid. Or the father got custody and later on has gay relationships? Will the court take the kid off his hands because of it? What conclusion can come out of it? Shouldnt we just accept gay familys?
Its the new millenium. Most of us have accepted gay relationships. But what about gay marriages and familys? Why should there be a yes u can BUT you cant do this? While heterosexual couples dont need to worry about any of that. Havent we all agreed that we are all equal? |
April_may, please stop talking like a crazy person. If you know of any laws preventing a single parent to keep or adopt a child please refer us to it. As I have written far too many times in this raggedly beaten post, gays have ALL the same rights as heterosexual.
Also, there is a difference between gays and straight. Gays are GAY! Straight art STRAIGHT. The gay life style is currently a social experiment as far as I am concerned. There is no historical precedent or comparison.
OK!!!! Gays got the same rights as straights!!!!
Yes, we all have the same rights, gay straight “black or white”. So let’s all stop pretending that some of us are supper sensitive enlightened individuals who learned how natural homosexuality is in university and the rest of us are unenlightened bigots. We have the same rights, we have the same rights, we have the same rights, and we have the same rights!
Let’s stop all the belly acing for crying out loud. Do a little reading before you clutter our forumThe whole crux of the debate is that while all humans have the same inalienable rights, not all government recognize everybody's rights equally.
You've already convinced me a while back that the situation we can both live with is one where there was an institution called civil partnership which conferred all the legal benefits of marriage, but that it would be called something other than marriage to distinguish it from the strictly heterosexual institution that is religiously significant to many people. I haven't been following the story about England, but I'm assuming that with that piece of legislation things have fallen into their proper place over there.
I live in Texas, where things are definitely not in their proper place as far as equal rights before the law are concerned. If the US were to pass a law like the one passed in England, I'd shut up and stop complaining.
This is not true for liberals of course... they'll never stop complaining because they have an unrealistic view of how the world works, they will never be satisfied by anything, and they regard every success simply as evidence of some hidden crime. Which is one of the the reasons I'm not a liberal (except in 1700's sense of the word).
| Bondings wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | If we decide to declare marriage as being man and man or woman and woman then to keep from discriminating against other groups with other sexual preferences, because you did include that….right, we must also include this fellow who’s sexual preference is his dog, this person who’s preference is her brother, this person who’s preference is, oh…I don’t know…his 90 Mustang. They have a consenting partner to whom they are willing to commit so I guess it is hatred fear and bigotry that we don’t call their union MARRIAGE. |
First of all, marriage is an union between 2 human beings. Sexual discrimination would be not to allow two people of the same sex to marry, or the opposite: not allow two people of opposite sex to marry. Dogs and objects are not considered to be human beings, hence do not fit into this definition.
Of course, you could broaden the definition of a marriage to an union between 2 'intelligent beings'. With 'intelligent beings' meaning all human beings and potential 'intelligent' aliens. But as long as there are no aliens, then there is no need to adjust this definition. |
Sorry Bondings, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It has been an important part of society for a long time. Lets not get rainbowy and run head long into such a sacred (I do not mean religious and I don’t mean not religious) foundation to our world screaming “gay rights”.
[quote="Texas Al"]
| Quote: |
| You've already convinced me a while back that the situation we can both live with is one where there was an institution called civil partnership which conferred all the legal benefits of marriage, but that it would be called something other than marriage to distinguish it from the strictly heterosexual institution that is religiously significant to many people. I haven't been following the story about England, but I'm assuming that with that piece of legislation things have fallen into their proper place over there. |
It is not so that the union of marriage is of religious significant. There is the social and legal matters. When an insurance co. writes a contract using the word marriage or civil union there should be a difference. Just like with any other union. My insurance is $350, to add my wife, total $650, if we had five kids, $750. If we change the deffinition of marriage we screw up a lot of contracts.I think its proved here as horseatingweeds has said that Homosexual individuals have the same rights as those who are straight.
However, I read through April_may's posts about parenting.
I think there's a very good debate waiting for us there in the issue of gay parenting.
As more and more evidence is revealed by science showing us that homosexuality is a genetic anomaly ( and not a psychological phenomenon that can happen to anyone ), it is also clear that Homosexuality is not a matter of heridity.
That is, for example, The child of a gay individual ( who later has a "gay-marriage" ) may not be gay himself.Infact there are overwhelming chances that he will be straight.
In such a case the child would should obviously to grow in a male-female parenting system, since this effects his upbringing and will not cause psychological problems.
When I say psychological problems, I would like to stress the importance of childhood on an individual. In America itself you will notice that the greatest social turmoil is that of divorce.And you will notice everywhere the effects of broken homes: on talk shows, in the music industry, in literature, in schools ( "counselling" ).It is now a full fledged social problem.And most adults with emotional problems will relate to some sort of a broken or quiet home story.
Hence, it is reasonable to say that this individual born to a gay parent will certainly suffer atleast some childhood trauma or confusion as a result of his parents sexual orientation.
The question being, should this child be given into the custody of the straight parent as law?
Furthermore, should a gay couple be banned from adopting a child on the same grounds ( that the child would most probably straight and therefore deserves a normal upbringing? )
A debate on this is welcome.
Since I see this thread is warming up, its better not to make a new post and just continue on this.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| It is not so that the union of marriage is of religious significant. There is the social and legal matters. When an insurance co. writes a contract using the word marriage or civil union there should be a difference. Just like with any other union. My insurance is $350, to add my wife, total $650, if we had five kids, $750. If we change the deffinition of marriage we screw up a lot of contracts. |
Of course it is the religious elements of society that are most strongly opposed. Tell them there is no religious significance - nonsense. As for legalese, there is no reason to assign different rights to a "marriage" and a "civil union". Perhaps the governmental institutions should altogether get out of marriage and only perform civil unions.
Each time anyone argues that gays already have the same rights, but then continues to say that their definition of marriage is the correct one, is imposing a restriction on gays that does not apply to you. All you are doing is protecting an aspect you consider uniquely heterosexual. I'd say: "keep your definitions and let others have their own definition, marriage is also for gay people." | withaar wrote: |
Each time anyone argues that gays already have the same rights, but then continues to say that their definition of marriage is the correct one, is imposing a restriction on gays that does not apply to you. All you are doing is protecting an aspect you consider uniquely heterosexual. I'd say: "keep your definitions and let others have their own definition, marriage is also for gay people." |
You’re almost getting it withaar. My definition of marriage is the correct one because it is the correct one, and not because I “feel” it is correct. I AM also restricted the same way a gay is (my repeated point). You are right, we are protecting an aspect we consider uniquely heterosexual. Also, don't act like a fool. I'm no lawyer but I see no way to preserve any contract with your idea of "let others have their own definitions". Marriage IS also for gay people. YES YES YES No restriction, if your gay yes yes yes you may get MARRIED.
Also, my point about the issue not being a religious one, I may have miss spoke. What I meant was that it is not entirely a religious issue and many who oppose changing definitions are not opposing it based on their religious believes. I myself and “religious” but when I am making a decision on an issue I look at it from the perspective of what is best for our society and the rest of the world and not strictly what my religion says. However, my religion has taught me to take this perspective or more so the perspective of others rather than myself first. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| You’re almost getting it withaar. |
I do try.
I reordered two statements you just made, to make a point. Here they are:
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I myself and “religious” but when I am making a decision on an issue I look at it from the perspective of what is best for our society and the rest of the world and not strictly what my religion says. |
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| My definition of marriage is the correct one because it is the correct one, and not because I “feel” it is correct. |
You are logically inconsistent. The first statement above is a value judgement, with which you arive at your absolute truth in the second statement above. A word is merely a convention, and conventions change. As for what is best for society, I think it would be best to create an environment where all can be as free and happy and equal as possible. In my mind this includes absolute equality for gay persons.
I admire that you can look outside your bible for what is right and wrong, quite a few christians do not, but you are not making sense to me. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Sorry Bondings, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It has been an important part of society for a long time. |
We're not talking about abolishing marriage, just broadening its definition. By the way, gay marriage is already a part of society in Belgium and an increasing list of other countries.
It's not because it has been an important part of society, that it shouldn't be changed. The USA was build on slavery and thus a very important part of the society. But that wasn't a reason to stop it.Being raised by gay parents would be less psychologically damaging if at all if society didn't have negative views on homosexuality. To each his own.
Expanding marriage to include civil unions has no negative bearings on the legal situation.
It also doesn't threaten the "building block of america.' Gays are a minority; it's not as if by allowing gay marriage that hetrosexual marriage will die out or lose significance. Marriage is marriage.
A family unit could just as easily be "parents and children" not "man, wife, children." Homosexuality was also a part of society before marriage rose to prevalence. It's past time to let an individual decide their own station. How does the marriage of two gay people really affect others?
