Gay marriages, why not?

[Rkiver]

I thought perhaps it was time for another fun discussion; we've had the Death penalty, different forms of government, and the war on terrorism, so now for something completely different.

Recently in Massachusetts gay marriage was legalized, though they get none of the tax breaks that a "normal" marriage would get.
Bush was in England at the time and upon hearing this he commented that "This is evil and immoral and goes against the sacred Christian institution of marriage, I will fight this with all my power". I'm not sure if those were the exact words, but it is essentially what he said. I for one would point out that the USA is not a Christian country, but multi-denominational, and hence what he said is not exactly fair or correct. Marriage existed long before Christianity appeared, and hence should not be taken as Bush mentioned it at all.
Now ignoring Bush's complete lack of any sense regarding this issue, I decided to start a lively debate on the following topics.

1) Should gay marriages be legal, and if so should they have all the same legal rights as so called "normal" marriages have, i.e. tax breaks etc?

2) Even those Bush has no legal grounds to fight the decision of the Massachusetts court; his stance raises an interesting question. Should religion be removed from any legal proceedings of marriages and just left as an optional extra for those who wish the ceremony to be religious in nature?

3) Should same sex couples be able to adopt children? If no why not?


My answers to them are as follows.

1) Why not? Why can't people who love each other regardless of sex not be allowed to show one of the so called "Ultimate Acts of Love"? And if they can get married why aren't they entitled to the same tax breaks? They are a couple, they are living together, so just because they are the same sex it should not affect their lifestyle and hence their ability to earn money, and by recourse, earn tax breaks etc.

2) I am not a religious person, being from Ireland I have seen how bad the church can destroy lives. If people want to get married some old doddering fool should not be able to decide how it goes. Now if you want religion to be part of your wedding all well and good, but what if you don't? I can't get married in Ireland unless I have a priest as that is the law in Ireland. But I'm not catholic, so I will not get married in a church. The laws for that are supposed to be changing in the new year in Ireland, and stripping the church of their power to decide where and who can get married. I for one look forward to that day. But if you want religion go for it, but don't force it on the rest of us.

3) Ok this one, why the hell not? And before you all say "The kid will be unstable" or "They might abuse the kid" think for a minute.
Plenty of "normal" marriages result in unstable or abused kids, and sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. In fact I believe that a child who is adopted or is the son or daughter of a same sex marriage may end up being a more open person, as they would be more willing to look beyond the so called "norm". And this also links into the whole legal tax breaks, if they can adopt they should be entitled to all the tax breaks that having a "dependant" entitles.

Anywho those are my questions, those are my views, now let us see your views.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

1 and 2) Well I see marrage as a two fold institution.  The first is a religious institution.  Almost every religion has its own beliefs about marrage and all attach their own signifigance to it.  I think it is perfectly acceptable for a church to refuse to marry homosexuals because of idiological beliefs (whether those are founded or not).  However the second aspect of marrage is the legal side.  Here I do not see how you can deny anybody this right.  It is simple discrimination to refuse to allow a couple to be married under the law.  Here the specific ideologies do not matter.  

3) Of course, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to.  We have a huge number of single parent homes, two people (whatever their sexual orientation) can only be an improvement.  Incidently this is already legal in the US.  :)

[edd8990]

quick answer
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Not until prejudices are removed, as you can imagine the bullying that that child would be put through, by less open-minded ignoramists (soz if I spelt thet wrong)

[Mas Tnega]

From my understanding, and quite possibly cynicism, marriage is supposed to be very little more than a form of contract between two people who love each other, stating that everything they own is split between them. Who has the right to say that gay people can't love each other in such a way, or share everything they own?

People tend to hate things simply out of fear, in this case, they think the gay person might try to come on to them, like some kind of sex crazed freak. People also think that children with gay parents will be raised to be gay, which is rather fuzzy logic, as children with straight parents can also turn out to be gay. It's also implying that being gay is a bad thing.

As for religious people, their argument can be simplified to "God doesn't like it", which they can't prove, as all they have is the written word of MAN. Besides, not everyone has to follow their belief. If they really like, they can force themselves to heterosexual, and let everyone else make their own decision.

[Redbaron]

Yes this is another good discussion point.
I would answer:
1)Yes
2)Yes and the sooner the better.
3)Yes

To quantify.  There is a lot of bigotry around putting forward the idea that because a group of people believe in something and they are in power then what they say goes, no discussion.  Gay marriages should be given the blessing of the state with all the necessary accompaniments, furthermore common law marriage should be exactly the same.  As for the church's blessing well I'm surprised that there are any gay people still affiliated to organised religion after all the hoo-ha.  Stuff the church it's an arcane institution that serves only to prevent socio-political progress.

For adoption, again this is a problem with society believing that homosexuality is something taught and therefore 'we don't want it to be rubbing off'.  Your point about abuse etc. rkiver is quite correct it's a fatuous arguement and actually most cases of domestic violence occur between married couples where the man abuses the woman and often any children too.  You rarely hear of lesbian and gay domestic violence and whilst I'm sure it goes on it is considerably less proportionate.  

Certainly in this ever-changing society it does our children good to see and experience as much cultural diversity as possible to increase awareness and thru' it tolerance.  I would go so far as to say that the state should organise all children to have cultural exchanges both inland and overseas.  After all if kids in Tel Aviv were exchanged with those in Jenin and kids in Pakistani Kashmir  exchanged with those on the Indian side, not to mention those from the Shankhill road with those from the Bogside I think the implications would be far-reaching and overwhelmingly positive.  These examples I have given are obvious and generally religious based but they can be applied to any circumstance.  Kids from Kensington in West London with kids from Newham in East London, you get the idea.

Adoption specifically, well you take a chance with any family that adopts a child but you are hoping that the individual attention that a close knit family can give will be far better than in a collective institution.  There are a large amount of children left rotting in these institutions, perhaps society should allow them the chance regardless of the sexual orientation or religious beliefs of the applicants.

[poortwistedme]

Quote: from edd8990 on 4:05 pm on Nov. 22, 2003[br]3. Not until prejudices are removed, as you can imagine the bullying that that child would be put through, by less open-minded ignoramists (soz if I spelt thet wrong)

I can't. Do you really bully people because of that in other countries?

[Rkiver]

poortwistedme: Kids in any country can be quite cruel. It happens unfortunately, and kids are bullied for any reason, from just having red hair, to having gay parents.

(Edited by Rkiver at 2:49 pm on Nov. 22, 2003)

[Coldfire26]

1) of course. there is nothing wrong with it, marriage simply states that 2 ppl love each other and they are ready to share their property with each other. they should also have all the things normal merriages have.

2) This is a discrase to every freec ountry. this *law* must be removed, this law misses the actual point of merriage.

3) OK, i don't totally agree on this1. simply because of the curelty they will suffer. as for the abusing part, that's pure rubbish.

PTM: kids can be VERY racial and mean to others. this isn't always so but it is 80% so, on other occations the hated kids actually done something.

[poortwistedme]

Quote: from Rkiver on 4:47 pm on Nov. 22, 2003[br]poortwistedme: Kids in any country can be quite cruel. It happens unfortunately, and kids are bullied for any reason, from just having red hair, to having gay parents.

I know. But i have never seen or heard anyone being bullied because of their parents.

[Coldfire26]

then again, you haven't seen gay parents yet, have you?

[Adriac]

Yes, yes and yes.

It all comes down to whether you accept homosexuality. Christianity historically regards it on a level with bestiality and incest, so clearly anyone who subscribes to that would be against homosexual sex and marriage.

Personally, I believe that whatever "love" is, it can exist between two people of the same sex. I'm sure as hell not about to tell people who they can and can't love (and thence have sex with and marry). Are you?

And further extrapolating, I think it's a deep injustice to say that a gay couple cannot adopt a child. They won't (certainly can't) be any worse parents than many other married couples, and (referring back) if they are in love it's only right to allow them a family.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Not all Christians are against homosexuals.  In fact many homosexuals are Christian.  Even a few Popes have been homosexual or bi and their are several gay Saints. Go figure.  :)

[Adriac]

Philosophically speaking, Christianity regards homosexuality as evil. Don't be a smart ass

Christianity regards women as evil (or at least more evil), but you don't see a dearth of Christian women...

[hackerboy]

I don't see why Christians are in such an uproar over allowing homosexuals to marry.  Marriage has become a legal proccess.  To marry, you must have a license from the Goverment.  

To expect  the government to make laws supporting the Bible is just irrational.  The goverment reflects the views of the people.  

Where the Bible says, Thou shalt not kill, the government says, you can have an abortion.  

Where the Bible says, Marriage is for life, the government says, you can have a divorce.

Therefore, if the people want it, they can have it.  

Make no mistake, I'm not saying in any means that it is right.  

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Adriac: Neither of those is actually true.  Most of that comes from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible), which is not a Christian document.  Most Christians hold women in high reguard and are at least accepting of Homosexuality.  Historically (11th-19th centuries) you are largely correct, but modern Christianity (at least out side of Vatican City) is rather progressive.  :)

(Edited by Stewsburntmonkey at 7:34 pm on Nov. 22, 2003)