Same-sex marriage

[esb]

I thought that the government would be seperate from church (religion), thus some passages in a 2000 year old book shouldn't be relevant in law making.

Personally, I don't care if they get married or not, not up to me to judge or decide.

 

[Darthfett]

I thought that the government would be seperate from church (religion), thus some passages in a 2000 year old book shouldn't be relevant in law making.

Personally, I don't care if they get married or not, not up to me to judge or decide.

For some people, marriage is a religious thing. By saying that gay people can get married, it is to some people like the government saying that their religion is wrong. That's doesn't seem separate to me.

 

[esb]

Then, like others are saying, just admit that the government uses the bible as their rule book and make everything in there illegal as well. I'm not saying to let people get married in churches (which I can see may be considered offensive to religious people), but at least through the law (civil is it called?)

 

[Darthfett]

Then, like others are saying, just admit that the government uses the bible as their rule book and make everything in there illegal as well. I'm not saying to let people get married in churches (which I can see may be considered offensive to religious people), but at least through the law (civil is it called?)

I don't think couples who cannot have a child (not because of some inability on their part, but because they were "born with/without a penis") should be able to have the same rights as couples who can. I am also strongly against giving them the right to adopt.

 

[Varine]

Against; it goes against the continuation of life.

 

[esb]

Any specific reasons? Besides the "my religion says it's bad"? I mean like what kind of effects? Anyone, straight or gay, can be a bad parent. I would only consider it wrong for a gay couple to adopt a child if the child has no conscience (too young) to know what gay is, or the difference, etc., or if it's against their own will. Maybe even donating sperm and having a baby (with another woman getting pregnant, surrogate mothers?) could be 'bad'; considering that the kid will be forced to live with gay parents, which at time are shunned upon pretty much.

 

[Darthfett]

Any specific reasons? Besides the "my religion says it's bad"?

I'm going with my gut on most of this, not my religion. Sadly, I've fallen away a little bit, but that's a bit off topic. My religion just happens to support what I am saying here.

My reasons? Well, they were born with/without a penis. I believe gay people are gay by choice, not "born that way". There's obviously a reason they were, the most obvious being that they were not meant to have children with another person of the same sex.

Anyone, straight or gay, can be a bad parent. I would only consider it wrong for a gay couple to adopt a child if the child has no conscience (too young) to know what gay is, or the difference, etc., or if it's against their own will. Maybe even donating sperm and having a baby (with another woman getting pregnant, surrogate mothers?) could be 'bad'; considering that the kid will be forced to live with gay parents, which at time are shunned upon pretty much.

While we're switching sides, I might as well show the opposing of this. Nobody's perfect, so why should being "forced to live with gay parents" be any different from being forced to live with a father who drinks too much, or a mother who cheats? No matter who the child ends up living with, the parent is not going to be perfect.

If the child is too young to understand any of this, then how would he get his "choice" between which of these three examples he wants to live with?

 

[esb]

True, so in reality I guess there isn't anybody to blame is there? Because that's what this is all about, is it wrong or right? If it's wrong, surely someone must take the blame as to why it is this way.
I personally am not affected whether gays marry or not, nor see any possible way I could be, so I don't really care if they do or don't. There's bigger things we shouldn't allow others to do than stop gays from getting married.

 

[Ninva]

I thought that the government would be seperate from church (religion), thus some passages in a 2000 year old book shouldn't be relevant in law making.

The holy book really has very little relevance on the issue. The real conflict is the clashing ideas of those religious people who decide to vote against gay marriage and the others who approve of it.

 

[esb]

The cause of the conflicting ideas is because a holy book said it's wrong to do so.

 

[Varine]

The cause of the conflicting ideas is because a holy book said it's wrong to do so.

Beliefs differ; obviously their religious affiliation is going to affect their views on the world. I'm not personally really religious anymore, but I'm against gay marriage for a variety of reason, which my past religious beliefs probably have heavily influenced. Or growing up in Russia... I don't even think it's legal to be gay there.

 

[TheDamien]

I tend to agree with esb in most of these matters. Massive post incoming, by the way (I need to find a better way to manage all of this quote-splitting.)

We don't know everything. We are still learning. We could find out that this gene actually determines some part of a personality, that is subtle and also found in tons of people that are not gay.

That is not my concern, I was only trying to shed some light on the evolutionary reasons for a "gay" gene.

Prejudice is a very hard thing to control, and some "prejudices" are true more often than not.

When I meet a gay person, I do have some reluctance, due to bad experiences with other gay people I have met, but if they are not putting it out openly, I can put aside our differences enough to be friends.

Even if you have had bad experiences with the majority of gay people you have met, it is never fair to condemn someone based on the actions of others. Once you know more about them, you may find that they are nothing like what you have been accustomed to, or you may find exactly the opposite.

Whatever happens, it is only fair that we give people the benefit of the doubt until we know more about them as individuals. If you stick to that principle, then you are not really prejudiced.

Nobody's perfect, and everyone has prejudices.

The fact that prejudice is so widespread is even more of a reason to condemn it.

For some people, marriage is a religious thing. By saying that gay people can get married, it is to some people like the government saying that their religion is wrong. That's doesn't seem separate to me.

Marriage, in the sense of a legal union between two people, is separate from religion and comes under the jurisdiction of the state. If Christianity is the basis for not legalizing gay marriage, then that is unconstitutional.

In the spiritual sense, however, it is a completely different matter. The government can not force people to recognize same-sex marriage as a spiritual union nor can it force churches to conduct gay marriages. To do these things would be grossly unjust.

I don't think couples who cannot have a child (not because of some inability on their part, but because they were "born with/without a penis") should be able to have the same rights as couples who can.

So do infertile people also have these reduced rights?

I am also strongly against giving them the right to adopt.

There is nothing inherently wrong with same-sex couples adopting, but in the interests of the adopted children I do not think it should not be legalized at this point in time or at any point in the near future.

I'm going with my gut on most of this, not my religion.

I find the gut is better suited to digesting food.

My reasons? Well, they were born with/without a penis. I believe gay people are gay by choice, not "born that way".

They might not be born that way but it is certainly not a choice anymore than heterosexuality is.

There's obviously a reason they were, the most obvious being that they were not meant to have children with another person of the same sex.

This seems very speculative to me if you are suggesting this as a reason for "becoming" gay.

While we're switching sides, I might as well show the opposing of this. Nobody's perfect, so why should being "forced to live with gay parents" be any different from being forced to live with a father who drinks too much, or a mother who cheats? No matter who the child ends up living with, the parent is not going to be perfect.

Certainly I do not think that couples should be able to adopt children if they have alcohol problems or an unstable marriage. Actually, in many cases gay parents might turn out to be better than straight ones, but since we know very little about the impact of that environment on the child, I do not think it should be allowed until we are more knowledgeable.

 

[Weegee]

Why do people even care if men are marrying men and women are doing the same. Were all human...I don't see a reason to ban it. Like people are saying its the person you fall in love with, not the gender. so everyone should have that right

 

[Darthfett]

Even if you have had bad experiences with the majority of gay people you have met, it is never fair to condemn someone based on the actions of others. Once you know more about them, you may find that they are nothing like what you have been accustomed to, or you may find exactly the opposite.

Whatever happens, it is only fair that we give people the benefit of the doubt until we know more about them as individuals. If you stick to that principle, then you are not really prejudiced.

The fact that prejudice is so widespread is even more of a reason to condemn it.

My point was that everyone is prejudice. There's no helping it.

If you've met people that act "this way", and 90% of them act in "that way" as well, you are going to expect most people that act "this way" to also act "that way"

Basically, if the Gay's want rights to marry, they shouldn't be throwing "Gay Pride!" in our face.

So do infertile people also have these reduced rights?

I added the part in parenthesis to include this in my original post:

(not because of some inability on their part, but because they were "born with/without a penis")

There is nothing inherently wrong with same-sex couples adopting, but in the interests of the adopted children I do not think it should not be legalized at this point in time or at any point in the near future.

...

Certainly I do not think that couples should be able to adopt children if they have alcohol problems or an unstable marriage. Actually, in many cases gay parents might turn out to be better than straight ones, but since we know very little about the impact of that environment on the child, I do not think it should be allowed until we are more knowledgeable

If there is absolutely nothing wrong with Gay couples having the same rights as married people, and allowing them to marry, etc, then why should we prevent them from adopting. It's an all or nothing, not "you can say you're married, but you don't really have all the same rights".

THAT would be unfair, and would be overthrown rather quickly.

I find the gut is better suited to digesting food.

ROFL.

 

[Varine]

Why do people even care if men are marrying men and women are doing the same. Were all human...I don't see a reason to ban it. Like people are saying its the person you fall in love with, not the gender. so everyone should have that right

Gay people can't have kids; goes against evolution and the laws of nature.

 

[esb]

Sterile people can't have kids.... so just because one can't have kids, they have no right to love or be with who they want? Because evolution and nature made them like that (considering that genes do in fact take a part in sexual preference) they go against evolution's and nature's own laws?

 

[Varine]

Sterile people can't have kids.... so just because one can't have kids, they have no right to love or be with who they want? Because evolution and nature made them like that (considering that genes do in fact take a part in sexual preference) they go against evolution's and nature's own laws?

Yes. It disrupts the flow of life.

 

[TheDamien]

Gay people can't have kids; goes against evolution and the laws of nature.

This is about as valid as arguing against aircraft on the basis that they go against the "laws of gravity." Actually, it's less valid, because homosexuality is actually quite common in nature.

Yes. It disrupts the flow of life.

I hate to say it but this is basically nonsense.

My point was that everyone is prejudice. There's no helping it.

This is not a question of removing prejudice entirely, it is a question of raising awareness and helping to combat it.

If you've met people that act "this way", and 90% of them act in "that way" as well, you are going to expect most people that act "this way" to also act "that way"

There is nothing wrong with this by itself, but there is something wrong with prejudging an individual on this basis. If you know nothing about an individual except that he is gay, then it is unfair to treat him as if he acts "that way" until you have evidence that he does.

Basically, if the Gay's want rights to marry, they shouldn't be throwing "Gay Pride!" in our face.

If gays want the right to marry, then must be vocal about it, because if they are not then their plight will be ignored entirely. In order for things like "Gay Pride!" to stop, they must be treated equally.

I added the part in parenthesis to include this in my original post

It seems to me that you have defined this group to include all gay couples and nothing else. If we rewrite the original sentence without that redundancy, here is what it looks like:

I don't think gay couples should be able to have the same rights as non-gay couples.

Not quite as appealing as the original.

If there is absolutely nothing wrong with Gay couples having the same rights as married people, and allowing them to marry, etc, then why should we prevent them from adopting. It's an all or nothing, not "you can say you're married, but you don't really have all the same rights".

My objection has nothing to do with gay rights, and everything to do with the rights of the children to be adopted.

THAT would be unfair, and would be overthrown rather quickly.

It would be vastly more fair than being unable to marry or adopt. Perhaps it is still unfair to gays, but it is much less fair to the children. Currently we have very little idea what impact, if any, such a non-standard environment would have on the development of a child.

 

[MeRcChRiS]

All I have to say, Yes on 8. (Here in California)

 

[Varine]

And I would say the same about your posts, Damien. Except for some reason you want to disprove an opinion with another opinion....