Legalising Gay Marriage: The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Traditionally (in the anglo-celtic context, if not most/all others), a marriage was merely an economic or social union that was designed to strengthen, or attempt to strenghten, the position of both families relative to their position prior to the union. In that case, isn't all this garbage about love, happiness and what's 'best' for the children out of place?


If anyone cannot see my point, just refer to post 16.

 

[Xayma]

Not only that, but allowing gay marriages would be detrimental to heterosexual relationships, and would distort the traditional family view (though, lefties care nothing for traditional values, so don't try to appeal to them on this basis).

How? Give me one reason why it would be detrimental?

The absolute majority of people who would be in favour of legalizing gay marriage would be people who are trying to be "correct". Very few gays would be in on this, and if they were, it would be just because they want another right to chuck in their wheel barrow; not because they would particularly put the right to good use.

Meanwhile very few women want equal pay or paid maternity leave Can I see some statistics for this? Not all heterosexuals want to get married either.

I don't agree with the adoption of children by gay couples what so ever; I've never been angrier than the day I was ... flicking channels and I just watched play school because there was nothing else on (What.. WHAT.. I WAS .... WATCHING IT WITH.. I WAS FLICKING THE CHANNELS OK, AND I SPOTTED IT?!!?) and there was that 4 year old girl going to a park with her two mums!? That made my blood boil.

My mum works with this lesbian women who has a daughter (she wasn't always lesbian!!!!) and there isn't anything wrong with her daughter I suppose... But I don't think the same would apply for people living in a gay male family. I think it would have to affect the child badly, because gays wouldn’t have that same touch as lesbians.

"haha, you've got two dads" , "yeh, i know"... "ermm.. damnit I can’t think of another insult."

Gays wouldn't have the same touch as lesbians? What?

Proof?

 

[neo o]

How? Give me one reason why it would be detrimental?

Meanwhile very few women want equal pay or paid maternity leave Can I see some statistics for this? Not all heterosexuals want to get married either.
Gays wouldn't have the same touch as lesbians? What?

Proof?

Lesbians are hot and manlove is for faeries. Duh Xayma

 

[Xayma]

Glad to see that as a homosexual and/or a psychologist you can clarify that homosexuals believe they aren't normal.

 

[Ollz San]

Because Lesbians tend to be more down to earth than male homosexuals, and when they are raising kids they have that motherly instinct and normalness that the males don’t.

Males don't have motherly instinct and "normalness"?
But single father is allowed to raise a child?

Gays, who adopt, do it purely to fulfil their fantasy, and like the lefties, are off in a dream world, and do not have the children in the centre of their concerns.

fantasy? what sort of fantasy are you talking about?

Children, growing up with two gay male parents would end up weird and I don't care what anyone says... They would!

Any statistic or proof that children growing up with two gay parents are weird?

The majority of gay people wouldn't want marriage, because gay people have grown to accept that they are not normal, this is something that they pride themselves on and its what makes them special.

What makes you assume that gay people accept that they are not normal?

 

[Generator]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5118023,00.html

United Church of Christ Backs Gay Marriage
Monday July 4, 2005 8:46 PM
By DOUG GROSS
Associated Press Writer


ATLANTA (AP) - The United Church of Christ's rule-making body voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage, making it the largest Christian denomination to do so.

The vote is not binding on individual churches, but could cause some congregations to leave the fold.

Roughly 80 percent of the representatives on the [liberal] church's 884-member General Synod voted to approve the resolution Monday, a day after a smaller committee recommended it.

The Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said with the vote on Independence Day, the rule-making body ``acted courageously to declare freedom.''

 

[chookyn]

United Church of Christ buckled under the pressure. Shame. I'd be walking out the door.

How about we legalise everything else immoral while we're at it? Everyone, do whatever you want! Who cares about how you affect others. That's the message i get from things like this. It's sad. No wonder society's basically gone down the toilet.

These days, people seem rant on about their 'rights' to do whatever they want. But what about responsibilities?

 

[Generator]

United Church of Christ buckled under the pressure. Shame. I'd be walking out the door.

How about we legalise everything else immoral while we're at it? Everyone, do whatever you want! Who cares about how you affect others. That's the message i get from things like this. It's sad. No wonder society's basically gone down the toilet.

These days, people seem rant on about their 'rights' to do whatever they want. But what about responsibilities?

If you do not follow the bible but rather a humanist approach based on common decency, you're immoral, I take it? Oh no, society is heading down the shitter! We cannot let those who aren't exactly 'normal' (normal in a christian sense, anyway) express themselves freely (and responsibly, I should add), or else all will fail!

I really don't see how the acceptance of gay marriages is in any way an issue of rights or responsibilities, or how the lifestyle of two consenting adults (be they gay or not) impacts on that of a conservative christian family.

As for buckling under pressure, the article lead me to believe that the Church was a liberal trailblazer of sorts rather than a meek institution pandering to the whims of an 'immoral' minority.


Pointless argument given your stance, I know, but I had to respond, anyway.

 

[withoutaface]

I personally believe that marriage should still abide by the laws of the religious base upon which it was established, and would like to see homosexuals enabled to participate in civil unions because such institutions offer the same rights while being removed from religion.

 

[leetom]

I personally believe that marriage should still abide by the laws of the religious base upon which it was established, and would like to see homosexuals enabled to participate in civil unions because such institutions offer the same rights while being removed from religion.

Your personal belief is also the most sensible and practical one. The gay marriage thread is too regularly hijacked by idiots who think that by legalising gay marriage, their religious marriage cerimonies will be inundated with homosexual couples demanding marriage.

This is not the case. The government cannot force independant religions into altering age-old doctrines to accomodate shifts in societal value. The government can though, alther the definition of marriage in regards to its own state 'marriages'. Peoples' idiocy immediately comes into effect with the word marriage. Marriage is currently applied to mean both the union of man and woman under a specific religious ceremony, as well as the legally binding union of man and woman under the state.

It is the religious origins of the word 'marriage' that confuse the religious groups into thinking a legalisation of gay marriage will force them and their religion to accept gays.

What needs to occur, is a strict definition between the two terms.

-'Marriage'- the ceremonyby which a couple is united under religious ceremony proclaiming their union, eg: a Catholic or Greek-Orthodox wedding. The religious pomp does not exclude this sort of union from being a legally binding wedding, it is still registered under the Birth, Death and Marriges authority. The only difference being, because the marriage is specific to a particular religion, any homosexual couples cannot claim rights to be married under that particular religion, because that is a decision for the leaders of that religion and one that cannot be influenced by government.

-'State Marriage'- also known as a 'Civil Union'. The same as a regular marriage, only the marrying couple forgoes any religious ceremony for whatever reason. It is under State Marriages that homosexual couples should be able to be legally united. Their marriage does not impinge on any religious values for no religion is present- only the state and the couple and the moment of legal marital binding.

Basically, we can't force religions to alter their doctrines to acept homosexual marriage. We can though, make marriage available to gays through the state marriage, where secularism will prevail.

 

[withoutaface]

Their right to have the same rights as any other legal couple in a civil union is not impinging upon anybody elses life, so there should be no problem with it. However I have reservations about them adopting children.

 

[Rafy]

Yes, my thoughts are very much in alignment with waf.

I do not have any resevations regarding the actual union between a homosexual couple. I do however feel uneasy about allowing them to adopt children/use surrogate mothers etc....

There is a huge ethical issue on the effects such an arrangement would have on any child. I feel its the right of a child to both a mother and father.


Now there is the issue of the church allowing homogenous marriages. There would indeed seem to be a conflict between a church's inherent beliefs and their relationship with anti discrimination laws. I myself at first feel that while it may be discrimitory for a church to deny a homosexual marriage, it is a church's very nature to act within their belief system. However, i see the difficulties this would present. If the church as an instituation was exempt on the basis of the law not been in concurance with their beliefs then why shouldnt anybody else follow sections of the law that they do not agree with?
I understand that the provisions of the revelvant antidiscrimation acts exempts religious organisations. I do not believe this should be the case. The church is part of society and should follow the laws of the land without exception. (It wouldnt do them any harm either, bringing them out from the middle ages)

 

[Ollz San]

If it doesn't, I don't know what would.

the existence of people that think like you? XP

 

[Rafy]

Society allows homosexuals to adopt children, but it does not allow Homosexuals to marry. Are you the opposite to society on all things? It seems like it's a trend on this forum or something.

What? So we should blindly follow the masses, even when our views are at oppostition to the majority? Just beacuse a society's mores say something, dosent mean that its right. Think of German society in World War 2.

I refuse to become a slave to society's thinking when it is in conflict with my own.


(ans besides i would argue that most of society does not allow homosexuals to adopt children, and they are more open to gay marriages).

 

[AsyLum]

Why the hell should homosexuals be accepted as normal couples, and receive the same legal entitlements, when they aren't normal couples?

What you're saying is utterly dumb and you know there is more to it than that. It is nice to read over your posts occasionally. Say hi to Alice for me.

Normal is a social construction. It is created and constructed, and continually being perpetuated and reworked. Homosexual relationships were prevalent and 'normal' within the ancient world. Ritual killing was normal throughout history. Furthermore the woman's role changes through culture and time.

It is your concept of 'normal' but it is not inherent nor is it 'natural'.

 

[Ollz San]

Normal is a social construction. It is created and constructed, and continually being perpetuated and reworked. Homosexual relationships were prevalent and 'normal' within the ancient world. Ritual killing was normal throughout history. Furthermore the woman's role changes through culture and time.

It is your concept of 'normal' but it is not inherent nor is it 'natural'.

Very well put! I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[AsyLum]

no, you people are saying that homosexuals should be recognised the same as heterosexual couples. This is wrong. It's like saying that cats should be recognised as dogs?

Homosexuals grow on the premise that they are different. Marriage would not solve anything.

No, it would be like saying that cats and dogs were animals.

 

[Skillo]

Marriage is not a union of a man and a woman. Marriage is a declaration to friends, family and community that two people (be that a man, woman, or same sex couple) love one another until for what reason be that death or intervention, their love is ceased to exist.

A marriage where two people love one another will bring up a child well.

Sex does not come into play. And shouldn't.

I applaud Spain and Canada...it's a universal move for love...and not political or religious 'correctness'.

 

[Xayma]

Most gays do not want the right to marry, it is only lefty people who feel the "white mans guilt" want to legalize it.

Stats? I don't see how you can claim this. I'm sure most people don't want many rights which they have, does that mean we should remove them.