Homosexual marriage II

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

On the Legalization of Homosexual Marriage

... But biologically, such relationships are completely incapable of contributing to society and the survival of humanity through procreation. In addition, children cared for under these unions lack either a father or a mother, making their lives very emotionally difficult.

From Biblical, legal, and biological analysis, it is proven that the legal recognition of homosexual marriages would greatly damage society, the institutions of marriage and family, and the children cared for by such persons.

well, i have to admit i haven't read your whole thing yet (i will), but i quite disagree with basically everything you're saying. but i guess that's no surprise.

do you have any scientific evidence that the children of homosexual parents (who have grown up with them) have emotionally "very difficult" lives (that isn't due to them living in an environment that is hostile to homosexuals, of course)? if you do, could you please point me to it? the sons and daughters of homosexual parents i've met have always been very balanced, open-minded, happy and heterosexual. but maybe it's different here in finland, or my sample is biased.

how about infertile heterosexual people? should they be allowed to marry? if the only reason for a couple to have the right to marry is to contribute biologically to society and make sure the species survives, why not test everyone who wants to marry and make sure they're actually planning to have children? i'm married, and i'm not going to have children. and no, i'm not living in a same-sex relationship. why do i have the right to marry now, but not if my partner would've happened to lack an y-chromosome? i still wouldn't want children.

and if procreation is that important (why is it so important that humanity survives, anyway? we're a pretty ugly species, you know.. ), what should happen to all of those homosexual people? should they be forced to procreate? why does it matter if they're married or not, they're not going to contribute any more to your society "biologically" if they're forbidden from having their relationship legally recognized. maybe there should be a homosexuality-tax, since they'd just be parasites on the system anyway..

the fact is, lots of heterosexual people reproduce and don't take care of their children. there are loads and loads of children who need parents. keeping them alive by giving them a safe and loving home would contribute biologically to society, no? and help keeping us humans on the planet (at least for a while longer)? if you actually have data that shows that children raised by parents in a homosexual relationship suffer from it directly, and not just from the close-mindedness of society, i'll rethink it, but i think it's positively evil to keep good possible parents from adopting children who need them just because they don't have different external genitals. 'cause you know, the old assumption that children need a mum and a dad also assumes that people will follow the gender roles society has given them and not just be themselves. oh my, if people start questioning gender roles..

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

And drastic modification of society is against the common good.

have you been following the news lately? or are you only talking about american society (in which case i also don't agree).


that's a bit longer than i planned, but whatever. i'll be back..

EDIT: cross-posted with tessar, who has a lot of good points and puts them more clearly than i do.

[Tessar]

To expound just a bit on that idea of drastic change in society being a bad thing...

You as a woman are allowed to wear jeans and shorts now. It's not considered scandal any more.

You can go to college, and it's not considered odd if you want to say that you're as smart as a man.

You can go vote.

You don't know anyone with a black slave.

You drive rather than walk or ride a horse.


All of those things involve drastic change in society, either legally or just in the way people view things.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

In the final analysis, I simply don't believe in same-sex marriage, and do not support legal recognition of it. That said, I think that scare tactics that same-sex marriage is damaging to society are just silly. If anything, same-sex marriage is an unsurprising follow-up to trends which have merrily been undermining marriage as a social structure. Straight people are doing a perfectly good job destroying marriage by themselves without help from gays. The "think of the children!" arguments, in particularly, are quite bogus. If adoption by same-sex couples should be opposed because the child needs both a maternal and a paternal role model, then so should adoption by singles. Indeed, by the same logic, anyone who for whatever reason finds himself or herself in the position of being a single parent should give up the child for adoption, or else have the child forcibly removed to be placed in an opposite-sex family.

The whole thing is predicated upon the assumption that the alternative for these kids is an mother-and-father family. But come on. You don't see gay ninjas darting in pairs from house to house in suburbia, snatching children from the backyards of opposite-sex couples. These kids are coming from orphanages, or at the very best, foster homes, which as such is an impermanent and thus unstable situation.

You might be able to argue that it's better for a child to be raised by an opposite-sex couple than by a same-sex couple, but to argue that it's better for a child to be raised in an orphanage without a family than by a same-sex couple just doesn't make sense.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You might be able to argue that it's better for a child to be raised by an opposite-sex couple than by a same-sex couple, but to argue that it's better for a child to be raised in an orphanage without a family than by a same-sex couple just doesn't make sense.

Unless you want to argue that the upbringing with homosexual parents will lead to an erosion of the child's soul/morals/etc., but that's a moral thing and not a legal or scientific argument, and aside from that I'm not entirely sure I would buy that argument either. Especially because in either case you're not guaranteeing the child a Christian upbringing.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its of course an inevitability as those in favor of discrimination die out and are replaced by younger more gay friendly folks. And I have actually met a number of people who at first opposed gay marriage but in the past few years have come to see the light on this issue and change their opinion which is a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately, its going to still be a long slow process. Im embarrassed to say even in my so called liberal state of Maryland, they just chose to shelve the prospect of legalizing gay marriage for at least a year because of the ironic teaming of old guard Maryland rednecks in the southern and western part of the state and hypocritical blacks in PG and Baltimore Counties who have spent generations fighting for civil rights but then choose to discriminate against gays based on religious concerns.

Yes it's slow, but it's happening, and too quickly to be merely down to the old guard dying off. This is in a large part down to the individual courage of gay people refusing to hide away in the closet, and challenging those deep-seated, yet largely unexplored, beliefs.

Take my own parents. They were dyed-in-the-wool old school Christians. Still are. Presbyterians. My old man used to concur with the views of people like the notorious copper James Anderton, who described gays with HIV as "drowning in a cess pool of their own making". Then it emerged that my Best Man was "on the other bus", and was bringing his male partner to the wedding. They did a waltz around the dance floor that remains one of my favourite ever things ever. Heh. That was 20 years ago and now they are supporters of gay marriage.

Here in the UK, we legalised gay marriage a few years ago (under a compromise arrangement - civil partnerships). The sky didn't fall in. The superstitious mumbo-jumbo of the religious argument has been exposed as exactly that. Gay couples can adopt and indeed it is illegal to discriminate against them in the adoption process (causing problems for some religious adoption charities). The only political party that was anti-gay (the Conservatives) has done a 180 degree turn. It's done, and we can get on with life now.

Within 10 years I would reckon it will be legalised in some way in most US states. (Although it would be interesting to see the breakdown of that survey by region.)

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Here in the UK, we legalised gay marriage a few years ago (under a compromise arrangement - civil partnerships). The sky didn't fall in.

same here in finland: we have civil partnerships for same-sex couples, but they're not allowed to marry yet. which is fine, sure if marriage would just be a religious institution. i really couldn't care less what the church wants to do with gays and marriage and blessings and stuff - as soon as we don't have a national church anymore. since we still do, the state is still discriminating against same-sex couples. if we got rid of the church (as in the state church, not kicking them out ) then the church could continue in their conservative ways (and continue seeing the drastic exit of people from the church they've seen the past 10 years) and, hopefully, the state would give same-sex couples exactly the same rights as different-sex couples.

registered same-sex couples have the same rights as everyone else to some extent - apart from really stupid things like it not being an alternative in the registration process to change last names and not having the right to adopt from outside the family (a person can adopt the child of their partner). hopefully we'll see this change with the next parliament.

fortunately, same-sex couples are quite happy to show their affection openly (not excessively, but to the same extent that different-sex couples do), persons in key positions in society are coming out, even conservative politicians show their support for gays. so it is changing quite rapidly, which is wonderful. i feel like it's changed even in the time since i came out (just under 10 years): people are more accepting, and it's not a huge deal anymore. unless you happen to live with the religious sects or conservative lutherans somewhere in the forests of western finland, of course. i was lucky to live in a relatively open-minded family so coming out wasn't difficult; but it was still extremely frustrating, since even in my family, there was that weird 'what will the neighbours say & think of your grandmum' mentality.
my grandmum still loves me just as much, btw.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

The civil law is much less encompassing than the moral or spiritual law-but it cannot contradict reason without losing its control over the people. Every law the government creates is legitimate as long as it follows the “Natural Laws”, reason, and “certain unalienable Rights” recognized by the Constitution. Therefore, from a legal perspective, homosexual marriage should not be promoted or even permitted.[...]

hmm, it makes a rather poor legal argument, especially if you need to quote the Pope for it. We're obviously back to the religious compound of this debate.

What about inheritance, being able to make medical decisions for your partner, able to adopt children? Those are the legal issues of homosexual marriage.

But biologically, such relationships are completely incapable of contributing to society and the survival of humanity through procreation.

Well.....biologically speaking, if procreation is the ultimate contribution to society, marriage isn't good at all. Marriage limits procreation if we take into account the other religious views that no babies are to be born outside wedlock and marriage is only with one partner.

Personally, I'd like to think people can contribute more to society, even biologically, than just babies....

Not only would the U.S.’s overall recognition influence other countries; the entire organization on America’s society would experience changes. And drastic modification of society is against the common good.

Seriously?! Change may not always be good, just as progress isn't always forward, but suggesting that all change must be bad is just laughable. I'm quite happy with having rights, rather than being property.

[GrayMouser]

Oof! You got piled on there

Still, though I agree with your critics, kudos for effort.

Just wondering why an Anglican puts in so many references to the Pope and the Catholic Catechism

Somebody drifting Romeward?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Revival of the thread reminds me: anyone see this?

[Nerdanel]

awesome. XD i love the onion..

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Revival of the thread reminds me: anyone see this?

[GrayMouser]

Speaking of Sodom:

As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

Ezekiel 16:48

Sounds more like Tea-partiers to me.

[GrayMouser]

Update:

A new report from the Public Religion Research Institute suggests a majority of Catholics are supportive of gay and lesbian rights.

The report, which was released today, found that 43 percent of Catholics favored allowing gay and lesbian people to marry; 31 percent favored allowing them to form civil unions. 22 percent said there should be no legal recognition of a gay relationship.

Here are a few more findings from the report:

— Only 39 percent of Catholics give their church top marks for its treatment of the issue of homosexuality.

— 56 percent of Catholics believe that homosexual sex is not a sin.

— When marriage is defined as a civil marriage "like you get at city hall," 71 percent of Catholics support it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...vor-gay-rights

[GrayMouser]

Congratulations New York

[GrayMouser]

And add Washington State and New Jersey to that (though Washington may face a referendum and Governor Christie of New Jersey says he will veto it- eye on 2016?)

[Insidious Rex]

Interesting collection of poll data showing the ongoing enlightening of America's notions of discrimination against homosexuals largely in the areas of gay marriage and gays in the military. Some of these polls go back over a decade and for the most part they have all inched more and more toward support of equal rights for gays. This is a good thing even if it is glacial...

[The Gaffer]

Not sure how glacial... this graphic surprised me in its progressiveness: it's a representation of gay rights in the different states of the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...-united-states

Still a long way to go, especially for the southern states.

[GrayMouser]

Yep, North Carolina...

Oh well, two steps forward, one step back will still get you somewhere eventually.

[The Gaffer]

Looks a bit like that.

How does it work if you get married in one state, do the others have to recognise it as legal?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Looks a bit like that.

How does it work if you get married in one state, do the others have to recognise it as legal?

No, because of the anti-marriage "Defense of Marriage Act"

Wiki:

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives[ i.e. Republicans] undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

[GrayMouser]

And congrats to Obama, for finally coming out and at least saying the right thing.