Gay marriage

[Ummon]

Garb.-Split from here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...threadid=63893

I don't consider the latter good news. I infact consider it terrible news.

Gay unions is a good thing, gay marriage an awful thing.

[Shaun]

gay marriage an awful thing.

Yet again I hear this statement, but with nothing to back it up other than personal opinion.

[Ummon]

Yet again I hear this statement, but with nothing to back it up other than personal opinion.

Quite the opposite: as I have said in the past, a lot more thoroughly, marriage is about making a family to have children. Homosexual couples cannot naturally do so, and there are also reasons why homosexual couples are not overall suitable for child adoption as well, though of course this opinion will be contested.

In any case, the goal of legislation is not to supply people with artificial rights, but to protect them against hostile natural, and artificial phoenomena. As such gay marriage creates a precedent, establishing the concept that men are able to engineer their social constructs without limits, against their own nature, which has evolved through the ages, to become what it is now. The weight of this inner nature can be forgotten to a price, individually, but it turns out as a collective catastrophe if forgotten by whole societies.

And gay marriage is allright in a world where most marriages end in divorce...

Collective trends do not make anything rightful, they only establish what is customary. To say that because today there are lot of murders, murdering people should be made legal, is not very logical. Vox Populi Vox Dei, contrary to popular belief, is an ironic saying: the voice of the people doesn't by any means establish what is right.

[God]

Quite the opposuite: as I have said in the past, a lot more thoroughly, marriage is about making a family to have children.

So are you against the marriage of straight couples who don't want to have children too?

[Ummon]

So are you against the marriage of straight couples who don't want to have children too?

No, because straight people can have children naturally. Not doing so is a choice.

If we implement gay marriage, then in the future the state will have the moral duty to pay for artificial reproduction practices which quite probably will be discovered, to allow women to have children with other women (the technical step is not very difficult) and in the end (though this is a lot more difficult technically) men to have children with men. Because otherwise there would be discrimination between types of marriage.

When suggesting a solution one should always look at the consequences, far and near.

And by the way: 2 females can only have a female child, 2 males may have it both male and female. Nature cannot be governed totally, differences will always exist.

[MoROmeTe]

Ummon, there is such thing as adoption... And I really believe that a gay/lesbian couple is not expecting the state to give the money needed for them to have children. It is implicit in their marriage arrangements that kids are not readily available...

[Strelac]

Gay unions is a good thing, gay marriage an awful thing.

In order to understand you prospective on gay marriage as “an awful thing”, I would have to first understand you prospective of why “gay union is a good thing”.
It seems like you’re mostly concerned with technicalities…in which case you should not worry. You’ll get joined into “holy marriage”, while gays and others into just …“marriage”

[Ummon]

In order to understand you prospective on gay marriage as “an awful thing”, I would have to first understand you prospective of why “gay union is a good thing”.
It seems like you’re mostly concerned with technicalities…in which case you should not worry. You’ll get joined into “holy marriage”, while gays and others into just …“marriage”

In truth, a civil union makes people capable of having their rights as partners in a couple linked by a sentimental relationship respected: right of visit in case of illness of the partner, right to inherit the goods of the partner in case of death, etc. Marriage is on the other hand a construct based on duties towards society and offspring, and a family the nucleus on which society itself is perpetuated.

Thus a union allowing homosexual people to have their citizen rights respected, is a good thing, a marriage of same gender people modifying the (biological and not divine as you seem to imply) rules of family-making and reproduction is not.

No it's not. It's about forcing two stupid people who hate each other to stay together until they hate each other even more, causing financial and emotional trauma.
If you're going to ban one group from marriage, then just ban marriage entirely. But barring specific groups of people from having civil rights just because you don't like them is bigoted and cruel.

I am afraid that this is your subjective vision of (a bad) marriage. I wouldn't take steps to modify laws based on this.

[MaximiIian]

marriage is about making a family to have children.

No it's not. It's about forcing two stupid people who hate each other to stay together until they hate each other even more, causing financial and emotional trauma.
If you're going to ban one group from marriage, then just ban marriage entirely. But barring specific groups of people from having civil rights just because you don't like them is bigoted and cruel.

[Atterdag]

No it's not. It's about forcing two stupid people who hate each other to stay together until they hate each other even more, causing financial and emotional trauma.

.. ehm.. hmpf. What?

If you're going to ban one group from marriage, then just ban marriage entirely. But barring specific groups of people from having civil rights just because you don't like them is bigoted and cruel.

Why should the Christian church be forced to bless marriages between homosexuals if it is against their religion?

[MaximiIian]

.. ehm.. hmpf. What?

It was a joke. You obviously don't get it, so ignore that part.

Why should the Christian church be forced to bless marriages between homosexuals if it is against their religion?

Whoever said it had to be a religious marriage? Marriages can be performed by the state.
Even so, it shouldn't matter if it's against their religion. There's a thing called "seperation of church and state". Ever heard of it?

[Ummon]

that doesn't preclude the fact that gay adoption, and gay custody exists...

i fail to see any reason why giving gay people marriage has anything to do with granting some form of state aid to have kids. a great number of gay already accept they're not going to have kids, and many more don't care. And if the government does provide it via the NHS? so what? the NHS already provides fertility treatments...

Many things do exist, but not all which exists is good for the people involved. I am currently looking for one particular autobiography, of a French woman, who clearly describes how she was indeed not discriminated but considered positively because she had homosexual parents. This didn't though prevent her from suffering tremendously because she didn't have a family like all other children.

Reactions like these are surely by no means the rule (though by how much I don't really know), rule which on the other hand is quite blurred behind political trends and desires to implement political correctness at the expense of reasonable concern.

Fertility treatments differ from the proceedings I was referring to, very much, both in terms of cost and difficulty.

but you don't need marriage for that purpose. You can make a commitment without the ring! And any two people can make an equal commitment as the next two.

Indeed, but unmarried people do not have the advantages of married people, by the law, and rightly so. Marriage is a commitment in the face of society and not just each other, and a commitment to stability, which may fail for sure, but gives some certainty and guerantee to the natural offspring of such union, who surely implicitly and inherently needs it.

but they are quite capable of looking after children – just as a nanny can, you don't have to give birth to be a valid parent. oh and how much about humanity is 'natural' anyway?

First of all, looking after children is by no means the way to make them grow well. A child learns imitating (or not) his same-sex parent, and desiring (or not) the characteristics of his opposite-sex parent. Limiting his experience for a long time to reference figures of the same gender is not a good idea, either in theory and practice, I would say.

Humanity is natural, it is its science and civilization which in part is not.

we are all individuals!

This is absolutely unrelated, I hope you understand, with my point. We are all mammals as well, for that matter.

some people are suitable some not, irrespective of other factors.

But here we are taking the other factors into consideration.

It mainly comes down to single parents in the end anyway.

So it is better to start from single parents since the beginning? It's like saying: since I might lose, I think I will not play at all.

However some children may not appreciate e.g. being teased etc at school for having gay parents [a societal fault], whilst others may think its cool to have gay parents and develop a liberal perspective through this medium.

I know situations in which children have suffered though they were considered fashionable because they had gay parents.

[Amorphos]

but gives some security and guarantee to the natural offspring of such union

.

True, a successful marriage gives that. We could say that marriage itself is unethical though – as it demands allegiance of two individuals to each other, people change an all that, plus it doesn't allow for much individual expression. In fact can we not say that being labelled as a 'dad' is also an infringement; its like people become their labels y'know [another debate eh].
Secondly a successful gay marriage can do the same.

looking after children is by no means the way to make them grow well

again true, many kids are virtually brought up by their nannies, is it wrong for mothers to work! Yes children do imitate their same sex parents, but they also have their own idea of sexuality, people don't give them enough credit; i remember kissing a gay friend [in a 'saying hello' manner] and my 5 year old boy complained considering it wrong [past life/genetic indoctrination perhaps]. People become who they are irrespective of their parental environment – to a large degree.

Humanity is natural, it is its science and civilization which in part is not

is it? We don't have fur to keep warm in winter etc. it could be said that science and civilisation are a part of what we are as a species, without it how would we stand up to lions and the environment.

By saying we are all individuals, i meant that one person irrespective of sex, is a good or bad as another etc. what other factors are we talking about – that don't come into this?

So it is better to start from single parents since the beginning? It's like saying: since I might lose, I think I will not play at all

agreed!

I know situations in which children have suffered though they were considered fashionable because they had gay parents.

Well you would need to elaborate on that, however i would presume that the suffering was not because of the gay parent/s but societal and prejudice. If so then this is another issue that needs sorting.

--------------------------------------------

He he david cameron did say something then :tooth:

[Ummon]

.

True, a successful marriage gives that. We could say that marriage itself is unethical though – as it demands allegiance of two individuals to each other, people change an all that, plus it doesn't allow for much individual expression.

A free personal choice is never unethical, if lawful. Furthermore, the well-being of the child is rightly considered a superior good if compared with the good of individual parents, who besides attain a sort of immortality through their offspring, and good which though on the other hand is not so much at risk in a couple as you seem to imply.

In fact can we not say that being labelled as a 'dad' is also an infringement; its like people become their labels y'know [another debate eh].

A person can be a man, a professional and a dad as well. That's the requirement of our human condition, to have multiple roles.

.Secondly a successful gay marriage can do the same.

While I do not theorically disagree on the abstract possibilty of a life-long gay union, I would point out that the first gay couples to join in "marriage" in all countries which have implemented this institution have all already "divorced". The spanish couple divorced after less than 12 months. Additionally, a gay couple may as well give guerantees, but again it fails to give both role models to the child, and doesn't bear children naturally.

again true, many kids are virtually brought up by their nannies, is it wrong for mothers to work! Yes children do imitate their same sex parents, but they also have their own idea of sexuality, people don't give them enough credit;

I was not specifically referring to sexuality.

.i remember kissing a gay friend [in a 'saying hello' manner] and my 5 year old boy complained considering it wrong [past life/genetic indoctrination perhaps]. People become who they are irrespective of their parental environment – to a large degree.

Being irrespective is good and natural, having no father or no mother to teach you and to allow you to choose the be irrespective of him/her, not so.

.is it? We don't have fur to keep warm in winter etc.

But we have brains to create clothes.

it could be said that science and civilisation are a part of what we are as a species, without it how would we stand up to lions and the environment.

Civilization is part of our being human in general. Specific uses and customs though may be artificial. Some customs thus will be coherent with the natural characteristics of humanity, others not.

.By saying we are all individuals, i meant that one person irrespective of sex, is a good or bad as another etc. what other factors are we talking about – that don't come into this?

As I was saying, any two males or two females are not good and bad as one male and one female, as parents.

agreed!

I am glad that we agree.

.Well you would need to elaborate on that, however i would presume that the suffering was not because of the gay parent/s but societal and prejudice. If so then this is another issue that needs sorting.

It was indeed because of the gay parents, as she was as I was saying treated very well and never subject to stereotypes. Though sadly, I can't find her book online (I suspect there's a lot of embarassment about that in some circles). Yet I found another biography of an american woman, who strongly expresses her suffering for an analogous situation. If needed I will post about it, in the next days.

[Garbarsardar]

marriage is about making a family to have children. Homosexual couples cannot naturally do so,

There are heterosexual couples that cannot naturally do so. Hence all the hormonotherapy and fertilization techniques.

As such gay marriage creates a precedent, establishing the concept that men are able to engineer their social constructs without limits, against their own nature, which has evolved through the ages, to become what it is now. The weight of this inner nature can be forgotten to a price, individually, but it turns out as a collective catastrophe if forgotten by whole societies.

Even as an axiom, because there is nothing provable or disprovable it it. it's still convoluted. How exactly "nature" can be "collectively forgotten"? Collective loss of a "natural" state usually goes by the name of evolution...

No, because straight people can have children naturally. Not doing so is a choice.

The same fallacy again. Not all straight people can have children.

then in the future the state will have the moral duty to pay for artificial reproduction practices which quite probably will be discovered, to allow women to have children with other women

So what? The State does the same thing today for heterosexual couples that cannot "naturally" have children.

Furthermore, there are deep psychological concerns about homosexual couples adopting children. The researches in support of gay adoption are extremely biased and scientifically thin, but even if this wasn't the case, I can quote instances when this has caused deep psychological disturbances in the child, and also, I would like to point out that a child to grow up properly, needs both role-models, not just one.

The researches in support are thin. What about the researches in opposition? Are those any better? And by the way anyone can quote instances. Instances are not conclusive and there are instances both ways. As for the need for both role models, here you tread very thin ground especially when you use the word scientific in the same paragraph.

Parents are there for the child, not for themselves. As such the main concern of adoption is the well-being of the child. Anything which increases the likelyhood of damage for the (already traumatised) child given in adoption, is to be refused.

Indeed. But there is absolutely no evidence that adoption by a gay couple would do this. So this is rather pointless as an argument.

I am currently looking for one particular autobiography, of a French woman, who clearly describes how she was indeed not discriminated but considered positively because she had homosexual parents. This didn't though prevent her from suffering tremendously because she didn't have a family like all other children.

Unless you can demonstrate that this is a trend amongst children adopted from gay couples, one autobiography is not even the eqivalent of a case study, not to mention an epidemiological one. So nothing here...

A child learns imitating (or not) his same-sex parent, and desiring (or not) the characteristics of his opposite-sex parent. Limiting his experience for a long time to reference figures of the same gender is not a good idea, either in theory and practice, I would say.

It would be very easy to ask you to provide some support (published peer reviewed study) and that's exactly what I am going to do:
Any data your way?

While I do not theorically disagree on the abstract possibilty of a life-long gay union, I would point out that the first gay couples to join in "marriage" in all countries which have implemented this institution have all already "divorced". The spanish couple divorced after less than 12 months.

Again, unless you are able to demonstrate that the ratio of divorces is higher in gay couples than straight, this anecdotological evidence means zilch.

Yet I found another biography of an american woman, who strongly expresses her suffering for an analogous situation. If needed I will post about it, in the next days.

If you have time come with some papers too. Autobiographies is a nice pass time but for the sake of such an argument... :hmmm:

[Ummon]

There are heterosexual couples that cannot naturally do so. Hence all the hormonotherapy and fertilization techniques.

In that case there's an illness causing the problem. Are you suggesting that same gender non-interfertility is an illness?

Even as an axiom, because there is nothing provable or disprovable it it. it's still convoluted. How exactly "nature" can be "collectively forgotten"? Collective loss of a "natural" state usually goes by the name of evolution...

In truth, I find it difficult to perceive evolution as forgetting nature. Additionally, forgetting is an entirely cognitive phenomenon, which doesn't modify the biological characteristics of humanity which are forgotten.

The same fallacy again. Not all straight people can have children.

I thought it was fairly evident that health problems did not equate to gender characteristics, but if you want to call it a fallacy.

So what? The State does the same thing today for heterosexual couples that cannot "naturally" have children.

Again refusing to cathegorize based on biological characteristics of mammals. A healthy man and a healthy woman can naturally have children.

The researches in support are thin. What about the researches in opposition? Are those any better? And by the way anyone can quote instances. Instances are not conclusive and there are instances both ways. As for the need for both role models, here you tread very thin ground especially when you use the word scientific in the same paragraph.

I am sure that you can, by a purely neuropsychological point of view, see that there is no way a child can learn a behaviour if he has noone exibiting this behaviour to imitate. Of course, there's plenty of subsidiary role models one can use, after a certain age, which though is the problem.

As for researches, since no research on the subject is trustworthy in my humble opinion, I would suggest that before making some positive strides in the field, reforming a cultural and biological habit going on for millions of years is somewhat unwise. This is besides the reasoning which underlies many people's mistrust towards Genetically Modified Organisms, without this arising your ires, I suspect.

Indeed. But there is absolutely no evidence that adoption by a gay couple would do this. So this is rather pointless as an argument.

But there is reasonable concern, that it might. Infact, it would be honest that someone who proposes a change motivates it, and not vice-versa.

Unless you can demonstrate that this is a trend amongst children adopted from gay couples, one autobiography is not even the eqivalent of a case study, not to mention an epidemiological one. So nothing here...

In truth, even an instance is enough, if we consider that the interest of the children is preminent on that of the would-be parents in case of adoption.

It would be very easy to ask you to provide some support (published peer reviewed study) and that's exactly what I am going to do:
Any data your way?

Again, it isn't me suggesting to allow same gender couples to raise children, and the burden of proof shouldn't logically lean my way.

Additionally, there are such researches, but as I said, I consider them unworthy as much as I consider unworthy those in favour of modifying law to implement gay marriage.

Again, unless you are able to demonstrate that the ratio of divorces is higher in gay couples than straight, this anecdotological evidence means zilch.

Then again, there is such evidence (though it is so much against PC that you will find it proposed only by anti-gay motivated organizations). But I honestly do not have anything against homosexuality, only against homosexual marriage, thus I won't quote any such thing.

If you have time come with some papers too. Autobiographies is a nice pass time but for the sake of such an argument... :hmmm:

There is absolutely no need for it, I would say.

Oh man, another gay marriage thread.
Well, maybe this one will answer a question I have asked time and again whenever this was discussed.
There are a lot of sexual preferences differing in varying degrees from the average-state-authorized-vanilla-Saturday-night-runthrough-at-the-Smith's-household-variant.
So whatever happened to the really important issues here? Bi-sexual marriage, right or wrong? Sado-masochist adoption, yes or no? and such...

Bisexuals who have children with members of the opposite sex do nothing strange, IMHO, nor possibly detrimental to their children. Furthermore, sadomasochism is (arguably) a pathological condition. Are you equating homosexuality to a pathological condition?

[mongoose]

In that case there's an illness causing the problem. Are you suggesting that same gender non-interfertility is an illness?

Irrelavent. The point was that it's the exact same problem, not that it's caused by the same thing.

[Lavastein]

marrage is to have a man and a woman united and then have children. Tat is what marriage was made for.

[Marcus Scaurus]

marrage is to have a man and a woman united and then have children. Tat is what marriage was made for.

Marriage isn't 'made', only when you believe in God. Well, you can say that marriage is 'made' by men, who wanted to control the fertility of their women by saying that God/Amon-Ra/whatever would punish them if they would have sex with another men.

[Ummon]

Irrelavent. The point was that it's the exact same problem, not that it's caused by the same thing.

I'm really sorry, but it's absolutely not the same thing. To cure illness is a medical duty, to provide people with artificial rights, is not the duty of anyone.