Gay Marriage and adoption!

[LoneWolf16]

Personally, I believe that marriage should be allowed, but adoption should be fiercely regulated. I mean for straight couples too...in fact, the entire system could use an overhaul, but I digress...

 

The marriage itself means little to me, it's the kids I'm concerned about. I've got this notion that a child requires a parent, or at least a primary influence, from both genders in order to get the correct sort of upbringing intended by nature.

 

In short, for me at least, marriage ok, adoption not so much.

 

 

 

I know this topic is grounds for an instant flame war, but I'm genuinely curious to see what the responses will be, and hope we can remain civil about this. So? Thoughts?

 

Disclaimer: Please respect other people's opinions. You may think they're wrong, but refrain from personal attacks on said person's religion, personality, or beliefs. Again, try to keep it civil.

[metadigital]

Personal attacks will result in thread pruning in the first instance and thread closure after that, as well as warnings for all the culprits.

[Oerwinde]

The way I see it, if a single dad or a single mom can raise a kid, why can't two? And the marriage thing is just a non-issue. Gays getting married in no way threatens the traditional family. Its not like just because gays are getting married, straight people aren't allowed to anymore.

[alanschu]

I think the influence of both genders on a child can be overstated. I think it has more to do with the approach to parenting than the actual gender, though I can see your point. In this case though, you'd also have to place additional restrictions on single people wishing to adopt as well, as there would be only one gender in that case as well.

 

 

An odd (or maybe not) thing, is that I believe it's easier and more accepted for lesbians to raise a child than homosexual males.

[taks]

there's no option for what i believe.

 

in particular, i think the government should get out of the marriage business. in the end, it is social engineering, i.e. rewarding behavior with "perks" at the expense of non-participating taxpayers. if people live together, and can claim dependence upon one-another, then their income should be treated as such legally (combined) unless they choose otherwise (separate). other than that, every other benefit to marriage is related to things there are already laws/procedures to handle, such as a WILL.

 

as for adoption, i'm mixed. if you listen to bill o'reilly he says "let 'em adopt kids that would not otherwise find a home" which i think is a crock. either they are qualified or they aren't so the business of "you're a second class citizen so you only get second class children" is just wrong.

 

i'll make up my mind one of these days.

 

taks

[LoneWolf16]

I know about the single parents out there who raise their children just fine...myself being one of those children for a significant portion of my childhood, which is why I included that "primary influence" bit, Alan and Oer.

[taks]

An odd (or maybe not) thing, is that I believe it's easier and more accepted for lesbians to raise a child than homosexual males.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

perhaps due to the perceived lifestyle differences?

 

i'm sure there's a study or two around that show the comparitive lengths of relationships between men-women, women-women and men-men.

 

taks

[Hassat Hunter]

Both have happened here plenty of times and I haven't heard or noticed anything bad about it...

 

Adoption doesn't need to be forced on gender, but on the abbility to raise kids (and both man and woman can fail terribly at that...)

The % (ofcourse not of the total of children born/adopted, but of the groups) of childkillings done by Man-Woman is far higher than with Man-Man or Woman-Woman.

 

And why should one prevent two of the same gender to marry like a woman-man would? Does it hurt "anyone" if they do? Let them have their same rights; we are all humans after all...

[alanschu]

An odd (or maybe not) thing, is that I believe it's easier and more accepted for lesbians to raise a child than homosexual males.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

perhaps due to the perceived lifestyle differences?

 

i'm sure there's a study or two around that show the comparitive lengths of relationships between men-women, women-women and men-men.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think it has just as much to do with the fact that lesbians are much more socially accepted than homosexual males.

[Dark_Raven]

Yes to both without any restrictions.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Gay marriage should be recognised by the state and gay couples afforded all the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.

 

Gay couples should also be free to adopt if they meet the same criteria as heterosexual couples.

 

I think most children would have exposure to both sexes if adopted by a gay couple - through the extended family, friends, school or childcare, for example.

[Calax]

You GO STEVE!

 

also, I do question those who say that gay marrige threatens the basis of marrige... isn't marrige at its basis religious and thus the gay marrige would be threatening the religious aspect of marrige?

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we as a nation (america) supposed to ignore the fact it's RELIGIOUSLY incorrect because the religion is divorced from our governmental body (or at least supposed to be)?

[Baley]

At its basis, marriage is two or more primates reciprocally ****ing for long periods of time.

[LoneWolf16]

You GO STEVE!

 

also, I do question those who say that gay marrige threatens the basis of marrige... isn't marrige at its basis religious and thus the gay marrige would be threatening the religious aspect of marrige?

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we as a nation (america) supposed to ignore the fact it's RELIGIOUSLY incorrect because the religion is divorced from our governmental body (or at least supposed to be)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'd say it ceased to be a religious thing once marriage acquired legal benefits.

[metadigital]

Interestingly, same-sex couples in the UK currently have better legal protection in the case of seperation, than common-law heterosexual couples, because their relationships are now regarded as equivalent to hetrosexual marriage, whereas the defacto heterosexual couples are left to battle it out with the most expensive lawyers.

[Calax]

You GO STEVE!

 

also, I do question those who say that gay marrige threatens the basis of marrige... isn't marrige at its basis religious and thus the gay marrige would be threatening the religious aspect of marrige?

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we as a nation (america) supposed to ignore the fact it's RELIGIOUSLY incorrect because the religion is divorced from our governmental body (or at least supposed to be)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'd say it ceased to be a religious thing once marriage acquired legal benefits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but the reason people are opposed to the homo version is because "god intended for it to be a union between a man and a woman"

 

also "HOLY matrimony" (that should be used by robin at some point...)

[Baley]

Interestingly, same-sex couples in the UK currently have better legal protection in the case of seperation, than common-law heterosexual couples, because their relationships are now regarded as equivalent to hetrosexual marriage, whereas the defacto heterosexual couples are left to battle it out with the most expensive lawyers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Could you elaborate on that?

 

I fail to see why two homosexual males\females would be less likely to battle it out in court. What am I missing?

[alanschu]

Because they're seen as just common-law, not married.

 

He was comparing same-sex couples in the UK to common-law heterosexuals, not married heterosexuals.

[metadigital]

Currently, homosexual de facto relationships have more legal binding than heterosexual ones.

 

Edit: What Jimmy ^ said.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Interestingly, same-sex couples in the UK currently have better legal protection in the case of seperation, than common-law heterosexual couples, because their relationships are now regarded as equivalent to hetrosexual marriage, whereas the defacto heterosexual couples are left to battle it out with the most expensive lawyers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's important that same-sex couples have the same legal status as heterosexual couples. I don't know why it was felt necessary to call it 'civil partnership' rather than 'marriage', as the state recognises heterosexuals who have a civil wedding as 'married'.

 

As for common-law couples, I don't think the concept exists in English law, despite what many people think, so of course it offers no greater legal protection than a flatshare. I believe it exists in Scottish law, though.

but the reason people are opposed to the homo version is because "god intended for it to be a union between a man and a woman"

 

also "HOLY matrimony" (that should be used by robin at some point...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No-one expects the Church or churches to recognise gay marriage, and indeed the Church of England doesn't recognise a lot of heterosexual marriages where one of the parties is divorced. I don't think that the churches hold exclusive rights to the word 'marriage'. People have long used 'wedding' and 'marriage' to apply to unions that were not blessed by any church.

[Baley]

I get it now. Shame my Brit-inspired legal knowledge is not up to date. I'm crying like the little bitch I am. Oh poo.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Baley

[metadigital]

Steve, the point is that gay civil partnerships have only recently been recognised; therefore the judiciary are more inclined to take their previous de facto relationship as evidence of a stable partnership, rather than the legal definition that is written out for heterosexuals.

No-one expects the Church or churches to recognise gay marriage, and indeed the Church of England doesn't recognise a lot of heterosexual marriages where one of the parties is divorced.  I don't think that the churches hold exclusive rights to the word 'marriage'.  People have long used 'wedding' and 'marriage' to apply to unions that were not blessed by any church.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought that was the Roman Catholic Church (and probably the Greek / Russian / Whatever Orthodoxes, as well).

[Craigboy2]

Personally, I believe that marriage should be allowed, but adoption should be fiercely regulated. I mean for straight couples too...in fact, the entire system could use an overhaul, but I digress...

 

The marriage itself means little to me, it's the kids I'm concerned about. I've got this notion that a child requires a parent, or at least a primary influence, from both genders in order to get the correct sort of upbringing intended by nature.

 

In short, for me at least, marriage ok, adoption not so much.

 

 

 

I know this topic is grounds for an instant flame war, but I'm genuinely curious to see what the responses will be, and hope we can remain civil about this. So? Thoughts?

 

Disclaimer: Please respect other people's opinions. You may think they're wrong, but refrain from personal attacks on said person's religion, personality, or beliefs. Again, try to keep it civil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For gay marriage, Why? Well I say why not. (Not sure about the adoption issue though)I may not be a fan of the gay streotype but that doesn't mean that all gays are like that. I also say to hell with those people who say marriage is a sacred bond, well if it was than why does more than half of them end in divorce? I also can't stand those people who are against it and they really have no reason why it shouldn't be legal besides "It's not how God intended it to be". It seems like they're just using the church to get their bigget (kind of gives it some zing, whatever that is...) way. Also religon and government are meant to be seperate (atleast in the U.S.), so just because it's "Not how God intended it to be" doesn't me our government should be against just because the curch. Didn't the church use to persecute left handers? Which is an example as how the church has been wrong in the past. Sorry for the incoherrent post.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Craigboy2

[LoneWolf16]

I'm actually sort of surprised that this is so one-sided. Would have thought more would have been in the "No, absolutely not" category.

[metadigital]

No, absolutely not. This is a fair-minded forum.