Gay Marraige For or Against
- Thread starter Smashbox
- Start date
- Status
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. Everyone has exactly the same rights to marriage in that they can marry anyone from the opposite sex who is agreeable to same, of sufficient age and not an immediate relative. That's as equal as one can get.
I'm for some form of civil arrangement which is open to any two people regardless of gender, sexuality or relationship which confers all the rights of marriage excluding certain tax benefits(aimed at promoting family/children) and adoption.
Obviously adoption should be about the rights and best interests of the child. Whenever possible a child should not be denied the right to both a mother and father and the State should not implement policies, for the sake of modernity, which create artificial constructs where a child will be fatherless or motherless.
I'm for some form of civil arrangement which is open to any two people regardless of gender, sexuality or relationship which confers all the rights of marriage excluding certain tax benefits(aimed at promoting family/children) and adoption.
Obviously adoption should be about the rights and best interests of the child. Whenever possible a child should not be denied the right to both a mother and father and the State should not implement policies, for the sake of modernity, which create artificial constructs where a child will be fatherless or motherless.
Frankly what 2 consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom should not be a deciding factor in whether or not 2 people get married. I know a number of gay couples in LTRs who are probably in a more honest and loving relationship then many "normal" married couples.
As for children, how many children conceived and brought up in a "natural" marriage had to endure years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse.? The fact that a gay couple cannot have children naturally doesn't necessarily mean they will be any better or worse parents then a so-called normal couple. If anything, 2 people in a stable relationship have a better chance of providing a good upbringing for a child then many single parents who may be struggling financially and emotionally.
As for children, how many children conceived and brought up in a "natural" marriage had to endure years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse.? The fact that a gay couple cannot have children naturally doesn't necessarily mean they will be any better or worse parents then a so-called normal couple. If anything, 2 people in a stable relationship have a better chance of providing a good upbringing for a child then many single parents who may be struggling financially and emotionally.
OK, fair enough but semantics aside, I think you know what everyone is talking about.
Just out of interest (and this is not an attempt at a point scoring exercise) a hypothetical situation for you (and anyone else for that matter)
A 12 year old child is available for adoption and let's say there are only two prospective sets of adopters that fit the profile for this child - one a heterosexual couple and one a gay couple.
Let's say also the child has a gay uncle that they get on well with (but for various reasons cannot care for the child) so is aware of sexuality differences.
What if, in cultural, geographic and socioeconomic terms, the gay couple were more suitable as adoptive 'parents', would you personally be in favour (ignoring the law for the minute) of them adopting?
In your unlikely example and in the absence of any other relative to care for the child, I would think that the qualifying heterosexual couple, while not as cultural?, geographically convenient, or financially endowed will trump the gay couple by being able to provide the child with a mother and a father. Or if the child can secure legal emancipation than they can do what they want.
There are very few children available for adoption in Ireland and people go to the far East, and beyond, to adopt. Even if it were legal here, gay couples wouldn't get a look in, if the best interests of the child were to be served, unless there were artificial PC quotas applied.
There are very few children available for adoption in Ireland and people go to the far East, and beyond, to adopt. Even if it were legal here, gay couples wouldn't get a look in, if the best interests of the child were to be served, unless there were artificial PC quotas applied.
I'm for gay couples and their right to have the same legal standing as a married man and women.
Adoption is a very complex thing and should be dealt with on a case by case basis, I would not exclude a particular spectrum of soceity. It is quite hard to adopt here so if a couple are suitable they should be welcomed.
Adoption is a very complex thing and should be dealt with on a case by case basis, I would not exclude a particular spectrum of soceity. It is quite hard to adopt here so if a couple are suitable they should be welcomed.
I meant it as a general term to mean lifestyle/attitude/ethos/customs etc. I didn't mean it as 'cultured' or in any way superior - just a better 'fit' for whatever reason.
But would you personally be in favour? - never mind what you think would be decided or allowed in the admittedly unlikely (but not impossible) scenario.
You may have missed my earlier post on this exact point. This is a topic which has been well researched and the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the hypothesis that one male and one female parent is far better than just one female. That is about as much as we can say has been fairly conclusively proven.
To tell a gay person that they can marry anyone from the opposite sex who is agreeable to same, and then saying to them that this represents equality is nothing short of redundant nonsense. Why would any gay person be interested in such a thing, and why would the other person agree to such. Is that something that is considered good for society? Tragic at best for all concerned. I fear these strained arguments are becoming even more warped.
The strongest bond in society is that between two people in love and it's the most natural family unit to which all adults are drawn. Excluding gays from this does society no service. What is the point of some lesser form such as 'a civil arrangement open to any two people' other than to exclude gay people.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
And you not supposed to be posting on this thread a whole 2 pages ago
Not really that much of a miracle. A gay couple could use the sperm from 1 partner with a donated egg and a surrogate mother. Exactly how a straight couple in which the women was infertile could do it.
No. I don't favour manufactured situations where a child is unnecessarily deprived of either a mother and father.
If you can't see it you won't see it. A man can't mother a child and a woman can't be a father to a child. The onus of proof would be on those arguing against the notion that to have a mother and father raising a child is the best option.
You must have got The Big PC Dictionary for Christmas, er, I mean for the Holiday Season.
And what is more natural than the love of two adults drawn inextricably together as a unit and their wish to pass on that love in rearing the next generation? The fixation with an ability to reproduce (proven or otherwise), to the exclusion of all other factors or arguments rings hollow to me. It doesn't seem to me to be an argument that is in favour of children or the family. Reducing the family unit to that simply consisting of a man and a woman is again missing the point, and I'm struggling to understand what you are then implying about the many other forms of wonderful family units that exist. I go back to the argument that make sense to me - a loving caring environment in which children are respected and learn to respect others seems to me to rank infinitely higher than one which states that the guardians should have the ability to reproduce. This again seems more concerned with excluding gays, than saying anything in favour of the children.
I didn't realise that we were being pedantic, by given i meant what we were born with. I don't know the meaning of life so I can't tell you if God created man or if aliens did, i just have a fair understanding of biology. It is still my understanding that left to our own devices a man can only impregnate a woman.
It would be social rather than moral and my underlying belief that it simply was never meant to be this way.
the (repeated) argument is based rather on the fact that for one group to be 100% denied the biological makings to conceive together means to me that that group were never meant to be parents as nature intended. It might sound odd, conceited, homophobic etc etc but I do believe that everything has a purpose. I don't think gay people are bad people or bad for society, this is just in relation to a single topic.
Balance, different perspectives, guidance, discipline, love, sense of adventure, protection, and unselfish dedication. In no particular order.
I'm sorry that you feel insulted by my conclusion. You stated that many you call me prejudiced and archaic because of my view on this topic, I simply said that hopefully in time they will mature enough to appreciate there are differing views. How do you find that insulting? do you consider me to prejudiced? do you consider me to have views that are better suited to days of yore? If you do that's a shame.
I have learned more on this site from people that i have disagreed with than those i agree with, if arguments cannot be teased out without name calling, insinuations and such then they are a waste of time.
Your views would be considered liberal on this topic, that would suggest to me that an open mind is at play, I'm just saying keep it open to the possibility that you could be wrong.
Take the ability to reproduce out of the equation and it is easy to see why it is best to let nature take its course.
S
S.L.F
Guest
And you not supposed to be posting on this thread a whole 2 pages ago
Not really that much of a miracle. A gay couple could use the sperm from 1 partner with a donated egg and a surrogate mother. Exactly how a straight couple in which the women was infertile could do it.
Anyway the person who originally brought up the subject that gay people can't have kids with each other was MrMan.
Having trawled throught the entire thread I found that on, I think, the second page
In fairness I said I wouldn't comment any more unless anything worthwhile comes up and it seems more interesting stuff has come up.
Anyway this is the best thread for a good while bar the toilet paper (in or out) one.
Anyway your point is invalid because it takes a member of the opposite sex to make it happen.
And you not supposed to be posting on this thread a whole 2 pages ago
Not really that much of a miracle. A gay couple could use the sperm from 1 partner with a donated egg and a surrogate mother. Exactly how a straight couple in which the women was infertile could do it.
You know what he means so lets leave this one go. Gay couples cannot ever ever ever conceive when it is just them. that goes for every gay couple on the entire planet.
If you are just in favour of what nature provides us with, then do you disagree with operations, transfusions, antibiotics, vaccinations etc etc?
If it's okay to use some of medical science developed by mankind, why not the rest?
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Wrong. With the given premise of the female being the infertile partner then it still takes a member of the opposite sex (for the male partner to donate his sperm to) to carry the pregnancy. Whats the difference?
Anyway - forgetting about what nature gave us - seeing as that argument is pretty invalid considering medical advances that allow all sorts of unnatural things to happen like enhanced breasts or joint implants etc....
Should a person who previously had a child in a heterosexual relationship be allowed to move onto a gay relationship and raise the child in that relationship?
S
S.L.F
Guest
For gays there is no next generation unless they have the gene material from the opposite sex.
LOL What do you mean proven or otherwise children produced by 1 man and 1 woman.
There is no other way.
Children need the influence of both mother and father.
Children of single parents lose out on that score through no fault of their own.
It is you who is missing the point family unit is ideally 1 man 1 woman.
Yes I agree with you but as I keep on saying children need the influence of both sexes.
For those of you who can't see sense
rolleyes lets try a different approach lets say 2 friends of the same sex decided to adopt would this be ok?- Status