Gay Marriage revived. (1 Viewer)

[tWiStEdD]

Xayma, hahaah... you're awful

my point is why do so many people NOT support these sorts of unions?

The Australian Government has disallowed it.
The USA have 11 states who have passed the ban and only 1 that has supported it.

How is it then, that that which is seen to be 'politically correct' is in fact being over-ruled by those that are accused of being the conservative elites? Truth is, they're our representitives... it went to the ballot in 11 American states and it passed. That's something that really needs to be taken on board... I dont believe for a second that our population is overy different from the Americans.

I find that gay marriages, or even unions, are contextually inappropriate. Perhaps later, yes... but they will never have the same rights as a heterosexual couple for the simple reason that heterosexual couples have the ability to have children, to procreate. While it seems like something more of a symbolic thing and some of you will respond with "who cares?" you'll find that many of the rights and responsibilites in a marriage relate to children.

I mirror Rorix's view here, the chances of a heterosexual couple being sterile and being unable to produce children may be, for example, 1/100 (0.01) in country B. The chances of a homosexual couple being unable to produce children is 100/100 (1) in country B. Therefore arguing on those grounds are fallacious.
Ziff brought economics into it. The economy would not be affected at all and it is irrellevant to the matter at hand.
Why? Asquithian told us why. They're a minority.

I do not beleive in the discrimination of minorities. This is NOT discrimination. The Australian legal system provides for "Girls only bars" up until men are allowed in. After men are officially allowed in, it cannot reverse its policy. Therefore, legally, it is not discrimination. Its just a bunch of men trying to get into the ladies only bar, but the bar wishes to stay ladies only. Therefore, no discrimination.

Subjectivity is rife in an issue like this. I believe those who agree to it personalise it just as much as those who do not. Please, Nick... refrain from using labels such as homophobic. Those who do not agree are no more homophobic, than those who agree are gay themselves.

I have, time and time again, attempted to look at this objectively as I believe you can, with great effort. It comes back to the arguement of "Why shouldnt we?" versus "Why should we?"
There is NO answer when you get to that stage.

It should first be acknowledged that the estimates [not all gays will be willing to say "YES" emphatically, right?] fluctuate from country to country. However, the global average seems to lie somewhere between 5 and 8% (with some outliers). The figure of 10% is somewhat mythical and there's a few studies that seem to indicate that the 10% figure is way too high (just do a quick google search, it seems to be a social scientists dreamboat ). In these terms, they may consitute a minority of insignificant proportions in some countries (particularly throughout Europe) but they constitute a far more significant minority in countries like Australia and the USA.

Now i'm sure we can appreciate that the societies of the USA and of Australia are exponentially different to those of European states, yet we're the ones reacting to it by banning it. Does anyone know what the European reaction is to gay marriages? Do tell if there's any rumblings over there.

Artificial birth control measures are of great importance. Should they be available to gay couples?

The most basic family law notion is that of "the best interests of a child," and this same basic notion is included in the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC) to which almost all countries are a signitary. Now, i'm not a great fan of the current system of international law that we have in place, but this is one i've got a soft spot for.

What right do we have to provide a child with two mothers? or two fathers? Indeed, what right do we have to subject a child to a violent relationship? or to circumstances that could result in the sexual abuse of the aforementioned child? Hell, what right do we have to allow a child to exist without one parent in a single parent family?
It comes back to Rorix's idea of probability. What are the chances, if born to a heterosexual couple, that the child will be subjected to potentially damaging conduct? Too high for my liking, but that's why we have certain laws.
Single parents have it tough, but they're victims of circumstance... its bad luck and we cant really protect ourselves from that, can we? Not even the parents have a choice.
Homosexual couples provide children with two parents but one type. Two parents, two female/male rolemodels. To grow up normally a child needs a mother and a father. As long as we have the choice we should promote this idea. Never should we choose for a child that they'll have only one parent or they'll have two of the same sex. We should allow them the opportunity to have a mother and a father to the best of our ability until they reach the magical age of 18.
Yes, homosexual couples can provide the role model that they're missing through consistent contact with friends who can fulfill that role. It is, however, fundamentally different for the child who does not live with two types of role model who can teach them two different sides of the great story of life.

Furthermore, what are the chances that a child of a gay couple will be subjected to abuse by their peers? Dont tell me it would be low, because it wouldnt be. The emotional strain that stands to cause is extreme. Once again, how can we make that choice... how can we choose that a child be subjected to emotional trauma during their school years?

Perhaps my final, more controversial, arguement against it is simply that a gay couple with children (assuming they attempt to add children to their family) is more likely to mould the child in their image, thus giving them less choice as to their sexuality. Now while I do not have evidence for this, I would suggest that a a traditional heterosexual couple will allow for the choice more so than a child of a homosexual couple would. I base this on the notion that a child would recieve more harassment at school should they have gay parents. Thus they would grow up lacking confidence and being ostracised (spelling?). This makes them more impressionable as they try to find an identity in the only place that provides stability, home.

I have assumed that gay marriage will result in a debate on children, and i dont think i'm far off the mark. Gay marriage will be equal, or it wont happen... that's what the pressure groups want. With equal rights come these rights to children. I do not believe for a second that they should be allowed to bear children nor should they be allowed to adopt children for the reasons i have mentioned.

Finally, I am not homophobic. I simply fear for the rights of a child, which I am sure you can all appreciate is a valid concern.

 

[Generator]

Finally, I am not homophobic. I simply fear for the rights of a child, which I am sure you can all appreciate is a valid concern.

You fear for the rights of the child from a conservative point of view, I would assume. This issue was covered in the other thread. Have a look, if you have the time.

Edit: The rights of the child... They have the right to be loved by their parents, regardless of the nature of the parental relationship.

 

[Xayma]

To grow up normally a child needs a mother and a father.

Normal. Define Normal for me. I know a few people (male) who have basically grown up in female household, through divorce or whatever its irrelevant if there is minimal contact with the father, are they not normal. They may have behavious that are traditionally more female like but that does not make them not normal, just as much as saying those of *insert nationality* culture are not normal. It is also viewed with girls who have dominating male influences only brothers etc who grow up even with a mother to be more "male like" but are they not normal?

Perhaps my final, more controversial, arguement against it is simply that a gay couple with children (assuming they attempt to add children to their family) is more likely to mould the child in their image, thus giving them less choice as to their sexuality. Now while I do not have evidence for this, I would suggest that a a traditional heterosexual couple will allow for the choice more so than a child of a homosexual couple would. I base this on the notion that a child would recieve more harassment at school should they have gay parents. Thus they would grow up lacking confidence and being ostracised (spelling?). This makes them more impressionable as they try to find an identity in the only place that provides stability, home.

Thats like saying a fat child is more likely to be straight because they are teased, it makes them search for identity.

In fact it could be beneficial for a child to have homosexual parents if it means being teased at an earlier age. A recent study has found that those teased at a young age end up better off than those teased at adolesence for the first time. And since a large proportion are teased the chances are they will be anyway, by delaying it until they are an adolescent could be damaging to them in the future.

 

[ur_inner_child]

hmmm... single parents raise their kids normally as far as I'm concerned.... the parent just have it hard. but in your context, we're concerned for the kid... hmmm :S

I dunno, that "To grow up normally a child needs a mother and a father." kinda stood out like a sore thumb for me....

EDIT: I'm aware I'm going off topic..... just let it slide. lol

 

[tWiStEdD]

Xayma,
Read it more carefully. I distinguish between choice and bad luck.
By normal I mean the child has recieved the chance to learn and grow up with a mother and a father. Lets not play the english game, we both know what I mean and I dont mean it definitively.

On your harassment thing. I find it doubtful that primary school children would recieve harassment from their peers. Once children reach year 6 or year 7 these ideas become more generally understood and, at least initially, the reaction is somewhat negative. This is the age I refer to, and its a crucial stage for children to experience stability. Sure, some might come out stronger, but dont tell me its a majority.

 

[Xayma]

The child has recieved the chance to learn and grow up with a mother and father. The child has not if the parents live in two cities, sometimes a necessity for employment, the child does not choose who to live with if it happens at a young age. Some people choose to be single parents should we ban them from that? If they are having a baby should we make them abort rather then face a life without a father?

As to the harrasment I find it likely it will happen at an earlier age although not necessairly the one bullying them knowing what they are saying. Indeed it could help increase understanding and acceptance of homosexuals. If you have known Billies (just a random name) parents since you were 7 when your own opinions are being formed on homosexuality are you likely to remember that Billies parents are nice people or would you suddenly hate them.

Teasing will always happen, I really don't think the extent to which it would occur would be greater then that or a child being teased because of their race.

 

[tWiStEdD]

You're going around in circles, Xayma.
Once again, I talked about choice and bad luck. A necessity of employment is bad luck.
I understand where you're coming from, I just disagree. In embracing gay marriages we are taking a leap of faith that could negatively affect our society, or it could positively affect it.
I'm not one to go in blindly on any issue, I believe it needs more consideration, discussion and comprimise before this issue will get anywhere.

 

[Xayma]

Since homosexual's can't procreate on their own, the issue of adoption is the only that needs to be viewed.

Which can be viewed seperately to gay marriage.

Before a child would be adopted they would need to be able to prove that it won't experience the conditions that you have said yourself.

 

[tWiStEdD]

Women can recieve IVF. Single women and lesbians shouldnt and I told you why.
The level of adoption in Australia is extremely low, the chances of gay couples getting the child on offer is unlikely as there is a bias towards heterosexual couples since it is seen to be in the best interests of a child. The reasons I stated are why they cant and why they shouldnt be able to.

Xayma, you're yet to tell me why they should be allowed to marry. I dont want to hear 'why shouldnt they?' or 'its discriminatory' or 'they love each other so there.' i gave you examples, i wish to see examples as to why they should be able to marry. I dont want to argue, but i'm up for a clean debate

Gay marriage will lead to this very debate on children and that's why i've focussed on it.

 

[Xayma]

They should recieve marriage for the same reason everybody does. That is recognition of their relationship in the law.

There is nothing saying that a straight couple must have children if they are married. There are differences (albeit them getting smaller as time goes by) between a defacto relationship and a married relationship the law recognises up to the defacto relationship, to recognise the marriage would just confer the further rights to them.

I do not know the exact requirements for IVF but doesn't there have to be a fertility problem with one of the recipiants which would invalidate most (near all) claims for a lesbian couple.

In any case if you reply Im not backing down but I wont be able to reply for a few hours.

 

[tWiStEdD]

i dont expect you to back down man. i expect you to support what you're saying... you've so far based your arguement on subjectivity and political correctness. i need to see more than that.... its not that i'm saying i'm infalliable because i've backed myself up... i'm just saying i'd like to know the case for it with reasons.

(the last thread got messy, i know... i was there.)

 

[Xayma]

i dont expect you to back down man. i expect you to support what you're saying... you've so far based your arguement on subjectivity and political correctness. i need to see more than that.... its not that i'm saying i'm infalliable because i've backed myself up... i'm just saying i'd like to know the case for it with reasons.

(the last thread got messy, i know... i was there.)

There is no more reason to allow gay's to marry then there is to allow Europeans to marry, or Asians to marry.

The family court recently upheld a marriage of a transexual woman, who had undergone surgery to become a man, and another woman. Citing that social issues are to be taken into consideration when defining one as a man or woman.

They can not procreate naturally, however them being married will allow them the possibilty of adopting or IVF.

Now the life of a child in that family could possibly be worse than that of a child in a homosexual marriage. The defining roles of male and female are blurred in this, as they are in any marriage having a femme dad will not give them the same sort of role model that I think you are trying to argue for.

Not only that the teasing would be alot worse, it may not be obvious to th,e world that the man was once a woman, however, if something is hidden away it is no solution. No more so then agreeing that only one of the parents ever picks the child up at school so that others do not find out and hence bully the child.

If the family court upholds that marriage why should those of homosexual nature (of which the transsexual could be argued to posses) be denied because socially they are of the same sex.

 

[malkin86]

That would be why he changed. So that any kids of his would not have to grow up with a 'butch mum'. He was a man in a woman's body... Not a femme personality. The main difference between him and a birth male would be of height, but that's not so unusual in itself.

After transition, for all intents and purposes, he is a man. He is a man mentally, he looks like a man, he is considered a man by law, he is treated as a man by others. It's like a birth defect that has been corrected.

Gender identity is separate from sexual orientation.

 

[Xayma]

Yes I know but he says there is a need for a male and female role model where possible. Now what defines male and female role models. Just their legally recognised sex? I think he is more worried about a legion of small males growing up with more female personality characteristics than anything else.

Also a fair bit of homosexuality is determined to be genetic (at the moment around 29% is accounted for (I don't know how they got that percentage)). Teasing by others I highly doubt would determine which sex they are attracted to, even more so that it is likely to be teasing from the same sex (at the age at which it is likely to start they are more likely to be their majority friends), resulting in them disliking that sex even more so pushing them towards hetrosexuality.

 

[malkin86]

This man would think like a man (why go through the op if you don't believe yourself to be a man inside?), would behave like a man, and now would look like a man, albiet a short one. The only female thing about him would be his chromosomes.

I don't believe that it would be possible to find a 100% 'masculine' man, or a 100% 'feminine' woman (or at least, not a sane one), simply because one sex does not have a monopoly on character traits determined to be 'masculine' or 'feminine' by our society.

I heard it was stress during pregnancy that was the high cause.

 

[Sophie777]

Why the hell can't they get married? Are they somehow lesser people? It is absolute bullshit, the discriminatory and conservative bias of all these stupid governments. Why can there not be a separation between the church and the state. We need to stop running society based on out-moded religious values. These are real people, who are we to suggest they don't have a right to be happily married.

As for providing reasons as to why they should be able to, this is obvious... every other human being can. Why is it, that they shouldn't be able to?

 

[Sophie777]

Xayma,
Read it more carefully. I distinguish between choice and bad luck.
By normal I mean the child has recieved the chance to learn and grow up with a mother and a father. Lets not play the english game, we both know what I mean and I dont mean it definitively.

On your harassment thing. I find it doubtful that primary school children would recieve harassment from their peers. Once children reach year 6 or year 7 these ideas become more generally understood and, at least initially, the reaction is somewhat negative. This is the age I refer to, and its a crucial stage for children to experience stability. Sure, some might come out stronger, but dont tell me its a majority.

We don't disagree with unstable heterosexual marriages having children, some children get abused and even murdered within these marriages. I would say that the likelihood of a child becoming gay because their parents are, or weird or not belonging depends on the family, not on whether the parent are gay or not. You don't need a mother and a father, some people's parent die and they live with only a mother or only a father. Should we take their children from them?
Before you can evaluate the effect of gay parents on children, you need a case study in which twins are separated.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I always thought it was more to do with the fact that legalising gay marriages would open up to new protests such as the right to adopt a child/artificially etc.

I just remember my teacher argued it would lead to heterosexual couples that don't bother getting married (which happens more than you think) would then fight for the right to adopt a child etc. Which blurrs the definition of a family?

Someone do legal studies? Is that right?

 

[Sophie777]

Xayma, hahaah... you're awful

my point is why do so many people NOT support these sorts of unions?

The Australian Government has disallowed it.
The USA have 11 states who have passed the ban and only 1 that has supported it.

How is it then, that that which is seen to be 'politically correct' is in fact being over-ruled by those that are accused of being the conservative elites? Truth is, they're our representitives... it went to the ballot in 11 American states and it passed. That's something that really needs to be taken on board... I dont believe for a second that our population is overy different from the Americans.

I find that gay marriages, or even unions, are contextually inappropriate. Perhaps later, yes... but they will never have the same rights as a heterosexual couple for the simple reason that heterosexual couples have the ability to have children, to procreate. While it seems like something more of a symbolic thing and some of you will respond with "who cares?" you'll find that many of the rights and responsibilites in a marriage relate to children.

I mirror Rorix's view here, the chances of a heterosexual couple being sterile and being unable to produce children may be, for example, 1/100 (0.01) in country B. The chances of a homosexual couple being unable to produce children is 100/100 (1) in country B. Therefore arguing on those grounds are fallacious.
Ziff brought economics into it. The economy would not be affected at all and it is irrellevant to the matter at hand.
Why? Asquithian told us why. They're a minority.

I do not beleive in the discrimination of minorities. This is NOT discrimination. The Australian legal system provides for "Girls only bars" up until men are allowed in. After men are officially allowed in, it cannot reverse its policy. Therefore, legally, it is not discrimination. Its just a bunch of men trying to get into the ladies only bar, but the bar wishes to stay ladies only. Therefore, no discrimination.

Subjectivity is rife in an issue like this. I believe those who agree to it personalise it just as much as those who do not. Please, Nick... refrain from using labels such as homophobic. Those who do not agree are no more homophobic, than those who agree are gay themselves.

I have, time and time again, attempted to look at this objectively as I believe you can, with great effort. It comes back to the arguement of "Why shouldnt we?" versus "Why should we?"
There is NO answer when you get to that stage.

It should first be acknowledged that the estimates [not all gays will be willing to say "YES" emphatically, right?] fluctuate from country to country. However, the global average seems to lie somewhere between 5 and 8% (with some outliers). The figure of 10% is somewhat mythical and there's a few studies that seem to indicate that the 10% figure is way too high (just do a quick google search, it seems to be a social scientists dreamboat ). In these terms, they may consitute a minority of insignificant proportions in some countries (particularly throughout Europe) but they constitute a far more significant minority in countries like Australia and the USA.

Now i'm sure we can appreciate that the societies of the USA and of Australia are exponentially different to those of European states, yet we're the ones reacting to it by banning it. Does anyone know what the European reaction is to gay marriages? Do tell if there's any rumblings over there.

Artificial birth control measures are of great importance. Should they be available to gay couples?

The most basic family law notion is that of "the best interests of a child," and this same basic notion is included in the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC) to which almost all countries are a signitary. Now, i'm not a great fan of the current system of international law that we have in place, but this is one i've got a soft spot for.

What right do we have to provide a child with two mothers? or two fathers? Indeed, what right do we have to subject a child to a violent relationship? or to circumstances that could result in the sexual abuse of the aforementioned child? Hell, what right do we have to allow a child to exist without one parent in a single parent family?
It comes back to Rorix's idea of probability. What are the chances, if born to a heterosexual couple, that the child will be subjected to potentially damaging conduct? Too high for my liking, but that's why we have certain laws.
Single parents have it tough, but they're victims of circumstance... its bad luck and we cant really protect ourselves from that, can we? Not even the parents have a choice.
Homosexual couples provide children with two parents but one type. Two parents, two female/male rolemodels. To grow up normally a child needs a mother and a father. As long as we have the choice we should promote this idea. Never should we choose for a child that they'll have only one parent or they'll have two of the same sex. We should allow them the opportunity to have a mother and a father to the best of our ability until they reach the magical age of 18.
Yes, homosexual couples can provide the role model that they're missing through consistent contact with friends who can fulfill that role. It is, however, fundamentally different for the child who does not live with two types of role model who can teach them two different sides of the great story of life.

Furthermore, what are the chances that a child of a gay couple will be subjected to abuse by their peers? Dont tell me it would be low, because it wouldnt be. The emotional strain that stands to cause is extreme. Once again, how can we make that choice... how can we choose that a child be subjected to emotional trauma during their school years?

Perhaps my final, more controversial, arguement against it is simply that a gay couple with children (assuming they attempt to add children to their family) is more likely to mould the child in their image, thus giving them less choice as to their sexuality. Now while I do not have evidence for this, I would suggest that a a traditional heterosexual couple will allow for the choice more so than a child of a homosexual couple would. I base this on the notion that a child would recieve more harassment at school should they have gay parents. Thus they would grow up lacking confidence and being ostracised (spelling?). This makes them more impressionable as they try to find an identity in the only place that provides stability, home.

I have assumed that gay marriage will result in a debate on children, and i dont think i'm far off the mark. Gay marriage will be equal, or it wont happen... that's what the pressure groups want. With equal rights come these rights to children. I do not believe for a second that they should be allowed to bear children nor should they be allowed to adopt children for the reasons i have mentioned.

Finally, I am not homophobic. I simply fear for the rights of a child, which I am sure you can all appreciate is a valid concern.

You don't choose your sexuality. You are brought up with a certain sexuality. You are this way, you are born this way. You cannot use the argument that gay parents will bring up gay children, as there is no truth to this and what is wrong with this anyway. Your parents brought you up heterosexual.

You obviously have a problem with lesbianism and homosexuality, regardless of whether you admit it or not. If you did realise the lack of choice for these people and their inability to happily live heterosexually then you may differ in opinion. You think it is easy to be gay? I don't think it is. I believe that they are just as much human beings as you are and have equal right to share the wonderful opportunity bring children up and give them love and life. Their inability to marry shows social prejudice and lack of actual understanding of the reality of these people's lives. If we are able to choose to be heterosexual, with the amount of distress and discrimination don't you think they would. How would you feel if it was wrong to be heterosexual... do you think you could marry a man? I know I couldn't marry a woman just because it was socially accepted and correct. You can't deny your heart and we shouldn't judge or discrimnate that which can't be avoided.

 

[Sophie777]

I always thought it was more to do with the fact that legalising gay marriages would open up to new protests such as the right to adopt a child/artificially etc.

I just remember my teacher argued it would lead to heterosexual couples that don't bother getting married (which happens more than you think) would then fight for the right to adopt a child etc. Which blurrs the definition of a family?

Someone do legal studies? Is that right?

I think de Facto couples can adopt.