Gay Marriage

[Overdose]

Nothing is missing...but re-read what I said

"A "Civil Union" is a great idea, but it fails to give everyone equal rights. A "Civil Union" to gays, is restaurants specific for African Americas in the south. Many people in the South had the attitude of, "We will give them the same right, to eat in a restaurant, but not in ours!" Is that correct? No! Just like a civil union’s are not right for gays."

Marriage is a right, they cannot get. So even if a "civil union" isn't missing anything...it's still does not give gays equal marriage RIGHTS

[Black Dog]

The argument that gay people are being deprived of their rights is just silly. The only "right" they are being "deprived" of is marriage; they have the right to do everything else, including having sex. Sure marriage is a right, but as many people have pointed out so far, it's for promoting strong families, something gay people can't do.

Why can't they?

If by "promoting strong families" you mean "have and raise children", shall we then deny marriage rights to heterosexuals who can't or won't have kids (indeed, a growing number f couples are choosing not to have kids)? There's also the simple fact that gay couples are just as capable of raising kids as anyone else.

Rights should be rights only if people will use those rights and be conducive to society. The freedoms of speech, press, expression are all conducive and promoting to society, just to give a few examples.

Wow, that's scary stuff, tres facsist. Individual rights do indeed form the basis of civil society. However it's not up to society, the government or individuals to pick and choose who is allowed to enjoy certain rights. In the words of the U.S founding fathers:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Yes, heterosexual marriages can turn out bad, and maybe even turn out to hurt society, but as Ender pointed out, marriage is something you have to work at and the potential is there. Gay marriage however, is in no way conducive to society and there is no potential to give back to the society that provides these rights, in terms of marriage. Yes, it's really about whether two people love each other, but three or twenty people can love each other too.

This is utter crap. You have no basis upon which to state that "gay marriage however, is in no way conducive to society and there is no potential to give back to the society that provides these rights". Again, this only holds if you accept the highly suspect premise of marriage as ameans of producing children. I'd like to hear some reasoning as to why marriage strengthens society and how gay marriage would undermine that.

To me, gay marriage is gays wanting a special exception to the laws of marriage. That's my point of view anyway. More political correctness.

Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent?

Elder, I can accept that your opposition to gay marriage is a matter of personal belief. However, the reality is that while allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority, we have a constitutional government in place whose role is to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority.

[djpark121]

I'd like to hear some reasoning as to why marriage strengthens society and how gay marriage would undermine that.

I have never said that gay marriage would undermine society in anyway. What I actually said was that they lack the potential to strengthen society. As for the rights issue, should a government allow people to have rights if those rights are abused, or even pointless? Yes they are unalienable, but in my opinion, rights are to be used, and used correctly, otherwise they should not be held.

[Overdose]

It helps, just as much as straight marriage helps. How would it be any different? Except hopefully they won't get nearly as many divorces...

[Black Dog]

have never said that gay marriage would undermine society in anyway. What I actually said was that they lack the potential to strengthen society.

Fine. Now why is that?

As for the rights issue, should a government allow people to have rights if those rights are abused, or even pointless? Yes they are unalienable, but in my opinion, rights are to be used, and used correctly, otherwise they should not be held.

You're contradicting yourself. You say you believe rights are unalienable (meaning not to be separated, given away, or taken away), yet then say they should only be allowed if used "correctly". Which is it, and who, in your view, is the arbiter of what constitutes a "correct" application of rights?

[djpark121]

BD, if the way that marriage benefits society is through having children, starting a family, raising those kids to become strong members of society, how can gay people do that? Sure they can adopt, but how many of them are willling to? It doesn't make sense that they would adopt for one, because if a person wanted to have kids, they would have sex with someone of the opposite sex so they can have their own. You can't tell me that a person prefers adopting a kid over having their own. Now, heterosexual marriages obviously are not perfect and not all families turn out to be beneficial to society. But as I've said, the potential is there. With gay marriage, there is no potential.

When I said rights are unalienable, I was merely referring what the DI stated. It is not my personal opinion that rights are unalienable. I still believe that rights, when abused should be taken away. The founding fathers failed to see that some of these unalienable rights would be used in the ways that they have been used today, and if they knew, they would've changed the DI and the Constitution accordingly.

[Overdose]

DJ, don't humor me...that was the worst post I've seen in a long time.

First of all, my friend Amanda said she'd much rather adopt...she is also a hetrosexual.

These reasons apply:

1. She does not want to go through labor

2. She thinks that those children need parents too, and she feels bad for them

3. She thinks it would be doing a good deed to society, then to let that child go without a good family

4. She thinks the world is over-populated, and does not want to continue it. Simple equation: If my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great (you get the picture) Grandmother decided not to have kids do you know how many lives would not be on this planet? Or how may that will not be in the future? If my Grandmother decided not to have kids, there would be 6 less people on this earth.

That are the reasons why she'd much rather adopt.

The potential is there for half of straight marriages to turn out well. The majority of divorces are before children, so I’m going on that estimate. Then you count in the ones that have families that don’t turn out well. So I'm betting that about 3 out of 10 marriages that take place

1. Either fail in the first few years

2. Fail after having children, which creates a bad family relationship

3. Stay married have kids but suck at parenting

With all of that I’m only guessing that roughly 30% of straight marriage creates a good, home, wonderful family structure.

Plus how many homosexual parents do you know? Or for that matter that have a bad job at raising children? I know some, and they do a fine job. Plus the percent of kids to turn homosexual with homosexual parents is less likely.

How the hell do you think homosexuals came about? Ummm, lets think from heterosexuals…

Homosexuals can do just as good of a job as straights. If not better.

Do you know how many straight fathers rape or have incest with their children? I highly doubt there is nearly the amount of reports of homosexuals doing that.

The potential is there, but it’s not reality, face the facts.

[angustia]

Brace yourself. Pedophiles will want the same rights accorded to gays.

The Gay Rights Movement had been associated with NAMBLA (a leading pedophile group)...in fact statistics and research findings show that there is a co-relation between homosexuals and pedophiles.

The two groups may be working closely together to achieve the goal of repealing laws and thus open the gate for freedom for all kinds of perversions.

Where do we draw the line?

[djpark121]

We need to draw that line here. I KNEW something like this would happen. This is getting to the point of absurdity, where all types of people are starting to demand rights. Pedophiles?? What do you have to say to that overdose, or are you too deluded to realize the enormity of this situation?

[Overdose]

They have broken a law and are criminals.

These people are very different and are not to be compared. You are making this way out of proportion. We have a right to ban them, because they want sex from adolescences. Gay's don't. :angry:

[angustia]

I've got some serious concern about this:

1. The Father of the Gay Rights Movement was very much associated with NAMBLA til the day he died. He fought for NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), which is a pedophile group.

2. The Gay Rights Movement, among other things is demanding that the age of sexual consent be lowered.

Now, what does that have to do with gay rights? Who will benefit from that if not pedophiles?

Are they demanding this on behalf of the pedophiles?

There's also the thorny issue about the co-relation between pedophilia and homosexuality, according to research findings and stats that I posted separately....which unfortunately got deleted and taken off the board.

3. As recently as year 2000, ILGA (Inetrnational Lesbian and Gay Association) was not re-admitted to the United Nations for ILGA was not cooperative in proving to the UN that they have purged their ties with pedophile groups.

4. The use of our public schools in teaching our children that it's okay to be promiscious, commit adultery with homosexuals, etc.. (There was a commentary issued on the Nationa Post , leading newspaper in Ottawa about this)

5. The wide-swept propaganda and endorsement...and the scary thing is that, there seems to be some "censorship" in the media on anything that is said that could offend the gay community...even if the concern is valid and seeking some answers.

So, there's more to this than meets the eye. I'm very much concerned that we might open up another Pandora's box.

[Overdose]

Wow, I feel so sorry that gays getting marriage is so bad, and will lead to such corruption in America. Wow...you are blowing things out of proportion. You are making it seem like gays are such felons, when they aren’t. You are being extremely ignorant, and being very judgmental, and making broad generalizations that are indeed not true. Your concerns are so lame, and far-fetched they are not even worth responding to.

[angustia]

Wow, I feel so sorry that gays getting marriage is so bad, and will lead to such corruption in America. Wow...you are blowing things out of proportion. You are making it seem like gays are such felons, when they aren’t. You are being extremely ignorant, and being very judgmental, and making broad generalizations that are indeed not true. Your concerns are so lame, and far-fetched they are not even worth responding to.

I must say that I know NOT ALL homosexuals are pedophiles. And that fact had been stated in the research findings and statistics that was taken off the board.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that a small group is OVER-REPRESENTED in child-molesting or pedophilia-related crimes...and obviously the statistics on those crimes are accurate for they've been reported and documented.

The Gay Community should be concerned about this more than anyone else....for not only is there something definitely very wrong with this picture, but that this issue will keep on turning up like a bad penny and will hurt the image that they're trying to polish.

Just the Church Scandals of the Catholic and Anglicans alone speak for itself and shows the glaring truth about the co-relation between pedophilia and homosexuality (the percentages shown that majority of child molesting were done to boys, and only a fraction involved girls)....not to mention how media is very much slanted with their reporting.

I have good friends who are homosexuals while I was in college and therefore have been introduced to other gays. Some of the gays I was introduced to had "teen protegees", who were either seduced or lured with money.

Therefore, we should expect a surge in male child prostitution as well when the age for sexual consent is lowered and validated and endorsed...and ultimately approved by the public.

I do understand the need for legal protection among homosexual couples whose only wish is to have the same legal security enjoyed by the heterosexuals. But if that is so, why then are they opposing the term "civil union" or any other terms that they may come up with if that civil union will entitle them the same benefits and privileges?

Why insist on the changing the definition of an already defined word, marriage being that it is a union between a man and a woman?

Not only is that destroying an institution sacred to some religious groups....but absurd if one can just go about changing and twisting definitions.

Would the Gay community perhaps acquiesced if the pedophiles would wish to be called homosexuals later on so as to enjoy the benefits one would get from being a homosexual....for the word pedophile does indeed have a very negative meaning.

As a heterosexual I resent the fact that this minority group would want to play bully and take away from me.....just for the sole purpose of proving a point.

For if indeed one truly feels pride over being gay....is it not only more symbolical and more meaningful for gays to come up with their own word that would aptly describe the union between same sexes?

[angustia]

Nothing is missing...but re-read what I said

"A "Civil Union" is a great idea, but it fails to give everyone equal rights. A "Civil Union" to gays, is restaurants specific for African Americas in the south. Many people in the South had the attitude of, "We will give them the same right, to eat in a restaurant, but not in ours!" Is that correct? No! Just like a civil union’s are not right for gays."

Marriage is a right, they cannot get. So even if a "civil union" isn't missing anything...it's still does not give gays equal marriage RIGHTS

Who sez homosexuals do not have the right to marry?

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned! They can marry anytime....provided they adhere to the definition of marriage...that it be a union between man and woman.

If the homosexual does not want to marry an opposite sex...then that is his choice in not using his right. No one took his right to marry away from him.

[Black Dog]

BD, if the way that marriage benefits society is through having children, starting a family, raising those kids to become strong members of society, how can gay people do that? Sure they can adopt, but how many of them are willling to? It doesn't make sense that they would adopt for one, because if a person wanted to have kids, they would have sex with someone of the opposite sex so they can have their own. You can't tell me that a person prefers adopting a kid over having their own. Now, heterosexual marriages obviously are not perfect and not all families turn out to be beneficial to society. But as I've said, the potential is there. With gay marriage, there is no potential.

What about straight marriages where one or both members are biologically incapable of having kids? Or maybe they just don't want them. In that case, in your view, should we strip the right to marry from these people? As to your view that gays wouldn't want to adopt, then why have they been fighting for that right as well? Statements like:

"You can't tell me that a person prefers adopting a kid over having their own."

show you don't know a lot about the subject of adoption.

The idea that marriage is soley for procreation is ludicrious. If marriage serves any purpose, it's to stregnthen society by creating bonds between individuals and families.

1. The Father of the Gay Rights Movement was very much associated with NAMBLA til the day he died. He fought for NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), which is a pedophile group.

Prove it.

2. The Gay Rights Movement, among other things is demanding that the age of sexual consent be lowered.

Now, what does that have to do with gay rights? Who will benefit from that if not pedophiles?

Are they demanding this on behalf of the pedophiles?

Prove it. I've seen this allegation (regarding the age of consent) many times with no supporting evidence. So back it up.

There's also the thorny issue about the co-relation between pedophilia and homosexuality, according to research findings and stats that I posted separately....which unfortunately got deleted and taken off the board.

"Thorny issue"? There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. The vast majority of pedophiles are straight, carry on with heterosexual relationships and self-identify as heterosexual.

[

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children." -"Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation", U.C. Davis Psychology Department

"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia."

- Martin Downs, WebMD Medical News

"There is no medical evidence to suggest an association between homosexuality and impaired moral judgment."

- Journal of the American Medical Association - Pediatric Forum, March 2001

"It is ludicrous to identify pedophiles as homosexuals."

- Stan Robson, Chief Deputy, Benton County Sheriffs Department

(In over 14 years of Robson's work with pedophiles, 498 out of 500 offenders identified themselves as heterosexual.)

"The vast majority of offenders are heterosexual men. Male offenders who abuse young boys maintain adult heterosexual relationships. The habitual molester of boys is rarely attracted to adult males."

- Roland Summit, M.D. Head Physician, Community Consultation Service, Harbor UCLA Medical Center.

"The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data. The child offenders who engaged in adult relationships as well, were heterosexuals. There were no homosexual adult oriented offenders in our samples who turned to children."

- A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D., Director of the Sex Offender Program, Connecticut Department of Corrections, and Co-Director of the St. Joseph College Institute for the Treatment and Control of Child Sexual Abuse

4. The use of our public schools in teaching our children that it's okay to be promiscious, commit adultery with homosexuals, etc.. (There was a commentary issued on the Nationa Post , leading newspaper in Ottawa about this)

Prove it. (And the NP as "leading" newspaper? You must be an American.)

5. The wide-swept propaganda and endorsement...and the scary thing is that, there seems to be some "censorship" in the media on anything that is said that could offend the gay community...even if the concern is valid and seeking some answers.

What "propaganda" and "endorsement".

I do understand the need for legal protection among homosexual couples whose only wish is to have the same legal security enjoyed by the heterosexuals. But if that is so, why then are they opposing the term "civil union" or any other terms that they may come up with if that civil union will entitle them the same benefits and privileges?

Read the rest of this thread, as the disticnction has been discussed at length.

As a heterosexual I resent the fact that this minority group would want to play bully and take away from me.....just for the sole purpose of proving a point.

No one's "taking" anything away from anyone. As I said before, giving 10 per cent of the population the same rights as the remaining 90 per cent takes nothing away from the majority, nor does it constitute 'special" rights. Geez.....

Not only is that destroying an institution sacred to some religious groups....but absurd if one can just go about changing and twisting definitions.

Again, the definitions of words change all the time. Less than 100 years ago marriage was defined as the union between a man and woman of the same skin colour. the definitin changed as mixed-race marriages became accepted.

Also, gay marriage would have no impact whatsoever on religious marriages.

For if indeed one truly feels pride over being gay....is it not only more symbolical and more meaningful for gays to come up with their own word that would aptly describe the union between same sexes?

That's for the gay community to decide, not you.

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned! They can marry anytime....provided they adhere to the definition of marriage...that it be a union between man and woman.

If the homosexual does not want to marry an opposite sex...then that is his choice in not using his right. No one took his right to marry away from him.

This is, and continues to be, the most condescending crap argument I've ever read on this subject.

[angustia]

Black Dog, I would gladly prove it....however, being new to this board and having had my whole topic deleted and removed....am I allowed to post articles and sources of information backing my claim?

If I am allowed, I will post them on a new thread.

Btw, I am a Canadian from Ottawa and the National Post is one of the leading newspapers in Ottawa, along with the Ottawa Citizen.

[Black Dog]

Read the rules and guidelines thread.

[Overdose]

I disagreed with him, but exactly why was it deleted....?

[willy]

Sanctity of marriage.

I pondered on this a little while and came to this conclusion. The government is the wrong group to sanctify anything. To an earlier stated point, heterosexuals should not be able to marry unless it is sanctified. Churches are the appropriate group to define when God sanctifies something.

Government should only set up legal agreements that are based on property sharing and a contracted commitment. All couples should have this right. The buzz word would be a Union.

Religious groups should not enforce teaching on a secular culture and that culture should recognize when religious revelation has shaped our institutions. There are limits to how culture should impact religious design. Note I believe that there is a fundamental difference between people who see the world as a creation and those that think it just happened. The premise for basing what is right and wrong is just different, and this difference needs respect for all points of view to co-exist.

We should have the freedom to live within our faith and its institutions and for others to choose their own path.

[Black Dog]

oops...image didn't work

Edited March 10, 2004 by Black Dog

[djpark121]

Here is an article from the Washington Times on Scandinavia.

In Scandinavia, marriage is now seen as "outdated," said Stanley Kurtz, senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Cohabiting, unwed childbearing and domestic partnerships are now common in these cultures, he said.

    Unfortunately for children, "fragile families" are two to three times more likely than married families to break up, and family dissolution rates have soared, he said in an interview.

    Most liberal and conservative thinkers in this country believe marriage is a vital social institution. Marriage is important and that is why homosexual couples deserve equal access to it, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said in its landmark Nov. 18 ruling that legalized "marriage" for same-sex couples.

    The 4-3 decision noted that marriage "anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones," helps ensure "that children and adults are cared for and supported," and "provides for the orderly distribution of property."

    But in countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where same-sex couples have had rights similar to heterosexual couples for a decade or more, "marriage is slowly dying," Mr. Kurtz said.

    Mr. Kurtz said there are two main reasons for this. First, marriage is no longer seen as a prerequisite for parenthood, and second, marriage has become just another choice in the smorgasbord of adult relationships.

    When marital and nonmarital couples, including homosexual domestic partnerships, are treated the same in society, people begin to think that all family forms are equal and acceptable — that marriage doesn't matter, two parents don't matter, having the same mother and father around for life doesn't matter, Mr. Kurtz said.

    Also, same-sex "marriage" only becomes conceivable if the public begins to see marriage as "a relationship between two people" that is not intrinsically connected to parenthood. That is why same-sex "marriage" reinforces and even accelerates a trend away from marriage, according to Mr. Kurtz, who presented his full arguments in the Feb. 2 issue of the Weekly Standard.

Do we really want this to happen in the United States?

[angustia]

I disagreed with him, but exactly why was it deleted....?

Because I posted whole articles plus no url. It goes against the copyright thingy.

[Black Dog]

First, marriage is no longer seen as a prerequisite for parenthood, and second, marriage has become just another choice in the smorgasbord of adult relationships.

Wake up. That's already the case in North America, which would indicate that state-recognized gay partnerships are not the culprit.Anyway, as soon as I see the words "Weekly Standard", my eyes glaze over and blood starts coming out of my ears. But just to humour you, here is a rebuttal to Kurtz's article.

Are gays "wrecking marriage in Scandanavuia"?

There's one major problem at the outset for Kurtz's argument. There is not one gay marriage in any country he cites. In 1989, Denmark adopted a registered partnership law that granted most of the benefits and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, with the notable exception of adoption rights. Norway adopted a similar law in 1993, and Sweden expanded its cohabitation law along the same lines in 1994. (Not until 2001 did a European country — the Netherlands — recognize gay marriages that are legally identical to traditional heterosexual marriages.) Thus, Kurtz blames “gay marriage” for worsening a host of social ills that were already present before it existed anywhere in the world.

Second, even if these Scandinavian gay partnerships could be called “marriages,” Kurtz shows only a correlation between them and marital decline. For example, after Kurtz notes that marital problems are highest in European countries where gay “marriage” has a foothold, and lowest where it does not, he writes: “This suggests that gay marriage is both a cause and effect of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood.” But this is a correlation; it does not show causation.

[RB]

look it i believe that all folks gays and non-gays should be treated fairly before the law regardless and however they somehow will impove society or be considered a detriment.

it is outcome actions i argue for mostly, i am concern when people are faced with systemic discrimination such that they are put into some precautious positions of being treated/judge unfairly.

i also believe that trying to put laws in place to change tradition somehow will not work because of what is perceived ethical and tradition, but at least it forces compliance and is a workable compromise.

we just should not suddenly appear at standstill and the end of the tether when those who are gay are exercising fair share of rights to have open discussion which I believe is THE most vital role played out in all these issues of equality, gay’s rights, abortion etc.

for me it is not right to remove choices until you have cure for symptoms of so called issues. legislating a right to marry for a gay would allow for choice.

currently we are at this rational we can afford to say if you are gay:

- we will give you some irrelevant perks which you also wish for but (no-marriage)

- or whatever we are please to offer to you in lieu of marriage, which but also means no marriage,

- but also we have no solution for you

- and as we draw our own conclusions likely leveraging towards traditional marriages as we remain totally biased in a continued support for you. the hypocritics we are.

[Black Dog]

i believe that all folks gays and non-gays should be treated fairly before the law regardless and however they somehow will impove society or be considered a detriment

Exactly. That's the beauty of a democratic society (in theory): full equality before the law for all persons regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation.

At the end of the day, most arguments against gay marriage are ultimately based in fear, ignorance, predjudice or hysteria. Gay marriage will be a reality: maybe not today or tomorrow, but its coming.

But to speak quickly to the idea that tradition is against gay marriage, the fact is tradition is simply "the way its been done for x period of time." Traditions are created by and perpetuated by people and are therefore subject to change according to the will of people. They are not carved in stone. For example, slavery is a longstanding tradition in nearly every culture and civilization since the dawn of time. However, by and by we recognized that the traditional practice of slavery was unjust and went on to abolish it to the dustbin of history. Yes, gay marriage is a (mostly) untried social experiement. But what have we got to lose, realisticaly speaking?