[TNT] Sonic Goo Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Yesterday, the Canadian parliament voted to approve gay marriage.. "(We are) a nation of equality. A nation of strength. A nation of compassion. A nation that believes we're stronger together than we are apart. And a nation where we celebrate equality. . . . (Michael Savage, Liberal MP) After all, what is more beautiful than two people who love each other getting married? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koyasha Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 After all, what is more beautiful than two people who love each other getting married? its not a question about the love between 2 ppl of the same gender, its more than the that its the right to choose what they want for their lives and it involves patrimonial questions (thats what has to do with the law) a typical case: a gay couple (steady union, not marriage) build a life together during years and they got a considerable patrimony together (in the name of one only) than the family of the dead guy will fight in the justice for the patrimony and the other guy will stay without nothing...isnt that fair... other question is about the adoption of childs by gay couples... the child is placed in a substitute family if the adoptive ones are married civilly, and they need to be a man and a woman to do it... one man can adopt alone if he wants, 2 man cannot be father and father of a child... its not good for the formation of the child ,personality distortion, bla bla bla it will be a bit hard for a kid to carry this through all its infancy...in school etc note: theres 3 different stages to put a child in a substitute family, adoption is definitive, and the kid will have rights to the filiation from the adoptive, guardianship is different and its real parents are not dismissed of their rights above the child if exists, gay marriage will allow the adoption, that's why we dont have it in our law, thats why we have decided here for the homosexual union instead of gay marriage they have patrimonial rights, they can choose, they have rights to be respected in their choices, to be hapy etc... but this kind of choice cant involve a child btw 2 ppl can love each other without be married... the alliances and documents do not mean nothing... theres many ways to love (sex is a consequence of the love) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacko Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I realize I can't see this from a gay Christian's perspective, but as a principle I feel religious societies should have more freedom than public institutions in these matters - for example I don't think it's right to force a church, mosque or temple to hire a female priest, imam or rabbi. As for Norway, we have an exceptionally strong human-ethical organization which performs civil confirmations (been there, done that), civil weddings (for straight couples) and what we call partnerships - which is a secular gay union with the same legal rights as a marriage and a nice ceremony. I think this is a good solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[TNT] Sonic Goo Posted July 1, 2005 Author Share Posted July 1, 2005 The new news: Spain follows if exists, gay marriage will allow the adoption, that's why we dont have it in our law, thats why we have decided here for the homosexual union instead of gay marriage they have patrimonial rights, they can choose, they have rights to be respected in their choices, to be hapy etc... but this kind of choice cant involve a child Are you saying that they aren't allowed to adopt or that they shouldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surak Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I think they need to be allowed to adopt children, but shouldn't. I have nothing against gay marriage, but I'm thinking of the child when class mates find out his parents are gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koyasha Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 The new news: Spain follows Are you saying that they aren't allowed to adopt or that they shouldn't? 6628[/snapback] as a gay couple, they arent allowed 1 alone person not only can , but must adopt (many childrem needs a home ^.^)^.^) we have a special law that regulates adoption of orphan kids by a substitute family (statute of the child and adolescents...i think this law is used in many countries, but in our legal system this law entered in conflict with our civil code) this statute is based on what is called "doctrine of the integral protection", where children and adolescents must be respected by its peculiar condition of person in development (theyre passing through changes in mind and body before becomes an adult) so in this condition, kids have rights as the right of have a family,health, education , etc etc everything that can cause a personality distortion in a kid is forbidden by this law... such as work exhaustingly, pornography, and have 2 man as mother and father ^.^ example: see what hapenned to Michael Jackson , he worked a lot in his infancy, and didnt played enough... now hes an old man, but acts as a child... (im using this example because this is the mostused example here, i dont think Jacko is a criminal) have 2 man as mother and father it wouldnt be that bad if it were common, and its not an easy thing of dealing in the social context, especially for a child. I'm thinking of the child when class mates find out his parents are gay. this is the point does not matter if the father is gay, what is not allowed is 2 gays exerting the familiar power on the child... of course, adoption is a complicated institute and after a long process of analysis will be determined if the adoptive is apt or dont to taking care of a child if the two men sleep in the same bad, and the social assistant evidences this, for sure the adoption will not be allowed one case we had here was about the adoption of a boy by a lesbian the boy was natural son of a singer named Cassia Eller, and she was lesbian and lived in the same house with her partner, Maria Eugênia Cássia Eller died (heart attack) and the boy was orphan. (the grandmothers were a possibility) And his adoption would go for the maternal grandmothers, but Eugenia had a fight in the justice for it, and the judge gave the adoption to Eugenia after hear of the 12 yrs old boy: _ I already lost a mother, I do not want to lose the other but this case is an exception, normally it goes for the most near parents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coty Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 I'm against gay marriage. The thought of two men having sex makes me sick. I'd rather a man marry his dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surak Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 It makes me sick to, but if they want, let them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiXsa Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 im against them too! Too sick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moody Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Thats up to them self so let them if they want! I just hope that you cant marry children in the future, but who knows..The world is getting weirder and weirder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daybreak Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 It makes me sick to, but if they want, let them. 6666[/snapback] At least you acknowledge the concept that gay couples getting married does not affect you or your heterosexual relationships 'whatsoever', despite the fact that you are simply uncomfortable with the idea... Here's the thing. Laws should not be passed and rights should not be taken away just because something 'grosses us out'. A heterosexual couple in their nineties can marry and have wild, passionate sex (perhaps even with bondage equipment) and I assure you, most of you will be grossed out, yet we don't hear any calls for making this illegal... I think some of us need to grow up and stop penalizing people due to our own, unfounded prejudices. Marriage is NOT a religious institution folks. You can get married regardless of your religion (or lack of religion). It is an economic and social partnership designed to show your friends and family your love for your partner and also to give you rights and privileges under the law. I personally feel that every competent adult should be able to marry the competent adult individual of their choice regardless of gender. (This argument where people will somehow come out of the woodwork and want to marry animals, their sister, or their Pez collection is getting really flippin' old people). Be decisive with your prejudices people. Like Chris Rock says, if you don't like gay people, one of your kids will be gay, if you don't like Puerto Ricans, your sister will most likely marry one...It's time for tolerance and acceptance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coty Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Why can't a man have two or three wifes then? I mean, if men can marry men, why can't men marry dogs, or several women, or several monkeys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daybreak Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Why can't a man have two or three wifes then? I mean, if men can marry men, why can't men marry dogs, or several women, or several monkeys? 6704[/snapback] *sigh* I really thought that I had covered that in my post. Secondly, you mentioned polygamy...the vast majority of cases of plural marriage that are known to exist in this country are generally thought to emanate from rural Utah in certain separatist Mormon sects. Recent documentary footage and assessment has found the men in these relationships to be abusive, controlling, and coercive. They have also been found to have sexual relationships with/and marry girls under the age of 18 (which takes their choices away under the law). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamous_clans_of_Utah I can't vouch for the morality of voluntary polygamous relationships. People in plural relationships that do not wish to be married are not committing a crime as far as I know, and even if they were, that would certainly be impossible to enforce. Plural marriage is illegal in this country and I would tend to agree with it's illegality. Lastly, it is unethical to marry animals because they cannot speak for themselves-they are unable to make choices. Remember, I'm talking about competent, consenting adults who just so happen to be of the same sex. I would imagine that marriage between family members is illegal mainly because of the high risk of birth defects and physical and mental disorders that can befall the children of close family members-(although I believe it is legal to marry second cousins in certain states). Does this answer your questions??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factor Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 the thing i think funny when we look at gay marriage... everyone always thinks about guys immediatly, but then u go right ahead and watch lesbian porn. now, i personally say both gay and lesbian is wrong for lots of reasons, the biggest being religious reasons. but i hate when GUYS run out saying "gay marriage is sick and disgusting" and then they go home and watch lesbian porn and stuff...if ur against gay, then u r against lesbian too, there is no two ways about it, in some ways it could probably be considered a sexist view if u say guys having sex is bad but girls is totally appropriate. i however am against both i think God wouldnt have made 2 sexes if he wanted us F***in each other Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coty Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 *sigh* I really thought that I had covered that in my post. Secondly, you mentioned polygamy...the vast majority of cases of plural marriage that are known to exist in this country are generally thought to emanate from rural Utah in certain separatist Mormon sects. Recent documentary footage and assessment has found the men in these relationships to be abusive, controlling, and coercive. They have also been found to have sexual relationships with/and marry girls under the age of 18 (which takes their choices away under the law). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamous_clans_of_Utah I can't vouch for the morality of voluntary polygamous relationships. People in plural relationships that do not wish to be married are not committing a crime as far as I know, and even if they were, that would certainly be impossible to enforce. Plural marriage is illegal in this country and I would tend to agree with it's illegality. ...Does this answer your questions??? 6705[/snapback] Ok miners and dogs are out because they are not mature enough to consider marriage... You think men should be able to marry men, but you don't think men should be able to marry two women. Plural marriage is illegal in this country and I would tend to agree with it's illegality. You site "...abusive, controlling, and coercive" as your reasons? Hum... Not good enough dude. Polygamy should not be outlawed if gay marriage isn't. And you're stereotyping polygamist at that... Something I'm sure you would be upset with if I did the same thing with Gays and AIDS... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genesis Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Polygamy should not be outlawed if gay marriage isn't -> ? Poligamy was something the Bible considered normal back in the early days. For example, if a woman could not give children to her husband, he could even take another woman without being married. On the other hand, homosexuality has always been condemned by the Bible and by most Christian religions. Anyway, I think it's a bit off-topic, but it's just my opinion, no offense. Ah, this is kinda funny too: You cite "...abusive, controlling, and coercive" as your reasons? Hum... Not good enough dude. Well, it is a bit better than "The thought of two men having sex makes me sick. I'd rather a man marry his dog." Not good enough, dude. Or even "Why can't a man have two or three wifes then? I mean, if men can marry men, why can't men marry dogs, or several women, or several monkeys?." Not good enough either. Can we have some serious arguments, now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daybreak Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 ...abusive, controlling, and coercive"[/b] as your reasons? Hum... Not good enough dude. Polygamy should not be outlawed if gay marriage isn't. And you're stereotyping polygamist at that... Something I'm sure you would be upset with if I did the same thing with Gays and AIDS... 6712[/snapback] You're absolutely right, I did stop short of logically and ethically denouncing polygamous marriages. I cannot, off the top of my head, conceive of exactly why voluntary polygamous relationships should be illegal, and I find it interesting that the ACLU is opposed to Utah's law against bigamy. I did, however, make the distinction between voluntary plural relationships and abusive polygamous marriages in order to get my point across. So as it stands right now, I do not currently see any reason that polygamous marriages should 'not' take place as well as homosexual marriages. I suspect that some opponents could argue that polygamous households could receive economic benefits that are unfair to married couples, however, this could be alleviated through further legislation to balance the rights and privileges of married 'couples' verses plural households. Now, are all my bases properly covered? (Bravo for pointing that out by the way. In retrospect, I avoided specifically stating my lack of an ethical dilemma regarding voluntary polygamy so that I wouldn't lose credibility in my argument about gay marriage). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coty Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I see no difference between the two. If one is legal, then the other should be too... In my opinion, if marriage is not defined as between one man and one woman, then it opens the door to all possibilities. If I'm not mistaken, a WILL would resolve any doubt about what the deceased intended to do with his possessions. I see no reason why a living-will would not be honored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daybreak Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 "In the United States, proponents of marriage equality point out that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which "rights, benefits, and privileges are contingent on marital status"-Wikipedia The issue is much more complex than a 'last will and testament', much more, please refer to the Wikpedia article. This portion articulates the issue of rights, privileges, and slippery slope fallacies better than I ever could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage#...me-sex_marriage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coty Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I haven't brought religion into this. Clearly, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. I believe the phrase is, "It is an abomination unto the Lord." So if Preachers are marrying gays, they are going against the Bible. Polygamy was legal in the Old Testament. Paul said, concerning an elder in the New testament, "He shall be the husband of one wife." This is where I believe the law was changed in the first place. Now, it has been this way for thousands of years. When you change that law, you open the door to all possibilities, weather you use religion as your bases or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genesis Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 You are absolutely right, Coty. But when you say that changing the law is opening the door to all possibilities... don't exagerate. After all, you just mentioned a change in ... God's law. Did He open the door to all possibilities too? And not all changes do bring more freedom, remember. See the other thread about the 1st amendment, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caip Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I'm against gay marriage. The thought of two men having sex makes me sick. I'd rather a man marry his dog. It makes me sick to, but if they want, let them. im against them too! Too sick! You are against gay marriages, because the thought of two men having sex makes you sick? lol...thats probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard. As if they need to be married to have sex...lol. You guys are intolerant, that's all. I bet you would hate your son if he would turn out to be gay... Clearly, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. That's so S T U B B O R N What if the Bible would say "Kill your wife if she looks at other men"...would you do it? I hope not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belladonna Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Just a warning to everyone to try and be calm in this discussion. No calling people names or being harassing of others beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RXS Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 You are against gay marriages, because the thought of two men having sex makes you sick? lol...thats probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard. As if they need to be married to have sex...lol. You guys are intolerant, that's all. I bet you would hate your son if he would turn out to be gay... That's so S T U B B O R N What if the Bible would say "Kill your wife if she looks at other men"...would you do it? I hope not... 6726[/snapback] This happens any time someone opposes Gay Marriage. They are called intolerant, stupid, homophobes, etc. It is ok to take a moral position against homosexuality and should be done so without the fear of nasty rebuke like the one above. Tolerance is allowing something to be done when you do not believe in it - you endure it. Coty is being tolerant - he is discussing his views and does not deserve to be bashed by you. You need to read the bible more before you try to quote it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genesis Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I agree with RXS, let people speak their minds without being rude. Oh, RXS, when you say "You need to read the bible more before you try to quote it. ", who are you talking about? Caip didn't quote it, and I just mentioned the Old Testament. So, were you talking about Coty? Please explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![[TNT] Sonic Goo](data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20viewBox%3D%220%200%201024%201024%22%20style%3D%22background%3A%2362c4b2%22%3E%3Cg%3E%3Ctext%20text-anchor%3D%22middle%22%20dy%3D%22.35em%22%20x%3D%22512%22%20y%3D%22512%22%20fill%3D%22%23ffffff%22%20font-size%3D%22700%22%20font-family%3D%22-apple-system%2C%20BlinkMacSystemFont%2C%20Roboto%2C%20Helvetica%2C%20Arial%2C%20sans-serif%22%3ET%3C%2Ftext%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.