If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
however i think gay couples should have right to a civil union event to show their love for eachother and to have same legal rights as a married couple
yet again its my own opinion as i hold nothing against gays themselves, can be charming people, and not so charming just like any people!
like the proposed laws giving live in gay couples legal rights, actually gives gays more rights than a straight couple, since a live in unmarried straight couple doesnt have those proposed rights
we should give a legal and civil equivilent to marriage to gay couples, im sure there are some smaller churches out there that would 'marry' them anyway, if they want it to be religious to, just dont call it marriage
Why bring political orientation into it? Right-wing people are gay and left-wing people can be very anti-gay, so it holds little relevance.
The working class can be very anti-gay. I beleive Labour put up a gay candidate in a safe seat in the 1980's and lost the seat to the Liberals.
Personally I don't see the problem of gay couples getting married. So what if they can't produce children... are you going to stop disabled people getting married, or infertile couples? Because at the end of the day if the soul purpose of marriage is to start a family, then some people will be missing out.
However, marriage should be about families, and marriage is about children. It always has been, right throughout all religions throughout all time, and that is simply the way it should stay. I agree with the legal and religious doctrine that states that if you marry someone who is infertile and you do not realise this then a marriage can be annulled; it sounds cruel and harsh but it is what I think.
Personally I think homosexuality is natural, but that does not, by definition, mean that a state should afford it the right of marriage.
As for the issue of adoption, I believe that for a child to be properly well-adjusted it needs a mother AND a father. Single parenthood is very undesirable, though unfortunately relationships fail, and homosexual parenthood is so undesirable as to require prohibition- two fathers or two mothers do not give the child the psychological grounding it requires, and, much as I am loathe to resort to the issue of "naturalness", if homosexuality was desirable for parenthood then homosexuals would be capable of mating.
It should also be made crystal clear that marriage is not an institution that is exclusive of any religious denomination. Organised religion is very welcome not to accept same-sex marriages within their doctrine, but have absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate who should or should not get married in civil ceremonies.
A child could be just as well adjusted with a mother only, father only, two mothers and two fathers as with your traditional family concept. It does not depend on the gender or number of parents around but on the quality of the parenting.
As a matter of fact countless children would be trillions of times better off with two caring, loving fathers than with their current 'perfect' nuclear traditional families where the father is a piss-head, beater, gambler, adulterer or who simply isn't around home much and treats the wife and kids with disdain.
Oh please! What next? "If God had intended for women to work He would have given them more strength"? :rolleyes:
And where do you stop Kermit? Should we ban mix race couples from adopting too, lest it fails to provide the child with the same psychological grounding as same-race couples do?
As I said it all depends on the quality of the parenting. Gay, straight, lesbian, single, unmarried, married, mixed race, it all means absolutely fuck all so long as the parents are balanced, caring and loving.
I do accept other views on marriage, I merely put forward my own. If there is a consensus view that gays should be allowed to marry, I would accept it; I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't have to nor expect to.
I am unsure as to the laws of annullment, but there certainly used to be grounds for annullment if one or more partner was infertile and did not know or declare it. And if 'family' and 'children' were not an integral part of marriage then the non-consummation of marriage would not remain a legal ground to annul.
The quality of the parenting DOES count, of course it does.
However, gays cannot naturally have children within the couple. That is a fact. Therefore the main recourse open to them is adoption, and any parent who is not suitable would (almost certainly) be barred from adopting. Therefore it is a non-argument.
Besides which, homosexuals are just as capable of being tossers. I know from personal experience that they are- just like straights cheat, so do gays. It's called human nature, and does not justify anything.
All things being equal, a loving and caring father and mother is preferable to any opther combination, in my opinion. Educational surveys have shown that the lack of a father figure (i.e. male teachers) in many primary schools damages the development of boys, and that "latch-key kids" are hampered in their development compared to children with one parent at home. It is not unreasonable to extend these results, certainly the former, to issues of homsexual parenting.
Don't be ridiculous. If you can show me how homosexuals can, inside their relationship, procreate, then I would be more than interested.
Again, don't be ridiculous. Refer to my earlier point.
I totally I agree. This was merely to illustrate that heterosexual couples are not preferable by default to anything else. It all depends on the people involved.
That might be true but if we are prepared to allow single parents to raise/adopt children, even though it is not the most perfect environment possible, then we should consider other parent concepts. If we agree that other family concepts are acceptable if not 100% perfect for the bringing up of a child, then same-sex couples should be considered just as much as single couples, mixed-raced couples and others.
And why should this matter?
And what of lesbians? They can get pregnant. They can have children. So presumably it's okay with you for lesbians to adopt kids since they're biologically capable of conceiving, but not for gay men?
I'm sorry but the whole 'nature' argument that if God intended them to be parents they'd be able to procreate does not wash one bit. By your reasoning, couples who are sterile or otherwise incapable of having children of their own have been marked by God/nature as not suitable for parenthood and must never be allowed to adopt.
The difference between the infertile and homosexuals is that infertile couples have the capacity, but it is defective, but homosexuals do not even have the capacity. You will no doubt argue that it is a moot point, but it is not. An infertile couple have the requisite equipment, it just does not function; homsexual partnerships can NEVER have the capacity for procreation, unless gay men grow wombs and lesbians grow testicles.
No one would say they've beeen marked by God/nature as not suitable for parenthood, they have a fertility problem which doesn't affect their emotional leanings toward parenthood
Women have a great capacity for self-sacrifice, have stamina and usually an inate ability to connect with their children.
To replace a woman with a man and not expect subtle damage in a child is hopeful, an experiment with unforseeable consequences
S'ok. Everyone has a bad week. And I am genuinely sorry about what happened to you.
Who is this "left" you are always talking about anyway, surely not the current Government, they are more Thatcherite that Thatcher herself!
What is this dark force of the 'left' which wants to enforce 'polictical correctness' on you?
Society as a whole is getting somewhat more accepting, but then we have been doing that for a while.
Are you suggesting this is a bad thing, perhaps we should remove the vote for women, or maybe remove the race relations act, or introduce the cast system here?
Are you really suggesting that anyone who is not 100% straight is 'un-natural'?
There are so many things we do that are un-natural anyway, so to my mind its not really a defense of homophobic views.
Should we stop wearing clothes, or maybe not use medicines, or maybe...well you get the point.
None whatsoever.
Obviously had you been raised by homosexual parents you would have had no problems whatsoever with it. No child is born prejudiced.
Proof, with stats please
Are you for real?
One word - consent.
Argggh! I'm trying to stop posting here, but when I read such obvious crap, I have to respond!
If there are problems with the instituion of marraige being used for this then why not just term it a commitment ceromony and then after that give them all the rights a married couple have?
one more time
Proof, with stats please
The point is, does it matter if two parents who love and care for the child are the same sex?
And of course it totally depends on the people involved and the situation.
not so, it's what social psychologists do
May not be a statistically significant survey though, given small no. of gay parents
Won't catch on in most of the World, mind you:p
Since you are the one appearing to suggest a total absurdity, you should be the one proving or at least suggesting how a child born and raised by homosexual parents could be prejudiced towards them.
Perhaps you might find answers in the Flat Earth Society website- you both appear to work on the same brainwaves...
Can you not read or are you wriggling away, as usual
you make blanket assertions about gay parenting, with no justification
Anyone disagreeing must be on the Bush/blair axis of course
Tell us something concrete about gay parenting apart from your opinion
He said "YOU would have had no problems whatsoever with it" so it becomes a pointless question, because to my knowledge you werent. So guessing about whether or not you would have been fine is pointless.
yeh true that they deserve equal rights, but until a civil system they will get the same rights as a married couple ableit minus the marriage title surely its the religious institutes decision whether they want to be able to marry people,
and in america they could be called married, as there is a legal seperation of state and relgion but in this country, religion is part of the state, like why we cant have a catholic king or prime minister or something (unless that was changed)
and a civil service would be giving qual rights whilst keeping the people who dont know what to expect happy, thus showing them not much will change really and maybe one day marriage would be the term, and im sure a couple could put it into their vows still (good work around!)