Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
TrueBeliever

Gay Marriage

977 posts in this topic

just let them get married so we can move on to more important things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't they marry?

Again, an action requiring the authorization of law does not become a right until it is legislated as a right. Marriage as known to heterosexuals was enacted in 1228 as a part of British law.

We do not have rights to breahe, have a pulse or think, those are physical functions necessary to life. Rights are not simply rights because someone declares them to be. I have the right to be a millionarie because there are many millionaires? Who will give me my money?

We are throwing the concept of human rights around here like it is an absolute fact when it is not.

In answer to your question, they cannot marry in many places because the law forbids it. Will that change? Who knows. The British court ruled that gay marriage is not a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did say that, but I took it from what you implied on an earlier point. Rhetorical really, because I thought you might take in context. But there was an influx of posts at the time.But yes the question still holds. Do you mean to say that, "So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?"

I answered that in post 915

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out the question mark. Those are important

You are comparing give two people the legal benefits of marriage to slavery and doctor assisted suicide. Does that not seem silly to you?

The best argument people made for something like this happening is gay marriage leading to allowing people to get married to ducks and box turtles.

You don't think slavery and the right to die are valid examples of the concept of human rights?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DR. D. "We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc."

And how is this on topic? Shorten your answers (i.e. make your point.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DR. D. "We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc."

And how is this on topic? Shorten your answers (i.e. make your point.)

I didn't know you were a mod. If you were, you would have realized that the right to die and slavery are valid examples of human rights and the controversy surrounding them.

I will use however many words I need to express my opinion. You are free to do the same.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think slavery and the right to die are valid examples of the concept of human rights?

The right to marriage is not a human right. Its a law governed by individual governments.

Its a much smaller problem then slavery. Comparing them is almost an insult to the struggle of slavery.

Edited by Kazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to marriage is not a human right. Its a law governed by individual governments.

Fine. Then you agree with me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered that in post 915

No you didn't, you answered a question I didn't ask. I asked a question based on what I thought you implied. No, on second thought, what you said - I was actually asking for some clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine. Then you agree with me.

I agree with that fact. But your stance was very broad. I'm worried about the details.

Do you want to keep gay marriage illegal because it could lead to other things?

Do you think gay people should not be aloud to adopt children because they could be pedophiles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know you were a mod. If you were, you would have realized that the right to die and slavery are valid examples of human rights and the controversy surrounding them.

I will use however many words I need to express my opinion. You are free to do the same.

Granted. Good point. But the converstaion has devolved to a 'human rights' or 'human privelege' issue now.So where does marriage fall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lIke I said earlier straight marriages have produced some really effed up kids and totally dysfunctional families.......to disallow gay marriage based on that same basis...is ding ding ding bigotry! saying it is ok for starights because some Bible says it is ok but not ok for gays because some allegedly holy book says it isn't ok? come on...reality time...NOW is the time to THINK for some of you.

Personally my opinion on homosexuality and gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with outcomes for individuals and for society. I do not happen to believe that an individual has "rights" which might cause harm and thus costs to to others. So i do not accept that a person has a right to eat unhealthily, or drink, or smoke, or engage in ANY harmful form of dangerous sexual behaviour, and then expect their society to pick up/pay for, the costs resulting from those individual practices.

But i apply that to all things. I do not accept that homosexuality is a safe productive or biologically sound form of physical relationship, particularly statistically for males but also demonstrably for men and women, despite its "natural" condition. Cancers, blindness, dwarfism and infertility etc., are all natural products of evolution too. That doesnrt mean, inherently, that we accept them as the status quo

Personally, in principle and in practice i would treat a gay person the same as a straight person with allowances for their differing sexuality of course. I would love them the same. I would judge their behaviour on an individual basis, eg if they were honest or bad tempered, or a killer or a saint. That is all independent of their sexuality.

As i have stated numerous times I WANT gay people to be in along term monogamous relationship like marriage for their own health benefits and particularly if they chose to have kids, because such a relationship provides the best outcomes for human adults and children.

In fact give my first preferences, I'd tend to force or legally/financialy strongly encourage parents, gay or straight, to be in a commited relationship with legal boundaries before I let them have kids. For example a woman gets 6000 dollars and a weekly income from the govt for every child she has in Australia. I would restrict that payment to couples (straight and gay) who were in and remained in a monogamous commited relationship, and fulfilled other obligations to their children like feeding them, attending regular health clinics for check ups, having them vaccinated, and making sure they attended school regualary.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would homosexuality affect anybody besides those whom wanted to be gay married?

I think drafting is bull. Most of the wars America drafts people to go fight in are pointless and stupid (i.e., the Gulf War, the Iraq War).

Also bull. However, isn't the latter a mental issue?

Marriage shouldn't be in the hands of anybody--the church, the state or the feds. You could marry a tree stump for all I care.

EDIT: 900th comment!

Laws on mariage effect everyone in a society. They impact on all aspects of relationships from the silly to the serious For example when spain legalised gay marriage one of the royals who was a lesbian married her partner as she (the royal) was dying of cancer. Hence we have the first and only dowager royal from a same sex couple

.More seriously marriage sets the paramenters for many laws and outcomes for families and especailly for children. These were originally designed to balamnce the differnces and inequalities between men and women and to provide for the security of women and chilfdren. They just don;t work the same way between same sex couples Other laws, in many areas from maternity leave to inheritance to taxation regulations, have to be changed to adjust to the new definition of marriage.. That effects everyone, individually and collectively.

Like all "state" laws, marriage laws serve a purpose of regulation and protection. That is why you cant marry a tree stump or your sister. The state (and in a democracy that means the voters) decide who requires protection and regulation and where individual laws will apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Does that make it right though?. As TrueBeliever pointed out above, slavery simply used to be a property issue. Times change.Time will tell, but I think that humankind will eventually side with the liberals on this issue.

Perhaps. In part that will depend on human mores and values which change collectively over time. But it wil also depend on outcomes and practicalities. No where in the world was slavery abolished until AFTER it was no longer an economically viable proposition. Womens rights and emancipation did not succeed until economic and social imperatives made them a productive outcome for society.. In other words people's feelings and opinions dont change the world, UNLESS they coincide with practical benefits/advantages for the world. Economic realism is a far more effective driver of humans and human society than emotions and beliefs.

The proof of this is in a fact you may not be aware of. There are more slaves in the world today than at the height of the slave trade. These include women ensalved in the sex trade, and children enslaved on commercial plantations and other work places in africa. If you dont believe me, look this up. Again, the reason is simple. Economic reality always trumps both ethics and the laws. Prohibition in America was a classic example.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps. In part that will depend on human mores and values which change collectively over time. But it wil also depend on outcomes and practicalities. No where in the world was slavery abolished until AFTER it was no longer an economically viable proposition. Womens rights and emancipation did not succeed until economic and social imperatives made them a productive outcome for society.. In other words people's feelings and opinions dont change the world, UNLESS they coincide with practical benefits/advantages for the world. Economic realism is a far more effective driver of humans and human society than emotions and beliefs.

So, what you're saying is that 'economics suppresses gay marriage'?, or something to that effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what you're saying is that 'economics suppresses gay marriage'?, or something to that effect?

You were saying that gay marriage will vindicate present liberal beliefs. I am saying gay marriage will only prove succesful if it creates a nett economic benefit and not a liability.

All past evolutions of marriage have occured primarily as the economic structure of society, and the value/ worth of women changed. When their highest value was staying home and having 14 kids that s wha they did When war forced them into factories they went, when their highest value is contributing to a modern economy ,and providing the workers required to drive that economy, then they are almost forced into working even if they want to stay home and have 14 kids.This happened to my wife and I. She decided to stay home after marriage, having worked from age 15 to age 34.. In the 70s govt's. wanted women to enter the work force. They changed taxation and other arrangements, to force this to happen. We lost many thousands of dollars But my wife never worked after marriage, as a matter of principle. She saw it as taking a job from a single woman who did not have a husband to support her and provide for her.

But as fertility drops, and western populations age, a women's value is again being accounted in their fertility, and govts are restruturing laws and rules to encourage women to have more children, and to try and balance this with a working life. Too late for us, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were saying that gay marriage will vindicate present liberal beliefs. I am saying gay marriage will only prove succesful if it creates a nett economic benefit and not a liability.

All past evolutions of marriage have occured primarily as the economic structure of society, and the value/ worth of women changed. When their highest value was staying home and having 14 kids that s wha they did When war forced them into factories they went, when their highest value is contributing to a modern economy ,and providing the workers required to drive that economy, then they are almost forced into working even if they want to stay home and have 14 kids.This happened to my wife and I. She decided to stay home after marriage, having worked from age 15 to age 34.. In the 70s govt's. wanted women to enter the work force. They changed taxation and other arrangements, to force this to happen. We lost many thousands of dollars But my wife never worked after marriage, as a matter of principle. She saw it as taking a job from a single woman who did not have a husband to support her and provide for her.

But as fertility drops, and western populations age, a women's value is again being accounted in their fertility, and govts are restruturing laws and rules to encourage women to have more children, and to try and balance this with a working life. Too late for us, LOL.

so you know a lot about child psychology right? well my little sister (15) has been calling me and she told me that she wants a strong male figure to look up to (her mother is with a women right now) and i want to know if thats normal in children with gay parents? thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you know a lot about child psychology right? well my little sister (15) has been calling me and she told me that she wants a strong male figure to look up to (her mother is with a women right now) and i want to know if thats normal in children with gay parents? thanks.

I did 2 years of child psychology as a part of a post graduate diploma in education. I must say i was not impressed with the academic state of psychology at tha t time. I spent 5 years as a student counsellor for adolescent students. I read a bit.

My non professional opinion, supported by a lot of writings and evidences, is that this is a very common need in adolescent females. We are caring for a fifteen year old girl whose father commited suicide when she was about two. She stuggles with this loss and absence every day. She talks about it and tries to understand, but It affects her social and psychological well being. I provide such a role model. Her step father also provides a good one but he has 3 of his own biologicla children in the family which complicates matters.

. But yes. For both males and females, especially from about 10 to mid teens, when awareness of such things is at its highest and influences are most critical, absence of one or the other role models can have very measurable negative effects on a child's emotional and psychological well being.

This time is also critical for children who know, or find out, that they are adopted and can cause real stresses in the adoptive family, which did not appear in younger years.

So it is not the gay nature of the parents, but the absence of strong alternate role models which is the problem. W e ALL, in terms of physical and social evolution, need male and female role models, preferrably close to us from birth to adulthood, to model, learn from, and adapt to.

A boy has the same need for his mother or a surrogate female figure. But girls tend to be more aware and vocalise their concerns, while boys bottle it up, and then act out in behavioural forms their inner conflicts.

Your little sister sounds like an intelligent, self aawre and articulate person. It is imortant not to use this issue to drive any wedge between her and her mother(s) who probably love her and want the best for her. The issue is to find an constructive way to involve a suitable male model in her life who is accpetable to her and her present caregivers, Are there ANY candidates, such as uncles or grandfathers, who might be able to do this? In australia there are groups who will help with a mentor of either sex for young people. There might be similar in your area.

Are there any male teachers with whom she feels comfortable and safe, or sporting coaches etc?

Unless the women have a real problem with maculine/male figures in general, it should be possible to find someone suitable.

Are you able to provide any form of guidance yourself, or is this impractical? ( I am not sure of your own age and life experience)

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna address a few things in posts in one go.

But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families. We are to cure it with a “positive attitude.” But nowhere have I said that domestic violence in straight families should not be addressed. The fact is that it is being addressed. In South Carolina alone, the number of organizations combating the problem is impressive; SCCADVASA, Laurens County Safe Home, Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Cumbee Center to Assist Abused Persons, Hope Haven of the Lowcountry, My Sister's House, Safe Harbor, CASA/Family Systems, Barnwell County Help Line, SAFE Homes, Rape Crisis Coalition, Safe Passage, Inc., Pee Dee Coalition, MEG's House, YWCA of the Upper Lowlands, Inc., Sistercare, Inc., Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Citizens Against Spouse Abuse, Laurens County Safe Home.

Thousands of organizations across the world are dealing with this problem, but the fact remains that domestic abuse in gay relationships is five times greater per capita and the response is much like yours, to ignore it and justify it by comparing it to others.

Once again, common sense to you is immensely lacking.

In that post you say groups are dealing with domestic violence, then you go on to list quite an impressive number that deal with it. The problem? At the start of the lsit you qualify that they deal with 'domestic violence in straight families'. Now I'm assuming from your arguement that, because such groups exist straight domestic violence rates have gone done in straight families, right?

So why do you act so surprised that,since gay people don't have access to those groups, that they are not as well protected?

I mean in a post you made before, you even said that police are 'dismissive' of same sex domestic abuse. So how is the problem meant to be solved if the very people meant to solve it are dismissive about it?

For example a woman gets 6000 dollars and a weekly income from the govt for every child she has in Australia. I would restrict that payment to couples (straight and gay) who were in and remained in a monogamous commited relationship, and fulfilled other obligations to their children like feeding them, attending regular health clinics for check ups, having them vaccinated, and making sure they attended school regualary.

See I have a problem with that. The problem being that it's couples. If you're a single parent family? Well tough luck, you get to worse off. That doesn't sound too productive. In fact, it sounds like it's an attempt to make one group of kids worse off, regardless of the circumstances (for example, if one parent died the kid would be raised by one parent and then bam! Be worse off not just emotionally but financially as well).

.More seriously marriage sets the paramenters for many laws and outcomes for families and especailly for children. These were originally designed to balamnce the differnces and inequalities between men and women and to provide for the security of women and chilfdren. They just don;t work the same way between same sex couples Other laws, in many areas from maternity leave to inheritance to taxation regulations, have to be changed to adjust to the new definition of marriage.. That effects everyone, individually and collectively.

Since the inception of marriage marriage has changed. Those laws you mention? Most of those are compartively new when compared to how long marriage has existed. They got added on to benefit people. All this is is a new set of things designed to benefit people. The odd thing is, people are making out lie these things are so bad the world will end.

It may require a few changes to implement, but those changes aren't necessarily bad or wrong and won't (no matter how hard people try and make it out) impact or change the status of any past, present or future hetrosexual relationship.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna address a few things in posts in one go.

See I have a problem with that. The problem being that it's couples. If you're a single parent family? Well tough luck, you get to worse off. That doesn't sound too productive. In fact, it sounds like it's an attempt to make one group of kids worse off, regardless of the circumstances (for example, if one parent died the kid would be raised by one parent and then bam! Be worse off not just emotionally but financially as well).

Since the inception of marriage marriage has changed. Those laws you mention? Most of those are compartively new when compared to how long marriage has existed. They got added on to benefit people. All this is is a new set of things designed to benefit people. The odd thing is, people are making out lie these things are so bad the world will end.

It may require a few changes to implement, but those changes aren't necessarily bad or wrong and won't (no matter how hard people try and make it out) impact or change the status of any past, present or future hetrosexual relationship.

I have a difference of opinon based on evidences. I do not think single parent families are good for children, at least not as good as two parents raising a child. However, our govt pays mothers regardless of marital status. It was MY point that govts should only give tax payer funded benefits to families who are optimum for raising kids and who do all the right things by and for their kids. Perhaps strangely to you, that would include gay couples who were in a long term relationship and where one of the couple was the biological parent of the child.

I dont oppose women having kids by them selves, but i object to my tax dollars going to support them and to a system which encourages single mothers to have a dozen kids and live off welfare. It benefits no one and harms many. I have spent my life, in part, caring for such children who were abandoned by their "families" when they were no longer bringing in a govt subsidy or when they got to teenage years and were too difficult to handle.

In australia when one parent dies the welfare payments often increase to compensate. There are also funeral payments etc I am not talking about such instances but where women have many children from multiple partners and may live with none of them, but with more recent partners. None are married or commited to each other in a loving relationship. This increases the rates of neglect and abuse and there have been a number of fatalities in our state in the last year among children, due to physical bashings, neglect and malnutrition, because they lived in a group of several men and several women who really had no biological connection to them, certainly were incapapble of loving them, and; abused, neglected, beat and starved them, beyond belief.

Changes WILL impact many people. In australia, where gay marriages are being considered and introduced in some states, it is acknowledged that there will be changes to all marriages to accomodate the nature of gay marriage. For example to be "fair", if a gay man can have paid maternity leave so should a straight one. If a gay man can be paid the baby bonuses why not straight ones etc .ALL inheritance laws will be effected by changes to inheritance laws passed to accomodate gay relationships

Superannuation and other laws wil also have to be changed for everyone.

It is either naive or else deliberately misleading to claim that, in a society as complex and integrated as ours, changing the nature of a constitutional law like the marriage act will not have ramifications in many other areas for everyone, not just gay people.

One of the most difficult areas will be where same sex couples live together, sometimes for decades but are not in a sexual relationship. How will the laws distinguish them. Another area that might affect many is where a gay couple lives together but does not want to get married (they may have objections to a contractual arrangement or to the notion of marrige as amny straight peole do) Will straight defacto couples be affected if gay defacto couples are given similar recognitions.

These are not necessarily insurmountable impedements to the legalisation of gay marriage, but they illustrate how many non gays will be impacted by legalising gay marriage and this needs to be accepted and recognised as reality rather tha just denied..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a difference of opinon based on evidences. I do not think single parent families are good for children, at least not as good as two parents raising a child. However, our govt pays mothers regardless of marital status. It was MY point that govts should only give tax payer funded benefits to families who are optimum for raising kids and who do all the right things by and for their kids. Perhaps strangely to you, that would include gay couples who were in a long term relationship and where one of the couple was the biological parent of the child.

I dont oppose women having kids by them selves, but i object to my tax dollars going to support them and to a system which encourages single mothers to have a dozen kids and live off welfare. It benefits no one and harms many. I have spent my life, in part, caring for such children who were abandoned by their "families" when they were no longer bringing in a govt subsidy or when they got to teenage years and were too difficult to handle.

In australia when one parent dies the welfare payments often increase to compensate. There are also funeral payments etc I am not talking about such instances but where women have many children from multiple partners and may live with none of them, but with more recent partners. None are married or commited to each other in a loving relationship. This increases the rates of neglect and abuse and there have been a number of fatalities in our state in the last year among children, due to physical bashings, neglect and malnutrition, because they lived in a group of several men and several women who really had no biological connection to them, certainly were incapapble of loving them, and; abused, neglected, beat and starved them, beyond belief.

Changes WILL impact many people. In australia, where gay marriages are being considered and introduced in some states, it is acknowledged that there will be changes to all marriages to accomodate the nature of gay marriage. For example to be "fair", if a gay man can have paid maternity leave so should a straight one. If a gay man can be paid the baby bonuses why not straight ones etc .ALL inheritance laws will be effected by changes to inheritance laws passed to accomodate gay relationships

Superannuation and other laws wil also have to be changed for everyone.

It is either naive or else deliberately misleading to claim that, in a society as complex and integrated as ours, changing the nature of a constitutional law like the marriage act will not have ramifications in many other areas for everyone, not just gay people.

One of the most difficult areas will be where same sex couples live together, sometimes for decades but are not in a sexual relationship. How will the laws distinguish them. Another area that might affect many is where a gay couple lives together but does not want to get married (they may have objections to a contractual arrangement or to the notion of marrige as amny straight peole do) Will straight defacto couples be affected if gay defacto couples are given similar recognitions.

These are not necessarily insurmountable impedements to the legalisation of gay marriage, but they illustrate how many non gays will be impacted by legalising gay marriage and this needs to be accepted and recognised as reality rather tha just denied..

of course it affects others and involves changes. the problem is that many say we ought to discriminate because no one wants to be affected by the 'gays'''like they are dirty and bad and inferior and don't deserve any accomodation in society. In my country the religious folk have judged and persecuted and harrassed the homosexual population ruthlessly and with pride. It is bigotry standing in the way of their right to marry. We all affect esch other in society to suggest that oh gays they affect us much more negatively or it's so much more TROUBLE to accomodate the gays IS BIGOTRY. frame it anyway you like, spin it til u r dizzy itis prejudice plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a difference of opinon based on evidences. I do not think single parent families are good for children, at least not as good as two parents raising a child. However, our govt pays mothers regardless of marital status. It was MY point that govts should only give tax payer funded benefits to families who are optimum for raising kids and who do all the right things by and for their kids. Perhaps strangely to you, that would include gay couples who were in a long term relationship and where one of the couple was the biological parent of the child.

I dont oppose women having kids by them selves, but i object to my tax dollars going to support them and to a system which encourages single mothers to have a dozen kids and live off welfare. It benefits no one and harms many. I have spent my life, in part, caring for such children who were abandoned by their "families" when they were no longer bringing in a govt subsidy or when they got to teenage years and were too difficult to handle.

The difference of opinion likely largely comes from the fact (that I have stated) that I come from a single parent family. I do not see how trying to disadvantage people in distadvantaged situations is going to help anyone. If anything, it'll make children wore off and I can't support that, especially when the justification is 'it's for the children'.

In australia when one parent dies the welfare payments often increase to compensate. There are also funeral payments etc I am not talking about such instances but where women have many children from multiple partners and may live with none of them, but with more recent partners. None are married or commited to each other in a loving relationship. This increases the rates of neglect and abuse and there have been a number of fatalities in our state in the last year among children, due to physical bashings, neglect and malnutrition, because they lived in a group of several men and several women who really had no biological connection to them, certainly were incapapble of loving them, and; abused, neglected, beat and starved them, beyond belief.

The problem with your line is, you first stated any parents not in relationships, then went on to clarify this. Any such law that came into place would have to be wiorded carefully to ensure that but, you know what? I don't thing anyone would take care to ensure that until children were being disadvantaged.

Evem kids in that situation need help and if you're going to pull the rug from under them you're really not helping them one bit, you're just setting them out to fail and that's not fair on them.

Such situations are bad and yes, they do need to be tackled but on a case by case basis, not an easy blanket solution. All what you offer is blanket quick fixes and that's not the way to go because innocent people will suffer too.

Changes WILL impact many people. In australia, where gay marriages are being considered and introduced in some states, it is acknowledged that there will be changes to all marriages to accomodate the nature of gay marriage. For example to be "fair", if a gay man can have paid maternity leave so should a straight one. If a gay man can be paid the baby bonuses why not straight ones etc .ALL inheritance laws will be effected by changes to inheritance laws passed to accomodate gay relationships

Superannuation and other laws wil also have to be changed for everyone.

It is either naive or else deliberately misleading to claim that, in a society as complex and integrated as ours, changing the nature of a constitutional law like the marriage act will not have ramifications in many other areas for everyone, not just gay people.

Do you know what I say to that? Good. Why shouldn't a straight man get maternity leave if he wants? Why shouldn't straight men get bonuses too? If inheritence laws are flawed why is change considered a bad thing when it makes them better?

In short all your changes are changes, true, but they are hardly negative ones and they are ones that will benefit straight people too, not impact them negatively.

So if you want to argue that gay marriage will impact straight marriages negatively, provide an example because all the changes you've listed seem not just beneficial, but overdue.

One of the most difficult areas will be where same sex couples live together, sometimes for decades but are not in a sexual relationship. How will the laws distinguish them. Another area that might affect many is where a gay couple lives together but does not want to get married (they may have objections to a contractual arrangement or to the notion of marrige as amny straight peole do) Will straight defacto couples be affected if gay defacto couples are given similar recognitions.

I'd imagine it'd be the same as when hetrosexual couples live together for decades without sex. Why does there need to be a distinction? Sex isn't a requirement of any marriage and, to be honest, it's no one's buisness.

Why would straigth defacto couples be effected if gay ones are given similar recognitions? (Didn't you even say they already have those recognitions?)

These are not necessarily insurmountable impedements to the legalisation of gay marriage, but they illustrate how many non gays will be impacted by legalising gay marriage and this needs to be accepted and recognised as reality rather tha just denied..

It's not being denied that marriage will change. What is being denied is that marriage will change negatively for straight couples. As I've said, all those changes you list actually sound like good changes. They sound like ones straight people will not just benefit from but might actually want.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is not the gay nature of the parents, but the absence of strong alternate role models which is the problem. W e ALL, in terms of physical and social evolution, need male and female role models, preferrably close to us from birth to adulthood, to model, learn from, and adapt to.

Not challenging what you are saying, because i don't think anyone can argue against the importance of role models fullstop and not just with gender but generation as well. The role grandparents play for example could possibly be more important.imo. Children who grow up with strong grandparent role models, have an added bonus, a deeper sense of belonging, and a whole other dimension to who and what their parents are about. Children learn a lot from watching how their parents interact with their parents and so on - It provides a child with a real and strong sense of family/pack hierarchy and understanding as to where their place is. There is a true sense of security that can help offset any natural fear of losing a parent and having to fend for self which is the childs egos biggest fear, or dysfunction that many children experience in feeling like they have to be the parent of their parent! I'm not sure exactly yet how to word it but there is just something powerful for a child to know and witness in the family hierarchy, that someone is there for the best interests of them and their parents too. That someone is looking after their parents and that they get to witness their parents also caring for their parents.

Grand parents tend to play lucid roles and slot in as needed and if played right along with what the parents do or don't do, can counter balance things. They can be the role of the best friend - emotional support when the parent can't get away with playing compromising their authority. To the role of the alpha educator or "wise one" - for a child to witness their parent having a healthy rapport with their parent, is all part of the blueprint for healthy relationships ? I find there is a lot to be said for the role grand parents play in raising children too. many cultures do that and allow the elder gen's to have massive influence and authority over child care.

So children who grow up with out grandparents can suffer from similar issues. I have seen that first hand, and i can think of some nice examples personally, where those who have the strongest sense of family and place, happen to have extremely strong grand parent role model/ influence in their life. As if a elder matriarch of the family really does make a family behave like a family unit and stay in touch. Where as those who don't, get lazy or fall out of staying in touch and where it is implied that no one can bothered to gel together within a family, what is that saying to the children? As children do not understand it in the same way or realise that patterns of laziness can and do just happen.

So is it not so much about gender, or who is representing the family structure, but more about the numbers of who is playing what role and across what generation.

I'm just interested in how society has got to this point in such short a time for it is not that long in the grander scheme of things that children and childhoods were even given such presidence. The concept of childhood is as new a thing as Disneyland. Disneyland prob invented the fairytale childhood Lol. But i am told and history books support this, that until fairly recently children were very much seen and not heard, the so called traditional family unit that society tries to imprint from,was this - the role fathers played were nil, surprisingly. Males had very little to do with child raising, they certainly did not entertain or play with their children or relate to them on any social or emotional level. It was the females job of the family, including older female siblings to help raise and socialise the children. Children didn't have childhoods and they we were not treated like they were supposed to have this innocence until a certain age. I'm not sure entirely where that concept comes from - Disney again ?

Middle class and upper class families as my family were, told stories of how the Mother didn't even have that much to do with children either, they were raised by nannies and maids. all female again, no male figures. And then from a young age sent to boarding school - as young as 5, 6. The boarding school took over for most of that with the children only going home so many times a year for holidays. Again primarily female in the educating and childcare roles. Boarding schools were not mixed but gender specific. In working class families, if children were not going to school, they were working. So looking back into history male "input" has always been very weak, barely there. Why should it make a difference intodays society if males have input or not ? or worded more correctly, why should it matter if the role models are both female and male - isn't the important thing that children just have the role models regardless if they are all female or male or a balance of both, just as long as they are present ?

Edited by bLu3 de 3n3rgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be treated equal? That’s an interesting viewpoint. Equal to what? The more feminine of the couple wants to be equal to a woman? How far should that equality go?

And spirituality exists only in a church? Is that the next step? The civil union is not acceptable so neither will be a civil marriage? The next demand will be that churches recognize gay marriage?

nope, gay people arent always in a "feminine man/manly man" pairing, in a lot of couples, there is no designated "woman" of the pair (and the same for lesbian couples, they often dont have a designated "man"). the equality should go as far as equality does for a man and woman-cause thats what equality is. spirituality exists everywhere, its not just a religious thing, and no religion can lay claim to owning spirituality. there are many people who consider themselves spiritual, but do not affiliate with a specific religion. churches should still have the right to choose who gets married there, they already do, and have every right to refuse couples who dont fit their beliefs. as long as gay people can get married somewhere, it shouldnt matter, as its not as if i could decide to get married in a mosque (whether i was with a man or a woman), because they have a right to say no to a non muslim wanting to get married there, but that doesnt matter because there are loads of other places i could get married.

Here's what I think about "rights": if anybody else can do it, I have the right to do it. So why can't gay people get married? This is bigotry and the "legislation of rights" is obviously corrupt.

There is common sense, then there is legislation.

:tu: exactly :tu:

Personally my opinion on homosexuality and gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with outcomes for individuals and for society. I do not happen to believe that an individual has "rights" which might cause harm and thus costs to to others. (but exactly what harm does gay people getting married cause? it doesnt affect anyone who is not planning on getting married to someone of the same sex. and no, people crying descrimination because the law prevents them taking rights away from people they dont like does not count) So i do not accept that a person has a right to eat unhealthily, or drink, or smoke, or engage in ANY harmful form of dangerous sexual behaviour, and then expect their society to pick up/pay for, the costs resulting from those individual practices. but we do! people do have the right to do things that are harmful to themselves, like smoking or eating 5 cheeseburgers at once. people have the right to drink as it only affects them, but dont have the right to drive while drunk as that harms others. it would be wrong of the government to ban things just because they are bad for us, as that takes away our rights. the government can try and make people aware of the dangers of things, like putting warnings on cigarette packets telling people that smoking can give you cancer, or teach people about healthy eating, drinking responsibly and safe sex, but banning things because they are bad for you is wrong.

But i apply that to all things. I do not accept that homosexuality is a safe productive or biologically sound form of physical relationship, particularly statistically for males but also demonstrably for men and women, despite its "natural" condition. but it is safe, gay couples are no different from straight couples, other than the combination of genitals and the ability to produce children naturally. relationships are more than just having babies anyway, according to your thinking, being in a relationship with someone who is infertile wouldnt be productive or biologically sound. it doesnt matter though, if i turned out to be infertile, or was dating a man who was, or even another woman, that relationship would not be unproductive for the two of us, as it would be satisfying our emotional needs for a relationship. Cancers, blindness, dwarfism and infertility etc, are all natural products of evolution too. That doesnrt mean, inherently, that we accept them as the status quo. yes, but we give these people equal rights, we allow people who are infertile to marry, even if they arent having kids the natural way (like gay people). disabled people are allowed to marry, we adapt buildings so they can be accessible for them, so they have the ability to do everything we do. there are laws preventing people from discriminating against someone because of their disability.

Personally, in principle and in practice i would treat a gay person the same as a straight person with allowances for their differing sexuality of course. I would love them the same. I would judge their behaviour on an individual basis, eg if they were honest or bad tempered, or a killer or a saint. That is all independent of their sexuality.

As i have stated numerous times I WANT gay people to be in along term monogamous relationship like marriage for their own health benefits and particularly if they chose to have kids, because such a relationship provides the best outcomes for human adults and children. but why be against them having equal rights then?

In fact give my first preferences, I'd tend to force or legally/financialy strongly encourage parents, gay or straight, to be in a commited relationship with legal boundaries before I let them have kids. For example a woman gets 6000 dollars and a weekly income from the govt for every child she has in Australia. I would restrict that payment to couples (straight and gay) who were in and remained in a monogamous commited relationship, and fulfilled other obligations to their children like feeding them, attending regular health clinics for check ups, having them vaccinated, and making sure they attended school regualary. the problem with that, is that the families that need the most help are not the families who have two parents in a monogamous relationship. what about the family where one parent died, and the living parent cannot afford to work in their current job as the costs of putting their kid in daycare while they are at work are too high? what about the woman who got raped, but does not believe in abortion and has decided to keep the child? what about the teenage girl who was having safe sex with her boyfriend but the condom broke?

i do agree that parents should be required by law to meet their childs needs. theyre already required by law to feed their kids and stuff, but i think they should also have to vaccinate them and make sure they get medical care (as parents who are ignorant about vaccines or are religiously opposed to medical treatment for their kids are putting their children at risk, and also are putting other children at risk), and making sure they attend school or are homeschooling their children adequately (because children have a right to a decent education)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you know a lot about child psychology right? well my little sister (15) has been calling me and she told me that she wants a strong male figure to look up to (her mother is with a women right now) and i want to know if thats normal in children with gay parents? thanks.

It's normal for all kids. Strong male figures provide a great deal of comfort and feelings of security for boys, woman , and girls. Teenage girls at that age tend to mold themselves into the image of what a strong male figure projects. Boys tend to mimic

And challenge him. Without that figure children fill in the gaps with other things, which is not always unhealthy but usually is. As I believe as has been addressed, these gender roles are important for psychological health. Same sex couples raising children struggle in this department. The ones that are aware of this and not so engrossed in their righteousness will seek out alternatives. I own a martial arts School. And in the last 5 years I have had (some still with me) at least a dozen boys with same sex parents ( mothers). These couples bring then to me because I am in a position to be that figure for them, and I'm willing to accept the position. I have also seen plenty single mothers of both sexes do the same.

If your sister is saying this, I would listen, she sounds very self aware.... Bonus for her.

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.