Gay Marriages

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Should gays have the right to get married?

Yes
28
72%
No
6
15%
Unsure
5
13%
 
Total votes : 39

Postby pinkparrot » Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:48 pm

Yes, in a way that vomit is interesting!
User avatar
pinkparrot
As Mad As A Box Of Frogs !
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:52 pm

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:03 pm

I apologise that my post contains repeated references to "same-stupid marriage." The reason is that the word "s*x" is automatically replaced by the word "stupid" on this forum. I didn't know this when I posted. I'm sorry if I caused anyone any offence. I will edit it and change the wrod to "gender"
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Postby Spoon girl » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:02 am

After having a think about this poll I voted 'NO'.

However, this was purely because the term used in the poll was 'Marriage' and as marriage is a religious union and most religions say that homosexuality is wrong I don't believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Why associate yourself with something that damns you? I also don't believe that non religious people should be allowed to married, at least not in a church. The rules in place on this at the moment are ridiculous in my opinion! I don't understand why gay and or non religious people would want to marry for these reasons either.
However, I do understand why gay and/or non religious people would want to be in union/partnership and so I strongly back Civil Partnerships. Love is love regardless of belief or gender.

On the subject of homosexual couples having children, again my views are split in two ways. I do believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. After all, two mothers/fathers are certainly better than none! However, I do believe there are a lot of things that same sex couples should take in to consideration when raising a child. For instance, there may not be a father or mother figure in the house (same for single parents) I think that they should try and have a family friend or family member to be around as a role model. Not to live with them, just for support.

My opinions on IVF and sperm donation for gay couples is somewhat different as in this case I thinkit might be unfair on the child when they do have a father/mother but due to their parents desicion they have been left without them. I also believe that there are so many children in the world without parents that couples should consider adoption whether they are fertile, infertile, gay or straight. However, I understand that maternal instincts and hte desire for a child of your own, your own creation might make this emotionally impossible (and htat you cant expect people not to pro-create) and so I believe that families should also consider adoption even if they are having children of their own.

Sorry if I've doubled up on anyuthing or don't make any sense. It is a tad late (1am)

I'd also like to note that these are only opinions
The capacity of the body is limited
Yours, mine, everybody's
But the capacity of the soul is unlimited
Your's, mine, everybody's
Spoon girl
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Wales

Postby kitty_cute » Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:01 pm

What annoys me is that gay sex isn't the same age consent as straight sex.
Japan ! ^_^ <super kawaii>

No PM'S please unless it's urgent =]
User avatar
kitty_cute
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:46 pm
Location: UK

Postby Spoon girl » Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:12 pm

That law has changed now.
It used to be gay sex 18 then it was lowered to 16 about two years ago I think. Lesbian sex didn't have an age restriction until recently in the last few years its been changed to 16 too. Theres still a long way to go but the world is slowly becoming more tolerant
The capacity of the body is limited
Yours, mine, everybody's
But the capacity of the soul is unlimited
Your's, mine, everybody's
Spoon girl
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Wales

Postby intowiz » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:20 pm

jesus is down with the gay peaple. infact contrary to popular belief it was not water in to wine but water into fabulous apple teenies.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

I think..

Postby k9ruby » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:20 pm

I think, if you love eachother, you love eachother, and if thats the case, then why not get married, the point of infertitility is alos a very good one, and plus how do we know in maybe 20 or so years time gay people will reproduce, due to advances in technology? :P
User avatar
k9ruby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby Kentigern » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:46 pm

I am not sure about gay marriage. Marriage entails a responsibility to have children as well as to love. If marriage did not entail a responsibilty to have children, then the human race would die out!

There has been some discussion here about whether it would be right for a heterosexual infertile couple to marry. I would have thought this would be right. If due to infertility they are not going to have any children, they can safely adapt children and act as foster parents, and thus discharge parental responsibility together. They can also be open to the gift of life through their relationship.

The problem with gay marriage is that it is not possible to have children. Having gay people adapt or bring up children is also not a good idea. This is not a slant at those who are gay, but it is from the point of view of the child. A child ideally needs both a father figure and a mother figure, and obviously gay foster parents cannot provide this. If a child was raised by two gay men, then having a female family friend to act as a role model in no way compensates for having a mother living in the house. I don't think the role model idea works.

These are just my views - gay marriage / partnership is a tricky and sensative issue.
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby kitty_cute » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:30 am

My view is, if your gay, your gay, and if your in love, your in love. If your gay, doesn't mean you can't have the quality of life as straight people do. They're human after all, and should be able to have the same oppurtunities as everyone else.
Japan ! ^_^ <super kawaii>

No PM'S please unless it's urgent =]
User avatar
kitty_cute
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:46 pm
Location: UK

Postby Spoon girl » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:20 pm

If a child was raised by two gay men, then having a female family friend to act as a role model in no way compensates for having a mother living in the house. I don't think the role model idea works.


Then how does this all pan out for single parent families?
Spoon girl
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Wales

Postby Kentigern » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:21 pm

Obviously when I am talking about children needing a father figure and a mother figure I am very much talking about an ideal case.

If you allow gay couples to adapt children you are putting children in the position where there is no mother figure / father figure unnecesarily. Better alternatives for the child are available. That is why it is wrong for gay couples to adapt in my view.

In single parent families the circumstances are always rather more complex, but obviously it would be best for the child to be living with a loving biological father and mother. Unfortunately this is not always possible.

Single parent families are often the result of divorce. This is one of many reasons why divorce is such a tragedy. Divorce not only affects the couple concerned, it is also damaging for any children involved.

Gordon
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby mattie » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:47 pm

I agree that homesexuals should have the right to civil partnerships, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt.


Mattie.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby parnassus » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:37 am

the point of infertitility is alos a very good one, and plus how do we know in maybe 20 or so years time gay people will reproduce, due to advances in technology?


The point of infertility has already been addressed. There is good treatment for some types of fertility problems now (I don't mean IVF - I'm referring to courses of hormonal injections that people can have) and even people whose infertility seems incurable often receive surprises. I know someone who was born after her parents had been married for twenty years. They had been told never to expect children, and it came as a huge surprise when her mum discovered the pregnancy. So long as a man and a woman are involved, you are never completely closed to the possibility of new life.

Also, as Gordon said, totally infertile couples are able to adopt children and provide them with both a father and a mother. The situation with single parents is different - the children are forced to be in that situation through highly unpleasant and often traumatic circumstances, usually involving death or divorce. No one would deliberately deprive a child of a parent. What people who support the gay adoption lobby should remember is that children are a natural consequence of a natural act (s*x), not commodities to be disposed of in accordance with a skewed interpretation of the Equal Opportunities Act. Men and women may be equal, but that doesn't mean that they are the same. Ideally a child needs a mother and a father figure.

and plus how do we know in maybe 20 or so years time gay people will reproduce, due to advances in technology?


Biologically, that is impossible, no matter what kind of mysterious 'technology' you envisage being used. A woman's reproductive system is extremely complex. For a male to give birth to a child, scientists would need to find some way of making room in his body for a womb, a uterus, ovaries, and several million eggs. Even if they did manage to alter drastically the male body (and somehow find a way to create eggs, ovaries, etc.) they would have to find a way for the eggs to get fertilised and the baby to get out. Imaginative as you are, I don't think you - or any scientist - could see that happening. :P Male and female bodies are fundamentally different and should be kept that way. Even if a lesbian couple decided to use IVF and artificial insemination as a way of giving birth to children, that child wouldn't be of their own making - there is still a man involved.

My view is, if your gay, your gay, and if your in love, your in love.


Love is not enough.

This is where a lot of heterosexual couples make their mistake. Love is presented by Hollywood and the mass media as something rosy and fluffy, something that is to be indulged at all costs. People see celebrities getting married to their sixth or seventh husband or wife, going all out with the beautiful designer wedding dresses, the exotic locations, and the fancy cakes, and forget that love is about more than personal gratification, an idyllic fairytale with a 'they-lived-happily-ever-after' ending. Marriage is about life, not just love. Responsibilities, not just rights. As a dyspraxic person, I know I will never attend the Royal College of Surgeons...but that doesn't mean I should lobby the government for a medical degree anyway, arguing that I ought to have the 'opportunity' to practise medicine alongside those who are actually qualified to be doctors.

As I have already commented, a civil partnership is less complicated than marriage (fewer cultural and religious demands) so I am less opposed to this. But society's overly romanticised view of marriage ("It's all about love") needs to be challenged.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby invisifish » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:06 pm

( im not quite sure how to use the quote thing) Vicky wrote :Even if a lesbian couple decided to use IVF and artificial insemination as a way of giving birth to children, that child wouldn't be of their own making - there is still a man involved.

i read an articul that scientists had made a mouse that had to mothers, it had something to do with cells, i dident realy read much about it.
invisifish
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: East Sussex

Postby parnassus » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:20 pm

It is possible for a mouse (or even a human) to have two biological mothers, through the process known as surrogacy. (An inseminated egg is transferred to a different woman, who gives birth to the child on behalf of its natural parents.) But there is still a male involved. An egg can't be fertilised without sperm.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

PreviousNext

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron