posted
Well, the closest thing the gay community has to a representative organization is The Human Rights Campaign.
Their positions, recent successes and challenges, and briefs about the issue are summed up on their marriage page .
As for "civil unions", they largely seem to see them as a step forward, but not quite equal to marriage in their current form. Specifically, "marriage" is recognized federally and between each state, whereas "civil union" is currently not accepted state to state. Also currently only Vermont offers a civil union option for gays. If other states offer their own versions of civil unions, there is no guarantee that they will be equal to or recognized by other states as marriage is. Clearly this situation, while perhaps better for some than the status quo, is still not equality with straight marriage in terms of recognition and portability. To find out more of the HRC's official position regarding civil unions, you can check out their website's civil union page.
posted
I'm sure this thread is on the way to a silent death soon, but I'd still be interested in hearing:
1. a response to this:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think that allowing gay marriage would create a "new kind of loving relationship". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be true, but only insomuch as a straight unmarried couple living together has the exact same kind of relationship as a married straight couple do. Do you believe there is no difference between those two?
2. A response from anyone in the "fear of gay marriage" crowd that can give a more concrete expression to the vague 'fear' that has been expressed so far. What, exactly, are you afraid that gay marriage will actually do to the existing institution of marriage? Weaken it? How? Trigger the wholesale collapse of society as we know it? How?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Katharina, did you get my email? Or are you just ignoring me? *sniff* I'm worried that my email account is still having problems.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, I don't have time to think hard about this, so it might be rambling or occasionally erratic.
On the bad effects of gay marriage: 1) Gay marriage and regular marriage are not part of the same structure and therefore do not deserve the same name / same benefits.
The traditional structure of family is that a mother and father will stay together and provide a stable environment for any kids they produce. This is of value to society because in my mind it promotes responsibility and work ethic in the involved persons in an activity (sex) with inherent irresponsibility and potentially heavy consequences. And the dependants produced are less likely to become problems for society. (Ideally) In gay unions, there is no environment that must be maintained for any dependents produced. (No dependants will be produced.)
In my opinion, the equating of two things that aren't the same is hurtful to one or the other or both.
2) It will promote acceptance of the lifestyle.
3) It will promote the spread of the lifestyle. I don't know how anyone can seriously deny this. It happened in Greece and/or Rome, didn't it?
4) Gay couples WILL, if they gain marriage, eventually gain equal rights to adoption. Kids should at least have a chance to have the healthiest position in society for them to take modeled for them.
5) It undercuts serious religion. Sorry to be offensive to some, but there it is. It requires, and therefore promotes, a shoddy interpretation of scripture. (The scriptures are a whole other debate) And for mormons, it undercuts the entire idea of inspired prophets, who have maintained a clear and official stance on the subject. But I think that for all religions, the acceptance slides them into pragmatism, humanism, and eventually into "Oh, heck were just here because you need to believe something." I know some people would say 'good' to that--but it really is the eventual obsolescence of true faith, and some of us won't like that.
6) Since you are/were a mormon, you will understand the consequences when "the voice of the people choose evil". This indeed leads to the eventual destruction of America, in particular. Besides, I hear (though I have not seen or studied) that there are works that show examples of societies whose decline and fall seemed to correspond to the rise of homosexuality. Gay marriage would be quite a step down that path, IMO.
quote: The traditional structure of family is that a mother and father will stay together and provide a stable environment for any kids they produce. This is of value to society because in my mind it promotes responsibility and work ethic in the involved persons in an activity (sex) with inherent irresponsibility and potentially heavy consequences. And the dependants produced are less likely to become problems for society. (Ideally) In gay unions, there is no environment that must be maintained for any dependents produced. (No dependants will be produced.)
Kids have nothing to do with marriage initially. Problems for society? I think the only problem in society dealing with this issue is that people can't open themselves to new ideas.
Besides, love between two people, no matter who those people are, is still love. And love is the most important part of a marriage.
quote: Gay couples WILL, if they gain marriage, eventually gain equal rights to adoption. Kids should at least have a chance to have the healthiest position in society for them to take modeled for them.
Last I checked, gaining equal rights in anything is never a bad thing. And I don't know about anyone else, but I had a mother and a father who were married for 26 years and then got divorced...I think it's pretty safe to say that not all heterosexual couples can provide the 'healthiest position in society for their kids' either. Look at me, I hated my dad my entire life. Ok, maybe it's a little different, but my parents relationship has still affected me negatively and they were heterosexual. Disfunction is inherint in everyone.
posted
You're talking about a family, popatr. Not a marriage. There are thousands of heterosexual marriages in the USA that have not and WILL not produce children. Of course its important that children be given a stable home environment to grow in. You've yet to explain how this is not possible with two gay parents.
posted
Of course some hetero marriages stink. And some marriages don't get kids. I don't deny it.
I would argue that marriage is not about love--though it's important to have. But at it's core, marriage is a social/heavenly contract.
But I did already state one way I feel that gay couples can't (and shouldn't try to) compete with straight couples. They cant model the healthiest and most complete lifestyle/union for the kids. That sucks, and will lead to the spread of sin.
posted
And Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.
I can't believe the turn this thread took yesterday. I didn't post on this thread about it yesterday, but I find it distressing.
I would think, if anything, gay marriage would benefit the gay community. Marriage, and monogamy, would be a good thing. As it is now, staying together, to me, at least, would seem like it would be harder. No recognition that you are a "couple," no societal pressure to stay together, and no deterrents to breaking up.
Benefits of gay marriage would include social pressure from the community to lead monogamous lives (at least as much as within the straight community.) Societal pressure to stay together. Legal hassles if they decide to divorce. No need to hide their sexuality, spouses, or lifestyle in general. All these things would lead to a better life for both gays and non-gays.
popatr, I don't think it was really all that much about "gay or straight" but "free or slave" or "citizen or non-citizen." It seems that the men participating in homosexual trysts were, at the very least, bi-sexual, and at worst, not homosexual, but pedophiles. However, much of it had to do with slavery and masters "proving" how powerful they were. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, I got distracted with a movie. That post was intended to respond to popatr's post before the last one. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some good might come of gay marriage, as you say. However, I have stated why I don't think it should happen.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would argue that marriage is not about love--though it's important to have. But at it's core, marriage is a social/heavenly contract.
Well, I can only speak from my experiences on this one. I've been married for about two months now and the only reason was because I love my wife. Do you know how I know that it was only love that wed us? Because I also have a 4 year old daughter with my wife. So, you see, I've been living in sin for the past 5 years. You can't imagine what it's like to be pressured and slandered for having a child out of wedlock. I didn't marry my wife then because I didn't feel we were ready. There were a lot hardships we needed to overcome. I married her now because I love her, not because of some social and by no means, heavenly contract.
quote: But I did already state one way I feel that gay couples can't (and shouldn't try to) compete with straight couples.
When did this turn into a contest? Why is it always about one side winning and one side losing? Why can't we all just win?
quote: That sucks, and will lead to the spread of sin.
Ok, even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, how can you cast that sin upon a child? Just because a gay couple has a kid doesn't mean that that kid is going to be gay. And so what if they are. Can you actually say that that kid is affecting even your religious beliefs directly when you don't even know them?
quote: I think that the kids lose. It's not fair to them.
Not fair to them? I can appreciate your opinion, but how can YOU tell them what's fair to them or not? Isn't it enough to just have two parents that love you unconditionally? Maybe it's more unfair that you would deny a child a family two loving parents.
family. n. a.'A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.' b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
The definition, which is produced by society says nothing about a man and a woman...it's only scripture that does!
quote:2) It will promote acceptance of the lifestyle.
And this is bad because...
quote: 3) It will promote the spread of the lifestyle. I don't know how anyone can seriously deny this. It happened in Greece and/or Rome, didn't it?
Um, "Greece" was a collection of city/states during the time to which you refer. In Athens & Sparta, there was a tradition of boys entering the soldiers' life and being taken under an older man's wings in a sort of apprentice/sponsor relationship. Sexual relationships between the man and boy were tolerated in some places, and expected and encouraged in others (namely Sparta). It wasn't in lieu of marriage by any means. The men were expected to get married and have sons so that there would be more people to enter the military.
I get very tired of people pointing to societies that died out thousands of years ago and saying "that's what will happen here." What's next, pointing to Soddom? If you do, just remember that God didn't wipe out the Greeks, their civilization lasted and thrived.
And they also practiced infanticide. Sparta threw the deformed male babies off a cliff. Are we supposed to worry about us eventually emulating that too?
When people make these sorts of comparisons, they are picking on a (real or imagined) superficial similarity in one aspect of two very complicated societies (present day America and whatever ancient civilization we're being compared to) and saying "that's us!!!"
No, it's not us. The warnings of history are well worth keeping in mind. But to use them properly, one must go beyond the superficial.
IMHO.
quote: 4) Gay couples WILL, if they gain marriage, eventually gain equal rights to adoption. Kids should at least have a chance to have the healthiest position in society for them to take modeled for them.
If they raise successful kids, what's the problem? All the state has the right to concern itself with is whether the resulting adults are productive members of society. Period.
But, let's look at this a little more closely. You said "the healthiest position" and have that "modeled" for them. So, you are basically either taking a blanket stance and saying that a household headed by a man plus a woman is ipso-facto the best (regardless of any other criteria) or you assuming that if we had a means to test various couples (or even individuals) for their preparedness to adopt and raise children, it would come out strongly in favor of the traditional family.
Well, I think there's something to be said for people who really want to adopt being allowed to do so. If they can demonstrate a sincere desire to raise children to be productive members of society, I think it's a win-win situation.
It's supposed to be about the kids, though. And from that perspective, I just have to say that I'd like to see data on how messed up kids are having been raised in various alternative environments before I cut out a segment of the otherwise eligible population of adoptive parents.
Surely we're smart enough to go based on results...
quote:5) It undercuts serious religion. Sorry to be offensive to some, but there it is. It requires, and therefore promotes, a shoddy interpretation of scripture. (The scriptures are a whole other debate) And for mormons, it undercuts the entire idea of inspired prophets, who have maintained a clear and official stance on the subject. But I think that for all religions, the acceptance slides them into pragmatism, humanism, and eventually into "Oh, heck were just here because you need to believe something." I know some people would say 'good' to that--but it really is the eventual obsolescence of true faith, and some of us won't like that.
Your inspired prophets were also against racial miscegenation not that long ago. As were the leaders of most Christian sects. Institutionalized racism is not all that different from institutionalized discrimination against ANY group, including gays. If they were all wrong about racism (and I'm pretty sure most people would agree that it WAS wrong) then why should society worry about the current biases? Isn't some future leadership just as likely to figure out the injustice of the current leaders stance as they are to uphold it?
Frankly, scripture can be bent to support just about anything...or deny support to just about anything. And it has been, historically. So, if you want to talk turkey, history tells us mostly to ignore scriptural arguments, or wait for them to change.
If you prefer to stick to what you've grown up with (I assume you're too young to believe in the prior stances on racism, but you like the current stances against gays), no-one is telling you you have to live your life any differently. You can even get vocal about how much you don't like it. That's your right.
But it cannot and should not guide decision-making by the rest of the country.
quote:6) Since you are/were a mormon, you will understand the consequences when "the voice of the people choose evil". This indeed leads to the eventual destruction of America, in particular. Besides, I hear (though I have not seen or studied) that there are works that show examples of societies whose decline and fall seemed to correspond to the rise of homosexuality. Gay marriage would be quite a step down that path, IMO.
This is just a slippery-slope argument. You have no data to support your fears. You have scripture and a bit of shared "concern" that you blow up in to something ominous and threatening to our very way of life!!! OMG!
Well, you'll pardon me if I think that you don't really know what God thinks or will do. And your idea of destruction of America could very well be others' idea of an evolutionary step away from the superstitions and prejudices of a hide-bound past we may finally, and irrevocably shake off like the anchor-weight it has become.
In short, we'll never see eye-to-eye on this. But your post denies the validity of the opinions of others, based solely on something you take as a matter of faith.
From that position, I think it's equally valid for others to state that they have faith that everything you believe and stand for is wrong.
Neither of us will ever be able to prove out cases, right? At least not in this life.
posted
I would hope that they get straight parents, so that they have a chance to have the healthier lifestyle modeled to them.
And in fact, there are lots of straight parents just dying and waiting to adopt them. My aunt and uncle, for one.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with poptr - adoption by gay couples isn't a matter of what's fair for the parents, but what it fair and best for the children.
What does concern me is if lots of children are NOT adopted because there aren't enough parents. I would think that almost ANY family would be better than being bounced around. Would that help? But... would that mean there are the A-list babies for the A-list parents, and then children-who-otherwise-would-not-be-adopted for the other kinds of parents-to-be?
While growing in that family would be better than being bounced around, it would NOT be better than being in an environment with a mother and a father.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: While growing in that family would be better than being bounced around, it would NOT be better than being in an environment with a mother and a father.
Kat, were you raised in a gay couple family? If not, how can you ever know what is 'better' for anyone? Until you've experienced both sides, which, I'm betting you haven't, how can you make any sort of claim?
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I believe that the racial discrimination you refer to in my church was not wrong at the time. Similarly, I don't believe that it was wrong when the sons of levi only got the priesthood. But the change was inspired of God--it was hinted at by the early mormon prophets, hinted at in scripture, and I'm glad it came.
That's what I mean by taking religion seriously.
- BTW, I don't mean that hetero familys are better to the exclusion of all other factors--but that they at least have the potential of giving the kid something important.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: BTW, I don't mean that hetero familys are better to the exclusion of all other factors--but that they at least have the potential of giving the kid something important.
You keep talking about the 'better, more important' "things" that heterosexual couples can give their children, but you have not once given an example of what these 'better, important' "things" might be. Maybe if you clarify, specifically, what those "things" are, we can better understand what you mean.
posted
I've said it repeatedly: the modeling of the lifestyle for which we evolved/were created--the heterosexual relationship, the mother-father-children family as designed by our early roots or by God.
Just for starters.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still haven't told me what 'better, important things' a heterosexual couple can give. A modeling of a lifestyle tells me nothing of what's better and more important. Give me something tangible, something real.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's where I have been arguing from, and what changed my stance.
My sister-in-law is gay and I value her as I do my own sister. I care about her life, her happiness, her fulfillment and safety in this world.
Long before this subject appeared on this electronic medium here, I had to ask myself how I felt about gay marriage, because it looked like she was going to get married, at least in a ceremony/commitment sense if not a legal one.
At first, I was uncomfortable with the idea, not against it, just uncomfortable. And honestly, I can't tell you what gave me angst over it. But I looked at my sister-in-law and knew that I couldn't be one to stand in her way and bar her from such things that straight people have as their rights. Talking with my wife led me to all of the problems folks in gay relationships have with protections under the law that their married counterparts have.
If two lesbians spend their entire lives together, commited and married in every sense except the legal one, and one dies without a will, why should her partner not be protected under the current inheritance laws? If one becomes terribly ill, why can't they rely on their partner's health insurance coverage or even have the access in a hospital that a spouse would?
And if one gave up their job to work in the home and then was abandoned, why should they not be entitled to alimony if that is necessary. Gay couples are already having children, why should their not be parental rights and responsibilities should the two break up, leaving the children in the lurch? Child support, visitation, etc...
It's not my place to judge homosexual lifestyles or practices, my morals and religion both tell me that it is free will and none of my business. My morals and religion also tell me that it is WRONG to discriminate against those who have commited no crime and are different from me by birth/happenstance/accident.
I also know that it is wrong to stand in front of two competent, caring individuals who wish me no harm and bar their way to the future.
Decades ago, racists stood on the steps of a school and attempted to prevent integration of education. I'll be darned if I will stand on the steps of the Justice of the Peace's office and bar this form of integration as well.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one anti has yet to show that they should limit CIVIL, that is LEGAL, that is state-recognized unions/marriages.
It is very clear that Mormons (and any other people who believe their religions bar it) can and ought to, according to their beliefs, refuse to recognize gay marriage in their church. I don't see anyone on either side arguing THAT!
I have yet to see them prove why they ought to make it illegal in a governemnt that rules over a supremely pluralistic people.
The metaphysical danger may be real, but the state only governs the material.
posted
Popatr, you say this like you assume that a heterosexual couple is in every way superior to a homosexual couple when it comes to raising kids. That's quite a statement. There are more heterosexual couples with children than homosexual couples with children in this world, and there are plenty of screwed up children.
By arbitrarily dismissing these prospective fathers and mothers, you're saying that their parents way of life can change their children.
Personally, I think I was raised in one of the best possible environments, though I've had rarely a hint as to the sexuality of my parents. I must assume that my parents are heterosexual, but really it doesn't matter to me.
That said, this thread is making me extremely sad.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well as you no doubt know, since you're driving so hard at it, it is tough to give specifics.
But rummage around here and you will find some information, some of which points to the influence of both a man and a woman is healthy for a child.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
To Ryuko- reread my statements and you will find that I did not say that hetero couples were superior in every way, to the exclusion of all factors.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would hope that they get straight parents, so that they have a chance to have the healthier lifestyle modeled to them.
Healthier? Why do you keep mentioning this? You don't mean healthy, you mean acceptable within the standards of your religion. Are you trying to tell me that if i fell in love with a woman right now, and we decided to raise a child together, that somehow the very *act* of me being a homosexual would taint the child somehow? I would argue that the only thing i could do as a parent to and for my child is exactly what *any* parent, anywhere...gay or straight...would do to and for their children. My partner and i could mess up in the same ways any man/woman couple could, and we could *succeed*...*triumph*...in the same ways any man/woman couple could.
Like Bob said, this is a dead-end argument. You're arguing religion. I'm arguing logic.
posted
I would argue that by evolution, it would logically be better to have straight parents. It would be bad for a baby lion, for example, to have parent(s) that did not hunt--or otherwise did not meet the evolutionary standard.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, idle curiosity. . . if homosexuals didn't meet the evolutionary standard, why are they still around?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But rummage around here and you will find some information, some of which points to the influence of both a man and a woman is healthy for a child.
Sorry, popatr, I just don't see the research. Do you have a link to where you saw the facts? I see lots of stats on the state of marriage, but nothing about the influence of a man and a woman raising a child.
However, I do find the state of marriage a bit sad. Not only is marriage declining, but divorce rate is high. We are cynical about marriage and it appears to be with good cause.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Is it because they haven't been allowed to be open about it for so much of history, and wound up procreating anyway? Do environmental factors have more to do with it than genetics? (If, indeed, genetics have anything to do with it. They probably do, but as yet we haven't found a "gay gene".)
posted
It isn't the sexuality of the parents that is the problem. It is the lack of balance.
A homosexual couple may be better off than a single parent, because there are two adults. But a heterosexual couple can model both a female and a male.
And there are differences between genders that are not social. With slightly different chemical balances and obviously different physiques, there is no way that men and women can statistically have the same characteristics.
Let us get very specific. What of the heterosexual male child in a lesbian couple? What of the girl child in a lesbian couple in which the women have decided that men are bad? What if that girl manages to keep her heterosexual tendancies and brings home a boy? When we start thinking about adoption, those kinds of attitudes are going to bear some serious scrutiny. For all that I have good people that are gay and are my friends, and are even in a relationship that is older than my marriage, I cannot say that growing up with them as parents would have been healthy.
No one is going to argue that every heterosexual couple is going to be better parents than every homosexual couple. Clearly there are heterosexuals who shouldn't be allowed within 50 yards of a child. But taken as a whole, and statistically, heterosexual couples have more to offer children than homosexual couples do. And that is simply the healthy modelling of both sexes which is important to a developing child.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet the problem is, there's a shortage of good heterosexual marriages to provide for the children. Any decent human being is going to be a better parent than the loving arms of the state.
Come ON. You would deny children parents because both of them happen to be the same sex?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Parachat doesn't work for me. Firewall issues.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Stupid Netscape Webmail. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
