[Comrade Koatna]

I normally would cast down the gay community but recently I have come across new information that leads me to beleive homosexual marraiges ARE in fact stronger and healthier relationships. You see hetrosexuals divorcing and fighting quit often but I personally hardly EVER see homosexuals divorcing and such.

[Demosthenes]

Actually Ms. Keli I thought I might stir you up a bit, with my comments but I'm really not trying give homosexuals a hard time. I realized after reading your responses that I blended my opinion on two issues into the question of homosexual marriages. So I will be happy to clarify.

Why should it not apply?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It should remain defined as such, IMHO that's all nothing sinister or overly repressive, intended.

What do you mean by hard to get married and tougher to get divorced? I don't see how you can connect this with denying the right to have one's relationship legally recognised

Actually this is where I made my error, I meant for this point to be taken seperately from the "whether gay marriages are ok" thing. Point #1: people of any sexual persuaison dont seem to take the institution of marriage seriously anymore. So I think It should be much harder to get married, As for details to what I'm suggesting, I dunno, maybe a waiting list? maybe serious counseling, perhaps even some sort of compatibility test. Dont hang up on these suggestions, though I really haven't given any of them considerable thought, I'm just trying to throw some possibilities. Point#2: I didn't say I wanted to deny homosexuals the right to a legal union. This would be an obvious fallacy in my thought that, if I'm for small government the government should stay out of people's personal lives. My contention was that we should provide for some other type of "legal union" which the government would recognize.

that homosexuals are not capable of maintaining this sort of relationship? It also seems you are assuming that homosexuals are shallow or cannot grasp the concept of marriage as a committment? I sense that the promiscuous gay/lesbian stereotype is behind this.

No, no Ms. Keli once again my mistake misled you. My point wasn't specifically that homosexuals couldn't maintain this type of relationship. I was asserting that people in general have become shallow and don't grasp the magnitude of the commitment to marriage. If It were harder to both marry and divorce, it might make some of these people reconsider a hasty decesion that doesn't mean anything to them, but should be one of the biggest decesions of their lives. I dont believe in the stereotype that you mentioned. Their are many promiscuous heterosexuals as well, they just dont get the same attention because that is not considered shocking any longer.

Are you speaking generally or of a specifically homosexual union?

actually both, I guess. Although I just realized, (if it were up to me, which it's not) if I were to allow a homosexual couple to have a child. and if the condition was as I mentioned later, that they must commit themselves together for the life of the child, then perhaps I'll need to think on this a bit more.

Why? And if this is your position, then what does this mean for single parents or one parent families? Should divorce/separation be banned?

Ah. fair question. My statement was meant to be taken in the "ideal" sense. If one puts aside one's own desires and considers the child first, then no matter the argument (IMHO) the child should have a mother and father. I dont think the blanket acceptance of single parent families is right either. Now, I can already feel your blood boiling, but hear me out here. I'm not suggesting these people are going to hell. My feeling here relates back to the issue of marriage not getting the respect it deserves. I know their are cases of abuse (from both sexes) that warrant divorce, which in turn leave a child as the helpless victom but the prevalent occurance seems to be that "well I'm tired of dealing with him/her so I'll just leave and take the kids" To me this is unacceptable and extremely selfish.

I don't think that these need be two parents of the same sex.

This is the one point I most strongly disagree with you. I think it is very idealist to say that a child doesn't need a parent of either gender. We may simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I have explored this argument before and I just disagree with it, I can guess your next question will be why? My best answer is this: Men and women raise children differently plain and simple. The sexes compliment one another in terms of parenting skills. A second woman is not a replacement for a father, nor is a second man a replacement for a mother. there probably are cases where a same sex couple has raised a fine child, however that child will always lack the perspective of the missing gender parent, I cant articulate this any other way.

I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, and even if it were a choice, you have not explained why this should prevent someone, or a couple, who is homosexual from raising happy, secure children.

Here again is another point where we will simply disagree. To clarify however, I understand why homosexuals have come to defend their lifestyles based on genetics. Most people who assert that this is a choice are attacking them, and calling them immoral, which I'm not doing. They further use the "its a choice" argument to demean or reject, which I'm also not trying to do. I believe I have earlier now articulated a responce to your second question.

I see what you are getting at now, but you have not explained why this should or should not be something that applies to only to homosexual parents? There are hundreds of thousands of heterosexual relationships that have produced children and have broken down.

My point wasn't to imply that this standard should only apply to homosexuals. Once again it was blending of my opinions. I am very disheartened that there are so many children of broken homes. Be, they from homo or heterosexual marriages/unions.

One final thought, I realize all too well there are a great many things that will turn out to be much worse for society than if some type of gay marriage law passes. It wouldn't ruin my life nor change mine in any way. So, eh??? This thread is about my opinion and that's all. I dont see it as a right or wrong issue.
Oh and once again, I thought I'd mention that since I'm will attack any position I feel is rediculous, I should also compliment those that are well thought out and articulated, whether I agree or not. So, after reading some of you posts, you have my compliments in stating well thought out opinions. (for whatever that's worth to ya! ) If all else fails my sig applies to me as well.

[keli]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It should remain defined as such, IMHO that's all nothing sinister or overly repressive, intended.

Okay...you have answered what you view marriage to be, but you have not answered my question which was why marriage needs to be restricted to that definition or 'why should it not apply' to homosexual couples.

Point #1: people of any sexual persuaison dont seem to take the institution of marriage seriously anymore. So I think It should be much harder to get married, As for details to what I'm suggesting, I dunno, maybe a waiting list? maybe serious counseling, perhaps even some sort of compatibility test. Dont hang up on these suggestions, though I really haven't given any of them considerable thought, I'm just trying to throw some possibilities.

Actually, I am not in favour of keeping marriage as an institution, which I have already posted. And I think this would simply encourage couples, both heterosexual and homosexual to live together.

Point#2: I didn't say I wanted to deny homosexuals the right to a legal union. This would be an obvious fallacy in my thought that, if I'm for small government the government should stay out of people's personal lives. My contention was that we should provide for some other type of "legal union" which the government would recognize.

Then what would be the difference between marriage and this legal union other than the name? And would the legal union be open to heterosexual partners?

My point wasn't specifically that homosexuals couldn't maintain this type of relationship. I was asserting that people in general have become shallow and don't grasp the magnitude of the commitment to marriage. If It were harder to both marry and divorce, it might make some of these people reconsider a hasty decesion that doesn't mean anything to them, but should be one of the biggest decesions of their lives.

As this doesn't really have anything to do with same sex marriages, I won't take it further except to say that I think making marriage harder to obtain will probably make people less likely to pursue it, but this is not to say that they will not live together and carry on in a committed relationship. And I think making divorce harder to obtain will leave lots of people, men and women, trapped in very unhealthy relationships and/or disregard whatever their marriage is supposed to stand for in the the first place.

I dont believe in the stereotype that you mentioned. Their are many promiscuous heterosexuals as well, they just dont get the same attention because that is not considered shocking any longer.

Of course, I agree; however, it is difficult to correctly interpret posts all of the time.

actually both, I guess. Although I just realized, (if it were up to me, which it's not) if I were to allow a homosexual couple to have a child. and if the condition was as I mentioned later, that they must commit themselves together for the life of the child, then perhaps I'll need to think on this a bit more

I think it is their business to commit to each other, homosexual or heterosexual, and I don't think anyone is ever going to be forced into commitment (not that this is what you are saying), or will even honour one they have made if they don't want to, whether their relationship includes a child or not.

Here again is another point where we will simply disagree. To clarify however, I understand why homosexuals have come to defend their lifestyles based on genetics. Most people who assert that this is a choice are attacking them, and calling them immoral, which I'm not doing. They further use the "its a choice" argument to demean or reject, which I'm also not trying to do. I believe I have earlier now articulated a responce to your second question.

Fair enough; however, I don't recall you mentioning anything which answers my second question, which was why should homosexuality, if it is a choice, why this should prevent someone, or a couple, who is homosexual from raising happy, secure children? Or to my other question which was about why children need a parent of each sex?

This thread is about my opinion and that's all. I dont see it as a right or wrong issue.

Of course, and I am not here to change anyone else's opinion about this or any other issue, and I know that some people will agree on some things and disagree on others; some will disagree on everything.

Oh and once again, I thought I'd mention that since I'm will attack any position I feel is rediculous, I should also compliment those that are well thought out and articulated, whether I agree or not. So, after reading some of you posts, you have my compliments in stating well thought out opinions. (for whatever that's worth to ya! ) If all else fails my sig applies to me as well

Thanks...I think, lol.

[grinner]

If two people (black, white, red, brown, yellow, male or female) can find love in this world, more power to em. Dont be envious, just let em be.

[FCP]

Same sex marriges should be recognized, and the governement in Canada may be forced to confront the issue instead of avoiding it, sooner rather than later, after the pressures the courts are putting on them. I don't necessarily believe that religious institutions should be forced to recognize same sex marriges, but, there is absolutely no reason why churches should be able to force their morality on supposedly "civil" instituions, other than, perhaps, well this is the way it is this is the way it should remain. Civil ceremonies should be recognized and the ironic thing is social conservatives are fighting a loosing battle for their will come a day when the pressures brought to bare will bring this about. Social conservatives resisted democratic reform, when we got democratic reform, they resisted the right of women to vote, when women got the right to vote they resisted this, that, and the other thing..... ad infinitum.

[socokid]

Study after study has shown no ill side effects in children of same sex couples OUTSIDE of problems caused by ridicule from peers. So, to fix this problem, shouldn't education and tolerance be the policy as it seems all a child needs is loving guidance? This notion of it NEEDING to be a woman and a man is complete nonsense. If this was the case, then banning divorce would be law as a single parent home would have to be considered more harmful than a TWO parent home, no matter the gender, at least according to research.

I have heard testimony from dozens of children that come from same sex marriages (mostly NPR and on-line articles) and all were shown to be quite normal. With this in mind, what argument could there still be (outside of faith-based and derived religious moralities) against these things?

[Khenlein]

This question is always been something of a dilemna for myself for myself personally, when I first became aware of the issue it was something of a no brainer.

Of course they should be allowed to have their "civil unions".

I based that on the fact that there has yet to be any credible or even empirical evidence to cross my eyes which would convince me that it would somehow "degrade" the "insitution" of marriage as its oft called.

(of course I was a bit biased in the first place, because of my own orientation)

I still hold to that view, with some modification, I support civil unions between same sex couples that entitle them to the exact same priviledges under the law that married couples are entitled to.
Now in practice the two institutions would be identical. Some would see simply changing the name of the act a insignifigant, and it is. But its important.
Its important because marriage is and has always been an act between one man and one woman. If the legal repurcussions are all the homosexuals claim are important to them (as they do), then having civil unions with the same legal and financial effects as marriage should be sufficient.

[ZenWilsonian]

Let's face it... there is no argument against same-sex marriages except for religious zealots, who have no place in a modern society. The right-wing are hypocrites. They claim to be 'libertarian', a term they stole from the likes of grinner a few decades ago, yet even Rand thought homosexuality was 'disgusting'. The left at least have the sense, and understand things scientifically enough. Besides, as pressure has been put upon homosexuals to have heterosexual relationships throughout most of human history, that is why homosexuals exist today. The same zealots are merely expanding the amount of homosexuals in existence by making them reproduce. I say give them their rights, they are human, thus they have flaws. It is completely illogical to say that a same sex couple cannot adopt children, when two people even of one sex are obviously superior to one. When will the world start to think properly and see that such bigotry is stupid, primitive and that we should all be equals working together for the greater good? So, I think that the denial of samesex marriage is punishing people for a genetic flaw the bigots made multiply in the first place. It clearly is an unintentional form of capitalism. To some extent i'm not sure I agree with marriage, but when it comes to legal status we should be equals.

[Mr. Smith]

This has always been a mixed bag. However I am going to stick to my gut belief that homo-sexuality is abnormal. There is no need for abnormalities in the state. So I think that same sex marriages should be illegal.

Homosexuality its self is fine, as long as it is kept behind closed doors.

[Freedom]

I'd like to add this to the debate. This does not necessarily reveal my views on this issue.

http://www.rense.com/general38/heter.htm

Discuss.

[Mr. Smith]

^ That is the kind of gays that I despise. Nobody needs to see your parade or see you in gay n proud shirts. I know gay folks and all I know are good honest hard working people who DRESS NORMALLY. Do I care one bit that they are gay? No I don't.

However if he walks in tomorrow with a gay shirt, and a pocket book then I am going to raise an eyebrow.

[Adrien]

It's like a vicious circle, because they feel like people will only realize they are there if they parade and have a certain "gay culture" (which sadly becomes a cliché) and all, while the "conservatives" will reject them even more if they parade and all.

There was this "queer as folk" show on television which showed that "gay" didn't necessarly meant special clothes, parades, a certain type of music and all..

It's like with every problem of integration: politicians and leaders think it's better to force the integration while i think that's it's better to let it come on its own.

When our soccer team won (or bought it's as you like ) the World Cup, people were everywhere saying "ooooh look it's fantastic, every player comes from a different place and has a different origin and they made it" thinking it was an ode to integration, but it wasn't! A true ode to integration would simply have been to say: "hey, they made it!"

Anyway, i want far from the topic here, sorry.

[Locke]

I am all in favor of gay marriages. (Or gay unions... whatever the Right wants to call it.) Two people love each other and want to get married... No big deal. The government needs to get the heck out of the question. And, when people are married, they are protected by certain laws.

A person I know told me story about one of her gay friends. When her friend told his parents he was gay and they kicked him out of the house and did not speak to him ever again. He later met a partner and they lived together for 20+ years. When the friend died, his partner did not get any rights over the burial nor did he receive any of his deceased partner’s fiances. The parents of the deceased got control over everything and the partner got nothing. That is so terrible. Gays need to be protected by law.

And regards to gay adoption... Yes, a child living in a mother/father household would be most ideal but unfortunately there are too many kids in orphanages and not enough “normal” families to adopt them. Better to live with gay parents then never any parents. Also, Gay people make good parents! Police rarely have to ever respond to child abuse calls about gay parents. And, living with gay parents does NOT make a child gay. (Still not convinced? http://www.lethimstay.com/ )

[smashthestate]

What I don't get is that many homosexuals want to get married in the name of God, with the traditional reading of the Bible.

Kind of stupid if you ask me, considering this quote directly from the Bible:

"Any Man who lay with a Man shall not inheret God's Kingdom."

Now as far as a ceremony that simply the State recongizes, I see no problem whatsoever as to why they shouldn't have the same rights as us all.

And for all of the fundamental religious groups (Christian-based) all gung-ho against homosexual marriages, don't forget about another very important quote in the Bible:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."

[Nox]

I am all in favor of gay marriages. (Or gay unions... whatever the Right wants to call it.)

Once or twice I have been accused of being on the 'Right' as you put it. There is a huge difference between a Civil Union and Marriage. I will be repeating myself when I say this ... but the purpose of marriage is to legitimize children. The purpose of a civil union is to legitimize legal rights. The homosexual community is only willing to fight a battle over semantics ... what a pity. Marriage has nothing to do with love. Read the history books for crying out loud.

Nox

[Locke]

Marriage may be to “legitimize” children from a modern and historic view but I don’t see the huge difference between marriages and unions. Today, marriages also “legitimize legal rights” so they are similar to unions. The reason the religious right does not want to call homosexual unions marriages is because they believe marriage is a holy and between a man and a woman and they don’t want that being “messed up” by homosexuals.


-Locke

[Nox]

We have reached the point of semantic difference. No use continuing.

Nox

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I personally don't really care whether they want to get married or not.

I do not believe that they should be able to adopt, I don't believe that an effeminate male (or female) and a masculine male (or female) is the equivelant to a mother and a father no matter how some try to argue it. I have heard the argument that "would you rather them stay in foster homes?" well yes- and I will defend that by saying in my opinion it is the best thing in the situation.

I do think that if married gay males want additional health insurance benifits for AIDS health related problems (which they are at a much greater risk of getting than heterosexuals) from an employer it should come out of their own pockets and not the health plan contributors that are heterosexual.

BUT

Though I am not religious, what I do find very strange is that some homosexuals want to get married in a church, and have it consecrated by the church and by what they believe is God or Jesus when the Bible is very clear on the issue:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." – Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them hath committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." – Leviticus 20:13

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of a woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:26-27

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Corinthians 6:9-10
Timothy 1:9-11

I have heard people try to argue that Jesus forgives and understands, If the Ten Commandments said "Thou Shalt not steal" then you accept Jesus and steal again, and again wouldn't that be more of a sin or do you just pray for forgiveness until next time? (This is probably up for interpretation, but I don't see how some can overlook some of it and keep what works for them when it is very explicit where "God" stands on the issue)

It makes no sense to me why homosexuals or anyone else tries to bend a religions teachings for their own benifit, you either take it for what it is or leave it alone. Actually, I have a lot more respect for the fundamentalists because I believe at least their interpretation is probably closer to what the bible actually says than those that water it's teachings down with this generations touchy- feely politically correct manipulations and popular opinion.

Long story short Legalities aside- Why would gays ask for the blessings of an institution who's instruction manual literally considers what they will do on their wedding night an abomination? There's always a courthouse, Get your paper and shut up.......fag.

[Locke]

Hey, hey... "fag" is not a nice word.

[smashthestate]

The 1st amendment can be a wondeful thing, and a horrible thing.

Both groups like the Gay organizations and groups like the KKK enjoy the rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

What pisses me off is that the ACLU is trying to strip the 1st amendment rights to groups with whom they do not agree, groups like the KKK. Although I don't agree with the KKK in any respect, the 1st amendment is protecting their right to free speech.

My point is this: although "fag" is viewed as an offensive word to others, it matters not. The people who choose to use this word are protected under the same rights as anyone else.