[Tigerlily]

I don't think this was brought up before here at PF.

So...what's your view on same sex marriages? Should it be legal? Illegal? Is it umoral...whatever?

I personally see no problem with it. What do you think?

[Boondock Saint]

I dont see how its any of my business or the states business ... straight people have been getting married for centuries and recently they have been making a serious mockery of it ... I say let the gays have a go at it ... maybe they can increase the rate of successful marriages.

To make a law not allowing such marriages to take place is rediculous, wastes the gov'ts time and reinforces religious control over the gov't ... as its only the religious who would care.

I say we get rid of religion ... leave the gays alone, they never cause a massive war, you never hear a gay dude calling for jihad or a crusade ...

[Adrien]

It should be absolutely legal everywhere, along with adoption for gay couples.

Why should straight people have the right to unite themselves and not gay people? Because the marriage is a religious and sacred thing and that gays offend God?

Anyway, in my opinion, the marriage is not a good thing, it represents too much things and like Boondock said it reinforces the power of religion.

Plus you don't need to go to church to know that you love your partner. The only real point of wedding is the juridical side: well, to fulfill that fonction, the new civil things are much better (here it is called the PACS).

But i am disgressing. Well, if the marriage was to disappear in favour of the civil things like our PACS, there wouldn't be any problem. Religion (and its brainwashed believers, although all believers are not like that) is the only thing that block the legalization of gay unions and adoptions.

It is shocking to realize that religion still has a important influence on our religion-free governments.

The debate over adoption is different, as it concerns the child's reference marks in life and in society and i understand it. A child whose parents are two guys or two girls would be attacked by society...

[Yeddi]

NO Problem with it, why shouldn't gay couples be able to express their love the way hetrosexual couples do... OHHH yeah thats right they aren't like us they have no feelings their hearts pump black goo... Society needs to get over it.

Gay couple adoption is different though, personally i'm not a big fan meerly because i believe everychild should have a mother AND father figure.

[keli]

It should be absolutely legal everywhere, along with adoption for gay couples.

Dri, I completely agree with this and with the rest of your post for that matter. So long as relationships are recognised or disregarded by the government on the basis of marriage, I think it should be open to everyone. However, I hope that the concept of marriage does become destabilised when it becomes something widely accepted by governments because I do think it is a form of religious control and one of the worst comminglings of church and state.

I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. There are already thousands of gay parents who have children either from a past heterosexual relationship or through other means.

Gay couple adoption is different though, personally i'm not a big fan meerly because i believe everychild should have a mother AND father figure.

I don't agree with this, Yeddi. The extreme of this sort of reasoning would be that there should be no single parents or one parent families when there are lots of great parents who are raising children alone. I think it is easier and more beneficial for children to have two parents; however, I do not think this has to be restricted to parents of the opposite sex. If the argument is that the child being male needs a male figure or female needing a female figure, I think this in itself destablises the whole argument for only two separate gender categories because if gender (masculinity/femininity) were completely something people were born with then it wouldn't need reinforcing all through life. I think gay adoption would help to destablise gender categories as well.

[Proctor]

I simply don't care either way. Marriage is mostly just a paper thing nowadays, so it doesn't really count for much. And not letting gays get married isn't cutting them out from much, and it keeps the religious people happy.

But on the other hand, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married? Its their choice right?

As for adoption, again I simply don't care. Some say "Think about the poor child". Whatever. There won't be anything wrong with the child, just because it had two dads. The problem is mostly that its taboo, not any real moral dilemma.

[keli]

I disagree with this, Proctor:

Marriage is mostly just a paper thing nowadays, so it doesn't really count for much. And not letting gays get married isn't cutting them out from much, and it keeps the religious people happy.

It cuts them out from quite a lot privileges heterosexual married couples are given regarding healthcare for one's partner, the way house buying is organised, issues regarding sickness and death, parenting and custodial issues and tax issues.

And I don't think religious people will ever be happy until total control over everyone and everything is granted to them.

[Adrien]

That's right, the only real important side of marriage today is its juridical side, that's all, and civic unions would advantageously replace it, as they are more detailed, more precise, and adapted to our times, making separation easier.

Anyway, our governments tend to think that secularity is the equal encouragement of all religions (which in the facts ends with the encouragement of the christian church): that's why the holidays are badged with religious names, that's why the public channel broadcast the mass every sunday morning till 12 o'clock, that's why the state gives money to religious private schools, and so on.. But it's not, secularity is not to encourage any religion.

[Proctor]

It cuts them out from quite a lot privileges heterosexual married couples are given regarding healthcare for one's partner, the way house buying is organised, issues regarding sickness and death, parenting and custodial issues and tax issues.

Ah. Point taken.

And I don't think religious people will ever be happy until total control over everyone and everything is granted to them.

But I think thats a bit over the top. I know for a fact that my Mum is not after total control over everyone...

[keli]

Sorry if you think it over the top, Proctor, but I have found it true of every religious person I have ever had the displeasure of meeting, and I think control issues are behind most moves by religious people to ban things like same-sex marriages and the passing of arbitrary laws.

[Proctor]

I beg to differ. Religious people ban things (which they don't do a lot, at least in New Zealand) because they think they are morally wrong.

We'll use Wilhelm as an example, since he is the only one here who actively goes to Church. *Wilhelm, if you take offence to this, PM me and I'll remove it.* I've known him since he came to SE last year, and he certainly isn't religious because he likes to be in control or wants the power. Nor is my Mum. Nor are any of the other religious people I know.

[Adrien]

Religious people ban things (which they don't do a lot, at least in New Zealand) because they think they are morally wrong.

That's where the problem can be: if by banning you mean that they tell believers not to do something, that's right, it's their right. But if they use their influence (indirect or not) in politics to ban things for everyone (and i guess the case of same sex marriages is a good example) then it's not right at all.

[Boondock Saint]

Comrade I agree ... but this is an issue in any secular state ... well ... any secular democracy I suppose ... if the majority of the population are ... for example ... Christian and favor a Christian candidate who runs on Christian values (or actual Christian issues) then you wind up with a secular state that isnt really secular ...

But ... its still the will of the people ...

Its tough to find balance ...

Here in NY we had a gov that was Catholic and due to his religious convictions refused to endorse the death penalty. Eventually the death penalty became an issue ... the populace wanted it and he didnt ... now there were alot of other issues too and most of those had no religious tint ... but this is just an example of someones religious convictions influencing gov't regardless of the will of the people ...

I think with humans it will always be a balancing issue ... there will always need to be a struggle between the secular and the religious ... it will always be that way till we can finally kick off this religious nonsense ... but ... I cant see that.

[Adrien]

Ah you're right, if religion uses the will of the people we can't do much, and it's not going to disappear soon, or at all..

So, is the best we can have is a kind of equality between the secular and the religious? If it is, maybe we should work on those details that link the state and church, and then let time act: they are losing influence on today's youth, and maybe even more on tomorrow's..

[keli]

Proctor, beg to differ all you like, but it will not change my experience.

I've known him since he came to SE last year, and he certainly isn't religious because he likes to be in control or wants the power. Nor is my Mum. Nor are any of the other religious people I know.

I don't recall ever saying people are religious because they want to be in control or want power. People are religious for many different reasons. I said, in reply to your post about keeping the religious people happy, that until there is total control over everything and everyone they are not going to be happy. I don't think religious people will ever just be content to let people live and be who they are so long as this does not fit neatly into their religious beliefs, and I view religion itself as something used to control people. I thought perhaps I was not making myself clear, so I explained further in the next post that I think control issues are behind most moves by religious people to ban things like same-sex marriages and the passing of arbitrary laws. It was once acceptable to use religion and the Bible, to justify slavery, and I don't see this any different from using religion to justify denying rights to certain people at present.

And sure, religious people may believe certain things are morally wrong, but wanting to ban them for everyone seems like an example of an attempt to exercise control. *shrug*


Adrien, I take your point about a coexistence, but I tend to agree more with what Redstar has been posting here and at other boards about religion being an obstacle. (sorry, redstar, if this doesn't exactly do justice to what you have been posting).

[Proctor]

I don't see any reason why there should be limits on religion in politics. Suppose a country is 90% buddhist. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for the government to have buddhist values? Suppose the next country is 40% buddhist. This country might have a government with buddhist values...provided that the general public agreed with those values. If they don't, they won't survive the next election.

[Adrien]

To me, the proportion of believers of a particular religion doesn't matter, the state must be apart from this considerations, as it represents all the people, and not 40%, 70% or even 90%.

Now, if the 90% Buddhist government wants to act Buddhist, it just has to declare itself religious, and not secular. Then, i won't have nothing to say.

[Ymir]

"Should same sex marriages be allowed?"

If I had my choice in government policy I would ban all marriages. Everyone should love everyone else (by this I mean The State/Collective) and not have favorites. The supreme allegiance of all individuals is to the collective. Marriage leads to family, and family leads to divison of the people. If these individuals began forming relationships exclusive to specific individuals then it divides their love of the collective. If one holds the collective above all else, then allowing its individuals to deviate from it would be immoral.

So for a united people, I must speak against such treachery like 'marriage'.

[Demosthenes]

This is one of the topics I disagree with my fellow conservatives on. One of the cornerstones of our position is little government. How can you claim to be for little government when you wish to legislate morality? If anything that is MORE government. So IMHO goverment should keep its nose out of these matters.

As for marriage between homosexuals I just don't think it should apply. That said I wouldn't be adverse to some other "legal union" between individuals of the same sex, however I disagree with most of you in that I think it should be really hard to get married and even tougher to get divorced. I say this with the idea that marriage is supposed to be a vow between two people who love each other. A vow to be true to that person no matter what. If people don't want or are too shallow to grasp this then they shouldn't get married. If this type of arrangement is undesirable then perhaps there should be some other type of union that is considered temporary from the beginning. " I vow to be true until something better comes along" or something like that.

As for children I'm against it for the most part. Children should be raised with a mother and father. There's no way the argument about mixing genders holds water. It is an argument that favors the parents and not the child. "I want a child and by god I'll find a way to justify that" I feel it is an opportunity cost issue. If you choose to be homosexual (and dont give me that genetics thing) the opportunity cost is that you give up kids. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
That being said the reason I said "for the most part" is if the potential parents prove themselves capable and for instance, the only other alternative is to leave the child in an orphange or careening through foster parents, a homosexual who prove themselves to be stable (that is they will pledge to be together for the child's life as a minor) then some consideration should be given to them.

[keli]

As for marriage between homosexuals I just don't think it should apply.

Why should it not apply?

That said I wouldn't be adverse to some other "legal union" between individuals of the same sex, however I disagree with most of you in that I think it should be really hard to get married and even tougher to get divorced. I say this with the idea that marriage is supposed to be a vow between two people who love each other. A vow to be true to that person no matter what. If people don't want or are too shallow to grasp this then they shouldn't get married.

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 because one is in a same sex relationship. I don't know why it is difficult for a heterosexual couple to get married. I can see divorce being difficult, but maybe you could clarify exactly what you are getting at with this point?

You seem to be wanting to deny marriage to homosexuals because you have discursively concluded that as 'marriage is supposed to be a vow between two people who love each other' and 'a vow to be true to that person no matter what' 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.

If this type of arrangement is undesirable then perhaps there should be some other type of union that is considered temporary from the beginning. " I vow to be true until something better comes along" or something like that.

Are you speaking generally or of a specifically homosexual union?

Children should be raised with a mother and father.

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

There's no way the argument about mixing genders holds water.It is an argument that favors the parents and not the child. "I want a child and by god I'll find a way to justify that" I feel it is an opportunity cost issue.

You say the argument about 'mixing genders' (I am assuming you are referring to what I posted above) does not hold water, but you haven't actually addressed the points I made about this. Instead, you have projected what you think the point is rather than actually addressing the argument. I said that it is easier and more beneficial for children to have two parents. I don't think that these need be two parents of the same sex.

If you choose to be homosexual (and dont give me that genetics thing) the opportunity cost is that you give up kids. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

I don't tell you what you can and cannot say in response, and I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy. 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.

That being said the reason I said "for the most part" is if the potential parents prove themselves capable and for instance, the only other alternative is to leave the child in an orphange or careening through foster parents, a homosexual who prove themselves to be stable (that is they will pledge to be together for the child's life as a minor) then some consideration should be given to them.

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.