Debate Same-sex marriage

It's not the MAJORITY that does anything. It's the few dumbasses that ruin it for everyone else.
Por ejemplo, of all the straight people I know, only two would I really call homophobic, and even they would never think of picking a fight with someone because they are gay.
The "majority" doesn't do jack all. It's just that you never hear about the good people on the news because no one cares, so when someone does something really bad, it's a big deal because it gets better ratings, and then everyone just starts judging each other and it all gets out of hand.

"Montreal to Hong Kong, where have all the good people gone?"
-Sam Roberts-

 

This year, for HS debate, I had to denounce homophobia.

I found some pretty shocking stats:
- 90% of all GLBT in public high schools in the US have HEARD homophobic remarks of jokes.
- 35% of all GLBT were beaten or physically assaulted for being GLBT.
- 2% of all GLBT in public high schools in the US were threatened by a knife or a gun.

My point is, it doesn't matter what percentage of the majority does it, but it does matter what percentage of gays are subjected to it.

 

Excuse me while I sarcastically hum "God Bless America" ...
I'm not denying that this stuff goes on. I'm just trying to point out that most people, while not sympathetic to this cause, are not antipathetic to it either.

 

There is nothing wrong with homosexual marriages or relationships. Use to around my old friends if the topic were to come up, I would be the only one to go against them at it. They would keep telling me, "blahblah-its not right-blahblah" and "blahblah-if God wanted us to be gay he'd only make one gender-blahblah" and all sorts of sh*t like that. Better yet, my friends were full of sh*t for thinking that. There is nothing wrong with it. They just love differently. If you say that being gay is wrong then to them it's like saying "loving is wrong". Somewhere, deep down in us all, there is an emotion such as "love" and "compassion" and denying the right of these people, outlawing the way they love...is wrong. It's f*cked up. Someone might see a "wrong" couple walk down the street, two boys or two girls holding hands and they might TRY to whisper as they walk by,"That's disgusting. They're gonna burn in Hell for that." or something like that. At the same time I think to myself,"They won't burn at all. If they deny God, sure, they'll burn over and over again for the rest of eternity, waking up to nothing but burning flesh and torrents of pain. You can't go to hell for being gay or anything else. Infact...aww...that's kinda cute."
I see nothing wrong with it and I support them in everyway I can. It's their free will to love as they please and as long as they are truly happy, so be it. They're people, just like us. What is it that makes them so different? Just because they kiss the other sex? Because they would rather look at the same sex when they walked by rather than the other? But let me evaluate something. I'm sure they cry when they get hurt. I'm sure that they bleed red just like anyone else.
I just don't understand how the people on the street, the ones who hate homosexuals for who they are can just say awful things about other people like that. They just don't understand. But I'm sure that if they swallowed their pride and took time to open their eyes to the beauty that lies within it all...they would see how beautiful it is. It's love...just like any other.

 

There are many issues in here...

There are many issues to be discussed besides the obvious "right to marry".

First, we're talking about the right to live and/or engage in a homosexual relationship. Whether that is morally good or bad, if the couple consents to do it, it is not our right to forbid them to do it.

The government has no right to interfere with religion (as long as it doesn't harm people), therefore it has no right to interfere with what people consider morally good or wrong, either.

Second. Just for the same reason religion was banned from schools, determining official positions on homosexuality (pro/against) should also be banned. So the following positions are both wrong:
* teaching people in schools that homosexuality is bad
* teaching people in schools that homosexuality is right or normal

Parents have the right to teach their children morals regarding homosexuality or anything else for that matter. If school interferes with their morals or traditions, we're getting in trouble.

Now considering the liberal tendency increasing in the US, perhaps we went too far to the left. Like letting people who are in favor of homosexuality express their opinions, but at the same time banning people against homosexuality from expressing their opinions (freedom of expression).

If parents believe their children can be offended by certain kind of debate regarding this, they have the right to prevent their children to access this debate (it may be morally wrong, but still it's their right. Because THEY are the parents).

Third. ADOPTION or RAISING a child with homosexual parents. Is it psychologically good for the child? I think not, and an unbiased study must be ran before this "right" of homosexual couples can be approved. Let's suppose that a certain amount of children have negative influences on their lives due to the fact that their parents are a gay/lesbian couple. What I've seen is left-wing extremists blame it all on "homophobic" society. But setting that aside, is the mere action of raising a child in a "family" (i don't know if it can be called that way) like this, is it healthy for the child?

As much as people want "equality", we cannot take the chance of raising an important amount of children who will very probably grow up with serious disorders in their head.

Four. Can homosexuality be chosen? If it can, then we're talking about the morality of a free-willed act. If not, then we're talking about an unchangeable condition. Question is: To what point can it be changed/chosen, and in what cases? This also affects religion.

Religion. In my position, catholic teaching states that people in homosexual CONDITION (we have to be clear on that) are called to live a chaste life, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
About this part... we cannot judge a religion if the religion offers some means (natural or spiritual) to fulfill its commandments/rules. We'd have to prove those means impossible before judging a religion for asking something that cannot be done.

Now regarding some brands (pardon me, branches) of christianity, there are some that state that homosexuality can be cured in all cases - and i know of many cases of homosexual people having been damaged psychologically because of extremist "christian" groups.

Now i consider this banning of homosexuality somewhat hypocritical - because some people go straight against gay couples, but do nothing against premarital sex, or masturbation which at least were banned early by christianity (or branches of it). So, straight people going against gays because that's "a sin", are no better than them because premarital sex, masturbation and/or divorce is also "a sin". I don't want to divert the debate, I'm just saying that the american way of christianity is pretty inconsistent in itself regarding sexual morality.

As we can see, the issue of homosexuality is very complex, and there isn't an easy solution for the problems related to it.

 

More fuel to the fire...

Is homosexuality a disease, either hormonal or psychological?
Is it caused / augmented / locked by say, sexual abuse in the past? I don't want to insult anyone, but most of the homosexual people i've met on the net have been abused when children.

I wrote this on a separate post because I think this is a very good (or at least) interesting question.

Please don't interpret this question as an insult to homosexuals - because if it's a disease, it wouldn't make them less human. Just like AIDS, parkinson, or even attention deficit.

Ok, maybe the term disease it too strong. How about "disorder" or "syndrome"? OK don't get me wrong. I'm not saying homosexuality _IS_. I'm just saying _WHAT IF_?

Due to my involvement in church, I've been searching for studies (psychological studies) regarding homosexuality and its causes. Too bad I've only found right-wing articles with pseudo-scientific studies used as propaganda.

My conclusion is: THERE ARE NO ACTUAL STUDIES regarding the possible causes of homosexuality and the analysis whether it is a disease/disorder/syndrome or not.

What do you think? Should these IMPARTIAL studies begin? Yes, no, why?

 

In this issue, there are no 'impartial' studies. However, you do raise some good points, only one of which I currently have time to address...

This is not an issue with homosexuality. There are gay couples who I feel would be FAR better parents than some of the broken homes with heterosexual parents that I have seen. To say that a couple cannot raise a child due to their orientation is extremely wrong, and hypocritical. How is a gay father worse than an abusive father?

- Ark

 

i am against it...i think there are soemthing wrong with the world population in thinking that allowing marriage of the same sex..i mean if the normal marriage had its trouble, u cant be sure same sex marriage in itself is a bliss!

and no i am not saying this just because i am a catholic

 

Care to give some reasons for that, then? How is it wrong? Gay couples, just like straight couples, can have a wide range of relationships, ranging from blissful to torturous, so that's not really a valid arguement, sorry.

- Ark

 

luvweaver,
Why parents? Why should parents have supreme authority over reaching their children whether homosexuality is good/bad. Is the new generation going to be the same as the old?

 

It is really the responsibility of society as a whole to raise kids, because everything has an impact on them. If a child is raised by a gay-hating couple, they will most logically grow up that way if not for outside intervention. I don't know about whereever everyone else lives, but here in Ontario there is a high school class taught in Catholic and public schools alike about world religions, teaching about equality and relations between faiths. Maybe there should be a system like this for gay/straight relations?

 

OK some points.

a) We still do NOT know if homosexuality is affected by the person's parents, so therefore we don't know if homosexual parents have some psychological issue related to their childhood. Therefore we don't know if this could affect an adopted child in the long term.

b) I rembember having heard about a child needing a paternal and maternal figure to develop his psychological self. In a gay marriage, we either have two paternal or two maternal figures. How will that affect the child, I don't know.

c) I'm not discussing dysfunctional families here. So sure, you know gay people who would be much better parents than some straight people, but that's NOT the issue. I'm talking about POSSIBLE effects of a child having gay parents, JUST BECAUSE they're gay (and of course of the same sex). If you happen to know lots of dysfunctional families, that's subject to another debate.

d) I'm not saying gay/lesbian couples are AUTOMATICALLY worse than straight couples. I'm just saying that we DON'T KNOW the possible consequences. There are quite a few lesbian couples with kids around the world. I'm just saying: Why not analyze them and take our conclusions from that? Are you saying we must not conduct scientific tests?

Again, i'm just saying LET'S GATHER DATA and not take conclusions without analysing things.

I brought up this issue about parenting because we really don't know how fit is a couple for raising a child, and as I said before, most of the gay/lesbian people i know, have psychological problems - just to say some examples, two have been abused as children (AND not treated), others have clinical depression... so maybe the issue is conducting psychological tests before a couple (either homosexual or heterosexual) can adopt a child.

e) Let's take, for example, the sociological effect of a gay couple raising a child. How will the child feel regarding other students? When the majority has a mom and a dad? Will he / she feel isolated? Will other kids mock him? The kid can seriously be affected, partly because of homophoby, but partly not. Will the parents take responsibility and have a dedicated psychologist for the kid?

The key issue in parenting is RESPONSIBILITY. I just want unbiased scientific studies to determine what is the best for the child. But i assure you that whenever one of these studies is made, we'll have lots of "gay rights" defenders blocking the studies because of "homophoby", and we will end up WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING. So the issue of gay parenting will stay obscure and full of prejudices (both pro and con). Which is what we're trying to get rid of in the first place. Why are people so afraid of the truth (whatever it is)?

Because they are the parents. A parent has both the right _AND_ obligation to teach his/her child about morals. A child becomes good and/or bad depending majorly on how he / she was raised.

I'm saying it's the parents' right because nobody can steal from them the act of educating the child. If for example, you're a muslim, would you like your children to be raised in christianity (or judaism) by their teachers? (and this wasn't my idea, i took it from the declaration of the human rights)

Of course not. It's the same with moral regarding sexuality. Until the child is old enough to decide for himself what is right and wrong, it's the parents' duty to raise him in that. And that includes, of course, sexuality. And the related issues.

*sigh* man, this is heavy. I think I'm gonna need to attach footnotes to every single one of my statements, so they don't become misinterpretated (like they usually are! )

<please just append to your last post, rather than post again. Keeps the thread a bit cleaner. Thx - Ark>

 

Hi Sahoko (you don't write to me anymore ). Anyways, I thought I'd share my own view about marriage. Marriage exists cuz of two things (I think): sexuality, and religion (or its recognition of sexuality).

In this world there are sexual and asexual creatures (and also a kind of desert lizard somewhere that are all female, that supposedly self-fertilize after being "stimulated" by another lizard of its kind, who is female as well). My moral philosophy prof. told us one of my favorite quotes (I dunno if he created it himself): "Sex is the joy of the universe." You see, when creatures (including humans) want to make a baby, they have sex cuz that's how the sex cells get together. Yet the sex itself is joyful (making its way into mass-marketted erotica a.k.a. porn)--it is "nature's" way of letting creatures know that they're doing the right thing. But there are variations in that sexual joy, and that's how society gets homosexuality , bestiality :anger:, necro-sexuality :dizzy:, intergenerational-sexuality :shy:, "self"-sexuality etc. Where do these variations come from? Adventures of course! Nah, I dunno exactly, but I do wanna remind you all that enjoying a type of sexuality other than normal straight kind actually can be a choice, such as in prison where people are only with their own gender, or in just sheer openmindedness or bordom. (If someone can be convinced to start masturbating, or to hump a goat or dead body for $5 but eventually grow to like it, then yeah, a person can choose to try homosexuality and end up liking it, thus choosing to be gay.)

As for religion, since religion/God knows that humans need sex to procreate, it introduced the concept of marriage as the "right way" to pair off individuals. I think in most religions, marriage is more than just a bonding of pairs (for sex), but is an encouragement of duality, that staying as a pair (with or without kids) is a good thing. But anyway, marriage is a religious bond, "invented" through religion. That's why weddings are traditionally at churches with a priest/pastor/etc. Although I dislike going to church, although I never "gave my heart to Jesus," although I haven't done any of the stuff Catholic people are supposed to do (like go to Confession or have First Communion), I still give some respect to those of the church. And that's why I believe people should respect the beliefs of a religion, including whatever it follows when it conducts marriages.

BUT, before you all go "He's against us! " heheheh, I actually also think same-sex unions should be allowed. However, it's just a matter of getting around things. I'm springing off of Migoto Neko's post:

Gays could be joined together, but it's just that they can't do it in churches that are against it. So they have to do outside of churches. It won't be as holy (or maybe not holy at all), and it won't have the spiritual ties like a regular marriage unless the gay couple make their own vows in the name of their own beliefs of God.

Would there be marriages if there was no such thing as religion? Probably not marriages in the religious sense, but there would be civil unions of some sort, since lots of people end up being emotionally devoted to their lover so society would invent some kinds of commitment ceremonies for couples.

 

That's right, seraphinx.

Actually civil marriages are established for the solely purpose of giving legal and economical rights (such as inheritance, right to representation, etc) to the spouse.

So regarding legality, we shouldn't be speaking of "marriage", but "spousal rights" or something. In this case, perhaps what should be done would be recognizing a "de facto" union, like when 2 people are living together for more than 5 years or something... perhaps signing a contract of house sharing or something...

But not marriage, since that is a religious term.

Here in mexico, the conservative party says that the current legislation is sufficient to give the necessary rights to people of the same sex living together, and this is the argument against "legalizing same sex marriage".

If gay couples want civil marriage just to have a nice paper to boast about, then that's a very different thing. But hey, who wants marriage in the first place? People get divorced anyways (ok ok... bad joke)

 

Off topic: Heyloo Seraphinx ^_^
Reign-of-Dreams.. yours was touching.. I almost cried.


On Topic:
I believe that glb people should be able to raise a child. In my opinion, glb's have to endure much about what sex they like most--this translates to me that they would, indeed, be a much more humble family. It maybe true that children could grow up and become shunned for what happens in thier parents bedroom, but that can surely be avoided in some way or another.

Truth be told, I'm bisexual myself (nobody knows :shy3: so, SHH!!).
I know what it feels like when someone says a remark about that. It hurts to feel like your different.
Example:
I wanted to buy clothes for school and I wanted to get boys pants and girls shirts (I'm a punk ) and my grandmother told me that she would not buy me boys pants because she thought that I was going to turn in to a lesbian.
That hurt me, my own grandmother said that to me (she don't know either) and so I felt it was wrong. But most people are strong, like me, and shut out the accusations.

What I'm trying to say here is that if they feel it's right, they should have every right to do it. Not to listen to what others say, but to set your own settings for your own life. Everyone has a personality, personality's always differ. Two best of friends could share the same interests in everything... but like a different sex than the other.
Life's too short.. let the glb people do as they please.. It isn't hurting anyone. They're people too. <--- Gotsta always remember that!

>.<

 

Just a couple of points that have been raised by issues in other's posts.
First of all, legal marriage is not just a sheet of paper, it's a lawful contract. It has quite a few implications, such as who is next of kin and who gets most of the other's stuff should something happen to them.
Second up, plenty of people have only one parent, and are growing, or have grown up fine. Having two parents, regardless of sexual orientation would be surely better than this, no? It was said children need both paternal and maternal, but if they're homosexual they're a bit of both really. Not physicaly, obviously, but emotionaly, most gay people that I know act more feminine than other guys. This probably doesn't meet the requisate, but I'm jes throwing it in there.
I don't see the great neccesity to gather data. It'd be flawed anyway, you can't judge every familial relationship ever just by a comparatively tiny number of examples. And that's not mentioning the moral implications of running these "tests" on kids. I don't think the test would do any harm(because I think gay/lesbian couples who are decided responsible should be able to adopt), but using a child to satisfy scientific or social curiosity, although tempting, is wrong.
I'd just also like to commend Seraphinx on his post.

 

^ Good point. Personally they shouldn't HAVE to be tested. They're regular people. IT was a choice. It makes no difference What their sexual preferance is. Just like people shouldn't be tested on Intellegence because of their Hair color. Yeah its as dumb as that.

Secound off Ark brings up a good piont. Wouldn't abusive parents be worse than gay parent? I think so. Even if the child is missing a faternal/ maternal figure, It's probably better than getting beaten everyday.

Further more, I'm not even catholic/christian.Therefore, all this bible talk doesn't really um... affect me.
I feel Religion only has to be a part of a mariage if you wish it(Although I believe its a good thing). Culture would be nice to interpret in it, although it is not required. The only thing that should be REQUIRED is love. All the technicqal stuff comes afterward. I hope I'm not offending anyone.

 

I just heard this morning on the news that George W. Bush wants to outlaw same-sex marriages everywhere in the U.S.
I was angered to hear this and want to hear some opinions.
For example, how much of Vermont's tourism is from homosexual couples coming to get married and other things of the sort?

 

Semi-off topic for a second... I'm hearing that all that should be required for marriage is love... what about inecst then? Incest is more shunned than homosexuality and bisexuality around lots of places, so much that even the idea of it is never mentioned.. the only arguement I hear against incest is that supposed mutation in kids... they could just avoid having kids altogether, as gay couples would, so why not?

Back on track... I'm completely for homosexual marriages. I've skimmed through the whole post and don't see much that I could bring up that would be a new idea...

Well for one, I'm reading a lot about the Bible, and I expected to, but the truth is, it's pretty outdated. The constitution has been molded many times and yet it's still not adequete to the society of the 21st century.

For the adopted children and their homosexual parents, wouldn't they be, first of all, grateful to be in a wonderful house with love and attention surrounding them than in an orphanage? And with said gratitute and love that a child can't help but have for their parents, wouldn't they be proud of them and their ability to go into the public with their beliefs? Wouldn't that result in a liberal child who would be open to new ideas? Isn't that what we need in society?

At the same time, what Ark said comes to mind. There are rotten apples to homosexual people. But don't you think that the adoption agencies would do their best especially in a case like a homosexual couple, to make sure that they would be good parents if only because of their sexuality?

 

Maybe i missed to specify which kind of tests.

I'm just speaking about surveys, not tests of getting someone in a machine with electrodes... that's spooky. I mean regular surveys like those conducted on many other subjects.

The people would answer the questions anonymously, and after say, 50,000 subjects have answered the questions, some data can be obtained to get a good idea of the phenomena sociologically.

For example, when speaking about their first sexual encounters, we could gather enough information to see if there is a significant influence of sexual abuse in homosexuality. Things like that.

The same kind of info can be gathered about homosexual parenting.

So, "applying tests to a child to gather scientific curiosity" doesn't apply. We just gather the information on the child's behavior, to detect some symptoms othat might indicate a problem.

When a woman says "i want a baby", sure, she's trying to fulfill her maternal instinct, but let's not forget that a child is NOT a pet to make you feel better. It's a person, and we have to make sure that he or she will have a good family that will raise him/her.

So that's why I say people should get psychological tests before adopting, because we DON'T KNOW that they possible parents are psychologically stable UNTIL we run some tests on them. And why tests? Because we DON'T KNOW if their homosexuality has some correlation with psychological wounds that need to be treated.

Tests aren't made to segregate people, they're made to gather information on something that we do not know already. However if they are used for segregation that is a very different thing. Anyway, a visit to the psychologist won't hurt anyone, will it?

And if they refuse to, why? The tests won't be run by right-wing congressmen, but by professional psychologists. What's the big deal?

The difference between sexual "preference" (?) and hair or skin color is that we know 100% sure that skin color is purely genetical - mixed with physical factors. Sexual tendency, on the other hand, is something whose causes we do not know.

Conclusion:
If homosexual people are afraid of getting some tests because that might affect them emotionally (feeling of segregation / sexism perhaps?), aren't they making the same mistakes (prejudices) that they accuse society of?

Am I saying that homosexual couples are a danger to society? No.
Am I saying that they will destroy a child psychologically? No!

I'm just saying that the child _COULD_ develop some psychological problems if the parents have a problem and they haven't been treated.

I could classify this rejection of studies as "homophobiphoby", which could be described as prejudging anything against them as "homophobic". Just because one is gay doesn't make his point of view absolutely right, and not everyone opposing his desires is necessarily a homophobic.