Should Gay Marriage be a Universial Right?

I think religion should be entirely separate from adoption, as otherwise discrimination against homosexuals happens. Take it from someone whose mother used to work vetting people for adoption suitability - "I'll give them all the love and care they can get, as long as they're not Catholic" was one case she saw. Plenty would say exactly the same but substituting "gay" for Catholic. Unacceptable.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage at all. I don't believe, however, that governments should impose that on religious organizations if homosexuality is against their core beliefs.

@joyflower: I also think that an influence of a loving pair man and woman is beneficial for a child, likely more beneficial than a loving same-sex couples. However the latter always trumps growing up in a bad family and almost everything trump an average orphanage as far as I1ve heard. (At least in my country, there might be orphanages out there which are much-much better. But I doubt it.)

edited 17th Sep '11 2:33:08 PM by Luxa

Why would we hate you from having a differing opinion? We're all not Americans you know

Yes so? that implies that people who are capable of reproducing can only get married.

What about single parents then? should we remove kids from them and give them to heterosexual couples?

Me and the Law say that you shouldn't discriminate.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:33:50 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Dutch Lesbian

Lux@Agreed at least gay couples are more lovable to have than growing up in a bad orphanage epsically a state underfunded orphanage which serves gruel for breakfast and breaks the spirits of the orphans.I have been watching too much TV.

whale@If they can take care of their children besides my Nana was a single mother and she worked her butt off raising six kids by herself.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:37:35 PM by joyflower

@Joyflower, there would implications that you were saying that only heterosexual couples should have kids. So, what is the difference in your opinion between a single parent family and a gay couple with kids?

Dutch Lesbian

Is marriage a universal right in the first place?

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Whale@A lot of single parent homes that have only one parent because of many reasons.I am saying if they can raise their kids without help then they can keep the kids.Also kids do get affected by having their mother or father missing from their lives.

Gay couples I think are a alternative for kids in the secular foster/adoption system.I think by just having two of the same gender then the kid won't really fully experience what a father or a mother really is.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:45:44 PM by joyflower

Anecdoctal evidence is anecdoctal. I can say that my friend was raised by her mother and her long-term girlfriend, but that wouldn't mean a thing. I don't think the gender of the parents matters as much as the presence of two of them. The ideal ingredients to a healthy family are income and attention. It's tough getting either in a single-parent household.

edited 17th Sep '11 3:32:53 PM by KitsuneInferno

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

@Joyflower, Eh, then I don't get your objection to gay marriage then

Dutch Lesbian

Well, I will argue that a father and a mother play different, but equally important roles in a child's life. However, this doesn't mean that gays shouldn't adopt, since having no parents, or abusive parents, is worse than having gay parents.

Exactly! Two parents are favourable. Gender is irrelevant, meaningless, it's archaic bigoted bullshit with no evidence to claim otherwise.

Yes, I feel passionately about this.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:48:28 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

@Joyflower: Hmm, I'm honestly interested in your opinion in a somewhat different question as you seem to agree with me that a homosexual couple is better than an orphanage. Is it better for a child to have normal homosexual parents than not being born at all? I'm thinking in the line of artificial fertilisation rather than adoption.

For the record my own answer is yes, but I can imagine lots of situations when the answer would be no.

@Caissas: I think that that is a biiiit extreme considering that most people are not bisexual.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:57:50 PM by Luxa

Not irrelevant. I mean it doesn't matter if the parents are two men, two women, two inter-gender, or any combination thereof. Two parents are preferential to a single-parent household, but the gender/sexuality of said is irrelevant.

Gay adoption and gay marriage are separate issues though (albeit related) so might need a new thread for that?

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

Sure go for the new thread.

Dutch Lesbian

In Islamic theocracies "marriage" is strictly between men and women only. Sharia law dictates all homosexuals to be killed more or less.

And that's not hyperbole, that's how it's run in Iran and Saudi Arabia, two Islamic theocracies.

On-topic:

Marriage is the same kind of "right" as picking whether you want mustard or mayonnaise on a ham sandwich. Customary, lacking actual consequence but ultimately the couple's decision. Problem is, the state cannot be trusted to provide anything to encourage marriage thus all benefits and powers should not be the power of the state.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage, plenty of groups and organizations offer marriages in the customary way. Problem is, if the reasoning behind giving gay marriages is things like tax deductions and government benefits then the deductions and benefits need to go not the marriages since they will never be distributed fairly or equally.

@CDA: Sure. The question is, what is the PURPOSE of marriage? Progressives seem to assume that it's to give two people who love each other an emotional high. Well if that's the case, isn't everyone who spends a lot of parental money on their wedding a selfish bastard? And shouldn't I marry my closest friends?

The reason both answers are "no" is that the purpose of marriage is childrearing. Marriage chains together couples who have sexual intercourse because a mother and father produce higher-quality offspring than a single mother and her string of boyfriends, to say nothing of a single father who wouldn't be able to breastfeed.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

The purpose of marriage is whatever the fuck people deem it to be. I personally deem it a way to reap financial and various other benefits. Childrearing and love factor into this yes, but primarily it's a way to make use of tax benefits. Love beats out the childrearing thing as I have no interest in raising children with someone I do not love.

I would like to have children with Weiss though.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

@Major Tom: "Problem is, if the reasoning behind giving gay marriages is things like tax deductions and government benefits then the deductions and benefits need to go not the marriages since they will never be distributed fairly or equally."

Apart from tax deductions and benefits marriage also includes inheriting and several other non-finacial rights. Also, marriages stabilise families which worth the tax deductions for the state. (Unless they don't. A friendly couple in Austria decided not to marry after their first child as the single mother benefits outweighed the marriage benefits...)

Going by that, shouldn't couples which are sterile — because of old age, or otherwise — be also prohibited from marrying?

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@Carciofus: Well the technology to screen people for sterility didn't exist, so it was grounds for divorce or annullment rather than an up-front ban.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

The purpose of Marriage is whatever the society deems it to be ala what Aon said.

Er, its about equalizing certain benefits and taxes that atm only apply to heterosexual couples. Where did you get conclusion from and nice strawman btw.

Dutch Lesbian

@Rottweiler: No, from the view of the state (which actually gives or retains the right and the benefits) the point of the marriage is to create a stable environment primary for childbearing and additionally for general societal stability. (The order of this can be contested though, this is only my opinion.) Giving the same rights to gays provide the same benefits unless there is significant pressure not to do it - i.e. it would create more trouble both for the general society and gay people in particular (think eg. increased hate-crime) that it would not worth the price.

But I can't think of a modern society where introduction of such right wouldn't worth it. (Or a gradual introduction in the worst cases.)

@Rottweiler: Well, at least according to the canon of the Catholic Church, sterility is not and never was a reason for annulment. Impotence is, but only if it is perpetual and antecedent to the marriage.

"Refusal to have children" is also grounds for annulment, but that's another thing — it's not a matter of being able to, but of being willing to.

But in any case, these doctrines are all concerning the religious aspect of marriage, not the civil one.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@Aon & whale: You haven't proved your claim that the only purpose is what "humans" (which ones? 50% + 1?) Say it is. Even if we do live in such an Existentialist universe, there's nothing stopping "humans" from choosing to believe in telos.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard