We have some kind of homosexual marriage act here in France... they have roughtly the same rights as married heterosexuals. This kind of marriage works for both homo- and heterosexual people , but there is no ceremony at the church of course <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Admins : you might want to update the swear filter , <span style='font-family:Arial'>g</span><span style='font-family:Times'>a</span><span style='font-family:Courier'>y</span> is not supposed to be an offensive word <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Aug 26 2003, 02:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Aug 26 2003, 02:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->**** people are really people and are citzens then banning **** marriages would go against liberty and property(you get rights to share property when you divorced if you are married you still collect social security of your spouse when he dies).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all. Nobody wants to disseize or imprison homosexuals. No constitutional rights are violated.
If it were a constitutional right to gain benefits from marriage even though you're not married, then singles will demand them next, won't they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Alot of people get married because that way thier property is protected in case they break up or if one dies. If a wife still can collect her husbands social security(im against social security in general but im not getting into that) so taking away property without due process is against the 14th amendment and having seperate laws against one portion of society to another is also illegal.
As far as about **** adoption, "It's not right for us to assume they would raise a child improperly because you have to keep in mind a homsexual person is still a person, they are no different than me or you aside from their sexual preference."
Its not right for you to assume they would. Adoption is not about the benefit of the parents at all but the benefit of the child if there was some emperical way to prove it right or wrong then thats ok with me. I don't care if you do it slowly or something but just suddenly goin hey now its ok seems like it may put people at risk.
I don't see any reason why homosexuals would be worse parents... is it illegal to have a child without being married ? Not here. What's the crucial difference between a single heterosexual parent and a single homosexual parent that would prevent <span style='font-family:Arial'>g</span>ays and lesbians from educating children correctly ?
There have been requests of using human cloning for that purpose , but it feels a bit dodgy. If future genetic engineering lets homosexual people mix their genomes , I wouldn't be against it however , as it would restore the main purpose of marriage for theses people.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
first up: <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=marriage' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=marriage</a>
the word has already changed thankyouverymuch
I am not homosexual or bisexual, however a good number of my friends are one or the other, I even have a homosexual uncle (very cool guy)
now, as for **** marraige? Personaly I am all for it, simply b/c it IS discrimination. As many people over look: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
curently homosexuals are NOT given equal protection under the law. The benifits that come with marriage are SUBSTANTIAL. Insurance coverage, tax benifits, etc etc etc
As for adoption: I don't know any one who is the adopted child of a homosexual relation ship (unfortunatl,y I would love to talk to one).
I DO know MANY people who are children of Broken Homes (INCLUDING MY SELF). None of these people are any diff then those that had both parents. My Girlfriends parents divorced when she was around 3, here father remaried, had another kid, divorced again and has been in and out of another relationship since then.
The only difference with her is that she has a sister who dosn't live with her and a stepmother who is more like a good friend than anything else (oh, and she did stay with her mom through out)
Then I have my friends who are the sons and daughters of M/F Marriages, and many of them have some serious family issues, it realy dosn't matter WHO the parents are, all that really maters i that they love the child.
In general I realy REALY hate any sort of derogitory things, be they sexual preferance, nationality, religion ANYTHING! Thus why you will often see me flame people who use any of these things as insults.
And as a note g4y is in the filters b/c most people who use it are idiot bigots who use it in the terms of "Thats so ****" or "you stupid g4y f4g" etc
note: G4y, f4g, qu3r3 and all of these other 'derogitory' terms are now often ussed as words of empowement by the quere comunity, however I (as a straight white male) can't stand being associated with stupid bigots who can't come up with a better insult the g4y.
I've finally got rid of my headache, thus, I'll now tell everyone too tired to run my take on it...
<b>Twex:</b>
Your main argument against a complete legal equallity between heterosexual and homosexual couples deciding to marry is the fact that the tax benefits involved in a marriage are supposed to 'pay' the couple for its inherent services to the society, namely, childbirth, correct?
There's a number of points I'd like to put forward here: First and foremost, not all heterosexual couples are going to raise children, in fact, many are biologically <i>incapable</i> of it. Yet, they experience the same benefits a nuclear family recieves. Thus, the tax benefit is in practice not directely linked to offsprings - introducing such a rule would either have to be throughout, or would be unjust. Also, not all societal benefits of a marriage are linked to children. Take, for example, partners tending for each other in high age; they safe the state (and thus the tax payer) from hefty costs for social care. I'd also like to point at the fact that many countries offer special financial benefits (think of our 'Kindergeld') <i>for</i> children which are <i>not</i> linked to marriage. This leads to me to conclude that the inability of naturally producing offsprings should not hinder a financially equallity between hetro - and homosexual couples.
On to your next point:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marriage isn't just a legal term open for re-definition. It's a sacred institution <i>inseparable</i> from centuries of tradition. Its origin is of religious nature, and I resist the hijacking of religious concepts for short-sighted political reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you fail to mention is that marriage, while truly an idea of religious origin, is not a sacred institution inseparable from centuries of <i>one</i> tradition, but an idea present in virtually <i>every</i> religious tradition on Earth, with often greatly differing definitions of the partnership described; just take the polygamy possible within certain parts of Islam or the Mormonic Chruch. A modern democratic state must not take preference in a single religion; it's thus inevtiable that such a state will have to fill the word 'marriage' with a secular consensus-definition that allows all, or at least as many religions as possible, to practice their definition within the legal frame.
I'll happily give the word 'marriage' back to the church - once you have found out which it belonged to in the first place.
--
<b>The issue of homosexual parentship:</b>
People arguing that children raised by homosexual parents will be 'confused' in a way unspokenly imply the existance of a kind of 'ideal' family solution, usually the 'married with children' scheme we see as the predominant cultural image within the western world. This scheme in turn implies a number of roles for each parental part: The man, the 'father', is, for example, going to be the one going fishing with the child, will have those 'serious talks', and generally be what the child will see as good in a man, while the mother will be caring, cooking the meals, and represent what the child will see as 'good' in a woman. Realize that those ideals never existed, least of all today. In our modern societies, with their up-to 40% divorce rates, double incomes, grandparents jumping in as 'help-out-parents', and what have you, our classical ideas of a family and its members went the way of all mortal. This won't produce a generation of confused children, though; or at least, it won't produce a generation <i>more</i> confused than those before them. Thus, I don't see how a homosexual parentship would be incredibly different - it's just yet another change in an already changing ideal.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
hmm, As a continuation on homosexual parentship:
One thing that I would be curious to look into would be childrens sexual education between homosexual, heterosexual, and single parent homes.
One thing that I have often knowticed is that homosexuals are MUCH more open about sexual being and awarenes. I have honestly NEVER had a disusion with either of my parents about sex (I am 20 years old).
Again, I believe that Homosexuals would produce much more educated and understanding children then those of Heterosexual couples
Note, I was a homofobe and used g4y, f4g, and quere as derogitory terms, however due to my own observations in the world I learned differantly,n ot from my parents intervention.
so yah, I support homosexual marriage and adoption so that we can have much more tolerant comunity <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I thought of that exact point as well Thansal, I've never had a candid sexual talk with my parents (at age 17) yet all homosexuals I know are much more candid about sexuality then the majority of heterosexuals I know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> don't have a father. What determines how a kid turns out is how loving his parents are. I don't have a father, but I have a loving mother, so I turned out fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you saying that without a father your family life was easier?
Ok before this gets out of hand you mean that I should not be able to discriminate who I want to raise my kids when I die and private adoption agency should not be able to discriminate on who should raise children they are assigned to find good homes for by sexual preference?
As for all the broken homes, have you seriously known anybody that actualy adopted a child when he or she was not with somebody from an adoption agency? Just because the divorce rate is 40% dosen't mean that divorced people have kids, or that they usualy can adopt children. There are thousands of parents wanting to adopt there are however only hundreds of children witch need homes so adoption agency discriminate about money, health, exc. Why can't I discriminate on sexual preference? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->double incomes, grandparents jumping in as 'help-out-parents', <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the classical family to me.
Also saying somebody cannont let somebody else discriminate on sexual preferance for who to raise thier children is not tolerance btw.
There are also more to interaction between men and women then just women does all the women work men do all the manly work. There are deffinite roles men and women take from flirting(i.e. most men don't play the coy role.) to just simply understanding each other, men and women are deffintly from mars and venus.
Im bi, that dosen't mean im egalitarian, tolerant or that im not egalitarian or tolerant, yet if I have a kid I want him raised by heterosexual parents if I die.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
Salty, that post sorta hurt, very hard to follow mate.
The few things I did get: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you saying that without a father your family life was easier?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> no he is saying the b/c he had a loving mother he has come out fine. The lack of father has nothing to do with why is is normal, it is the loving mother that made him so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you seriously known anybody that actualy adopted a child when he or she was not with somebody from an adoption agency?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
umm, I guess you are asking if we know any one who was adopted when neither of the parents where adopted them selfs... Yes, I do, I know quite a few(my mom's brother for one), and as far as I can tell that has no baering on this convo.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why can't I discriminate on sexual preference?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The biological parent has NO say in who gets their kids if it goes through an adoption agency. oh, and b/c it is ilegal. Descrimination based on sexual preferance IS NOT LEGAL. Same goes for nationality, religion etc, yah know, its one of those amendment thingies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->adoption agency discriminate about money, health, exc<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> as far as that picking goes they only need too prove that they CAN care for the kid (they aint gona give a kid to a couple with no job) Wana be Parents don't need to be multibilionairs to adopt, they simply have to be able to actualy suport the kid financialy, mentaly, and in love. Als o a Single parent CAN adopt so long as they prove that they can be resposible for all of the child's needs
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are also more to interaction between men and women then just women does all the women work men do all the manly work. There are deffinite roles men and women take from flirting(i.e. most men don't play the coy role.) to just simply understanding each other, men and women are deffintly from mars and venus.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats simply a broad generalization, and those are sorta useless in an argument mate.
I know MANY people who do not fit gender norms. Infact gender norms are rapidly changing, so far as to the point where a very large chunk of people don't fit into them. Again I can bring up single parent adoption, just b/c both gender norms are not presant does not make the child messed up.
inconclusion I am honestly scared when some one says that he would not trust some one of his own group to raise his kids.
<!--QuoteBegin--Thansal+Aug 26 2003, 01:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Aug 26 2003, 01:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you saying that without a father your family life was easier?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> no he is saying the b/c he had a loving mother he has come out fine. The lack of father has nothing to do with why is is normal, it is the loving mother that made him so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's exactly what I meant. Thank you. My life would have been WORSE if my father stuck around, for note. However, my life wouldn't be easier or harder, had I had a loving father.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Aug 25 2003, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Aug 25 2003, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you can muster a majority for civil homosexual unions in your democratic country, then so be it, but the term "marriage" is ultimately not available for the secular government to use. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uhm... you can already get a marriage from the secular government without the involvement of ANY church (and as Nem so brilliantly pointed out, there are many that practice marriage). If that's really your issue, write your congressman and demand that the secular government cease to recognize marriage for ANYONE.
[QUOTE]Salty, that post sorta hurt, very hard to follow mate.
The few things I did get: [QUOTE]Are you saying that without a father your family life was easier?[/QUOTE] no he is saying the b/c he had a loving mother he has come out fine. The lack of father has nothing to do with why is is normal, it is the loving mother that made him so.[/QUOTE]
Its not a right to be able to adopt. Adoption agency try to find the best families there are more people looking for kids then there are kids looking for families. Adoption is not at all about the benefit of the person to adopt all thought that is a motive of why people adopt it is for the sole benefit of the child and the child alone. If there is any reason why one person is a better parent then another then they should get the child such as the person dosen't have a spouse. After helping my single mother cousin with her kids for 4 years, you can see why a partner helps.
[QUOTE]Why can't I discriminate on sexual preference?[/QUOTE] The biological parent has NO say in who gets their kids if it goes through an adoption agency. oh, and b/c it is ilegal. Descrimination based on sexual preferance IS NOT LEGAL. Same goes for nationality, religion etc, yah know, its one of those amendment thingies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
It is the goverment that can't discriminate, its in the 14th amendment, not private organizations such as <a href='http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/whatwedo/adoption/page.cfm?pg=Find%20a%20private%20adoption%20agency' target='_blank'>private adoption agencies</a>, a private group can discriminate on nationality, religion ext. Its the Freedom to Assemble peacefully. You also can have a say when you go threw an adoption agency as to who gets your child.
In conclusion im more scared of somebody who assumes because somebody is a member of one group that he instantly must think like anybody in his group.
I'm fine with same-sex couples adopting. I don't believe you can just become homosexual by observing. I believe you are born with it. Plus, if the child is ever confused then the parents can enlighten because I'm sure they went through the same thing. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
wow, I stand corected, possible
I did a quick google and found one place that alows the birth mother to choose
but then again I am from the US and I believe that here birthparents are not suposed to know where their the child goes. I knew some one who was adopted and was given a leater from his birth mother on his 18th birthday (form wich he was alowed to find her if he chose to)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After helping my single mother cousin with her kids for 4 years<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> one case in many
I can show you many instances where single parents have managed to raise woderful children by them selfs (I point and my girlfriend who was raised by here mom)
again, broad generalizations based off of one case don't hold water in my book. Even if you can prove to me that most single parents can't properly raise their children I would still be fore their ability to adopt simply b/c everything is case by case.
now to stop hijacking this.
WHY do you think that Homosexual parents can't raise children properly? (then again that is still a hijack <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
and as for my last statment, You took it wrongly. I know there are mess ups in any group, but I don't see how you can think that every one with sexual preferances like your is not fit to raise children (as that is how I read what you said)
<!--QuoteBegin--Thansal+Aug 26 2003, 08:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Aug 26 2003, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> WHY do you think that Homosexual parents can't raise children properly? (then again that is still a hijack <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not really directed at you Thansal, I'm just using it as an example. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why did this discussion turn to the effectiveness of a same sex couple in raising children? The main focus of marraige isn't to raise children as much as to celebrate the union of two people, at least thats my take on it.
Salty you are ignoring foster care in your argument. Private adoption agencies are one thing, but there are thousands of kids a year (30 thousand if I remember correctly) who are without homes and that number isn't shrinking.
<!--QuoteBegin--alius42+Aug 26 2003, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (alius42 @ Aug 26 2003, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Thansal+Aug 26 2003, 08:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Aug 26 2003, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> WHY do you think that Homosexual parents can't raise children properly? (then again that is still a hijack <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not really directed at you Thansal, I'm just using it as an example. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why did this discussion turn to the effectiveness of a same sex couple in raising children? The main focus of marraige isn't to raise children as much as to celebrate the union of two people, at least thats my take on it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with you.
Twex argued that homosexual marriage would have to have a "tangible" benefit to society in order for the couple to enjoy tax-benefits of said union. We assume this to mean "raising children".
Thus the focus of the discussion shifted somewhat towards whether homosexual couples can do as good a job of parenting as their hetero counterparts. I believe that they can.
<!--QuoteBegin--Moon+Aug 26 2003, 09:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Moon @ Aug 26 2003, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--alius42+Aug 26 2003, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (alius42 @ Aug 26 2003, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Thansal+Aug 26 2003, 08:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Aug 26 2003, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> WHY do you think that Homosexual parents can't raise children properly? (then again that is still a hijack <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not really directed at you Thansal, I'm just using it as an example. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why did this discussion turn to the effectiveness of a same sex couple in raising children? The main focus of marraige isn't to raise children as much as to celebrate the union of two people, at least thats my take on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with you.
Twex argued that homosexual marriage would have to have a "tangible" benefit to society in order for the couple to enjoy tax-benefits of said union. We assume this to mean "raising children".
Thus the focus of the discussion shifted somewhat towards whether homosexual couples can do as good a job of parenting as their hetero counterparts. I believe that they can. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that a homosexual couple is just as qualified to raise a child as well, I'm just trying to nudge the topic back to its original direction. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Admins : you might want to update the swear filter , <span style='font-family:Arial'>g</span><span style='font-family:Times'>a</span><span style='font-family:Courier'>y</span> is not supposed to be an offensive word <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Not at all. Nobody wants to disseize or imprison homosexuals. No constitutional rights are violated.
If it were a constitutional right to gain benefits from marriage even though you're not married, then singles will demand them next, won't they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alot of people get married because that way thier property is protected in case they break up or if one dies. If a wife still can collect her husbands social security(im against social security in general but im not getting into that) so taking away property without due process is against the 14th amendment and having seperate laws against one portion of society to another is also illegal.
As far as about **** adoption, "It's not right for us to assume they would raise a child improperly because you have to keep in mind a homsexual person is still a person, they are no different than me or you aside from their sexual preference."
Its not right for you to assume they would. Adoption is not about the benefit of the parents at all but the benefit of the child if there was some emperical way to prove it right or wrong then thats ok with me. I don't care if you do it slowly or something but just suddenly goin hey now its ok seems like it may put people at risk.
There have been requests of using human cloning for that purpose , but it feels a bit dodgy. If future genetic engineering lets homosexual people mix their genomes , I wouldn't be against it however , as it would restore the main purpose of marriage for theses people.
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=marriage' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=marriage</a>
the word has already changed thankyouverymuch
I am not homosexual or bisexual, however a good number of my friends are one or the other, I even have a homosexual uncle (very cool guy)
now, as for **** marraige? Personaly I am all for it, simply b/c it IS discrimination.
As many people over look:
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
curently homosexuals are NOT given equal protection under the law. The benifits that come with marriage are SUBSTANTIAL. Insurance coverage, tax benifits, etc etc etc
As for adoption:
I don't know any one who is the adopted child of a homosexual relation ship (unfortunatl,y I would love to talk to one).
I DO know MANY people who are children of Broken Homes (INCLUDING MY SELF).
None of these people are any diff then those that had both parents. My Girlfriends parents divorced when she was around 3, here father remaried, had another kid, divorced again and has been in and out of another relationship since then.
The only difference with her is that she has a sister who dosn't live with her and a stepmother who is more like a good friend than anything else (oh, and she did stay with her mom through out)
Then I have my friends who are the sons and daughters of M/F Marriages, and many of them have some serious family issues, it realy dosn't matter WHO the parents are, all that really maters i that they love the child.
In general I realy REALY hate any sort of derogitory things, be they sexual preferance, nationality, religion ANYTHING! Thus why you will often see me flame people who use any of these things as insults.
And as a note g4y is in the filters b/c most people who use it are idiot bigots who use it in the terms of "Thats so ****" or "you stupid g4y f4g" etc
note:
G4y, f4g, qu3r3 and all of these other 'derogitory' terms are now often ussed as words of empowement by the quere comunity, however I (as a straight white male) can't stand being associated with stupid bigots who can't come up with a better insult the g4y.
<b>Twex:</b>
Your main argument against a complete legal equallity between heterosexual and homosexual couples deciding to marry is the fact that the tax benefits involved in a marriage are supposed to 'pay' the couple for its inherent services to the society, namely, childbirth, correct?
There's a number of points I'd like to put forward here:
First and foremost, not all heterosexual couples are going to raise children, in fact, many are biologically <i>incapable</i> of it. Yet, they experience the same benefits a nuclear family recieves. Thus, the tax benefit is in practice not directely linked to offsprings - introducing such a rule would either have to be throughout, or would be unjust. Also, not all societal benefits of a marriage are linked to children. Take, for example, partners tending for each other in high age; they safe the state (and thus the tax payer) from hefty costs for social care.
I'd also like to point at the fact that many countries offer special financial benefits (think of our 'Kindergeld') <i>for</i> children which are <i>not</i> linked to marriage. This leads to me to conclude that the inability of naturally producing offsprings should not hinder a financially equallity between hetro - and homosexual couples.
On to your next point:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marriage isn't just a legal term open for re-definition. It's a sacred institution <i>inseparable</i> from centuries of tradition. Its origin is of religious nature, and I resist the hijacking of religious concepts for short-sighted political reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you fail to mention is that marriage, while truly an idea of religious origin, is not a sacred institution inseparable from centuries of <i>one</i> tradition, but an idea present in virtually <i>every</i> religious tradition on Earth, with often greatly differing definitions of the partnership described; just take the polygamy possible within certain parts of Islam or the Mormonic Chruch.
A modern democratic state must not take preference in a single religion; it's thus inevtiable that such a state will have to fill the word 'marriage' with a secular consensus-definition that allows all, or at least as many religions as possible, to practice their definition within the legal frame.
I'll happily give the word 'marriage' back to the church - once you have found out which it belonged to in the first place.
--
<b>The issue of homosexual parentship:</b>
People arguing that children raised by homosexual parents will be 'confused' in a way unspokenly imply the existance of a kind of 'ideal' family solution, usually the 'married with children' scheme we see as the predominant cultural image within the western world. This scheme in turn implies a number of roles for each parental part: The man, the 'father', is, for example, going to be the one going fishing with the child, will have those 'serious talks', and generally be what the child will see as good in a man, while the mother will be caring, cooking the meals, and represent what the child will see as 'good' in a woman.
Realize that those ideals never existed, least of all today. In our modern societies, with their up-to 40% divorce rates, double incomes, grandparents jumping in as 'help-out-parents', and what have you, our classical ideas of a family and its members went the way of all mortal. This won't produce a generation of confused children, though; or at least, it won't produce a generation <i>more</i> confused than those before them.
Thus, I don't see how a homosexual parentship would be incredibly different - it's just yet another change in an already changing ideal.
One thing that I would be curious to look into would be childrens sexual education between homosexual, heterosexual, and single parent homes.
One thing that I have often knowticed is that homosexuals are MUCH more open about sexual being and awarenes. I have honestly NEVER had a disusion with either of my parents about sex (I am 20 years old).
Again, I believe that Homosexuals would produce much more educated and understanding children then those of Heterosexual couples
Note, I was a homofobe and used g4y, f4g, and quere as derogitory terms, however due to my own observations in the world I learned differantly,n ot from my parents intervention.
so yah, I support homosexual marriage and adoption so that we can have much more tolerant comunity <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Are you saying that without a father your family life was easier?
Ok before this gets out of hand you mean that I should not be able to discriminate who I want to raise my kids when I die and private adoption agency should not be able to discriminate on who should raise children they are assigned to find good homes for by sexual preference?
As for all the broken homes, have you seriously known anybody that actualy adopted a child when he or she was not with somebody from an adoption agency? Just because the divorce rate is 40% dosen't mean that divorced people have kids, or that they usualy can adopt children. There are thousands of parents wanting to adopt there are however only hundreds of children witch need homes so adoption agency discriminate about money, health, exc. Why can't I discriminate on sexual preference? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->double incomes, grandparents jumping in as 'help-out-parents', <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the classical family to me.
Also saying somebody cannont let somebody else discriminate on sexual preferance for who to raise thier children is not tolerance btw.
There are also more to interaction between men and women then just women does all the women work men do all the manly work. There are deffinite roles men and women take from flirting(i.e. most men don't play the coy role.) to just simply understanding each other, men and women are deffintly from mars and venus.
Im bi, that dosen't mean im egalitarian, tolerant or that im not egalitarian or tolerant, yet if I have a kid I want him raised by heterosexual parents if I die.
The few things I did get:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you saying that without a father your family life was easier?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no he is saying the b/c he had a loving mother he has come out fine. The lack of father has nothing to do with why is is normal, it is the loving mother that made him so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you seriously known anybody that actualy adopted a child when he or she was not with somebody from an adoption agency?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
umm, I guess you are asking if we know any one who was adopted when neither of the parents where adopted them selfs...
Yes, I do, I know quite a few(my mom's brother for one), and as far as I can tell that has no baering on this convo.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why can't I discriminate on sexual preference?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological parent has NO say in who gets their kids if it goes through an adoption agency.
oh, and b/c it is ilegal. Descrimination based on sexual preferance IS NOT LEGAL. Same goes for nationality, religion etc, yah know, its one of those amendment thingies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->adoption agency discriminate about money, health, exc<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as far as that picking goes they only need too prove that they CAN care for the kid (they aint gona give a kid to a couple with no job)
Wana be Parents don't need to be multibilionairs to adopt, they simply have to be able to actualy suport the kid financialy, mentaly, and in love.
Als o a Single parent CAN adopt so long as they prove that they can be resposible for all of the child's needs
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are also more to interaction between men and women then just women does all the women work men do all the manly work. There are deffinite roles men and women take from flirting(i.e. most men don't play the coy role.) to just simply understanding each other, men and women are deffintly from mars and venus.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats simply a broad generalization, and those are sorta useless in an argument mate.
I know MANY people who do not fit gender norms. Infact gender norms are rapidly changing, so far as to the point where a very large chunk of people don't fit into them.
Again I can bring up single parent adoption, just b/c both gender norms are not presant does not make the child messed up.
inconclusion I am honestly scared when some one says that he would not trust some one of his own group to raise his kids.
no he is saying the b/c he had a loving mother he has come out fine. The lack of father has nothing to do with why is is normal, it is the loving mother that made him so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly what I meant. Thank you. My life would have been WORSE if my father stuck around, for note. However, my life wouldn't be easier or harder, had I had a loving father.
Uhm... you can already get a marriage from the secular government without the involvement of ANY church (and as Nem so brilliantly pointed out, there are many that practice marriage). If that's really your issue, write your congressman and demand that the secular government cease to recognize marriage for ANYONE.
The few things I did get:
[QUOTE]Are you saying that without a father your family life was easier?[/QUOTE]
no he is saying the b/c he had a loving mother he has come out fine. The lack of father has nothing to do with why is is normal, it is the loving mother that made him so.[/QUOTE]
Its not a right to be able to adopt. Adoption agency try to find the best families there are more people looking for kids then there are kids looking for families. Adoption is not at all about the benefit of the person to adopt all thought that is a motive of why people adopt it is for the sole benefit of the child and the child alone. If there is any reason why one person is a better parent then another then they should get the child such as the person dosen't have a spouse. After helping my single mother cousin with her kids for 4 years, you can see why a partner helps.
[QUOTE]Why can't I discriminate on sexual preference?[/QUOTE]
The biological parent has NO say in who gets their kids if it goes through an adoption agency.
oh, and b/c it is ilegal. Descrimination based on sexual preferance IS NOT LEGAL. Same goes for nationality, religion etc, yah know, its one of those amendment thingies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
It is the goverment that can't discriminate, its in the 14th amendment, not private organizations such as <a href='http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/whatwedo/adoption/page.cfm?pg=Find%20a%20private%20adoption%20agency' target='_blank'>private adoption agencies</a>, a private group can discriminate on nationality, religion ext. Its the Freedom to Assemble peacefully. You also can have a say when you go threw an adoption agency as to who gets your child.
In conclusion im more scared of somebody who assumes because somebody is a member of one group that he instantly must think like anybody in his group.
I did a quick google and found one place that alows the birth mother to choose
but then again I am from the US and I believe that here birthparents are not suposed to know where their the child goes. I knew some one who was adopted and was given a leater from his birth mother on his 18th birthday (form wich he was alowed to find her if he chose to)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After helping my single mother cousin with her kids for 4 years<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
one case in many
I can show you many instances where single parents have managed to raise woderful children by them selfs (I point and my girlfriend who was raised by here mom)
again, broad generalizations based off of one case don't hold water in my book.
Even if you can prove to me that most single parents can't properly raise their children I would still be fore their ability to adopt simply b/c everything is case by case.
now to stop hijacking this.
WHY do you think that Homosexual parents can't raise children properly? (then again that is still a hijack <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
and as for my last statment, You took it wrongly. I know there are mess ups in any group, but I don't see how you can think that every one with sexual preferances like your is not fit to raise children (as that is how I read what you said)
This is not really directed at you Thansal, I'm just using it as an example. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why did this discussion turn to the effectiveness of a same sex couple in raising children? The main focus of marraige isn't to raise children as much as to celebrate the union of two people, at least thats my take on it.
This is not really directed at you Thansal, I'm just using it as an example. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why did this discussion turn to the effectiveness of a same sex couple in raising children? The main focus of marraige isn't to raise children as much as to celebrate the union of two people, at least thats my take on it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you.
Twex argued that homosexual marriage would have to have a "tangible" benefit to society in order for the couple to enjoy tax-benefits of said union. We assume this to mean "raising children".
Thus the focus of the discussion shifted somewhat towards whether homosexual couples can do as good a job of parenting as their hetero counterparts. I believe that they can.
This is not really directed at you Thansal, I'm just using it as an example. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why did this discussion turn to the effectiveness of a same sex couple in raising children? The main focus of marraige isn't to raise children as much as to celebrate the union of two people, at least thats my take on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you.
Twex argued that homosexual marriage would have to have a "tangible" benefit to society in order for the couple to enjoy tax-benefits of said union. We assume this to mean "raising children".
Thus the focus of the discussion shifted somewhat towards whether homosexual couples can do as good a job of parenting as their hetero counterparts. I believe that they can. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that a homosexual couple is just as qualified to raise a child as well, I'm just trying to nudge the topic back to its original direction. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->