[Tif the Barber Boy]

Falco;145003 said:

Tsk tsk people, for letting Tiste drag you into the God-and-marriage debate. This has nothing to do with God for starters- no one is asking the church to marry gay couples. I don't care if our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality- although in many cases it has admirable qualities, in this case that morality is just plain wrong. Thus we as society have a duty to rise above that do the right thing and not exclude people simply based on the gender of the person they love.

Here! Here! (Or should that be "Hear! Hear!"? Drat... which one is it anyway? Now this is going to bug me... but getting back to the point...) A Religious Organisation has the right to have its own understanding of what marriage is, but the State as a reflection for the society AS A WHOLE should have as broadly inclusive a definition as possible. Otherwise, by definition, a marriage according to one person's set of beliefs is not a valid marriage according to another person's set of beliefs. Why should the State fix its definition of marriage to what one set of beliefs says, even if that's the majority view? The entire vision of a modern secular democracy is one that allows dissenting views to coexist.

I would just amend slightly what Falco said. I wouldn't say that the Judeo-Christian morality is "plain wrong" in this case. That is a value judgement. I would say it is not inclusive or universal enough for the basis of a law.

[MrXIII]

Why is Paul the authority on modern Christian morals? Can someone please answer me that one, he's totaly incompatable with Christ and it seems so few people have noticed that for the past few hundered years.

[Falco]

Can we not turn every single frickin' thread into a religious debate? Its not like we don't enough to trawl through anyway. This question has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion in modern secular democracy...

[Morgoth]

yeah, listen to falco..

hmm, I can find the old calot smily so... Gah, I can only use 5!! By god, what is the world coming to?

:folken::folken::folken: TOPIC!!! :folken::folken:

[Obdigore]

Falco;145529 said:

Can we not turn every single frickin' thread into a religious debate? Its not like we don't enough to trawl through anyway. This question has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion in modern secular democracy...

But Falco, it does, because the ONLY people against gay/lesbian marriages ARE the christian/other religious types who believe it is wrong in god's eyes. I have neither seen nor heard ANYONE not religious say they think it is wrong for homosexuals to have lesser rights than a hetrosexual couple. Have you?

IF someone has a reason, they think homosexuals should not be able to enter into a marriage or civil union for some other reason than their religious beliefs, please post, and I will be happy to discuss it with you, in an intelligent (or as intelligent as I get) manner.

[Falco]

Obdigore;145617 said:

But Falco, it does, because the ONLY people against gay/lesbian marriages ARE the christian/other religious types who believe it is wrong in god's eyes. I have neither seen nor heard ANYONE not religious say they think it is wrong for homosexuals to have lesser rights than a hetrosexual couple. Have you?

IF someone has a reason, they think homosexuals should not be able to enter into a marriage or civil union for some other reason than their religious beliefs, please post, and I will be happy to discuss it with you, in an intelligent (or as intelligent as I get) manner.

I haven't, but "because God doesn't allow it" isn't a reason for enacting laws against something these days. So lets discuss entrenched prejudice, or unwillingness to change, or the comparison with misceganation in the States. Or why political parties in certain countries are afraid to pursue this legislation. But please lets keep the religious stuff in one of the 17 other religious threads already in existence that I don't even bother flicking through these days...

[Obdigore]

Lost my attempted reply, so let me post a short one.

1) I agree, religious views should NOT be taken into consideration when attempting to create secular laws.
2) I am more than willing to discuss all those things, however most ARE BECAUSE of religious views.
3) If you read my earliest post in this thread, you would see that I am against the legislation against homosexual marriage. (I'm not saying you have not, I am just stating my view)

So, Falco, I agree, and would love to keep religion out of the thread. Show me someone who is not religious or not being pressured by religious people who is against homosexual marriage, and I would be happy to discuss.

[cauthon]

Well, I know some atheists who do not think homosexual people should have any rights at all. And they're not right wing zealots either. Strange, but true.

[Falco]

cauthon;145769 said:

Well, I know some atheists who do not think homosexual people should have any rights at all. And they're not right wing zealots either. Strange, but true.

There's an argument I'm willing to hear...

[cauthon]

They think that it is not natural and they find it disgusting. I doubt they have a 'rational' argument. The only other thing was that children need both a father and a mother ...

I can hardly speak on their behalf, so feel free to trash this.

[Falco]

cauthon;145805 said:

They think that it is not natural and they find it disgusting. I doubt they have a 'rational' argument. The only other thing was that children need both a father and a mother ...

Do I need to? The first reason is insulting- we don't deny people rights because some find them 'disgusting'. The second is arguable- marriage isn't linked to having kids. Nonetheless, as for the mother & father thing...plenty of single women raising children out there...

[Menandore]

Falco;145809 said:

Do I need to? The first reason is insulting- we don't deny people rights because some find them 'disgusting'. The second is arguable- marriage isn't linked to having kids. Nonetheless, as for the mother & father thing...plenty of single women raising children out there...

Indeed but many people argue that the rise in single parent families is having a bad effect on society. Young boys especially, since there are more single mothers than fathers and most teachers are women, are growing up without male role models. However, I think that argument has to do with adoption, I don't see its relevance at all when it comes to marriage.

[Falco]

Goddess Aurora;145815 said:

Indeed but many people argue that the rise in single parent families is having a bad effect on society. Young boys especially, since there are more single mothers than fathers and most teachers are women, are growing up without male role models. However, I think that argument has to do with adoption, I don't see its relevance at all when it comes to marriage.

Would you like to quote me a study, GA? I'm not a fan of the "many people argue..." thing, and have a personal interest in this particular debate (which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic).

[Dolorous Menhir]

Children of single parent families perform poorly in school, are more likely to commit crimes, things like that. Doing a google search, this immediately popped up. I can't give any assurance as to the reliability of the site, but it gives you a run down of what arguments to expect.

http://www.civitas.o...experiments.php

[Obdigore]

I am from a single-parent family... and i was in top 3% of every school I attended, and things like that. Plus I know many of my friends that had two parents, one male and one female, that managed to have law problems and performed very poorly in school settings, even though they COULD have done much better.

Most studies, frankly, sample a small portion of the available 'subjects', and only the cross section that will give the person doing the study the answer they wish.

Plus there is the fact that if you are endorsing anti-homosexual marriage because you believe that a child needs both sexes of parent, why not make divorce and childberth outside of wedlock illegal as well?

edit: because it didn't say what i wanted it to say.

[Falco]

Let start a new topic with this one...I think this has wandered OT enough.

[Astra]

Well, I don't believe any "study" as well. Most of statistics are lies or badly done. Just use a common sense and your own life experience.
From my own experience I adamantly believe that a child needs both mother and father. I have seen too many of both types children and have noticed many personal drawbacks with children who were rised by a single parent.

For example: My father didn't have dad, because he died during WWII. My wife didn't have dad because he left her mother when my wife was 2 years old. I am not talking about my classmates in school. We had a big classm 40 pupils. There are were probably up to 10 without dad. Bad idea, imho.

[Menandore]

I'd just like to make it clear that I wasn't necessarily voicing my own opinion, just referring to the general argument. I'm afraid I don't have any sources for it as it's something I've picked up from various news articles. My personal opinion is that children do need good strong role models in their life (both male and female) but I don't think that necessarily needs to come from living with a mother and father. It can come from the extended family or even outside of the family.

[cauthon]

Falco: I did not say it was my idea, somebody asked if anybody could dislike the idea without riligious reasons.