Hmmm. I figured this is probably the least controversial of the big 3; and wanted to have a debate on soe topic or other. This will be a nice ice breaker I figured, as tempers don't normally get [i]too[i] charged in this discussion.


So; tis pretty simple. What are your feelings on homosexual marriage? Do you think they should be allowed to have a full marriage? Civil union? None at all? Please also state your reasons why, and don't post your oppinions here without accepting that people might disagree and they have every right to "attack" your beliefs, and vice versa.

whee.

To paraphrase or maybe quote Kinky Friedman:

I support gay marriage. There's no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

Seriously, I think there's no reason why two people of the same sex can't enjoy a union just like everyone else. I think some of the issue is that people in the government are influenced by religion and the stereotype of the promiscuity of gay people. I think that the same rules should apply to them, and I don't think that the choice/genetic thing is an issue. I think it's both. There are plenty of very queer guys who only date girls and/or are married with kids. That's called being in the closet, and that's fine. There are also plenty of very masculine guys who don't embody any of the gay stereotype, except for the small fact that they like to have sex with other men. Ditto for women.

My question, should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?

Yes, but they would have to explain to their child about theri sexuality. It could be very confusing for the kid and would definately have its awkward moments. However, I believe they should be allowed to. They have a right to get married, they have a right to adopt children, just like everyone else.

Yes, there would be funny stares and people would verbally trash them, but they have a right. On the lighter side of things, it would be extremely awkward if the child grew up to be homophobic. On the other hand (you have the same fingers?) it would make the child aware of the gay community and they would not harbour and prejudices. So my verdict is yes to gay parents adopting a child.

Next topic, this one was in the news a while ago, can a woman refuse to have sperm implanted from a gay man and is this a stupid thing to do?

I'm sorry for creating the expectation that you have to switch topics every post. I think primarily this should be about gay marriage. But since you ask...

I think if the sexual orientation of her sperm donor is a concern for her, she has every right to ask those samples to be excluded. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality, that could certainly be an issue. I think the biggest problem for many parents learning about their children's gayness is the concern that their family line will end. And that's actually a real, valid concern. A non reproducing child is a pretty good terminator of that line of genetic information.

Gay prejudice, while it has flared in recent years, is dropping. It's not like having gay parents will dibiliated a kid anymore than being biracial does.

And a woman can refuse to have sperm from a gay man implanted into her. Sperm banks are private businesses, and it is up to them whether or not they want to collect data on the donor's sexuality, as well as passing it on to the potential mothers.

Oh, I agree completely. As the saying goes, 'If you harm none, do what you will.'
If more people would realize that marrige is an expression of love and commitment, not a holy relic. Besides, shouldn't everyone have equal access to invisible bearded guys in the sky?

dood its a small minority (outside of the religious zealots) that really oppose the gay marriges. im "supposedly" catholic, and yet i couldnt give a rats arse either way on the subject. and yes aslong as they explain to their....ok wtf i just saw a commercial for WoW...off topic sorry...ummm...o yeah...their children, i think no harm done....

<< If there's one thing that annoys me more than anti-gay marriage people it's supposed christians that try to reconcile their beliefs with their opinion on gay rights. You can't have it both ways...

Furthermore, the majority of america is still anti-gay marriage; that's why it's still illegal in most states. Theyre the... 4th most mistruted minority I think, I know its really low (atheists are first <<)

hmm...well in california atleast...?
i mean i live here soo....

I'll be a little vehement for a moment...

How the HELL is that any concern of the parent? Whether or not your child will have children of his or her own is entirely his or her decision. Just what's the big f^<ing deal about a "Family Line" anyway? Odds are good you've never met anyone in your direct line older than your grandparents, and you'll never meet anyone younger than your great grandchildren. So who gives a rats ass if the "Line" continues? Do something useful with your OWN DAMN LIFE. Don't rely on somebody else to validate your existence by making sure the microscopic particles you happened to squirt or bake into them get squirted or baked all over again.

I'm sorry, but as RATIONAL, THINKING, IMAGINING creatures, I think that as a species, we can come up with a better goal than just "Make Babies."

How about "Ensure that all babies, our own or someone elses, grow up smarter than we were"? That sounds like a terrific goal to me. Doesn't require my kids, should I ever have any, to commit to the same goal, either. It's up to THEM.

/rant

that cant qualify for a rant....
it is a rue....

I think you have a valid opinion, but I think though it may not be righteous, it is a legitimate concern. It speaks particularly to the evolutionary drive within all of us, and I think it's definitely a part, subconscious or no, of a parents dread of having a gay kid. We should certainly all strive to be part of a society that values one's deeds and societal contribution more highly than their genetic code, but so much that we are is determined my our genes and our family heritage. I think it's good that you stand up for your opinion, though.

According to memetic theory the reason we can care about things like adopted children is because the "line" is still continuing, although its through memes rather than genes >>

Anyway; whether or not they should be allowed to discriminate against gay sperm and whether or not they should be able to are two completley different things...

there's no solid proof that being gay has anything to do with genetics

There's not really any solid proof either way. How many researchers do you think are devoting their life's work to figuring out that answer? Better question... how many corporations think they can make money off the answer?

...hmm....
thats just what ive heard in my pschology course from my teacher.
good point though

*rolls eyes* I was afraid we'd get into this. They will never find a gene that causes 100% of homosexual cases, that's insane. That does not, however, mean that it's purely environmental. Like with almost every other comparable thing, it is effected by both genetic and social causes. Richard dawkins gave a good analogy.

Imagine a tarp that's held to the ceiling by a bunch of rubber bands. Some of these bands connect to the tarp, some connect to the ceiling, but the vast majority are inbetween, pulling on 2 or more other links. The shape of the tarp is how you turn out... the rubber bands represent both genetic and social causes. Move or cut any one, and the whole shape changes.

Anyway, anom, shuold parents be allowed ot decide what race the child they get from a sperm bank is? His father's intelligence? Whether or not he has any genetic diseases?

in my personal opinoin, both his environment and his genetic make-up have major effects in dealing with someones personality and in this case, someones sexual preference. this is where i can agree with you. HOWEVER, what has more of an effect on the outcome of some ones developement? nature or nurture?

regarding the second question,my arguement cannot support me on that side of the debate. id have to cave in one that one

so preety much i "phail"...

lolz...

I honestly don't think someone's sexual preference is influenced by genetics. It's a matter of upbringing and one's exposure to society.

Sure, they're are some similarities between parent and offspring personality-wise, but that's because of the parent's influence from such a young age. My brother and myself have been huge metal fans most of our entire lives. It's not like we were born with that preference, it's just that our step-dad is usually playing some all the time, and it eventually grew on us.

Then again, it's not like gay parents will produce only gay children. That's like saying straight parents will produce only straight children.

In any way, before we get on the issue of gays marrying, adopting, donating sperm, etc. we should be more concerned with NOT teaching the next generation to be as intolerant as previous ones.
While I'm completely for all 3 of the rights listed, I think it would be better for the opposed to understand the reasoning rather than have acceptance FORCED onto them.

....the rights are the opposite of forced acceptance, not the synonym. It's a "right" to be able to choose the sperm you're impregnated with based on the donors sexual preferance. It's stripping of a right to disallow that. Just like freely murdering people is a right; our laws strip us of that right.

And like I said, the lack of a sure thing doesnt rule out genetic causes. Homosexual children are more likely to have homosexual (I think mothers?), even if they are adopted. You're more likely to be gay if you have an older brother, each additionaly one makes you more likely to be gay, regardless of their sexual preference. This includes adopted children (that is, their biological offsprings still matter).

I support gay marriages... Why shouldn't they be allowed to confess their throug marriage?? AND IT ISN'T A F***ING CHRISTIAN RITUAL! It existed long before that so why would one religion dictate wether(spelling) or not if a gay couple is allowed to be married... Don't you guys have the freedom to choose your own religion of beliefe (or none as in the case of me)???

Yes i believe they should have the rights to adopt too... They should probably explain to the child that their relationship isn't the norm but why shouldn't they be allowed??? Isn't it the childs best interests you are trying to serve not some twisted medieval beliefs....

Ps. I'm a longhaired, leatherpants, chains and jewelry wearing, metalhead thats also an atheist and bisexual... Wonder how mistrusted I am....

haha im sure you are, dood...but you be loved here, man.

The Gay Marriage thing is really interesting because most of the Gay men I know don't want it to be legalized... of course the women do... all girls want a wedding! Here in Oregon there was a big thing when one of our commissioners said there was nothing in our constitution to not allow homosexual couples to be issued marriage licences, and started having them issued. One of my good friends who is openly gay was pissed and said this: "One of the best things about being gay is you don't have some bitch bugging you to marry her... well... there goes that!!"



As to the sperm thing... I think a woman should be able to choose anything she wants about her sperm donor... if you were sleeping with a man you would get to choose these things. Men should be happy women who really want babies are going to the sperm bank instead of getting preggers on purpose and sticking you with 18 years of child support, and you bend over backwards to give them whatever type of sperm they want.

I've gone over this before (not here), so I'm just going to post my other response.
_-_-_
Here's what I want to see.

Any couple is allowed to become legally bound, regaurdless of sexual preference. This binding would be the equivalant of marriage. In this sort of binding all properties are shared as agreed upon by the couple in question. There would be no legal (read: tax) benefits to this sort of binding.
For discussion's sake, we'll call this X binding.

Any couple bound by X binding would be eleigable to upgrade their status to one that received legal benefits. Let's call this new binding Z.
To receive Z binding you would have to either have or adopt at least one child. Once said child(s) was in your custody, you would be upgraded to Z levle binding, and be given all of the legal benefits currently associated with marriage.

Basically, any couple without kids would be allowed to legally merge their property, but to receive tax benefits you have to be supporting a child.

My reasoning in this is that if you're not supporting a child, you are of no benefit to the socitey as a couple. (Besides, perhaps, taking up less space becasue you both live in the same household.) If you are of no benefit to the society, you don't deserve tax breaks.
If you support a child, you're supporting the continuation of society, and therefore should receive tax breaks.

To receive the tax breaks you must have at least one child currently in residence at your home, and in your custody.
Couples that once had children, but no longer have them (due to the child moving away or dying), you must have had the child in your residence for Y number of years to continue receiving benefits, but at a reduced rate.
(Y, to me, would ideally be 15, but something around 7 would be more probable.)

If a couple who has a child splits, the parent who has custody over the child retains the benefits afforded to Z couples. If the couple had the child for more than Y years together, the parent who does not retain the child will receive benefits at a reduced rate, as with couples who no longer support children.

Benefits would also be afforded to couples based on numbers of children. (Though I beleive that they already are.)

That's what I think about marriage. Abolish it completly, set up a new system in its place.

Weeeeee!! You made my day... ;-D

I think we need a political thread so no flame wars in the entire forum.

Low-key: First off, love the nic. Ever read Neil Gaiman's American Gods?

Second, it's an interesting idea you've proposed. It seems like it should work. Keep in mind, though, that binding X would still provide legal rights like the ability to claim one's spouse on one's inurance. That's important.

Yeah, that's where I got it. In some areas, I have no creativity. Gaiman, on the other hand, is a god of creativity.

To the topic though:
I know it's got some patching up to do, (After all, it seems nothing can be a law without having at least three hundred pages explaining it in the most tedious and confusing wording available) but it's a serious improvment over what we have right now.

You don't recieve tax breaks in marriages as a reward for "helping society", you recieve them in recognition and to supplement the fact that you're supporting more than just yourself... as most married couples don't have both partners working; and you get additional taxbreaks if you have children, because that's yet another person you must support.

Thought I'd weigh in too. I have nothing against gay marriage of any form. The only thing I disagree with(and I know not all homosexual couples do this) is forcing someone to marry them against their own belief system. There are civil unions and actually some churches that will marry a homosexual couple so there are options. If two people love each other and want to devote their lives to one another, I'm all for it. Just don't walk up to a pastor that disagrees and force him or her to do it, because your rights outweigh theirs.

I agree with spyder, I dont give a damn what you do(as long as it doesnt hurt me) but dont force anyone to like it

I'd actually refrained from saying this myself thinking I would be yelled at for saying it. The government has no right to restrict it, but at the same time, they have no right to make the various religious organizations marry them. All parties should consent first. If it is against someone's religion, you have no right to make them do it.

O'course.

O'course.

It doesn't have to be a religious thing. It's not like gay couples HAVE to marry in churches to make it official, so I'm not sure what other parties you're referring to outside of the two people, who happen to be of the same gender, that want to marry. They have to go to the courthouse to get the proper documents. There's supposed to be a fine line between church and state, so I don't see why there's any opposition. Liek Grubz said, as long as the couple isn't rubbing it into your face or anything, there's no real harm.

Soooo... why can't gay people just start their own churches and get married there? Marriage stopped being a religious institution when we gave the right to perform marriages to political officials. As long as I'm allowed to marry my wife in the way that we see fit, then why should I complain?

That being said, I don't know how I feel about gay couples adopting. I think a kid should be brought up in a normal, one mom, one dad household. However, since a whole lot of kids from technically 'normal' marriages have only one or neither, and since some parents couldn't find their butts with both hands, I'd say that... well why not? There are pry some gay couples that are better at raising kids then a whole lot of the trailertrash I've met. No law against THEM gettin married.

Soo true. There is no entrance exam for parenthood, we all just muddle through.

No one said that gays can't start their own churches.


Ooooh, I just thought of the topic of the next debate ....topic.

go for it dood....

Sounds like we have a pretty liberal bunch here, although that doesn't surprise me.

For the record, marriage -is- technically a religious term, but it isn't confined to one religion. So as much as certain conservative groups are influenced by their own religion, they know they can't present it as religious, because A) they don't own the ceremony and seperation of church and state.

Something I've been interested in doing is to just change the term of marriage on legal documents. If hetero atheist couples don't want a wedding, they usually go to a courthouse and have a judge marry them. A lot of religious couples do the same, and save the wedding ceremony for later. But what bothers me, is that either way, the end result is the same. Clergy are vested with the same power as judges in regards to marriage, and that's supposed to be a no-no. I'd be more comfortable changing the term that gives tax benefits and all that stuff on legal documents, retroactively assign civil-union liscenses (or whatever term floats people's boats) to married couples, and then let the churches marry people and the state give a different union for tax purposes.

Sorry for that big paragraph. I didn't see a good place to break it.

Anyways, I'm actually confused as to any legitimate argument against gay marriage. Most of them have been proven to either be false, or are just dropped as soon as someone calls them on it. I'm actually fairly involved in the Christian church, in the Methodist denomination, and I regularly debate homosexuality with clergy of other denominations. A Catholic priest once threatened to excommunicate me, but so far, most clergymen have accepted my points, and will tell me they only argue the point because their superiors say it's part of the core church dogma.

Anyways, looking back, I seem to be ranting, so I'll shut it now.

I'm completely anti-marriage, having been married for 12 years now... but that said, I think everyone should be allowed to suffer like straight people do.

If two gays want to stop having sex, want to have to stare at the same person every fuckin day for the rest of their lives, want to have their hopes and dreams suffocated, more power to them.

That is so wrong! I've heard that alot, but my husband and I still...nevermind. We must be the weird ones.

eh, I still get some, once in a while, but it's cheaper to hit up a whorehouse in TJ than do my wife... figure, the cost of a nice dinner, a pair of shoes, a movie, a nice bottle of wine... that's like $300, when I can get my pipes cleaned at Adelita's in TJ for under $100, including a nice tip.

(once again, I'm being glib. It doesn't always cost me $300 to nail my wife. Sometimes only a bottle of wine is required)

{Thud!} OMG! I can't breathe! I love it. Nah, my bribe is a massage, heck of lot cheaper for some oil and I don't like crowds.
Sorry, this isn't about us its about them...YAY for gay marriage!

I married a jewish girl, and unfortunately *some* of the stereotypes are true...

case in point: Why is the elevator at Nordstrom so special?
It's the only thing a jewish girl will go down on... badaDUM!

How do jewish girls do it doggystyle?
He begs then she rolls over and plays dead.

Ok, if that was over the line, someone let me know. I'm just kidding, I swear.

oh dont worry if it has humor in it, it cant be racist, i think

It's not just judges and priests that can sign off on marriage certificates, anyone can get liscensed to do so; it's just that priests go out of their way to make sure they are liscensed, as that's a heavy part of their "job". Also, in some states; you don't even need to be liscensed. Just anyone can sign it (you're essentially just bearing witness. Even if you get married by a priest, you still need a notary to make it official).

If you want to get angry about something, some states still don't officially allow atheists to hold political positions =\

I mean, hey, look at vegas. You can get married by random dudes in elvis jumpsuits.

To make soylent's point for him, even *I* am an ordained minister, licensed to officiate marriage ceremonies.

heheheheheh.

I fear for all soon to be married couples then, the last thing they need is a sock monkey banging its head in their car

That is what your avvy is right?

1) Anyone should be able to get married or whatever.. admittedly i live in NZ where most of this stuff is legal anyway but hey
2) Its Bullshit that your orientation is genetic eg. theres no other gays in my family
3) Its also Bullshit that Orientation is decided by your environment or by the fact that you have 7 older brothers.. im the eldest and my brothers are straighter than a..uhh.. very straight thing. I believe that its something that youre born as. Like some people are born gamers and others arent, two people from the same family can have differing opinions about poliics etc.
4) I use numbers as bulletpoints too much
5) i seem to be ranting so ill stop.