or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Same Sex Marriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Same Sex Marriage - Page 2

post #31 of 68
It's not exactly "natural" for a kid to grow up in a single parent family or be orphaned.. and those kids often get teased mercilessly by unthinking children who haven't been taught tolerance for difference. How do we know that children raised by gay parents are unhappy and not well-cared for? And again, if everyone else has the right to do something, how does giving a section of the population the same right make them "special?" I may be very, very uncomfortable with this arguement, but the "anti-gay marriage" side needs a stronger arguement than what's been put forth until now.
post #32 of 68
u know..... i was just stating my opinion....... maybe i shouldnt have....... And, honestly, I dont know whether or not I believe in the statistics that some people are born gay, which IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT!
post #33 of 68
Let me tell you about a friend of mine, her name is Karen. Karen grew up in a horrible home with a father who abused her from an early age. At 17 Karen ran away from home and went to San Francisco to live in the gay community. She called herself Sammi and had a partner. They were together for 7 years before Sammi's partner suddenly went into a rage one night and beat Sammi so bad she landed in the hospital for two weeks.

When she got out, she was alone and she moved to another part of the community but she felt like she was never fully accepted. Finally at the age of 21 Sammi started taking means to change her sex legally. She went to counseling, started drug therapy, and went to Canada for the operations (she has had a total of 4) Her name is now David, she is married to a woman and they have an adopted 9 year old girl. Sometimes, when she visits, I slip and call her Karen, or Sammi, even though she looks like a guy, full beard and everything. She did all of this to gain acceptance, because society was so cruel to her she couldn't live her life. Does she tell Tamara about her past? I don't know and I really don't care. I just feel a deep sadness for her to be so gender confused and having to make such an extreme measure of change, just to be accepted. Her family now treats her as a bad toilet joke, and she has been ostracized from all of them. But her and Tammy are very happy together and she underwent hell during the recovery period for her surgeries. And Tamara is a happy, well-adjusted child, in the school band and other activities.
post #34 of 68
Just as a note on genetics, not all things that are biological are due to an inherited gene. Many disorders are linked to genes that have mutated, and happen quite frequently. And gay men and women are known to enter into straight marriages and have children. A biological explaination is possible. Maybe it's so, maybe not, but nothing has been proved either way. Too bad, because the whole "nature/nurture" thing complicates it...
post #35 of 68
I just agree with Lola about this then. Special rights indicates that they are getting something that the majority doesn't get. Having access to spousal insurance and "marriage" tax breaks - the legal side of things, is something that the majority does have. Depriving them of these legal rights may be the status quo, but that doesn't mean that granting them those rights is special treatment.
post #36 of 68
Thread Starter 
Just wanted to mention that there are "homosexual" pairings in the animal kingdom as well - specifically amoung the wolf and bird population. Do the animals "choose" their lifestyle, or is it biological?
post #37 of 68
Uh, Tybalt, we're not talking about butt-sniffing here. Homosexual sex has indeed been recorded in the wild. And even the dumbest wolf should know the difference between boy and girl before things got that far. I know that lovebirds sometimes pair up, I had a job where two of them in an aviary were "lesbian", and didn't quite understand why none of their eggs would hatch (I guess their parents didn't give them "the talk" ) There's a known way to manipulate fruitfly genes so that the males ignore females and mate with other males (what about the females? the article never said...wouldn't that be an important part of the story?) None of that proves that homosexuality in humans is biological, but it's food for thought!
post #38 of 68
I just wanted to say that I believe your sexual orintation can be biological. We have had homosexuals for centuries if not more (sorry I'm so bad at these things.)

To note on what Hissy said. I've known quiet a few transvestites, transgenders and what kids like to call themselves these days "girly boys" because they can't accept the word transvestite.
It's really a sad thing honestly.
I mean if that's what they feel they need to do because society has treated them so horribly, or they are just really homosexuals and don't know how to outlit that properly yet, what have you. But it's still pittyful in some cases.

On the note of parenting, I never had a father, though my mother has been married to 2 men since my birth... I basically raised myself, granted for years I was pretty messed up, and still am a bit now. I consider myself and as does everyone else a great, and very strong person.
My daughter... I was single for much of it, but my own mother was around a lot, so in a way she was raised with a single mom and with 2 moms!
Granted now she lives with me and her daddy (my fiance), and she's just your average child, and VERY loved, and it would be the same had I chosen a female partner.
post #39 of 68
Here is a list of scientific findings about homosexuality. I can give the references to anyone who wants them.

1. Homosexuality is known to run in families.
2. Concordance for homosexuality is more common among monozygotic than dizygotic twins. (This means that in twins who are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual the other is likely to also be homosexual; whereas in nonidentical twins, if one twin is homosexual the other is not as likely to be homosexual.)
3. Homosexuality has been found to be associated with differential exposure to hormones before birth.
4. Some studies have found that the actual structure of the brain is different in homosexuals and heterosexuals.
5. The fact that homosexuals have a 39% greater chance of being non-right-handed than heterosexual suggests biological differences between the groups.

With that said, I can't find a reason why two people who are committed to each other and to the relationship shouldn't be allowed to marry.

And...research with children of homosexual couples finds that these children are just as psychologically happy and healthy as children raised in more traditional families. The key factor in psychological health is being raised by loving adults...the gender of these adults doesn't matter.
post #40 of 68
Alright. This is honestly what I think.

I have a religion that I follow, though I am not extremely religious. My religion actually says that same sex relationships is 'taboo'. However, I do not JUDGE those who are in same sex relationships. My religion also says not to 'judge' others, to love on another, and to treat others as I would like to be treated.

So regarding that, I look upon each person with respect and do not judge them in their actions. It is not my position to. IMO I find it hypocritical to judge 'gay' people for their same sex marriages/relationships adopting children. *My* religion says it isn't right to do it, so *I* don't do it (though if I were to one day find a woman that I truly loved as a life partner then I would go with what I feel was right, but thats another topic in itself).

What other people do and think is their own business and if it makes them happy and doesn't harm others then I don't see any kind of problem with it. Maybe I'm a strange person? Who knows. This is what I believe is right and I stick with it.

As far as same sex partners adopting children into a *loving* home (same sex partners can be just abusive as a heterosexual couple) I think it's great. If anything that is one more child out there that has been orphaned that is being given the chance to have a family. To have moms or dads hold them when they've fallen and skinned their knee. To help them learn to read and ride a bike. To take pictures of the beautiful look of delight come across their face when they open Christmas presents, to hug them when their first boyfriend/girlfriend breaks up with them, and to congratulate them and tell them how proud they are of them when they accomplish something they fought hard for.

ALL children deserve that, and when they get adopted it's their chance to have it.
post #41 of 68
Well said Cassandra!
post #42 of 68
what can i say except all this makes me kinda sad. I´m a 22 year old male and have been with my boyfriend for four years. if we could be married we would be, but we cant so we arent. i´m not going to run about shouting im gay get used to it because likely as not i would end up with a fist in my face. one thing you ALL have to realise is that unless you are gay you will never know how it feels like to be reviled and ridiculed because of the way you express your love. LOVE. It is the most precious of gifts we have to give, who are we to discriminate. And if this love is to be extended to the raising of children, why not. Most physcologists will tell you that a loving, stable home is the key to a happy child.... it can be offered by a lone parent or two (REGARDLESS OF SEX).

I cannot help but feel that the majority of people who are strongly against same sex marriage feel that gay men are no more than sexual predators who could never make a go of a marriage and would probably try it on with an adopted child when it was old enough! It makes me sick to the stomach that in this day and age people can be sooo closed minded.

As someone else posted, being gay is not a new thing, so however much it may frighten you you have to try and be a little more open minded. We are not going anywhere and we are your equals
post #43 of 68
Just my thought.....

Ok, I dont know how to explain this, but I will try:
I dont agree with the whole same sex marriage, and dont think homosexuality is right. But, I also think that gays/lesbians dont deserved to be killed or beat up because of their preference. Does this make me close-minded? I dont think so. We all have our own opinions on this matter..... we're all adults. And, I guess it's true if you are not gay, you dont know what it feels like to be shut out by family or friends or strangers.

So, anyways..... that's just my thinking on this whole issue.
post #44 of 68
I think there is no difference. I guess people who are homophobic are just like those last remaining racist in the world. Just the way some people are.

I've never gotten beat up for who I am, but I did have to keep it underwraps for years, I basically just didn't talk about it. It wasn't widly accpeted where I grew up (a small town, small state really).
But I must say, now when people do find out, most of them freak out on me saying "oh I know such and such who is too, you should hook up etc" normally it's horny guys saying this. They just automatically think that any bi person is going to like every other one, it doesn't work that way, and it's annoying.
post #45 of 68
My only objection, to gays is some of those Gay Pride parades. I don't want to see half-naked HETEROSEXUALS simulating sex acts in public, either. Folks, its well and good to have a parade and have some fun but, let's maintain some standards of decency!
post #46 of 68
Seeing as marriage is a man-made institution, I see no reason why marriage between same-sex people can't be allowed. I mean, if heterosexual marriage was essentially invented, what's stopping us from "inventing" (that is, allowing) homosexual marriage?

It is my belief that love is love no matter what. If I happened to be more attracted to women and found a life-long partner, I'd be ecstatic; but I can't even imagine the hell I might experience from the intolerance of some folks. As it is, my spiritual views aren't made widely known for that very same reason. It is sad that we live in a world where we're not free to just be who we are without someone having something to say about it. *sigh*

post #47 of 68
30 years ago my marriage would have been illegal too. I am "white" and my wife is "black", which was illegal in many states for quite a long time. We are both in our 40's (I'm nearly 50) and for both of us this is our first and only marriage. Inter-racial sex, while somewhat less taboo than homosexual sex, was considered unnatural.

We have no children and know many older married couples who have also never had children. Does the lack of children make our marriage void?

So how do you define someone's gender? Is it their genitals or their chromosomes? If someone is XY (male) but has a testestosterone resistance and so develops as a female is this person male? XXY individuals which develop as female but have certian male characteristics (such as higher muscle mass - these people are the primary reason for the sex test of Olympic athletes) are these individuals male or female?

The institution of male/female marriage is an artificial one though is also widely established in most societies. But then again, multiple partner marriage (mostly one male and multiple females) also has a long history, but this is not currently legal in most countries either.

Extension of company paid "family" benefits at work is, by it's very nature, descriminatory. The company is, in effect, saying "I will pay you more because you are married or have a family. I was single into my 30's. People with families received company paid health benefits worth well over $100/month which I would have been happy to receive in my paycheck.

As a married couple we pay much higher taxes than the combined amount we would pay as single individuals. Extending company benefits to couples that are not "legally" married provides them the advantages of marriage without the disadvantages (most notably, such as higher taxes.)

As for genetics, there is as much supporting evidence that child molestation is genetically determined as there is for a genetic basis for homosexuality. That said, there is quite a difference between the two, and homosexual relationships involving consent between two adults are really no one else's business in a free society. Among adult humans behavior is a choice, but religiously defined moral definitions of this behavior are outside the relm of a free society (with certian general exceptions - such as having sexual relations in public as an example.)

As for homosexual relationships in the animal world, particularly in wolves: "humping" is a dominance behavior and is not necessarily sexual. The claims of homosexual behavior in wolves (and other canids) (and most other wild animals in general) is usually politically motivated and not supported by careful scientific observation.

On the other hand, homosexual relationships have been part of the human experience for thousands of years, maybe longer. They have frequently been in or out of acceptance as society has changed.

For my opinion: I believe adult individuals should be allowed to commit to mutually agreeable relationships, whether male/male, male/female, female/female or multiple partner. I also believe adult individuals should be allowed to enter into mutual contract arrangements (such as buying a house or getting life insurance) which provides for certian survivor benefits without unreasonable restriction. I also believe employers (or the government) should not descriminate on the basis of marital status. Allowing employees to purchase at their own expense, at group rates, health/life/dental insurance is one thing, providing this coverage at company expense is descriminatory. Tax and government descrimination against married people should be eliminated.

post #48 of 68
Thread Starter 
Well stated George and Adam.

I struggle with what my feelings are. My religion states that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, as long as you don't "act" on those feeling. I find that hypocritical. I believe in the power f love, and if you are lucky enough to have found love, then you should be able to make a legal union. I feel that gays and lesbians should have all of the same rights as everyone else, including marriage if they wish.
post #49 of 68
hi again,

can i first say that george´s reply was one of the first ones that i have read here that seems well thought out and with some factual basis.

secondly.... and i´m not trying to stir things up..there are just a few things that irk:

the first is that when people say that they beleive that gay is ok but gay marriage does not make them closed minded ..... i´m sorry but if you dont beleive we have the same rights then, yes, you are closed minded. If that hurts your feelings then i´m sorry but you are still a homophobe.

secondly... i find it kinda patronising when people say its ok for gay marriage because we deserve a tax break too. Hello? we want to marry as a declaration of our committment to one another.

finally. as for all these people who seem to find it so very distasteful that some gay people go on "pride" marches. Imagine you are dating/in a relationship with someone yet if you were to hold hands/kiss in public you would attract verbal and physical abuse (including being asked/told to stop by police...for holding hands and offending public decency). Imagine then for a minute that you are also surrounded by hundreds of straight people everyday( read: normal people.... because most do)and these couples can hold hands at fairs, ¨kiss in the street and no one bats an eyelid. Imagine then that once a year or so there is a public gathering where you can walk and feel comfortable along with other peolpe like you, where you can kiss your boyfriend/girlfriend as much as you want. Imagine then, reading that some of these straight people have a problem with such a public display when they are free to do so whenever and wherever they please.

post #50 of 68
I have only just seen this thread now. I believe that ANY two people who love each other, regardless of their gender, should be allowed to get married. My sister is gay and if she ever decided to get married, she has my blessings, as long as the person she decides to marry, treats her well and with respect. I lived in a house with 4 other lesbians and so I see nothing wrong with it.
I dont see marriage in terms of gender - I see it in terms of LOVE. Thats what matters.
post #51 of 68
Well stated Adam and George.

All *humans* should have the right to express their love. Like it was said earlier "Who am I to discriminate?". I am not a lesbian, but if I was a lesbian I wouldn't want people to judge me on it. I have quite a few friends who are lesbian, and let me tell you.. you couldn't hope to meet a better person.

All *humans* are entitled to their own opinion as well. There are always going to be those who approve/disapprove of certain things. However, approve or not, respect should be shown to everyone until that person gives you a valid reason not to show respect. Being 'gay' or 'straight' does not validate a reason to show disrespect.

In any case, I wish all those who are in love and wish to marry the best of luck.. whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
post #52 of 68
Re: Tybalt.

Mocking the term homophobe does not in any way belittle the sentiment behind what it stands for. I should have made that clearer, I appologise. There are many other words of choice that spring to mind, of which bigot is one. What is to gain by inferring you are not "afraid of homosexuals"? I think it says more about you than it does about homosexuals.

As for "pride" marches..... i think you will find that many minority groups who face persecution have held, and do hold, marches. So yes...wow... people do march based on the colour of their skin. A gay march is not neccessarily held to "honour" being gay but rather a means of drawing attention to the fact that there are a lot of us out there who the law discriminates against on many levels.
post #53 of 68
Thread Starter 
I, myself, have gone to pride marches in support of some of my friends. There is a warm and loving camaradie that I experienced there. I think it is horrible how the media shows what plays to the fears of the masses. IMO, the media is often what is holding back the progress toward equality among all people!
post #54 of 68
I fully support same-sex marriages. For me, marriage is the acknowledgement made by two people to society that their relationship is one that will last.

Earlier, someone posted that they had yet to meet a homosexual who remotely inspired fear. Well, let me share my view. My roommate in college, and best friend, was a lesbian and the co-president of our university's Lesbian and Gay Alliance. There were many times when we found anti-gay grafitti scribbled on our door (over 3 years). We also had negative and hurtful notes shoved under the door. You may say that you haven't met a homosexual who inspired fear, but we lived with the fear and hate.

As for Gay Pride parades just being about someone's sexual partner, it's so much more than that. Believe it or not, being gay is a lot more than what gender you have sex with. But, until people realize this, this fight will go on.
post #55 of 68
FWIW I fully support marriage between ANY two people who want to make such a commitment to each other.

I think many people place too much meaning on marriage - anyone that thinks allowing same sex marriages is going to take away from the sacred meaning of the word/event is doing so. Your marriage is what YOU and your partner make it, I would hope that you wouldn't let your marriage suffer because of what others are doing in their marriages. Your relationship should be the same the day before you get married as the day after, I don't think anyone should think it's going to change because of a piece of paper. The commitment needs to be there before the ceremony, and so I just don't see how same sex marriages could "offend" anyone in that regards.
post #56 of 68
Personally I don't understand why anyone would want to get married. But fortunately for everyone else, that is not reason enough to make ALL marriages illegal

But seriously, this is not only a very interesting, but also a very long thread. It could be that I have missed a post but the only real argument I have read against a legal same-sex marriage is that marriage is considered sacred by the church and can therefor only be between a man and a women.

All other arguments have either already been counterd (special rights vs equal rights) or are IMHO not directly related to marriage (children, gay-pride parade, general anti-gay remarks and feelings)

I'd like to give my 2cw on the sacred issue.
Being an atheist myself, I am not too familiar with the laws of the church.
What I do know is that there are many civil marriages that are perfectly legal and yet are not recognized by eg the Roman Catholic church.
Such as a marriage between a Catholic and a Muslim, or when one of the partners is divorced without consent of the church.

Allowing civil same-sex marriages, does not imply that a church/religion has to accept it.
IMO saying same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal because it is against a religion is the same as saying marrying someone from another church/religion should be illegal because a religion doesn't allow it.
post #57 of 68
Hmm, Very good point Seagull. That is something that I haven't thought about. That is true though, why should the beliefs of one or a few religions dictate the laws of a country with an extremely diverse population that follow a very large variety of dieties?

Definitely something to ponder.
post #58 of 68
Thread Starter 
The Supreme court of Canada has ruled that prohibiting homosexuals from marriage is discriminatory. Here is the Story from canada.com. Gay marraige is now legal.

Let gays marry now, court says
Ontario ruling sets off rush to licence offices; federal minister considers appeal

Janice Tibbetts
The Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

Gay and lesbian couples raced to obtain marriage licences yesterday in a bid to pre-empt any attempt by the federal government to continue its flagging legal fight against same-sex marriage.

The rush to legal matrimony followed a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which yesterday went farther than any court in Canada by changing the definition of who can marry, effective immediately.

Previous court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia had given the federal government until July 2004 to change its law.

The first gay couple to legally become newlyweds were Crown prosecutor Michael Leshner and his partner Michael Stark, in a civil ceremony before a judge at a downtown Toronto courthouse.

"Today is the death of homophobia in the courtroom as we know it," declared Mr. Leshner, as he embraced and kissed his legal spouse.

As Mr. Leshner and Mr. Stark exchanged rings and sipped champagne, several other couples picked up marriage licences, after the court ordered Toronto city hall to issue them.

In Ottawa, longtime partners Lisa Lachance and Heather Gass said that were hoping to obtain a licence this morning and possibly "do the deed" tonight.

The federal government, which until yesterday had had more than a year's grace period to recraft its law, scrambled to decide what to do next.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon met with senior cabinet ministers to discuss his plans, which he will announce today after presenting them to the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Cauchon, however, hinted that the government's fight is not over yet.

"We really need a national solution," he said, stressing that Parliament should also have a role to play instead of leaving the "important social issue" entirely up to the courts.

"Having said that, we see the direction that the courts are taking now," Mr. Cauchon said.

The government could move as early as today to seek a stay of the court decision, pending a Supreme Court decision.

An appeal would buy time for the Justice Department, but even the Liberals' own research bureau has warned that the government will ultimately lose the fight.

If the high court agrees to hear the case, it could take another two years before making a decision. The case could become moot in the meantime, considering Paul Martin, the frontrunner to replace retiring Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, has said that it's time for the government to stop appealing.

The court, instead of telling the federal government to change its law, struck down the existing definition of marriage in Canada -- "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The new definition is "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others," the court said.

"Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite sex relationships," the court said in a unanimous, 61-page written ruling.

"In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships."

The federal government is responsible for the definition of marriage and the provinces oversee the solemnization, including the marriage registration. The decision, which dealt with seven Ontario couples, ordered the provincial government to register marriages.

Ontario Attorney General Norm Sterling said he would not stand in the way of the court's ruling. "If the decision today says that two people of the same sex can get married, that is the law of the land, then we will register," he said.

But Alberta Premier Ralph Klein promised to do everything in his power to block the decision and his officials urged the federal government to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to be the final arbiter in the case.

Gay and lesbians activists, along with several MPs, urged the federal government to stop the legal fight.

"I am calling on Jean Chrétien, the prime minister, as part of his legacy, to leave a legacy of respect," said New Democrat MP Svend Robinson, who is gay.

"Stop the appeals, stop the obstruction, stop the waste of taxpayers' money."

The ruling orders the Ontario government to register the January 2001 marriages of Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa and Elaine and Anne Vautour.

The couples married in ceremonies in January 2001 at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, using an ancient Christian tradition that allowed them to avoid having to get city-issued marriage licences.

The court decision dismisses every argument from the federal Justice Department, including its contention that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

The court also rejects the fear of churches that gay marriage infringes on religious freedom because it would force them to conduct ceremonies against their will.

"This case is about the legal institution of marriage," the court said.

"We do not view this case as, in any way, dealing or interfering with the religious institution of marriage."

As Mr. Cauchon considered his options, an all-party parliamentary committee met behind closed doors yesterday to put the finishing touches on a report, crafted from months of public hearings on whether gays and lesbians should be permitted to wed.

Mr. Cauchon said he wants to consider the report's recommendations.

But there were complaints among committee members that the political process has been usurped by the courts.

"We apparently have judge-made law in this country and we're just here for decoration," said John McKay, a Liberal MP who opposes same-sex marriage.

Vic Toews, justice critic for the Canadian Alliance, called on the federal government to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Toews also says that the government should not be shy about using the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, a safety valve that allows politicians to override unpopular court decisions
post #59 of 68
This may open a can of worms. The US government recognizes marriages, performed in other countries. I wonder how many US citizens will go to Canada and get married?
post #60 of 68
>>The US government recognizes marriages, performed in other countries<<

Yes and no. In Arabic countries a man is allowed up to four wives. This is not recognized here.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Same Sex Marriage