Gay marriage/adoption

Do you believe in aliens?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 62.2%
  • Yes, but not in religious buildings (church, mosque, synagogue)

    Votes: 16 17.8%
  • No

    Votes: 18 20.0%

  • Total voters
    90

SkullCandy

She Bangs The Drums
is a Contributor Alumnus
As a recently out bi guy I've been following the current gay marriage (and to a lesser extent the still present gay adoption) debates with a lot of interest.

I don't think a person really can be against gay marriage, and by that I mean that there are so many reasons why it should be introduced worldwide. It validates a couple's relationship, allows them to be recognised as married in several other countries and on a more superficial level partners inherit each others titles and are benificiaries of their estates if one partner dies without a will.

Gay adoption, however, is harder to justify. Personally I'm for it, you can give poor underprivileged children a new home as well as creating a family if you'd always wanted one but thought that just because you were gay you couldn't. But then matters arise such as whether a child needs a mother figure and a father figure. To be completely honest I don't think they do. Single parents do a fine job looking after their children and they don't even have a second partner to help them.

Anyway tl;dr. The main questions for this thread are;

Are you for or against gay marriage?
Should it be conducted in a religious building?
Is gay adoption a good thing?

Here are some links to newspapers that might help.

http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/measure-52765-senate-adoption.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/26/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-lesbian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/church-anguish-over-gay-marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Sikhs-attack-Camerons-gay-marriage-plan.html
 
You asked an either or question but gave yes and no as options. I can figure out from context what you meant but the poll makes no sense.
 
Gay marriage is fine - married is a legal status and has nothing to do with religion, as to if it's hosted in a church that should be the decision of the church -- management has the right to refuse entry to a church just like any other venue.


I am ok with gay adoption basically on the grounds that

A) It's better than a child needing adoption and not being adopted.
B) Two gay parents who care will provide better care than shitty straight parents who have no such restrictions on having kids.

I'd rather we actually not have either of gay adoption and incompetent straight people breeding but if we're going to have the second it seems stupid not to have the first.
 
I don't know why the second one is even there to be honest (or why more people aren't voting it lol). The government can't force religious institutions to do anything, this is vital in seperation between church and state.
 

SkullCandy

She Bangs The Drums
is a Contributor Alumnus
The reason I included the second is because for many gay people, who are passionately religious, it means a lot to be allowed to get married in a religious edifice. I'm not suggesting that the government should force religious institutions to allow this to continue because, frankly, things get seriously fucked up when church and state mix.

Sorry if the poll seems a bit confusing. The poll is meant just for people to express their opinions on the matter in general without posting, whereas the thread allows people to get more nuanced with their answers.
 

mattj

blatant Nintendo fanboy
No offense, but your poll is way too two dimensional.

Without going into detail because I have to leave for work soon, I oppose homosexual acts on Biblical grounds. The Bible is extremely clear. There is no debate there. I firmly believe homosexuality is a sin. In that sense I do not support homosexuality.

But concerning whether or not homosexuals should be legally allowed to do whatever they want, I fully oppose most anti-homosexual legislation. Most anti-homosexual legislation does not accomplish what it is meant to accomplish and stiffles a homosexual US citizen's right to liberty. Homosexuals should be allowed to have sex with other consenting adults, and the government should recognize their relationship just like it does any other consenting, adult relationship. Making homosexual acts illegal doesn't stop those acts. Homosexuals are still going to have homosexual sex if they want to. Not recognizing homosexual unions isn't going to stop homosexuals from forming relationships. It just puts them in a difficult situation when the time comes. Beyond just not working, homosexual Americans should have the right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't hurt others, which homosexuality arguably does not. Let them marry.

At the same time, this is not a serious issue but, the government has no right mandating that religious organizations be forced to violate their conscience and marry a homosexual couple in a religious ceremony. There are valid reasons for opposing homosexuality on religious grounds. Homosexuals can go to the courthouse, or many secular, or liberal religious institutions.

Concerning homosexual adoption, I do not personally like the idea of homosexuals adopting children because I disagree with their worldview from a religious standpoint, and I personally don't like the idea of them passing it on. But if I enacted legislation banning every potential adopter who I personally disagreed with from a religious standpoint, there wouldn't be very many potential adopters. The fact is, there is a surplus of unwanted children who need a good home. If a homosexual individual, or couple, wants to provide that home, I'm for it. As far as I've seen there is no serious basis for the supposition that homosexual parents are worse than the foster system. A mother and a father may very well be the ideal situation, arguably, but a homosexual dad, or two moms, most likely beats the foster system. Let them adopt.

At the same time, I can completely understand why many religiously affiliated adoption agencies refuse to place children with homosexual parents. They're the ones placing the kids. If they deem a candidate unfit for whatever reason, that's their business. The government doesn't have any business mandating that they violate their conscience. Homosexuals can go elsewhere.

I oppose homosexual acts on Biblical grounds.
I support a homosexual's right to marry, with exemption.
I support a homosexual's right to adopt, with exemption.
 
I don't understand why gay adoption is so hard for people to accept? I guess, the worst possible outcome is that the kid gets made fun of in elementary school for not having a mommy (or a daddy if the case may be) because little kids are assholes. As long as the parents don't force any hatred onto the kid ("be gay because we're gay!" or "all straight people are dickmongrels") then there is no problem, although that goes for straight parents too as far as I'm concerned. If you're qualified in terms of ability and financially stable, might as well let the little niggas have a home, better than being an orphan.

Also, am I the only one who finds gay people who are really religious incredibly ironic? Why would you join a club that doesn't like you? (Any religious gay person who can answer this I would appreciate it because it really does baffle me.)


Oh yeah, gay marriage is cool. Them being married doesn't harm anyone or anything.
 
mattj with an incredible post. briefly expressing how your thoughts on homosexuality influence your opinion on gay marriage (like mattj did) is fine, but please try not to centre this discussion around it lest it become an even larger potential shitfest

i'm remaining mostly reticent if only because i don't like posting from my ipod, but if anyone cares about anecdotal evidence from a well-socialized male who grew up without a mom, i've got heaps of it
 
Also, am I the only one who finds gay people who are really religious incredibly ironic? Why would you join a club that doesn't like you? (Any religious gay person who can answer this I would appreciate it because it really does baffle me.)
I don't know, but there are a lot of gay priests, probably because they don't have to confront their sexuality. But that doesn't explain why some women are religious.
 

Nastyjungle

JACKED and sassy
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
Also, am I the only one who finds gay people who are really religious incredibly ironic? Why would you join a club that doesn't like you?

being part of organized religion is about believing in that institution's god
not about if the people within that institution like you or not

ps. forcing an religious institution to marry people they dont want to marry basically goes against every idea within freedom to practice religion
gay marriage should be recognized by the government and only conducted in a religious building if the owner of said building is ok with that
 

SkullCandy

She Bangs The Drums
is a Contributor Alumnus
wait, the question doesn't match the poll...

To be honest I put the poll on in a rush because I had to run to lessons (I go to boarding school). Feel free to take it down, I don't really like it either and I'm not sure how to do so myself...
 

Mafeking

channels his inner Wolverine
is a Contributor Alumnus
Honestly, aren't things like this just going to degenerate into a mad scramble for which side can prove the other one wrong? If you were looking for support I have no idea why you'd ask in a 4m, hahaha.

Appreciating the clarity and reasoning behind mattj's post; it's not often one reads an actually well-reasoned post on someone's views on matters such as these, and I'm not just saying that because I agree, which I don't really. Biblical laws are so archaic and blah blah blah I don't think it should be a defining factor in anything ever.

And NJ pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why people who aren't straight would still be religious.
 
being part of organized religion is about believing in that institution's god
not about if the people within that institution like you or not
yeah, but religion isn't all about believing in a god. they also have to believe non-believers are going to hell; if irrational fear is what motivates certain gay people (the ones who are adults and can make their own decisions) to practice religion anyway, then they deserve all the condescending remarks from religious people.
 

Nastyjungle

JACKED and sassy
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
yeah, but religion isn't all about believing in a god. they also have to believe non-believers are going to hell; if irrational fear is what motivates certain gay people (the ones who are adults and can make their own decisions) to practice religion anyway, then they deserve all the condescending remarks from religious people.
uh? im a little confused at what you are trying to say to me with this incoherent post?

religion doesnt have to be about people going to hell, im not sure where you got this idea unless your view on religion is so narrowly scoped that you can only think of christianity islam and the like
and... what irrational fear are you even talking about
specify shit
 
I'm not sure what's so hard to justify about a gay couple adopting a child. In a country where the divorce rate is 50(higher?)%, how many kids are actually growing up with a legitimate mother and father figure anyway? If people are worried about gay people taking over the world and raising adopted kids to be gay, then I'm afraid there are much bigger issues to discuss and that we are all doomed already.

1) How many gay people do you know that "hate" straight people? I've met 0 of them.
2) Straight and gay children have both been raised in straight households.

I just don't see any reasonable argument AGAINST a gay couple adopting.

I also don't see what religion has to do with this argument either, assuming the US still supports the belief of separation of church and state.

I know for a fact that aliens exist. How else does one explain the french?
 

SkullCandy

She Bangs The Drums
is a Contributor Alumnus
I think you can be gay and still be religious. Some more liberal religions such as Anglicanism or some Protestantism allow celibate homosexuals to even become priests or deacons. Although most religions are againts homosexuality, there are some that are against drinking alcohol (Islam), comitting adultery (Catholicism) or even eating beef (Hinduism). But I'm fairly certain that some members of these religions do the aforementioned and continue practicing.

Anyway, back on topic...

Gay (or any adoption) for that matter should be encouraged as much as possible. I completely support religious orphanages not having to give up children to gay couples but I would encourage any other orphanage to do so. I have a friend who has two dads. He used to get made fun of when he was in primary and middle school but now people don't really care. In fact, someone tried to be a dick to him the other day and everyone stood up for this guy because of how unfair it was to make fun of someone for something they didn't choose. Gay parents often try so hard to do what is best for their children (this guy goes to the same school as me, which is a not very cheap boarding school that his parents work extremely hard for him to go to) because they know that there are people who are waiting for them to slip up so that they can climb up on a soapbox and denounce gay adoption as awful.
 

jc104

Humblest person ever
is a Top Contributor Alumnus
Interesting thread. Several of the articles in the OP are british, which means they are referring to a very different issue to that in the USA, or anywhere else. Make it clear which one you are talking about.

In the UK, civil partnerships are already legal. These are marriages in all but name. Essentially, the issue in the UK is one of labelling (not that labelling is not important), and whether we should force churches to offer homosexual marriages. At the moment the church of england does not generally offer such a thing (I'm one of very few people who can have a Church of England blessed civil parnership, though it's sadly totally wasted on me). Notably, the UK has no constitution. In theory, the church is in fact tied to the state, although church and state are in practice far better separated than they are in the USA. So basically you can't really claim that the state has no right to do this.

However, you can put forth a fairly strong argument that gay marriage is simply not what is meant by marriage (generally). Arguably, you are actually trying to change the english language, rather than anything else. Still, I'm not totally convinced.

As for gay adoption, I'm all for it. Not allowing this is just sheer discrimination in my view. I'm not sure that how "socialised" a person is is even a reasonably criterion by which to judge their quality of life in any way. Children adopted by homosexual couples may come out different, but it is very difficult to see why this is a bad thing.

Conclusion: Civil parnterships, definitely. Gay marriage, maybe. Gay adoption, yes.

Now, in the USA the issue is wildly different just because of how religious the country is. I can really see no valid argument for disallowing gay marriage (or civil partnerships), taking into account the separation of church and state (which has sadly totally failed). Unfortunately, it seems that enough people are fanatically religious, it doesn't really matter what the constitution says. I would also hold off gay adoption there just because of how prejudiced the country is.
 
uh? im a little confused at what you are trying to say to me with this incoherent post?
i was in a hurry to type that out. i didn't mean all religions. but we are talking about religions that condemn homosexuality, as this thread is about gay rights.

by "irrational fear", i mean the fear of going to hell.
 
and whether we should force churches to offer homosexual marriages.

Now, in the USA the issue is wildly different just because of how religious the country is. I can really see no valid argument for disallowing gay marriage (or civil partnerships), taking into account the separation of church and state (which has sadly totally failed). Unfortunately, it seems that enough people are fanatically religious, it doesn't really matter what the constitution says. I would also hold off gay adoption there just because of how prejudiced the country is.
Again, I'm not sure what religion has to do with this topic. Why would the UK need to force churches to offer homosexual marriages? Marriage really has nothing to do with religion. I am a straight male and when I get married it certainly will not be in a church and there will not be a priest/preacher/whatever you call it. non-Christians getting married in a church seems pretty hypocritical to me.

I guess I might be a completely misinformed American, but are you not allowed to have a marriage in the UK unless it is sanctified by the church? If that's the case, then I find it laughable that you guys think the US is so far behind on civil rights.

PS. I'm not a completely misinformed American.
 

jc104

Humblest person ever
is a Top Contributor Alumnus
Sorry. I feel I should clarify that religion is the primary reason for opposition to homosexuality in general, and is therefore the primary reason for opposition to gay marriage. Since your religious opinion should be ignored as far as the law is concerned, this is not a legitimate reason to disallow it. I don't see what is controvesial about this.

I don't know why the UK needs to force churches to offer homosexual marriage, other than that it is discriminatory. But I explained why they are able to do it. My support of it would probably only be for dislike of the churches themselves.

I never said that marriage has to be sanctified for the church for it to be marriage either. I just said that gay marriage is not sanctified by the church of england, and that it is what a lot of the gay marriage argument here currently relates to.

Please read posts properly.

edit: nice post cobraroll; you summed up my opinion much better than I could.
 

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Forcing a church or other religious institution (separate from state) into gay-marry somebody is like forcing a synagogue to arrange a barbecue. If it's one of the things they don't do per definition of their own rules, they shouldn't be forced to do so. Nobody should have beliefs, or lack thereof, forced upon them. That never does any good.

However, if the church is stately owned, and marriage has a special legal status in the country, then it shouldn't even be opposed. If living together in an "officially approved" relationship is a prerequisite for getting some of the benefits of the citizens (i.e. different tax or inheritance laws), then the state should have to provide means for every pair of citizens to achieve that approval, regardless of their gender.

In short, I'm all for letting homosexuals be married by the definition of the law, but I'm against forcing religious groups to "conduct" the marriage (English is not my first language, so I don't know all the proper terms). If they want to be married, so be it, but then they have to find a place where somebody will let them marry. If nobody else wants to, it should be a task of the state to help them into civil partnership (legal marriage).

I'm not religious, so I don't know what actually defines "marriage", but as I believe religion to be a personal thing, I think one shouldn't need a church or other religious institution to call oneself married by the definition of the religion. You might need a ceremony, though, which may or may not involve an educated priest.

As for adoption, bring it on. I can't see any practical reason why it shouldn't be allowed.
 
I read your post just fine. Your argument was "maybe" for gay marriage simply because the Christian church does not allow it. It also isn't discriminatory for a church to disallow gay marriages when it is clearly against their religious views. I could make several analogies for this, but they would all just get dismissed as straw man arguments, so whatever.

My point is that it doesn't matter what a particular religion thinks about any rights-related issue. It's 2012. We know that gravity exists. We know Earth is not flat. I guess people are still declaring war behind religion, but for the most part the human race is a bit more advanced than to hide behind religion for every issue.
 

jc104

Humblest person ever
is a Top Contributor Alumnus
Me said:
However, you can put forth a fairly strong argument that gay marriage is simply not what is meant by marriage (generally). Arguably, you are actually trying to change the english language, rather than anything else.
My argument was maybe for gay marriage because I'm not entirely sure what marriage means. You are merely asserting what it means. With your definition I'm all for it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top