Same Sex Marriage - Discussion Thread

Reason tells me that if gays exist, they were born that way - most of them. I can't think why anyone would voluntarily choose a lifestyle that causes them so much pain and heartache. Besides, it is really none of my business what one does in the privacy of their bedrooms, as long as it does not infringe on my rights.

That said, I have to admit, I would be just as uncomfortable seeing PDA on the streets as I would be if it was a heterosexual couple. They (gays as well as heterosexual couples) have a right to their privacy and I to mine. I don't have to witness what they do or have it rammed down my throat every time I choose to open my eyes.

Would I be comfortable if one of my own kids were gay or married another person of the same gender? This is totally hypothetical and hand on my heart, I can't say how I would be able to digest that, but I truly respect and admire a lady my own age whose son is gay, has married another man and she is open about it with people from our circle of friends, relatives and social contacts (a fairly traditional, conservative circle at that) and as far as I can see, no one has any issues (at least openly). Would I do the same in her place? I don't know, but most likely not. I'd say it was nobody else's business.

Talking of their right to marriage, well, why not? Again their personal business. Kids? I don't know. I don't know how kids with same sex parents feel, so I am not in a position to say. Can gay people be good parents. From examples I have seen, I think they can. What about the rights of children - they are not given the option, they are not asked. But isn't that true for almost everything no matter the gender of the parents? I don't remember being asked whether I wanted to be born. I did not have a say in what name I wanted - that I kept my original name for reasons of sentiments (after all that's something my parents gave me). For most part none of my opinions counted for anything when I was a kid - the length of my hair, my choice of colours when it came to clothes etc. So I don't think that would bother me terribly. After all even kids with terrible parents were never given a choice except probably which one they wanted to stay with. The choice to take them away if both were awful is also not their own. Adoptive parents choose kids, not the other way around.

 

Sorry, I didn't understand that.

 

I agree with you on this. However, it can't be a norm. It can't be conditioned. If it is so, divorces, and separations will never happen despite of any severe troubles in marriages. Not every child of a divorced parent get a chance to see his dad/mom often. This will become even difficult if the custodian chose to re-marry.
However, children of this sort can still lead a meaningful/happy life than with a troubled heterosexual parents. That's my point.

You misunderstood me. Sorry for my confusing wordings.
I meant, if you bother so much about the kid's rights; thus going against homosexual couples, then you should seriously think about the same among heterosexual couples too. Because the latter has more stories of child abuse (emotional/physical) too, specially if the marriage is dysfunctional.

Having male and female parent is not child's fundamental right. Plus, most of the homosexual people chose to adopt kids who are parent less.
Sometimes they surrogate, and it is no different from usual surrogates. Heterosexual people too do that.
And some times they receive sperms from the sperm donors. Again heterosexual parents do the same provided any medical conditions.
So, all in all, homosexual people don't do much to the society than what we heterosexual people do. It is pretty much the same.

 

@sbonigala ...
If the concern is to let things be au naturale...then marriage itself should not exist no?
And for an institution that is man made entirely I see no reason why a section of society should be deprived of it just because nature meant them to be one way.

 

Incest unions are illegal today, the same way homosexual unions were illegal yesterday. The human "so what" thought process has the potential to make an incest union also legal tomorrow, the same way it has made the homosexual union legal. That is the context of bringing incest relationship here, granting a legality status, whether it is homosexual or incest, does not make it right.

By nature, male and female sex of every specie have significant complementing features to each other, and it is very much evidenced in case of human being. It is the very complementing nature of opposite sexes make their union natural and meaningful. Inability to produce children does not take away the complementing nature of heterosexual couple. Inability to reproduce is primarily due to physical deficiency which is beyond their control, it is not the choice of heterosexual couple.

But the very choice of homosexual couple - note down it is their choice, they are not born that way - is based on their taste for pleasure from same sex, and/or the discomfort/fear (psychological, emotional) with opposite sex due to environment they have grown up. It should addressed that way, instead of messing up with the whole idea of marriage and family system. It is only the transgender community that has affected by hormonal changes, not the homosexuals.

Right, a child need loving parent, but the expression, reception, experiencing and returning of love is complete only when it comes from both father and mother. Deficiency and violence in some heterosexual couple do not justify homosexual parenting.

What is the argument here? How a heterosexual couple taking fertility treatments is become comparable with homosexual just because they have some deficiency in reproductive organs? Surrogacy, sperm, egg donations are against human emotions and sensibilities, objectifying and commercializing the child production, making the child a commodity as per the will of adults. Shame on such adults.

Gender is solid not fluid. It is the failure to recognize and respect the complimenting nature of gender differences makes the society havoc. Solution for gender stereotyping should be addressed as it is, comparing this with incomparable is like cutting one tree to make it equal to other. Makes no sense at all.

No, it is their convenient argument. They are not born with any deficiency. Physically homosexuals are normal people. They can even lead a normal relation with a wife or husband while having a same sex partner, purely for the taste of it. Only the transgenders are affected people.

Exceptions do not make a rule. Instead of addressing issues with heterosexual couples, you shall not glorify homosexual couple, which is deficient for the child. There will be never be a psychological, emotional match by a homosexual couple to the needs of the child in comparison with heterosexual couple. Imposing the will of the adult on the child, and depriving the child from natural expectation of love and care of both male and female, is rude and arrogant, and violates human emotions and sensibilities.

Union between male and female is by nature. Institutionalization of this natural union is for the benefit of children, and for the disciplined, productive and peaceful society as a whole. Homosexual union is man made choice for pleasure, it is not by nature.

A child by birth can have only one mom and one dad, not any number of moms or dads. Step moms, step dads, guardians are only for legal protection and rights of minority child. Please forward one legal form where a child need to fill multiple moms and dads in US without any differentiation.

 

Do u have any studies backing this up?