The Family

[Kaykay]

Traditionally we have always believed that the best environment to raise a child is within a monogamous life-time relation between the child's natural parents. But now that view is called "outdated" and "homophobic". We're told that in the name of "tolerance" and "not offending people" we have to embrace the ludicrous idea that 2 man or 2 women, or 1 single person for that matter, is just as good at raising children as 1 man + 1 woman. Not because there's a shortage of parents, but simply because of "tolerance" and "progress" and "marriage equality". We have all these studies showing that children who lack a father or a mother figure face a lot of difficulties later in life.

Your example only works when comparing two perfect families, i would probably concede that the perfect man+woman family, would be able to offer a more rounded upringing than the perfect man+man or woman+woman family.

But just because a marriage is man+woman, doesn't mean those individuals are going to do well, in fact most humans are flawed and as such its ludicrous to rank family's on something as pointless as gender. You should rank parents on criminal history, social network, income and leisure time available. Because those are the things that'll affect the child the most during the crucial younger years.

If your family, regardless of its composition, fullfills the requirements for adoption (the non bigotted requirements) they should have equal access as any other family, but still ranked on the same terms as "normal" families.

A few things I personally propose:
1. no recognition of gay marriage - there can be civil partnerships instead that deal with issues like inheritance, hospital stuff or property management, with adoption only being allowed as a lower priority when there are no available straight couples that are married
2. no recognition of "sperm donors" - you are responsible for all children that share your DNA, you bring someone into this world you will be responsible for him or her at least until 18. Just as we discourage cloning, we should discourage the creation of children in general that will never live with their natural father and mother

1: Marriage has become more than a religious thing in society. There is alot of legal bindings and social aspects to it. You don't even have to be a christian to get married in most countries. And i still dont think two straight junkies will make better parents than acomplished homosexuals. Gender and family composition shouldn't play a role here, focus on the human aspects of the family environment, You're not here to judge, but to make a decision on wether they are capable of taking care of a child or not.

2: this just serves to make adoption/insemination even harder / impossible. Since nobody in their right mind will donate if they can get stuck with child support and whatever. Young people, (students) tend to be the most virile and best contributors for sperm donation, and they dont have the means to support a child, yet they have sperm that could help many families looking to make one.. Following your example only creepy 30+ year olds who couldn't find a mate would even risk putting their sperm out there, hoping to get caught in some random womans game, rather than for the monetary compensation students get enticed by.

TLDR: You got the wrong angle, accept that gay love doesn't hurt anyone more than straight love does. And that nobody is perfect so gender composition becomes even less of an issue when facing all the things a family could suffer from, gay is fairly harmless, we have more homeless kids than we have "great" adoptive families, so allow "great" homosexual families to provide a home for the young'uns.

[Shinra1]

For your religion maybe, don't try to push your religious beliefs on society. For some people marriage means one man and one wife, for others it means one man and 8 wives, it's a very broad term.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that it's an opposite sex partnership not a same sex thing.

[Vivek]

Not because there's a shortage of parents, but simply because of "tolerance" and "progress" and "marriage equality".

I disagree with most of what you wrote but I am going to reply to this portion just for now. There is definitely a shortage of parents or people willing AND able to be parents to non-naturally born children.

The fact of the matter is, there are kids out there without anyone willing and able to function as their legal guardian(s).

Raising kids is physically/metally/psychologically taxing, time-consuming, expensive and quite frankly a lot of responsibility whether anyone wants to admit it or not. And not everyone wants to sign up for that.

Especially not for kids that aren't your naturally born children that you owe certain responsibilities to.

Extending this privilege to same-sex couples only makes sense provided that that the they're held up to the same standards of being vetted to determine that they'll be functional stable parents.

But I don't support marriage equality because there are children out there without people to love them, care for them and take care of them.

I don't support it because it lessens the load on taxpayers and the government when it comes to financing a less than stellar system for taking care of kids that don't have anywhere to go.

I support it because its right and in the spirit of equal treatment. And thats why anyone and everyone else should too.

[diddle]

It's really BS and I fail to recognise it's relevance.

- - - Updated - - -




Keep your gays out of our marriages?

lol

How is it BS? It cites every article straight from the bible. Not to mention, why don't you just keep your religion out of their marriage? That way no one's rights are infringed upon.

From what you've said earlier it seems you have no problem with 10 year old girls being married to 40 year old men in bulk but god forbid two people of the same gender marry.

[Tzalix]

I have no interest in Googling for the earliest marriages in recorded history and frankly I don't care to either because it's pretty common sense.

If you have no interest in looking it up then you cannot claim it to be common sense.

It does affect me and my religion when same sex couples afforded the same marriage label as me and would-be wife, marriage has been always motivated via religion i.e. vowing before God.

That's simply false.

A large number of religions still don't recognise gay marriage as a thing and I respect their opinions.

A large number of religions also do recognise gay marriage as a thing. Why not respect their opinions as well?

Why can't same sex couples come up with a new name for their partnership that doesn't devalue religious marriages?

Marriage does not belong to the church or to religion. Why should they have to come up with a new title for their partnership? We have a word that works perfectly, marriage, why do we need a new one if ultimately they will mean the same thing?

[Stelio Kontos]

You folks in North America and Western Europe can do whatever freaky deaky things you want, it's your country and your call. If the majority supports it, or is made to support it through your own social engineering, that's your deal.

Just don't try and bring your "values" to other countries and force them to accept your views. If my country wants to maintain its more socially conservative view, and our public votes to keep it that way, it should stay that way. You have the right to do what you want and are allowed to in your country, don't try and force your culture on others.

[RoryTee]

It's really BS and I fail to recognise it's relevance.

- - - Updated - - -




Keep your gays out of our marriages?

lol

You fail to realise the relevance?

They are direct sources for the bible , the relevance is that religious folks pick and choose views from the bible to suit there own backwardness.

[Squishysib]

So you want to say children with a mother and a father do better than two same sex parents and only quote one source?

I can quote a ton that say the exact opposite.

[Tzalix]

Still doesn't detract from the fact that it's an opposite sex partnership not a same sex thing.

Again, maybe for your religion. Not for all of them.

[Oktoberfest]

Marriage is not a religious issue. Only ignorant members of organized superstition say that. Keep your religion out of my marriage, straight or gay.

Jesus. Its a Religious issue. That doesnt mean you have to be religious. LOL. It just means its a religious ceremony and thats all. If you want ot be atheist and marry have at it in whatever fucking way you want. I am just saying its a religious issue as far as the Constitution is concerned which means the govt needs to get its fucking nose out of telling adults who they can and cannot marry

PS- Atheism is a religion btw. All humans subscribe to a religion. Religion=faith or belief even if its belief in nothing.

[diddle]

You folks in North America and Western Europe can do whatever freaky deaky things you want, it's your country and your call. If the majority supports it, or is made to support it through your own social engineering, that's your deal.

Just don't try and bring your "values" to other countries and force them to accept your views. If my country wants to maintain its more socially conservative view, and our public votes to keep it that way, it should stay that way. You have the right to do what you want and are allowed to in your country, don't try and force your culture on others.

Because countries that criminalize and/or persecute homosexuality are such beacons of democracy and success.

[Voij]

Hypothetical scenario that, from what I gathered so far, represents the OP's opinion:
Happy couple with 3 kids, aged 4-10. One parent dies suddenly. Until the other one has found a new spouse, the kids will be taken away and put into a family that has both parental role models present.
With the reason behind these actions being that children should not be raised by single parents, because they're too likely to be troubled later on in life.

According to what the OP said so far, the above example should be considered a normal way to deal with the death of a parent.

[Shinra1]

Marriage does not belong to the church or to religion. Why should they have to come up with a new title for their partnership? We have a word that works perfectly, marriage, why do we need a new one if ultimately they will mean the same thing?

Yet the vast majority of marriages still occur in churches and other religious settings like a mosque. It must be hard for you to make sense but please... put in some effort.

It will never be the same thing: same sex marriage is something both my religion and my personal opinions do not recognise.

[Julian Rayne]

Jesus. Its a Religious issue. That doesnt mean you have to be religious. LOL. It just means its a religious ceremony and thats all. If you want ot be atheist and marry have at it in whatever fucking way you want. I am just saying its a religious issue as far as the Constitution is concerned which means the govt needs to get its fucking nose out of telling adults who they can and cannot marry

PS- Atheism is a religion btw. All humans subscribe to a religion. Religion=faith or belief even if its belief in nothing.

No, marriage is not a religious issue as far as the Constitution is concerned.

[Squishysib]

Jesus. Its a Religious issue. That doesnt mean you have to be religious. LOL. It just means its a religious ceremony and thats all. If you want ot be atheist and marry have at it in whatever fucking way you want. I am just saying its a religious issue as far as the Constitution is concerned which means the govt needs to get its fucking nose out of telling adults who they can and cannot marry

How is it a religious issue? It's an equal rights issue. Marriage was around long before religion and it will be around long after. The fact that I can go get married in a court and never set foot in a church but can't do the vice versa right there says religion isn't involved.

And no, atheism is not a religion jfc. Atheism is a LACK of belief, not a belief in nothing.

[diddle]

Yet the vast majority of marriages still occur in churches and other religious settings like a mosque. It must be hard for you to make sense but please... put in some effort.

It will never be the same thing: same sex marriage is something both my religion and my personal opinions do not recognise.

Notice how both of those things are exclusively belonging to you? That doesn't seem like something that should be put into law.

[Tzalix]

Jesus. Its a Religious issue. That doesnt mean you have to be religious. LOL. It just means its a religious ceremony and thats all. If you want ot be atheist and marry have at it in whatever fucking way you want. I am just saying its a religious issue as far as the Constitution is concerned which means the govt needs to get its fucking nose out of telling adults who they can and cannot marry

Of course nobody should be forced to marry anyone. If your church doesn't want to marry a couple for whatever reason, fine, don't. This is about the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and there are plenty of churches that are willing to marry gay people already. There ought to be more of course, in the name of equality, but that's just my view.

[Stelio Kontos]

Because countries that criminalize and/or persecute homosexuality are such beacons of democracy and success.

Irrelevant. Cultural imperialism is bad when its right-leaning governments that do it, and its just as bad when "enlightened" social progressives do it.

As long as non-Western European states are allowed to maintain their own policies, there are no problems, but once you start pressuring people to conform to your values, and using NGOs or political action groups to infiltrate other countries, that's when it's time to start kicking out Westerners or take more drastic measures.

[RoryTee]

You folks in North America and Western Europe can do whatever freaky deaky things you want, it's your country and your call. If the majority supports it, or is made to support it through your own social engineering, that's your deal.

Just don't try and bring your "values" to other countries and force them to accept your views. If my country wants to maintain its more socially conservative view, and our public votes to keep it that way, it should stay that way. You have the right to do what you want and are allowed to in your country, don't try and force your culture on others.

I really hope you know what way you come across to people with a shred of acceptance.

[Shinra1]

You fail to realise the relevance?

They are direct sources for the bible , the relevance is that religious folks pick and choose views from the bible to suit there own backwardness.

It has nothing to do with picking and choosing, I still don't touch pigs before I go into my prayer closet because they're unclean and I also don't eat pigs.

There are many religions out there beyond christianity, stop being bigotted.