Same-sex marriage races ahead

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A lot of people think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids anyway, so that's a whole new can of worms..

It's not a "whole new can of worms"; it's a settled matter.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I hope the kids adopted by gay couples don't grow up confused..

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I hope the kids adopted by gay couples don't grow up confused..

I hope gay kids adopted by straight couples don't grow up confused.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

A lot of people think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids anyway, so that's a whole new can of worms..

And a lot of people thought Hitler would create a better Germany... Your point being?

 

[sojourner]

But marriage accomplishes everything that civil unions do. Why create a different class of legal relationship?

Because many of the proponents of civil unions are interested in creating a different class of people.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I hope the kids adopted by gay couples don't grow up confused..

No worries there:

Children in gay adoptions at no disadvantage - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

Same-Sex Marriage Adoption Is Healthy, Studies Show

How Do Children In Same-Sex Adoption Fare? | Golden Cradle Adoption Services

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones | BU Today | Boston University

Because many of the proponents of civil unions are interested in creating a different class of people.

That's actually an excellent way to put it. Ditto this.

 

[Estro Felino]

I hope the kids adopted by gay couples don't grow up confused..

well...I can't do but agree on that. That's what I mean when I say that if you are a gay person and want to become parent, you are free to do it.
either you rent a uterus or you can adopt a child. I think that any person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the right to adopt.
so if we give the right to adopt to celibate people, the problem is solved.
and there is no need of gay marriage

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Gay couples adopting kids is a relatively new thing, so we'll have to wait til the kids grow up to see how they turn out.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

well...I can't do but agree on that. That's what I mean when I say that if you are a gay person and want to become parent, you are free to do it.
You can rent a uterus or you can adopt a child. I think that any person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the right to adopt.
so if we give the right to adopt to celibate people, the problem is solved.
and there is no need of gay marriage

Except that the rights of married couples with regards to adopted children differ from the rights of unmarried couples or couples in civil partnerships, as I have already explained repeatedly. Also, I would very much like an answer to my previous questions:

My question is: how is that a basis for saying that gay marriage isn't "necessary" when gay couples have the same access to fertility treatments and adoption as heterosexual couples do, and would you use the same argument against infertile heterosexual couples who want to get married? If you believe that marriage is only "necessary" for the purpose of children, then surely you must also believe it isn't "necessary" to grant the right for infertile couples to marry.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Gay couples adopting kids is a relatively new thing, so we'll have to wait til the kids grow up to see how they turn out.

On a lighthearted note... Simba was raised by Timon and Pumba, and he ended up just fine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On a lighthearted note... Simba was raised by Timon and Pumba, and he ended up just fine.

Actually, he led a lackadaisical life of not caring about others, enjoying himself and shirking responsibility until a woman came into his life and reminded him of the important role he had to fulfill in the circle of life and returned him to civilized society where he immediately became patriarch...

...

Hold on... Was the Lion King homophobic?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Actually, he led a lackadaisical life of not caring about others, enjoying himself and shirking responsibility until a woman came into his life and reminded him of the important role he had to fulfill in the circle of life and returned him to civilized society where he immediately became patriarch...

...

Hold on... Was the Lion King homophobic?

So wait, are you telling me that even though he was raised by 2 men, he still ended up falling for a woman!?! My point exactly.

 

[Estro Felino]

Except that the rights of married couples with regards to adopted children differ from the rights of unmarried couples or couples in civil partnerships, as I have already explained repeatedly.

That's because celibate people are not given the right to adopt on the basis of their economic prerequisites.

My question is: how is that a basis for saying that gay marriage isn't "necessary" when gay couples have the same access to fertility treatments and adoption as heterosexual couples do, and would you use the same argument against infertile heterosexual couples who want to get married? If you believe that marriage is only "necessary" for the purpose of children, then surely you must also believe it isn't "necessary" to grant the right for infertile couples to marry.

Infertile couples have the right to get married because it deals with a man and a woman. And a woman and a man normally procreate.
In the previous post I explained the historical reason why marriage was created from a juridic point of view.
I am not saying that two gay people shouldn't get married. I said that this right is not that necessary, if we can replace it with civil unions.

 

[Estro Felino]

Hold on... Was the Lion King homophobic?

well...but Timon and Pumbaa were not in a relationship

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

That's because celibate people are not given the right to adopt on the basis of their economic prerequisites.




Infertile couples have the right to get married because it deals with a man and a woman. And a woman and a man normally procreate.
In the previous post I had explained the historical reason why marriage was created from a juridic point of view.
I am not saying that two gay people shouldn't get married. I said that this right is not that necessary, if we can replace it with civil unions.

Or, get this... We could just stop whining about how the definition of "marriage" has changed over time just as it always has. 2000 years ago, marriage meant trading a goat for a sex slave.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If a gay/lesbian couple want to live together, why don't they just DO it, instead of bothering to make it a "civil union" or "marriage"?
Does a CU or marriage give them financial benefits or what?
And is a marriage better than a CU in that respect?

After my mate married his girlfriend he said to me later- "Wow, I'm a lot worse off moneywise since I got hitched!", so I should imagine that'd also apply to gay couples, which brings me back to the question- why get married if you're going to be worse off financially?

Marriage infers rights above and beyond CU. But honestly, that's not the point. The point is to treat gay couples in the same manner straight couples are. No more. No less.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's because celibate people are not given the right to adopt on the basis of their economic prerequisites.

We're not talking about celibate people. We're talking about homosexual couples.

Infertile couples have the right to get married because it deals with a man and a woman. And a woman and a man normally procreate.

But if they can't in this case, surely it isn't "necessary" that we allow them to get married, right?

In the previous post I explained the historical reason why marriage was created from a juridic point of view.
I am not saying that two gay people shouldn't get married. I said that this right is not that necessary, if we can replace it with civil unions.

And I'm saying that your distinction of it being "necessary" is arbitrary, considering gay couples can still produce and adopt children, and why would we replace them with civil unions when the whole point is that gay people should have their relationships recognized as equal to heterosexual couples? That defeats the point.

 

[fantome profane]

A lot of people think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids anyway, so that's a whole new can of worms..

Are gay couples not allowed to adopt in England? I was under the impression that they have been doing so for over a decade.

 

[Estro Felino]

And I'm saying that your distinction of it being "necessary" is arbitrary, considering gay couples can still produce and adopt children, and why would we replace them with civil unions when the whole point is that gay people should have their relationships recognized as equal to heterosexual couples? That defeats the point.

The problem is that people think that the law has a heart and feelings as humans do. The law is based upon reasonable and secular principles that regulate the common welfare. so the law doesn't express judgements on a particular social situation.
The law acknowledges the legitimacy of rights. The right to adopt is one of those.
If a gay person wants to adopt a child, they should be allowed to do it-.
If this person is in a relationship, why should the state care?
Or if this person is single, why should the state care?

But ...please...the state cannot recognize the fact that two gay people are both parents of a child on the basis of their love.
This is a bit laughable...because gay parenthood doesn't exist in nature.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The problem is that people think that the law as a heart and feelings as humans do. The law is based upon reasonable and secular principles that regulate the common welfare. so the law doesn't express judgements on a particular social situation.
The law acknowledges the legitimacy of rights. The right to adopt is one of those.
If a gay person wants to adopt a child, they should be allowed to do it-.
If this person is in a relationship, why should the state care?
Or if this person is single, why should the state care?

Ugh, I'm really starting to get frustrated now.

I have not once brought up the issue of the gay rights to adopt.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that the rights with regards to adoption ARE DIFFERENT FOR MARRIED COUPLES THAN THEY ARE FOR COUPLES IN A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP.

Whether or not you admit it, the state apparently DOES care whether a gay couple in a civil partnership adopt a child, or a heterosexual couple in a marriage adopt a child - because the rights imposed on both with regards to that child are different. If the state shouldn't care, then why are there differences in the rights in the first place? That's the whole point! I'm not arguing about gay rights to adopt, I'm arguing that the law regarding adoption is different for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals - and it shouldn't be - which I why I'm in favour of gay marriage.

I'm also pointing out that your argument that marriage isn't "necessary" for gay couples because they cannot produce children is asinine, since gay couples CAN produce and adopt children.

But ...please...the state cannot recognize the fact that two gay people are both parents of a child on the basis of their love.
This is a bit laughable...because gay parenthood doesn't exist in nature.

Now you're just talking nonsense. Why on earth cannot the state recognize that two gay people can be parents of a child? What does nature have to do with it? Hell, what does nature have to do with marriage or equality or rights in general? It's irrelevant.

Also, you still have not answered my question:

Do you believe it is "necessary" to allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry?