Same-sex marriages in Sweden

[Ravager69]

Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty interesting that 3 out of 10 Swedes don't want gays to marry?
I thought the number for the pros would be higher, unless we're talking about church/religious marriage.
It'd be nice to have a link (English, if available) to that article and/or the survey results for some more details. Maybe there's a 'don't know' option that sucked in some votes.

snip

You're saying you don't consider yourself better than homosexuals, but you don't think they should have the same rights as you?
Do us all a favor and be honest instead of this shit.

All I say is that there are some moral laws (unofficial) that they shouldn't brake. I know that I once again didn't make myself clear enough, but let me explain: Catholic Church should not legislate homosexual mariages, because the Bible (it's written in St. Paul's Letter to Romans or such, I don't remember exactly where it was, plus I didn't read the english version, so I can't really quote anything) says so, and the Church has to obey the Bible, BUT it's ok for gay people to take civil mariages (I see no objections), live together and be considered normal people with full set of human and political rights. I don't know how did you understand my post, but it seems you just assumed the worst.

Now a digression from the threads' main topic - something about adoption and tolerance. (just ignore this part if you don't give a shit about it or my opinion on the matter)

In my opinion, gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. I do not think that a child raised by two men\women will have a completly normal world outlook and is more probable to have more personal issues than other kids (ask yourself if YOU would wanted to be raised by homosexual parents and how could it affect your childhood, because if don't see yourself in such position, then there is no point discussing it with anyone), something that shouldn't be allowed. Now I understand homosexuality is not a disease\sign of weakness\something that should be purged from this world with steel and fire, but it should be tolerated, not supported or promoted. For example - gay parades. Ok, they're gay and they're proud of it, cool, but why do I have to watch half-naked guys kissing each other (I do not find it sexy, plus I feel uneasy even when a guy is kissing a girl in front of me) when I go through the city? Why don't they respect and tolerate my sense of taste, my sexuality?

And this is what I mean when I say that they shouldn't be allowed everything - being gay and behaving like normal (I don't say gays aren't normal) people (although they act diffrently in some way) is okay with me, but exaggerating with exposing their sexuality and demanding tolerance from others in all things is not.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Why should a gay person have to tolerate seeing me and women kissing in the streets?

Do unto others, sir.
If you want to ban them from being gay in public, you most certainloy should be banned from being heterosexual in public.

Also, what sort of studies have you read that support that children raised by gay parents will not turn out normal? Is that just a completely unfounded claim, because it sure looks like it. I for one would not care one whit if my parents were gay. Tell me, would you rather have two parents as opposed to a single parent, even if they were gay?

 

[Sorrow]

Tell me, would you rather have two parents as opposed to a single parent, even if they were gay?

I would rather have one parent as opposed to two parents even if they were heterosexual.

 

[PlanHex]

Ok, now I get your point.

Quite frankly, I don't care if homosexuals can't be wed in church. I thought you meant any legal partnership.
The leaders of the church don't want gays to marry? Fine. If they want to exclude people from their little club because of some passage in Leviticus or Paul's letters then let them. As long as they don't receive government funding, it's ok in my book.
I don't understand why they would want anything to do with a group of people that don't approve of them anyway. It'd be like a black guy trying to join the KKK.

I do not think that a child raised by two men\women will have a completly normal world outlook and is more probable to have more personal issues than other kids

And you base this on what exactly? Gut instinct?

why do I have to watch half-naked guys kissing each other

Because public displays of affection will never be banned. It sucks, I know, but I just don't see it happening.

 

[fireb0rn]

I do not think that a child raised by two men\women will have a completly normal world outlook and is more probable to have more personal issues than other kids (ask yourself if YOU would wanted to be raised by homosexual parents and how could it affect your childhood, because if don't see yourself in such position, then there is no point discussing it with anyone), something that shouldn't be allowed.

How could anyone possibly know if it would have been better for them to be raised by homosexual or heterosexual parents? Your thought that a child being raised by homosexual parents won't have a "normal world outlook" means nothing. It's a pointless thought since there's no proof it would be worse for them to have abnormal beliefs. You're assuming that a "normal world outlook" is good for people, but there's absolutely no proof of that. Isn't it adhering to a "normal world outlook" that led to things such as slavery?

I'm not sure if I agree with you saying that children born or adopted into gay families have a larger probability of having personal issues. It's probably true, but any personal issues would be the result of the people around them and not the family itself. If that's true, why should the gay family have to suffer when it's the fault of the intolerance of others?

 

[welsh]

@Blakut- My earlier remarks, and my frequent use of curses had less to do with my response to you than the general argument against Gay Marriage, which is generally bullshit. The argument suggests that we should deny homosexuals civil rights enjoyed by the majority because of their choice in sexual partners. This is discrimination, pure and simple, and in a modern democracy based on values of equality, justice and freedom, is unacceptable.

If the problem has to do with men enjoying buttsex or woman preferring pussy to cock, than perhaps we should also deny the right to marriage and children to every heterosexual who wants to fuck a girl in the ass, to those heterosexuals who enjoy active threesomes, and every other potential deviant. Afterall, the rules that outlawed homosexuality were actually rules that outlawed sodomy. What is sodomy- oral sex?

As for evidence that gay couples raise fairly normal children, I think the evidence is pretty clear that what children need is a stable and nurturing household environment, not necessarily a female mom or a male dad. Because, God knows, there are plenty of Moms and Dad’s who do a crap job of raising children. Given that record, I think allowing gays who are willing to go through the stigma of being honest about their sexual identity and live meaningful and productive lives a chance to raise children. With heterosexual marriages averaging a 50% divorce rate, I am not sure how homosexual marriages would be much worse.

As for this comment-

Hmm, i remember clearly not contradicting the fact that animals had gay relations. And i also remmeber not using the word natural. I was talking about a biological way for same sex couples to procreate. Can you think of a 'natural' way for two men to have a child? I can't, because there isn't one. And by natural i mean biological in the most literal way possible. Buttsex doesn't make one pregnant. However, if gay people had become gay because they want to... why would they do it? Getting married would let them adopt kids? Is it illegal for someone to do that now? I wasn't talking about forbidding them to have a marital contract. The thing i was talking about was adoptions, mostly

Last I checked the legality of gay adoption depended on your jurisdiction, but again, I would argue that denying a person the chance to adopt merely because of their sexual orientation is a denial of civil rights.

Overall- this is a bullshit argument unless you think homosexuality is contagious and all the good heterosexuals are going to go fag all of a sudden. This is bullshit social Darwinism. I generally doubt that likelihood. Why? Because generally men prefer women and homosexuals are a minority. If homosexuality were to become a majority, than we might have a problem- but even that’s doubtful. Why? Because people are still fucking around outside of marriage. Which, by the way, might be natural. If human beings are not ‘naturally’ monogamous but are actually polygamous (and divorce rates suggest evidence for that), than I suspect that even if everyone were to go gay, they’d still be plenty of good ole heterosexual fucking.

And what would be the result if we had more homosexual couples and they couldn’t procreate? Well if they want kids they have to adopt, which means more kids would have a better chance of a meaningful family life that they currently don’t enjoy in orphanages and foster care. And what happens if the number of kids that could be adopted declines? Would we have more surrogate moms? If the population were to decline, is that really such a bad thing? Afterall, the planet has nearly 6 billion people and that population is growing remarkably fast. How long do you think until we overpopulate? And then what is the natural outcome?

@Ravager 69-

Frankly, I could give a fuck if the Christian church recognizes gay marriage or not. The churches have their own institutional interests at stake and their own concerns with sustaining their rules and the constraints they would impose on society. Churches have a natural interest to protect their identity and rules. Fine. But (1) there is a chance that churches are nothing more than institutions that hype superstition, and (2) church and state should be kept separate means that an individuals civil rights should not be determined by some lunatic who believes in a particular mythology. Besides, not every religion is against gay relations. Remember the Greeks and Romans gave us philosophy, democracy, and modern politics, but they weren’t Christians and they did a lot of buttfucking.

Now, to be fair I am also Catholic and I agree with you about what the Church says. But then, I haven’t forgiven the church for giving all those priests who spent their off hours fucking choir boys.

And while the church may be the authority you choose to get good with God, you also have the right to think for yourself. One of the great virtues of being Catholic is that we can look back at hundreds of years of church history, see all the bullshit they pulled (the corruption, the tyranny, the abuses and its many excesses) and realize that we, as Catholics, can’t take the Church 100% seriously. This is, I think, one of the virtues of the Catholic community, that only a complete ass would trust the leadership of the Church but rather, that a smart Catholic should learn to think critically about issues before accepting the version offered by some frustrated virgin or homosexual using the church to shelter himself from the real world.

Also, not sure what you mean by “normal” but I think the notion of free speech means you can think what ever thoughts you want. The notion of civil rights means you can act in ways you want. Why should anyone conform to your standards of decency if you won’t conform to them? If I were being denied civil rights because I happened to be born gay, I would tell you go fuck yourself and your sense of decency which transforms me into a second class citizen.

I don't know if you are attacking my earlier point, I think you may be, but I never said that marriage was pointless, I said that is SHOULD be pointless. Social contracts should not be state regulated, period. All the legal benefits that the state offers people for being married should be removed, they serve no legitimate purpose that could not be handled in a more prudent manner.

Dude, its one thing to say something completely stupid, but when you start repeating yourself, you begin to look like a complete ass.

Yes, marriage gets regulated- why, because among its purposes, government is supposed to create peace and stability in society as well the law and order necessary to overcome the collective action problems of economic interactions.

Family and family disputes have been a major cause of social conflict and violence within societies since the dawn of mankind. How- Hatfield child goes and fucks a McCoy girl = feud.

Families are also central economic actors- they create and organize productive processes since mankind went out hunting for food and later learned how to grow it. Yet within families we still have disputes about rules, about inheritence, property distribution, and a variety of other issues.

Then we have the issue of representaiton brought up earlier.

Yet families are also bedrock social organization of most societies- responsible for early childraising, transmission of useful skills, an central for indoctrination of new members into a society.

You might not like that, but that's how things have been since the dawn of man. You may wish it weren't true, but then I wish I didn't have to read your bullshit. I think I have a much better chance of seeing my wishes come true than you do.

Marriages have no reason why they should be connected to the state. You claim reasons of acting as your second voice, those reasons could be handled by an expanded will. You make asinine statements about womens rights in a marriage, WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS IN A MARRIAGE. A womans civil rights should always fully protected, and if they are not than the problem has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with civil inequalities of the government.

Yet, so many people die without wills- why? Because legal wills are often expensive to create.

Woman's rights in marriage? Widow's exemption in inheritance rules? Another, right to spousal confidence. Right of a spouse to act as agent of the other spouse? Spouse's rights in the raising of children? Protection against spousal rape?

Conclusion- while these rights may depend on what society you live in, my suspicion is that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

clip
Marriage is a matter of personal convictions or personal family or personal social contract and can be handled 100% without the intervention of the state.

One of the roles of the state is to sustain social peace. You wishful thinking doesn't account for the many times the state intervenes because people can't handle their family problems without the role of the state. Trust me, as a former attorney, the general advice that an attorney gives family members is to try to avoid the intervention of the state. But the state is the arbiter of last instance- when all else fails. That the state so often intervenes is not because it wants to, but because it must.

Again, your wishful thinking reflects a minimal understanding of social reality. I suggest you get your head out of your ass..

 

[xdarkyrex]

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you got it the first time
Maybe if I explain in enough ways it will click.

Once again, those are all things that can be handled without the intervention of the state. All the things you say could be handled through other legal means or are already facets of social order that are upheld on a larger basis than that.

Family conflicts being a reason to support the legal registration of marriage? It sounds to me like you are justifying situations with arbitrary laws that have no real effect on such things.

Okay, hypothetical situation real fast, lets put this one together, shall we?

State stops putting marriages together, marriages return to social institutions that have no government oversight or regulation. Each person is prompted (but not forced) on their 18trh birthday to make a formal declaration on paper of their kin and relations, and then again whenever they have a change in status of kin or family.

Problem solved, don't need marriage regulation, and now anyone can marry whoever they want through whatever social institution they want. Easy as pie. Thye only people that would have any adverse effects through not having their spouse recognized for certain purposes are those who choose not to make a written declaration of said fact.

I fail to see the need for the government in a situation like that. I mean, sure, government still has civil duties, if there is a man beating his wife, or two families are fighting eachother, etc etc etc, but this is only arbitrarily connected to state declared marriage. Think of all the millions of things you do on a daily basis that is not regulated by the government. One more won't hurt. Infact it will help, because it will end these bizarre arguments by leveling hte playing field and removing marriage from the jurisdiction of our government. Hell, the idea of a civil marriage is only about 150 years old anyways. While I do think that marriages as a whole are socially important, that doesn't excuse the meaningless legal ramifications.

 

[welsh]

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you got it the first time
Maybe if I explain in enough ways it will click.

Once again, those are all things that can be handled without the intervention of the state. All the things you say could be handled through other legal means or are already facets of social order that are upheld on a larger basis than that.

Ah, and here is were you goof. "Handled through other legal means" = state intervention. Why, because the state passes laws to formalize social relations and social institutions.

As for the social order- the creation of formal institutions by the state is normally driven by the ruling class and the social groups that it supports in coalition. Thus, your social order is driving your state intervention.

See, you're talking in circles, justifying the state's intervention and support of marriage even while you say that marriage is not necessary. Yet, amazingly, it is necessary enough for the prevailing social order to uphold through institution of law. So you are denying the very thing you are arguing supports the institution of marriage.

Family regulations and rules defining marriage have been some of the first rules established by institutions of social order (which include organized religions). Now you say those rules are unnecessary because they are supported by the same people who support state intervention.

Dude- get your head out of your ass.

Family conflicts being a reason to support the legal registration of marriage? It sounds to me like you are justifying situations with arbitrary laws that have no real effect on such things.

Arbitrary laws? Father dies, mom is left to raise a family and the law recognizes and supports her custodial rights. This is arbitrary? Father dies (as men don't live as long) and the law protects the mom's right to a share of the estate to raise the father's children even if the father tries to disown the mother because he's pissed off with her. This is arbitrary? The law protects the right of the parents to discuss family arrangements without forcing either to state what the other spouse said in court, so the "babe, you know, maybe we should talk to our child about dealing drugs" is a protected conversation. Or how about father is essentially brain dead and Mom is left to decide whether she should turn off the oxygen. Meanwhile, Mom is able to access joint bank accounts by virtue of her marriage relationship.

These are hardly arbitrary laws.

Okay, hypothetical situation real fast, lets put this one together, shall we?

State stops putting marriages together, marriages return to social institutions that have no government oversight or regulation.

Chaos emerges as polygamous marriages turn marriage and family property rights to hell.

Are you supporting polygamous marriage? Because, you know, some churches say its kosher.

Each person is prompted (but not forced) on their 18trh birthday to make a formal declaration on paper of their kin and relations, and then again whenever they have a change in status of kin or family.

Well, historically the age of majority was 21 because most 18 year olds were too immature to make adult decisions.


And how is this not more state intervention than marriage and current family law? What you are suggesting is a fucking disaster.

WHy?
(1) it invites even more family conflicts. Why- "I am the son who is supposed to inherit... No I am the one... No I am the one.. No we we should split it evenly... no I am the wife, I get the first dibs... No I am also the wife.. I get even dibs.."

(2) Property distribution- See above.

(3) What if I don't want to be kin with you and we have no real "blood" relationship?

(4) Hey, we don't need responsibility, do we? WHy? Dude fucks a woman, has kids, calls them family. Next year he says, "fuck this, I don't want to be married to this bitch" and splits. Woman, who had to give up her job to raise the kids is left holding a family together.

Rules of marriage and domestic relations not only prevents conflicts and regulates the distribution of property and rights, but it also forces people to be a bit responsible or pay the consequences.

You can impose responsibility- but that's more state intervention. But now its state intervention in a new system in which individuals get to choose who is kin and who is not.

Problem solved, don't need marriage regulation, and now anyone can marry whoever they want through whatever social institution they want. Easy as pie. Thye only people that would have any adverse effects through not having their spouse recognized for certain purposes are those who choose not to make a written declaration of said fact.

Jeez, and we can just wish for it and it would be that easy to make real. Do yourself a favor, and get your head out of your ass.

 

[Ravager69]

Sorry Welsh, but I don't have time to quote your every statement, I've been sitting all they on the PC and I'm just tired.

About my credibility - I said kids raised by gay are PROBABLY to have more personal issues, but once again ( it's getting tiresome when I have to explain myself all the time, I need to be more precise x\ ) I didn't make myself clear enough.

Yes, I base it on my "gut instinct" and experience. You think that every child wants to be adopted by homosexual parents? I don't know how it is to be in such situation, so I can only speculate (and my whole post is a one big speculation) that it can be pretty shocking for the kid. Ever seen how a person can react when they're informed that they're adopted (assuming they didn't know it for their whole childhood, which is mostly the case when folks are adopted at age below 2)? How much it can suck for some to realise they were abandoned, rejected by their parents? Now imagine they were adopted by gay parents. Sucks, eh? You are refused a normal family TWICE (by normal I mean the one that "feels" natural - we have sex for some purpose, you know, and it is coded in our brains that there should be a man and a woman in a relationship, on the instinct level). Mind that I do not say gay parents cannot at any possibilty raise normal childred, but that there is a higher possibility (I base it on my logics and experience, I know I may be wrong and will admit it if someone proves it to me, so don't criticise me so much) their foster children MAY PROBABLY have it more difficult in life than other children.

xdarkyrex, as for meanigless legal ramifications - without marriage, there'd be nothing to keep people together except for feelings, which you know often change and lead to irrational behaviour and decisions. You think that if there wouldn't be any penalty\obstacles for bad decisions, people would even try to do the right things or think about their actions? It's like death - no one likes to die, but without death there'd be no progress, no purpose to do anything in life.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Ah, and here is were you goof. "Handled through other legal means" = state intervention.Why, because the state passes laws to formalize social relations and social institutions.

No, as it is now, marriage is redundant for the purpose of protecting civil liberties, and that argument simply doesn't hold water. While we are at it, why don't we have the law register who my best friend is?

As for the social order- the creation of formal institutions by the state is normally driven by the ruling class and the social groups that it supports in coalition. Thus, your social order is driving your state intervention. See, you're talking in circles, justifying the state's intervention and support of marriage even while you say that marriage is not necessary. Yet, amazingly, it is necessary enough for the prevailing social order to uphold through institution of law. So you are denying the very thing you are arguing supports the institution of marriage.

A seriously failed tenet of democracy. This is why we don't have gay marriages already. Thats worked out wonderfully. The social order also wanted us to go to war with Iraq, and elected Bush into the presidency, incase you forgot. All things can be improved upon, and maintaining the status quo is rarely ever worthwhile. Democracy is not the ideal way to accomplish this, people get comfortable with what they already know.

Family regulations and rules defining marriage have been some of the first rules established by institutions of social order (which include organized religions). Now you say those rules are unnecessary because they are supported by the same people who support state intervention.

The longevity of a system does not define its merit. This is a logical flaw. The people who support it do so out of an irrational need for "official" recognition, as if the state recognizing their marriage on paper gives it more meaning. I have bad news for you and everyone else. It doesn't. They're just words on paper. The relationship is not more or less real because of some paper on a file in a government office.

Arbitrary laws? Father dies, mom is left to raise a family and the law recognizes and supports her custodial rights. This is arbitrary? Father dies (as men don't live as long) and the law protects the mom's right to a share of the estate to raise the father's children even if the father tries to disown the mother because he's pissed off with her. This is arbitrary? The law protects the right of the parents to discuss family arrangements without forcing either to state what the other spouse said in court, so the "babe, you know, maybe we should talk to our child about dealing drugs" is a protected conversation. Or how about father is essentially brain dead and Mom is left to decide whether she should turn off the oxygen. Meanwhile, Mom is able to access joint bank accounts by virtue of her marriage relationship.

These are hardly arbitrary laws.

Arbitrary, redundant, meaningless, non-essential. Why would the law protect the mothers rights to money that is not her, that is bullshit. The kids, as children of the deceased, would naturally be entitled to a degree of the estate, and that has NOTHING to do with marriage. As the MOTHER of his children, unless they are of age, she becomes the keeper of that money, plain and simple. If he wants to leave some to her, so be it. If he doesn, that's his right. She has no RIGHT to his money if he deems it otherwise. What you are asking for is the state to supercede peoples decision post-mortem, and that is WRONG. Simply fucking wrong. If she married a scumbag, she deserves to reap the benefits of what she has sown. The government is not here to protect people from their own decisions, it is not an older brother or a parent. The purpose of the government is to protect us from other people and things outside of personal control. As for protected conversation, what purpose does this serve? Why couldn't best friends have protected conversation? What logic gives two people who are married the right to have more civil protections than any other two people? The thing about children is also completely pointless, as I said marriage served an arbitrary purpose, not child registration. Birth certificates are very useful and should have nothing to do with marriage in any meaningful way. When a kid is born, they become a citizen, and as such are registered as a citizen, given a social security number, etc etc, this does not need the legal establishment of marriage to work just fine.

Chaos emerges as polygamous marriages turn marriage and family property rights to hell.

Are you supporting polygamous marriage? Because, you know, some churches say its kosher.

Yes, I am supporting polygamous marriages. I am supporting gay marriages, straight marriages, secular marriages, religious marriages, taboo marriages, illogical marriages, self-marriages, group marriages, and what the fuck ever selse kind of marriage you can think of. It is personal and no one at all should have the right to tell you who you can or can not be with. I can not think of one good reason why a girl should not be abvle to get married to her dog if she is weird enough to want to do it.

Well, historically the age of majority was 21 because most 18 year olds were too immature to make adult decisions.
And how is this not more state intervention than marriage and current family law? What you are suggesting is a fucking disaster.

WHy?
(1) it invites even more family conflicts. Why- "I am the son who is supposed to inherit... No I am the one... No I am the one.. No we we should split it evenly... no I am the wife, I get the first dibs... No I am also the wife.. I get even dibs.."

Order of estate preference can go on the declaration, easy as that. Like a will, but with less formal authority. Also, this is something that does not and should not be state regulated, I was speaking of privatized practice, or personal keeping. Use your imagination, buddy, it isn't hard to fill in the holes. I don't want to have to spell it out in immaculate detail, that's too much fucking writing. As for the age thing, I think once a person is a legally independant person, something like this would need to be filed, thats why I say 18. If an 18 year old can move out of their own volition, than the grounds should be covered, sort of like how they have to file for selective service.

(2) Property distribution- See above.

Answer: See above.

(3) What if I don't want to be kin with you and we have no real "blood" relationship?

Then alter the paperwork, why would that be hard?

(4) Hey, we don't need responsibility, do we? WHy? Dude fucks a woman, has kids, calls them family. Next year he says, "fuck this, I don't want to be married to this bitch" and splits. Woman, who had to give up her job to raise the kids is left holding a family together.

This, once again, has nothing to do with marriage. This happens all the time, how is the legal regulation of who is and isn't married stopping that from happening? This argument does a pretty poor job of defending the current situation.

Rules of marriage and domestic relations not only prevents conflicts and regulates the distribution of property and rights, but it also forces people to be a bit responsible or pay the consequences.

Be responsible? How does registering to get married force you to be responsible? People get divorces all the time. Both of my parents have been married no less than 4 times each.

You can impose responsibility- but that's more state intervention. But now its state intervention in a new system in which individuals get to choose who is kin and who is not.

Solve problems when problems arise, pre-emptive problem solving is the same argument used for the rise of every Orwellian dystopia. That is an uncomfortable premise for the law...

Yes, I base it on my "gut instinct" and experience. You think that every child wants to be adopted by homosexual parents? I don't know how it is to be in such situation, so I can only speculate (and my whole post is a one big speculation) that it can be pretty shocking for the kid. Ever seen how a person can react when they're informed that they're adopted (assuming they didn't know it for their whole childhood, which is mostly the case when folks are adopted at age below 2)? How much it can suck for some to realise they were abandoned, rejected by their parents? Now imagine they were adopted by gay parents. Sucks, eh? You are refused a normal family TWICE (by normal I mean the one that "feels" natural - we have sex for some purpose, you know, and it is coded in our brains that there should be a man and a woman in a relationship, on the instinct level). Mind that I do not say gay parents cannot at any possibilty raise normal childred, but that there is a higher possibility (I base it on my logics and experience, I know I may be wrong and will admit it if someone proves it to me, so don't criticise me so much) their foster children MAY PROBABLY have it more difficult in life than other children.

Whoa whoa whoa, do you think little kids care whether the only people in the whole world who love them more than anything and would probably die for them are GAY? You have a pretty weird view of how children think. I doubt very many kids go "Man I sure am happy my parents aren't gay!".

xdarkyrex, as for meanigless legal ramifications - without marriage, there'd be nothing to keep people together except for feelings, which you know often change and lead to irrational behaviour and decisions.

If you don't want to stay with someone your whole life, why should you be legally forced to do it in the first place? Look at the divorce rates right now and tell me that it really matters.

You think that if there wouldn't be any penalty\obstacles for bad decisions, people would even try to do the right things or think about their actions? It's like death - no one likes to die, but without death there'd be no progress, no purpose to do anything in life.

Fear of adverse consequences are not the only reason people make moral decisions. I often do GOOD things that have consequences when I could easily do something bad that has no consequences instead. How can you explain that?

 

[Ah-Teen]

For example - gay parades. Ok, they're gay and they're proud of it, cool, but why do I have to watch half-naked guys kissing each other (I do not find it sexy, plus I feel uneasy even when a guy is kissing a girl in front of me) when I go through the city? Why don't they respect and tolerate my sense of taste, my sexuality?

Yeah, gay pride parades are... strange. Kinda creepy too.

With all due respect, you can talk about "naturally" while sitting there under the protection of a complex socially enforced governmental organism in a weather-sealed, climate-controlled box and sending your thoughts out as electronic impulses to a forum that doesn't physically exist, via a machine made from dozens of minerals and chemicals pried from the guts of the earth and rehashed into forms so foreign to nature that they're poison to it? I'm afraid that there's next to nothing natural about our society, my friend.

NATURAL would be one male, one female, one child, and one cave (and even then, biologists have recorded instances of hot XXX gay monkey on monkey action)...

I said biologically, not naturally, possible. No same sex couple could've had kids in the history of mankind. This means that although biologically same sex couples can exist, as you said, homosexuality exists in the natural world, these couples were not meant to have children (which they never did).

But you see, it's actually pretty common for same sex animals to adopt abandoned or orphaned young. Some birds even chase off the opposite sex after the eggs are laid.

So no, biologically they can't have young together but they still raise young.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Yeah, gay pride parades are... strange. Kinda creepy too.

I live near San Francisco and have been to a few. I gotta admit, after the initial shock wears off, they're pretty fun. Some crazy shit going on, and if gay stuiff doesn't freak you out, then it's generally pretty funny. Old men in drag never cease to make me laugh. I also went to the Folsom Street Fair (leather and bondage festival, haha). Some guy wearing nothing but chaps patted me on the ass and growled at me

 

[myzko]

I've seen and heard about same-sex kids grow up and turn just "normal", and they where not bullied more than the rest.

Seriously, you can be builled for just about any reason, it's just the weak kid that gets bullied, not the one with "most reason to bully"


All you need for a child to "evolve properly" is a good oposite sex rolemodel, if it's a Boy he still needs a good Female rolemodel


Could be a friend to the family, mom of one of the persons inflicted with gayness, or whatnot.

Maybe a Female Robot?

 

[Kyuu]

For example - gay parades. Ok, they're gay and they're proud of it, cool, but why do I have to watch half-naked guys kissing each other (I do not find it sexy, plus I feel uneasy even when a guy is kissing a girl in front of me) when I go through the city? Why don't they respect and tolerate my sense of taste, my sexuality?

Because that's bullshit. If you don't like it, don't look. What they're doing is not harming you or anyone else in any way. What, are you going to support a law that makes it criminal for heterosexual couples to display their affection as well? If not, well that's a pretty classic example of discrimination. Might as well say black people aren't allowed near you because you're afraid they might bust a cap in your ass, or asian people because you're afraid they're going to kung-fu you to death, or force you to watch Dragonball Z until you lose your sanity.

Hey, I don't enjoy watching two guys kiss. Two girls... well, that's a different issue. But in whatever case, hey, it's not really my problem is it? It really has zero impact on my life as long as I don't watch them and get angry because it makes me uncomfortable to see it. Long as they're not throwing each other down on the table at McDonald's and doing the "nasty" while I'm trying to eat, there's no real reason for me, or anyone, to worry about it.

If you DO just want to forbid anyone from expressing affection toward another person in your presence, well... get over it. Seriously. Affection, kissing, people touching people... it happens. The only people I've found who really get angsty about the issue are those who aren't getting it themselves. Well hey, it's not their fault or their problem. It's yours.

 

[Sorrow]

How often do you see half-naked heterosexual couples parading en masse on streets?

 

[Zaij]

Because that's bullshit. If you don't like it, don't look.

Er. Half the time gay parades run through the middle of the city.

 

[TorontoReign]

I heard gay people invented AIDS to get attention.

I don't care if Gay people get married or not,but I don't want their gay cocks parading around town near my son either. For that matter I don't want some diseased hooker parading around town either. Hookers are for brothels, and gay people should keep their fucking clothes on in public. As for gays kissing in public I don't particularly like it, but what are you going to do? If my son saw two fags kissing and asked me what the deal was ,I would tell him they are fucked up in the head and not to do that. But thats just MY opinion.

 

[xdarkyrex]

I agree, clothing laws apply to all sexualities. If its indecent for heterosexual people to do, than it is probably indecent for gay people to do too.

So, Torontrayne... you don't want your son to be gay? What if he was?

 

[Kyuu]

If my son saw two fags kissing and asked me what the deal was ,I would tell him they are fucked up in the head and not to do that. But thats just MY opinion.

Well, I'd say it's more likely that someone who honestly believes that someone is "fucked up in the head" because they hold a different preference than themselves is more likely actually the fucked up one. But that's just MY opinion.

It's really ridiculous, the amount of hostility people can have about this. "OMG, I'm so goddamn angry that they're not of the same sexuality as myself!" "OMG, I'm so goddamn angry that they wear clothing I find too revealing!" I mean, really? All socially-ingrained squeamishness and sexual repression aside, it's perfectly understandable not to be comfortable with people wagging their genitals and jiggly bits around in public. But as far as anything else goes... I dunno, loosen up a bit? Either that or join a monastery where you can be quite sure you'll never have to have the image of a man's hairy thigh - or his lips sinfully touching another man - burned into your sensitive retinas.

 

[aries369]

I think Denmark actually was one of the first countries in the world, if not the first country in the world to give gays and lesbians legal rights to a 'registered partnership' which is the same as civil union, I think. We've had this possibility for almost 20 years, since 1989. And the world hasn't ended.

As far as seeing two gays kissing or gays at the gay parade, I don't much like to see oversexual gay (or lesbians) being naked in the streets. It has nothing to do with that I don't respect or accept homosexuals. I'm just not that fond of people showing their naked bodies in public - whether they are are multi, homo, or heterosexual. I'm somewhat conservative that way. The gay parade is a one time of year affair, and I can look the other way if I don't want to see it.

I would however never tell my son that other people weren't right in their heads, and that the shouldn't be doing that. What if homosexuals were talking heterosexuals that way?? I can respect each individuals sexuality without bashing their sexuality as well.