What do you think regarding gay people?

Post Reply New Topic

Well?

Did you intend the question tto actually be one of the answers? It doesn't make sense the way you've got it.

Personally, I wouldn't give them marriage and adoption rights, but really, what does marriage actually legally mean?

They should have exactly the same rights.

They should be treated equally to straight people.

I am all for gays being allowed to get married and adopt kids. Straight people are churning out kids at a much higher rate than they OR the planet can handle, so if a gay couple want a child that a straight couple doesn't want, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a family?

The kid is probably likely to grow up to be more tolerant if they were raised by two men or by two women, anyway.

I don't care for the matter either way. I would go for whatever gets people to b***h less about.

Straight gay whatever. They should all have the same rights.

The problem is what do you define as a "right."

Two men can not naturally produce a child. Same is true for two women.

Reproduction might be seen as a "right," but only a heterosexual union can produce that.

Do you view marriage as an institution of the state, the church, or just a commitment between two people? Does anyone have a "right" to compel someone else to recognize their union as valid?

I thinks the real question should be if the government (as lawgiver) should prescribe sexual behavior.

Personally I don't believe the idea the sexual preference has a genetic basis, I don't believe that people are born with a sexual preference, but that they develop one as a cultural construct as they grow up. In the end all sex is just selective friction and the body can/does not distinguish between kinds of friction, only the mind can. (I do believe that the level of sexual drive is genetic though.)

Freedom of choice does not require a genetic basis: Nobody considers religious preference to be have a genetic basis, but the government of a open secular society accepts the choice someone makes in this regard without restriction (as long as we all accept the limited rule of law by the government).

A open secular society which holds true to the principles of individual freedom and equality will have not choice then to ignore the gender/sex of their citizens just as their religion, color or ethnicity, including with regard to choose of partners and marriage or other modes of living together.

This leaves the question of definition of the term "marriage". Say that we would limit (as a empty gesture to the traditionalist) "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. Then this would exclude same-sex unions as a marriage (in the formal sense). But this distinction is immaterial if the government where to extent the same rights and privileges of marriage to other kinds of unions. This leaves only the question which kind of unions... What about a union of three or more people?

Last edited by Meta on 06 Jul 2009, 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is irrelevant. Sterile people and old couples cannot naturally produce a child either. But no one prevents them from getting married. Likewise no one expects a married couple to produce a child if they don't want to. Also there are enough children in the world already. We should be encouraging adoption if anything, which gay couples can do as well as straight couples (assuming, of course, they have the right to)




State. If it was just a church thing, no one would give a f**k and it would be for the religious people themselves to sort out. But as it stands, married couples are given financial and legal benefits and recognised by teh state. So it is a state institution - you don't need to get married in a church. The church would not be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to - right now it can refuse to marry a divorced person or another sinful couple. Legalising gay marriage would not infringe on the rights of any religious group.

okay, answer me this, why not? Just because I enjoy comitting sodomy with a hot guy, does it make me a bad person?
as for the reproduction argument, I suggest you recheck your facts, due to science, using stem cells, one can creat sperm and eggs from it, making a gay couple biological parents, one uses their natural egg/sperm, the other supplies stem cells that are turned into egg/sperm and a child can be concieved. Second Marraige is a goverment, not religious right as long as the goverment grants rights to married couples, like joint filing, power of attorney, child custody, health insurance, death benefits, survivor benefits etc.
I should point out, every argument against Gay rights is pretty much verbatim the arguments used by the KKK to try and prevent minorites from marrying and having equal rights.

I'm straight and have pointed that out many times - they either deny it or they are against interracial marriage too. The only one besides the reproduction one is the oh-so-clever "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line - which doesn't apply due to freedom of religion and the fact not everyone believes in an Abrahamic religion.

Yes the same rights, especially marriage since it involves the taxes, inheritance, etc. I could see arguments about tradition if it weren't for the direct financial effects.

As far as reproduction, I could maybe see an argument if straight marriage mandated having children. Otherwise it's like saying, "marriage is about having kids, but not really." And parenthood in modern western culture is nuclear-family based, but humans have had 'villiage parenting' in our history, in which people who have not actually reproduced end up being parents. And even in modern western culture, if parents die or otherwise can't function, it's not unheard of that a childless brother or sister adopts the children. Humans do seem adapted to more arrangements that just bio-parents-raise-kids.

Or biological parent can die, and the kids get adopted.

There's no absolute truth about reproduction and raising kids.

Who was that that made the comment like "gay marriage should be allowed - why should only straight people be miserable?"

Did people make much fuss about this kind of things before there where nation-states? Or did every (extended) family (tribe) just made things up as life developed, dealing with the reality as best as they could?

How special are the rights and privileges that marriage brings if we did not have the complexity of modern society?

All people should be equal, regardless.

I don't mind , either way =.= It won't be earth shattering if they get more rights y'know. They still have the same basic needs as everyone else, so why not? =/