Turn on thread page Beta

Should gay people be allowed to get married/ have children? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Frankly, I love love! So I'm all for equality for all, and I'm totally for legalising gay marriage, and agree that they should be allowed to adopt. But I'm curious, what to you guys think? If your for it, why? And if your against it-why? Do you think it's okay for people of the same sex to be in a relationship, but not to get have the same rights as different sex couples? I'm not here to judge anyone here, so please, give your opinions but don't be insulting about it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowpatrolchlo)
    Frankly, I love love! So I'm all for equality for all, and I'm totally for legalising gay marriage, and agree that they should be allowed to adopt. But I'm curious, what to you guys think? If your for it, why? And if your against it-why? Do you think it's okay for people of the same sex to be in a relationship, but not to get have the same rights as different sex couples? I'm not here to judge anyone here, so please, give your opinions but don't be insulting about it.
    errr, yes.

    What arguments are there against? (taking out religion of course).


    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think it should be ok/legal/accepted/viewed as equal but unfortunately I know from experience that children whose parents are in same sex relationships are sometimes bullied =(
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'd have hated to have been raised by two gay guys, so definitely no to the second one. Of course gays should have equal rights for most things, but we need to consider the children, and at the end of the day it wouldn't be fair on them. As for marriage, they can already have a 'civil partnership' which is virtually the same thing. I don't see why they would want to get 'married' anyway, seeing as marriage is a religious ceremony, and pretty much all religions vehemently reject gay people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Imma leave this here...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

    There are no logical, non-fear based, secular arguments against same-sex civil marriage or adoption.

    - Children are not more likely to be gay when they have same-sex parents. Source (page 8)
    - The children are just as psychologically sound and well adjusted. As supported by numerous psychological associations. Source
    - Any bullying that results as a result of being a child to a gay couple is the fault of the bully, not the couple.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sime)
    Imma leave this here...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

    There are no logical, non-fear based, secular arguments against same-sex civil marriage or adoption.

    - Children are not more likely to be gay when they have same-sex parents. Source (page 8)
    - The children are just as psychologically sound and well adjusted. As supported by numerous psychological associations. Source
    - Any bullying that results as a result of being a child to a gay couple is the fault of the bully, not the couple.

    If you had to start life again, would you mind being raised by two gay men, or would you prefer a normal mother and father? You can use statistics to prove anything, the fact is that a lot of kids won't want to be brought up by two gay blokes. As for the bullying, it may not be the fault of the gay couple, but why should the child have to pay for it? Gay people who demand the right to adopt should stop it with this selfish attitude and consider the bigger picture, and what the child would go through. Too many people believe that having children is a right, as opposed to a privilege, which it most certainly isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswald Mosley)
    If you had to start life again, would you mind being raised by two gay men, or would you prefer a normal mother and father? You can use statistics to prove anything, the fact is that a lot of kids won't want to be brought up by two gay blokes. As for the bullying, it may not be the fault of the gay couple, but why should the child have to pay for it? Gay people who demand the right to adopt should stop it with this selfish attitude and consider the bigger picture, and what the child would go through. Too many people believe that having children is a right, as opposed to a privilege, which it most certainly isn't.
    I wouldn't care, since whatever family unit you are raised in is the norm for you. Sure, a few older children up for adoption, after having been raising in a culture that looks down on gays, might be resistant to the idea. But having loving parents is infinitely better than no parents at all.

    Children get bullied for having parents that are different too, for example having a disabled parent, or interracial parents or for their parents' jobs - are you going to apply the same stance to them? I should hope not. You can't put the blame on the parents, nor can I see how offering a loving home to a child is 'selfish'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswald Mosley)
    I'd have hated to have been raised by two gay guys, so definitely no to the second one. Of course gays should have equal rights for most things, but we need to consider the children, and at the end of the day it wouldn't be fair on them. As for marriage, they can already have a 'civil partnership' which is virtually the same thing. I don't see why they would want to get 'married' anyway, seeing as marriage is a religious ceremony, and pretty much all religions vehemently reject gay people.
    If marriage is a religious ceremony then what are non-religious straight couples supposed to do?

    Really the law should make a choice. Either marriage is a religious thing, in which case civil partnerships should be for everyone, and marriage is a civil partnership that is specifically for religious people (although there would be no need for it to be legally separate in any way, as far as the law is concerned it would just be a civil partnership like any other). Or marriage is not necessarily religious in which case marriages should be available for all couples, gay or straight.

    As far as I'm concerned it should be one or the other. I don't mind which, I just don't think there should be a separate legal status based on gender.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yes and yes, Canada, Spain, Argentina, and South Africa already allow both.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I always state the same thing when asked questions regarding gay men, lesbians, homosexuality, etc.

    It's their decision and who are we to stay they shouldn't do it? I honestly don't know why these topics keep coming up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No, although civil partnerships are fine. Why do you need any more than that? I don't get it. It's basically the same thing but with a different name. (And I know you'll all say WELL WHY ARE U SAY NO THEN, but that's because I just don't see why.)

    Oh, and you can all neg me but at least I have the balls to say what I think.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswald Mosley)
    I'd have hated to have been raised by two gay guys, so definitely no to the second one. Of course gays should have equal rights for most things, but we need to consider the children, and at the end of the day it wouldn't be fair on them. As for marriage, they can already have a 'civil partnership' which is virtually the same thing. I don't see why they would want to get 'married' anyway, seeing as marriage is a religious ceremony, and pretty much all religions vehemently reject gay people.
    Dude ppl should be allowed to get married as much as they want. We should not have it illegal to get married. Marriage is not only a religious thing I'm sure you realise, it's legal, it has lots to do with finances, adoption, renting buying a house and pure psychology, some ppl just wanna get married to settle down psychologically. I see no reason to ban that. None at all.
    I'd hate to have gay guy parents as well, for very legitimate reasons (school social life along those lines) but there's a lack of adoptions and if a kid doesn't get adopted he stays in orphanages/hopping around foster homes his whole childhood. I think the quality of life outweighs the current social opposition against it... It won't last, like other social upheavals don't last.
    But if a cognizant kid prefers to go back to orphanage/foster homes, then I really do think that he should have the option, so it's conditional adoption. I wouldn't want to override a kid's choices, I don't know, I'm not a child psychologist
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cicerao)
    No, although civil partnerships are fine. Why do you need any more than that? I don't get it. It's basically the same thing but with a different name. (And I know you'll all say WELL WHY ARE U SAY NO THEN, but that's because I just don't see why.)

    Oh, and you can all neg me but at least I have the balls to say what I think.
    But don't you think it's a bit pointless to have a different legal term for it when it's essentially the same thing?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    But don't you think it's a bit pointless to have a different legal term for it when it's essentially the same thing?
    Pointless? Mm, depends on your view on marriage. Marriage is a traditional and cultural practice of a man and a woman. And obviously it often has religious connotations as well. Instead of changing the meaning of the word and everything about that, why not just have another union for homosexuals, without the long history/culture/connotation of being exclusive to straight people? (And I really doubt that conntation will ever end - "I'm married" "Oh, what's your wife's name?") It's different in name and in history, but practically exactly the same in terms of legal rights.

    I think the fuss of calling it a "civil union" is no more fuss than going into every source ever and changing the definition of marriage, mm?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswald Mosley)
    I don't see why they would want to get 'married' anyway, seeing as marriage is a religious ceremony, and pretty much all religions vehemently reject gay people.
    Civil Marriage is not a religious ceremony, which is what people are campaigning for. People aren't campaigning for religiously ordained marriages, as they're up to the church in question, but they're merely campaigning for the government to recognize same-sex civil marriage, which the church has no monopoly over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They should have exactly the same rights, no more no less.
    It was also viewed as negative to rise in single parent families (specially single mothers) and now its considered as something normal and children from monoparental families are not bullied so......will be the same in this case.
    It will take time though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cicerao)
    Pointless? Mm, depends on your view on marriage. Marriage is a traditional and cultural practice of a man and a woman. And obviously it often has religious connotations as well. Instead of changing the meaning of the word and everything about that, why not just have another union for homosexuals, without the long history/culture/connotation of being exclusive to straight people? (And I really doubt that conntation will ever end - "I'm married" "Oh, what's your wife's name?") It's different in name and in history, but practically exactly the same in terms of legal rights.

    I think the fuss of calling it a "civil union" is no more fuss than going into every source ever and changing the definition of marriage, mm?
    Ok then, what do you think of scrapping the word "marriage" from legal documents and make civil partnerships for everyone? That way a marriage is still a marriage between a man and a woman, that may be recognised by a church, but in legal terms it's known as a civil partnership just like one between two men.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    :ninja: dun dundunnnn LOOOL i say an aurgument brewwing.. :catfight:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion UK civil partnerships are good enough, through them gays get the same property rights, tax exemptions, pension benefits, next-of-kin rights, etc. and it upsets less of the religious types than calling the relationship a marriage would.

    As for adoption, I honestly don't see a problem with it. Does anyone here seriously think that having two dads, or two moms could be in any way more damaging than having no parent at all? We have a shortage of people willing to adopt kids in the UK and I think we should be thankful if a homosexual couple is willing to.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes and yes, love is love whether its between a woman and a man, or two women, or two men - it's love, and so they should all have the same rights - the right to a marriage ceremony, rather than the much more business-like "civil partnership", which just sounds like two businessmen making a deal, and just as much right to adopt children/use surrogacy as straight couples have to use those facilities or have their own children.

    If the Bible disagrees with that then it is not a book I'd like to follow, it seems more concerned with promoting hate than love.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 13, 2011
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.