Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    I believe your opinions (not necessarily faulty) are based on too simplistic a foundation.
    We all do the 'x thinks this and I'm right about x because lots of other people believe x is the weakest form of self-justification' whatever side of the argument we represent!
    There is a world of difference between inter-racial marriages and same-genital 'marriages' that you cannot use them as a comparison.
    The question of gay marriage started out as 'my long-term partner can't make any legal decisions about my estate/pension/health-care etc. so the prospect of a legal agreement was suggested. Not good enough so now they are baying for marriage which was their original, covert intention.
    What next - I want my marriage with my dog, cat, monkey etc to be recognised? Where will it end? We must come to the realisation that we can't always have everything we want but content ourselves with what we have. It's good for the soul
    I really, really can´t understand what is so bad in two people who love each other getting married. It´s laughable that you compare them to marriages with animals. :mad:
    It´s easy for you to say "We must come to the realisation that we can´t always have everything we want..." because you have never been in such a situation. Imagine the pain of a person who is denied his/her right to get married to the person he/she loves.
    edit:"same-genital marriages"? That sounds a bit derogatory to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To me at seems as though Americans (sorry to generalise) are afraid of change, arguments that insist 'it has been this way for a thousand years so why change it'afre really pathetic. If you havent noticed society is changing and in the same way that inter-racial marriages were opposed because 'thats the way it has always been' seem to underline the point.

    In twenty years time when gay marriage has been accepted everyone will look back on this period and deny that they were against gay marriage in much the same way that you would find it hard amongst the older population in America to find people who admit they were pro segregation when clearly there were lots of them at the time.



    Change is good surely its better to try and make the world a better place not keep it as it is where lots of people are discriminated against becasuse of what they are or think because 'thats the way its always been'

    (sorry my grammar isnt up to much)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Marriage is outdated at the moment. There is no physical difference between a child with parents that are married, and a child that was with parents who have been in a long term relationship. The only difference is legislation.

    As for the gay arguement, growing up with two male/female parents is the same as being brought up by your aunts (take sabrina as an example) or by an uncle, or even by just a mother or just a father.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Cossack]To me at seems as though Americans (sorry to generalise) are afraid of change, arguments that insist 'it has been this way for a thousand years so why change it'afre really pathetic. If you havent noticed society is changing and in the same way that inter-racial marriages were opposed because 'thats the way it has always been' seem to underline the point. [\QUOTE]
    well that's true to a point (and iknow you're generalising); the overall american psyche has changed alot since reagan took office. "new conservatism," it's called. plus the young people turn to conservatism because it's kind of like that's a surefire way to be rebellious against largely liberal parents.

    i also think that this fear of change is just another way to escape the inevitable, another way to beat the system. lots of macho-type cowboy country music fans (now i'm stereotyping) view gays as a real threat to society just because they think it's the wave of the future. likewise they oppose genetic engineering with humans, a non-christian president, and anything against their ideals because they think that the country would agree with the ones inciting change and not them. as long as the cards are playing into their hand they are fine but the game can never change.

    christianity, in many cases, is simply used as an excuse to stop progress and stop people from agreeing with them. they can have children out of wedlock (as long as it's heterosexual! otherwise, marriage is bad!), be totally mean to people, and break laws as long as their actions coincide with their maudlin conception of life, which is nothing but a series of heartaches and patriotism.

    please excuse my judgemental rant i shouldn't be doing this because i'm an american and just might be lynched for saying this
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Julia O.]
    (Original post by Cossack)
    To me at seems as though Americans (sorry to generalise) are afraid of change, arguments that insist 'it has been this way for a thousand years so why change it'afre really pathetic. If you havent noticed society is changing and in the same way that inter-racial marriages were opposed because 'thats the way it has always been' seem to underline the point. [\QUOTE]
    well that's true to a point (and iknow you're generalising); the overall american psyche has changed alot since reagan took office. "new conservatism," it's called. plus the young people turn to conservatism because it's kind of like that's a surefire way to be rebellious against largely liberal parents.

    i also think that this fear of change is just another way to escape the inevitable, another way to beat the system. lots of macho-type cowboy country music fans (now i'm stereotyping) view gays as a real threat to society just because they think it's the wave of the future. likewise they oppose genetic engineering with humans, a non-christian president, and anything against their ideals because they think that the country would agree with the ones inciting change and not them. as long as the cards are playing into their hand they are fine but the game can never change.

    christianity, in many cases, is simply used as an excuse to stop progress and stop people from agreeing with them. they can have children out of wedlock (as long as it's heterosexual! otherwise, marriage is bad!), be totally mean to people, and break laws as long as their actions coincide with their maudlin conception of life, which is nothing but a series of heartaches and patriotism.

    please excuse my judgemental rant i shouldn't be doing this because i'm an american and just might be lynched for saying this

    thanks for saying what i meant but much better
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)

    The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
    The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses.
    by Stanley Kurtz
    02/02/2004, Volume 009, Issue 20
    I am a scandinavian and I can assure you that the decline in marriages among swedes and Norwegians has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. More important factors is the fact that more swedes now get together across different religions and that Sweden has separated church and state. Those people who beleive so strongly in marriage that they beleive gay marriage to be wrong woant stop marrying merely because gay can do so as well, and those who do not decide to marry are not religious anyways so you may question why it should be considered a bad thing that they do not marry except for teh sole reason to increase the number of couples which are married. Of course, if it was such a disaster that the number of people marrying is decreasing, then you should welcome gay marriage as it would certainly boost the statistics. If you on the other hand think like me (That marriage is more about mutual respect love and dignity) then I think it is more important that those who marry actually have though about what they are doing rather than making sure that the statistics are high.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by v_for_vendetta)
    and three people? and two men and a dog? 3 kids and their mom?

    Of course it would come down to the rediculous if you allowed people to marry a pot plant merely in order to receive economical benefits, but you may simply take one situation at a time here. What is really the problem with allowing same sex marriages? I dont mean a marriage in church, I mean a partnership allowing a gay couple to receive the same economical benefits as a straight couple (This is the case in sweden. It is not called marriage, but partnership. Same sex couples have the right to register as a couple and thus receive the economical benefits (to some extent) of a married couple but you dont actually call it marriage). I can agree that there is no real justification for forcing priests to perform a christian wedding of same-sex couples, but I cant see any reason not to give them the same rights when it comes to social benefits.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Funny how they only picked on Scandanavia with gay marriages. What about Holland and Canada?

    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)
    "Getting married just because you have a child or are expecting one is just plain daft."

    The institution of marriage have greatly contributed to the civility and progress of society.....that's something you just don't screw with.
    Evidence?

    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)
    I just don't think law breakers should be rewarded and I don't think we should go around changing definitions of words to suit our agenda.
    Definitions of words change automatically with time. Several countries other than England who speak English, also like to change definitions of words to their mother tongue. I heard the term frosting, when I thought it meant something to do with the weather. It was actually meant to be icing.

    (Original post by alocin)
    The marriage issue is more about legal rights than love. Why should a man and a woman who have only know each other for a few months be allowed to get married, so then if the husband dies his widow has full legal rights, when a same-sex couple who have been in a stable relationship for 20 years have no rights in a similar situation?
    Yes there is trouble with rent on this area.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We dont need marriage? WTF? I guess to you liberals we dont need any laws either, why would we? To a liberal, all you want is for everyone to roam about doing what they please with no consequences. Gays marrying is wrong. You can say its ok all you like if it makes you feel better but its still wrong. Whoever it was that said a gay parent family was just like a single parent/relative raising a child is a total and unabashed retard. WTF? I honestly think some of you just say stupid stuff to see how stupid you can get. Cossack and jonathan, if you had your way the world would end rather quickly. But then thats what jews want isnt it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxNewsRocks)
    We dont need marriage? WTF? I guess to you liberals we dont need any laws either, why would we? To a liberal, all you want is for everyone to roam about doing what they please with no consequences. Gays marrying is wrong. You can say its ok all you like if it makes you feel better but its still wrong. Whoever it was that said a gay parent family was just like a single parent/relative raising a child is a total and unabashed retard. WTF? I honestly think some of you just say stupid stuff to see how stupid you can get. Cossack and jonathan, if you had your way the world would end rather quickly. But then thats what jews want isnt it.
    oh just go away.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    One famous Swedish politician once said "When people playing a computer game realise they cannot score positive points, they start trying to score negative ones instead" I beleive that FoxNewsRocks has, unfortunately, applied this principle to real life.

    Tell me Fox, If the Jews really do controll the American government, and if they really did want to destroy the world. Then why on earth not just fire a nuke or two at China. But of course, you probably deny the existance of Nuclear weapons as well dont you? After all, they would not have been possible had it not been for some principles discovered by a Jew with first name Albert.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    One famous Swedish politician once said "When people playing a computer game realise they cannot score positive points, they start trying to score negative ones instead" I beleive that FoxNewsRocks has, unfortunately, applied this principle to real life.

    Tell me Fox, If the Jews really do controll the American government, and if they really did want to destroy the world. Then why on earth not just fire a nuke or two at China. But of course, you probably deny the existance of Nuclear weapons as well dont you? After all, they would not have been possible had it not been for some principles discovered by a Jew with first name Albert.
    Very well put. You'll notice that I've given you some rep for this post. FoxNewsRocks is just another hypocrital yank.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxNewsRocks)
    We dont need marriage? WTF? I guess to you liberals we dont need any laws either, why would we? To a liberal, all you want is for everyone to roam about doing what they please with no consequences. Gays marrying is wrong. You can say its ok all you like if it makes you feel better but its still wrong. Whoever it was that said a gay parent family was just like a single parent/relative raising a child is a total and unabashed retard. WTF? I honestly think some of you just say stupid stuff to see how stupid you can get. Cossack and jonathan, if you had your way the world would end rather quickly. But then thats what jews want isnt it.

    your quite right...if look in any books written by jewish people there number one aim is world destruction.....why is it that people like you are anti-semitic, they're people just like you or me, to define someone purley by their religion is pathetic, i think the anti-semitism existant in America is more down to jealousy at the apparent success of some people rather thany any actual facts...


    can you give me an example of how the jewish people (stupid genralisation i know) have tried to ruin the world...and please dont just write some ridiculous neo nazi rhetoric about the media or banks and if your going to talk about zionism do it properly and talk about facts not just idiotic ramblings
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxNewsRocks)
    We dont need marriage? WTF? I guess to you liberals we dont need any laws either, why would we? To a liberal, all you want is for everyone to roam about doing what they please with no consequences. Gays marrying is wrong. You can say its ok all you like if it makes you feel better but its still wrong. Whoever it was that said a gay parent family was just like a single parent/relative raising a child is a total and unabashed retard. WTF? I honestly think some of you just say stupid stuff to see how stupid you can get. Cossack and jonathan, if you had your way the world would end rather quickly. But then thats what jews want isnt it.
    trip trap trip trap and the three billygoats went over the bridge
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I am a scandinavian and I can assure you that the decline in marriages among swedes and Norwegians has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. More important factors is the fact that more swedes now get together across different religions and that Sweden has separated church and state. Those people who beleive so strongly in marriage that they beleive gay marriage to be wrong woant stop marrying merely because gay can do so as well, and those who do not decide to marry are not religious anyways so you may question why it should be considered a bad thing that they do not marry except for teh sole reason to increase the number of couples which are married. Of course, if it was such a disaster that the number of people marrying is decreasing, then you should welcome gay marriage as it would certainly boost the statistics. If you on the other hand think like me (That marriage is more about mutual respect love and dignity) then I think it is more important that those who marry actually have though about what they are doing rather than making sure that the statistics are high.
    I agree, Jonatan. And I´m a Finn, btw
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxNewsRocks)
    We dont need marriage? WTF? I guess to you liberals we dont need any laws either, why would we? To a liberal, all you want is for everyone to roam about doing what they please with no consequences. Gays marrying is wrong. You can say its ok all you like if it makes you feel better but its still wrong. Whoever it was that said a gay parent family was just like a single parent/relative raising a child is a total and unabashed retard. WTF? I honestly think some of you just say stupid stuff to see how stupid you can get. Cossack and jonathan, if you had your way the world would end rather quickly. But then thats what jews want isnt it.
    I can´t believe I´m reading this ****! :mad:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's amazing I find people who are against this with a passion. Surely you have more important things to be concerned with?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxNewsRocks)
    We dont need marriage? WTF? I guess to you liberals we dont need any laws either, why would we? To a liberal, all you want is for everyone to roam about doing what they please with no consequences. Gays marrying is wrong. You can say its ok all you like if it makes you feel better but its still wrong. Whoever it was that said a gay parent family was just like a single parent/relative raising a child is a total and unabashed retard. WTF? I honestly think some of you just say stupid stuff to see how stupid you can get. Cossack and jonathan, if you had your way the world would end rather quickly. But then thats what jews want isnt it.
    So... what's your argument exactly?

    I understand that you think gay marriage is very wrong and that various forum members are retarded liberals, but that's not really convincing me. This is supposed to be a debate, not a mud-slinging competition.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This debate was started by an article saying that gay marriage was ruining the stable society of Scandanavia, but here's one saying exactly the opposite:

    Prenuptial Jitters
    Did gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia?
    By M.V. Lee Badgett

    This week, Massachusetts began handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Amid the cheers, there are the doomsayers who predict that same-sex weddings will mean the end of civilization as we know it. Conservative religious leader James Dobson warns that Massachusetts is issuing "death certificates for the institution of marriage." And conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz claims to have found the "proof" that the institution will see its demise: Gay marriage helped to kill heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. Indeed, Kurtz has become a key figure in the marriage debate: He and his statistics have been taken up by conservatives to support their argument that gay unions threaten heterosexual marriage. He has shown up in Congressional hearings, lawsuit filings, newspapers, debates, and anti-gay marriage videos across the country.

    But Kurtz's smoking gun is really just smoke and mirrors. Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.

    Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples.

    Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.

    Of course, the good news about marriage rates is bad news for Kurtz's sky-is-falling argument. So, Kurtz instead focuses on the increasing tendency in Europe for couples to have children out of wedlock. Gay marriage, he argues, is a wedge that is prying marriage and parenthood apart.

    The main evidence Kurtz points to is the increase in cohabitation rates among unmarried heterosexual couples and the increase in births to unmarried mothers. Roughly half of all children in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are now born to unmarried parents. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting couples with children rose by 25 percent in the 1990s. From these statistics Kurtz concludes that " … married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon," and—surprise—he blames gay marriage.

    But Kurtz's interpretation of the statistics is incorrect. Parenthood within marriage is still the norm—most cohabitating couples marry after they start having children. In Sweden, for instance, 70 percent of cohabiters wed after their first child is born. Indeed, in Scandinavia the majority of families with children are headed by married parents. In Denmark and Norway, roughly four out of five couples with children were married in 2003. In the Netherlands, a bit south of Scandinavia, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married.

    Kurtz is also mistaken in maintaining that gay unions are to blame for changes in heterosexual marriage patterns. In truth, the shift occurred in the opposite direction: Changes in heterosexual marriage made the recognition of gay couples more likely. In my own recent study conducted in the Netherlands, I found that the nine countries with partnership laws had higher rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European and North American countries before passage of the partner-registration laws. In other words, high cohabitation rates came first, gay partnership laws followed.

    A subtler version of Kurtz's argument states that the advent of registered partnership caused an increase in cohabitation rates and children born outside of marriage (nonmarital births). If that were true, then we would expect to see two patterns: Cohabitation rates and the nonmarital birth rate would rise more quickly within a country after it passed partner registration laws; and the rise in the nonmarital birth rate would be greater in countries that had such laws than in countries that do not recognize same-sex partnerships.

    Kurtz's argument fails both tests. From 1970 to 1980, the Danish nonmarital birth rate tripled, from 11 percent to 33 percent. Over the next 10 years, it rose again to 46 percent and then stopped rising in 1990s after the passage of the 1989 partnership law. Norway's big surge occurred in the 1980's, with an increase from 16 percent to 39 percent. In the decade after Norway recognized same-sex couples (in 1993), the nonmarital birth rate first rose slightly, then, after a couple of years, leveled off at 50 percent.

    Cohabitation rates tell a similar story. In Denmark, from 1980 to 1989, the number of unmarried, cohabiting couples with children rose by 70 percent, but the same figure rose by only 28 percent from 1989 to 2000—the decade after Denmark introduced its partner-registration laws—and then stopped rising. From 2000 to 2004, the number has increased by a barely perceptible 0.3 percent. The fact that rates of cohabitation and nonmarital births either slowed down or completely stopped rising after the passage of partnership laws shows that the laws had no effect on heterosexual behavior.

    Furthermore, the change in nonmarital births was exactly the same in countries with partnership laws as it was in countries without. The eight countries that recognized registered partners at some point in the decade from 1989 to 2000 saw an increase in the average nonmarital birth rate from 36 percent in 1991 to 44 percent in 2000, an eight percentage point increase. Among the EU countries that didn't recognize partners (plus Switzerland), the average rate of nonmarital births rose from 15 percent to 23 percent—also an eight-point increase.

    No matter how you slice the demographic data, rates of nonmarital births and cohabitation do not increase as a result of the passage of laws that give same-sex partners the right to registered partnership. To put it simply: Giving gay couples rights does not inexplicably cause heterosexuals to flee marriage, as Kurtz would have us believe. Looking at the long-term statistical trends, it seems clear that the changes in heterosexuals' marriage and parenting decisions would have occurred anyway, even in the absence of gay marriage.

    And all the conservative hand-wringing seems especially unnecessary when you consider the various incentives that encourage American heterosexual couples to marry. By marrying, U.S. couples obtain health-insurance coverage, pensions, and Social Security survivor benefits. Plus, in the United States we are required by law to be financially responsible for our spouses in bad times, since we don't have Scandinavian-style welfare programs to fall back on.

    In addition, American society already wrestles with the social tensions that Kurtz claims have occurred as a result of gay marriage in Scandinavia: deepening divisions over gay issues in churches, the increasing acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships in the media, and the occasional radical voice arguing for the abolition of marriage. Yet heterosexual couples keep getting married—more than 2 million of them every year.

    Concerns about the impact of gay marriage on heterosexual behavior are not unique to the United States, of course. European countries that recognize same-sex couples initially had their worriers, too. Over time, however, it became clear that civilization and family life would survive the recognition of gay couples' rights. Even the conservative governments that came into power have not tried to repeal rights for gay couples in France and the Netherlands.

    Both demographic data and common sense show that the dire predictions of Dobson and Kurtz are just cultural prenuptial jitters. Now that gay and lesbian couples are marrying in Massachusetts, we'll have a home-grown social experiment that will undoubtedly compare to that of Europe: Letting gay couples say "I do" does not lead to heterosexuals saying "I don't."

    From Slate.com
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i don't think gay marriage is wrong. everybody have human rights. therefore they can be as gay as they want to be. who cares about gay ppl marrying anyway... one solution to solve this would be to keep on sticking porn posters on the streets... fast and easy eh?
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.