Same Sex Marriage

Forums: Relationships
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I think conservatives are wrong on this one, and here's why:

Setting aside the religious concerns many people have about same-sex marriages, it seems to me that we should be looking at what is best for society and what promotes the greatest level of liberty within that society.

It seems to me that most people's objection to same-sex marriages is rooted in the notion that permitting/recognizing such unions will be bad for our society, but I'm inclined to believe that exactly the opposite is true.

Some people are homosexual. That is not going to change. The one negative impact of that reality on our society stems from the consequences inherent in the largely promiscuous gay lifestyle. (That is not to suggest that all homosexuals are promiscuous, but simply recognizes that a large percentage--of homosexual men at least--are.) Much of gay subculture revolves around creating opportunities for frequent anonymous sex. The problems and consequences for society inherent in this reality are obvious, so I will not take time to list them here.

Within the homosexual community there are individuals who have chosen to create loving, monogamous relationships. Given that fact...

Is it better for society to encourage and recognize committed, monogamous gay relationships, or not?

I think that permitting/recognizing same-sex marriage would be a positive thing and would encourage positive changes within the homosexual community, and that opposing same-sex marriages sends precisely the wrong message to the homosexual community.

Thoughts? Comments?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 19,036 • Replies: 328

No top replies

Absolutely positive for society, although religious zealots like Jerry Falwell will oppose it to their deathbed. This may happen sooner than we expect as Fallwell doesn't seem to pray for God to push his dinner plate away from him.

0 Replies

As long as the couple is bound by the same responsibilities as in a heterosexual union, I see no problem with it!

0 Replies

I don't think same sex marriage will derive in less promiscuity among some homosexual males.

The main reason I'm for it is that it legally protects the couple. Much too often we see that relatives of a homosexual person block the partner's entrance into a hospital, his/her right to inheritance when there's not a will, or his/her right to have a widow(er) pension, etc. That is an unfair and discriminatory tratment of a person because of his/her sexual preference.

0 Replies

I'm not going to debate this issue. But, I will say that I'm against it.

(Would you believe that 2 years ago I was a Liberal? Now I'm a Conservative!)

0 Replies

It's done in some European countries - they just had to change the laws a little bit (and to wait, until conservatives were in opposition and the the courts give their okay [:"Germany's Federal Constitutional Court cleared the way for legal same-sex marriages when it dismissed efforts by conservative governed states to block a new law.].):

2000-DEC-19: Netherlands: Gay and lesbian Dutch couples can now marry and adopt with the full privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. This is the first country in recent history to have legalized gay and lesbian marriages.

2001-JUN-4: Canada: Gay and lesbian couples in the province of Nova Scotia now have most of the rights of heterosexual married couples, with the exception of adoption.

2001-AUG-2: Germany: Gay and lesbian couples may register their partnerships, obtain the same inheritance rights as married couples, and may share the same last name. Some rights are still withheld

2002-SEP: Zurich, Switzerland: Same-sex couples can now register with the government and obtain all of the legal rights as opposite-sex married couples.

In predominantly Catholic Portugal, same-sex couples who have lived together for more than two years recently were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples in common-law marriages. [Couldn't find the date, but have been in 2001.]

Phoenix32890 wrote:

As long as the couple is bound by the same responsibilities as in a heterosexual union, I see no problem with it!

A marriage (or a registration) isn't only giving responsibilties but benefits, too.

0 Replies

One of the reasons I'm an atheist: Christians believe homosexuality is wrong as taught in the bible. I think any form of discrimination is wrong! c.i.

0 Replies

Some Christians believe that, c.i., some!

0 Replies

I'm gonna cross-post this topic to Relationships & Marriage. And, by the way, I'm for same-sex unions, mainly because of the insurance, inheritance and tax implications of recognizing long-term unions, much like the state recognizes heterosexual long-term unions.

0 Replies

The whole idea that same sex marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage is absurd. Marriage was designed to preserve property rights. Final.

0 Replies

My one and only quibble with the entire issue is the use of the word "marriage". Personally, I'd like to see "marriage" reserved for use as a descriptor of traditional unions and something else used for "unconventional" unions.

Any legal issues, social benefits, etc.. should match 100% between the two though.

And umm.. Since I'm a "conservative", can you tell me where I'm "wrong" on this??? :p

0 Replies

Welcome, p.o.m.! :-D

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

One of the reasons I'm an atheist: Christians believe homosexuality is wrong as taught in the bible. I think any form of discrimination is wrong!

I often find myself agreeing with the idea I believe a person meant to espouse at the same time as I have an intellectual disagreement with the statement he or she made. This is one of those times, so C.I., please give my question some consideration...

Do you think discrimination against pedophiles is wrong?

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

My one and only quibble with the entire issue is the use of the word "marriage". Personally, I'd like to see "marriage" reserved for use as a descriptor of traditional unions and something else used for "unconventional" unions.

What I propose is a civil union, but since heterosexuals joined in a civil ceremony are considered "married", I think it appropriate to set the same standard and use the same term for homosexual unions.

As an aside, I specifically wrote of a civil union because I do not believe any church or religious group should be forced to acknowledge or perform same-sex marriages if they believe their religious does not permit such unions.

0 Replies

fishin, It is true that the correct definition of "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That has been the definition since Dr Johnson and Webster defined words for the English language. However, it was a time when homosexuality was regarded as an unnatural and immoral union of same sex partners - probably influenced by their religion. Don't you think it's time to revise the definition for "marriage?" c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't you think it's time to revise the definition for "marriage?"

Why change a perfectly good definition that has been around for thousands of years when other words can be used to describe a similar but slightly different arrangement?

0 Replies

Whether it's called marriage or just a contract between to people same sex couples should be afforded the same legal rights as those in a traditional union

0 Replies

"Marriage" for both kinds of union works for me! Wink

I would defer to the homosexual couples what they wish to call it. c.i.

0 Replies

Pedophilia is plainly against the law (even though there are still some states who have same sex acts as unlawful on the books, which should now be considered extremely regressive). They relinquish their rights if they act on their outre pathology. Psychiatry has pretty much accepted that they can't be treated but that doesn't mean they should be excused and given any kind of right other than freedom of speech. I find it abhorant but I understand that there are juveniles that can be tried as an adult and there are juveniles that make decisions to have consenting sex with an adult. Still doesn't change the fact that the adult is the responsible one and sex with children is opportunistic and very damaging.

0 Replies

This is, after all, a separation of church and state issue. A same sex couple able to make a union contract in a state will still have the option of a ceremony at a church with a cleric who consents to perform the rite.
The Christian churches should not have the power to say what laws are enacted in a state.

0 Replies

Same Sex Marriage

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know