Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

thelordofcheese

Dumb wrote: »

Look at it. Would Our Lord favour two fellas rubbing their dicks up against each other. I don't think so. That's a disgusting at. Filthy, dirty. All that auld stuff they do like pulling back the foreskin and rubbing each other. That's just wrong. :mad:

I asked him, he says he's cool with it as long as the people involved love eachother.

Mac Masters

KeyLimePie

Dumb wrote: »

Look at it. Would Our Lord favour two fellas rubbing their dicks up against each other. I don't think so. That's a disgusting at. Filthy, dirty. All that auld stuff they do like pulling back the foreskin and rubbing each other. That's just wrong. :mad:

You seem to know too much about this sorta business all together

Dumb

KeyLimePie wrote: »

You seem to know too much about this sorta business all together

I can hear my neighbours through the wall!:D

monellia

A storm is gathering...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

KeyLimePie

dr.bollocko

Dumb wrote: »

Look at it. Would Our Lord favour two fellas rubbing their dicks up against each other. I don't think so. That's a disgusting at. Filthy, dirty. All that auld stuff they do like pulling back the foreskin and rubbing each other. That's just wrong. :mad:

Banned.

DylanJames

Definitely, live and let live for christ sake. There's no legitimate reason why they shouldn't

Carsinian Thau

Yes.

If you have a problem with gay marriage, then don't get one. Simple as.

Riddle101

I don't see why not. I mean people have a right to be with whoever they want to be right? so why not give them the right to get married, it won't do any harm.

The_Minister

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

You're the first person who's put in a decent post explaining those concerns, and I may have even given you a "thank you" if you hadn't been petulent and accused me of having my head up my ass. Believe me, my head is above my shoulders and thinking clearly (although it's a bit tired right now because it's so late)
If I come across as condescending towards people, that's because there have been so many pathetic arguments raised on this thread that deserve to be mocked (I'm not talking about you here btw)

I reread my post, and I'm sorry that I implied that you had your cranium up your anus.:o I shouldn't have said that.
It is just one of those things that gets to me; a pet hate.
I always see shades of grey - I don't believe that more than a handful of issues are black and white.
I always see the other side (or nearly always), and I just weigh up the good and bad, acknowledging both, and then decide which one outweighs which (this is why I could never be a politician).
I can't stand when people try and pretend (and I'm not specifically talking about you, you just happened to be the post I responded to) that there is no valid opinion on the other side. That the other side is completely wrong, and their opposition or proposition is entirely without basis, when, very often, they do have some basis.

I think there are downsides to gay marriage:
I do think it will damage the institution of marriage, in much the same way as I believe that divorce damaged it by turning it from a permanent commitment to a temporary arrangement.
I don't think any oppression of the religious will be as bad here as it is in the USA (we tend to be a bit more sensible here), but I think that religious organisations will find their actions restrained, and their members put in awkward positions.
I think that it will open the door to polygamy (and possibly the decriminalisation of incest).

But on the balance, I am in favour of it.
I see no reason to ignore the downsides, and not seek some way to ameliorate them.

mobius42

The_Minister wrote: »

I think there are downsides to gay marriage:
I do think it will damage the institution of marriage, in much the same way as I believe that divorce damaged it by turning it from a permanent commitment to a temporary arrangement.

You don't say how allowing gay people to marry will damage the institution of marriage, just that it will. How will allowing more people get married damage marriage? Marriage is not some sacred ritual, it was just invented to deal with land ownership issues and has evolved over the years to meet different societal needs. Here's a few: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html

The_Minister wrote: »

I don't think any oppression of the religious will be as bad here as it is in the USA (we tend to be a bit more sensible here), but I think that religious organisations will find their actions restrained, and their members put in awkward positions.

And oppression of gay people is preferable over oppression of religious people? How does allowing gay people to marry restrict or even affect religious people? Religious people getting married doesn't affect me and people's private lives are none of my business.

The_Minister wrote: »

I think that it will open the door to polygamy (and possibly the decriminalisation of incest).

I always struggle to understand how people can think this. There is a difference between sexual behaviour and sexual orientation. Slippery slope arguments are just fear-mongering, what evidence do you have that people will suddenly want to start having sex with their sisters?

The_Minister wrote: »

But on the balance, I am in favour of it.
I see no reason to ignore the downsides, and not seek some way to ameliorate them.

While your attitude is commendable, you are assuming that the correct solution to a problem is always a compromise between two extremes. Is it not possible that one side be the solution?

thelordofcheese

The_Minister wrote: »

I think there are downsides to gay marriage:
I do think it will damage the institution of marriage, in much the same way as I believe that divorce damaged it by turning it from a permanent commitment to a temporary arrangement.
I don't think any oppression of the religious will be as bad here as it is in the USA (we tend to be a bit more sensible here), but I think that religious organisations will find their actions restrained, and their members put in awkward positions.
I think that it will open the door to polygamy (and possibly the decriminalisation of incest).

I disagree with all of your assesments, and i call bullshit on the second one... actually, i think i'm calling bullshit on the first one too.

And the last one is a slippery slope argument, so i'm not too worried.

philologos

mobius42 wrote: »

And oppression of gay people is preferable over oppression of religious people? How does allowing gay people to marry restrict or even affect religious people? Religious people getting married doesn't affect me and people's private lives are none of my business.

How is it oppression? They will still have most of the rights that married heterosexual couples will. There are differing factors that do need to be considered before gay marriage could be legalised in my opinion anyway. The first major hurdle would be dealing with the situation of the family. The second would be legislation to protect people of faith from unwarranted legal action should they decide they want no role in such a ceremony. The third would deal with adoption policies and how they should affect orphanages. For example should an orphanage with a Christian ethos be forced to give out children to LGBT couples.

As for gay people not being allowed to get married - they are, there is just a restriction on who they can get married to. This objection however is just as applicable to incestual couples, of polygamists.

I have to say I must applaud The Minister for his role in the thread for being willing to even consider the drawbacks that gay marriage could have for society even when he supports it.

Last point. If this was only to do with private lives. That would be a different case. However it isn't. It affects:
Education,
Childhood development,
Religious freedoms.

These three areas would need to be cleared up sufficiently.

mobius42 wrote: »

While your attitude is commendable, you are assuming that the correct solution to a problem is always a compromise between two extremes. Is it not possible that one side be the solution?

Possibly. I think I like The Minister would support a compromise. That compromise for me is civil unions as being a distinct partnership for LGBT couples, and marriage being a union for heterosexual couples. Over time just like you argue marriage evolves, perhaps the civil union can evolve

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it oppression? They will still have most of the rights that married heterosexual couples will.

You've answered your own question there. How you can't see this is fucking astounding.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for gay people not being allowed to get married - they are, there is just a restriction on who they can get married to.

That's horrible reasoning. If you want to know why, it's the exact same reasoning used to prevent interracial marriage.

Jakkass wrote: »

Last point. If this was only to do with private lives. That would be a different case. However it isn't. It affects:
Education,
Childhood development,
Religious freedoms.

That last one is total shit, and i'm calling you on it. The other two are debatable at best.

Jakkass wrote: »

Possibly. I think I like The Minister would support a compromise. That compromise for me is civil unions as being a distinct partnership for LGBT couples, and marriage being a union for heterosexual couples. Over time just like you argue marriage evolves, perhaps the civil union can evolve

Wow, i didn't think it was possible to be smug while denying people civil right, but you've surprised me yet again.

mobius42

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it oppression? They will still have most of the rights that married heterosexual couples will. There are differing factors that do need to be considered before gay marriage could be legalised in my opinion anyway. The first major hurdle would be dealing with the situation of the family. The second would be legislation to protect people of faith from unwarranted legal action should they decide they want no role in such a ceremony. The third would deal with adoption policies and how they should affect orphanages. For example should an orphanage with a Christian ethos be forced to give out children to LGBT couples.

Separate-but-equal arguments are vapid. It is oppression because you are telling people that they can't get married to the people they want to marry! "Most" of the rights is not equality. I could replace gay people with black people in your argument and it would still be as "valid".

Jakkass wrote: »

As for gay people not being allowed to get married - they are, there is just a restriction on who they can get married to. This objection however is just as applicable to incestual couples, of polygamists.

This is just pedantry.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have to say I must applaud The Minister for his role in the thread for being willing to even consider the drawbacks that gay marriage could have for society even when he supports it.

I agree that being able to see both sides in an argument is a quality sorely lacking in our society and having it is to be commended. However, just because someone looks at both sides of argument does not make their arguments inherently more valid. I object to his opinions not because they differ from my own but because he has not argued them effectively or at all.

Jakkass wrote: »

Last point. If this was only to do with private lives. That would be a different case. However it isn't. It affects:
Education,
Childhood development,
Religious freedoms.

These three areas would need to be cleared up sufficiently.

I agree that there are issues that need to be resolved. However, they are not insurmountable and cannot be used as a justification to deny gay marriage. All the same arguments were used against black people; how they wouldn't integrate into society etc. There are a large number of children who have been raised by gay couples and they turned out just the same as children raised by straight couples. What determines a good upbringing is not the sexual orientation of the parents, but the skill of the parents and their ability to support their children in a caring environment.

I am uncertain how it affects education, could you elaborate on your opinion here?

Again, how does this affect religious freedoms? Marriage is not owned by religious orders and legalising gay marriage does not mean forcing churches to marry gay people. Gay marriage is about having it recognised by the state. Churches are private organisations and have the right to refuse to marry gay people. The State however, has a constitutional duty to treat all its citizens equally.

Jakkass wrote: »

Possibly. I think I like The Minister would support a compromise. That compromise for me is civil unions as being a distinct partnership for LGBT couples, and marriage being a union for heterosexual couples. Over time just like you argue marriage evolves, perhaps the civil union can evolve

Again, a separate-but-equal argument. Since when did the word marriage become owned by the religious?

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You've answered your own question there. How you can't see this is fucking astounding.

Where certain rights that are given in current marriages may negatively effect the rights of others, particularly the right of a child to have both a mother and a father I do raise an objection to both relationship structures to be exactly the same.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That's horrible reasoning. If you want to know why, it's the exact same reasoning used to prevent interracial marriage.

This point is moot. They were still male and female.

It's interesting that you bring in interracial marriage, and yet are so unwilling to consider incestual marriages, or polygamy. Why is that?

Your reasoning could be also used to justify these, but why don't you?

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That last one is total shit, and i'm calling you on it. The other two are debatable at best.

Given what has happened elsewhere you really have no reason to see it as being objectionable. Also if you are going to dispute something, make a case against it.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Wow, i didn't think it was possible to be smug while denying people civil right, but you've surprised me yet again.

It isn't being smug. I'm not denying anyone any right. The right to marriage is available to all. We are merely disputing what exactly a marriage is.

curious-pup

In my opinion marriage and civil partnership should be made completely separate. Non-church marriages should no longer be "marriages", and instead be civil partnerships for straight or gay couples giving the same rights to all. I think this to be the most logical way forward as "marriage" is a religious notion, and will never be granted to gay couples by the church.

I am all for gay couples having the same rights as straight couples. BUT I do think that any rights as regards adoption should be considered another day and not just lumped in with any civil partnership/marriage legislation that may be brought in.

Liam Byrne

In my experience, most people nowadays are perfectly happy living together, and only get married when they're planning to have kids; it's required at that stage in order to have a legal basis for the children and their inheritance.

And while I would say live and let live in many aspects, there must be a reason why children can only be created by a combination of a man and a woman. As someone - I think it was The Minister - said, we're talking non-abusive, non-neglecting parents here (since no kids should have either of those, regardless of orientation) so please don't trot out the usual "better to have two loving gay parents than two hating straight ones".

Fact is - only a hetero couple can have kids. And since that was the main reason for marraige, then if you don't want that you've no need for it. The Disney / Hallmark "happy ever after as they walk down the aisle at the end of the movie" thing is a joke......any issues that were there before are still there.

Maybe there's a case of wanting something you can't have, and maybe the fact that I could take it or leave it until such time as there might be kids in the equation, makes me wonder what the appeal and fuss is, but those are my views on it.

Goodshape

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it oppression? They will still have most of the rights that married heterosexual couples will.

It's the "most of" bit. That's how.

How can you put on a straight face and ask another human being to settle for mostly equal? or mostly free?

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

Where certain rights that are given in current marriages may negatively effect the rights of others, particularly the right of a child to have both a mother and a father I do raise an objection to both relationship structures to be exactly the same.

*sigh* I should know better than to comment on your posts.

I'm going to make this simple - We are taking about same sex marriage here. Not gay adoption, not what you think your god wants, not incest, not polygamy and not any of the other shit you seem to be hellbent on dragging into this.

You're not even objecting to same sex marriage anymore, you're simply going "think of the children" and hoping it sounds reasonable. It doesn't. It's an insulting smokescreen.

Jakkass wrote: »

This point is moot. They were still male and female.

the point isn't moot just because you say so, it's very fucking valid. It shows your perfectly willing to deny people basic human rights because of how they were born.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's interesting that you bring in interracial marriage, and yet are so unwilling to consider incestual marriages, or polygamy. Why is that?

Your reasoning could be also used to justify these, but why don't you?

S'funny, i don't recall saying anything like that, at all. take your strawman and put him somewhere useful, would you?
Also, we're not talking about incest or polygamy, but you already knew that, didn't you.

Jakkass wrote: »

Given what has happened elsewhere you really have no reason to see it as being objectionable.

I do.
"what happened elsewhere" what the hell are you on about?
Also, this is a civil matter, your church and it's rules don't apply, much in the same way jewish people can't bitch that we enjoy pork.
The rules of your club only apply to memeber of said club, you don't get to impose them on everyone else.

Jakkass wrote: »

The right to marriage is available to all.

As long as you're straight.

philologos

mobius42 wrote: »

Separate-but-equal arguments are vapid. It is oppression because you are telling people that they can't get married to the people they want to marry! "Most" of the rights is not equality. I could replace gay people with black people in your argument and it would still be as "valid".

No it wouldn't be as valid. In terms of being black, there are still both a mother and a father involved. Therefore there isn't the same risk in terms of family structure that there could be in the case of LGBT couples. As such it couldn't be made about black people. LGBT situations change the whole structure of a family. Racial situations do not.

mobius42 wrote: »

This is just pedantry.

No, it really isn't. What we consider marriage to be is key in the whole debate.

mobius42 wrote: »

I agree that being able to see both sides in an argument is a quality sorely lacking in our society and having it is to be commended. However, just because someone looks at both sides of argument does not make their arguments inherently more valid. I object to his opinions not because they differ from my own but because he has not argued them effectively or at all.

It is. I think The Minister should be praised as I have said. I think both sides bring valid arguments to the table. I think those who support traditional marriage are the most convincing though.

mobius42 wrote: »

I agree that there are issues that need to be resolved. However, they are not insurmountable and cannot be used as a justification to deny gay marriage. All the same arguments were used against black people; how they wouldn't integrate into society etc. There are a large number of children who have been raised by gay couples and they turned out just the same as children raised by straight couples. What determines a good upbringing is not the sexual orientation of the parents, but the skill of the parents and their ability to support their children in a caring environment.

No, they weren't. If you are going to say that these arguments were used against black people please substantiate yourself instead of using fallacious examples.

The best upbringing for a child is with both a mother and a father. Every child has this right, and where rights conflict a compromise should be made. The compromise I think is best is if there are two relationship structures, one for same sex and one for heterosexual.

mobius42 wrote: »

I am uncertain how it affects education, could you elaborate on your opinion here?

Lets see. Schools refusing parents in Massechussets to let their children out of classes where they were teaching that same sex marriage is the exact same as straight marriage when the parents disagreed to have their children being taught this. I hold the view that the parent should be the primary educator of the child, and if a topic of education that isn't kosher with the parent particularly in the field of morality is being taught the parent should have every right to object to it.

mobius42 wrote: »

Again, how does this affect religious freedoms? Marriage is not owned by religious orders and legalising gay marriage does not mean forcing churches to marry gay people. Gay marriage is about having it recognised by the state. Churches are private organisations and have the right to refuse to marry gay people. The State however, has a constitutional duty to treat all its citizens equally.

Read the articles I provided about Christian photographers who refused to take part in a gay marriage ceremony who were brought to court. There has been numerous cases like this in the USA since it has been passed in some states.

mobius42 wrote: »

Again, a separate-but-equal argument. Since when did the word marriage become owned by the religious?

It didn't but as a structure I think it is beneficial if it remains between a man and a woman and that civil unions are explored for same sex situations.

ScissorPaperRock

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The rules of your club only apply to memeber of said club, you don't get to impose them on everyone else.

Brilliant!!

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

*sigh* I should know better than to comment on your posts.

If you wouldn't mind leaving the ad-hominems out it would be appreciated.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm going to make this simple - We are taking about same sex marriage here. Not gay adoption, not what you think your god wants, not incest, not polygamy and not any of the other shit you seem to be hellbent on dragging into this.

Adoption is related to marriage. All potential impacts need to be considered and need to be cleared up. As such removing the discussion of adoption from the gay marriage debate is effectively impossible if we are to consider marriage to be the foundation of the family.

Look, it's rather simple thelordofcheese. You brought in interracial marriage which was completely off topic and said that it was consistent with my line of reasoning. I brought in incest, and polygamy. Lets not be hypocritical here.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You're not even objecting to same sex marriage anymore, you're simply going "think of the children" and hoping it sounds reasonable. It doesn't. It's an insulting smokescreen.

I'm objecting to the impact of gay marriage on society. I don't need you to tell me what is reasonable or what isn't. The mere fact that people all over the world share my concerns is enough to substantiate whether or not it is reasonable or not.

I couldn't care if you find my views to be insulting if they were never intended to be such. Be as insulted as you want. Infact if you could leave your emotions at the door it would actually be beneficial to the argument.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

the point isn't moot just because you say so, it's very fucking valid. It shows your perfectly willing to deny people basic human rights because of how they were born.

Look, if you aren't willing to consider incestual relationships, or polygamy in your consideration you shouldn't expect me to consider interracial marriage.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

S'funny, i don't recall saying anything like that, at all. take your strawman and put him somewhere useful, would you?
Also, we're not talking about incest or polygamy, but you already knew that, didn't you.

Right, we aren't discussing about interracial marriage either, are we?

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I do.
"what happened elsewhere" what the hell are you on about?
Also, this is a civil matter, your church and it's rules don't apply, much in the same way jewish people can't bitch that we enjoy pork.
The rules of your club only apply to memeber of said club, you don't get to impose them on everyone else.

I've been arguing this entire argument without citing Christianity or the Bible. On a secular scale there is enough to disagree with. I'm not going to bring in the Bible as I can't expect you to agree with me in that respect.

You totally missed the point though. I was referring to legal action that has taken place in the USA by those who were unwilling to provide their services for gay marriages due to disagreements of conscience. The courts in various states have brought these people to trial.

It primarily has to do with individuals rather than churches and synagogues.

mehfesto2

Is it just a case that we should change the entitlements of Civil Partnerships?

Most people argue that Gay people should be allowed marry for the benefits it wil bring and how it encourages equality, which is unquestionably necessary nowadays. It would be backward to think otherwise.

However wanting marriage just for the benefits it brings is very different to wanting marriage for the day it etails. My friend is adamant that he and his boyfriend will one day marry in our local church.

Personally, I cannot see why any homosexual person would want a (Catholic at least) church marriage - I find this similar to a Black person wanting to join the KKK (An extreme example, I know). But realistically, why would anyone want to be united by a group of people that believe their way of life to be evil? Surely their love alone and a out-of-church ceremony is enough - *if* we change the entitlements of Civil Partnerships.

Marriage is a human creaton - it is not a human right or given entitlement. One has to be a member of a church to get married - the catholic church officially is not gay friendly. Gay people should not be allowed marry in a Catholic Church, resultantly - this is a church issue, not a State one; however I cannot see any reason why any other religion which is gay-friendly should prevent homosexuals uniting in their ceremonies.

And I cannot see any reason why in Ireland in 2009 that homosexuals are treated as lesser beings by The State, by their their refusal to allow homosexual couples the same entitlements as a heterosexual married couple, based on their sexual orientation.

joes girls

i really cant understand why people are getting so worked up over this, unless its knocking on your door why stress, what 2 people that you dont even know want to do is up to them!

mobius42

Jakkass wrote: »

No it wouldn't be as valid. In terms of being black, there are still both a mother and a father involved. Therefore there isn't the same risk in terms of family structure that there could be in the case of LGBT couples. As such it couldn't be made about black people. LGBT situations change the whole structure of a family. Racial situations do not.

You have failed to justify why same-sex relationships cannot provide as good an upbringing as straight couples. Studies have shown that this is not the case: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

Jakkass wrote: »

No, they weren't. If you are going to say that these arguments were used against black people please substantiate yourself instead of using fallacious examples.

The best upbringing for a child is with both a mother and a father. Every child has this right, and where rights conflict a compromise should be made. The compromise I think is best is if there are two relationship structures, one for same sex and one for heterosexual.

You criticise me for not substantiating my arguments and then in the next paragraph you make an assertion with no evidence. I have provided evidence showing that a same-sex relationship is not damaging to children, you have shown nothing to back up your opinions. Also, if every child has a right to both a mother and father, why is adoption legal? Should the child's rights not override the parent's and force them to raise their children? Should divorce be repealed so that couples with children do not separate?

Jakkass wrote: »

Lets see. Schools refusing parents in Massechussets to let their children out of classes where they were teaching that same sex marriage is the exact same as straight marriage when the parents disagreed to have their children being taught this. I hold the view that the parent should be the primary educator of the child, and if a topic of education that isn't kosher with the parent particularly in the field of morality is being taught the parent should have every right to object to it.

I fail to see what this has to do with letting gay people get married. The right of a parent to dictate what their children can learn is another topic entirely.

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the articles I provided about Christian photographers who refused to take part in a gay marriage ceremony who were brought to court. There has been numerous cases like this in the USA since it has been passed in some states.

How is this a justification for denying gay marriage? Are you seriously suggesting that we don't allow gay marriage in case photographers get offended? If someone doesn't want to work and get paid at a gay wedding then they don't have to, just get someone else who will.

Jakkass wrote: »

It didn't but as a structure I think it is beneficial if it remains between a man and a woman and that civil unions are explored for same sex situations.

Again with the separate-but-equal argument.

mobius42

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Is it just a case that we should change the entitlements of Civil Partnerships?

However wanting marriage just for the benefits it brings is very different to wanting marriage for the day it etails. My friend is adamant that he and his boyfriend will one day marry in our local church.

Personally, I cannot see why any homosexual person would want a (Catholic at least) church marriage - I find this similar to a Black person wanting to join the KKK (An extreme example, I know). But realistically, why would anyone want to be united by a group of people that believe their way of life to be evil? Surely their love alone and a out-of-church ceremony is enough - *if* we change the entitlements of Civil Partnerships.

Marriage is a human creaton - it is not a human right or given entitlement. One has to be a member of a church to get married - the catholic church officially is not gay friendly. Gay people should not be allowed marry in a Catholic Church, resultantly - this is a church issue, not a State one; however I cannot see any reason why any other religion which is gay-friendly should prevent homosexuals uniting in their ceremonies.

It is unfortunate that gay marriage tends to be seen as forcing the church to recognise and officiate over gay marriage. I think the best solution is having a State marriage system for all people who want to get married which is completely independent from religious organisations. This approach is taken in Eastern Europe. A friend of my father's from there went to a registry office for the legal ceremony and then went to a church for a religious one. This allows gay people all the rights of straight people while also not invading the rights of the religious organisations.

Zillah

Impressive Jakkass. I've never seen anyone so openly bigoted stand up to so many people at once and continue to argue in favour of their bigotry.

Well no that's not true, Phelps has managed it.

I supposed it's easier to argue a discriminatory position if one has managed to delude oneself into thinking that the position is not short sighted, selfish and deplorable, eh?

philologos

mobius42 wrote: »

You have failed to justify why same-sex relationships cannot provide as good an upbringing as straight couples. Studies have shown that this is not the case: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

There are numerous reports to the contrary also. In previous threads this has been discussed ad-nauseum.

mobius42 wrote: »

You criticise me for not substantiating my arguments and then in the next paragraph you make an assertion with no evidence. I have provided evidence showing that a same-sex relationship is not damaging to children, you have shown nothing to back up your opinions. Also, if every child has a right to both a mother and father, why is adoption legal? Should the child's rights not override the parent's and force them to raise their children? Should divorce be repealed so that couples with children do not separate?

There are just as much to the contrary which shows that it is at least contentious. People have argued it from both sides. As I say, if you look up previous threads in AH about this you will find plenty.

mobius42 wrote: »

I fail to see what this has to do with letting gay people get married. The right of a parent to dictate what their children can learn is another topic entirely.

It has everything to do with it considering that after gay marriage legislation was passed in Massechussetts it was when this cirriculum or should I say propoganda came in, and that kids had to learn it even if their parents disagreed. It's very much on the same debate.

mobius42 wrote: »

How is this a justification for denying gay marriage? Are you seriously suggesting that we don't allow gay marriage in case photographers get offended?

It's not incase they get offended. People have been sent to court and fined for disagreeing with gay marriage and being unwilling to take part in gay marriage ceremonies if their beliefs disagreed.

I wouldn't mind if it was just that these people were offended, I do mind when freedom of religion becomes a legal issue.