Same-Sex Marriage

Dark Jedi · Jun 24, 2011

lordofthereef said:
You're probably right. The funny thing is that it's not like the kid isn't going to be exposed to the opposite lifestyle at some point.

I know but there are many parents that will make their kids live sheltered lives as they are afraid they might be turned to that lifestyle. I tell my son never judge a person because they are different from you.

lordofthereef · Jun 24, 2011

Dark Jedi said:
I know but there are many parents that will make their kids live sheltered lives as they are afraid they might be turned to that lifestyle.

And then the kids grow up to be the adults that sit in the shrink's chair talking about the bad thoughts they are constantly having and wondering why... :rolleyes:

FreakyLocz14 · Jun 24, 2011

lordofthereef said:
I suppose we can make the same argument over just about anything. Let's take the opposite: heterosexuality. Let's say I am a homosexual male raising my kid with my partner/husband and I am appalled that all the stories being read to him/her are of heterosexual relationships. So, do I make a big deal about my kid being exposed to only heterosexuality?

You already need to give your kid permission before they go through sex ed, where they will be exposed to that filthy heterosexuality in great detail

lordofthereef · Jun 24, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
You already need to give your kid permission before they go through sex ed, where they will be exposed to that filthy heterosexuality in great detail

Perhaps that has changed, or I am not remembering right. Been about 13 years since I would have had sex ed. Don't remember ever needing to get permission. I should ask my mother about that.

FreakyLocz14 · Jun 24, 2011

lordofthereef said:
Perhaps that has changed, or I am not remembering right. Been about 13 years since I would have had sex ed. Don't remember ever needing to get permission. I should ask my mother about that.

At my school, all parents were informed of when sex ed would begin and were given the option of pulling their kid from the classroom.

pantlesspenguin · Jun 24, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
The problem is that parents should be the ones deciding whether or not they want their child, especially a second grader, exposed to homosexuality. I personally wouldn't, but I don't make decisions for other parents.

There is also an illustration of a homosexual kiss that some might find offensive.

But in doing so in the context of a children's story, where so much is make believe anyway, I really don't think a 7 year old would read too much into a prince marrying another prince. It's not as if reading about it or talking about it will make you gay. I agree that the illustration of the kiss might be going overboard though. When you said schools were teaching homosexuality to kids I had visions of teachers talking about theories of how one becomes gay, etc. I don't see a problem with having a gay character in a children's book, when books like that talk about so many other different people, creatures, etc. I'd actually like to read the book to see how it's addressed.

pantlesspenguin · Jun 24, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
At my school, all parents were informed of when sex ed would begin and were given the option of pulling their kid from the classroom.

This was my experience as well. I would've taken it around 1991ish and the teachers had our parents sign permission slips so we could attend the classes. Sex ed class in 5th grade was totally less awkward than the birds and bees talk my mom gave me lol.

AT1988 · Jun 24, 2011

I completely agree that a mother and father is best for a child, hands down. But a mom/mom or dad/dad is better than a single parent or foster care because when two people are married, even if same sex, there's gonna be simply more people to take care of the kid. A kid's life can be more stable with two parents instead of one, considering at least one has to win the bread. Of course the advantage of man/woman is that its normal, and its good to have a parent of each male and female temperment, rather than gay.

Its good gay marriage is legal in NY now and getting more accepted also because gay guys who marry for cover wind up breaking girls' hearts, and while yea they've had kids (because the man only needs to be able to ejaculate enough semen), a gay pop and straight mom make for bad marriages and bad environments for kids. Also, gay marriage will lower gay promiscuity, and thus the incidence of AIDS, as while both straight and gay can get AIDS, the incidence is higher in gays, and some people sleep with both, so it affects both straight and gay folks.

pantlesspenguin · Jun 25, 2011

It's also not as if kids in same-sex households never have interaction with role models other than their parents gender. If I ever chose to have kids, my baby brother would be one hell of an amazing role model. If I had a son who needed advice on guy issues I would hope that he would feel comfortable going to Uncle Mikey for advice.

Plus, from what I've seen from my gay parent friends, each parent brings their own experience and knowledge to the table. Their kids will go to one parent with certain issues and the other parent with other issues. As long as they get the answers and support they're looking for, why does gender matter?

FreakyLocz14 · Jun 25, 2011

pantlesspenguin said:
But in doing so in the context of a children's story, where so much is make believe anyway, I really don't think a 7 year old would read too much into a prince marrying another prince. It's not as if reading about it or talking about it will make you gay. I agree that the illustration of the kiss might be going overboard though. When you said schools were teaching homosexuality to kids I had visions of teachers talking about theories of how one becomes gay, etc. I don't see a problem with having a gay character in a children's book, when books like that talk about so many other different people, creatures, etc. I'd actually like to read the book to see how it's addressed.

There are parents who would object to even the subject of homosexuality being discussed or brought up in class at all. You and I may not have any objections, but other parents have different values they wish to instill in their children. We need to respect those as much as we expect them to respect the values we teach to our children.

jaiotu · Jun 25, 2011

Frankly I think that the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Marriage and religion are simply too interwoven with each other. The union between two couples, regardless of gender, should be treated as a matter of contract law. Government should treat the relationship impersonally without regard toward the emotional/physical relationship between those individuals.
"Marriage" and it's definition should be left in the hands of religious institutions and be totally unrecognized as a legal definition by the government. If your religion recognizes a "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a man and multiple women or any other combination then so be it. Persons of other religious persuasions would therefore not be required to recognize the validity of another religion's "marriage."
What makes the entire issue of "gay marriage" such a controversial one is the very fact that "marriage" as an institution exists as an "unholy" union of "Church and State." You very often have a cleric of some religious organization officiating over the ceremony while operating under the authority of the State. The religious ceremony and the civil contract need to be separated from each other.
The benefits of this system are magnificent: Two persons could enter into a religious "marriage" to each other without entering into a civil contract thus protecting their individual wealth and property in the event of divorce without the need for a prenuptial agreement. Additionally two individuals with no emotional or physical relationship could enter into a mutually beneficial civil union that would protect their combined assets and reduce their mutual healthcare costs without having to be involved in some kind of physical relationship with each other.
Why should it be Government's business to enforce a contract between two consenting adults that is based on sexuality? That most intimate part of human life should not require government regulation, should it?

AT1988 · Jun 25, 2011

jaiotu said:
Frankly I think that the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Marriage and religion are simply too interwoven with each other. The union between two couples, regardless of gender, should be treated as a matter of contract law. Government should treat the relationship impersonally without regard toward the emotional/physical relationship between those individuals.
"Marriage" and it's definition should be left in the hands of religious institutions and be totally unrecognized as a legal definition by the government. If your religion recognizes a "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a man and multiple women or any other combination then so be it. Persons of other religious persuasions would therefore not be required to recognize the validity of another religion's "marriage."
What makes the entire issue of "gay marriage" such a controversial one is the very fact that "marriage" as an institution exists as an "unholy" union of "Church and State." You very often have a cleric of some religious organization officiating over the ceremony while operating under the authority of the State. The religious ceremony and the civil contract need to be separated from each other.
The benefits of this system are magnificent: Two persons could enter into a religious "marriage" to each other without entering into a civil contract thus protecting their individual wealth and property in the event of divorce without the need for a prenuptial agreement. Additionally two individuals with no emotional or physical relationship could enter into a mutually beneficial civil union that would protect their combined assets and reduce their mutual healthcare costs without having to be involved in some kind of physical relationship with each other.
Why should it be Government's business to enforce a contract between two consenting adults that is based on sexuality? That most intimate part of human life should not require government regulation, should it?

In New York they are. You have to get a marriage license in New York, which is completely separate from the religious ceremony. Of course some chose to sign the license at the ceremony, but in NY, marriage is a legal term, separate from the religious term.

jaiotu · Jun 25, 2011

AT1988 said:
In New York they are. You have to get a marriage license in New York, which is completely separate from the religious ceremony. Of course some chose to sign the license at the ceremony, but in NY, marriage is a legal term, separate from the religious term.

Does the Pastor/Preacher/Priest/Whatever take part in signing the license? Are they given a special status as a member of the clergy that allows them to "validate" the certificate? Or can any member of the public validate the certificate? Regardless... having a civil contract that is signed as part of a religious ceremony is mixing Church and State. Contracts should be officiated by lawyers, governments officials, a notary public or a judge. Not by clergy. The contract should be signed and witnessed by the Justice of the Peace. If you want a marriage ceremony after that then it's your business.

AT1988 · Jun 25, 2011

jaiotu said:
Does the Pastor/Preacher/Priest/Whatever take part in signing the license? Are they given a special status as a member of the clergy that allows them to "validate" the certificate? Or can any member of the public validate the certificate? Regardless... having a civil contract that is signed as part of a religious ceremony is mixing Church and State. Contracts should be officiated by lawyers, governments officials, a notary public or a judge. Not by clergy. The contract should be signed and witnessed by the Justice of the Peace. If you want a marriage ceremony after that then it's your business.

Getting Married in New York State - New York State Department of Health This is a grey area, but marriage in NY can have absolutely nothing to do with religion, or it can have something to do with religion. The exemptions have been made, and clergy are not compelled to officiate at gay marriages.

lordofthereef · Jun 25, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
At my school, all parents were informed of when sex ed would begin and were given the option of pulling their kid from the classroom.

Playing devil's advocate here then. Does your situation translate into a requirement or is this perhaps a "courtesy" the school offered?

lordofthereef · Jun 25, 2011

pantlesspenguin said:
But in doing so in the context of a children's story, where so much is make believe anyway, I really don't think a 7 year old would read too much into a prince marrying another prince. It's not as if reading about it or talking about it will make you gay. I agree that the illustration of the kiss might be going overboard though. When you said schools were teaching homosexuality to kids I had visions of teachers talking about theories of how one becomes gay, etc. I don't see a problem with having a gay character in a children's book, when books like that talk about so many other different people, creatures, etc. I'd actually like to read the book to see how it's addressed.

I have bolded the "problem" here. I agree with your sentiment, but I think a lot of the opposition truly feels that homosexuality is a life choice, and nothing more. I love my mom to death, but she falls into this category and I know plenty of others that do as well. Sad, really.

pantlesspenguin · Jun 25, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
There are parents who would object to even the subject of homosexuality being discussed or brought up in class at all. You and I may not have any objections, but other parents have different values they wish to instill in their children. We need to respect those as much as we expect them to respect the values we teach to our children.

I agree to an extent, but think about the implications of pretending gay people don't exist, or at the very least give kids the impression that it's something shameful and taboo to even bring up. I'm not talking about discussing the ins and outs, theories on how people become gay, if it's morally right/wrong, etc. I just mean mentioning the mere existsnce of gay people, like you'd mention people of different races, different religions, people from different countries, etc. Of course, I do know why this is. People put too much emphasis on the SEX part of sexual orientation. Some people are more preoccupied with what we do in our bedrooms than we are and forget we're just people first and foremost.

lordofthereef said:
I have bolded the "problem" here. I agree with your sentiment, but I think a lot of the opposition truly feels that homosexuality is a life choice, and nothing more. I love my mom to death, but she falls into this category and I know plenty of others that do as well. Sad, really.

*Sigh* I know. And I don't understand why it's so hard for people to give us the benefit of the doubt on that. It kind of makes me think that these people had once been attracted to members of the same sex in that girlcrush/guycrush way, but never considered acting on it, so that must be what all gay people go through. We choose to act on our same sex crushes, when we really like the opposite sex. Yeah, it doesn't exactly happen like that lol. I knew I liked girls from a young age, around the time most boys and girls started getting crushes. When my friends gossiped about who they liked, I knew enough to keep my mouth shut. I always pretended to like boys. I felt that if I didn't, people would know something was up. The funny thing, I had a friend who once I said I liked a certain boy, she would go after him. In hindsight I probably should have acted more angry about that instead of shrugging it off lol. But, she was pretty dim and never caught on

.

Vihzel · Jun 25, 2011

New York governor signs same-sex marriage bill into law - CNN.com

The Republican majority Senate voted 33-29.

"Opponents of the marriage equality law have vowed to take political action against any Republican who voted for the bill."

Politics getting in the way of civil rights.

lordofthereef · Jun 25, 2011

It stems from the whole "different = bad" sentiment, and it has been around since, well, forever. Generally it's not until the oppressed group starts fighting for their rights that they eventually obtain equality (at least in the eyes of the law).

lordofthereef · Jun 25, 2011

Vihzel said:
Politics getting in the way of everything.

ftfy

Isthmus · Jun 25, 2011

jaiotu said:
Does the Pastor/Preacher/Priest/Whatever take part in signing the license? Are they given a special status as a member of the clergy that allows them to "validate" the certificate? Or can any member of the public validate the certificate? Regardless... having a civil contract that is signed as part of a religious ceremony is mixing Church and State. Contracts should be officiated by lawyers, governments officials, a notary public or a judge. Not by clergy. The contract should be signed and witnessed by the Justice of the Peace. If you want a marriage ceremony after that then it's your business.

To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in this country is a religious marriage recognized by any state, and being a member of any clergy does not give you any kind of special status to officiate marriage ceremonies. IIRC most states require that you register as a justice of the peace or whatevre else the local equivalent is to be allowed to officiate marriages. IN addition, married people all have to file a state marriage license before the ceremony is considered legal.

As far as I know the only exceptions are in cases of common law marriage, and what qualifies there varies from state to state.

when any officiant signs a marriage license, they do so as a representative of the state, not as a representative of their religion. the religious ceremony is done for the benefit of the congregants, but the state does not require it or recognize it.

FreakyLocz14 · Jun 25, 2011

pantlesspenguin said:
I agree to an extent, but think about the implications of pretending gay people don't exist, or at the very least give kids the impression that it's something shameful and taboo to even bring up. I'm not talking about discussing the ins and outs, theories on how people become gay, if it's morally right/wrong, etc. I just mean mentioning the mere existsnce of gay people, like you'd mention people of different races, different religions, people from different countries, etc. Of course, I do know why this is. People put too much emphasis on the SEX part of sexual orientation. Some people are more preoccupied with what we do in our bedrooms than we are and forget we're just people first and foremost.

That's your opinion. Other parents may have different opinions on homosexuality. Teaching kids that homosexuality in normal amounts to teaching political and social values to children. That should be left to the parents. By sex ed, every kid in my class knew what homosexuality was. Whether they should learn if it's right or wrong is for their parents to decide.

I have no problem with trying to teach acceptance, but acceptance of homosexuality is a value that some people do not have, so I only object when such instruction is mandatory.

Vihzel · Jun 25, 2011

It's just a shame that in today's world there even has to be talks about teaching acceptance towards a group of people. It sounds so silly. It doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is known or discussed in school because there's a thing called the Internet. I knew everything that I wanted to know back in 6th grade with no help from my parents.

lordofthereef · Jun 25, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
That's your opinion. Other parents may have different opinions on homosexuality. Teaching kids that homosexuality in normal amounts to teaching political and social values to children. That should be left to the parents. By sex ed, every kid in my class knew what homosexuality was. Whether they should learn if it's right or wrong is for their parents to decide.

That's a tough one. Perhaps parents should be able to decide whether we are taught about segregation? I mean, while segregation was happening I am sure people were up in arms about anyone wanting to teach that it was wrong to practice. I see where you are coming from, but so long as schooling is required by law (and I don't disagree that it should be), I am not sure parents should be allowed to pick and choose what their kids learn. Sort of defeats the purpose of making it a requirement.

lordofthereef · Jun 25, 2011

Vihzel said:
I knew everything that I wanted to know back in 6th grade with no help from my parents.

That's why we need to censor the internet! It's evil!

Same-Sex Marriage

Dark Jedi

Guest

Android Expert

Android Expert

Android Enthusiast

Android Enthusiast

Member

Android Enthusiast

Member

Member

Member

Member

Android Expert

Android Expert

Android Enthusiast

Destroying Balls Everyday

Android Expert

Android Expert

Android Expert

Destroying Balls Everyday

Android Expert

Android Expert

BEST TECH IN 2023

Smartphones

Best Android Phones

Upcoming

Best iPhones

Upcoming

Tablets

Best Tablets

Upcoming

Laptops

Best Laptops

Upcoming

Televisions

Best TVs

Upcoming

Game Consoles

Best Game Consoles

Upcoming

Wearables

Best Wearables

Upcoming

Smart Home

Smart Home Tech

Upcoming

Similar threads