The current vote for marriage equality (because calling it "gay marriage" doesn't really do it justice!) includes the opt-out clause for religions to ensure that they are not forced, by law, to marry same-sex couples. So once again I will remind you that this has nothing to do with the church, but is about allowing same-sex couples to have the same legal rights as different-sex couples have to get married. I can easily type that out again for the hard of thinking if you want. Marriage promotes stable and loving relationships; surely that's something worth promoting?
That's a very stereotypical view of the male and female role . The "strong" male father presumably works in a manual labour type job , stops off at the pub on the way home and expects his tea on the table when he falls through the door . Knocks his wife about too , just to prove his strength . The meek and quiet female role model of a wife has the tea on the table when her man gets in , expects to be knocked about when he's been drinking and has to keep the house cleaned and family feed on whatever money her strong husband sees fit to give her . Haven't things moved on from those so called ideals ? As for Gild's view that same sex couples are somehow inferior in parenting skills and giving love and care to any children in their lives is quite laughable . There aren't enough so called normal couples adopting children so to deny those same children the love and care from anyone else isn't respecting their rights at all , quite the contrary . You wouldn't try to stop a mixed race couple from adopting children or a coloured couple from adopting a white child so why question if a same sex couple are capable of parenting .People's sexual orientation or colour has nothing to do with how good a parent they are .
dont care about your argument much justifying same sex couples. im sure little billy wont know the difference when hes little when he wakes up early and goes running into his daddys bedroom in the morning to find daddy humping his other daddy. but he will when he grows up... its everybody right to live a happy life how they want. but certain things should not be imposed on a child and thats not normal for a child to be raised that way or right imho
I think you are sadly misguided if you believe the church hasnt doesnt want any say in this.... and as for your second point "stable loving relationships' are you having a laugh.............most of these relationships dont last more than 7 years.....lets have a poll on how many on here have been divorced.....
The colour of someone's skin doesn't make a difference to who they are, any more than their hair colour. That clearly isn't the point. And I didn't say that the child would be short on love and affection. But men and women bring different things to parenting, they have different sensibilities. Children generally run crying to mum, not dad. Not because dad loves them any less, but clearly they expect different things from both. Men and women are very different, they behave differently. I just feel that children have a right to grow up with those two different sensibilities. However, if you are saying that gay/lesbian adoption would mean that more children would be brought up in a loving family, rather than institutionalised care, then I'd be in favour of it. It's obviously better to have loving same sex parents than no parents. So it's a practical issue in that case. But were that not to be so, then I still think that male / female parents make for more balanced upbringing.
The church didn't want it so the government included a clause to exclude religious groups from being forced to conduct same-sex ceremonies. Why should some made-up fairy-tales dictate the way I live my life? It's very hypocritical of anyone to start quoting "religious" scriptures when they contain passages like: - if a girl has sex before marriage, she must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) - anyone found to be having an affair shall be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22) - it is perfectly acceptable to buy male and female slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46) - eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10-12) - sculpture is an abomination (Deuteronomy 27:15) - the proud, liars and “he that soweth discord among brethren” are an abomination (Proverbs 6:16-19) - incense is an abomination (Isaiah 1:13) - “that which is highly esteemed among men” is an abomination (Luke 16:15) - and that divers’ weights are an abomination (Proverbs 20:23) I think that covers just about everyone? As for divorce, you may want to read about some facts rather than doing a straw-poll: What percentage of marriages end in divorce?
As much as I might sympathise with your point of view regarding Religion and the ills it has been responsible for (and still is), I still maintain that a Church, a Religion, has the right to determine who can and cannot get married under its banner. Religion should have no say in the matter of civil unions, partnerships, marriages, etc but it has every right to enforce the rules that they have abided by for centuries. You don't join a Ducati-only club and then start clammering for it to embrace all brands of motorcycle ... and car ... and farm tractor ... and horse breed ... and miniature war-gaming ... etc. Trivial example, I know, but best I can come up with at work when I should be working :smile: Your desire to force Churches into conducting same-sex marriages is simply part of your overall desire to dismantle the Church in all its various guises. As much as I like the idea of old-fashioned Religion fading away into something less rooted in medieval superstition, destroying it through the back-door *cough* of forcing same-sex marriage on them is, in my view, very wrong. I did indeed suggest a stereotypical view on male/female roles in parenting. I have a problem in that I am torn in two directions on this issue and cannot make my mind up about it. Your straw man examples of what are "strong role models" don't help me to resolve my indecision in the slightest - they are stereotypical in a way that I could never have come up with in a serious discussion about same sex parenting. Men and women think and feel differently about issues, they have different urges, desires and different ways of pursuing these. I say "men and women" but what I refer to are masculine and feminine outlooks. Gender is said to be a spectrum, not an either/or proposition and men can have "traditionally female" traits, in terms of emotions, and of course vice versa. It is important that children have close access to both sides of the "gender gap", else they grow up thinking that men and women are "the same" - which they clearly aren't. I have a lot of sympathy for pip's viewpoint here, there is nothing about same sex parenting that automatically means that the children cannot be well cared for (any more than a hetero couple is guaranteed to be a great parenting partnership). My concern is that an important emotional and social development feature could possibly be missing in the absence of two different gender role models. You could argue that the more feminine of a pair of male parents (or the more masculine of a pair of female parents) provides that function - but I would take a lot of convincing. I have my own reasons for being concerned about the lack of strong examples of male and female gender in the bringing up of children - nothing to due with same-sex issues though.
So when little Billy pops in to mum and dad's bedroom for a snuggle one morning and he finds Daddy potting the brown or SYFUMAWIFY ? Like you say somethings shouldn't be imposed
But its ok for Billy to be raised in an abusive home with a mummy and daddy and thats acceptable???? I know that comes across a little strong and I apologise. However I am a panel member for an adoption agency and it would horrify you to discover how many unwanted children require a home. A home which will provide security, love and consistency. Some of these children are extremely damaged and there experiences are truly horrifying. With that in mind trust me when I say that the gay issue pales insignificance. Although it is one that is given the greatest of consideration.
so thats an interesting view you raise. but lets say you have to gays who are very commited to each maybe even entered int a civil lartnership. but very very open and extrovert about there sexuality and very openly affectionate and how can I put it...not holding back at putting there affection on show. perhaps even at school picking up time when little billy needs collecting. perhaps is 2 men one of them even cross dress to suit their desired femininity lots of mams and dads at schools where I live go to school together. perhaps hold hands maybe sometimes even hug while waiting and some on occasion kiss now if you had two 'candidates' seeking adoption who perhaps fall into the above description, where there is no boubt they were in a loving relationship... were very open about how they like to be and how the fact having little billy whos now 7 and a potential adoptee needs picking up from school with 100s of other parents and children are stood and at the interview stage they intimated they would act the same because they can you wouldnt have a problem with that ?
Thinking about this, I agree with Loz: However, Troy, great point and very true. Now, here's a curve ball, the Church of England ultimately broke away from Rome so that it could recognise the monarch as the head of the faith instead of a Catholic Pope in the Vatican. That said, should it not be the CofE which should be the one faith to say yes, we will accept gay marriage? CofE has women clergymen, and they have married clergymen so why not just go all the way and have gay marriage as well? But I suppose if a gay can get married in a church, why can't a divorcee? Also, what happens if a bloke walks up the isle with a girl called georgina, who used to be a bloke called george? Sure, you need to provide a birth certificate, but what position does gender reassignment surgery put you in?
This is one of many concerns that get raised. However perhaps not in those words. The child is ALWAYS put first and foremost. If at any point I or panel feel that the actions of the potential adopter would be detrimental to the child's feelings or well being. Those concerns are then reviewed and analysed in the finest of detail. Please please never underestimate the environment these wonderful children are being saved from. There are too many children and not enough adopters.
That's not a gay, that's a transvestite or a drag queen! (i.e. a man that dresses as a woman). Completely different thing, and a misconception. Gay men aren't universally effeminate, in fact the ones I know aren't. Most gays don't dress as women! Is anyone seriously offended by two men kissing in public? If you had two guys doing that in the street, would it upset you? Really?
End of the debate it seems to me. 1. There is no reason why gays shouldn't be married, same as straight people, in that their relationships are just as loving. 2. There is no reason why they shouldn't adopt children as there aren't enough adopters to go around anyway and I'd trust people like Troy to do a good job.
but the law says that we cannot discriminate against that because as a society we must accept the rights of others to persue a law abiding wholesome life how they see fit and that includes sexuality. so I note you have chose your words very carefully there but have not actually commited to an answer... but I know that the child would be subject to a tortured existence by his peers because of his gay parents values especially at schools around my area...
