Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Missing the point...
How so?
Do you have any research to back up the statement that the main reason for marriage was to provide a stable environment to raise children? I'm no expert, but I always thought the main reasons for marriage has been to pass on bloodlines and property rights. I don't think ancient man was as concerned with the proper "environment" to raise children so much as they were concerned about being able to lay claim to a son/daughter.
Sperm/Egg banks and adoption agencies are all private entities. They aren't forced into anything and they already cater to gay/lesbian couples. Some of these couples even manage to have heterosexual relationships long enough to produce children of their own. Allowing gay/lesbians to marry won't change the fact that they are already capable of having children one way or another.
I am a fan of a two-parent household. I especially like for the parents to be married. I, like you, think it's ideal. I understand your concern for children needing a father and a mother, because I completely agree. But I also think that children deserve, more than anything, a loving environment where they can prosper and be safe. If that comes in a gay/lesbian household so be it.
What exactly do you mean by "elevating same sex marriages denies the differences between men and women"? How so? It's a fact that men and women are different. I have no problem with that thought. In a same sex relationship, there isn't one partner "playing" the opposite sex. They embrace the fact that they are either two women or two men together. What do you envision will happen if homosexual couples are allowed to marry? What is the outcome for children, in your estimation? Are straight couples going to be denied the ability to adopt or have fertility treatments?
- queenraven
September 24, 2008 7:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Last Reply - Thanks for Discussion
Since children for the last few thousand years have been a key aspect of carrying on the bloodlines, holding onto the property in the family, and providing much needed extra hands and income, its fairly logical. I'm rather surprised that you even challenge the assertion that children are a main reason for traditional marriage throughout history, I'd be glad to look up some research at a later date.
Adoption agencies, for example, and sperm/egg banks are private agencies, but that doesn't mean they are not regulated. Massachusetts is a famous example of a Catholic adoption agency that, because of the same-sex ruling by the judges by fiat over the will of the people there, cannot prefer a traditional married couple to a same-sex one. While I disagree with the agency for shutting down at that point, I am strongly opposed to the government forcing that upon a religion, which is happening and will continue to happen as the government forces same-sex marriage on society. If it were a laissez-faire, that'd be one thing, but the government recognizing it overrules religious beliefs (so much for separation of church and state) and forces everyone to abide by its rulings.
Same-sex marriage being exactly the same in status in society forces society to accept the falsity that men and women are the same. If two moms or dads is just as good (because, remember, we can no longer prefer a traditional couple to a same-sex one or refuse based on our beliefs to give eggs, etc, from a bank) as a mom and a dad for children, then having two dads MUST give children all of the same benefits of a mom and a dad. It doesn't, because men and women are different.
Thanks for the discussion.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 25, 2008 5:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yeah 14th ammendment!!
I'm typing on my phone so I'll only adress one issue: Massachusetts and the catholic adoption issue.
The ability of the court to overturn the so called "will of the people" is necessary for the protection of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." To even demean the courts for overruling laws "against the will of the people" is truly representative of a conservative 's desire to have pure democacy... Which is how communism AND fascism come into power (all you need to do is convince the majority that you are right and it won't matter what the minority says). Please don't insult our legal system just because you disagree with the outcome of a particular case.
As for why the catholic adoption agencies being forced to accept gay couples is because of the 14th ammendment(equal protection) to our constitution . The children in orphanages can't choose to transfer to "pro-gay" adoption agency and are therefore denied rights that are granted to other orphans. It's really very simple: it's about protecting children from illegal discrimination and giving the children equal access to adoptive parents !
- Rice klowN
April 23, 2009 1:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The 14th Amendment?
The relevant text of the 14th amendment is:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I of course am not insulting our legal system, other than the fact you are completely ignoring the complex legal question surrounding the clash of the 1st amendment with your interpretation of the 14th. The 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I, as many other individuals far more intelligent than I, are arguing that same-sex marriage is NOT a 14th amendment issue. They are NOT being denied any rights regarding marriage... they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. The issue is whether they WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex. The issue is ultimately about homosexuals' completely legitimate desire to feel accepted by society . Tolerance and love should be shown to all individuals, but that does not mean we make rash decisions that affect generations of society because of our supposed compassion for their situation (and arrogance that we know far better than every generation before us).
Given the Catholic Adoption agency, they have a Constitutional RIGHT to practice their religion. The government cannot ask them to prohibit the free expression of their beliefs, in this case their beliefs against same-sex marriage, EVEN IF it gives them money . If the government gives you a welfare check, can they prohibit your free speech ?
- Benjamin Tuttle June 11, 2009 5:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
relevant passage
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Being the most relevant part of the 14th in this case. As it stands now a homosexual partner is NOT offered equal protection. Visitation, medical decisions, adoption , visitation, inheritance... these are all rights that a spouse receives as part of marriage that is denied to a homosexual partner.
- MrBook
June 12, 2009 7:11AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are right.
You are right. Same-sex couples should have equal rights in that regard. Civil Unions are a reasonable solution, even though most of those rights are already in place if the couple chooses to write contractual agreements, etc. Those rights, however, can be attained without the new right of same-sex marriage .
- Benjamin Tuttle June 12, 2009 9:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Separate but equal?
If civil unions are identical in every way to marriage (except that homosexual couples cannot get married) then why even have them as distinct? If nothing else then it will save some money when printing the forms.
With civil unions identical to marriage then the term married becomes just a title, with no importance...
- MrBook
June 13, 2009 10:10AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.