Alan M. Dershowitz law professor at Harvard University states this.
';Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.';
Leave the religious crap to the churches, and to the people who have the rights to marry. Homosexuals can still have civil unions also -- where they basically get the same benefits and such as a marriage.
Would this make people happy if the government just butted out?
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershow鈥?/a>Wouldn't the government quitting the marriage business solve the problem, and make everyone happy?
So, you want them only proactively running the divorces? They would quickly take you up on that. That's their golden goose.
They couldn't care less about the issue of marriage. It cuts their tax revenues. Only reason they're in it is to feel like they control you fully from A to Z.
Which they do.Wouldn't the government quitting the marriage business solve the problem, and make everyone happy?
It would be great, but I also don't agree with sending it to the states, as states should NEVER be allowed to deny civil rights based on popular vote.
It should be as you/he said....just a legal civil union to any two consenting adults who want to be recognized as a union.
I'm also fine with religious people holding special ceremonies of commitment for their parishioners....but the ceremonies would have no legal value, only spiritual.
i agree, government should only recognize civil unions, not marriage, imo for tax purposes
Friday, November 25, 2011
Would someone who is against gay marriage be against giving them the same rights but called something else?
I find the biggest problem between those for or against it is calling it marriage. Give them the same benefits because civil union lack federal benefits and portability, while calling it something different. Marriage has been a religious ceremony for thousands of years and most religious do not accept gay marriage. Logically compromise should take place, but is this mockery of democracy people do not concede but bully their views upon others.Would someone who is against gay marriage be against giving them the same rights but called something else?
How about EVERYONE who had a civil ceremony are ';civil unioned'; %26amp; those who had the ceremony in a church/clergy member ';married';? Marriage is left to Church %26amp; regulated by the doctrine of the Church you get married in. The state can go about the business of ensuring rights %26amp; benefits for those couples who want to ensure that they are legally taken care of should something happen to either part of the couple.
The only stipulations are our government would have to get out of the marriage business, since that is strictly a church issue. Those who marry in a church would have to get civil unioned in order to receive benefits from the state/federal government. And DOMA would have to be rescinded, since marriage is strictly a church issue.
But that wont happen. Just like same sex couples now right now, straight people will not want to be ';civil unioned'; because it's not married. Then someone is going to complain that their rights are being violated since their marriages don't ';count'; anymore because they have to do more paperwork to receive the benefits from the gpvernment.
As for folks compromising? I don''t think it'll happen. IF civil unions were given the EXACT same benefits as the current term marriage has across the board for ANYONE in a state-recognized/state sanctioned union, AND the federal government would recognized any state sanctioned/recognized union, I would be for it.
Yes, you read that correctly. I would be for civil unions for same sex couples IF %26amp; ONLY IF they provided THE EXACT SAME rights %26amp; benefits for me %26amp; my family as marriage does for straight couples. The problem is, you can only get these benefits through marriage as defined by DOMA.
However, those against SSM aren't playing fair. Not only do some of these folks not want SSMs, but they don't want civil unions/domestic partnerships to have the same benefits as marriage or SOME benefits of marriage to provide for SSM families because it would basically be marriage by a different name.
They claim that civil unions/domestic partnerships provide the SAME benefits of marriage. They also claim that we can draw up legal contracts (POA, wills, etc) so our spouses will get the benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. The ';they'; previously mentioned are religious groups %26amp; pro family/pro marriage groups like Focus on the Family, ADF, NOM, Concerned Women of America, %26amp; other conservative groups.
This doesn't happen. Otherwise, I could write in my will for my wife to be buried in a Veterans Cemetery with me %26amp; receive every benefit a spouse would be entitled to through my government.
The federal benefits of marriage cannot be transfered to anyone other than an opposite sex spouse. No will, power of attorney, or other legal document can ensure that our families receive our veterans benefits, Social Security, don't have to deal with inheritance taxes, %26amp; the other 1130+ benefits afforded ONLY to married couples. Plus, the state or federal government do not have to honor any legal paperwork drawn up when it comes to state or federal issues.
Marriage is a state issue in this country. It started off as a state issue BEFORE religion decided it would make it a sacrament.
The couple can choose a church CEREMONY or civil CEREMONY once they meet the state's regulations for marriage. The Church has every right to deny anyone they deem as not meeting their criteria/doctrine for marriage in their church or by a religious officiant from that church. But that couple, even though denied by the Church, can still be married civilly.
If that couple gets the ceremony done at their church without doing the state's paperwork? They face the same dilemma same sex couples face NOW:
~they are treated as strangers for 1130+ federal benefits of marriage, AND
~they may get some, but not all or the same benefits of marriage as another couple who complied with the state's regulations of marriage.
It's sad to see that after all the trials %26amp; tribulations this country has been through with discrimination %26amp; unequal treatment of its citizens because of religion, race/color, nationality, gender, disability or veteran status, we haven't learned our lesson. Once again, we are discriminating against another group of taxpaying, law abiding citizens who are contributing members to our society.
Civil rights were taken away or unequal treatment of others was seen as ok by the majority. When these groups fought for their rights, they were met with strong opposition %26amp; their fight had to be handled by our GOVERNMENT in order for equality to prevail. If these groups waited on the support of the majority, they would still be discriminated against to this day. People don't like change %26amp; want to keep the status quo. As long as the rights of these groups of people didn't affect the majority, the majority didn't care.
Until the government gets out of this semantics mess of the word ';marriage'; %26amp; issuing marriage licenses for a civiWould someone who is against gay marriage be against giving them the same rights but called something else?
I think you're almost at the right answer. Marriage is indeed a religious ceremony and as such shouldn't be included in civil government at all. But government does recognize the value of the arrangement and rewards it. Therefore, straight couples should get both their marriage certificate from their church AND a civil union contract. This would ';divorce'; government from religion while still rewarding a healthy relationship. And that civil contract should also be available to LGBT's.
But let there be no mistake: There is no such thing as separate but equal. By leaving a distinction, then the door is open to further discrimination.
Yes, but then we have to ask why we're giving them special benefits. There are many other groups that are in need of financial support far more than gays. Why single that group out for special ';civil union'; privileges? Why not allow health care benefits be shared between two adult sisters for example. Do are going to require that they have sex? Ridiculous.
If we want more equal sharing of benefits, then we ought to open it to everyone.
idk. i hope gays get rights.blacks got rights. were all human and we all diserve to be treated good. this is america ';land of the free'; but truely no one is free. were all still caged up in our own goverment. getting control by someone who doesnt know a damn thing.
I do agree why would gay marriage be part of marriage a religion thing but I don't like marriage peroiod it is sad to say you need to be part of the goverments system and it is bs that's what I think.
I'm not sure. It might. People against gay marriage have this strange idea that it will somehow ';devalue'; their own marriages. Whatever the hell that means.
Doubtful, the uber religious believe that all gay relationships are wrong and don't want any legal recognition allowed.
How about EVERYONE who had a civil ceremony are ';civil unioned'; %26amp; those who had the ceremony in a church/clergy member ';married';? Marriage is left to Church %26amp; regulated by the doctrine of the Church you get married in. The state can go about the business of ensuring rights %26amp; benefits for those couples who want to ensure that they are legally taken care of should something happen to either part of the couple.
The only stipulations are our government would have to get out of the marriage business, since that is strictly a church issue. Those who marry in a church would have to get civil unioned in order to receive benefits from the state/federal government. And DOMA would have to be rescinded, since marriage is strictly a church issue.
But that wont happen. Just like same sex couples now right now, straight people will not want to be ';civil unioned'; because it's not married. Then someone is going to complain that their rights are being violated since their marriages don't ';count'; anymore because they have to do more paperwork to receive the benefits from the gpvernment.
As for folks compromising? I don''t think it'll happen. IF civil unions were given the EXACT same benefits as the current term marriage has across the board for ANYONE in a state-recognized/state sanctioned union, AND the federal government would recognized any state sanctioned/recognized union, I would be for it.
Yes, you read that correctly. I would be for civil unions for same sex couples IF %26amp; ONLY IF they provided THE EXACT SAME rights %26amp; benefits for me %26amp; my family as marriage does for straight couples. The problem is, you can only get these benefits through marriage as defined by DOMA.
However, those against SSM aren't playing fair. Not only do some of these folks not want SSMs, but they don't want civil unions/domestic partnerships to have the same benefits as marriage or SOME benefits of marriage to provide for SSM families because it would basically be marriage by a different name.
They claim that civil unions/domestic partnerships provide the SAME benefits of marriage. They also claim that we can draw up legal contracts (POA, wills, etc) so our spouses will get the benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. The ';they'; previously mentioned are religious groups %26amp; pro family/pro marriage groups like Focus on the Family, ADF, NOM, Concerned Women of America, %26amp; other conservative groups.
This doesn't happen. Otherwise, I could write in my will for my wife to be buried in a Veterans Cemetery with me %26amp; receive every benefit a spouse would be entitled to through my government.
The federal benefits of marriage cannot be transfered to anyone other than an opposite sex spouse. No will, power of attorney, or other legal document can ensure that our families receive our veterans benefits, Social Security, don't have to deal with inheritance taxes, %26amp; the other 1130+ benefits afforded ONLY to married couples. Plus, the state or federal government do not have to honor any legal paperwork drawn up when it comes to state or federal issues.
Marriage is a state issue in this country. It started off as a state issue BEFORE religion decided it would make it a sacrament.
The couple can choose a church CEREMONY or civil CEREMONY once they meet the state's regulations for marriage. The Church has every right to deny anyone they deem as not meeting their criteria/doctrine for marriage in their church or by a religious officiant from that church. But that couple, even though denied by the Church, can still be married civilly.
If that couple gets the ceremony done at their church without doing the state's paperwork? They face the same dilemma same sex couples face NOW:
~they are treated as strangers for 1130+ federal benefits of marriage, AND
~they may get some, but not all or the same benefits of marriage as another couple who complied with the state's regulations of marriage.
It's sad to see that after all the trials %26amp; tribulations this country has been through with discrimination %26amp; unequal treatment of its citizens because of religion, race/color, nationality, gender, disability or veteran status, we haven't learned our lesson. Once again, we are discriminating against another group of taxpaying, law abiding citizens who are contributing members to our society.
Civil rights were taken away or unequal treatment of others was seen as ok by the majority. When these groups fought for their rights, they were met with strong opposition %26amp; their fight had to be handled by our GOVERNMENT in order for equality to prevail. If these groups waited on the support of the majority, they would still be discriminated against to this day. People don't like change %26amp; want to keep the status quo. As long as the rights of these groups of people didn't affect the majority, the majority didn't care.
Until the government gets out of this semantics mess of the word ';marriage'; %26amp; issuing marriage licenses for a civiWould someone who is against gay marriage be against giving them the same rights but called something else?
I think you're almost at the right answer. Marriage is indeed a religious ceremony and as such shouldn't be included in civil government at all. But government does recognize the value of the arrangement and rewards it. Therefore, straight couples should get both their marriage certificate from their church AND a civil union contract. This would ';divorce'; government from religion while still rewarding a healthy relationship. And that civil contract should also be available to LGBT's.
But let there be no mistake: There is no such thing as separate but equal. By leaving a distinction, then the door is open to further discrimination.
Yes, but then we have to ask why we're giving them special benefits. There are many other groups that are in need of financial support far more than gays. Why single that group out for special ';civil union'; privileges? Why not allow health care benefits be shared between two adult sisters for example. Do are going to require that they have sex? Ridiculous.
If we want more equal sharing of benefits, then we ought to open it to everyone.
idk. i hope gays get rights.blacks got rights. were all human and we all diserve to be treated good. this is america ';land of the free'; but truely no one is free. were all still caged up in our own goverment. getting control by someone who doesnt know a damn thing.
I do agree why would gay marriage be part of marriage a religion thing but I don't like marriage peroiod it is sad to say you need to be part of the goverments system and it is bs that's what I think.
I'm not sure. It might. People against gay marriage have this strange idea that it will somehow ';devalue'; their own marriages. Whatever the hell that means.
Doubtful, the uber religious believe that all gay relationships are wrong and don't want any legal recognition allowed.
Just wondering... Who has gotten married because they got pregnant and did the marriage work out?
My sister is going through this right now and I am concerned for her. They seem like they are in love though %26amp; if that is what she wants to do, I am happy for her. I am just wondering how many people decided to get married if they got pregnant before marriage and has it worked out? Thanks!Just wondering... Who has gotten married because they got pregnant and did the marriage work out?
I know a few people who have gotten married due to a pregnancy....
Some have worked and some haven't. The ones that didnt work were because the pregnancy was a mistake and they weren't into each other from the start, emotional issues and trust were all factors in the break up.
So as long as they truly love each other and dont mind taking care of the child and making sacrifices to make it work, then your sister should be fine...Just wondering... Who has gotten married because they got pregnant and did the marriage work out?
well i feel that getting married just because she got pregnant is a bad idea, a relationship should be because they love each other and want to get married, and why not get married before having unprotected sex?
i have seen a lot of people get married because of a pregnancy,
my brother ended up finding out the kid wasnt his, my sister in law married not even 2 years then got divorced, my best friend Beth got married she was 4 months pregnant and lol they ended up not being able to stand each other,
do not know anyone this happen to but my opinion is no children out of wedlock. And if it feels right compared (yes) to think it is the right thing to do (no). You are her sister though you need to be supportive no matter your opinion. If your sister realizes that it is something she wants to do then let her if it is something she feels she needs to do then stop before it is too late.
We didn't get married because I was pregnant, we got married when we got married due to the pregnancy. We were talking about it before anyway. It just moved it a little quicker than we planned. That may also be the case for your sister. Her marriage has just as good a shot as any. We have been married 10 years now. We are still happy we married each other. We have 2 kids now. I don't regret our decision.
Yes, it works, first guy I ever dated, been together over 6 years married for almost 4. It's very hard once the child comes because your tired and you don't know what to do and that's where most people lose it because sometimes one or both can't grow up to raise the child or can't agree; but if both truly love each other they'll always find a way to make it would together.
there is a girl at my school who got pregnant and she's getting married, but i dont even think the guy she's marrying was her boyfriend, cuz he had sex w/ my bestie a week after he got her pregnant, so im sure they wont make it. but if your sister seems like she's in love, they probably will. =]
I got pregnant with my daughter and didnt get married, because i didnt love him. But i am now pregnant with #2 and i am marrying the father of this child, because i do love him.. thats the question if she loves him, great, if she doesnt... it will never work. good luck
It's working so far.
Had they ever considered getting married before? Getting married just because of a pregnancy isn't the best way to go, but speeding up the time line a little shouldn't hurt. Ask them if they would ever marry if there were no baby.
My aunt and Uncle got married because my aunt got pregnant and a yr later they divorced...
but knowing what happened with other people won't help you with the question of whether your sister is doing the right thing. Every couple is different.
My partner married because his girlfriend got pregnant..... he thought it was the right thing to do. Three yrs later they divorced.
going on 6 years.purple makeup
I know a few people who have gotten married due to a pregnancy....
Some have worked and some haven't. The ones that didnt work were because the pregnancy was a mistake and they weren't into each other from the start, emotional issues and trust were all factors in the break up.
So as long as they truly love each other and dont mind taking care of the child and making sacrifices to make it work, then your sister should be fine...Just wondering... Who has gotten married because they got pregnant and did the marriage work out?
well i feel that getting married just because she got pregnant is a bad idea, a relationship should be because they love each other and want to get married, and why not get married before having unprotected sex?
i have seen a lot of people get married because of a pregnancy,
my brother ended up finding out the kid wasnt his, my sister in law married not even 2 years then got divorced, my best friend Beth got married she was 4 months pregnant and lol they ended up not being able to stand each other,
do not know anyone this happen to but my opinion is no children out of wedlock. And if it feels right compared (yes) to think it is the right thing to do (no). You are her sister though you need to be supportive no matter your opinion. If your sister realizes that it is something she wants to do then let her if it is something she feels she needs to do then stop before it is too late.
We didn't get married because I was pregnant, we got married when we got married due to the pregnancy. We were talking about it before anyway. It just moved it a little quicker than we planned. That may also be the case for your sister. Her marriage has just as good a shot as any. We have been married 10 years now. We are still happy we married each other. We have 2 kids now. I don't regret our decision.
Yes, it works, first guy I ever dated, been together over 6 years married for almost 4. It's very hard once the child comes because your tired and you don't know what to do and that's where most people lose it because sometimes one or both can't grow up to raise the child or can't agree; but if both truly love each other they'll always find a way to make it would together.
there is a girl at my school who got pregnant and she's getting married, but i dont even think the guy she's marrying was her boyfriend, cuz he had sex w/ my bestie a week after he got her pregnant, so im sure they wont make it. but if your sister seems like she's in love, they probably will. =]
I got pregnant with my daughter and didnt get married, because i didnt love him. But i am now pregnant with #2 and i am marrying the father of this child, because i do love him.. thats the question if she loves him, great, if she doesnt... it will never work. good luck
It's working so far.
Had they ever considered getting married before? Getting married just because of a pregnancy isn't the best way to go, but speeding up the time line a little shouldn't hurt. Ask them if they would ever marry if there were no baby.
My aunt and Uncle got married because my aunt got pregnant and a yr later they divorced...
but knowing what happened with other people won't help you with the question of whether your sister is doing the right thing. Every couple is different.
My partner married because his girlfriend got pregnant..... he thought it was the right thing to do. Three yrs later they divorced.
going on 6 years.
How can I help legalize gay marriage in all 50 states?
I asked this earlier and it got reported/deleted. Please, I'm just asking for ideas/suggestions...How can I help legalize gay marriage in all 50 states?
educate as many people as you can.How can I help legalize gay marriage in all 50 states?
impossible...but wait 4 to 8 years because it has been proven that in some states gay marriage was almost legalized by a small margin shows how much our new generation the young people of this country care about our civil rights all you can do is Vote Pro Gay Marriage in anything help them with propaganda and what not get involved in their community if you want to help them...
big路ot
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is ';intolerant'; of those who differ.
This seems to be a word that is thrown around all too frequently. Do you realize how ';Politically Incorrect'; it is to make a wide generalization on something about which you do not know?
I think we are all partial to our own group of religion/politics etc. To deny this obvious truth would be ignorant: which leaves us ';only'; with tolerance.
Consider: My right to opinion, and if I choose, speech: is Constitutionally guaranteed. Too many times, in my face to shout me down (figuratively): is to deny rights. I do not organize parades to throw my ';lifestyle'; in your face (nudity %26amp; lewd gestures) or follow you home to damage your property. Nor, have I ever pushed an old lady to the ground.
This is not tolerance but intolerance. This method is not drawing compassion but, contempt.
Therefore: If you want to help this cause, be a voice of reason in the cause.
Keep thinking positively and keep you eyes on the prize.
....get married in CANADA
Wait 4 years. Watch the bigots drop like flies.
That will never happen.
educate as many people as you can.How can I help legalize gay marriage in all 50 states?
impossible...but wait 4 to 8 years because it has been proven that in some states gay marriage was almost legalized by a small margin shows how much our new generation the young people of this country care about our civil rights all you can do is Vote Pro Gay Marriage in anything help them with propaganda and what not get involved in their community if you want to help them...
big路ot
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is ';intolerant'; of those who differ.
This seems to be a word that is thrown around all too frequently. Do you realize how ';Politically Incorrect'; it is to make a wide generalization on something about which you do not know?
I think we are all partial to our own group of religion/politics etc. To deny this obvious truth would be ignorant: which leaves us ';only'; with tolerance.
Consider: My right to opinion, and if I choose, speech: is Constitutionally guaranteed. Too many times, in my face to shout me down (figuratively): is to deny rights. I do not organize parades to throw my ';lifestyle'; in your face (nudity %26amp; lewd gestures) or follow you home to damage your property. Nor, have I ever pushed an old lady to the ground.
This is not tolerance but intolerance. This method is not drawing compassion but, contempt.
Therefore: If you want to help this cause, be a voice of reason in the cause.
Keep thinking positively and keep you eyes on the prize.
....get married in CANADA
Wait 4 years. Watch the bigots drop like flies.
That will never happen.
Do you ever feel wrong about marriage and children?
I'm gay and I'm for the whole pride thing, but i feel wrong about being gay and having kids and marriage. Don't criticize me, I mean only wrong for myself. I feel like i couldn't adopt a child, with all the drama, especially having to tell them that they have 2 daddies. Plus i would feel wrong doing the actual wedding, it just seems really wrong. Like when i think of marriage i think of man and woman. I don't know why i feel this way so don't get angry at me.Do you ever feel wrong about marriage and children?
There is no one who can tell you what is right for you, only you know what is right for you, but that doesn't mean that it isn't right for others.
I'm sure that a child growing up in a gay household is quite capable of working out for him/herself that he/she has two mummies/daddies without having to be told. You may have to explain the difference between your household and a straight household, but why is this any different than a Catholic parent explaining the difference between their house and a Jewish house?
There will always be differences that is what makes the world such a wonderful place. If everybody was the same, what a boring place the world would be, although I am sure people like George W. Bush would be very happy - so long as we were all like him.Do you ever feel wrong about marriage and children?
it really doesn't bother me that people are gay/lesbian. i have lots of friends and co-workers that are gay/lesbian. personally, i do think there is a reason why a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis. personally, if its not natural, then i do not think its healthy. however, it is more common now days to find families with two moms or two dads so i think as time goes on it will be more comfortable for those people and the ones around them to see that. also something to think about... a straight couple could mess a child up just as much or more as a gay/lesbian couple. when it comes down to it... its about that individual and not that individuals sexual orientation. also... who can judge you? what makes the ';judge'; normal?
Uhmm I dont know , as a woman i have the dream of having kids someday is just something natural to me , about marriage too , being lesbian or gay or whatever doesnt change anything about that I would love to have a family but i agree with you its a little bit complicated to explain to your kid why he has two daddies , that is not an obstacle to me is just something hard to deal with.
Julia D,
I don't think you are any different to many gay men and women. My partner and i would like to have children but there are many, many things to consider, the main one being the welfare of the child or children, finances come in to it so does the attitude of people around you, bottom line is, could you raise children in a safe, loving environment?
Don't beat your self up mate, it's your choice. As far as marriage goes, my partner and I had a civil service nearly two years ago, it's fine for us, but each to their own.
Kind Regards
Well a lot of answers here are going to say I don't care what people think, or i'll make a great parent with my partner. This isn't about you and your partner. You need to think about the kids. As far as the old adage it will influence the kids sexuality, that's crap. But in a few places the kid better have thick skin or come out fighting when the bell rings.And the biggest reason, you talk about being born with a bunch of different personality traits.The ones that make us gay or straight. Psychopaths or genius, right or left handed.This kid won't have a maternal bond being adopted.So as he or she gets older and influenced by his or her piers things might not look so good.If you do go through and do this, Good Luck.
When I was younger I swore that I would never have children. I went through bullying at school and was pretty down on myself. I didn't want to put my child through that and didnt think I would be a good role model etc
But as I have gotten older I discovered my maternal instinct is very strong just because im a lesbian it doesn't stop me wanting to be a mum. I know that I would always love my child and make sure they had the best upbringing I could give them.
As for marriage im not really sure. Here in the Uk we have a thing called a Civil Partnership. I think its good because it has all the same legal rights as marriage we just don't use the actual word..Maybe 1 day for marriage but right now im just happy with how my relationship is.
=)
theres nothing wrong to have kids even u r gay.
but u must know havin kids is a huge responsibility
im lesbian n i have three wonderful boys.
my wife n i r so happy when they r around.
yeah they r a bit confused havin 2 mummy
it takes time to xplain n for them to understand.
plus u urself have to be ready to face all trouble
when havin a child.
Nope. Never felt wrong about it, at all.
I want to get married, to stand in front of my family and friends and declare my love for a special person. Nothing will ever be wrong with that.
And if the hardest thing about raising a kid is telling him that he has 2 daddies then I'm in for a fkn easy job.
you are entittled to your opinion this is America. For example I am a minority but I am not for affirmative action. We just see the loop whole in these 'ideals'.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, the kids would just have a rough social life.
There is no one who can tell you what is right for you, only you know what is right for you, but that doesn't mean that it isn't right for others.
I'm sure that a child growing up in a gay household is quite capable of working out for him/herself that he/she has two mummies/daddies without having to be told. You may have to explain the difference between your household and a straight household, but why is this any different than a Catholic parent explaining the difference between their house and a Jewish house?
There will always be differences that is what makes the world such a wonderful place. If everybody was the same, what a boring place the world would be, although I am sure people like George W. Bush would be very happy - so long as we were all like him.Do you ever feel wrong about marriage and children?
it really doesn't bother me that people are gay/lesbian. i have lots of friends and co-workers that are gay/lesbian. personally, i do think there is a reason why a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis. personally, if its not natural, then i do not think its healthy. however, it is more common now days to find families with two moms or two dads so i think as time goes on it will be more comfortable for those people and the ones around them to see that. also something to think about... a straight couple could mess a child up just as much or more as a gay/lesbian couple. when it comes down to it... its about that individual and not that individuals sexual orientation. also... who can judge you? what makes the ';judge'; normal?
Uhmm I dont know , as a woman i have the dream of having kids someday is just something natural to me , about marriage too , being lesbian or gay or whatever doesnt change anything about that I would love to have a family but i agree with you its a little bit complicated to explain to your kid why he has two daddies , that is not an obstacle to me is just something hard to deal with.
Julia D,
I don't think you are any different to many gay men and women. My partner and i would like to have children but there are many, many things to consider, the main one being the welfare of the child or children, finances come in to it so does the attitude of people around you, bottom line is, could you raise children in a safe, loving environment?
Don't beat your self up mate, it's your choice. As far as marriage goes, my partner and I had a civil service nearly two years ago, it's fine for us, but each to their own.
Kind Regards
Well a lot of answers here are going to say I don't care what people think, or i'll make a great parent with my partner. This isn't about you and your partner. You need to think about the kids. As far as the old adage it will influence the kids sexuality, that's crap. But in a few places the kid better have thick skin or come out fighting when the bell rings.And the biggest reason, you talk about being born with a bunch of different personality traits.The ones that make us gay or straight. Psychopaths or genius, right or left handed.This kid won't have a maternal bond being adopted.So as he or she gets older and influenced by his or her piers things might not look so good.If you do go through and do this, Good Luck.
When I was younger I swore that I would never have children. I went through bullying at school and was pretty down on myself. I didn't want to put my child through that and didnt think I would be a good role model etc
But as I have gotten older I discovered my maternal instinct is very strong just because im a lesbian it doesn't stop me wanting to be a mum. I know that I would always love my child and make sure they had the best upbringing I could give them.
As for marriage im not really sure. Here in the Uk we have a thing called a Civil Partnership. I think its good because it has all the same legal rights as marriage we just don't use the actual word..Maybe 1 day for marriage but right now im just happy with how my relationship is.
=)
theres nothing wrong to have kids even u r gay.
but u must know havin kids is a huge responsibility
im lesbian n i have three wonderful boys.
my wife n i r so happy when they r around.
yeah they r a bit confused havin 2 mummy
it takes time to xplain n for them to understand.
plus u urself have to be ready to face all trouble
when havin a child.
Nope. Never felt wrong about it, at all.
I want to get married, to stand in front of my family and friends and declare my love for a special person. Nothing will ever be wrong with that.
And if the hardest thing about raising a kid is telling him that he has 2 daddies then I'm in for a fkn easy job.
you are entittled to your opinion this is America. For example I am a minority but I am not for affirmative action. We just see the loop whole in these 'ideals'.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, the kids would just have a rough social life.
Anyone know where i can download autotune the news pirates drugs and gay marriage?
i want to download it to my computer anyone know where i can do this for free?Anyone know where i can download autotune the news pirates drugs and gay marriage?
you can download them on Limewire.
you can download them on Limewire.
Would you support a gay polygamist marriage?
In other words 5 men getting married to each other?
Or 5 woman getting married to each other?Would you support a gay polygamist marriage?
No.Would you support a gay polygamist marriage?
Five men being married to each other would be considered gay polyandry, not gay polygamy.
For bookkeeping purposes, I'd rather keep things simple and limit the official marriage(s) to couples. However, if the couples wanted to be handfasted to all the other couples and singles in the polyandrist household, cool by me.
Okay, so I'm a grammar maven. (g)
Sure, why not? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I don't see a problem with it.
I don't think I personally would become involved in that kind of a relationship, but I'm not one to deny other people happiness just because I have a different idea of what happiness means.
What consenting adults choose to do is no business of mine.
It's fascinating to me that two or three or ten people can set up housekeeping and society does not really care. But if they call their relationship a marriage society sends in the SWAT team.
I don't like the idea of polygamy, so I would be against it. I think marriage should be between two consenting non-related adults.
I have no problem with them being gay though.
Sure if they all consented to the marriage willingly and they were all adults.
Yup. If that's what makes them happy. It's their life they should be able to live it as they see fit. As long as they are all consenting adults, who cares what they do?
If all parties were consenting adults, I would support it, yes.
It is not for me; however, if that is the way someone else chooses to live I do not see how it would be my business.
I'm not against polygamy, so fine by me
Sure. If it makes them happy.
NO
Or 5 woman getting married to each other?Would you support a gay polygamist marriage?
No.Would you support a gay polygamist marriage?
Five men being married to each other would be considered gay polyandry, not gay polygamy.
For bookkeeping purposes, I'd rather keep things simple and limit the official marriage(s) to couples. However, if the couples wanted to be handfasted to all the other couples and singles in the polyandrist household, cool by me.
Okay, so I'm a grammar maven. (g)
Sure, why not? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I don't see a problem with it.
I don't think I personally would become involved in that kind of a relationship, but I'm not one to deny other people happiness just because I have a different idea of what happiness means.
What consenting adults choose to do is no business of mine.
It's fascinating to me that two or three or ten people can set up housekeeping and society does not really care. But if they call their relationship a marriage society sends in the SWAT team.
I don't like the idea of polygamy, so I would be against it. I think marriage should be between two consenting non-related adults.
I have no problem with them being gay though.
Sure if they all consented to the marriage willingly and they were all adults.
Yup. If that's what makes them happy. It's their life they should be able to live it as they see fit. As long as they are all consenting adults, who cares what they do?
If all parties were consenting adults, I would support it, yes.
It is not for me; however, if that is the way someone else chooses to live I do not see how it would be my business.
I'm not against polygamy, so fine by me
Sure. If it makes them happy.
NO
Subscribe to:
Posts
(Atom)