Legislation for gay marriage

Martin. Please reply to my post above.

Bringing up children can happen with a gay couple right now getting married does not affect this.
 
Organnyx said:
ho hum, here we go into the lion's den......Because I don't believe that all aspects of this are born out of love, but some are born of selfishness - I accept that people of the same sex can have a loving relationship, and that the state should recognise that fact (civil partnerships), but am not at ease with the "fudge" presented by the present bill (churches are "exempt", but for how long?), and I am yet to be convinced that children brought about by surrogacy are being accorded their rights.......
If a rich pop star wants to buy an ocelot, he can do so, if he wants to "buy" a surrogate child, he can also do so, and can bring the child up with his homosexual partner - so what of that child? His mother was happy to "sell" that child, presumably denying the child the comfort and good health conferred by the intimate contact with his birth mother and natural breast milk (for perhaps a couple of years) - to me that is putting the desires of the couple above the rights of that of the child, so as others have said, gay marriage is not "the same" as heterosexual marriage - where children are concerned, they are a natural outcome in one, and not the other - I am yet to be convinced that this aspect has been properly thought through.
Click to expand...
What on earth has any of that to do with Marriage ;) But lets say there is a link somehow, regardless of the sexuality of the couple in either permutation the birth mother isn't around...
Lot's of women, no least my wife couldn't provide natural breast milk beyond the initial few days. So yet again what on earth has that to do with allowing gay couples to be married?

And even if the child is beyond the baby stage, what is it that a gay couple can't provide that a heterosexual couple can? And even if there is such a thing, then what has marriage to do with it?

On a similar tenuous link Fred and Rosemary West were a married heterosexual couple. Best not let any children near heterosexual couples shall we....

I hear it is your opinion but I think it is pure bigotry.
 
To be entirely honest, l think the ideal is that kids live with the parents who produced them - that isn't always possible, so some kids will need adoptive homes - at risk of another bout of name-calling, I reckon the best is for them to have a Mum and a Dad so they get a "balanced" upbringing....(construe that as you will....)

"what is it that a gay couple can't provide that a heterosexual couple can" - arguably, a truly "balanced" upbringing as they would get with a Mum and Dad
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
What on earth has any of that to do with Marriage ;) But lets say there is a link somehow, regardless of the sexuality of the couple in either permutation the birth mother isn't around...
Lot's of women, no least my wife couldn't provide natural breast milk beyond the initial few days. So yet again what on earth has that to do with allowing gay couples to be married?

And even if the child is beyond the baby stage, what is it that a gay couple can't provide that a heterosexual couple can? And even if there is such a thing, then what has marriage to do with it?

On a similar tenuous link Fred and Rosemary West were a married heterosexual couple. Best not let any children near heterosexual couples shall we....

I hear it is your opinion but I think it is pure bigotry.
Click to expand...
they divulged in sex with both sexes so were not strictly hetro.
 
Martin you have to stop bringing children into this. Being married is irrelevant to whether they have children or not. Gay or straight it's irrelevant it has no affect on their desire to have children there is no rule that says you have to be married before you can bring up children.

Stop clouding the argument and stick to just marriage.

How can Marriage ever be a selfish thing and why is it only gay marriage that could be selfish
 
I despair - having kids is part of true marriage, so you can't separate them.............
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
To be entirely honest, l think the ideal is that kids live with the parents who produced them - that isn't always possible, so some kids will need adoptive homes - at risk of another bout of name-calling, I reckon the best is for them to have a Mum and a Dad so they get a "balanced" upbringing....(construe that as you will....)

"what is it that a gay couple can't provide that a heterosexual couple can" - arguably, a truly "balanced" upbringing as they would get with a Mum and Dad
Click to expand...

This part is one that I agree with if the word true is used for that purpose.
 
Organnyx said:
But you can't divorce the two (deliberate pun) - if we allow "gay marriage" then kids WILL be involved - it's part and parcel of marriage - now if you were to propound that gay couples had all the same rights in marriage, except that they couldn't have any kids as they weren't a natural outcome of that union, could you imagine the fuss?
Click to expand...

But why do you link marriage with children. Plenty of married people right now that don't have/want children. It is a totally separate point, it isn't part and parcel of marriage.

And as said, gay couples can have children today so why change that under a marriage arrangement? I just don't understand the link that you are making.
 
joescrivens said:
Yes. Good video.

For all those who oppose this law. What is it to you? Why do you want to stop something born purely out of love?
Click to expand...

Joe, people still have their own moral viewpoint and what is right and wrong in their eyes. It's not about stopping love.

What if you wanted to have sex with a 14yo purely out of love? Me, or the police stopping you would be guilty of stopping something born out of love. Ok, it is against the law, but what if for some reason the government wanted to reduce the age to 14. Would you call people bigots for opposing it?
 
Organnyx said:
I despair - having kids is part of true marriage, so you can't separate them.............
Click to expand...

Does the law states that now you are married you need to have rampant sex and must create children or else....?
 
cambsno said:
Joe, people still have their own moral viewpoint and what is right and wrong in their eyes. It's not about stopping love.

What if you wanted to have sex with a 14yo purely out of love? Me, or the police stopping you would be guilty of stopping something born out of love. Ok, it is against the law, but what if for some reason the government wanted to reduce the age to 14. Would you call people bigots for opposing it?
Click to expand...

But isn't that scenario about changing a moral law just the same as for a gay wanting to be married? I understand your point.
 
Organnyx said:
I despair - having kids is part of true marriage, so you can't separate them.............
Click to expand...

Of course you can separate them. They are different things completely. Thousands of people have children right now who aren't married.

The world we live in is different to that of 60 years ago.
 
joescrivens said:
Martin. Please reply to my post above.

Bringing up children can happen with a gay couple right now getting married does not affect this.
Click to expand...

Better not tell him about the bloke down the road from me who divorced his wife to live with another bloke then... Has 2 kids who live with him half the time!!!
 
Organnyx said:
To be entirely honest, l think the ideal is that kids live with the parents who produced them - that isn't always possible, so some kids will need adoptive homes - at risk of another bout of name-calling, I reckon the best is for them to have a Mum and a Dad so they get a "balanced" upbringing....(construe that as you will....)

"what is it that a gay couple can't provide that a heterosexual couple can" - arguably, a truly "balanced" upbringing as they would get with a Mum and Dad
Click to expand...
What on earth does that mean?

tiler65 said:
they divulged in sex with both sexes so were not strictly hetro.
Click to expand...
:D Fair point. Then again, there were many rumours that neither were a lot of the MPs that voted against this. It's all keeping up appearances.
 
Organnyx said:
because in my opinion, surrogacy is selfish to the child - if we grant "equal rights" on the matter of children, I fear we are allowing people's selfishness in wanting a child in a relationship which would not naturally produce one to override the child''s rights to stay with his natural mother. I certainly couldn't do it to a kiddy, why should other people do it in the name of "equality"?

Again as others have said, it's not "the same" - children are not born from gay relationships.
So if people of any orientation want to live together as a loving couple, that's absolutely fine, but I have grave reservations about the rights of kids involved, and the ongoing rights of churches to choose not to allow gay marriages in their churches.........
Click to expand...

It seems to me that, by constantly bringing children (a complete red herring) into this, you're arguing not against equal marriage, but against gay relationships completely. Equal marriage doesn't change the current position on adoption at all.
 
cambsno said:
Joe, people still have their own moral viewpoint and what is right and wrong in their eyes. It's not about stopping love.

What if you wanted to have sex with a 14yo purely out of love? Me, or the police stopping you would be guilty of stopping something born out of love. Ok, it is against the law, but what if for some reason the government wanted to reduce the age to 14. Would you call people bigots for opposing it?
Click to expand...

You can't compare the two

The reason there is an age limit for sex is because of matureness. A young child needs to develop emotionally to ensure they are ready for things like sex and marriage.

We're talking about two adults compared to an adult and a child. Big difference.

In some countries the he limit is 14 or lower. That's a different thread and debate.
 
Organnyx said:
I despair - having kids is part of true marriage, so you can't separate them.............
Click to expand...

Wrong. Many people can't or don't want kids. Should infertile people not be allowed to marry.
 
Organnyx said:
I despair - having kids is part of true marriage, so you can't separate them.............
Click to expand...

what? I have been married for 9 years, no kids and no plans to have any. Are you suggesting I do not have a 'true marriage'?
 
If anything I would have thought the very conservative in here would have preferred marriage. I mean whilst rights become equal they also come with stricter conditions. For example adultery is not a ground for dissolution of a civil partnership whilst it is ground for divorce in marriage.
 
joescrivens said:
You can't compare the two

The reason there is an age limit for sex is because of matureness. A young child needs to develop emotionally to ensure they are ready for things like sex and marriage.

We're talking about two adults compared to an adult and a child. Big difference.

In some countries the he limit is 14 or lower. That's a different thread and debate.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. IN YOUR EYES it's about emotional development. As you say in some countries it's 14 or less, many people aged 14 are far more mature than those at 20. In your eyes it's wrong and that's a valid opinion, same as gay marriage. Some believe its right and some wrong!

Anyway, what will be said at the end of a wedding, husband & husband?
 
cambsno said:
That's the whole point. IN YOUR EYES it's about emotional development. As you say in some countries it's 14 or less, many people aged 14 are far more mature than those at 20. In your eyes it's wrong and that's a valid opinion, same as gay marriage. Some believe its right and some wrong!

Anyway, what will be said at the end of a wedding, husband & husband?
Click to expand...

But gay relationships aren't illegal, are they? Unlike relationships with minors. So, if our society accepts the relationship, why not the marriage?
 
ACW said:
Sigh.

The Rosa Parks scenario is completely irrelevant to this debate.

If you are seriously comparing the inequality of black people 100 years ago in America, to the supposed inequality of the LGB community today then I'm wasting my time trying to communicate with you.

There are to parallels whatsoever.
Click to expand...

58 years ago if we are talking about the Montgomery incident. It took another six years for the Civil Rights Act to be passed.

(Male) Homosexuality was illegal in England and Wales until the Sexual Offences Act 1967. In Scotland and NI that lasted until 1980/82 respectively.

The Age of Consent only reached parity in 2000 with an amendment to the SOA. At that point buggery had only been legal for six years.


Given that people can no more choose their sexual inclinations than their skin colour, yes, I think that the parallel is absolutely valid. Especially with attitudes that state effectively: "well marriage is our word and our state of union, how dare they want to share it."


Segregation and discrimination exists in many forms.
 
onomatopoeia said:
What does that mean? I literally do not understand it.
Click to expand...

iPad typo for 'indulge' I would imagine.

(it did make me snigger though!)
 
cambsno said:
That's the whole point. IN YOUR EYES it's about emotional development. As you say in some countries it's 14 or less, many people aged 14 are far more mature than those at 20. In your eyes it's wrong and that's a valid opinion, same as gay marriage. Some believe its right and some wrong!

Anyway, what will be said at the end of a wedding, husband & husband?
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree there, as it will take us off topic.
 
Organnyx said:
I despair - having kids is part of true marriage, so you can't separate them.............
Click to expand...

OK so now I know you're joking. You're suggesting that because I don't have children, then my marriage isn't "true"?

Delusional.
 
DemiLion said:
58 years ago if we are talking about the Montgomery incident. It took another six years for the Civil Rights Act to be passed.

(Male) Homosexuality was illegal in England and Wales until the Sexual Offences Act 1967. In Scotland and NI that lasted until 1980/82 respectively.

The Age of Consent only reached parity in 2000 with an amendment to the SOA. At that point buggery had only been legal for six years.

Given that people can no more choose their sexual inclinations than their skin colour, yes, I think that the parallel is absolutely valid. Especially with attitudes that state effectively: "well marriage is our word and our state of union, how dare they want to share it."

Segregation and discrimination exists in many forms.
Click to expand...

Please remind me of the last time swathes of gay people were enslaved. Wide spread enslavery and mass murder do not compare to gay sexual acts being illegal.

I'm more than aware the gay community has had a rough time over the past 50 years, but lets not get carried away and pretend it was worse than it was.
 
ACW said:
Please remind me of the last time swathes of gay people were enslaved. Wide spread enslavery and mass murder do not compare to gay sexual acts being illegal.

I'm more than aware the gay community has had a rough time over the past 50 years, but lets not get carried away and pretend it was worse than it was.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a somewhat kaleidoscopic view of history.
 
ACW said:
Please remind me of the last time swathes of gay people were enslaved. Wide spread enslavery and mass murder do not compare to gay sexual acts being illegal.

I'm more than aware the gay community has had a rough time over the past 50 years, but lets not get carried away and pretend it was worse than it was.
Click to expand...

Women haven't suffered slavery and murder the same way that black people have, does that mean we are wrong to strive to make them equals with men? Civil partnerships are divisive, they do perpetuate an inequality and it does need to change.
 
DemiLion said:
You seem to have a somewhat kaleidoscopic view of history.
Click to expand...

In that case you'll have no problem telling me when the last time similar things happened to the gay community was. As my kaleidoscopic memory doesn't seem to think there have been any incidents on the same scale.
 
TriggerHappy said:
Women haven't suffered slavery and murder the same way that black people have, does that mean we are wrong to strive to make them equals with men? Civil partnerships are divisive, they do perpetuate an inequality and it does need to change.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Of course women should be equal. As should gay people. Women aren't trying to have all gender specific words and expressions made neutral.

It's like thinking the word bride is offensive, as it only refers to the woman. Surely men and women should both be called grooms so everyone is equal. Of course they shouldn't. A different expression for something doesn't make you unequal! I'd be interested to hear you say my point isn't valid.
 
London Headshots said:
haha oh good Lord. Using the dictionary as a legal injunction. Only on TalkPhotography.

I see your point though. They define coitus as being "sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman."

I guess we should get gay people to call it something other than sex now? I mean, that's OUR word, right? They've got to get their own word, for...some...reason

But it's not because you're a closet homophobe, no, not at all, you just want there to be a clear division between you and them. For some reason that's definitely not related to latent homophobia.
Click to expand...

Disgusting. If you're not intelligent enough to argue properly go away. Don't start throwing such libellous accusations.

In reply to your hopeless attempt at an argument:

1. I didn't use it as a legal injunction.

2. Haven't given the word sex for gay people much thought, it's not the point I'm arguing.

3. I most definitely am not homophobic.
 
dejongj said:
I don't see the need to name a marriage different for some people compared to others. Why make things so complicated. A marriage is a marriage equal for all. Why cares whether it is mf mm ff. everyone the same rights, the same name. Easy job done.
Click to expand...

It's the fuss being made over nothing that's the issue. Why is civil partnership really such an offensive term?
 
ACW said:
In that case you'll have no problem telling me when the last time similar things happened to the gay community was. As my kaleidoscopic memory doesn't seem to think there have been any incidents on the same scale.
Click to expand...

I really don't get your point here. Are you saying gay people haven't suffered enough to have equal rights?
 
ACW said:
Absolutely not. Of course women should be equal. As should gay people. Women aren't trying to have all gender specific words and expressions made neutral.

It's like thinking the word bride is offensive, as it only refers to the woman. Surely men and women should both be called grooms so everyone is equal. Of course they shouldn't. A different expression for something doesn't make you unequal! I'd be interested to hear you say my point isn't valid.
Click to expand...

But civil partnership isn't just a descriptive gender word like bride and groom is it? It's an entire legal institution that functions in complete isolation of marriage because of some archaic view that the loving union of two people, which society knows as marriage, can only exist between a man and a woman.
 
Hacker said:
You don't learn, do you? This type of behaviour has earned you some time off.

Maybe you could use this time to think about your posting style.
Click to expand...

Thanks, wouldn't have bothered replying to him if I'd have seen he's suspended. Glad someone else thought it was an inappropriate reply too.
 
Johnd2000 said:
I really don't get your point here. Are you saying gay people haven't suffered enough to have equal rights?
Click to expand...

No. This is a point against those who are comparing the struggle of the gay people with the struggles faced by black people in early 20th century America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top