|
Gay marriage is a constitutional change and should be put to a referendum (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| So we agree that the 2 role model prototype is ideal but not always attainable. So why artificially create something that is not the ideal then? Its unfair for a child to be artificially placed in a situation that is not to their best advantage, plain and simple. |
|
|
| MarkT |
I won't fully agree with that...
1. I personally feel that a child should have male and female role models. Whether or not that role model needs to be an actual parent, or could be a friend, aunt/uncle, close neighbour, grandparent, etc. is up for debate.
2. While I DO agree that we'd be better off fixing the *clearly* broken "sacred institution" (ha!) of marriage, I think that legalizing gay marriage is better than the status quo. It can be implemented rather quickly, and then if we see fit to overhaul the marriage system to benefit EVERYONE, I'd support that too. I think DigiNut suggested an interesting idea of using some form of contract law instead of marriage...Churches could then maintain marriage as a formal and recognized religious ceremony...and the state would use contract law for EVERYONE from a legal standpoint. I'd be absolutely fine with that.
I'd agree that having loving, supporting role models from each sex is benificial for kids...I'd also argue that a single loving, supportive role model, or two from the same sex, is better than what a LOT of kids out there currently have. I'd also suggest that those role models need not be an actual parent in the home. Being gay, I'd actually feel *responsible* for ensuring that my kid had a close female role model in their life (though I doubt I'll choose to have a kid/kids). I have family members and and a couple of close friends who could fulfill that role quite well!
That's not to imply that ALL gay marriages will be somehow be any more healthy and wonderful for kids...but to suggest that kids of a gay couple are automatically at some kind of "role model disadvantage" from the start is shortsighted. One thing that isn't really discussed is the virtually lack of "accidental" pregnancies in gay marriages! Having kids would LITERALLY be a conscious CHOICE by the couple. I'd like to think that means something positive, no?
edit: I try to use this standard for proposed laws/changes to the status quo. If the proposal is a restriction on current rights/freedoms, does it hold up to the question "why?". If it is a proposal extending/confering rights/freedoms, does it hold up to "why not?". This is a case of "why not" and I have not heard ANY compelling argument that defeats the "why not" question! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| close friends or a neighbour cant fill in for a parent. ESPECIALLY in canadian society where a lot of people hardly take the time nor care to even talk to their neighbours. |
|
|
| MarkT |
so most people are lazy...that doesn't mean it can't be done if one makes the effort. Most people have family or friends of the opposite sex who could, along with the other natural role models in kids lives, like teachers, be an effective substitute for someone actually in the home. Is it the same? No. Is it therefore necessarily detrimental? No.
I think this role model "disadvantage" is more perceived than real...and certainly falls short of being a compelling reason to not legalize gay marriage...especially since the raising of children has *very little* to do with this legal issue. As I pointed out, Children's Aid Society has been fascillitating adoption for gay couples for quite some time. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'd really like the opponents of gay marriage to state SPECIFICALLY why they feel that it should not be legalized. Really, no one has presented a single compelling and logical reason why it should be opposed... |
Mark, I've posted my thoughts a few times and you've never really responded to them other than to say you think the alternative isn't practical (and even if that's true, it's still not a justification)... if you don't find them compelling then that's fine, but there's no way you can say they aren't logical.
I was all for the civil unions which would have given essentially all the same rights, but people had to be cranky whiners and complain that it wasn't enough.
Edit: I see you actually made reference to that in a later post, sorry but I hadn't gotten that far yet. :p |
|
|
| chrismack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
So we agree that the 2 role model prototype is ideal but not always attainable. So why artificially create something that is not the ideal then? Its unfair for a child to be artificially placed in a situation that is not to their best advantage, plain and simple. |
Society never questions the "right" of a couple to raise a child as long as that couple consists of a man and a woman. They could be cracked out, unemployed, and evil, but we give them the "right" to procreate.
If a gay (or straight) couple wants to adopt a child, the process places their lives under so much scrutiny (including interviews with neighbours, friends, and co-workers - as well as unannounced visits to their residence to make sure the home is acceptable, police checks and a ton of other hurdles)that it weeds out a lot of people who would make ty parents. In fact, anyone who jumps the hurdles and passes the tests is probably going to be a pretty great parent to a kid, because they have demonstrated to themselves and to complete strangers what they are capeable of - and why they deserve to be parents. I'm not complainig about the process... I think it's kinda cool, actually.
A man and a woman can make a baby from scratch, regardless of whether they want one, are able to properly care for it, or will be the type of people society would want to have anything to do with a kid.
I don't agree with JayX1 that the kid needs a parent of each sex. I think they need a stable, loving environment that let's them grow up physically and emotionally happy. A lot of traditional families don't deliver on that - and that upsets me more than the thought of two men or two women raising a kid.
But since the adoption thing is water under the bridge at this point... it doesn't really have anything to do with how people choose to define their relationship.
And that's the core argument here... the same people who usually argue that the government is interfering with their right to choose how to live their lives (step up Jayx1!) are now complaining that others may also want to choose how to live their lives. Me getting married doesn't infringe on any of your lives. It doesn't take anything away from you. It doesn't affect you in any way, that I can imagine. So what is the problem?
And JayX1, I just realized that you have previously mentioned you don't really care about this issue either way, so it was probably unfair for me to pick on you in the above paragraph... but it just reads well, so I'm leaving it in. (LOL)
Back from a day of gayness. Don't know where I am going to put all these extra kids i adopted though. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
ffs!
Get over it shadow-woof! This thread was like sooooo 2004.... |
|
|
| Matt |
I hate it when people bitch and moan about that isn't going to affect their life.
OMG, YOU MIGHT SEE TWO MEN HOLDING HANDS.... lose the homophobia and enter the 21st century. Sheesh.
There is really no valid argument against gay marriage.
Should there be a referendum... I don't think so. Gays beings able to marry doesn't affect most Canadians, so why should they be able to vote for/against it. Do we go to a seniors home to take votes for traneaddict tune of the year? no. |
|
|
| dallastar |
i have met so many HAPPY gay men that are married to their partners and they are amazing - so happy and in love and sex all around the clock - my kinda time if you ask me!
I think gay marriage was the next best thing invented since man to give women pleasure!
But where are my men???
HELLO?;) |
|
|
| Matt |
| quote: | Originally posted by dallastar
But where are my men???
HELLO?;) |
hi. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
Once again I'll ask:
Should I be forced to recognize a same-sex relationship as a "marriage" against my will? |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
oooooo!
Instigator!
Hurry, hurry! Lets poke and prod and ruffle feathers as much as we can, as quick as we can.....
oooooo! |
|
|
|
|
