Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[MidGe]

I thought long and hard before posting this on this forum. I think it is the most appropriate.

Firstly, I don't think it belongs to politics as I fail to see the issue as a Rep Vs Dem one.

To avoid flames I am not discussing here the religious or sacramental meaning or "marriage". To me that is neither here nor there, somewhat quaint and irrelevent. To paraphrase Marx, why would I want to join a club that doesn't want me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I just don't get the point about gay marriage being an issue. Marriage in the legal sense is a "legal union" or "legal entity" that has rights and responsibilities like those associated with other legal entities, like private or public or limited companies. Making those rights and responsibilities available to gays, or universally, has no impact at all on the heterosexual ones. It is not taking anything away from them. It simply allows people to enter into that agreement without discrimination. Call it "pairage" if you have an issue with the definition of marriage and change the statute to say that pairage has exactly the same right and responsibilities than marriage. Simple, effective and less discriminatory. Bear in mind that there are many economic and other advantages to this "legal union"! The most imporatnt ones being the effect on the application of inheritance law and the right to make medical decisions on the partner's behalf, if incapacitated, for instance. Those are by no means the only advantages, but it will vary from juridiction to juridiction.

It seems to me that, the way the statutes are currently worded, it would be the same as limiting directorship or shareholdership of some legal entities (companies, for instance) to heterosexuals only. Very clearly discriminatory.

I think that our society seems to be totally blind to the interferences of religious authorities (mullahs, bishops and other so called moral authorities ) into the secular aspects of life.

What prompt this post is the regressive two states decision to reverse gay marriage and the pontificating (what else could he do given his position [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) by Benedict XVI on his trip to spain.

[Darryl_P]

The issue is not very important to me but if I had to take a stance I'd be against it. My main reason is that it adds to the amount of "unbrainwashing" I have to give to my kids as they grow up.

Regardless of what society says, I am raising my kids according to the concept that men and women living together, having sex etc. is natural and the same with two people of the same sex is unnatural, bad, to be ashamed of, means you're a loser, a deviant, etc.

I'm not saying this to convince others of my position, but rather that I will be raising my kids this way no matter what anyone says.

When they go to school and gay marriages are accepted by the law and by society, they will hear stuff that contradicts my teachings. That will force me to explain it all and to the extent that their friends' parents can't be bothered to explain it to their friends, it will put a rift between my kids and some of their friends. It will also contribute to my kids distrusting the school system, becoming anti-society, creating alliances with religious extremists eventually leading to a war against the liberals and atheists.

I'm exaggerating for effect here and I'm sure the impact will not be that great, but the DIRECTION is bad and that's why I'm against it.

You could say I'm wrong to believe what I believe and that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if my kids didn't have to be exposed to your moral opinions when they go to state subsidised public schools.

If teachers never mentioned the issue, never said stuff like "Johnny has two daddies and that's ok because some people have a mommy and a daddy, others two mommies, others two daddies and it's all good", then I'd have no problem at all. But somehow I can't see it staying out of the school system.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
My main reason is that it adds to the amount of "unbrainwashing" I have to give to my kids as they grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean "rebrainwashing".

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main reason is that it adds to the amount of "unbrainwashing" I have to give to my kids as they grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean "rebrainwashing".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm betting my BR you have no kids. With luck for mankind, that will remain unchanged.

[Case Closed]

FlFishOn,

Do you have any intention of bring forth and arguments or just insulting other posters?

A question for you though. In what ways are we seeing the negative impacts of gay marriage in Europe? How do we know these are directly connected? Do you have any evidence to back up these opinions?

[FlFishOn]

Research Holland. I saw a full exposition of this but where? I can't remember, I read too much.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If teachers never mentioned the issue, never said stuff like "Johnny has two daddies and that's ok because some people have a mommy and a daddy, others two mommies, others two daddies and it's all good", then I'd have no problem at all. But somehow I can't see it staying out of the school system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a problem with them teaching the sky is blue?
Isn't it a fact in our society that some children comes from homes with 2 daddies, some from homes with two mommies, some from 1 mommy, some from 1 granny and an aunt, whatever.
I could see a problem if teachers were teaching "this is the way it should be, it a better union." but why should teachers not teach what IS ??
puzzled in flatbush.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a fact in our society that some children comes from homes with 2 daddies, some from homes with two mommies,

[/ QUOTE ]

WHile it is a fact, it is a tiny percentage, and the bulk of America still sees it as deviant. That used to be enough for the left educators to leave it alone.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

WHile it is a fact, it is a tiny percentage, and the bulk of America still sees it as deviant. That used to be enough for the left educators to leave it alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, schools should only teach common place facts and not bother with US volcano's or people that have walked on the moon. What is your threshold number or percentage before facts should be taught?

[FlFishOn]

Unworthy of reply.