Bush calls for constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages

[Driwen]

just allow people of same sex to marry and then possibly (re)write the law for adoption if you want to. But there is no real reason for mariage not to be allowed for the same sex and atleast in my country it is needed for legal reasons like owning stuff together.
It just takes some time to adjust, one parent families are now reasonably accepted, but I think that 40 years ago the same discussion would have been held about that where we are now holding about same sex parents.

I personally do feel same sex parents should be allowed, but I dont live in the UK so the society is different and most peoples reason why it shouldnt be allowed is because society doesnt see it as right. Not that 2 people of the same sex could raise a kid perfectly fine.

 

[Doh_boy]

I just did a quick google for studies about same-sex parents and found

this

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]With the exception of studies at a few universities with very close connections with conservative Christian denominations (like the Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, UT), essentially all research studies into same-sex parenting reveal that children of these families develop normally. There is some indication that boys are less sexually adventuresome, and that girls are more sexually daring. There are also anecdotal accounts of children having to endure ridicule, taunting and harassment from other youth because of their parents' sexual orientation.

Interesting, the only problems found were the one staz pointed out. Being bullied in the playground.
[/font]

 

[Krazeh]

Children will always bully other children, whether it be because of their parents sexual orientation or what they're wearing or their taste in music etc

 

[DaGaffer]

Hmm, I've seen quite a few studies that show that male children raised without positive male role models tend to have more socialisation problems as they go up and are more likely to commit crime. True that most of the studies were based around the 'absentee father' problem that's particularly acute in afro-caribbean families, but I would image the same principle might apply to a couple of lesbians raising a male child.

Fact is (and it is fact), the 'nuclear' family has a lot going for it as a way of raising children; although its not the only family model, it is one that has appeared independently in a lot of cultures because it works. Of course the very best model is the extended family with grandparents and other relatives close by to help share the load, but modern economics and the need to migrate for work has bent that model right out of shape here in the west.

 

[Vae]

As mentioned the standard family unit is the best for raising children and I would say that any stable family unit including samesex couples will provide stability for the raising of children. It's certainly a better alternative than all the one parent families or being raised in care/a home.

The idea of same sex marriages is fine with me from a declaration of love and also legal standpoint (to allow the couple to benefit from the protections and recognition via the tax system of being a family*). The only issue I can see there being a problem with is that of religion and this is down to the interpretations of religious texts/teachings. Although the US is secular the Christian Right has a strong following over there (and Bush is rather religious) and thus exerts a lot of power.


*In the UK the tax breaks for married couples are rather small. The married couples allowance now only applies to those over 65 as part of the government phasing it out). There's benefits regarding being able to shift assets between the 2 people for capital gains tax purposes and also benefits to do with inheritence tax but thats about it.

 

[Mazling]

I've read a bit of research into the differences a child brought up by a gay couple (male or female), and would to agree that it would work just aswell for kid as it would being brought up in a heterosexual couples' home. I've just turned 20 and have to say I was not taught anything about this sort of thing at school. Nor drugs, except for "drugs are bad, mmkay?" and some stuff that was outright lies as I have come to learn spending time online.
Any parent would worry that a child's curiosity about these things would lead them into trying them out, and so by not teaching them the child will reject this change in reality by default, likely because there are no adults around - whom children look to, to be able to know how best to preserve themselves - to say otherwise. It's flawed, to say the least.

 

[yaruar]

No. It should be abolished and re-introduced as a childcare-benefit tax break.

People should want to do the marriage thing for love reasons not money-off vouchers.

Personally I think there should be tax breaks for not having kids or having only small families.

Too many screaming bad mannered brats brought into familys who can neither afford them or bring them up decently imo.

 

[yaruar]

Its an accepted fact that societies tend to be more stable if their populations are in long term relationships. Thats why tax breaks are offered for marriage.

Accepted by whom?

And anyway if society is made more stable by long term relationships why not encourage them all, gay or straight?

 

[yaruar]

[tuppence]

I have no problem with same sex marriages at all ever. I couldn't care less. Where my point of view turns nasty, however, is when they want children. Blokes can't impregnate blokes and vice versa with women. It ain't going to happen.
Its a lifestyle thing and I don't believe they should have their cake and eat it if they choose that lifestyle. Same sex relationships cannot naturally bear children and I don't believe science should step in to fix it like it can with hetero couples who have something wrong with their reproductive plumbing. I COULD be damaging to the children from a developemental point of view, lets be fair there is nowhere near enough research to say either way at the moment, although to be honest the amount of shit a child would get in the playground off kids with "normal" parents is mind boggling.

[/tuppence]

children get shit off other children no matter what.
when it comes down to adoption, there are 1000's of kids who need loving homes so why not let them be adopted by anyone who would give them a stable loving home.

As for it being a lifestyle thing. that implies choice, sexuality on the whole isn't a matter of choice for the majority of people.

 

[yaruar]

I wouldn't think so, no.

I have to say that I agree with Staz on this one - human psychology is immensely complicated, and the 'natural way' of things is that a child has one male parent and one female parent. There is every possibility that being brought up with same-sex parents could be psychologically damaging to the child. I'm not saying it would, and I'm not saying it wouldn't. It's just something that could do with consideration.

Actually nature has little or nothing to do with models of child rearing. The nuclear family especially has been a very recent phenomena, very much post WWII. If you look previously to that the majority of child rearing was done through extended families. IN a lot of cases it was unmarried female members of the family who took part in child rearing due to the large nature of families in teh past.

No studies have shown that rearing by same sex couples is any more or less damaging for a child than being bought up by heterosexual pairings. IN fact there is more evidence to suggest that single parent models are actually worse than same sex models for the development of the child, although not to any significent level.

 

[Otto]

Should they be given the same rights as heterosexual couples to marry?

Nope.

(I'll sure be hated now)

 

[Driwen]

Nope.

(I'll sure be hated now)

why no? Just talking about same sex parenting or other rights like owning a house together?

 

[Mazling]

Otto speak your mind, explain yourself!

 

[fatbusinessman]

No studies have shown that rearing by same sex couples is any more or less damaging for a child than being bought up by heterosexual pairings.

Fair enough - I wasn't aware that there had been sufficient studies in this field to draw any conclusions.

 

[dr_jo]

Just one question. You talk about the bullying that children might recieve in the play ground at school if they had same sex "parents". But have you thought about the bullying that would stem from having *no* parents? I personally would think that being an orphan, would result in far worse bullying.

Plus, you have to remember that however it might seem, each generation is getting more tollerant of homosexuality, and if kids are brought up with same sex mariages being an accepted fact, there is less likely to be problems on the bullying front.

I don't see any reason why same sex unions shouldn't be allowed. Couples in the traditional sense can "marry" at a register office, and fundamentally, it gives them rights as a couple, rather than as two individuals. If a homosexual couple wants to make the same pledge, I cannot see any arguements which negate that right.

 

[Mazling]

dr_jo, kids don't discriminate gay/not-gay, they discriminate majority/minority within their own groups. US vs THEM.

I think this recent article will prove interesting reading:
It's official: Gay sheep born that way http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article2421.html

Spoiler

I tend to consider these kiind of things more 'how?' than 'why?', though good to read nonetheless. Wonder what the overtly relgious types will make of this.

 

[dr_jo]

Fair enough. So, being in an orphanage is not part of the majority, neither is having same sex parents. I think I'd prefer to be in a loving family and be bullied than living in a home and going through it.

I was bullied at school, but it made me a stronger person because of the support I recieved at home.

 

[Athan]

I think this recent article will prove interesting reading:
It's official: Gay sheep born that way http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article2421.html

Note however this is only about male homosexuality. They've not yet pinned down a 'cause' of female homosexuality. The joke about that is it's because the researchers get too distracted when thinking about two women kissing .

-Ath

 

[Stazbumpa]

As for it being a lifestyle thing. that implies choice, sexuality on the whole isn't a matter of choice for the majority of people.

Good point and very true. What I'm saying is that they refuse to accept what goes with the territory ie:
"I want children!!!"
"You can't"
"Why the fuck not??!!"
"Because you're a man and you're shagging another man. Biology is not on your side mate".

I don't have a problem with gay couples but the natural world does not allow species to reproduce with same sex shagging. We seem to forget that we are born of this same natural world.

With regard to the argument being similar to the single parent argument of yester-year, for the record I'm a bit draconian when it comes to families. Single parent upbringings are no match for stable couple parenting, but then again I also believe that some couples shouldn't be allowed to breed either.

 

[Dubbs]

I agree with this in principle I think. I can not believe for a second that same sex couple will bring their child up normally as their very definition of normal is different when it comes to sexuality. Difficult to say without talking to a few of them to see what they think and how they see themselves bringing up the child.

 

[Xtro]

There's kids needing loving parents, there's would-be parents waiting to give them love. If its same-sex so fucking what?

I don't need a government to tell me if I can marry or not thanks. When I get married it won't be a legal or civil thing it will be a private ceremony, why should my gf take my name or any of that crap. It will be for me and her and fuck all else.

 

[Mazling]

It has already been pointed out on this thread that same-sex couples produce "normal" children as well as the nuclear family setup. They aren't all raging nancies themselves nor have an irrepressable urge to mate with beavers.

 

[peanut]

I totally agree with that and can vouch for it being true...

A same-sex couple are just as capable of giving a child as much love, care and affection as any other couple, and it is possible for the child's upbringing to be as stable, and in some cases, more stable than that which it would have in a hetro environment...

It doesn't necessarily mean that the child will turn out gay, but possibly might even give them the assurance that they can be who they are, who they want to be, and that's ok.

 

[mr.Blacky]

My opinion on this is that there is no reason why homosexual mariages should not be allowed, perhaps not for religious matters but thats another discussion.
As for iv I would have to say no, mainly caus of two reasons. Nature makes it so that a man and a woman is needed for making children and two there are children that could be adopted.
As for adoption I believe that hetero sexual couples should take preference but for the rest I believe that any family sort is better then being in a foster home.
As for being teased, children are going to be teased no matter what. Though giving extra amunition might not be good.

 

[yaruar]

My opinion on this is that there is no reason why homosexual mariages should not be allowed, perhaps not for religious matters but thats another discussion.
As for iv I would have to say no, mainly caus of two reasons. Nature makes it so that a man and a woman is needed for making children and two there are children that could be adopted.
As for adoption I believe that hetero sexual couples should take preference but for the rest I believe that any family sort is better then being in a foster home.
As for being teased, children are going to be teased no matter what. Though giving extra amunition might not be good.

In which case do you think that heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed fertility treatment?

 

[throdgrain]

Oh who cares anyway

 

[peanut]

The reason that, like me and my girlfriend, even same-sex couples want kids is because it's then a part of one of YOU....

Yeah ok there are a lot of children who are in care, mainly because HETROSEXUAL couples can't or won't look after them, and who need a loving home...

BUT should someone who wants to create a life that is PART of them, not be allowed to do that???... Especially if they stand to provide a better, or at least equally good, home environment for that child???

On the issue of 'giving others more amunition against them'...It's the 21st century, people are becoming increasingly more accepting of same-sex couples, and in all honesty, by the time the child is old enough to be subjected to any prejudice, the situation will have improved even more.

 

[Mazling]

I'd go as far to call it "irresponsible" for a gay couple to get a 3rd party the a child for them. Many children want homes, but don't have one. Those kind of people should wake up to being human and take some responsibility - 6.5 billion, and counting ...

 

[mr.Blacky]

In which case do you think that heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed fertility treatment?

I think there should be more stricter rules. For instance if an aging (40+) wants a baby it should not be allowed, or if a single woman wants a baby I would say no again. Also I feel that the preference should be on the children without parents instead of IV.

The reason that, like me and my girlfriend, even same-sex couples want kids is because it's then a part of one of YOU....

To me being the parent is the part that counts, not dna. Especially for same-sex couples caus well they can't have both dna in one child.
As for that this is the 21st century, yes adults might be getting more used to same-sex couples, but tell me what are the most used cursing names in the UK? one of them is going to be a slang word for homo sexuals. Somewhere I believe that parents are being selvish forgetting the mental pain for the fact that children will be teased caus of the fact that kids will be teased/tormented with a same-sex couple, or for instance the name some people chooses for their children.

 

[Tom]

I agree with the state giving preferential treatment to younger applicants for IVF, but you can't deny a person the right to try and have children, its just not morally acceptable. If for financial reasons the NHS has to draw a line on the age of applicants, then that won't stop them going for private treatment. If they can't afford that, well theres always fostering/adoption.

I don't think people are quite so blinkered as you make out. Certainly there will be a minority who find same-sex parenting offensive, but there is also a minority who are racist. That doesn't mean we should think twice about being nice to ethnic minorities does it?

In the end, those people who are homophobic/racist/whatever (and I put them roughly in the same category IMO) won't really have much of a say in the matter, because their opinions and attitudes will no longer be prevalent amongst the current generation of schoolchildren who on the whole couldn't give a stuff about a person's sexuality.