UK Moving In The Right Direction - Religious 'Marriages' For Gay Couples

[magekillr]

I personally think the "Child lacks a (Mother/Father) influence" argument is invalid. It's not illegal for a single parent to raise a child (Wether it be from a spouse's death, divorce, adoption...ect), so why should it matter?

 

I mean to be honest I think it's a valid argument. Not that it's true, but it's a reasonable conclusion that if a baby can only be born with a man and a woman, that both would excel at raising it. A yin and yang approach by all logical means should produce balanced beings, though in reality it rarely does.

 

It's not a valid argument for banning adoption for gays because a loving home that can provide for a child is certainly better than a foster home or an orphanage.

 

There is much evidence documenting the serious damage suffered by children without permanent homes who are placed in substandard foster homes. Children frequently become victims of the "foster care shuffle," in which they are moved from temporary home to temporary home. A child stuck in permanent foster care can live in 20 or more homes by the time she reaches 18. It is not surprising, therefore, that long-term foster care is associated with increased emotional problems, delinquency, substance abuse and academic problems.

 

Source: "The Separation Experience of Children in Long Term Care: Theory, Resources, and Implications for Practice"

 

However, there is a legitimate argument that children need a "father figure" in their lives, and a "mother figure".

 

Swedish researchers also found that regular positive contact reduces criminal behaviour among children in low-income families and enhances cognitive skills like intelligence, reasoning and language development.

Children who lived with both a mother and father figure also had less behavioural problems than those who just lived with their mother.

The researchers are urging healthcare professionals to increase fathers’ involvement in their children’s healthcare and calling on policy makers to ensure that fathers have the chance to play an active role in their upbringing.

 

http://www.physorg.com/news122039148.html

 

(Which is why Sweden argues so heavily for paternal as well as maternal leave. You know, true "family values" that actually nurture a stable environment).

 

One point the opponents are missing: that "figure" doesn't have to be a parent or guardian.

 

For more:

 

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

[fakeitormakeit2]

Obtuse comment? It's called an opinion, I kinda remember a very "obtuse" thread you created, something like "Everybody draw Mohammed day"?

In late defense of myself, if you actually read the thread it was a discussion if the holiday should be advocated or shunned; is it a celebration of rights or a day of malicious expression of hate. Oh and plus it was myself who reported a couple of posters to get all the pictures removed of Mohammad because it did not add to the discussion and it was just being disrespectful to Islam. So yes, you did make an obtuse comment and although I did create the "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" DISCUSSION thread, it was not obtuse in the least bit.

 

Again, I'm not pro-gay marriage but honestly, it is extremely hypocritical when people use their religion as the supposed grounds of their objection and they're divorced. That in itself is a higher distortion of religious marriage than gay marriage because the breakage of the bond was done by men when not even God would separate, so it is blasphemous as well as contracting vows.

 

Edit: ACLU, ha.

[magekillr]

Edit: ACLU, ha.

 

Got a reason for that snipe? Only organization in this country that even cares about the rights of people anymore.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Edit: ACLU, ha.

 

Got a reason for that snipe? Only organization in this country that even cares about the rights of people anymore.

Because their "care" for rights is quite corrupted. They indiscriminately back anyone who is in supposed right violation, regardless if they have broken the law or acted completely uncivil and the only right being impeded upon is their right to their incivility. It has defended the Westboro Baptist's Church to be uncivil, sued teachers for conducting a public prayer (which America would have freedom of worship, not religion if they successfully sued). It defended an ex-CIA member from an information suppression order, why should we even have an agency to attempt to protect us if they should be allowed to share information freely? They fight for more prisoner rights when they already have televisions, free housing and food, and free classes. They also think any legislation against mass spam would be (i.e. to even label it spam) would be an infringement on rights. I hate lobbyist groups.They fight for such controversial things not because they care, it is simple exhibitionism (not in the sexual way). Plus fighting for more rights all the time does not create a balanced society, it just creates more inequality needing to be balanced and more hardfeelings. Justice is what needs to be fought for. People are way too oversensitive about their already excessive rights while they allow injustice to trample the world, which in turn infringes on true freedom more then anything else.

[magekillr]

Edit: ACLU, ha.

 

Got a reason for that snipe? Only organization in this country that even cares about the rights of people anymore.

Because their "care" for rights is quite corrupted. They indiscriminately back anyone who is in supposed right violation, regardless if they have broken the law or acted completely uncivil and the only right being impeded upon is their right to their incivility.

 

So, you don't like that people who have broken the law still have rights? Why even give people a trial? The government can just declare that you're uncivil, or that you broke a law, and send you straight to prison.

 

It has defended the Westboro Baptist's Church to be uncivil, sued teachers for conducting a public prayer (which America would have freedom of worship, not religion if they successfully sued). It defended an ex-CIA member from an information suppression order, why should we even have an agency to attempt to protect us if they should be allowed to share information freely? They fight for more prisoner rights when they already have televisions, free housing and food, and free classes. They also think any legislation against mass spam would be (i.e. to even label it spam) would be an infringement on rights. I hate lobbyist groups.They fight for such controversial things not because they care, it is simple exhibitionism (not in the sexual way). Plus fighting for more rights all the time does not create a balanced society, it just creates more inequality needing to be balanced and more hardfeelings. Justice is what needs to be fought for. People are way too oversensitive about their already excessive rights while they allow injustice to trample the world, which in turn infringes on true freedom more then anything else.

 

Notice, every case you just named? They won, and their plaintiffs won. Why? Because they were correct in viewing the law. I'm sorry that you find this controversial, but that's what makes the ACLU awesome: if your rights have been infringed upon, they will represent you, no matter how controversial you are.

 

You find that to be a mockery, I find it to speak truth to power; everyone has rights, no matter how "uncivil" that they are, and when those rights are infringed upon, they deserve a day in court to challenge the infringement.

 

Yeah, I'm sure the ACLU is fighting all of these things just for attention, when they're running low on funding as it is, and will abandon money if it goes against their belief systems (Patriot Act)). You also seemed to leave out the fact that they were instrumental in ending segregation, ending interracial marriage bans, battling racial profiling, working to end the death penalty, and were key in getting our government to admit to torturing people and releasing incriminating documents.

[Spiffeh]

I thought it was just about "teh marriage is sacred!"? The right wing religious zealots reveal their true colors any chance that they get, and soon they won't be able to hide behind the religious refuge anymore:

 

Hawaii's governor vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have permitted same-sex civil unions, ending weeks of speculation about what she would do with the contentious, emotionally charged issue.

 

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle acted on the last day she had to sign the bill, veto the bill or allow it to become law without her signature. The Legislature had approved it in late April.

 

"There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage," Lingle said at a news conference. "I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name."

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0707-hawaii-veto-20100707,0,3449228.story

Thats ridiculous. The bill was about civil unions, not even marriage.

A lot of the problem with same sex marriage is calling it marriage,

but I guess Gov. Linda Lingle just doesnt want gay people to have equal rights.

[Saru Inc]

I personally think the "Child lacks a (Mother/Father) influence" argument is invalid. It's not illegal for a single parent to raise a child (Wether it be from a spouse's death, divorce, adoption...ect), so why should it matter?

 

I mean to be honest I think it's a valid argument. Not that it's true, but it's a reasonable conclusion that if a baby can only be born with a man and a woman, that both would excel at raising it. A yin and yang approach by all logical means should produce balanced beings, though in reality it rarely does.

 

Not necessarily:

 

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/families/a/ParentStudy.htm

 

(Sorry for the rather "vocal" article writer, it's the first article Google offered.)

 

 

I personally think the "Child lacks a (Mother/Father) influence" argument is invalid. It's not illegal for a single parent to raise a child (Wether it be from a spouse's death, divorce, adoption...ect), so why should it matter?

 

I mean to be honest I think it's a valid argument. Not that it's true, but it's a reasonable conclusion that if a baby can only be born with a man and a woman, that both would excel at raising it. A yin and yang approach by all logical means should produce balanced beings, though in reality it rarely does.

 

It's not a valid argument for banning adoption for gays because a loving home that can provide for a child is certainly better than a foster home or an orphanage.

 

There is much evidence documenting the serious damage suffered by children without permanent homes who are placed in substandard foster homes. Children frequently become victims of the "foster care shuffle," in which they are moved from temporary home to temporary home. A child stuck in permanent foster care can live in 20 or more homes by the time she reaches 18. It is not surprising, therefore, that long-term foster care is associated with increased emotional problems, delinquency, substance abuse and academic problems.

 

Source: "The Separation Experience of Children in Long Term Care: Theory, Resources, and Implications for Practice"

 

However, there is a legitimate argument that children need a "father figure" in their lives, and a "mother figure".

 

Swedish researchers also found that regular positive contact reduces criminal behaviour among children in low-income families and enhances cognitive skills like intelligence, reasoning and language development.

Children who lived with both a mother and father figure also had less behavioural problems than those who just lived with their mother.

The researchers are urging healthcare professionals to increase fathers involvement in their childrens healthcare and calling on policy makers to ensure that fathers have the chance to play an active role in their upbringing.

 

http://www.physorg.com/news122039148.html

 

(Which is why Sweden argues so heavily for paternal as well as maternal leave. You know, true "family values" that actually nurture a stable environment).

 

One point the opponents are missing: that "figure" doesn't have to be a parent or guardian.

 

For more:

 

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

 

 

 

 

Noooooooooooooooooooooo What I mean is:

 

If you have no knowledge of how the parental genderroles can affect child raising, then it's natural to assume that man and a woman would be best, since those are the ones that mate. I know in all practicality its wrong. Sorry for the mixup.

[RpgGamer]

I have a feeling that romy is a pro-gay rights activist :lol:

 

But that's cool beans for the British. Now if only America were a little less douchey to those that prefer their own gender.