can't get married
Blimey. IS in America.
Wait till the 'Human Rights' people hear about this !
As the article does go on to say that marriage had its origins in religion, and, as such should not be a state mandated thing. I do not necessarily see this as a bad thing. Modern marriage has become more of a"convenience" than a religious experience/requirement and, as also stated, is a contract at law. Maybe the lawyers should be given the mandate for legal "unions" (marriage, if you like).
Eggzacerly! Except that the lawyers do not perform the civil unions.
And in other news...
The Arkansas House has approved a religious freedom measure that mirrors the one signed into law last week in Indiana that opponents there say opens the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Monday that he'd sign the measure.
Fourteen other states are considering similar proposals this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Or, remove all "marriages" from all religious organisations and make the only legal ones the State registry ones which would still allow for religious "blessings".
Doesn't the Christian doobery go something like "Marriage is given, that husband and wife may comfort and help each other, living faithfully
together in need and in plenty, in sorrow and enjoy. It is given, that with delight and tenderness they may know each other in love, and, through the
joy of their bodily union, may strengthen the union of their hearts and lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children may be
born and nurtured in accordance with Godís will, to his praise and glory."?
That last phrase somewhat precludes gay marriages, doesn't it?
I can understand why some are against it, myself.
The problem is that the whole concept of "marriage" is confused. When the debate about gay marriage started, the Church claimed that it had a
monopoly on marriage and the use of the word. But where did that leave marriages in Register officers conducted by secular officials?
Perhaps its all an argument for disestablishmentarianism.
And by that definition Katsy there would be no point in barren people marrying...
I can think of certain advantages in everyone becoming gay, myself.
The human race would certainly shrink...
Along with orifices at both ends, like watching someone suck a lemon.
Marriage has become a state thing, you cannot marry, in this country, at least, without being a registered marriage celebrant. If the homosexual lobby
want to "marry" that is their prerogative, but they can leave the church out of it.
I do get up in arms though when they then want to adopt. If they want kids, let them find a way to make them by themselves......
You'd rather leave children unadopted?
A couple I know adopted a pair of siblings last year. They got to meet them once after going through all the social work checks and training. They got one month to get their house ready then they got to take them home forever. The woman I know stayed working and her partner who earns less took the parental leave to get them settled.
The point is, a year later, they are a family unit. Children who would otherwise have had no family are now with forever parents and are happy.
IMO the sexual preferences of the couple is neither here nor there.
I'm with Leigh, I'm afraid. I can't help but feel that those kids don't get a choice in the matter. I think they should at least be given the benefit of the doubt and lessen the odds of ill effects - from whatever source - by letting them be brought up in the most normal family possible.
These children were old enough to agree to the adoption. All blood relatives were dead. In that instance it was a no brainer.
Many gay couples use surrogates. That way the child is biologically connected to at least one parent but the children are raised in exactly the same conditions you are objecting to.
What is "normal" btw?
Normal by my definition here is what most people do. Its certainly not "normal" for babies to be born other than to men and women as mother and
father. Its not a moral judgement in itself. Nothing about god or anything. Its just that I believe life is hard enough already for some children
and being different is not a good place to be when you want to fit in.
I didn't read the story and if these kids were happy to be in that situation that's fair enough with me. Its when kids are not given a choice that I don't feel right about it. I don't think its right to force principles upon children.
And children are not property that people have a right to own and do with as they wish.
A girl my daughter went to school with had a "normal" family except that the dad was an in-the-closet gay who wanted to have his affairs with his
wife's acceptance. That didn't work either. He eventually moved out and married a boyfriend. The mother remarried too. The girl and her siblings
then shared their time between two households.
There's all sorts of family combinations that pass for normal these days - one parent families, kinship care etc etc and while I take your point that life is hard enough without any additional burdens, I think that what matters is love - total love - for the child being raised.
Sex is not love hth
Is that your line in the sand then that stops everyone being everybody else?
I've got nothing against Gays but I do feel that children have rights too.
Of course they do.
FWIW I am not particularly keen on single parents too. Does that mean take all kids of single parents, NO! There are many reasons why a mother, or
father, is single. The best chance a kid has is if he (or she) is raised in a two parent (heterosexual) household with people who love one another. I
disagree with supporting single women who choose to have kids just for the welfare support that they receive. It's a difficult area, because for one
of those, there are 10 who deserve support (rubbery numbers here).
FYI: I was raised without a dad (he died when I was 3) and I turned out all right (I think). My kids seem to think so.........at least they'd better or else.....