Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Because they believe that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong. Therefore cannot allow themselves to accept shared rights. They also might think that a same sex relationship might be damaging to the upbringing children?

Also marriage in this country is based on a Christian tradition which forbids homosexual actions.

But this thread's main point is to defend marriage and not to debate (again) homosexuality in itself..

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think the main problem would stem from interaction with other children who have hetrosexual parents. is there any research into this?

Any child raised differently will probably turn out different, I don't think it fair to refer to them as 'damaged'

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

In the UK, civil marriages in a registry office have to be devoid of religious connotations. I was a witness for a friend at his registry office wedding, he'd written a lovely poem for his bride, but because he used words like soul and spirit he wasn't allowed to use it without first removing the word. IMO words like those can be used in a metaphysical though non-religious context (as he was intending) so I thought it a little unfair. Apparantly, this was due to the CofE, it's part of the conditions on which the Church allow civil marriages to occur. Puts me off a little bit.

It's quite hard to keep religion out of it, since so many of the issues stem from marriage as a religious institution. Perhaps we would be better to refer to it as the church rather than religion.

I would argue that marriage existed long before the Cathloic, CofE churches existed, almost all cultures have some form of marriage. In todays world in the UK and the US where many cultures co-exist there needs to be some way of recognising all of the marriages. I agree with danielf, there needs to be a situation where there is a civil marriage, whereby anybody can apply for this. I would suggest that there not even need to be a ceremony if people wish, they could apply for a license in a special court or something along those lines. Then on top of this, there are religious marriages in which, for state recognised religions (in order that people just don't make up their own religion) the civil marriage is automatically granted. It is then up to the church to decide whom they will or wont marry.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

At the moment I would imagine that you could not get a statistially significant sample of children raise by same sex partners.

I would think that raising children in a stable relationship is more important than the sexual orientation of the relationship. I would imagine most 'difficult', ' damaged' or whatever word we want to use children come from single parents.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

A thought, in the US there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so I would interpret that to mean that laws cannot be passed on the basis of religious beliefs. If that is the case, and assuming that these states have not simply ignored this fundamental tenet, it would imply that these laws exist purely as a result of bigotry.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i am not against homosexual relationships, one of my closest friends is gay.....however i think marriage is and should be defined as joining together of a man and a women......... i am not against relationships between men and men or women and women but i think marriage is something special.......

i know some people will disagree but i am not entirely sure that to show that you love someone you have to have a piece of paper anyway

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Pardon my cynical laughter, especially given the present administration!

IMO that is entirely the case. There are many groups (and not just in America) who simply will not tolerate or accept homosexuality and are distressed that the rest of society is becoming more and more tolerant (or, at least, unconcerned) about it.

These groups realise that they've been unable to keep homosexuality illegal, so all they can do now is to make life as difficult as possible for gays.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But what is the critical factor that makes the union of a man and woman "special"? Leaving aside religion there is only one difference, a heterosexual couple have the potential to produce children, the homosexual couple do not. Other than that I cannot see any factor that would warrant the description "special", and if this is the case, then by extension does that not detract from a heterosexual marriage where one of the individuals is sterile?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I've just realised another potentially important benefit of marriage. I'm married to an American. One of the reasons we had to marry to stay together was so either of our Governments would allow us to stay together on their soil (UK or US) and work etc.

This would again be something potentially denied to a gay couple.

Taking this a step further in a lesbian relationship where a child was created by artifical insemination is that any different to a straight relationship where a child was created through AI. Both would have similar parental issues.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

It is something special, so why should same sex couples be denied the right of something special?

I agree with you that if you love someone, having a bit of paper to prove it doesn't really matter. I think mainly what we are arguing is that same sex and unmarried couples do not have the same rights under law as married couples even though the only essential difference is that bit of paper.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

In that case the economic benefits for married people should be taken away. Why should a same sex couple that has been together for say 30 years not have the same pension rights as mixed sex married people?

It's all fine saying that you don't need the paper to show your love, but there is more to it than the piece of paper.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

yes i see your point and i should have chosen my words better, it is hard to describe exactly what you mean on this forum at times......... also surely within a marriage the use of birth control would detract from the speciality also.....because that is obviously stopping a child from being concieved :eek:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Exactly. If that couple is married - not cohabiting.

But why should a heterosexual couple who could have got married (just a quick no fuss legal formality at a registary office) get those benefits when they can already get them by getting married?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Monty Python moment :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

exaplin :confused: