Should same-sex marriages by legally recognized?

[fable]

According to a news report, Canada has just joined a few European nations in doing so:

NEW LONDON, Prince Edward Island -- Bowing to a landmark court decision, Prime Minister Jean Chretien said yesterday that Canada would amend federal law to recognize homosexual marriages while protecting the rights of conservative churches to refuse to perform weddings for same-sex couples.

The announcement marked a turnaround for a government that has long insisted that the only legally and morally acceptable view of marriage is that of a union between one man and one woman. But Chretien told reporters in Ottawa that times change and that nations and laws must change, too.

''There is an evolution of society,'' Chretien said, adding that the government accepts last week's decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal declaring bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional and will draft a federal law redefining marriage to include gays and lesbians.

What's your opinion? Should the marriages of same-sex couples be legally recognized before your national law? What sort of impact is such a legal shift likely to have on society? Do you think Canada's decision is wise, or foolish? What sort of permutations will such a law have, do you think, on the adoption and raising of children?

As I'm of two minds about this, I feel I can pose the issue.

[dragon wench]

lol Fable, you beat me to it, I was planning on posting the same subject along with a poll

Yes, same-sex marriage should be legally recognised. If two people want to demonstrate in front of witnesses how deeply committed they feel towards one another.. then they should be able to do so, regardless of whether they are gay, straight or in between. To prevent people from getting married because they are same-sex is, IMO, a violation of human rights.

I am hoping that the legislation will make it easier for gay and lesbian couples to adopt children. It happens already, but from what I gather it is not easy. I feel the most important thing is that a child is loved and well cared for.. the gender of the parents involved is immaterial.

As Chretien says... times have changed... and the nature of marriage has changed as well. Marriage has slowly evolved from being a strategic political alliance to something based more on emotion. Yes, this is a generalisation, but I think it is fair to say that most people in the "Western" world now marry for love. Not that it always works out.. but that is another subject altogether..

As far as the impact it will have on society... I think time will tell. Unfortunately, intolerant bigots will always plague the planet.. But, maybe if gay marriage is legally recognised it will eventually help to "normalise" what has long been perceived as heresy.

[Aqua-chan]

I had just read this report on MSN just before I came over here. You both would have beat me to it.

I say sure. I also recently read a report on homosexual teens during proms. Twenty years ago same sex couples in high school would have been completely unrecognized and slandered, but in this report I found, more and more schools in America - not all, mind you - are pretty much saying "Who cares?".

As same sex dating is becomming more common in this day and age and is slowly being accepted as a "normal" type of relationship, I think that it's only fair to allow such couples to marry. As DW said, it's a violation of human rights not to, in opinion.

I know a few writers over the internet who are in a same sex relationship. They're engaged, but can't legally marry by court of law. One of them told me that "marriage" is basically just proclaiming one's love to another for everybody to know, and not for the legal system to decide. She seemed quite happy to have a small, private celebration and share vows, even though they are not "officially" together by the government's standards.

Now I had to go dig out an ancient family Bible to find this, but it says "A man shall not lay with another man as he would a woman." I haven't the slightest doubt that this is where much of the oppression against homosexuality comes from. But as our society seems to drift farther away from whichever religion one follows and more towards expressing one's self, these changes are becomming recognized and accepted. Again, this is in personal opinion.

So I say sure, it should be just fine. If a person's significant other is of the same sex, then what difference does it make? I just fail to see any thing distinctively wrong with it that makes it "not right".

[Aegis]

Yes. They should go through the same hell of marriage straight people have to

[Tybaltus]

Heres what I said in another forum when the conversation bent into a conversation dealing with single-sex marriages....

Quote:

Originally posted by Tybaltus on another forum You ask me, should single sex marriages be allowed? Id say yes, it is their choice. I am not pro-single sex marriages, I am pro-choice. The human being should not be restrained so much. They should see options and make choices appropriotely.

There you have it.

[dragon wench]

Quote:

Originally posted by Aqua-chan Now I had to go dig out an ancient family Bible to find this, but it says "A man shall not lay with another man as he would a woman." I haven't the slightest doubt that this is where much of the oppression against homosexuality comes from. But as our society seems to drift farther away from whichever religion one follows and more towards expressing one's self, these changes are becomming recognized and accepted. Again, this is in personal opinion.

I think this is entirely true. I have actually just been listening to the news and it seems the churches in this country are quite vociferously opposed to same-sex marriage... The federal government has very clearly stated that churches are not required to perform same-sex marriages. However... still they rail.... It seems the churches are unwilling to show the same tolerance, respect and acceptance that has been shown to them.

I do not mean any disrespect here. I simply believe that people should have the full rights of citizenship, and be able to openly and completely participate within the societies and institutions in which they live...regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation...

[Taco Magus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Aqua-chan "Who cares?".

thats about how i feel about it dosent matter to me one bit

EDIT: erm i sohulda said it dosent matter if they get married or not that it should be legal or not :P

[Bloodstalker]

I see no reason why not. Sure, it's been pointed out that the certain religions don't like it, but I don't see this as a religious decicion.

I look at it the same way as I look at anything else....is it affecting me personally it two people of the same sex get married? Not in any way. That decision is personal to each individual.

Personally, I think the whole idea about homosexuality one of the things that is bringing humanity to it's moral downfall as ridiculous. As far as I can tell, there have been plenty of time periods in the past in which homosexuality was treated with a lot more tolerance and societies were a lot more open than anything we might have now.

As far as churches having any nput into the decision, I don't think it is their place. If someone wants to embrace the teaching of a certain religion, that's fine, but only by their own choice. I don't believe in placing your own religious or moral standards on anyone who doesn't make the choice to accept them.

[Chanak]

That this is even an issue speaks volumes about society. What a person does with their life beyond the sphere of Law & Order is strictly their own business, in my own opinion. I define Law & Order as it pertains to how our actions affect other people...and generally speaking, social concerns like this have no impact whatsoever upon the rights of others. The self-righteous have been occupied with looking after the "welfare" of their neighbors for far too long, I think. It's high time the law removed the teeth from their bite, depriving them of the ability to dictate other people's lives with their own religious mores.

[Enchantress]

I guess the only fair answer is yes.

But what's the point of marriage these days? Is it just to publically show the world you've made a commitment to someone? Is it just to share resources with your partner and make them your legal next of kin so they can fairly inherit your wealth?

So many marriages "don't work". What then is the point of marriage between anyone irrelevant of if it's the same sex?

[HighLordDave]

Marriage is two things: a holy sacrament and a legal contract. Many denominations have restricted religious marriage to be defined as a convenant between a man and a woman, invalidating same-sex marriages.

However, there is no reason why the state should prohibit such civil unions. Just as straight marriages can be performed by a civil magistrate or a notary, there is no real reason (homophobia is an excuse, not a reason) why gay people cannot enter into the same legal contract.

[C Elegans]

I agree totally with Dragon Wench. I also agree with Enchantress that marriage as a living-form has lost much of its function in contemporary Western society, but since it is a right all straight couples have - and it has legal implications - it is to me obvious that it should be a right for same-sex couples. In general, sexual orientation should not have any impact whatsoever on human rights.

[Nippy]

Quote:

Originally posted by C Elegans I agree totally with Dragon Wench. I also agree with Enchantress that marriage as a living-form has lost much of its function in contemporary Western society, but since it is a right all straight couples have - and it has legal implications - it is to me obvious that it should be a right for same-sex couples. In general, sexual orientation should not have any impact whatsoever on human rights.

Well in the UK, at least, marriage doesn't have many legal implications any more. Common law "marriages" exist, which, in essence, says that long term partners are held under the term "married" when it comes to division of property etc. It's no long necessary, as such.

[Littiz]

I consider marriage mostly a formality, but, of course everyone should be free to use it as he wants, there's not much to debate here. State or Law, as Chanak states, must leave people with their right to live their lives as they want.
BUT, I strongly oppose child-adoption for homosexual couples.
I think a child needs by instinct both the traditional figures, maternal and paternal.
To allow other kinds of adoption, would go in the direction to please more the needs of the would-be "parents" than the needs of the child (not that he would die for it of course, but still, it's not right).

If I am to be classified as bigot for this, so be it.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nippy Well in the UK, at least, marriage doesn't have many legal implications any more. Common law "marriages" exist, which, in essence, says that long term partners are held under the term "married" when it comes to division of property etc. It's no long necessary, as such.

Is this so even concerning insurances, heritage, heritage to children etc? It is not in Sweden, although long term co-habitation has been accepted as equal to marriage for a very long time. But in Sweden there are still some differences concerning order of heritage and how things are divided between co-habitating couples without pre written "marriage settlements" and married coupled without marriage settlements. For instance, if your spouse dies and has children from previous relationships, you inherit more if you were married to that person than if you were long term partners without being married, in which case the children have the first right to inherit. (Or at least it was like this a couple of years ago when my best friend got a child with her partner, if it has changed Astafas may correct me later)