gay marriage...
Helping a friend research the topic for her essay. And since it's an opinion piece, I thought I'd get the few readers I have here to have their say.
Now, the focus of the topic is LEGALIZING gay marriage. I appreciate that many of you will have reservations on the morality of it, and feel free to voice those reservations, based on whatever REASONING you might have on either side of the argument. Also note, for those uncomfortable with leaving a name with their opinion (oh come on, nobody's gonna crucify you...) there is the option of posting annonymously.
Now, give my friend a hand, will you?
8 comments:
My, my. So many legal implications. So academic. So not me. Haha. Never really thought about it. (Malaysian Context) But I guess it would mean that gay sex would have been legalised (yay!), tax benefits, rights to adopt. Hmmm. All the things that I have never thought about.
Came across ur blog when i read Rewind,Fast Forward =)
I did an assignment on same sex marriage before. More or less like gay marriage. Personally, i go against this idea for that will destroy the very nature of family institution. And the consequences..bla bla. Hmm. Morality is vague. It differs fr places, ppl etc. Whatever it is, when it comes to such a grey issue, i guess we should always use our common sense. And that explains further, i suppose.
I just handed up my assingment on gay adoption two weeks ago. haha.
Okay i'm not helping am i.
you can go and search "civil partnership" in wikipedia. It's a British way for gay marriage. Opinion? If 2 people love each other and can support each other, why not be with each other?
What's in a word? What does one identify in the word "marraige" that doesn't exist in terms like "civil partnership"?
Sanctity? Promise? Monogamy? Long lasting? Commitment? Recognition by the public?
This is an entirely qualitative issue - more about belief and recognition than practicality. One about access to the EXACT same rights as any other person. For gay people to use the same language in their 'marraige' as any other citizen would show that th government recognises that are citizens with equal rights. That the marraiges of gay people are no less worthy than those of straights.
'Civil partnership' is a copout. Simple as that.
this might be a lil late but anyways: if u speak from a religious point of view... most religion goes against homosexual marriages, for example Christianity. However, the counter argument is that: God hates the sin, not the sinner. Hope it helped... ^^"
Gay people just need help. And for them to be able to change and get back to the right path, gay marriages are never ever to be allowed! God created Adam(male), then He created Eve(female) to be his partner. Therefore, a man is to be with a female to be normal. if gay marriages are to be approved, what would the future look like? would u want your own children to ask u why is that man married to another man? would u tell your own children that it is normal?
okay, replies.
exactly why i think the topic is interesting, will. it's the legal implications and the benefits of the married title that is particularly important, since it will involve lots and lots of money.
hello, juju. didn't know i had random readers lying about. interesting prespective, but i would like to ask about how you perceive the institution to be changed by allowing gay marriage, and your proposed consequences?
blur, you are NOT helping at all. and send me a copy of your assignment. i mau tengokking.
i suppose it's all in the terminology then, chris. some people oppose the use of marriage as they see it as a religious institution. i suppose if it could effectively be a legal instrument, then civil partnership should be fine, as long as equivalent to the term "marriage" as far as benefits go.
in your case, bunnyboy, it IS about the word choice. i suppose it's all in wanting to be able to say the same as anyone else, yes?
very useful bit you brought up, chungy. naturally, if we were to debate on this point, we'd have to introduce the idea that a significant proportion of any given population subscribe to a particular belief, yes? and we'd also assume majority rules, here. which will lead into problems i might highlight later.
well, anon, i would take exception to your argument. to base an argument on a theological standpoint, you'd have to first assume i agree on your basis that a "god" did create this adam and eve. given that, i'd also have to agree that this "god" did not also create other people. in which case, all humans would descend from a line of incestuous bastards, no? and also your definition of normal. are nuns and monks who do not marry abnormal?
Post a Comment