UK Parliament votes in favor of Gay marriage!

[Andrew Hughes]

Except that animals have already been brought into the discussion to justify homosexuality being natural on the basis that some animals also do it. If animals can be used as being relevant to support the pro-homosexuality lobby, why cannot they also be used in the counter argument?

There is no reason why animals cannot be used in any argument. It's the way that they are used that matters. I can see why people would use animals to address the suggestion that homosexuality is not natural (although I think this is a side issue in any case).

I can't see how animals have any bearing on the question of gay marriage. Bestiality is not a synonym for homosexuality, so I'm struggling to see the relevance.

The debates on the two topics may overlap in some areas, but they are not the same.

Why is it that the pro-homosexuality side of the lobby become uncomfortable when their logic is then also apllied to areas such as incest and bestiality by those who claim that homosexuality is wrong in the same manner as bestiality and incest is wrong??

No discomfort here. But to do those debates justice, the logic should be applied rigorously, bearing in mind the differences between the cases.

Can I ask you a question? You state that 'homosexuality is wrong in the same manner as bestiality and incest is wrong.' On what grounds do you feel it is wrong?

Apologies to LegendXI, I was responding to another post of Vegitto's, should have made that clear!

 

[shaz619]

It should be allowed definently, but to say that it should be allowed for them to get married in a "church" that is absurd because i know that christian beliefs state that they are against homosexuality, so you can't force this upon the church of england it would be a disgrace and asking christians to alter there beliefs which is unacceptable.

 

[Warfare]

Except that animals have already been brought into the discussion to justify homosexuality being natural on the basis that some animals also do it. If animals can be used as being relevant to support the pro-homosexuality lobby, why cannot they also be used in the counter argument?

Similarly, all the arguments in favour of homosexuality can be equally applied in favour of incest, and therefore the same goes for the opposite points of view.

Why is it that the pro-homosexuality side of the lobby become uncomfortable when their logic is then also apllied to areas such as incest and bestiality by those who claim that homosexuality is wrong in the same manner as bestiality and incest is wrong??

Ok I get your point. I answered you anyway and don't feel uncomfortable in the slightest.

Consensual incestuous relationships are fine, and i'm not sure about bestiality.

 

[Warfare]

All morally wrong.

According to who's morality? Yours? Islam?

How about nature's morality which decreed certain people to be gay? When you realise that morality is subjective, then you'll learn to tolerate other people and give equal rights to all regardless of one's sexual orientation, or anything else.

 

[LegendsXI]

There is no reason why animals cannot be used in any argument. It's the way that they are used that matters. I can see why people would use animals to address the suggestion that homosexuality is not natural (although I think this is a side issue in any case).

I can't see how animals have any bearing on the question of gay marriage. Bestiality is not a synonym for homosexuality, so I'm struggling to see the relevance.

The debates on the two topics may overlap in some areas, but they are not the same.



No discomfort here. But to do those debates justice, the logic should be applied rigorously, bearing in mind the differences between the cases.

Can I ask you a question? You state that 'homosexuality is wrong in the same manner as bestiality and incest is wrong.' On what grounds do you feel it is wrong?

Apologies to LegendXI, I was responding to another post of Vegitto's, should have made that clear!

No issues, man. Actually enjoying your contribution to the debate.

 

[LegendsXI]

According to who's morality? Yours? Islam?

How about nature's morality which decreed certain people to be gay? When you realise that morality is subjective, then you'll learn to tolerate other people and give equal rights to all regardless of one's sexual orientation, or anything else.

How about nature's immorality, considering natural selection. Is it not just the morality justified by the individuals' choices?

 

[Vegitto1]

Agree 100%

Vegitto mentions a couple of medical conditions.

The first isn't a disease, it is an unfortunate consequence of certain activities (my use of euphemisms isn't to gloss over a weak argument, merely out of regard for politeness). There are conflicting views over whether such a condition is the inevitable result of said activities, so it wouldn't be accurate to say that all or even most homosexuals would experience this. Even if that were the case, it wouldn't constitute harm as defined, since it was a side-effect of a consensual act.

The second is an unpleasant cancer, caused as I understand it, by the HPV virus, that can be spread sexually. The spread of any sexual disease is due to a combination of promiscuity and failure to take precautions (again, apologies for the euphemism). If you engage in unprotected intercourse with multiple partners, you run the risk of contracting diseases, again, a side effect of a consensual act. Neither this particular cancer nor the HPV virus are caused by or exclusive to homosexuals.

Neither of these examples prove the case that homosexuality is harmful.

I could suggest that allowing men to enter into monogamous relationships reduces promiscuity and the spread of diseases, but that wouldn't be fair as the point Vegitto is addressing is homosexual acts, not gay marriage.



Just saw this. Genuine question, can you say why you feel they are on the same footing?

Point 1 and 2. I find them distasteful and they are religiously wrong. Although I cannot honestly say whether my point 1 is influenced by point 2 or whether my finding it distasteful makes the religious argument even stronger.

As fas as harm is concerned, we have agreed that harm does exist, even if it is a side-effect of the act. and I agree that these might not be exclusive to homosexuals.

Which now brings me to my point in relation to harm related to beastiality an/or prostitution. By legalising prostitution you take away the stigma attached to it, it can be regulated which would eliminate a number of harmful aspects associated with the profession so all those arguments become void if prostitution is legalised.

Again, I agree that this thread is about Gay Marriages, but I do not want to flood the forum with unpleasant threads. The point is that just like you gave counter-arguments against harm associated with homosexuality, similarly counter-arguments can be given against harm associated with beastiality and prostitution, which means that these topics are all the same.

The society we live in and the dominant culture determines what becomes acceptable and when even if there isn't much difference between what is allowed and what isn't. Personally for me, homosexuals being allowed to call their abnormal relationship "marriage" is absolute nonsense. (my opinion).

 

[Yossarian]

Can I ask you a question? You state that 'homosexuality is wrong in the same manner as bestiality and incest is wrong.' On what grounds do you feel it is wrong?

OK. Here goes.

To varying degrees, a combination of religious upbringing (yes, call it brainwashing if you so wish), societies values (I've grown up in the UK), moral values, aversion (I feel disgusted seeing two men kissing, never mind mentally visualising anything further, and the same goes for incest and bestiality).

To that I would even add medical reasons.
In the case of animals, the potential for disease. In the case of incest, the potential for deformed offspring.
As for homosexuals, it has been mentioned that some homosexuals find the thought of performing a sexual act with someone of the opposite sex just as abhorrent as heterosexuals find the thought of performing a sexual act with someone of their own sex. If that is true, and thinking beyond the medical advances made in recent years, taken together, it means that homosexuals will not be able to pass their genes onto offspring.

Whilst it is true that some of the reasons mentioned above are easy to counter, taken together, they form part of who I am and how my views have been formulated.

I have been as honest as I can. Now over to you. Do you believe that incest and bestiality are wrong, and if so, why are they wrong and homosexuality is right? And if you think that they all are ok, then why is that so?

 

[Vegitto1]

Woman-on-Woman has the least transmission rate of HIV.

The only type of homosexual behaviour that I am not against. (Conditions apply*)

 

[Andrew Hughes]

Again, I agree that this thread is about Gay Marriages, but I do not want to flood the forum with unpleasant threads. The point is that just like you gave counter-arguments against harm associated with homosexuality, similarly counter-arguments can be given against harm associated with beastiality and prostitution, which means that these topics are all the same.

With respect, it does not mean they are the same, it means they share similar aspects and touch on similar issues, but without wishing to be pedantic, they are not precisely the same.
If we debated those issues, we may go down some similar roads, but there would be differences.

Appreciate your honesty, too, in saying why you feel it is wrong.

I have been as honest as I can. Now over to you. Do you believe that incest and bestiality are wrong, and if so, why are they wrong and homosexuality is right? And if you think that they all are ok, then why is that so?

As for Vegitto, thanks for your honesty, since you did not have to answer the question.

In reply, I have to say that I am not arguing from a position of right or wrong. The thread is about whether homosexuality (and gay marriage) should be legal, not whether it is right or wrong. This is an important distinction and an essential one in the kind of society I would want to live in. I don't base my idea of what society should make legal or illegal on the basis of my personal morality. For example, I am a vegetarian, but I don't campaign for meat should be banned.

My argument is – crudely – this:

1. Gay marriage is harmless
2. Things that are harmless should be legal
3. Gay marriage should be legal

Either this argument is valid on its own terms, or it isn’t. If the argument can’t be refuted without changing the subject, then the argument stands.

Could a similar argument be used for consensual incest, polygamy and prostitution? Possibly. Each of those would be interesting debates, but none would have any bearing on this debate, or on the validity of this particular argument.

However, since you have asked me some ethical questions, it would only be fair to answer:

I don't think homosexual acts, self-identification or marriage are wrong

I don't think consensual incest is wrong per se

I think bestiality is wrong, based on my belief that that an animal cannot give informed consent

Again, I would stress that my personal morality should not have any bearing on whether something is legal or not: the test of harm is the best test to apply.

 

[waqar goraya]

The thing natural is quite a excuse here.....Every behavior and response of an individual either good or bad is natural.. It took decades to differentiate humans from other mammals and people are talking about leading us back to that state..

But my answer is for Muslim posters here ,as a Muslim you have to believe on what Quran says..

“And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty.”

This is something which will and does destroy the family structure, but also harms society as a whole. Not in every case, one can say I have a gay friend who is perfectly normal, practices safe sex and would be a great parents. Islam however legislates for society as a whole, it does not have different rules for different people in such situations. It gives a general principle which must be followed in order for society to function in the best way possible. Society cant function with a legal system for case by case situations.

Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
And the two who commit it among you, dishonor them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone. Indeed, Allah is ever Accepting of repentance and Merciful.(4:15-16)

 

[LegendsXI]

With respect, it does not mean they are the same, it means they share similar aspects and touch on similar issues, but without wishing to be pedantic, they are not precisely the same.
If we debated those issues, we may go down some similar roads, but there would be differences.

Appreciate your honesty, too, in saying why you feel it is wrong.



As for Vegitto, thanks for your honesty, since you did not have to answer the question.

In reply, I have to say that I am not arguing from a position of right or wrong. The thread is about whether homosexuality (and gay marriage) should be legal, not whether it is right or wrong. This is an important distinction and an essential one in the kind of society I would want to live in. I don't base my idea of what society should make legal or illegal on the basis of my personal morality. For example, I am a vegetarian, but I don't campaign for meat should be banned.

My argument is – crudely – this:

1. Gay marriage is harmless
2. Things that are harmless should be legal
3. Gay marriage should be legal

Either this argument is valid on its own terms, or it isn’t. If the argument can’t be refuted without changing the subject, then the argument stands.

Could a similar argument be used for consensual incest, polygamy and prostitution? Possibly. Each of those would be interesting debates, but none would have any bearing on this debate, or on the validity of this particular argument.

However, since you have asked me some ethical questions, it would only be fair to answer:

I don't think homosexual acts, self-identification or marriage are wrong

I don't think consensual incest is wrong per se

I think bestiality is wrong, based on my belief that that an animal cannot give informed consent

Again, I would stress that my personal morality should not have any bearing on whether something is legal or not: the test of harm is the best test to apply.

That could be applied on alot of concepts.

However, i think ive stated my point in its entirety. hence done with the debate. Everyone play nice

 

[Khaleefa]

Don't know where you live, but have'nt you realised yet that the US/UK would like to spread 'democracy' (or their version of it) and their 'enlightened views' everywhere they can?
You can't escape that easily you know!

lol yeah man ... reminds me of that famous joke by Abdur Raheem Green.

 

[LegCutter]

 

[waqar goraya]

My argument is – crudely – this:

1. Gay marriage is harmless
2. Things that are harmless should be legal
3. Gay marriage should be legal

Harm is a relative term.There are different kinds of harm: physical, emotional, spiritual, financial, etc. Therefore, harm is a personal thing that is experienced and is a bit subjective.

For example if you do not believe in family system as a pillar of society then it is a harmless issue for you...
Nearly 1/3 of the child abuse cases are homosexual in nature, and homosexuals are only 3% of the population

There are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays..Of course every one is not going to suffer mental distress but it is an issue for homosexuals..

Gay Marriage affects people spiritually.Don't assume that people's spiritual beliefs are irrelevant. People consider spiritual issues to be extremely important,

it is not automatically wrong to force morals on someone. But the issue then becomes what is morally right and wrong in the first place, and altering morals in a society definitely causes stress. But we have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority?

Medically There is no need for explicit details, but men's and women's’ bodies are designed for sexual intercourse with each other in a way that men's bodies are simply not designed for sex with other men.The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, **** intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

It forces government to get involved in changing laws which automatically affect everyone in society."alternative" lifestyles should never be pushed onto anyone just like you all dont like religion pushed onto you. you wanna be gay? then be gay and keep it to yourself.

Inshort;Harm is a relative term

 

[Andrew Hughes]

Interesting post. But I don't find any evidence in what you wrote to suggest that two men getting married causes direct harm to either of those men, or to anyone else.

Physical harm. What physical harm does gay marriage cause to the men involved or to anyone else? I see the same reference as above to sphincters. Medical opinion is by no means clear on this, but again, if there is harm done, it is a by-product of a consensual act between consensual adults and therefore no business of the state.

Does two men getting married directly lead to child abuse? I see no evidence presented for that contention.

Does two men getting married directly lead to suicide, depression or drug abuse? Again, no evidence presented.

But we have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority?

A curious argument. How is allowing two women/men to get married forcing anyone to adopt a different morality? As far as I am aware, homosexuality is not to be made compulsory. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then don't practice it.

Spirituality. If gay marriage affects the spiritual wellbeing of the men/women involved, then, if they are religious, they will know the 'risk' they take, and if they are not religious, then this means nothing to them. Either way, it is a matter for them and not the state.

As far as I can see, the premise that gay marriage is harmless stands, but we're beginning to get into repetition of the same arguments and I'm not sure the debate is throwing up anything new.

So as I've bored people long enough on this subject, that will probably be it from me on this thread, have enjoyed the debate, turned out to be very interesting and appreciate the replies that everyone gave.

 

[cricketworm]

Here is my question to those who says it's not natural and putting religion angle to it.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

It's congenital disorder, so it's given by 'God'!

"Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is when a person who is genetically male (who has one X and one Y chromosome) is resistant to male hormones (called androgens). As a result, the person has some or all of the physical traits of a woman, but the genetic makeup of a man."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002163/

Now, Jamie Lee Curtis has this!

So, she is genetically man, having XY chromosome, despite that she decided to have sex organ transplant and enjoys her life as a woman. Her sexuality is homosexual technically.

Now, how can you decide her sexuality with just what ever organs you have?

What about those who are hermaphrodite? What are you going to tell them what their sexuality is? How could you decide sexuality for them?

Same way we can't decide sexuality for anyone! If 'god' has made them like that then 'god' has also given process in brain so they can enjoy sex!

 

[vandokkum]

Absolutely Wrong!

The conservative Republicans fought against slavery, eventually Lincoln abolished it. On other hand the democrats were pro slavery.

Where do you get your facts from?

Not sure what the hell you are talking about, the same people that were for slavery are now in the Republican states (Confederate States). The only thing that changed is the party allegiance. This is not about Democrat or Republican, the Republican party wasn't always the anti gay, racist and ultra religious/ conservative party like it is today. Do some research.

 

[vandokkum]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wCppabTHrcI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Good luck being a conservative Republican muslim, see how that works out for you. Conservatives are not just anti gay, they are anti all things that's different from them.

 

[LegendsXI]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wCppabTHrcI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Good luck being a conservative Republican muslim, see how that works out for you. Conservatives are not just anti gay, they are anti all things that's different from them.

Lol. Just because i call you stupid, doesn't mean that i have to side with the other group.


You made a generalization regarding the conservatives and what not. And factually you are horribly wrong, in the context i dont know why you would bring it up.

As ive said before, i dont think i should comment in this thread any more. But i suppose had to reply to your post.

P.S i dont believe in labels or following groups. Ill follow anyone who has the right ideals.
I dont need groups or stereotypes to identify myself. I dont judge people on their religious or ethnic backgrounds, and wouldn't associate with the those who do.

 

[chaiwala]

Absolutely Wrong!

The conservative Republicans fought against slavery, eventually Lincoln abolished it. On other hand the democrats were pro slavery.

Where do you get your facts from?

Ugh. I got a strong case of second-hand embarrassment after reading this. Please read a US history book.

The Republican Party during Lincoln's time was actually the more progressive party. By today's terminology, the Republicans would most likely be considered liberals, whereas the Democrats were more conservative.

 

[shaykh1985]

If you take religion and the societal/mainstream ideals out of the debate. Would you say that in a society where the consent from adults is the only factor, concepts such as bestiality and incest would also be justifiable (as in the case of homosexuality).

In some cases yes...

The issue with incest is the power dynamic...parent, child relations even if they are engaged in at consensual ages seem like an abuse of power by the parent...I think Woody Allen's relationship with his adopted daughter whilst not being blood related and consumated at a consensual age is an abuse of power...the idea of consent is blurred imo...

Sibling relations wouldn't fit that mould and are more acceptable...

In history there have been many examples of siblings marrying each other...Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Japan the Inca's all had incidences of this...

Cousin marriages have been commonplace generally but now they are viewed as taboo in those same places where they were once prevalent...I find it interesting that Eastenders has a plotline involving cousins getting into a relationship atm...

Disgust with these things is linked to societal norms and expectations essentially...

Bestiality is also frequent in history as being socially acceptable in certain cultures...

With bestiality its issues are whether it is consensual...

There are many things people find disgusting but aren't necessarily wrong according to liberal principles...I remember being showed a viral video a few years ago that was disgusting...some of you may guess what it was...is it wrong?...or is it just a fetish/preference?...

Because if one is to work by liberal principles then surely these would just be classed as the latter...

 

[shaykh1985]

You want to discuss purely on objective basis? Same sex couples getting married does not affect my life in any way, and objectively there are no issue with it therefore it should be legal. I hope I have made myself clear. By comparing it to bestiality and incest, you only make yourself look foolish. Come back when there are millions of people who want to engage in bestiality and incest and want the legal right to get married.

Based on your opening sentence incest and bestiality shouldn't bother you either...they don't effect your life in any way either...

 

[KingKhanWC]

It's Gay extremism. These couples already have the freedom to openly be with each other and gain a civil partnership. This comes from those who knowingly want to reinterpret religious principles to suit their lifestyle. The so called Gay French mosque being a good example. In England the definition of marriage is a christian based partnership.

If there are any gay posters please explain why it's important to marry rather than just have a civil partnership? Can you be gay and still follow your religion?

 

[LegendsXI]

Ugh. I got a strong case of second-hand embarrassment after reading this. Please read a US history book.

The Republican Party during Lincoln's time was actually the more progressive party. By today's terminology, the Republicans would most likely be considered liberals, whereas the Democrats were more conservative.

It was meant to be sarcastic. The other guy mentioned that the conservatives were always on the wrong side of history, in reference to the issue of slavery. So i mentioned the role of the conservative and liberal parties, during the civil war. you guys should really understand the context.

 

[chaiwala]

It was meant to be sarcastic. The other guy mentioned that the conservatives were always on the wrong side of history, in reference to the issue of slavery. So i mentioned the role of the conservative and liberal parties, during the civil war. you guys should really understand the context.

Oh. I see. It was sarcasm. Gotcha

P.S. Concerning the Civil War, the conservatives were on the "wrong" side of history.

 

[cricketworm]

Marrying your relatives, yes even cousins have more potential/probability to carry hidden genetic diseases, compare to totally random marriage. And having multiple sex partners (official) also increases chance of diseases. But that doesn't stop people changing their cultural (religion allowed) habit, does it?

 

[LegendsXI]

Oh. I see. It was sarcasm. Gotcha

P.S. Concerning the Civil War, the conservatives were on the "wrong" side of history.

Thats another debate, who are the conservatives. Seems rather easy to brand the wrong side as conservatives, and the right ones liberal. For that particular post i think the poster wanted to develop the relation between the contemporary anti gay political party and its performance in the past. Facts on the other hand, show something else alltogether. Confusing why he would make such a point.

 

[Nitin Tomer]

All morally wrong.

For a vast majority worldwide, marrying first cousins is incestuous and morally wrong.

 

[GentleMan]

If they are allowed to form a relationship then they must be allowed to marry..there are reasons for that. mostly it is better to file tax returns as couple instead of as single person. if the law prohibits them to marry at least they must allow them to file taxes together. another reason is that everyone wants a wedding, because that becomes such a milestone in your life. so we cant deny the gays that right to have their wedding pictures taken. yet another reason is that it gives some kind of dignity to their relation..when you vow to be faithful to one another and you are declared man and man. so if it is legal for them to be in a civil union, then they must be allowed to marry.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't anticipate a great impact on British public life through gay marriage being legalised. Since 2004 we have offered civil partnerships (mostly the same thing) and same-sex adoption, and it's still the Britain it was before. You earlier mentioned the incidence of a younger person learning about the existence of homosexuals, well, in my view that will just make him a more open-minded and accepting person in later life. It won't 'turn' him gay, whatever that concept means.

Of course it's had an impact on British life. You now get TV shows which portray gay scenes openly whereas previously you didn't. It's not portrayed as explicitly as hetero relationships but I expect that will progress quite quickly as well. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is subjective to individual viewpoints.

It might make a 10 year old more accepting and open minded in later life. It might also cause confusion and difficult situations for a child being brought up by two dads while his peers have two normal parents. In my view it's a little unfair to put a kid in that situation but the way equal rights movements work, gay couple will demand the right to adopt children or use artificial insemination to produce them.

 

[James]

Jokes aside, what actually are people's opinions of woman-on-woman sex/relationships/civil-partnerships/marriage/child adoption?

I saw the Channel 4 documentary 'Gay Muslims' and the parents seemed to view male homosexuals in a much worse light than female homosexuals.

Is it to do with the sodomy aspect or something to do with the male identity?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Jokes aside, what actually are people's opinions of woman-on-woman sex/relationships/civil-partnerships/marriage/child adoption?

I saw the Channel 4 documentary 'Gay Muslims' and the parents seemed to view male homosexuals in a much worse light than female homosexuals.

Is it to do with the sodomy aspect or something to do with the male identity?

As far as parenting goes, obviously from a child's POV it would make life a lot easier to have a mother and a father, but of the two homosexual options personally speaking I'd be far less wary of a kid having two mothers than two fathers. It would just be a safer, more nurturing environment. That's not to say two dads couldn't do it, but on the whole a small child probably needs the mother more.

 

[Saudi]

As far as parenting goes, obviously from a child's POV it would make life a lot easier to have a mother and a father, but of the two homosexual options personally speaking I'd be far less wary of a kid having two mothers than two fathers. It would just be a safer, more nurturing environment. That's not to say two dads couldn't do it, but on the whole a small child probably needs the mother more.

You've neglected to mention a few more options regarding how children are brought up. Single parents/foster parents/orphanages.

And not that I'd know anything about parenting being in my early 20s but I don't agree when you say "from a child's POV it would make life a lot easier to have a mother and a father". Surely you'd have to look at the person or persons raising the child rather making blanket statements based purely on whether they are a heterosexual couple/homosexual or even a single parent. You can just as easily be raised in an abusive or uncaring environment even if you have a mummy and a daddy...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You've neglected to mention a few more options regarding how children are brought up. Single parents/foster parents/orphanages.

And not that I'd know anything about parenting being in my early 20s but I don't agree when you say "from a child's POV it would make life a lot easier to have a mother and a father". Surely you'd have to look at the person or persons raising the child rather making blanket statements based purely on whether they are a heterosexual couple/homosexual or even a single parent. You can just as easily be raised in an abusive or uncaring environment even if you have a mummy and a daddy...

I did specify that view was "personally speaking" (read it again) I'm not trying to give the impression that it's a universal truth, although I suspect it's probably shared by the majority. I also realise that there are single parents as well but the topic is about homosexuals so I was mainly addressing that.

My main concern would be the child in any case. Homosexual parents could be more caring than their heterosexual counterparts, that still wouldn't help the child if he/she got bullied or abused at school. Is it fair to put a child in that position at an age they might not be equipped to deal with it?

 

[Robert]

Jokes aside, what actually are people's opinions of woman-on-woman sex/relationships/civil-partnerships/marriage/child adoption?

A female work colleague of mine is in a civil partnership with a woman, so their little son has "two mummies". I'm all for it. Better to have two responsible gay women mothering a child than a 'straight' family where the father has gone AWOL or beats the mother and child.

The family unit holds society together, so the more stable families we have (of whatever kind) then the stronger society will be.

I saw the Channel 4 documentary 'Gay Muslims' and the parents seemed to view male homosexuals in a much worse light than female homosexuals.

Is it to do with the sodomy aspect or something to do with the male identity?

IMO, it's another expression of one-god patriarchy. Men cannot be allowed to be loving to each other, because then the patriarchal mind-set (domination, aggressive, vengeful) would be subverted by the gay men (co-operative, gentle, forgiving).

Women being loving to each other is not a threat to patriarchy because women are oppressed anyway, and lesbians will not be so oppressed as gay men.

 

[Yossarian]

Where the parent(s) are choosing to put their child up for adoption (and there are a myriad of reasons why they may wish/need to do that), can the parents have a say in the type of couple that they would be comfortable/uncomfortable with adopting their child? This may apply not only to gay couples but also couples from different ethnic or social backgrounds wishing to adopt.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Where the parent(s) are choosing to put their child up for adoption (and there are a myriad of reasons why they may wish/need to do that), can the parents have a say in the type of couple that they would be comfortable/uncomfortable with adopting their child? This may apply not only to gay couples but also couples from different ethnic or social backgrounds wishing to adopt.

More important than that for me, would the child have a say in it? We can psycho-analayse and rationalise about one God patriarchy but that's not going to be much use to an 8 year old who gets sniggered at in the schoolyard.

 

[Indiafan]

My main concern would be the child in any case. Homosexual parents could be more caring than their heterosexual counterparts, that still wouldn't help the child if he/she got bullied or abused at school. Is it fair to put a child in that position at an age they might not be equipped to deal with it?

But this can apply to a lot of reforms in history. Example, the black kids going to a mixed school in a just post civil war era. Wouldnt they have got bullied and abused by the white majority? But wasnt that the first step towards acceptance to the point that now we have majority of kids not getting bullied for their race? Should the parents of those black kids have not taken the first step in defence of their kids?

 

[Yossarian]

More important than that for me, would the child have a say in it? We can psycho-analayse and rationalise about one God patriarchy but that's not going to be much use to an 8 year old who gets sniggered at in the schoolyard.

I am thinking more in terms of a small child, perhaps only a few days/weeks/months old, where the question of the child having a say does not even come into it.
Does the parent(s) have/should have a say in the choice of the potentional adoptive parents?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But this can apply to a lot of reforms in history. Example, the black kids going to a mixed school in a just post civil war history. Wouldnt he have got bullied and abused by the white majority? But wasnt that the first step towards acceptance to the point that now we have majority of kids not getting bullied for their race?

I can see your point, but there is still a difference in that a black kid doesn't have a choice in his lineage, so he wouldn't hold it against them. Would a kid who got adopted by gay parents feel more resentment that he ended up in that situation?

 

[Saudi]

I can see your point, but there is still a difference in that a black kid doesn't have a choice in his lineage, so he wouldn't hold it against them. Would a kid who got adopted by gay parents feel more resentment that he ended up in that situation?

Its quite simple really. Steps like legalising gay marriage probably seek to "normalise" if you will these relationships amongst the general populace and hopefully go some way towards stopping bigoted attitudes that cause the bullying you speak of.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its quite simple really. Steps like legalising gay marriage probably seek to "normalise" if you will these relationships amongst the general populace and hopefully go some way towards stopping bigoted attitudes that cause the bullying you speak of.

That sounds like a plan, but like I said, these grand motives aren't going to be much consolation to an 8 year old who is the butt end of the jibes.

 

[Saudi]

That sounds like a plan, but like I said, these grand motives aren't going to be much consolation to an 8 year old who is the butt end of the jibes.

Nice wordplay there. I think you probably know that your "think of the children" argument is wearing a little thin. In any case Homosexual adoption is not even the topic of discussion here, that has been legalised well before this particular story broke. I haven't heard too many horror stories about bullying in the press anyways.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nice wordplay there. I think you probably know that your "think of the children" argument is wearing a little thin. In any case Homosexual adoption is not even the topic of discussion here, that has been legalised well before this particular story broke. I haven't heard too many horror stories about bullying in the press anyways.

I'm presenting another aspect to the equation, people are debating it, so I'm giving replies. Other than that it doesn't really concern me, when we adopt gay marriage in the UK I'll take it as another facet of life in this country.

 

[Yossarian]

In an earlier post I raised the question as to whether or not parent(s) wishing to give their child up for adoption have/should have a say in the choice of adoptive parents.

I have not been able to discover the answer vis-a-vis the regulations in the UK. however, I have found the following in relation the the States.

The Right to Chose the Adoptive Family

The birth mother usually has the right to meet the adoptive family before making a final decision about where to place her child. Even if she chooses not to meet them, she has the right to know their names, religion and other important information about them. She also has the right to ask questions about their background and lifestyle, and in some states she has the right to review their home study papers.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5403876_rights-birth-mother.html

Putting aside the issues that arise if the birth parents reject prospective parents based upon their ethnicity, religion or social status, what if the birth parents reject adoptive parents because they were a gay couple?

 

[Robert]

Where the parent(s) are choosing to put their child up for adoption (and there are a myriad of reasons why they may wish/need to do that), can the parents have a say in the type of couple that they would be comfortable/uncomfortable with adopting their child?

Not in the UK.

It is very difficult to adopt a child here, though. A white couple would have to overcome barriers to adoption of a black or brown child, for example. A couple of different races will face have similar problems. I think this is counterproductive to the health and wellbeing of the children. Better to have two loving adoptive parents of whatever race and gender than a ward of the State, surely.

 

[shaykh1985]

Not in the UK.

It is very difficult to adopt a child here, though. A white couple would have to overcome barriers to adoption of a black or brown child, for example. A couple of different races will face have similar problems. I think this is counterproductive to the health and wellbeing of the children. Better to have two loving adoptive parents of whatever race and gender than a ward of the State, surely.

Out of interest how does it work for mixed children and mixed couples?...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggested that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/sourcefiles/how-does-sexual-orientation-of-parents-matter.pdf(3.9 MB) .

In the 1997 book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development, Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, observed that 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship, compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers.

 

[LegendsXI]

In some cases yes...

The issue with incest is the power dynamic...parent, child relations even if they are engaged in at consensual ages seem like an abuse of power by the parent...I think Woody Allen's relationship with his adopted daughter whilst not being blood related and consumated at a consensual age is an abuse of power...the idea of consent is blurred imo...

Sibling relations wouldn't fit that mould and are more acceptable...

In history there have been many examples of siblings marrying each other...Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Japan the Inca's all had incidences of this...

Cousin marriages have been commonplace generally but now they are viewed as taboo in those same places where they were once prevalent...I find it interesting that Eastenders has a plotline involving cousins getting into a relationship atm...

Disgust with these things is linked to societal norms and expectations essentially...

Bestiality is also frequent in history as being socially acceptable in certain cultures...

With bestiality its issues are whether it is consensual...

There are many things people find disgusting but aren't necessarily wrong according to liberal principles...I remember being showed a viral video a few years ago that was disgusting...some of you may guess what it was...is it wrong?...or is it just a fetish/preference?...

Because if one is to work by liberal principles then surely these would just be classed as the latter...

Agreed.

I t can be further debated on a case by case scenario, but in principle you cant do much if consenting adults make a conscious decision.

 

[Yossarian]

Not in the UK.

It is very difficult to adopt a child here, though. A white couple would have to overcome barriers to adoption of a black or brown child, for example. A couple of different races will face have similar problems. I think this is counterproductive to the health and wellbeing of the children. Better to have two loving adoptive parents of whatever race and gender than a ward of the State, surely.

In other words ethnicity of the prospective adoptive parents may be/would be a consideration whether or not the couple is allowed to adopt that child, but not their genders or sexual orientation ? Or have I misunderstood?

 

[the SHA]

Very disappointing to learn about the voting choices of apparently Muslim MPs. Why are they afraid to vote according to their real views and beliefs? Are they embarrassed by Islam's clear stance on homosexuality?

They were voted into office by their constituents for who they were and what they stood for. Why are they trying to behave like people they are not? Who are they trying to please and for what gain? Whats the price of selling out your principles?

This was a free vote. Party Whips did not pressurise any MP to vote in a particular way (unlike for example the War on Iraq). Yet most Muslim MPs voluntarily voted Yes for something immoral. Quite sad really.


"You are indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for [the good of] mankind: you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God"

- Qur'an, 3:110

 

[James]

Hmm like you say maybe 'Muslim MPs' are looking out for the views of their constituents, who at the end of the day are the people who granted them a salary to represent their views. Or maybe these MPs just have a different view to yourself. Who knows fella.

 

[shaykh1985]

Very disappointing to learn about the voting choices of apparently Muslim MPs. Why are they afraid to vote according to their real views and beliefs? Are they embarrassed by Islam's clear stance on homosexuality?

They were voted into office by their constituents for who they were and what they stood for. Why are they trying to behave like people they are not? Who are they trying to please and for what gain? Whats the price of selling out your principles?

This was a free vote. Party Whips did not pressurise any MP to vote in a particular way (unlike for example the War on Iraq). Yet most Muslim MPs voluntarily voted Yes for something immoral. Quite sad really.


"You are indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for [the good of] mankind: you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God"

- Qur'an, 3:110

Are they Muslim MP's or MP's that are Muslim?...theres a big fuss over the way they voted as though they have done the Muslim community a massive disservice...but they aren't representing Muslims solely now are they?...Muslims aren't their only constituents...

Its like black people who moan about Obama doing nothing for them specifically...on what basis is he supposed to?...

And in fairness you don't really know what their real views are...whilst their voting position contradicts Islamic tenets they may in fact be their own views...

 

[the SHA]

Are they Muslim MP's or MP's that are Muslim?...theres a big fuss over the way they voted as though they have done the Muslim community a massive disservice...but they aren't representing Muslims solely now are they?...Muslims aren't their only constituents...

Its like black people who moan about Obama doing nothing for them specifically...on what basis is he supposed to?...

And in fairness you don't really know what their real views are...whilst their voting position contradicts Islamic tenets they may in fact be their own views...

Well thats always a dilemma for anyone who subscribes to any religion who has a profession. Are they Muslim / Christian / Jew / Hindu 1st, then Doctor / Soldier / Politician 2nd? If they take religion seriously enough to openly ascribe themselves to it, then its likely that such an order of priority will be followed. This would then in most cases steer their professional choices, day to day. Not saying that they wouldnt make compromises, but on big issues you're unlikely to see that, as you're unlikely to see a Jewish soldier take fire at another.

You're spot on about the fact that I dont know what these Muslim MPs views really are. But what I do know is that this issue is pretty clear cut and uncompromisable, save in severe circumstances (e.g. risk of death). And I also know for a fact that some of these MPs happily benefit from the support of Muslims, constituents and lobbyists alike, by publically demonstrating their affinity and belonging to Islam and Team Ummah. You cant have it both ways (no pun intended!)

 

[James]

MPs have an important job to do and get paid almost 70 thousand pounds a year to do it. In the face of this your personal opinions are quite irrelevant.

 

[MattyB]

Very disappointing to learn about the voting choices of apparently Muslim MPs. Why are they afraid to vote according to their real views and beliefs? Are they embarrassed by Islam's clear stance on homosexuality?

They were voted into office by their constituents for who they were and what they stood for. Why are they trying to behave like people they are not? Who are they trying to please and for what gain? Whats the price of selling out your principles?

This was a free vote. Party Whips did not pressurise any MP to vote in a particular way (unlike for example the War on Iraq). Yet most Muslim MPs voluntarily voted Yes for something immoral. Quite sad really.


"You are indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for [the good of] mankind: you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God"

- Qur'an, 3:110

MPs do not represent themselves, they represent the people who vote for them. MPs voting contrary to their own beliefs is a sign of Democracy at work therefore the Muslim MPs(And Christian MPs as Christianity has the same view on Homosexuality) should be praised not criticised for voting in favour of gay marriage.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The MP's are doing their job representing their constituents, and in any case, even if they were their own private views then they are entitled to them. This is life in Britain, what's the point in being here if you don't accept how things work here?

In any case, when gay marriage is legalised, there's no gun pointed at anyone's head to say you have to approve it personally. If my kid asks me my advice I would give it and then it's up to them what they think after that.

 

[TAK]

Very disappointing to learn about the voting choices of apparently Muslim MPs. Why are they afraid to vote according to their real views and beliefs?

how do you know what their real views are?

 

[Gabbar Singh]

The Tories are self destructing over the issue of gay marriage lol.

Rightwing Tory rebels call on peers to reject gay marriage bill

Opponents of bill say peers have every right to oppose it because it was not in coalition agreement or any party manifesto




Conservative opponents of gay marriage have invited the House of Lords to reject the bill after 133 Tory MPs, including two cabinet ministers, defied David Cameron to vote against the measure.

As a Tory grassroots organisation warned of a "civil war in conservatism", prompted in part by the legislation, more than half of the Conservative parliamentary party voted against the bill after one ministerial aide complained of a "sham consultation" process.

Owen Paterson, the environment secretary, David Jones, the Wales secretary, and the prime minister's "envoy" to the right, John Hayes, led a group of ministers who formed a 133-strong bloc of Tory MPs who voted against the bill. A further two Tories acted as tellers for the opponents, whose numbers fell from the 135 no votes at the second reading in February. But the opponents were more numerous than the 126 Tory MPs who voted in favour of the bill, which was given a third reading by 366 to 161, a majority of 205.

The vote came after David Burrowes, the Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate, who is Paterson's parliamentary private secretary, said that peers had every right to oppose the bill because it was not included in the coalition agreement and was not promoted clearly in any of the party election manifestos.

His comments came after Peter Bone, the Conservative MP for Wellingborough, said: "The unusual position we have is none of the political parties put this in their manifesto. Would [you] agree that [the House of Lords] has the complete legitimacy to reject this bill because there is no Salisbury Convention?" This says that peers cannot reject legislation pledged in a winning election manifesto.

Burrowes said: "I am grateful. Certainly the other place is looking in great detail at the way we have handled this bill." He added: "We are in an extraordinary position on the third reading of a bill which redefines marriage, one that I never thought our government would have done, one where there was no clear manifesto commitment, no coalition agreement, no green paper – just a sham consultation."

The MP said he feared for people who feel uncomfortable about the bill. "Intolerant reaction to our belief in marriage runs the risk of becoming fomented by the state orthodoxy in this bill about this new gender neutral meaning of marriage. Those who disagree risk vilification and discrimination and they won't get the protection they deserve under the equality act."

But other Tories spoke in favour of the bill. Charles Walker, the MP for Broxtowe, said: "I didn't come into politics to be defined by what I am against. I want to be defined by what I am for. And tonight is a good night."

The bill moved to a third reading after a final threat was removed when Labour withdrew its support for an amendment to allow humanist wedding ceremonies to be included in the bill's provisions. The government had warned this could over-complicate the bill and threaten its parliamentary journey. It was a similar warning that prompted Labour on Monday to drop its support for an amendment that would have extended civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

In her concluding remarks the equalities minister, Maria Miller, pleaded with MPs to support the bill. She said: "I accept that for some colleagues their beliefs mean that the principle of this issue is an insurmountable barrier to supporting this change. But to other colleagues I say, now is the time.

"Let us not be side-tracked nor distracted. Let us not expand the remit of this bill beyond its original intention. Let us make equal marriage possible because it is the right thing to do and then let us move on."

But Tory divisions were highlighted as it emerged that the arch-Eurosceptic John Redwood is to be given a formal role in helping to formulate the prime minister's economic policy. Downing Street has decided that a series of policy groups run by the backbench 1922 committee should report to the prime minister's policy board. This means that Redwood, who chairs the 1922 economic committee and who unsuccessfully challenged John Major for the Tory leadership in 2005 over Europe, will have a formal input into the prime minister's policy board on economics.

One rightwinger praised Downing Street for deciding to include the 1922 policy groups in its work. The MP said: "Credit where credit is due. Downing Street is trying hard to reach out. It really is time to end the Tory civil wars. We can't stop gay marriage, we have got a referendum on the EU so we should just get on with it and support the prime minister."

But the Conservative Grassroots organisation warned that Cameron would pay a high price for pressing ahead with gay marriage and for refusing to launch an investigation into the remarks by the Tory co-chairman, Lord Feldman, who was alleged to have called party activists "mad swivel-eyed loons".

Feldman has strenuously denied making the remarks.

Miles Windsor, chairman of Conservative Grassroots, said: "This week has begun a civil war in conservatism, it may rumble on for years – but as things stand, Nigel Farage is winning it at a stride."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/21/peers-asked-to-reject-gay-marriage-bill

Gay marriage bill may lead to 'lesbian queen and artificially inseminated heir'

Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit also warns that legislation could allow him to marry his son to escape inheritance tax




The determination of David Cameron to press ahead with legalising gay marriage opens up the possibility of a lesbian queen giving birth to a future monarch by artificial insemination, Lord Tebbit has warned.

In one of his more outspoken interventions, the former Conservative party chairman told the Big Issue magazine that the legislation could also allow him to marry his son to escape inheritance tax.

Tebbit's remarks indicate that the marriage (same sex couples) bill will have a bumpy ride when it reaches the House of Lords.

Tebbit, who said that ministers have "****ed up" by alienating Tory grassroots, accused Downing Street of forcing through the legislation with little thought.

"The government discussed it for 20 minutes on the morning of its announcement," he told the Big Issue. "They'd done no work on it beforehand."

Tebbit also said he had challenged a minister about legalising gay marriage at the same time as ending male primogeniture in the royal succession.

"I said to a minister I know: have you thought this through? Because you're doing the law of succession, too.

"When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?"

Tebbit joked that the change could allow parents to marry their children as a way of avoiding inheritance tax. "It's like one of my colleagues said: we've got to make these same sex marriages available to all. It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn't a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each other?"

Lord Tebbit, who recently said he could understand why many people vote Ukip, said the party would attract greater financial support if they won the European parliamentary elections next year. He said: "If they make significant gains in the European elections, I know there's people rich enough to get involved and fund a significant campaign at a general election."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen

 

[Space Cat]

Gay Marriage was made legal here in NZ about a month ago. All sorts of people were crying about being the end of civilization as we know it.

Literally nothing is different.

 

[James]

So the bill is on the verge of passing through; good to see.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

One of first Muslim same-sex marriages takes place in UK
'We're going to show the whole world that you can be gay and Muslim'

A newly married couple are hoping “to show the whole world that you can be gay and Muslim” after their wedding in the West Midlands.

Jahed Choudhury and Sean Rogan married in Walsall, in one of the UK’s first same-sex marriages involving a Muslim partner.

Footage showed the couple dressed in traditional Bangladeshi attire to say their vows while surrounded by loved ones at the town’s registry office.

Mr Choudhury, 24, told the Express and Star he felt like the “black sheep” of his Bangladeshi Muslim family, being bullied at school, attacked by other Muslims and banned from his local mosque.

He said he attempted to change his sexual orientation and went on religious pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh but became suicidal and attempted to kill himself before meeting Mr Rogan.

They started living together in 2015 and Mr Choudhury proposed on his husband’s birthday last year.

Mr Choudhury said: “This is about showing people I don't care, my family doesn't want to come on the day, they just don't want to see it, it's too embarrassing for them.

“They think it's a disease and can be cured, some of my family still call it a phase.

“I want to say to all people going through the same thing that's it's okay – we're going to show the whole world that you can be gay and Muslim.”

Mr Rogan, 19, told the Express and Star he would stand by his husband “every step of the way”.

“Being gay’s not wrong, it’s not ‘a phase’,” he added. “People just need a bit of support.”

A spokesperson for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the religion of spouses was not routinely recorded at non-religious ceremonies.

The number of same-sex religious marriages recorded in 2014, the most recent year of available data, was too small for a breakdown to be made available.

The Muslim Council of Britain, which represents more than 500 organisations and mosques, was among the religious bodies including the Church of England opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage in England and Wales in 2013.

Equal marriage was later legalised in Scotland but remains illegal in Northern Ireland, where campaigners are demanding change amid concern over the alliance between the Government and Democratic Unionist Party.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...xual-jahed-choudhury-sean-rogan-a7835036.html

 

[James]

4 years into same-sex marriages in Britain and society has not collapsed just yet!

 

[KingKhanWC]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...xual-jahed-choudhury-sean-rogan-a7835036.html

Good luck to them but I dont understand why they have to be so victorious about their wedding. This is the UK and its not against the law, almost all Muslims won't care. Go to a Muslim country if you want to make change.