Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Re: how can religion deny LEGAL rights to gay people?

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 04:19:32 +0100

The idea that homosexuality is in essence a sin is not shared by all believers. I made a comment on the original topic to this nature...

I understand the idea of wanting to have a child that is raised by a representative of both genders, but at this stage in human evolution I think that is becoming less relevant once the child is no-longer breastfeeding... A truly loving family will provide a good home regardless of the sex of the parents... and it might teach the kids more about tolerance when they are older...

Comment on: Re: how can religion deny LEGAL rights to gay people?

Bigthink — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:15:55 +0100

The religious do a poor job of defending their position on this issue. I think non-religious people think of the concept of sin as fairy tale or superstition, but many thoughtful religious feel sin is based on disruption of a natural order. It may lie beyond what science and psychology have studied as of this date. You don't have to be intellectual to subscribe to it, so the religious don't tend to go there. They can certainly get emotional.

My observation is that all of us discussing this issue were raised in a world with a heterosexual ideal, but I have always felt that once "gay is okay," then who would ever choose a heterosexual marriage?? I think it is much easier for many people to get along with someone of the same gender! (It is for me) Do I remember someone saying ancient Greece (or one of those old civilizations) fell after embracing homosexuality? Sorry, I am not a historian. Well, let's imagine how children would be claimed, assigned to caretakers, and whatnot, if masses of people married one of their own gender? Remember, historically, marriage was always a duty, implying a sacrifice... maybe there is some wisdom there that we have lost track of... Maybe it is appropriate to be alarmed...even emotional. because of what may follow in society.

There are people alive today who still remember when having a single parent was considered a tragedy... for both the parent and the child. Are we so out of touch with an ideal natural order that what once were rights have now become luxuries? By the way...in the US they have generally replaced orphanages with foster care... and anyway, we might want to aim for an IDEAL, even when reality differs...

PLEASE NOTE: If you are reading this conversation, the comments are building upon each other, so you may find It helpful to read the bottom one first. The discussion will make more sense in the order the comments were submitted.

Comment on: Re: how can religion deny LEGAL rights to gay people?

Bigthink — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:15:37 +0100

Comment on: Re: how can religion deny LEGAL rights to gay people?

Bigthink — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:59:36 +0100

Some people who are barren know from the start. Some men/women know they will never be able to have children (testicular/ovarian cancer is one example), should they be unable to marry?

The most interesting point you made is "don't children have a right to have parents of each gender?". I dont think that is a right, it is a luxury. With the increasing number of single parents it is becoming a rarer luxury, but it is one that I'm sure most want for their children. But i dont think it is a right.

What should be a right for children is to have loving parents or parent. Unfortunately some are not even granted this. I think it would be better for a child to have two loving parents of the same gender than have a loving mother and an abusive father or a distant drug addicted mother and no father. The focus should be on the kids, but having two loving parents of the same sex is far from the worst situation a child can be raised in these days. Plus keep a child in an orphanage while their is a gay couple who wants them? Children who are up for adoption have no parents, why continue that situation because the adopters are gay?

I would also say that you shouldn't attribute arguments to the religious that they aren't making. They aren't saying that same sex marriages should not be legal because children deserve a parent of each sex, but because they consider homosexuality a "sin" and think a gay marriage a preversion. Their arguements are often far less couth then yours.

Comment on: Re: how can religion deny LEGAL rights to gay people?

Bigthink — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:44:24 +0100

The barren couple does not know they are barren until they are in the thick of it. They may have trouble for years, then conceive. Those who want no children may later reconsider, or conceive accidentally. The point is there is no fundamental parity (ie, equality) between the heterosexual union and the gay union since gays ALWAYS have to go outside the partnership for children. Religion can't wish away this fact and many see granting gay marriage to be supporting mere sentimentality with special tax breaks and health benefits. When gays want to become parents, THAT is when the tax breaks and health benefits start to make sense. However, don't children have a right to a parent of each gender? For example, is it consistent to bemoan absent fathers after a divorce, but say okay when children miss out on that fundamental intimate relationship right from the start? Remember, the whole structure of marriage as originally designed is for the good of children. Religious people can't give in if they feel this is what a child needs.

Comment on: Re: how can religion deny LEGAL rights to gay people?

Bigthink — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:22:49 +0100

The idea of marriage, or of monogamous relationships, can be shown to be an evolutionary adaptation. Those males who stayed to help their wife during the long pregnancy and helped raise their child would produce a more fit offspring than if the male left in order to attempt to produce more offspring with other women. it is a quality vs quantity battle. Both have advantages, but since humans are so vunerable for so long as children, two parents produce children more likely to reproduce themselves.

The legal standpoint on marriage, however, has little to do with this. The legal benifits granted by marriage are tax breaks and healthcare benifits extended to the spouse, among others listed in the initial idea. Should gay couples be unable to get such benifits because their union will not produce children? What of barren heterosexual couples? What of gay parents who want to adopt? The definition of marriage may have developed a religious context of a union between a man and a woman, but legally it is just a union of two people that grants legal benifits. I dont think homosexuals should be denied marriage, and a "seperate but equal" standpoint such as civil unions is bound to lead to equality issues. I think the religious need to bite the bullett on this one. Same sex couples dont need to be married in the eyes of the church as long as they are in the eyes of the law.