22BUK

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Britain's most senior Catholic, sets out his opposition to the Government's plans to legalise gay marriage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9...s-madness.html

Your thoughts?

lozgti1

Will mothers day become a thing of the past?! And father's day?!

In fact ,who's going to do all the fathering and also giving birth? Some secret naughty in the closet heterosexuals??! Filth!

I gave up thinking years ago gotta go with the flow

Hanley

Couldn't give 2 ***** to be honest.

As long as they leave me alone, good luck to them.

Chip

Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. Enough said.

tony de wonderful

That is what it does by implication. Enables the state to exclude at least one biological parents from a child's life, not in the name of the well being of the child, but for the happiness of a 'gay couple'.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

No probs with gay marriage, don't agree with the adopting of kids &/or "creating" kids for that gay marriage ... you chose a relationship where it's not biologicaly possible to have children so just deal with it. Not a good place for kids to grow up imho.

TX.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

It does seem to be open season on religon lately and these liberalists can say what they want, Dare voice concerns over homosexual marriage though and you get shot down in flames.

David Lock

Good on the Cardinal for putting his head above the parapet

But he should also encourage straight clergy to marry and be normal family folk.

dl

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

+1 I might not agree with the Catholic church's view on this issue, but they're entitled to a view and at least they're being transparent about it!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

The Catholic Chruch should keep their mouths shut given their recent history in matters of a sexual nature, but no doubt they'll garner some support amiog the SN homophobic crowd!

Dingdongler

I agree with gay marriages. I don't see why gheyers shouldn't suffer like the rest of us poor sods

DYK

EddScott

Not bothered too much on gay marriage but I don't agree they should be allowed to adopt.

I know it's not a PC opinion but its what I think. A child should have a mum and a dad not a dad and a dad.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

LOL

Reminds me of the Jimmy Carr joke.

I don't like the idea of Gay marriages as some of them will end in divorce and that'll be bitchy!

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

It doesn't matter if it is PC or not, you are as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. Personally, I'm not so sure it is all that bad. Given the fact that many straight 'families' seem to have kids as an extra income, I would prefer to see them raised by people who genuinely wanted them. As a gay couple, it isn't going to be an easy process to adopt, so I feel if nothing else, to go through such a process shows a real desire to have children and in all likelihood the couple would do their very best to raise that child in a loving and caring environment. I would like to think, gay or straight, most people who adopt (or find a surrogate) really want to give a child a good life and I would far rather a life that may not be so conventional, over one where parents couldn't give a **** as their kids are just a means to an end. If I had to make such a choice.

Turbohot

There are gay couples who make sure that their adopted/manufactured children recognise their other biological parent. I once had a gay work colleague who put an advert in the paper to hire her future children's dad. Once hired, she got preganant by artifcal insemination and had two babies. She and her female partner made sure that their children kept in regular touch with their biological dad. dad performed all the duties for the kids e.g. taking them to school, babysitting while mums were at work etc. So basically, the children have two mums and one dad. It has been working for them for last 18 years or so. I hear that the ladies are now married to each other.

Beef

If a gay couple adopt a child, at least you know they wanted the child and it wasn't just an 'accident'.

There's plenty of kids who could do with a loving home, and as open-minded a relationship as a homosexual one has to be strikes me as a great environment to raise children.

Mind you, given the apparent necessity for 'normal' couples to inflict their own genetics on the world in spite of the many children available for adoption shows the lack of rationality in such matters.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

My inclination is that children should first and foremost have a couple that love each other and them, and are properly invested in the role of parent! Get that bit right and the sexuality of the parents is an issue that can be worked around. Being a child from a hetrosexual parental couple is by no means an assured way of getting decent parents and being brought up without issues!!

I'd personally rather see a child brought up by a functional gay couple than a dysfunctional hetro couple! All other things being equal, I don't think one scenario is better/worse in terms of generating issues, but rather that the issues generated will be different!

Parents: they f*ck you up. as the saying goes!

The Zohan

Agreed!

You have to look at the real motivation behind this as well, Catholic Church promotes heterosexual marriage and also no birth control - leading to more little Catholics who grow up to be parents themselves perpetuating the following/congregations. Homosexual marriage is hardly doing this is it! In addition this policy is practised all over the world in some of the poorest parts where people who cannot afford to support, feed, cloth themselves, let aloe children and have little if not access to healthcare are actively encouraged to have kids - hardly putting the best interests of the poor people or their children at the heart of things...

Leslie

I don't think that religion should be part of this question anyway.

What is the original purpose of a marriage anyway? I think it means that a couple should commit themselves to a lasting partnership and that means through all of life's difficulties which tend to appear as time passes.

This is so important when it comes to having children. It is an accepted fact that the ideal upbringing for a child is by a father and a mother to get a better balance of life as they grow up. The other side of course is stability in the marital relationship and that is also extremely important to the children of that marriage. Marriage splits are never good for children to experience. Playing the field outside the marriage will always weaken the relationship too.

The point is, the really important part of a marriage is the welfare and the upbringing of the children. When it comes to any difficulties in the marriage, the parents should consider how their children are affected above themselves. The basic requirements of marriage are for their protection.

If same sex couples wish to live together, that should be entirely their affair. It has worked well enough in the past anyway. I personally don't think that is the right situation to bring up a child in though.

I also dont see why they should have a specific marriage ceremony in order to achieve the advantages of a heterosexual marriage which are designed to aid in bringing up children after all.

Les

Beef

It used to be an 'accepted fact' that the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth - the reality is that there is insufficient data to be certain which is the better approach. As it stands people are against it because they think that homosexual couples won't be good for children - but what is the evidence that this is actually so?

In addition, is there an underlying fear that a homosexual couple will be 'better' at raising children than a heterosexual one?

Is the marriage ceremony really designed to aid in bringing up children, or is it a way of staking a 'claim' on a person such that they are 'yours' and no-one else can have them?

Leslie

I think you are casting about trying to find reasons for disagreement.

It has been stated often enough that children do better under the balanced guidance of a father and a mother.

Marriage is all part of living in a society which has the effect of helping a country's people to live in some sort of harmony. To achieve that it has certain rules and expectations as well as a requirement for a form of discipline. Certain animals too have a society for those which tend to live in groups.

If all ideas of such a way of life were thrown out of the window then the world would soon deteriorate into an impossible situation.

Heterosexual marriage is a very strong part of society and its maintainance. We are also already seeing unfortunate instances of moral degradation which can be directly blamed on the weakening of standards in modern life. It would be a mistake to further the undermining of moral thinking. As I said above, if people want to live together in a homosexual partnership, that is up to them, let them get on with it, as has always been the case. Its not necessary to make a big fuss about it any more than one would about a heterosexual partnership. I dont think they should expect any special favours though.

Les

Beef

Isn't that the idea in a debate? If it helps, I'm not having to do much searching to find reasons to disagree with you - it's all coming quite easily.

Just because it's stated does not make it so. Until there are more same-sex parents I cannot see how it's possible to know for sure whether the gender of the parents makes any difference.

There is no suggestion of throwing 'all' ideas of a way of life out of the window - just one.

That reads as though you feel that anything other than heterosexual marriage is causing 'moral degradation', 'weakening of standards' and 'undermining of moral thinking'. I can only assume that's not what you think due to...

They're not expecting special favours - on the contrary, they wish to live life in the same way as heterosexual couples; namely get married (to show a commitment) and raise children. As I mentioned before, there are a number of children who would benefit from adoption by loving parents - why should we discriminate against same-sex couples without any evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are 'worse off'?

Now if you really want to mess things up, what about the concept of polyamorous parents with three (or more) adults raising children? If the relationship is stable, and there's no reason to see why they couldn't be (harder maybe, impossible no), then how would that fit in the framework of heterosexual-only marriages you describe?

tony de wonderful

Well first of all I would question what you mean by desire? I am not sure gay people have the instinct to have children or they would be having sex within a heterosexual relationship. If by desire you mean like an object-desire to have an nice new Range Rover (or Porsche ) or a desire for a new 40" plasma TV then sure.

Having said that it is probably better for a child to be with two well balanced gay people as their gaurdians than stuck in an orphanage. I find that the only justifiable argument for gay parenting on balance. The idea of gay surrogacy, or buying babies etc where for the gay couple to have a child, the child must lose at least on biological parents seems to me a difficult moral question....it is possibly putting happiness of the gay couple above the needs of the child.

tony de wonderful

Why the need for commitment in gay marriage?

It is pretty obvious that traditional matrimony (which stresses monogomany) is a deployment which curbs the male instinct to bang anything that moves , and so ensure the pregnant woman (or women and children) are not discarded when the next piece of hot toty comes along . For a man to stray outside the relationship and impregnate another woman might also mean his is financially responsible for them in a civilised society and this again is bad for the woman. On the other side if the women is not showing fidelity the man might end up raising some other mans children.

But for gay relationships it is 100% irrelevant from this POV as gays can never make each other pregnant.

Beef

For some it's the act of pledging commitment to each other that matters; and this is true regardless of your orientation.

If children are the only reason to get married, then does that mean heterosexual couples that either don't want to or can't have children shouldn't be allowed to get married?

tony de wonderful

I offered an explanation of matrimony, you just are repeating an observable fact.


No I never said that it was the only reason, but that is one explanation of why it developed; that it protects women and children.

hodgy0_2

what does that mean? being a bit skreechy and jumping about with flappy hands


or do you just mean parenting by gay people

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

TDW just spotted out protesting!

tony de wonderful

Do you use the term gay marriage?