why is the thought of homosexual marriages so controversial that planned laws lead into endless fuss amongst people? Where is the threat? What is endangered? Which beliefs are hurt? What is the original sense of marriage, leaving religion aside?
Nono, I won't join the judge - I want to debate myself, Rince <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> - as I really don't understand why this topic is so controversial.
My thoughts starting with the original sense of marriage as I see it: 1. IMO it was originally a mere bond, meant to care for each other and the young ones (food, shelter, protection etc.) 2. To make if more official and not back off from this mutual promise, this bond was then made "legal" by going to authorities (clan leader,later on religious authority, as society advanced, legal authority). 3. (Old and new) Authorities announced rules (laws) as how this bond had to be filled - taxes, rent, birth rights (all laws dealing matrimony). Thus protecting this kind of bond and the outcome (possession, kids, name etc.)
If I take my 3 pts and look at homosexual/lesbian marriages => I see no difference. 2 get together and agree to bond, care for each other, share their money, responsibility for their kids from former marriages - or from their single life as Mom/Dad. They have advantages by pension, taxes, can be heirs. I you simply agree to live together, the law standard is different, they don't have the same rights as a married couple and this leads to problems (what happens to the kids if one partner dies? What about their possessions?)
Threat => hm, difficult for me to see, but we had these issues here in Germany a few yrs ago until marriage became legal. The conservative parties argued with => our constitution put the family under a special protection and they saw this protection endangered (I failed to see that).
Hurt beliefs => "laws" from religion, as this kind of staying together was/is considered "unnatural". Maybe because reproduction was only possible if the gender is male/female - not male/male or female/female. But due to in-vitro-fertilisation, former marriages where kids are there, adoption etc. this thinking has outlived itself IMO.
Maybe because there is seen harm for the kids if they grow up in an environment where Mom/Dad are not of the opposite gender. (Old traditional way of gender role IMO).
Maybe because sexual preference is still seen in a strictly reproducal way (hm, religion again?) - science has advanced. Society as well. There are so many patchwork families (you know this expression? It's common in Germany => 2 marry and bring in their children from former marriages).
So, the problems society has (in some countries) is this IMO => marriage and the advantages you have due to the laws is still seen under a conservative, traditional way. Pity. I think, if 2 get together and want to share their responsibility, care for each other, share and make that "legal", because they feel an inner bond, society should respect that the same way for all gender combos. Kiya
Might be a bit abstract as I see it - but IMO the point I want to make is => why should gender determine who may marry or not? A family is a family IMO, parental care is not restricted to gender only, but should be seen more in a social way => producing kids is a biological thingie - but parents include more => the social responsibility. So, 2 males or 2 females can do this the same way as the usual combo. If 2 think, they belong together and want to show it by marriage => why not?
