Gay marriages bill approved

[Claymore]

I must say that I am glad that same-sex marriages have been called 'civil-unions' - not to discriminate, but marriage to me will always be between the opposite sexes ...

As I understand it, there will be same-sex marriages as well as same-sex civil unions (marriage and civil union are not the same thing).

The only thing I just thought of is does this bill give same-sex couples the right to adopt children?

They can already - my sister and her girlfriend are in the process of adoption, and I think they'll make fantastic parents.


I think it's all a great step forward for equality in SA.

 

[noxibox]

What is a civil union vs a marriage?

Or is it civil marriage vs religious marriage? Not that long ago purely religious marriages, without the necessary legal paperwork, were not actually recognised as marriages by the courts.

 

[ajax]

This is a huge step backwards.
More children will now suffer the negative effects of not growing up with a mom and a dad - a mom and dad is needed to build the bonding between men and women, to build a healthy masculine identity and to help children grow into sexually responsible adults.

Gay men's commitments ("marriage") for example don't last long. A study of gay men in the Netherlands published in the AIDS journal of 2003 found that the average length of committed relationships lasted about 2 years. In addition, gay men in "marriage" had an average of 8 sexual partners in a year.

So then, if gay marriage is ok, then society will no longer regard marriage as a sexually exclusive, faithful relationship.
We will have even more STD's, hearts broken, abortions, etc.

There goes the neighbourhood.

 

[chiskop]

How will this lead to more children "not growing up with a mom and a dad"? A small number of children they are currently parentless might now be adopted, and surely two dads|moms is better than none? (Don't answer)

And how this will lead to more abortions?????

Wake up, this does not affect you if you are not gay.

If you are gay, this gives you all the rights the heterosexuals enjoy in terms of marriage.

 

[SlickNick]

This is very good news.. finally!

As for the people against the adoption of children by same sex couples... would you just please grow up! At least there is someone out there who wants to care for a child or children! Don't go and stick your noses where they don't belong. If you think you have the childrens best intrests at heart then why don't you go adopt them and give them a family hey? Two of the same is better than none.

 

[Raithlin]

Wake up, this does not affect you if you are not gay.

Wrong.

In Canada (where the fight is far advanced compared to SA), there is a distinct agenda against marriage (as an institution) in total. This was the first step. Read the post in the url below (excerpt quoted) for an excellent read in this respect. It gives on a basic idea of what may well happen (the post was written in Nov 2000, talking about the situation in North America at the time).

Interesting post

Only 36% of children born to cohabiting parents are still looked after by both parents - even if they eventually marry - by the time the children are
16, compared with 70% of children born to married couples.

Generally speaking, children suffer permanent disadvantage if their parents
aren't together while they grow up. Of course some such children emerge
relatively unscathed; but to tell the public that other types of family are
just as successful for children as married parents is simply a lie.

Ministers delude themselves if they imagine they can have a value-neutral
family policy. Pushing this doctrine of family equivalence makes it more
likely that more families will fragment. It makes marriage increasingly
meaningless, thus closing it off as an option for those who really do want
security and the best outcomes for themselves and their children.

Far from protecting freedom, it is actually a direct assault on marriage and
thus on people's freedom to enjoy its benefits. Indeed, value-neutrality has
imposed a financial penalty on marriage for years, with Gordon Brown's
so-called childcare strategy now loading the dice against marriage even
more.

Marriage is a unique institution in which the state has a stake, because if
marriages fail the state has to pick up the pieces. Value-neutral family
policy means expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill for behaviour that may
be ignorant or unwise, such as elective lone parenthood or cohabitation.
This government is constantly telling people to live more responsibly - not
to smoke, not to get pregnant in teenage years, not to be idle, not to let
children truant. Yet when it comes to marriage, it gets a fit of the
vapours.

The anti-marriage lobby claims that promoting marriage would stigmatise the
children of unmarried parents. Well, children whose parents are convicted of
crime feel stigmatised. Does anyone suggest that therefore criminal offences
should be abolished?

The real misery for children in fragmented families is that they are
fatherless. Often, their most powerful wish is never to do to their own
children what has been done to them. Yet if nobody tells them why marriage
is so important, and why it's in the best interests of everyone, they will
indeed do the same to their own children.

Note: This is a very touchy subject to discuss - as are all subjects with their roots in religion and/or politics. I can only try to present the facts in an unbiased manner, but my beliefs will eventually surface, given enough debate.

[EDIT]
While it appears at first glance that this has nothing to do with same-sex marriages, the full post does talk about it - and the fact that it is used as a stepping stone to abolish marriage entirely.

1. Same-sex marriages made legal (why say a man to a woman?)
2. Poligamist marriages made legal (same premise as above. Why should it say a person to a person?)
3. Civil unions take effect (Why marry? Why can't co-habitors (living together) have same benefits?)
End result - marriage is nullified (made pointless) by law. Will this affect you if you are not gay? A resounding YES.
[/EDIT]

 

[supersunbird]

Yeah, as if a lot of the gays dont come out of homes with heterosexual married parents, the kid will like who he likes, no matter if he has two daddies or mommies or a mommie and daddie...

 

[SlickNick]

@ Raithlin. It is interesting and all, but on the whole it kind of "feels" like a conspiracy theory.

Why would anyone want to nullify marriage?

 

[Raithlin]

@ Raithlin. It is interesting and all, but on the whole it kind of "feels" like a conspiracy theory.

Why would anyone want to nullify marriage?

I'm trying to get the right links - but my work's firewall keeps stopping me!

As soon as I have the facts (and answers), you can be sure I'll post them here.

[EDIT]
Good FAQ here
[/EDIT]

 

[ajax]

How will this lead to more children "not growing up with a mom and a dad"? A small number of children they are currently parentless might now be adopted, and surely two dads|moms is better than none? (Don't answer)

And how this will lead to more abortions?????

Wake up, this does not affect you if you are not gay.

Let's look at changes over the last few decades to the institution of marriage and their consequences:
1) divorce-> marriage is no longer a life long commitment-> broken homes
2) the make love not war revolution -> the idea that sex is reserved for marriage has led to STD's, lots of hearts broken and abortions
3) the idea that a child should be born in marriage is no longer upheld, therefore we have lots of single parents, fatherless children, etc. the consequences of which are very negative
4) the porn industry has led to men adopting a more selfish approach to fulfilling their sexual desires, i.e. anywhere, anytime, anybody, so we have more abused wifes, sex crimes and broken relationships [if it is easy to be unfaithful before marriage, it is generally easier to be unfaithful during marriage]

So then what makes the government (read a small minority) think that a way out change such as redefining what marriage is will have a positive effect on society??

 

[web]

Let's look at changes over the last few decades to the institution of marriage and their consequences:
1) divorce-> marriage is no longer a life long commitment-> broken homes
2) the make love not war revolution -> the idea that sex is reserved for marriage has led to STD's, lots of hearts broken and abortions
3) the idea that a child should be born in marriage is no longer upheld, therefore we have lots of single parents, fatherless children, etc. the consequences of which are very negative
4) the porn industry has led to men adopting a more selfish approach to fulfilling their sexual desires, i.e. anywhere, anytime, anybody, so we have more abused wifes, sex crimes and broken relationships [if it is easy to be unfaithful before marriage, it is generally easier to be unfaithful during marriage]

So then what makes the government (read a small minority) think that a way out change such as redefining what marriage is will have a positive effect on society??

What exactly does that have to do with same sex marriage's ?

 

[SlickNick]

What exactly does that have to do with same sex marriage's ?

ditto

 

[Raithlin]

I have a question for pro-same sex marriage myADSL members.

Why is it that EVERY culture in the world had as its base a man-woman marriage base? Even those that support polygamy do so in this manner.

Why now are we seeking to redefine what for literally thousands of years has been respected - even reinforced by law - by all cultures, all people? Are we to assume that we are more enlightened? That we "know better"? What is it that gives us this right?

 

[BCO]

Homosexuality has ALWAYS been around. In the past when man-woman marriages were "respected" (or should we say when they were the ONLY way), homosexual people were forced to marry someone of the opposite sex anyway, and maybe have secret affairs which is a shameful and dishonest thing to do and which causes much unhappiness both on the part of the homosexual person and on the part of their husband/wife should they be exposed.

Either that or remain single for life. For thousands of years people have lived in DENIAL, that homosexuality is a part of the human condition. All that's happened now is that society has become a little more realistic, and gay and lesbian people have a better chance at living a happy normal lifestyle with the person they love.

What's worse for a child: having openly gay parents, or having to deal with the shock and family crisis that arises when one of your parents is unexpectedly "exposed" in an extra-marital affair (be it a gay or straight one)?

 

[SlickNick]

Back in the day homosexuality was a loathed topic, and homosexuals were shunted and what have you. It was an abomination, and many people hid their true selves.

These days people are more open to homosexuality, and they are recognising the rights that homosexuals have. So things have to change, and changing it is.

That is as best I can answer your question for now.

 

[Raithlin]

@ BlueCollar

I'd like to question a couple of points you raised.

Fair enough. Your first paragraph describes what could well have been the norm - homosexuals having to marry to appear "normal" - as normal was defined at that time.

What proof do you have that homosexuality is "part of the human condition". What exactly do you mean by that, anyway?

As for what is worse? Please. What you are asking is whether a child should be exposed as a shock, or know it to be a norm - and the child would then go on to do the same thing. You also speak as if this kind of thing is going to happen (Which, by the way, research in Sweden has proven to be true for same sex marriages. Same sex marriages last on average 1.5 years, and during the marriage your average spouse has around 8 other partners per year...).

 

[GavinMannion]

The question is pointless, we allowed people to die for thousands of years before discovering antibiotics, should that have not happened.

My statement is as pointless as yours.

I as a hetro-sexual has no right to instill my will on homo-sexual people. Live and let live.

I am happy to say one of my good friends recently got 'married' (civil-union) in London and he is now much happier for it. He was finally allowed to do the same thing that breeders have been doing for years.

To all those people who post stats about homo sexuals not staying committed, he has been with his partner now for 11 years, so talk rubbish.

 

[SlickNick]

@ BlueCollar
What proof do you have that homosexuality is "part of the human condition". What exactly do you mean by that, anyway?

What proof do you have that it's not.

 

[Raithlin]

Back in the day homosexuality was a loathed topic, and homosexuals were shunted and what have you. It was an abomination, and many people hid their true selves.

These days people are more open to homosexuality, and they are recognising the rights that homosexuals have. So things have to change, and changing it is.

That is as best I can answer your question for now.

No disrespect here, but that is obvious. The real question is why? Why only now are we "becoming more open"? Why is it not something that happened centuries ago?

My other (implicit) question remains unanswered: How did every culture come about with the idea that marriage be man-woman in the first place? I'm talking from European to African, to Asian and Native American cultures - across the world, for centuries, we have had this one common thread. Funny that only now we try to change it - and that for a minority (10% in the US).

 

[SlickNick]

Basically, it's all religious. The bible said that no man should be with another man, and in those days religion was the be all and end all.

Nowadays people are starting to think for themselves, and not wholly listen to all that perscribed nonsense.