In recent years we see that the marriage between homosexual couples becomes legal in many countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada. Other countries regocnise same couple 'union' like Germany and France.

Personally I have never minded for this group to have equal economic/social benefits as heteroseuxal couples by having a legalised marriage.

But I saw this video of Senator Rick Santorum.
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/medi...nt_index.jhtml&

I know the debate is very heated in the US. I dont know much about this senator, but his arguments on this issue made some sense to me. He claimed that society simply will break down if we legalise homosexual marriage, because the marriage is, as he calls it, the instrument to hold the family together and thereby guarantee the continuity of society.

So the question rises; is it in the interest of society to legalise homosexual marriages?

for expanding the debate,we should ask "Homosexual marriages- against the natures law" ?

then we must go by step one step...what s natural law? why do we think homosexual s against the nature?


I totally think Homosexual ANYTHING is against natures law. Man was not created to be with another man, that would end all human reproduction, the same goes for women, with that I am totally against same sex marriage, most of the gay men can't seem to stay faithful to each other, and they just further spread disease amongst each other, and maybe the occasional female they want to "experiment" with. I think the whole homosexual lifestyle is depressing, most of them are so angry, and spend most of their life defending themselves from family and friends, I don't know why anyone would choose that type of lifestyle for themselves.


This issue is so sensitive. There are lots of perspectives.

-law
-religion
-democratical
-emotional
-scientific




regards.

LOL clearday I think it would be better to stick to the initial question. Its discussion on its own to discuss whether homosexuality is normal or not. But I dont want to focus on that since even if society would deem it unnatural there still would be gay people.
I want to focus on the implications that leglised homosexual marriages would result within society.

LOL actually mankind has the technology to make a new unique human (not a clone) out of 2 female egg cells. So man arent needed anymore for human reproduction, scary he. But hey females would always man for certain things hehe need someone to open their cans, wash the car or carry their luggages :lol:

Lol cid, so you suppose you can do anything with same sex people? what an emotional approach to our marriage issue. Clone,eggs...oh my god!!! I ve missed my lady...

LOL bro dont misunderstand me, I am not very fond of it either, I was just joking :lol:

Seriously though who are we to judge their lifestyle is wrong. As long as they dont hurt other people they should live like they want.
Thats why I find it more interesting to look at the possible effects of legalised homosexual marriages than on homosexuality itself.

You guys (much like almost everyone in this "debate") are asking the wrong question. The question should not be "Should same sex marriages be allowed/recognized?" but rather "Should the state issue marriage licenses/certificates or even recognize any marriage?".

If the state is interested in the welfare of children, then obviously "recognizing" marriage and forming legal clauses for it will not address all children (especially in countries where a large percentage of them are born out of wedlock). The laws that should be enacted need to protect children regardless of the living arrangements of their parents.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, that the state should have no involvement in.

With regard to other rights and privileges granted to "spouses", those should not be restricted to your wife/husband (of the opposite sex). Why shouldn't a single person be allowed to delegate "spousal rights" (health insurance, next of kin, authority in case of incapacitation, etc.) to anyone he wishes (parent, sibling, friend, spouse, homosexual partner, etc.)?

Marriage may have started as a religious ceremony but it doesn't mean that it can't evolve. The couple in earlier times may have wanted the blessing of god(s) but times changes. Many people are atheists, agnostics, etc.

I believe that homosexual couples should be able to marry and enjoy the rights that heteroxesual couples should have.

Marriage is not a sole religious thing anymore issue has a law side too.It guarantees rights of man,women and childeren.

BTW best marriage is love that we feel in our hearts.

So then there is no need for marriage (as so many people opt not to do), at least not one that is controlled by the state.

I believe that ALL PEOPLE should be able to enjoy religious freedom, and be able to assign ANYONE of your choosing as your "benefactor" or "guardian". Since marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, it should not be restricted by the state (polygamy or homosexuality - depending on the attitudes of one's religion). Futhermore, the state should not dictate on individuals who has "spousal" (property ownership, mental/physical authority, tax benefits, retirement benefits, health benefits) rights on you. Why should one's spouse have authority over your medical care (when incapacitated), and not someone of your own choosing (like a sibling or doctor/friend)?

Again, people need to realize that "marriage" should not equate to giving someone extensive authority over important personal matters.

No it doesn't. There are laws that deal with the relationship between men, women & children outside of marriage. All marriage does is provide spouses with extensive authority over their partner.

I dont see this as a discussion at all. How can anyone have the right to sit on a throne and tell other adults what they can and cannot do with thier own bodies. I don't care what the issue is about, legal "marrige" recognition included.

We, as individuals need to take care of our own sphere of infuence, forget what is outside that sphere. Well, people will complain that what happens in other spheres affect our life. Bollocks. If we take care of our own family and values, other peoples indirect action (notice Not direct IOW if the effect/action remains only indiect to others and does not Directly physicaly or mentaly effect others) then whatever people choose to do in thier life will not affect ones own people.

Or imagine one of us (god forbid) has a gay child. Would you not want them to be happy, even if it means marrieng the same sex, or would you rather continue to kick them to the "lower" class of society?

You know what disturbes me most?
If they are getting very provocative...

aka TV...posters etc etc...
I mean i dont like it if infront my child some gay man or lesbian...kisses...or do anything else...
or even advertise this un-natural behaviour...

All in all thats the only prob i would have...if they act respectfull...its fine by me what anybody does in hes personall life as long he isnt provocative ...(not that i like it...but anyway...)


Regards

Well homosexuall are not a real problem for the society. If both want it i don't care about them.
The problem are some pervert ones that rape/abuse women/children.

We go to hard to Gays and to soft on those real perverts!

Someone who burn ilegel CD/DVD in Germany had harder penalties then a rapist! :o :wall:


PS: What's so bad watching two women kissing? :P