see that you have provided statistics as a supporting detail. good! it'd be better if you tell us the source of the stats. e.g. which org conducted the survey, how many people were polled and when the survey took place.
Yiming -- good point. you saw a weakness in the arguments. Banning homosexual marriages does not solve the AIDs problem.
Syuiab -- unless you can prove that the homosexual population is VERY large, the statement that the homosexual marriages will lead to low birth rates is very shaky. :)
Louis -- Though you have brought up a good point ( that a large contributory factor of AIDs is homosexuality), marriage itself does not change anything.
the issue at hand here is same-sex MARRIAGE. if we don't allow them to marry, will the the AIDs situation improve?
Rus -- I see your point. good. I have to point out that the marriage may not be "BETTER", but like what you have said, they would have gone through more obstacles than other heterosexual couples. Thus, they are more prepared for a marriage.
In my opinion, I believe that Same Sex Marriages (SSMs) should be disallowed. In an article published in July of 2003, the BBC reported that the Vatican had taken a strong stance against SSMs, releasing a 12-page report denouncing homosexual couples. To quote, the Church branded such marriages "immoral", "unnatural" and "harmful". It is clear to see that the Pope is not in favour of SSMs. The same goes for society, in, say, Singapore. It is no secret that people address homosexuals, more often than not, using derogatory terms such as "ah gua" to denote an individual possessing effeminate traits. Even US President George W. Bush has spoken out against SSMs (BBC report, July 2003). All these incidents have shown that the world at large still has not accepted homosexual union. For me, I believe that marriages should still only be performed between one man and one woman. Only then can there be a unitive and procreative side to the marriage. Granted, there is a unitive side to SSMs, but where is the procreative side? Gay couples may choose adoption, but by doing so, that will exacerbate the situation even further. When the child grows up, what will he/she think? He/she will think that being homosexual is perfectly normal and will perhaps even be one. This should not be.
YOU SAID: we should not lump same-sex marriage and AIDs together. Changzee: good point!
YOU SAID: furthermore, we shd not discriminate them as they are also human and they has feeling.
Changzee: i don;t think the point here is about discrmintion. For example, society does not allow siblings or first cousins to marry each other. this is not discrimination. This is considered morally wrong.
It should not be allowed. This is because it will affect the growth of the children. Maybe their children will ended up marrying same sex when they grow up due to the influence of their paretns. And same sex, the parents will have difficulties teaching their children.
Erm louis. Are you trying to say that same sex marriage would harm others and cause discomfort? i think with the current openess of our society, same sex marriages would be accepted by the majority. As long as They do not violate the laws i don see why they who love each other cannot be together. =)
Weesing: You asked the same question I want to ask Louis. :)
However, Louis is not entirely wrong either. For example, same-sex relationships still cause discomfort to some religions. In fact, "discomfort" might be too mild a word.
Being religion-sensitive is a mjaor issue is many countries.
Homosexual marriages should not be legalised. The fundamental of human is simply males and females, and the fact that humans are able to hold stand through the years is because of this simple yet crucial idea, males like females, like both side of the poles, north attract south, a balance, and the ability to have offsprings. What if more people succumb to homosexual marriages, there will only be one result, lesser offspring, threatening the very survival of mankind. Lets face it, all of us have a role and part to play for mankind, one of many is to reproduce in order to sustain survival, hence homosexual is a privilege in this case, cause it will pose a problem to the future, if we allow it, we might not even have a future generation, and a unspoken encouragement for homosexual marriages to spread and grow.
19 Comments:
At 12:41 PM,
changzee said…
see that you have provided statistics as a supporting detail. good! it'd be better if you tell us the source of the stats. e.g. which org conducted the survey, how many people were polled and when the survey took place.
At 8:00 PM,
changzee said…
Looks like this this is the most popular topic!
At 8:04 PM,
changzee said…
Yiming -- good point. you saw a weakness in the arguments. Banning homosexual marriages does not solve the AIDs problem.
Syuiab -- unless you can prove that the homosexual population is VERY large, the statement that the homosexual marriages will lead to low birth rates is very shaky. :)
At 8:08 PM,
changzee said…
Louis -- Though you have brought up a good point ( that a large contributory factor of AIDs is homosexuality), marriage itself does not change anything.
the issue at hand here is same-sex MARRIAGE. if we don't allow them to marry, will the the AIDs situation improve?
At 8:11 PM,
changzee said…
Rus -- I see your point. good.
I have to point out that the marriage may not be "BETTER", but like what you have said, they would have gone through more obstacles than other heterosexual couples. Thus, they are more prepared for a marriage.
At 8:12 PM,
changzee said…
Good discussion here, everyone.
Read more to find out more about the issue!
At 7:28 PM,
the other person said…
In my opinion, I believe that Same Sex Marriages (SSMs) should be disallowed. In an article published in July of 2003, the BBC reported that the Vatican had taken a strong stance against SSMs, releasing a 12-page report denouncing homosexual couples. To quote, the Church branded such marriages "immoral", "unnatural" and "harmful". It is clear to see that the Pope is not in favour of SSMs. The same goes for society, in, say, Singapore. It is no secret that people address homosexuals, more often than not, using derogatory terms such as "ah gua" to denote an individual possessing effeminate traits. Even US President George W. Bush has spoken out against SSMs (BBC report, July 2003). All these incidents have shown that the world at large still has not accepted homosexual union. For me, I believe that marriages should still only be performed between one man and one woman. Only then can there be a unitive and procreative side to the marriage. Granted, there is a unitive side to SSMs, but where is the procreative side? Gay couples may choose adoption, but by doing so, that will exacerbate the situation even further. When the child grows up, what will he/she think? He/she will think that being homosexual is perfectly normal and will perhaps even be one. This should not be.
At 10:03 AM,
changzee said…
Louis and Kaiyi -- good discussion here. Especially like the fact that you guys have supporting details to prop up your arguments.
Also, it's also nice that both of you have highlighted atiitudes from two camps -- one from young people and one from a moral/religious authority.
For the group handling this issue, my tip is still the same -- you are arguing about same-sex MARRIAGE, not same-sex relationships.
Good job everyone. :)
At 6:38 PM,
changzee said…
Rus
"Men will want to marry their dogs"???????!!!!!!
What are you talking about? :)
At 6:48 PM,
changzee said…
Hmmm
Rus is just a little too extreme here. But he has highlighted a point.
1. Where do we draw the line in marriage? Must it be one man, one woman?
From this point, many other questions are raised.
2. Why do some cultures allow a one man, multiple women marriage? And in a few societies, there are women who have many husbands. Why?
3. So, what (or who) is marriage for? Once you can answer this, you can then look at same-sex marriages.
At 10:02 PM,
changzee said…
JL -- are you alan?
YOU SAID: we should not lump same-sex marriage and AIDs together.
Changzee: good point!
YOU SAID: furthermore, we shd not discriminate them as they are also human and they has feeling.
Changzee: i don;t think the point here is about discrmintion. For example, society does not allow siblings or first cousins to marry each other. this is not discrimination. This is considered morally wrong.
At 12:01 AM,
changzee said…
Alan and Lilin, both of you have similar views.
ok. challenge to those who approve same sex marriage here.
Q1: Look for the definition of marriage according to the courts of law, to the bible, koran and other religious texts.
What is the definition? does this apply to same-sex marriages?
Q2: Back to an earlier question I posed. What is the purpose of marriage? For procreation? For a status in society? For security?
At 11:00 PM,
carmen said…
It should not be allowed. This is because it will affect the growth of the children. Maybe their children will ended up marrying same sex when they grow up due to the influence of their paretns. And same sex, the parents will have difficulties teaching their children.
At 12:22 PM,
changzee said…
Carmen
Pleased that you maintain your stand despite overwhelming approval for same-sex marriages here.
You said children who are raised by same-sex parents may end up marrying the same sex too.
My question is (and the fundamental question to the issue) -- is it wrong? and if so, why?
At 12:30 PM,
changzee said…
Excellent rebuttal Alan!
Very clear and logical.
At 4:26 PM,
Wee Sing said…
Erm louis. Are you trying to say that same sex marriage would harm others and cause discomfort? i think with the current openess of our society, same sex marriages would be accepted by the majority.
As long as They do not violate the laws i don see why they who love each other cannot be together. =)
At 9:56 AM,
changzee said…
Weesing: You asked the same question I want to ask Louis. :)
However, Louis is not entirely wrong either. For example, same-sex relationships still cause discomfort to some religions.
In fact, "discomfort" might be too mild a word.
Being religion-sensitive is a mjaor issue is many countries.
At 9:56 AM,
changzee said…
eLearning week is now officially over. If you choose to blog on to discuss more with your group members, do go on. This will definitely help you in your discussion café.
I would be still accessing this whenever I can.
At 3:58 PM,
akatsuki said…
Homosexual marriages should not be legalised. The fundamental of human is simply males and females, and the fact that humans are able to hold stand through the years is because of this simple yet crucial idea, males like females, like both side of the poles, north attract south, a balance, and the ability to have offsprings. What if more people succumb to homosexual marriages, there will only be one result, lesser offspring, threatening the very survival of mankind. Lets face it, all of us have a role and part to play for mankind, one of many is to reproduce in order to sustain survival, hence homosexual is a privilege in this case, cause it will pose a problem to the future, if we allow it, we might not even have a future generation, and a unspoken encouragement for homosexual marriages to spread and grow.
Post a Comment
<< Home