Protest Against Gay Marriage:Huge Crowds Expected in Paris

[c.d.]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/12/16485065-protest-against-gay-marriage-huge-crowds-expected-in-paris?lite=

c.d.

[Limehouse]

I would respect them more if they were marching against poverty and oppression, child labour and modern slavery but I suppose if they feel strongly enough about the issue it is an effective way to communicate their views. There's nothing like a good march in my view.

[Wickerman]

My old dad used to say, "I don't mind them legalizing homosexuality, so long as they don't make it compulsory".

[c.d.]

I would respect them more if they were marching against poverty and oppression, child labour and modern slavery but I suppose if they feel strongly enough about the issue it is an effective way to communicate their views. There's nothing like a good march in my view.

This is a lot easier and a lot more fun.

c.d.

[DrummondStreet]

Wow. And I thought the US was a haven for homophobes. I find it hard to believe the march will get as many participants as predicted.

Furthermore, was anyone else struck by the one-sided writing in this article? It almost reads like an opinion piece. I don't read Reuters on a regular basis but when I have, it has never come across as incredibly biased or agenda-laden to me.

[DrummondStreet]

Apparently 350,000 people or 0.538% of the French population attended.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169305336/thousands-in-france-protest-gay-marriage

The French government intends to go ahead with its plans to legalize gay marriage.

[Archaic]

I would respect them more if they were marching against poverty and oppression, child labour and modern slavery but I suppose if they feel strongly enough about the issue it is an effective way to communicate their views.

Well said, Julie!

They're not just opposed to same-sex marriage, they're also protesting the right of same-sex couples to adopt children.

I guess they believe growing up unloved in a state-run orphanage is "better" for a child than being loved by two human beings who love & respect each other and want to be legally married? It blows my mind. I'd love to ask those marchers how many adopted children they each have!

And just last week Putin made it illegal for Americans to adopt Russian orphans, despite the fact that there are nearly a million Russian children who were abandoned by their mothers and fathers and have almost no hope of being adopted by Russian families... especially the many thousands of sick and disabled children.

Why make needy children political pawns instead of letting them have parents who love them?? I think it's shameful and unconscionable.

Best regards,
Archaic

[jason_c]

Wow. And I thought the US was a haven for homophobes. I find it hard to believe the march will get as many participants as predicted.

Furthermore, was anyone else struck by the one-sided writing in this article? It almost reads like an opinion piece. I don't read Reuters on a regular basis but when I have, it has never come across as incredibly biased or agenda-laden to me.

It is possible to be anti-gay marriage and not be homophobic. I assume you would be the first to complain if a poster were to come on and say gays are "perverted". Demonizing your opponents is an effective way to win an argument, however it is not always an honest way.

[DrummondStreet]

jason_c: Explain to me how someone can be opposed to gay marriage and not be homophobic (defined nowadays as simply anti-gay)? Or for that matter, opposed to interracial marriage and not be racist?

Marriage confers its participants many legal rights and benefits. I've never expected the Church to recognize gay marriage, but I believe that the State has an obligation to extend marriage rights and benefits to all of its citizens.

[Robert]

Wow, marriage has benefits?

[DrummondStreet]

Uh oh, Robert.

[jason_c]

jason_c: Explain to me how someone can be opposed to gay marriage and not be homophobic (defined nowadays as simply anti-gay)? Or for that matter, opposed to interracial marriage and not be racist?

Marriage confers its participants many legal rights and benefits. I've never expected the Church to recognize gay marriage, but I believe that the State has an obligation to extend marriage rights and benefits to all of its citizens.

Marriage as giving both partners certain legal rights within a relationship. These rights are expensive to the state and therefore come at a cost. These costs include social security payments to a widow, tax exemptions, joint insurance coverage etc. The reason the state incurs these costs are to promote stable a family unit, mostly with the benefits of a stable relationship for children in mind.

Personally, im in favour of gay marriage. However, its a quite legitimate view not to be in favour of gay marriage.

[DrummondStreet]

Marriage as giving both partners certain legal rights within a relationship. These rights are expensive to the state and therefore come at a cost. These costs include social security payments to a widow, tax exemptions, joint insurance coverage etc. The reason the state incurs these costs are to promote stable a family unit, mostly with the benefits of a stable relationship for children in mind.

If this is the case, then civil marriage should be denied to anyone who is unable or unwilling to produce children. There are far more childless heterosexual marriages than there are gay couples. (In fact, 1 in 5 American women end their child-bearing years without children.) Additionally, if gays were allowed to adopt, they could easily meet this criteria. And seriously, this isn't even an issue for lesbians.

Anyway, it isn't just about money. Civil marriages accord important legal rights that have nothing to do with costly tax benefits. A few of the major rights include next-of-kin status for hospital visits and making medical decisions for gravely ill spouses. There are also immigration and residency rights for couples of mixed citizenship.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same thing. The State does not impose its own marriage laws on the Church, and the Church should not be allowed to define marriage for the State. The Reuters article made it clear that the organizers of of the march were opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons. I think these individuals are overstepping their bounds by imposing their religious views on secular policies.

[jason_c]

If this is the case, then civil marriage should be denied to anyone who is unable or unwilling to produce children. There are far more childless heterosexual marriages than there are gay couples. (In fact, 1 in 5 American women end their child-bearing years without children.) Additionally, if gays were allowed to adopt, they could easily meet this criteria. And seriously, this isn't even an issue for lesbians.

Anyway, it isn't just about money. Civil marriages accord important legal rights that have nothing to do with costly tax benefits. A few of the major rights include next-of-kin status for hospital visits and making medical decisions for gravely ill spouses. There are also immigration and residency rights for couples of mixed citizenship.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same thing. The State does not impose its own marriage laws on the Church, and the Church should not be allowed to define marriage for the State. The Reuters article made it clear that the organizers of of the march were opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons. I think these individuals are overstepping their bounds by imposing their religious views on secular policies.

Im not about to take Reuters word on the reasons for this protest. I assume some will be protesting for religious reasons, others will not.

Civil marriage should not be denied to those unwilling to have children. People change their minds. A couple unwilling to have a child at 25 may be very willing at 35. Of course some couples are unable to have children. However, the amount of couples who realize this before they marry are very much in a minority. Adoption of course is open to these couples.

I am pro-gay marriage. However gay adoption I am against. At a time when adoption is closely regulated to ensure the family and child are well matched it is worrying that this matching is to be thrown out the window when gays adopt. A child with both a loving mother and father is still a far superior upbringing than any other. Anything else is just a social experiment.

[Roy Corduroy]

The Reuters article made it clear that the organizers of of the march were opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons. I think these individuals are overstepping their bounds by imposing their religious views on secular policies.

You think only atheists should have the right of free speech. Drummond, you honesty is refreshing anyway.

Roy