ChatterBank1 min ago
Civil Partnerships
Now that civil partnerships are going ahead, is there a danger that impressionable young people will start to believe that homsexuality is normal?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MrsT. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
For people who are homosexual then homosexuality is quite normal. Where's the problem there?
In all of my long years as a gay man I have been surrounded and influenced by heterosexual people, but it has not made me any more heterosexual. Why should you think knowledge of and contact with homosexual people is gong to alter a heterosexual persons sexuality?
Don't judge other people by your own social mores and preferences: rather see the world and judge yourself. I think that everyone, not just young people, will give this matter some thought, and if it leads to folk concluding that there is a rich diversity of human experience and orientation then that has to be a good thing.
What do you mean by 'normal'? Homosexuality can be found all over the animal kingdom, for example, so in that sense it's totally 'normal', a naturally occuring thing. Sure, it's not the most common sexuality, but that doesn't mean it's 'abnormal'.
People don't choose their sexuality. In fact, the best evidence we have strongly suggests that sexuality is determined at a pre-birth stage of development.
Thinking about it logically, who would choose to be homosexual? Even in today's more enlightened climate, being gay often means being abused for something that is no more a choice than the colour of your hair. In some societies, it's actually illegal and people may be imprisioned for it or beaten or even murdered. Who on earth would choose it?
Given that it is not something that people have any choice over, an enlightened society would realise that it is both illogical and barbaric to discriminate against people for their sexuality. The more homosexuality is recognised as normal, the far fewer social problems are likely to result from it. Legalising civil partnerships will not result in more people becoming gay. What it might do is help those who are gay to be accepted as normal and reduce the problems that come from people being forced to pretend they are something they manifestly are not.
Society will not break down, the sky will not fall and the ravens won't abandon the Tower of London. The sun will still come up tomorrow morning.
What are you asking here? Are you asking whether young people will now be more open minded about homosexual relationships? Or are you asking whether the fact that the go-ahead for civil partnerships will turn more youngsters gay?
If it it the former then, probably yes and this is a good thing, if the latter then I don't see how an act of civil law can change people's sexual preferences.
Beat me to it Hippy.
I find it sad that in a society where tolerance and differnces have made such massive progress, there is still a stigma attatched to homosexuality.
I am delighted that committed gay couples can enjoy the same civil rights as straight couples - rights denied by an intolerant and outdated legal system.
MrsT - as the father of three daughters, who have all gone through the 'impressionable' stage - there were plenty of situations that scred me witless - all of them created by heterosexual society - the notion that one of them may be tempted to experiment with a lesbian experience was not one of the things I worried, or indeed even thought much about.
Let's educate our young people to celebrate the differences in each other, not to band together in some frightened narrow-minded like-thinking secret society.
The world belongs to all of us. That means all of us.
i think it would be a very good thing if more people, especially the young, realised that homosexuality is normal.
It is quite right that the state gives people in same sex relationships equal treatment as those in mixed sex relationship, and i think it is the states obligation to set the example in this matter and hopefully the rest of the population will follow suit.
Reading these answers, I have to say how refreshing it is to realise that my cynical view of society as xenophobic, homophobic, permanently in search of some minority or other to pick on, is not justified after all!
I'm not gay, and nor are my two sons, but if they had turned out that way, my only worry would have been that they had to live in a world where SOME people need to justify their own lifestyles by condemning those of others.
I'm not gay, and nor are my two sons, but if they had turned out that way, my only worry would have been that they had to live in a world where SOME people need to justify their own lifestyles by condemning those of others.
Perhaps a gay person can answer this but why do gay couples feel the need to achieve some sort of social conformation. Nowadays i think it is quite a conservative thing to do to get married and i dont understand why gay couples indulge themselves in what is an essentially hetrosexual institution. I have many gay friends and associates , respect many gay peoples work and am very tolerant of gays but i dont understand why they 'cherry pick' hetrosexual practises and I slightly resent them undermining the sanctity and importance of getting married and raising children.
Hi Gary. We're not talking about marriage, but civil partnerships. Marriage is a religious, heterosexual institution, and these civil partnerships allow 2 people who love each other to have an officially recognised partnership that gives themn the same rights as other couples. This can only be right in a civilised and tolerant society. I'm not sure I understand you cherry picking logic - as far as I'm concerned we're giving gay couples basic rights that they should have had for a long time, and is about as pointless as claiming that women cherry picked the right to vote in what was a formerly male institution. Did I misread your point?
As for undermining the importance of the family unit and raising children, would you feel the same way about hetero couples who didn't want kids or people who choose to remain single. Are they undermining it?
I hardly think it's cherry picking, gary baldy. Neither is it a desire to 'conform'. The Civil Partnership bestows similar rights with respect to inheritence etc on a same-sex couple as those enjoyed by a heterosexual couple in the civil partnership called 'marriage'.
The reason that it's a CP for homosexual couples and a marriage for heterosexual is that the State, (under great influence from the church), were adamant that a 'union', 'partnership', call it what you will, between homosexual couples would never be called a 'marriage'. This is why, latecomer, a heterosexual couple can't enter a Civil Partnership, and visa versa.
"Not all opp sex couples want to get married but do want the legal rights"
In that case, go to a Registry Office, spend ten minutes signing a legal document, no ceremony, no fuss, and you can both legally continue to use your unmarried names. What more do you want? It's a Civil Partnership known as Marriage.
The words 'cake', 'have' and 'eat' spring to mind. Or should that be Wedding Cake.....?
