Gay marriage

[BFDD]

California recently passed legislation to legally allow gay marriage. I thought it would be fitting to have a debate on whether or not it should be legal. I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuals, and there is no reason not to allow them to get married. I have argued about this a while back in a different debate forum, so I know several of the main reasons people are against it.

1. Its homosexuality unnatural:
This is a big one and I can't stand this argument. First of all it is completely natural, homosexuals are born that way, it is not a choice nor can you catch it like a disease. I have also personally witnessed animals having same gender relations(and no not by choice). Stick two male rodents in a cage and observe, a majority of the time they will either fight each other or one will try to mount the other.

Now lets assume that it is in fact unnatural to be gay. So what? Everyone does things that are unnatural you are doing something unnatural right now as you are reading this. The internet is most certainly not natural. The act of marriage itself is unnatural. If humans were a species that mates for life, people would stay with their first intimate partner, and affairs wouldn't exist.

Furthermore if it is unnatural, you think banning gay marriage will stop people from being gay?

Some have come up with the idea that the purpose of marriage is to have children, so gays can't get married because that can't have children. What about heterosexuals that for some reason are unable to produce, should we stop them from marrying? Or even those that don't plan to have children. Besides there is always adoption or a surrogate mother/sperm donor.

2. It ruins traditional family values:

Not sure how this works, letting two people who love each other get married, ruins traditional family values? Who is to say they are going to be bad parents just because they share a gender? It may be a bit awkward trying to explain to your children why billy has two daddies, but it isn't going to hurt them any to know, and will most certainly not convert them.

3. It goes against my religious beliefs:

Then don't marry someone of the same gender. Allowing gay marriage does not force you to marry someone of your gender. If that was the case I would not be supporting it at all and it would be a terrible idea. But its not, it is possible to allow both homosexual and heterosexual marriages.

4. We will have to allow polygamy:

I have absolutely no idea how this works? I have no idea what same sex marriages have to do with allowing multiple people to marry. Besides I don't really think that polygamy is all that bad as long as all parties involved know it, I personally wouldn't do it but I don't care if others do, but that is irrelevant to the topic anyways.

Bottom Line:

Other than the fact that it will be an awkward question to talk to your kids about it doesn't have any affect on anyone other than homosexuals. No one should be denied their rights based on something they have no choice over, whether it be race, gender, religion or sexual orientation we all deserve equal rights under the law.

 

[Vro]

2. It ruins traditional family values:

Not sure how this works, letting two people who love each other get married, ruins traditional family values? Who is to say they are going to be bad parents just because they share a gender? It may be a bit awkward trying to explain to your children why billy has two daddies, but it isn't going to hurt them any to know, and will most certainly not convert them.

In an article I read for school, research has shown that gay parents who adopt are just as good, if not better, than straight parents who adopt. This might be due to the fact that there are fewer cases of gay parents adopting. However, there is also research indicating that children do not in fact require a father or mother figure in particular, rather just two parents.

 

[Amide]

I agree. Marriage is a right that should be extended to all humans, not just straights. It's so sick when people say "The Bible says it's wrong, end of topic!" how thoughtless. There have been studies on the effects of gay parents, and the result is that they do just as well. The only difference is that the kids with gay parents have a higher chance of being gay. People that dislike gays need to imagine themselves in a situation in which they couldn't get married, they would hate it. The sad fact is, the majority of the United States is against Gay rights. Fortunately, younger adults are currently more accepting.

 

[Vro]

Fortunately, younger adults are currently more accepting.

The younger generation in general is more accepting than previous generations. It's natural for newer generations to be more tolerant when there is more diversity.

 

[PiSToLZ]

I find gay marrage illegal throughout the United States wrong.. Just beacause someone is different shouldn't mean they have to have less rights. Im not homosexual but if people like the same sex, hat is their decision, and that is what they are attracted to. I find California's new law to be just and should be a law throughout the United States.

 

[Vro]

I find gay marrage wrong.

Is this a typo?

Im not homosexual but if people like the same sex, hat is their decision, and that is what they are attracted to.

It's actually not their decision; it's been link to genetics. And if they could choose, why would they choose to be in the severely mistreated group?

 

[MojoMan]

I find gay marrage wrong. Just beacause someone is different shouldn't mean they have to have less rights. Im not homosexual but if people like the same sex, hat is their decision, and that is what they are attracted to. I find California's new law to be just and should be a law throughout the United States.

Wait, if you find gay marriage wrong, how can you think it justified?
And I think gay marriage is rigt at every interval.
Her are reasons why I don't think anyone should hate gay people:
1. What have they ever done to you?
2. If most people were gay, and you were one of the few straight people, you wouldn't want to chamge your sexual orientation.
3. Religion. If anyone's religion says gay marriage is an abomination against nature, I'm in no place to argue with your god or bible. But I shall not be a member of that religion until I hear a valid reason from the bible/holy book why gay marriage is wrong.

If anyone can prove any of this wrong, I'd be happy to listen.

 

[BFDD]

I find gay marrage wrong

Based on the rest of his post that appears to be a typo just as Vro pointed out

 

[Stroupes]

I'm against gay marriage, but that doesn't eliminate the aspect that "love" is a decision between any 2 people who are attracted to each other(phyiscally, emotionally, etc.), not just man and woman.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I'm against gay marriage, but that doesn't eliminate the aspect that "love" is a decision between any 2 people who are attracted to each other(phyiscally, emotionally, etc.), not just man and woman.

You've given no reason that it's wrong. It is not wrong. Have I convinced you? No. Please provide some reasons why you think it's wrong.

 

[Vro]

If you understand the love aspect, why are you against gay marriage?

 

[Stroupes]

I never said it was wrong, just, in my opinion, I don't approve of it.
I think that relationships should be the way they were meant to be: man and woman.
That doesn't take away from the fact that men could be attracted to men, or women to women.
Basically what I'm saying is that I don't much care for the idea.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I never said it was wrong, just, in my opinion, I don't approve of it.
I think that relationships should be the way they were meant to be: man and woman.
That doesn't take away from the fact that men could be attracted to men, or women to women.
Basically what I'm saying is that I don't much care for the idea.

Who says they were meant to be between a man and a women? And you can't say "God."

 

[Stroupes]

Because 2 men/2 women can't produce offspring.

Bear with me on this.
If you don't believe that God created humans, or that he even exists, that's fine.
But let's just say, for the sake of our understanding, he did create the human.
If he would have created Adam and Alan, we wouldn't be here right now.
That's why he created a male and a female, so that the human race could continue to populate.

That's the way I look at it.
Man and woman were meant to be together, since man and man/woman and woman cannot give birth.

 

[snex]

not only should gay marriage be against the law, ALL marriage should be against the law.

the government has NO place regulating who can and cannot form consensual intimate relationships with each other. the very idea that we place this responsibility on our government is absurd. who or what you rub your genitals against is nobodys business but your own, and government should never enter the picture, period.

edit: stroups you are truly a wacknut. sterile people cant give birth either - should we call their relationships unnatural too? how about men with vasectomies or women with hysterectomies? what about people that just dont want children and use birth control?

what you have offered is simply not an argument.

 

[pockyD]

Thousands of years of tradition in all sorts of societies (some religious, some not) say that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't understand the argument that the term 'marriage' is ill-defined - the mere fact that one has to specify "gay" or "same-sex" marriage as opposed to just saying "marriage" suggests that the general population is already very aware of what "marriage" means.

 

[Vro]

That's the way I look at it.
Man and woman were meant to be together, since man and man/woman and woman cannot give birth.

So you're centering marriage around conception. That's a pretty good definition. However, what if a man is impotent? What if a women cannot give birth? Do we deny them the right to because they cannot conceive? Or are they morally superior and still deserve the right to marriage?

not only should gay marriage be against the law, ALL marriage should be against the law.

the government has NO place regulating who can and cannot form consensual intimate relationships with each other.

So if the government has no place in regulating marriage, doesn't that mean all marriage of any sort should be within the law? If all marriage was against the law, then they would have a place regulating intimate relations; they would stop them.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Thousands of years of tradition in all sorts of societies (some religious, some not) say that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't understand the argument that the term 'marriage' is ill-defined - the mere fact that one has to specify "gay" or "same-sex" marriage as opposed to just saying "marriage" suggests that the general population is already very aware of what "marriage" means.

Cheese flavored chips are still chips, aren't they? When you say "Chips" people usually think of regular potato chips. Are you saying that just because you have to specify "Cheese" chips, that cheese flavored chips are not chips? Gay marriage is simply another form of marriage.

 

[Stroupes]

So you're centering marriage around conception. That's a pretty good definition. However, what if a man is impotent? What if a women cannot give birth? Do we deny them the right to because they cannot conceive? Or are they morally superior and still deserve the right to marriage?

There are more straight couples on the planet than gay that can conceive.
Despite some men being impotent or women not being able to give birth, millions of straight couples can and have conceived, but how many gay couples have you seen that have conceived a child?

 

[snex]

So if the government has no place in regulating marriage, doesn't that mean all marriage of any sort should be within the law? If all marriage was against the law, then they would have a place regulating intimate relations; they would stop them.

i originally wrote "illegal" but then this carries the obvious connotation that the government actively prevents it. i suppose the phrasing i chose still suffers from the same problem. my position is that the very concept of "marriage" should not exist at all. you should shack up with whoever you want whenever you want (again, consensually).

 

[snex]

There are more straight couples on the planet than gay that can conceive.
Despite some men being impotent or women not being able to give birth, millions of straight couples can and have conceived, but how many gay couples have you seen that have conceived a child?

hear that loud scraping noise? thats the sound of goalposts moving.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

There are more straight couples on the planet than gay that can conceive.
Despite some men being impotent or women not being able to give birth, millions of straight couples can and have conceived, but how many gay couples have you seen that have conceived a child?

That makes no sense. By this logic, straight couples that get married must be required to produce children. And why do you care whether or not two people have children? The world is overpopulated as is.

 

[Stroupes]

That makes no sense. By this logic, straight couples that get married must be required to produce children. And why do you care whether or not two people have children? The world is overpopulated as is.

I don't "care" who produces children and who doesn't.
And I never said straight couples are required to give birth.
They are, however, capable of conceiving, whereas, gay couples are not.

 

[Vro]

Despite some men being impotent or women not being able to give birth, millions of straight couples can and have conceived, but how many gay couples have you seen that have conceived a child?

You're still centering marriage around the ability to conceive. Just because you align yourself with the straight population, doesn't mean you should have the right to marriage because your population has the ability to conceive.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I don't "care" who produces children and who doesn't.
And I never said straight couples are required to give birth.
They are, however, capable of conceiving, whereas, gay couples are not.

I can kill myself right now. Somehow, though, I am not dead.

 

[Stroupes]

I can kill myself right now. Somehow, though, I am not dead.

That's really irrelevant.
I could kill myself too, but I'd rather be alive, and that has no relevance to this debate.

You're still centering marriage around the ability to conceive. Just because you align yourself with the straight population, doesn't mean you should have the right to marriage because your population has the ability to conceive.

You're right. I am, in no way, trying to bash the idea of gay couples being together.
My point was that I don't approve of it. Just because it's not the way I see relationships should be, in my opinion.

 

[Vro]

He's trying to say, the ability to do something does not make you better or special. In fact, an ability your population has, should never be a requirement.

 

[pockyD]

Cheese flavored chips are still chips, aren't they? When you say "Chips" people usually think of regular potato chips. Are you saying that just because you have to specify "Cheese" chips, that cheese flavored chips are not chips? Gay marriage is simply another form of marriage.

Isn't the debate topic itself whether gay marriage IS another form of marriage? You didn't even present an argument; you just stated which side you were on.

 

[Stroupes]

Well, I'm really having trouble trying to say what's on my mind.
Here's the best way I could think to explain it.
I would never be gay. I have gay friends though, and I don't have a problem with them dating, I know I can't stop them anyway.
But that's something I could never do.

 

[Vro]

California recently passed legislation to legally allow gay marriage. I thought it would be fitting to have a debate on whether or not it should be legal.

The argument isn't whether it's a type of marriage. The debate is about the legality of the bond.

 

[Vro]

But that's something I could never do.

So because you can't imagine yourself doing it, makes it so that they shouldn't be able to marry?

 

[Stroupes]

So because you can't imagine yourself doing it, makes it so that they shouldn't be able to marry?

No, but because I could never do it, I don't approve of it. But that shouldn't stop people who are in love from marrying.
My point was that I don't approve of it myself.

 

[pockyD]

The argument isn't whether it's a type of marriage. The debate is about the legality of the bond.

The argument that "gay marriage" shouldn't be legal is synonymous with the idea that it isn't marriage at all.

If gay marriage was uniformly considered marriage, it would already be covered under the existing provisions that provide for marriage.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

The argument that "gay marriage" shouldn't be legal is synonymous with the idea that it isn't marriage at all.

If gay marriage was uniformly considered marriage, it would already be covered under the existing provisions that provide for marriage.

Okay, so then why did you use "It's not marriage" as your argument, if that's what we're debating on. Why is it so bad to give gays the benefits and title of marriage if they want it? It doesn't affect you or anybody else.

 

[pockyD]

Okay, so then why did you use "It's not marriage" as your argument, if that's what we're debating on.

If you'd read it again, I stated that "it's not marriage" BECAUSE society and history define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Why is it so bad to give gays the benefits and title of marriage if they want it? It doesn't affect you or anybody else.

I honestly don't care about the topic; I just find that the anti-gay marriage side of the argument has very few supporters (and even fewer that are capable of expressing them competently), so I'm arbitrarily picking a side

I have no problem with gay couples having similar rights to traditional married couples in most areas (tax purposes, etc), but if so, it should be a separate title for a different union, because to me (and 99% of people), the meaning of "marriage" is set in stone

 

[Mediocre]

I have no problem with gay couples having similar rights to traditional married couples in most areas (tax purposes, etc), but if so, it should be a separate title for a different union, because to me (and 99% of people), the meaning of "marriage" is set in stone

I don't think it's anywhere near "99% of people", because more people than that actually support gay marriage.

Nor do I think that it should matter whether 99% of the population in the US opposes allowing gays to marry. This isn't an issue that should be up for a vote, really. This is a matter of equal rights. If a majority of people in a country don't think interracial marriages should be allowed, are they within their rights to stop an interracial couple from getting married?

If you answer no to that question, I want you to explain to me what makes that situation different from this one.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The argument that "gay marriage" shouldn't be legal is synonymous with the idea that it isn't marriage at all.

If gay marriage was uniformly considered marriage, it would already be covered under the existing provisions that provide for marriage.

Understand, really this is fundamentally an issue of the rights under marriage, and doing anything less then defining it based on marriage (by either simply extending marriage to same-sex couples, or defining something that explicitly states that it's is legally equivalent to marriage in every way) then you get into separate but equal in terms of gender equality. Demonstratable harm comes in first amendment violation (free exercise and establishment clauses due to amounting to coercion towards religions that define marriage as between a man and a woman, and coercion against religions that expand it) as well as the pragmatic effects that it disadvantages same-sex couples.

So, the linguistics issue is really irrelevant.

 

[BFDD]

Marriage has does not have to have anything to do with religion, it is the legal right for non-related people to be legally in the same family. This gives many benefits to people, benefits that have nothing to do with the ability to produce children. Marriage may have started as a religious ceremony, but once it began being used to determine legal benefits it must be given to all people. Gay marriage is not another form of marriage, the only difference between that and "real" marriage is the genders of the participants. It really shouldn't be an issue but for some reason people don't like it. I suppose if you want "forms" of marriage should we also announce race and religion of the people getting married. We can have black marriages, Asian marriages, Black Jew marriages, and the list goes on and on.

People are born gay it is not a choice. Just like people are born into a race. There is no difference between the two, except that most people have given up being racist and have moved on to the next group they can discriminate against.

 

[pockyD]

Quite simply, if I ask you to imagine 10 married couples sitting in a room, how many of those are same-sex couples?

Gay people have the same rights as straight people - they are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex - just because they don't want to exercise those rights doesn't mean they should necessarily have replacement rights. Is marriage really about 'love' nowadays anyway?

I'm allowed to own a cat, but I really have no interest in cats. Therefore, as a cat-hating person, I should be allowed to own a polar bear, right?

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Quite simply, if I ask you to imagine 10 married couples sitting in a room, how many of those are same-sex couples?

Gay people have the same rights as straight people - they are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex - just because they don't want to exercise those rights doesn't mean they should necessarily have replacement rights. Is marriage really about 'love' nowadays anyway?

I'm allowed to own a cat, but I really have no interest in cats. Therefore, as a cat-hating person, I should be allowed to own a polar bear, right?

You can't change your sexuality. If you don't like women, why would you marry one? And, yes, I think marriage kinda is about love. What do you think it's about?

Why do you have a problem with gays having "replacement rights?"