Gay Rights

[SkylerOcon]

Though there probably is already a thread about this, and I'm just missing it (if there is and its relatively new, feel free to lock/delete this, mods).

I personally think that it's foolish to deny Gay's rights. I'm not just saying this because I'm bisexual, I'm saying it because most arguments against Gay's are one of the following two:

1) OMG GOD SEZ NO!1

And, at the mention of a God, your argument falls apart. I can respect that your religion does not agree with this, but your personal beliefs give you no right to trample upon those of others.

I don't like it when somebody walks up to me and says I'm going to hell because of sexual preference. They have no right to say this (mainly because I don't even believe in what they're condemning me too) because it is there belief. Not mine.

2) The point of sex is to reproduce. Gay sex defeats the purpose.

To be blunt, sex has nothing to do with marriage. To add, a lot of straight people use condoms to prevent childbirth. In fact, I'm willing to bet that more straight couples use condoms to prevent childbirth than there are gay people having sex on any given night. Protest trojan before you protest us.

These are the two main arguments that I've heard. If you have any disagreements, feel free to try and prove me wrong.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I agree, Sklyer.

Additionally, there have been protests against Gay rights beyond marriege, such as Gay people owning a child.

Recently, the most commonly used argument against gays is that allowing a person to grow under gay parenting would severely screw the person up beyond repair. The justifications are:

1. The parents are gay. (Gays != Ax murderers, guys.)
2. No mother or
3. No father.

Let's not forget the children are orphans, sometimes having neither to begin with. Staying in an orphanage or foster service full of abuse and **** can create more real problems than Anti-Gays' hypothetical ones. Additionally, I've never seen an Anti-Gay argue for a divorcee's childrens' rights.

Anti-Gays' generally don't provide any kind of evidence beyond opinion. The situation hasn't been looked into much (last time I checked). Despite this, I feel gay parenting poses no threat to society. In fact, given a child isn't in an unsafe system such as fostering or orphan houses, they are actually helping society by caring for our children and relieving tax payers of having to pay for the care of another child.

 

[Crimson King]

I think Gay people deserve rights for one simple reason - They are human. End of ****ing argument.

It's pretty awful to say someone doesn't deserve the same rights as I do because they are different.

 

[takieddine]

There are economic problems with gay marriage.

On the one hand one can argue that the couple will benefit from the system, while at the same time not contributing to the production of a young work force for the nation.

On the other hand, however, I find that a gay couple is one to adopt orphaned children. Which is arguably more beneficial to a child than to be raised their entire lives orphaned.

 

[SaxDude93]

Don't know if anybody hasn't heard this, but whatever. Vince Fumo (Pennsylvania State Senator) and a black pastor got into an argument over over an Anti-Gay Marriage Bill. And Fumo supports Gay rights

"What you are advocating here is that we take away the rights of a minority. And I don't think that's right," Fumo told Gilbert Coleman Jr., senior pastor of Freedom Christian Bible Fellowship in Philadelphia, during the hearing. ". . . If we introduced a bill on slavery, it might pass. That doesn't make it right."

"I doubt that, sir," responded Coleman, an African American who testified in support of the measure.

"Oh, don't bet on it in this General Assembly," shot back Fumo, who is preparing to leave the legislature after 30 years. "I know some people up here, especially on a secret ballot, it would be almost unanimous."

While what Fumo said could've been worded batter, he has a point. Taking away the rights of minorities is wrong and the pastor should've known that. Marriage, in my opinion, is between two people who love each other.

BTW, I live inside the hellhole of Pennsylvania.

 

[Crimson King]

It's ludicrous to say gays can't marry because they can't have children. What about old or sterile couples? Are they banned from marriage in this Judeo-Christian society?

 

[RBinator]

I honestly didn't expect to see a topic on this subject here. I figured that with the massive gay rights movement and stuff going on nowadays, such a subject would no longer be debatable and people would move on. Basically, I feel like the topic's very existence proves that it's not quite a done deal yet.

By the way Skyler, I think you forgot the 3rd reason that is used by immature young males... "Two guys together is nasty! Two girls together is hot!". Anyway...

As for gay couples not breeding more youth into society, how is that any different then heterosexual couples choosing not to have children or having any cases that physically prevents them from having children? Out of my life plans, having children isn't one of them, so would that put me in the same boat?

 

[SkylerOcon]

No, it would not put you into the same boat. Why? Because you're straight. You already have the rights secured and to take away the rights from you would be socially unacceptable.

However, gays don't have these rights secured, so its justifiable in some weird way for us to not be able to have these rights because we apparently didn't (though we did. Check the constitution, *******es) have these rights in the first place.

Also, most anti-gays belong to a religious group that is against homosexuality. So, they can pretty much say whatever they want against gays because 'God says no'.

 

[The Executive]

It's ludicrous to say gays can't marry because they can't have children. What about old or sterile couples? Are they banned from marriage in this Judeo-Christian society?

America is only superficially Judeo-Christian, and that image is eroding quickly.

Also, most anti-gays belong to a religious group that is against homosexuality. So, they can pretty much say whatever they want against gays because 'God says no'.

Skyler, this simply isn't true. True, many fundamentalist Christian/Islamic bodies exhibit massive double standards by ostracizing homosexuals, sexual deviants, etc. while condoning other behaviors they claim to be against. However, not all churches/mosques are like that, and sects like Westboro Baptist Church is not and should not be viewed as an example of fundamentalist mentality. (If you don't know who they are already, Google. It's disturbing.)

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity is supposed to respond to people with love and compassion, not throw down fire-and-brimstone condemnations from a pulpit.

 

[WuTangDude]

For the record, if you read the Bible, it doesn't anywhere state that gays deserve less rights then heterosexuals (if there is, please, point it out, because I have NEVER seen anything like that)...

But I doubt anybody here is gonna argue otherwise, everyone on this board are at the point of intelligence where equal human rights among all people is a universally accepted idea.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

 

[RBinator]

But I doubt anybody here is gonna argue otherwise, everyone on this board are at the point of intelligence where equal human rights among all people is a universally accepted idea.

That pretty much sums up why I think it's strange that this topic is here in the first place, even for those that believe homosexuality to be a sin according to their religion beliefs. A debate can only go so far with everyone basically saying "I agree".

 

[adumbrodeus]

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Ignoring the translation issues for a moment...

What precisely does this have to governmental policy?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

It shouldn't in my opinion, since I'm not Christian, but clearly it implies that people who commit homosexual acts have "less rights" in the eyes of God. I was simply pointing it out to WuTangDude since he asked for it.

 

[Crimson King]

It has a lot to do with policy. George W. Bush frequently references God and what not in speeches. Religion is a hot topic in this election as well.

 

[Zero Beat]

This a very simple argument. Forget gay rights. Separating them from 'the rest' is the first mistake, anyway. It's called human rights. Just because two people share the same gender and attraction towards each other, doesn't mean they should be forbidden from carrying on that act. It's just a tad bit inhumane.

As long as a homosexual doesn't affect me in a way I'd consider annoyance, they're fine by me.

 

[Crimson King]

Gay rights is the concept of giving them the rights that all other humans have, such as the ability to marry and adopt children.

 

[SkylerOcon]

As far as I can tell, everybody agrees.

So, this thread is pointless until somebody who doesn't agree comes along, so for now lets let it be.

 

[Zero Beat]

Gay rights is the concept of giving them the rights that all other humans have, such as the ability to marry and adopt children.

And my point was, there shouldn't even be something as "gay rights." It's just a human right. By adopting gay rights, you're separating them. Human rights should apply to all humans, where those rights are allowed by government.

 

[DoH]

Man, if only we had a contest in which skilled debaters could engage on issues like this one...

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=96699

 

[blazedaces]

Man, if only we had a contest in which skilled debaters could engage on issues like this one...

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=96699

LOL! Good job in that debate darkness...

-blazed

 

[ScottSadistic]

well, i am actually for it...but for the debates purpose...i will point out some reasons against skylar...

society looks down on gay marriages. love is meant to be shared between a man and a woman...and...

aaah this is pointless...so if i am for it and tried to point out some facts against it...this is stupid.

we need a serious homophobe or something for this topic to work...

 

[The Executive]

we need a serious homophobe or something for this topic to work...

I'm not a serious homophobe, but I believe homosexuality to be immoral (yes, it's the dreaded "OMG GOD SEZ NO!" argument). I am against calling gay marriage "gay marriage" because I believe marriage to be defined as a union between 1 (one) man and 1 (one) woman. Civil unions, fine. All the other legal benefits, fine. Call the partnership what you want, give them all the rights a legally married couple has, but don't call it "marriage".

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to state that I have no issues with homosexual people; some of my friends are gay/bisexual. I refuse to blindly ostracize a section of the populace for their beliefs because all that does is promote further strife. Not to mention it's immensely hypocritical.

I'm not going to push my beliefs on anyone, I'm merely throwing this out there for the sake of debate. Do with it what you will.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I think the term "marriage" should be eliminated from legal matters and reserved only for union within a church. What is called "marriage" now in the legal context should just be called a "civil union" or whatever in general. The legal concept need have nothing to do with religious traditions so let's stop using a misnomer that invites fundamentalist rancor.

 

[RBinator]

If the concept of a union between people is to change (from one man and one woman to two people regardless of their sex), then I say the meaning of marriage is to also change. If we're not gonna stick with the old idea of marriage between a single man and woman, then why should we stick with the old meaning of it? Plus, if gays were to become "equal", wouldn't separating them from heterosexual marriage be a form of "separate can't be equal"? Having gays only being allowed to perform a civil union, even if works like a marriage, is still something that would separate them from marriage.

I'm not saying heterosexual and homosexual couples will ever be 100% the same, if mainly because homosexual couples have no chance of giving birth on their own. I just think if gay rights are to become human rights and thus not treated differently based on sexual orientation, separating them from marriage doesn't fit that idea.

 

[TheManaLord]

I believe that homosexuals should have the same societal rights as everyone else. This includes no discrimination in any form. Be it harassment, in search for employment, or other things involving an exchange that the majority of society does. They have the right to fair treatment, because they are people. They are people who do something different then other people. Lot's of people have differences, it is taboo to discriminate due to certain differences, why not others?

The only thing homosexuals should not have the right to do is reproduce and raise a child. This is not societal, it is biological.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The only thing homosexuals should not have the right to do is reproduce and raise a child. This is not societal, it is biological.

Why should they be denied that right? We're not slaves to what biology says we "should" do. We can do whatever we want. You say yourself it's not societal, so there's no problem in letting them reproduce and raise children simply because they like to have sex with certain people. If you can show that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off than average kids in a statistically significant way, then maybe we can talk.

 

[TheManaLord]

Those statistics don't exist yet, but it's my feeling they will if science continues to produce them the means to do so.

The culturing of humanity is not something that can be biologically changed. The care of a mother and a father are inherent and innate in human life.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Those statistics don't exist yet, but it's my feeling they will if science continues to produce them the means to do so.

There are in fact some data about it.
www.clasp.org/publications/marriage_brief3_annotated.pdf
In fact all that I could really find against it is that on average children raised by gay parents are more likely to themselves be gay. But that's neither 'bad' nor surprising.

However I still wouldn't rule out that confliciting data could emerge.

The culturing of humanity is not something that can be biologically changed. The care of a mother and a father are inherent and innate in human life.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think any right should be denied until it's explicitly shown that it is harmful. Otherwise you're just going on conjecture. Family structure has been changing for hundreds of years. The concept of a "nuclear" family is a relatively new development.

 

[The Executive]

I think the term "marriage" should be eliminated from legal matters and reserved only for union within a church. What is called "marriage" now in the legal context should just be called a "civil union" or whatever in general. The legal concept need have nothing to do with religious traditions so let's stop using a misnomer that invites fundamentalist rancor.

The only reason marriage is a legal institution is because divorce is a legal institution. For an annulment of a bond to be legal, the creation of the bond must be legal as well. Divorce court is a nasty mess, but it puts money in lawyers' pockets and as such I can't see it disappearing anytime soon. Thus, the term 'marriage' is shared between church and state, whether I or you or anyone else likes it or not. Sad.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

The only reason marriage is a legal institution is because divorce is a legal institution.

In addition to making it seem like Divorce laws are independant of wether or not there are marriege laws, the statement is in the wrong order. To even correct the order would make the statement irrelevant to the subject. I don't mean to come off as a troll, but... clarify?

The only thing homosexuals should not have the right to do is reproduce and raise a child. This is not societal, it is biological.

The culturing of humanity is not something that can be biologically changed. The care of a mother and a father are inherent and innate in human life.

There are few ways to not contradict yourself:

1. State that gay people are not human (because you say parental care is innate in human life, why should gays not be allowed to raise a child?)
2. Believe that both a mother and a father are neccessary.

If I have read the posts the wrong way, I apologise.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The only reason marriage is a legal institution is because divorce is a legal institution.

I don't see why that necessarily follows. Just call the annulment of "marriage" (which is the religious union only) "divorce," and call the annulment of the "civil union" or whatever (the secular or legal union) something else, like "civil dissolution" or something.

Either can be done independently or simultaneously, providing each is allowed in each context.

 

[TheManaLord]

In addition to making it seem like Divorce laws are independant of wether or not there are marriege laws, the statement is in the wrong order. To even correct the order would make the statement irrelevant to the subject. I don't mean to come off as a troll, but... clarify?





There are few ways to not contradict yourself:

1. State that gay people are not human (because you say parental care is innate in human life, why should gays not be allowed to raise a child?)
2. Believe that both a mother and a father are neccessary.

If I have read the posts the wrong way, I apologise.

You read it wrong, reproduce through their own biological means, with two females (the technology is there, I am unsure if for two males is possible yet), AND raise the child. Gay's can adopt but biological reproduction should be reserved for a male and a female. I also said that mothers and fathers are inherent and innate for human life, although this is the case I didn't say it's necessary and it's how it should be, many children are raised in broken homes or by a single parent.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Regarding gay marriage, it really doesn't matter what the 'institution' of marriage is, all that matters is that what has happened is that gays are constantly in this separate-but-equal situation.

I don't care if marriage was originally between a man and a woman. In today's society, it should be able to be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Who cares if that's how its been for a long time. We didn't use computers for a long time. Matter of fact, I bet pretty much everything you've done today was thought up of within the last one hundred or so years.

So the 'but thats how it was since like... forever!' argument is a frail one. I could apply it to your clothes, your televisions, your cars, and your video games.

 

[Zero Beat]

It's become a societal norm that only a man and a woman can marry each other, because it's a religious custom, and religion worked better in the olden days than it does now. Therefore, it carries forward.

Same applies with "sex before marriage." It's against religion, and was adopted as a societal norm because the belief was so widely accepted, when, like I said before, religion's influence actually worked as a whole.

 

[The Executive]

In addition to making it seem like Divorce laws are independant of wether or not there are marriege laws, the statement is in the wrong order. To even correct the order would make the statement irrelevant to the subject. I don't mean to come off as a troll, but... clarify?

The statement isn't in the wrong order. Divorce is a strictly legal process in America unless you are under some marital bond issued by a religious group and not the state and thus need to be divorced through them. In order for a bond to be "legally" broken by the state, it must be "legally" created and/or recognized by the state. Read my post again.

Either way, I was merely providing a reason as to why the term "marriage" is used in a legal context at all. To further discuss this would be derailing the thread, just PM me if you have any questions.

 

[WuTangDude]

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

That's from the Old Testament, which also demanded punishment for heterosexual adultery, coveting, etc.

The New Testament doesn't have anything anywhere near as severe as that quote.

The Old Testament has always been on that "Eye for an eye" stuff.

(But, for the record, I do stand corrected)

 

[RDK]

As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality is a genetic preference. It's no worse than excessive drinking or smoking (and I hate smoking).

The point has been made before about how the purpose of sex is to reproduce. This still stands as a valid point; homosexual activities don't bear children. The OP didn't do a good job of refuting this.

All in all, I don't have too much of a beef with it, as long as people aren't out doing it in the streets. I have some friends that are gay, and they're the nicest people around. Just don't force it on other people.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Actually, I never even tried to refute it. Sex is for reproduction, but love isn't.

And yes, I know that sounded incredibly cheesy.

 

[blazedaces]

In response to RDK's post:
Firstly (and I thought someone already mentioned this), marriage, and reproduction do not necessarily go hand in hand. If your issue is with homosexuals being unable to bear children then you should be equally complaining about married couples who never have children of their own (or can't for that matter!).

Secondly, with today's technology homosexual couples can have children of their own either through adoptions or by visiting a sperm/egg bank/facility (and for males one would also need to find a surrogate mother). Still, since heterosexual couples use these same services for whatever reasons you can't argue that you have problems with homosexual couples having children by these means without arguing against those same means done by heterosexuals.

-blazed