Debate Same-sex marriage

I give props to both luvweaver and Zack for their massive input. I tried to keep up but I ended up skimming. Just to stay "on topic" I'd like to express my lil opinion: Let's just have same-sex marriages legal already, and deal with "gays-having-kids" on another day. Also, I don't think anyone has the right to deny kids for homosexual couples. Just let em do it! If it turns out that the kids end up messed up when they grow up, well then that gives us the concrete proof we've been waiting for (then we can ban homosexual couples from raising kids). Then again, it's nice to have some psychologically screwed up kids sometimes, cuz it makes everyone else seem normal. (This concept I learned from the other debate thread, about Satan.) But yeah, since society doesn't unanimously agree on the same thing, we need to wait a while before we just legalize everything.

 

To tell the truth, I dont support gay marriage. Marriage is a union that should be between a man and woman the way God intended.

 

A) There is no God.

B) I can marry who I want.

 

If you go with this theory, that marriage is the sanctity between a man and a woman, then you are required to turn a blind eye to too many things. Cheating occurs on a regular basis anymore. Divorce tears to shreds the "To death do us part" vow. If you really think that marriage is that holy or wonderful, you'd think more people would care. Brittany Speares embodied this recently.

I have no problem with marriage between same-sex relationships.

 

Who the hell is society to say two people can't love each other? They say color dosen't matter. Well, neither does sex. If two people will accept who they are, then go for it.

 

Don't impose your morals on the rest of us, bigot. Just because your religion says something doesn't mean anyone else has to obey it; particularly since your nations constitution seperates church from state.

 

That's another very valid point: Christianity isn't the only religion out there. The ancient Greek religion, for example, actually favored same-sex unions, especially if it was two men. That was just how they saw it.

 

i reckon that all ppl should be allowed to marry whoever they please. if marrying same sex person is the key to happiness for some individuals, then why not let them do it? im just wondering, how are they going to call each other after the marriage( eg. husband and husband, wife and wife or husband and wife?? confusing...)

 

Uh...This might be a bit off-topic, but could you please prove that, Baphijmm? I've never heard anything of that nature, and considering almost every romantic tale of that era was heterosexual, I'm a bit confused.

 

Fair warning: I read the first 5 pages and started skimming after that. If I restate some points, please forgive me. ^^; But I couldn't stand not writing something anymore.

I'm fully in favor of same-sex marriages. There's absolutely nothing wrong with two adults wanting a formal recognition of their love. That's what marriage is - a commitment, with a ceremony to mark a happy occasion. Marriage is important in that it allows the couple's friends and family to celebrate with them, and gives them a greater feeling of unity and a way to express love for each other. Gender shouldn't matter.

I don't really like the idea of "civil unions." Granted, it may be more acceptible to some people - but I think it's a bad thing. It draws a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals. "We can get married - but you're different, you're not allowed to." It's descriminatory. It's a step in the right direction, but it still makes an unnecessary differentiation. The word "marriage" has a deeper and more symbolic meaning to a lot of people. "Civil union" implies something... less.

Too many people are focusing on whether or not they think the idea of a same-sex couple getting married is "right." That's not the point. Until you can prove to me with scientific or legal evidence that gay marriage is wrong, I say you're just being a fool. The issue here is the right of two people to be recognized as life partners both legally and by their community, and to share in the financial benefits given to married couples.

If you want to argue that marriage is a religious institution and therefor should be governed under religious beliefs and morals (by which I assume most of you mean Christian authority, because I bet not all religions have a problem with homosexuality!), does this mean you think atheists should also not be allowed to marry?

You know what I personally think about homosexuality? I can't see a damn thing wrong with it. I feel that humans, having reached a level of understanding and emotion far beyond most other creatures on this planet, should no longer be constrained by partnering for the simple purpose of procreation. When you love, it's the person, the spirit, that should matter - not the physical body. Should I not love outside my ethnic group? Should I not love a disabled person? Love can and should transcend earthly forms. Ever hear the term "soulmate"? I, for one, would not shy away from loving another woman, if she was the person who I felt most connected to. Loving, non-harmful relationships between mutually-consenting adults aren't wrong, whatever form those relationships take.

What could a homosexual marriage really harm? How does a formal commitment of two people, given a ceremony and a title, become a bad thing if the people aren't of opposite sexes? If individual churches, synagogues, etc. wanted to decide for themselves whether or not to perform gay marriages, fine. That I could live with that for the time being, though I wouldn't like it much. But you know, denying marriage to same-sex couples is no different than denying it to interracial couples (which was indeed illegal at one point).

Enough people have already pointed out the fact that heterosexual marriages today are far from exemplary of high moral standards. The quality of the marriage depends on the couple, their commitment level, their personalities - not their physical gender.

You know all the stories about a princess who meets a handsome, charming young man and falls in love with him - but they can't marry because he's a peasant or something? Don't you feel sorry for them because silly social standards prevent them from having an official union despite their love? Apply that to this debate. Love is love, dammit, and people need to stop worrying about petty crap like social tiers and gender.

EDIT:

Life partner, lover, spouse... Does it matter?

 

Im not a bigot. I dont hate gay people but that doesn't mean I have to support gay marriage.

 

Then tell us, is there ANY reason you don't support gay marriage other than your religious convictions? If not, then you're using a religious ideology to try to push an agenda in a country that is supposed to have church and state separated.

 

Sure, I'd be glad to, but first I'd have to find the source I heard it from. :sweat2: It's been a while. When I find it, I'll probably just edit it into this post.

 

Try again, kiddo.

big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

You are a bigot because you don't support gay marriage solely on the grounds that your religion doesn't support it. Instead of "I don't support gay marriage within my church, but they can do whatever they want outside of the church", you instead seem to want NO gay marriage PERIOD.

I may not agree with some things some people believe in but as long as they aren't harming anyone I could certainly care less.

 

I got to agree with Nephilim X on this one. Its a simple contradiction of logic when you say your not a bigot but yet you would deny them a right based purely off what your church says. As far as I'm concerned, thats discrimination.

As for my own opinion, I think gays should be allowed to marry. Personnally it doesn't hurt me, a strait, catholic man, in any way I can imagine. As for that prick president in the White House right now... well, at least we won't have to deal with him for much longer. :anime:

 

Just because I said I dont support it doesn't mean Im denying gays the right to get married. If a person wants to marry someone of the same sex then that's their descission to make, not mine.

 

Well, unless of course you vote against it... that'd be an attempt to deny that right. However, I'm glad you recognize that marriage should be a right, not a privilege afforded only to certain groups.

After all, "marriage" is a pretty wide term for a lot of unions performed in accordance with various religious and traditional customs... It's not as if the only people getting married are Christians, although it always seems to be the Christians arguing against gay marriage. Eh.

 

Recently our "brilliant" President of the United States has gotten the wonderful idea of trying to get a constitutional amendmant banning homosexual marriage.

In my mind this is defeating the whole idea of the constitution. We're the land of the free, and don't you think all men created equally should be allowed to share their love of another in a marriage state.

I'm not homosexual, and don't plan on becoming so, but I am willing to respect other peoples' choices.

 

bush is a fundamentalist christian isn't he? when have fundamentalist christians EVER cared about other people?

 

BotticelliLover, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that stupid amendment controversy. There has been only one amendment in American history that restricted rights rather than granted them. That was Prohibition, and we all know how that turned out. I can almost guarantee there won't be an amendment banning gay marriage.