Debate Same-sex marriage

The same way it changed racism. There still IS racism, but it's no longer considered acceptible by the mainstream culture - thereby making it a hell of a lot easier for minority groups to live decent lives. When the law steps in and says you can't descriminate against a group, most people tend to accept that.

Yes. Most kids are no longer being raised to think that beating up a black person is OK just because they're black, for instance. When society changes, people change. Likewise, there's more acceptance of homosexual individuals today than there was before people started to be concerned with gay rights. It's becoming more and more common for gay people to be viewed as just another part of society, thankfully.

The natural order? Oh, please. There's nothing unnatural about loving another adult romantically. Get over yourself.

And DON'T tell me that animals don't exhibit homosexual tendencies; some do. Besides, humans have more advanced thought processes and shouldn't have to love solely for the purpose of reproduction.

As I said before, the family structure doesn't matter nearly as much as the ability of the parent(s) to provide the child with love and support.

And do you know the psychological effects on children of living in orphanages and foster homes for years, when they could be adopted as infants and spared that trauma? If a gay couple passes the same screening given to every other potential adoptive couple, they should be able to adopt a kid just like everyone else. The child's age should not be an issue. You keep coming back to this implication that homosexual parents are a negative influence on a child; they're not, no more than parents of different ethnic stock would be bad for a child.

Who's replacing them? There are alternate family structures that can work very well. A family is NOT just a man, woman, and child(ren). It's a support network of people who care about each other. Society and nature have proven again and again that the idea of "family" is not merely reproduction.

You're implying that these kids wouldn't have a biological mother and father. What if one parent was the egg or sperm donor, and the other parent, though not part of the romantic relationship, remained in the child's life? Anyway, you're dragging things into this that are completely different issues - like your apparent problem with artificial insemination/pregnancy.

In the interests of staying on topic, let's not continue to bring in new issues not central to the gay marriage debate.

 

A childs parents would never allow them to denounce a religion, at least the parents I know.

About my friend, his mother left his dad for a woman when he was 3.

A child will not continue to be ridiculed if he is firm. Besides, most children nowadays are very accepting.

 

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Religion defies logic and nature and sometimes itself. Why should I give a rats *** about what religion says? Furthermore, not all religions are anti-gay.

Placing a child in ANY family could have any number of ill effects. The fact remains that we haven't seen any "ill effects" that stand out.

Yeah, too bad ORPHANS HAVE NO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS LEFT.

 

reply

I think gays and ilebiens should be wed i mean the united states say we have freedom of religon if people what to marry the same sex go ahead its none of are b wax.

 

ah, but the united states was founded on the idea that they can say one thing.. and do another, that is the strength of their goverment/ (thank you south park)

 

I'm the type of guy that would tell people I'm gay just to piss them off. Homophobia is just another on a LONG list of traits that I hate in people.

I just want you religious folk, or you guys that think sodomy isn't "natural" to think about this: Who has the right to determine who one woman or man can or cannot love?

Alot of people say love is one of those quality's that keeps humanity going, A reason to live for. Now you guys are trying to take it away cause you think It's disgusting? How lame.

 

What gets to me is the way that homophobes refuse to admit their homophobia - they'll say, "Oh, I'm fine with gay people, really - but I just think they should be denied the experience of marriage and all it's financial benefits."

Well, not in those exact words... XD

Incidentally, for anyone who supports "civil unions" - did you know that people entering into civil unions would be eligible for their state's benefits to married couples, but they would NOT get the, oh, roughly one thousand benefits provided by the national government? A civil union isn't just marriage by a less controversial name, people. It's a denial of rights based on sexual orientation.

EDIT: I think there are about 400 state-provided marriage benefits, by the way.

 

Duh this should be legal. Being gay is no differnt than being straight other than the fact of man to man and woman to woman people or born that way LIKE ME I have known I was differnt since I can remember.I think it so dumb to say that its wrong and its against gods words.The bible didnt fall out of the skie somebody wrote the fugeing thing.Do you know in the bible it says a man with long hair is sining agaist the bible and crap like that ,but think who had long hair and was a man oh whats his name gods son his mother was mary heck i cant remember..... :dizzy2: It also says we must stone obidiant childern it says that around the part about gays.I do belive in a god of some kind but I will not be forced to live my life around a book that a HUMAN wrote!
Sorry Iwent a bit off subject and I know I have some spelling errors.
So if you think that gay getting wedded is wrong than you better not have long hair(if a guy) and never be bad if you have kids and there bad you better stone them too.
It makes me mad people pick and choose what they want to use out of the bible and if you go by the bible you better use the whole thing.

PS did you know our constutution goes against it we cant sell our daughters to slavery but the bible says it ok.

 

I think you're being oversimplistic. No, the Bible didn't come down from heaven "per-se". But ugh, that's what we get for letting some (censored) use the bible as they please, and say and yell all about: "the bible says! the bible says!".

The bible wasn't meant to be a HOW-TO manual. It has to be interpreted with very strict rules (including but not limited to exegesis and hermeneutics)
And some parts are just historic and do not apply today (such as slavery, which was ordained in the OT but was abolished on the NT. Of course, the anti-catholic guys will start bashing me on this. But hey, i'm just trying to clarify. :sweat2:

 

Yup, I agree with you there. And no matter what anyone wants to believe about the origins of the Bible, it can't be denied that the "good book" has been translated so many times that it must have lost something over the years. (Hell, we as anime fans should be VERY familiar with just how much even the most accurate translations can differ, just because there are some concepts that don't have a parallel in every language.)

Certainly a good point. There's nothing wrong with believing in the values taught by the Bible - but there are plenty of people who seem to use scripture as nothing more than selective support for their personal bigotries.

...So, then, isn't it possible that the Bible's denouncement of gay marriage and/or homosexuality is outdated, just as its support of slavery or archaic physical punishment is? If the Bible can be interpreted that way - if some of what it says can be relegated to merely historical reference and relics of older social norms - what's to say that Biblical views on homosexuality are still valid?

It would be interesting to see some other religious viewpoints in this debate... It seems to me that whenever the issue of gay marriage is raised, its constant companion is the debate of Christian beliefs and values. Do we have any Buddhists, Wiccans, or Satanists who would like to inform us what their holy doctrines say on the subject?

...And since this thread is back again, I thought I'd post up a rather sarcastic bit of humor that a friend emailed me a while ago. I realize that some of the comparisons given are not entirely valid, but a few good points are made, and it got a chuckle out of me. XD

Numbers 2, 3, 5, 10, and 12 are ones which I think are particularly biting in their accuracy.

12 Reasons Gays Shouldn't Marry in America:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and
birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children.
Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the
world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight
parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is
allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was
meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed
at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is
illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because
the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically
protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours,
the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's
why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has
legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model
at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to
new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer
life spans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with
a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution
is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked
just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

 

Great example...

of a straw man. Ridiculizing and generalizing some arguments to render the whole point useless.

In the same way, I could say that:

"Gay couples have always populated the world. But evil men guided by religious authorities slaughtered and persecuted gay couples (along with elves, dwarfs, dragons and pixies, argumenting they were devil-made), wiping their history from earth.

Now they say that heterosexuality is natural and was accepted by majority.
It's a freaking conspiracy!"

Sorry, I couldn't resist it but the 12 points really looked ridiculous.

 

Well, they're meant to be humor. And like I said, not all of them are the best comparisons, and they certainly don't constitute a solid argument. It's just that a couple of them actually do make valid points.

 

Wow, I'm surprised I didn't come across this earlier considering the fact that this is almost a daily debate between my anti-homosexual friend and me.

Whenever I ask her *why* she detests homosexuality so strongly, I usually get the reply "It's against the bible!" to which I must ask, wasn't this country based on freedom of religion? If that's the case, then it shouldn't matter whether or not "God" agrees with homosexuality, so long as the individual does.

As you've probably notice, I'm a strong advocator for homosexual marriage, for the sole reason that I don't think it matters whether or not a complete stranger wants to marry someone of their gender. That's their choice, not to mention their business, and discouraging this (or more to the point, completely unallowing it) infringes on their rights.

Countless times I've heard the "taxes" argument (stating that gay/lesbian couples shouldn't recieve the benefits of marriage because they can't bare children) to which I respond that if children are so important, why aren't married couples lacking children hassled for their decisions? And who says gay/lesbian couples can't adopt? It just seems like a blatant cover-up for homophobia to me, and I'm dead tired of hearing "gay" used as a derogatory term. I just think people need to grow up and accept that not everyone will fit into their cookie-cutter mold of the "ideal human".

 

Personally, I don't mind homosexual people. If they don't try anything with me, then they're fine.

To me, this whole issue is more about maintaining tradition than the homosexual stuff. Traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman; however, is it worth it to shatter tradition just because some people want to be on the "in" club? In my honest opinion, it's not.

Story: On the trek to college one day, I was listening to the radio when the host talked about something in the news about two married women from Canada. They lived together for 7 years, got married and then hated each other's guts in a matter of days and were tied up trying to figure out how to divorce. Lol, maybe homosexual marriages aren't that different from traditional marriages after all.

 

THANK YOU!

Really, now - if the only important criterion for marriage is the ability and inclination to breed, then what's all this crap about the "sanctity of marriage" that homosexual marriages would supposedly destroy? Why don't we disallow marriages for people who are infertile, or women who are marrying or remarrying post-menopause? ;P

You're right, it really IS just a cheap cover for homophobia. Show me a gay person, or someone who genuinely respects and feels comfortable with homosexuals, who can still say honestly that they don't think gays deserve the right to marry - show me just ONE, and maybe I'll think otherwise. But really, what does it MATTER if, as you said, two people you don't know want to get married? There are many, MANY closetted homosexuals who enter into heterosexual marriages because they're in denial or haven't recognized their true inclinations, and there are also a lot of marriages which take place for the wrong reasons (like, say, the girl gets pregnant because the couple was fooling around without a condom, and so they feel "forced" to marry)... it's not as if those marriages are going to be healthy ones in the long term, and my point is that pretty much any "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman" argument against gay marriage can be nullified when you think of all the marriages out there that are based on deception, dishonesty with oneself, whims, coersion, control, financial gain... The only reason to deny homosexuals specifically is bigotry.

Traditionally? Traditionally, women are considered property. Traditions need to change sometimes.

Besides, which traditions are you talking about? Marriage is different depending on the society and the religion. There are all KINDS of bonds, between two people or more than two, which are called "marriage."

Besides which, being able to marry isn't about wanting to be in the "in" club. Would you have said that women wanting voting rights was just their desire to be part of the "in" club? No. It's about wanting to have equal rights to something which is socially important, something which holds value for most people. Marriage is not solely the domain of "one man, one woman." Marriage is a way to show the world "We are committed to each other. We want to share our lives together. We want to be united in law and in the eyes of our families and friends." It's basically just like any other occasion - like a graduation, or a birthday party, or a house-warming party, or a baby shower, or a retirement ceremony. People want to share their achievements with the others they care about - and what bigger achievement could there be than finding love?

Anyway, I really don't see how tradition would be "shattered" by the inception of gay marriage. Men and women would still be able to marry. And it's not like marriage would be any less meaningful for heterosexual couples. If every marriage that didn't fit the "traditional" ideal cheapened it for everyone... well, I'm sorry, but in that case I think Vegas weddings have already killed the sanctity of marriage. XD

Besides which, individual churches or religious sects would be under no obligation to perform gay marriages. They could keep their traditional values. But the term "marriage" isn't just a religious term. That's why people need to stop with this "civil unions" bullcrap - unless all marriages performed outside of a specific religious context are going to be termed such.

 

Hah, your Vegas referance is true. Good'ol shotgun marriage.

Not all traditions are equally important. Clothing and attire for example, for most of us, the only deciding factor in what to wear is if you'll look okay or like some bozo; however, there are certain people that take their clothing seriously (priests, military, Amish, business executives &e.). The way it seems to me, religion is the one primary preserver of tradition. The Catholic church for example, operates under a hierarchy, maintains a set a rituals practiced for centuries and is slow when it comes to reform. Marriage as it has been practiced, has always been between a man and woman in our Western society. It is what most of us grew up under, seen and have hear about. Seeing marriage in a book used to automatically infer man-woman without needing to think about the other choices. Its something i've taken for granted that is getting challanged.

Part of marriage is not only loving each other, but also begetting and raising children. In a house with one gender married to the other, the child/children has a good chance of growing up differently that the rest of us. Com'on, we all know that men and women are not the same. The way we act, react, reason and even talk rubs off on everyone after awhile, but esspecially with those you live with. Lacking a mother or a father may not affect everyone the same way or for better or for worse, but there will be at least some cases and instances.

Now bub, I really must take offense to your accusations of bigotry. I wish to keep marriage the way it has been, so i'm a filthy bigot. Hah, such broad sweeping accusations from someone whom wouldn't know me from the guy nextdoor. If you desire to silence me with the labling card, too bad. You can call me a machoist, feminist; racist; elitist, pluralist; or what have you, but there's no way you can shut me up when it comes to my ideals.

 

There are always chances that a kid will grow up differently, become something different, yada yada yada. There are worse things that could happen than if a child grows up to *gasp!* have sexual feelings towards the same gender! (Heaven forbid). Fact of the matter is there are tons of factors that can change how a child will grow (if nature and enviroment is the one-hundred percent factor, even). So... we stop homosexuals from raising kids because of the way it may alter the raising of a child. But then, while we're at it... we should stop anyone with a criminal record from being in contact with children. I mean, God only knows if they'll teach their kids something horrific.

And, of course, we have to forbid any bigots, racists, sexists, etc. from ever having kids, or coming into contact with them, and horrifically altering their mind. But, then... comes the important factor... where does it stop? Who knows how far some radicals will take it, much to the akin of abortion? Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, they can't have kids. And then, it'll go into the different kinds of Christianity. No kids for the Lutherans, but the Roman Catholics should be allowed to have kids. "They won't **** their kids up like them darned queers, turban-heads and Jews".

So. Yes. You are being a bigot, to an extreme degree.

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

Though of course I know how opinionated and ignorant people can be. So I'll leave reading and believing the article up to you folks (though I'm sure those intelligent bunch have already come across this as it is old news).

 

That's very true. And I'll admit, marriage is an important tradition. And that's exactly why it shouldn't be reserved for heterosexual couples only. Rather than "spoiling" marriage, homosexual unions recognized by the law - if not, perhaps, by certain religious institutions - would make it possible for all people to share in something which has been a fundamental part of society for ages. Personally, I don't see marriage as NECESSARY to a fulfiling and committed relationship, but that doesn't mean it isn't something which should be an option for all consenting adults.

True, but religion doesn't "own" the concept of marriage. Marriage isn't a solely religious institution like, say, prayer is.

Not for everyone. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who either cannot have children, or who actively choose not to. Their marriages are just as valid as anyone else's. And I suppose I don't really need to mention this again, but a gay couple is just as capable of raising children as a heterosexual couple - in fact, lesbians can even have biological children! And don't try to argue that artificial insemination doesn't count - unless you're also going to say that it's not a valid practice for infertile straight couples either?

I think I've been all over this point already, but...

First, I was raised by my dad. It's possible that I'm less feminine because of that - but I'm pefectly happy with how I've turned out, and to be honest, I was tomboyish long before my parents split up. I don't think that I was adversely affected by having pretty much only one parent being an active part of my life. Furthermore, I already mentioned it in this thread, but I had a friend in gradeschool whose father was gay, and his boyfriend lived with them. She was always perfectly fine with that as far as I could tell.

Besides which, your argument is so basic and vague that's it's pretty much irrelevant. I could just as easily say "Maybe most children won't be badly affected by being raised with an older brother, but there will be a few cases and instances..."

I think your definition of "the way marriage has been" is a little bit off. You wish to keep marriage between persons of the same race only, so that a black woman can't marry a white man? (After all, that's a fairly recent change of previous tradition...) You wish to keep the dowry practice, so that women are bought by and sold to future husbands? You wish to keep marrying a thirteen-year-old girl socially acceptible? Marriage changes CONSTANTLY, according to new social values.

I mean, I don't see you trumpeting the rights of immigrants from certain other countries to keep their traditional practice of polygamy, so....

 

Clothing is an article of fabric you wear so you aren't freezing or walking around nude. Marriage is a method of expressing your devotion and love for another person amongst the company of family, friends, people showing up for free food, and other miscallaneous guests. It's like trying to compare the tradition of eating soup with a spoon to the American tradition of free speech. They're in seperate spheres entirely, and I see no reason that homosexuals should be denied the priveledges of married life just because of sexual preference. I realize this hasn't been scientifically proven, but from my perspective and the limited experiences I've had associating with homosexual people, it isn't even their choice to begin with, so why blame them?

And as Dilandau stated, change is often a good thing. Look at the abolition of slavery, or women's right to vote (and own property, etc. for that matter), or the discrimination held against blacks long after the Civil War that are still being remedied. This is yet another case of ostracizing a group of people and subconciously demoting them within our minds.

Let's take a specific example: a girl in Alabama recently discovered she was homosexual after enduring a two year friendship with an out-and-proud lesbian. Eventually they mature and are ready to take the next step in their relationship - marriage. Now I haven't the slightest idea where you live, but I've got severe doubts that it's in Alabama, so let's be honest here - how exactly is this going to affect you? Just because homosexuals have the opportunity to wed doesn't mean hetrosexuals are somehow being "demoted". Their marriage is as valid as homosexual marriage (and vice versa), so why the big fuss?

However, this claim doesn't only apply to homosexuals, it can (if expanded enough, as Amon pointed out, apply to a vast group of people that would eventually result in a *major* population decline). The majority of humans on this planet belong to at least a single specific group (and more likely multiple), whether it be political, religious, ethnicity, or even relating to sexual orientation. If you're going to target a single group specifically because you find them "icky" (I'm not referring to you specifically, Phalanx, I'm being general here), you might as well come right out admit it instead of crouching behind all these lame excuses that "conveniently" only apply when they're not of benefit to your ideals.

 

Arg, this has gotten more focused than I cared for. I am not targeting one group, even thought I have foucused on same-sex marrage. To me, this whole debate is part of a larger battle between political spectrums. I'll try to clarify my reasoning presented in my first post better so I can clear myself of your "label".

Especially where I live and go to college, politics and political spectrum is a daily force. To me, what happens around the country is the classic contest between the left and right; liberalism against conservatism; tradition and change. I was brought up in a religious, conservative household and naturally fall in line with that side of the spectrum

. I view this same-sex marriage ordeal as another political clash between the left and right, not as a homophobia problem of mine. I am anti-liberal, and this is a political issue to me.

Besides, I enjoy defending the toughter argument. And gad is this a good one. I aceed, there is nothing definative that I can fight with other than tradition or religion. True, some traditions are rightfully changed. Please, you really don't think I uphold any tradition for the hell of it? But does that mean they all have to?

Also, in same-sex marriage, is it just the "married" title they are after, or is it the benifits families receive (or what then)? I have a friend and an Uncle who are homosexual whom I asked about this. My friend just didn't give a damn either way and my uncle wished people would drop the ordeal and get the lime-light off him. They both were rather short in their answers and didn't elaborate, so I just when on talking about paintballing/life up in S.F. with them.

So, there you all go. This is how I can be against same-sex marriage and not be a bigot. The issue is political, not social (to me) and isn't just limited here, it's the clash of ideologies and this just happens to be a part of it.​