CreateDebate


Debate Info

86
88
Yes, it does No, it does not
Debate Score:174
Arguments:85
Total Votes:233
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it does (40)
 
 No, it does not (45)

Debate Creator

Kuklapolitan(4304) pic



Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?

Yes, it does

Side Score: 86
VS.

No, it does not

Side Score: 88
3 points

Yes in a sense that marriage is no longer an institution between a man and a woman.

But really, marriage isn't that great. No reason for a straight person to get all bitchy about the fact that gays can get married.

Why don't people ever focus on important things like Pedophiles in Vermont or terrorism? Always has to be "OMG, GAYS BE GETTING MARRIED YO!!!" Big fuckin' deal. Who's dying from this? No one, than IT DOESN'T MATTER!

Side: Yes, It Does
3 points

There is no 'straight marriage' it's just marriage and that is between a man and a woman. That's just how it is defined. Nothing personal.

Why don't the gays just invent something els that's similar to marriage?

Side: Yes, It Does
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
3 points

It's nothing personal to you, because you're not the person who can't marry the person you love.

Side: Yes, It Does
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

That's not what it's about it's about what marriage is. Why try to redefine it? It's ours. Make up your own thing and leave us alone.

Side: Yes, It Does
3 points

They can find something else. They just refuse to. When you suggest allowing something like a civil union to gays, they are still not happy. Even when you suggest the same for straights. Its just about proving a point.

Side: Yes, It Does
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
2 points

Oh, and what "point" are we trying to prove?

That whole equality thing? Or that silly freedom thing?

I'm sorry we want rights! Didn't mean to bother you....

Side: Yes, It Does
1 point

We don't need to...the term and it's social definition are already there! It's about inclusion!

Side: No, It Does Not
kamranw(230) Disputed
2 points

The term and social definition do not include gay marriages. Therefore, find something else.

Side: Yes, It Does
2 points

There's the percentage minimization: straight marriages falling to less than 100%.

In absolute numbers, there might be cases of gay people who would before "marry straight" for convenience, but in a new setting can just "marry gay". Also, since I don't think all gay people were born gay, in a world where homosexual and heterosexual relationships are treated the same way, new generations might grow up with their minds open enough to choose either one. Comparing to the world we have today, where gay marriage is not exactly encouraged, maybe this would mean a minimization of straight marriages... But that's a nature-nurture issue...

Anyways, I don't think marriages as we know them will be around for much longer... ;p

Side: Yes, It Does
2 points

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflict arises over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status, such as a civil union, which is usually more limited, or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term "marriage" should be applied

Supporting Evidence: 70-453 (www.real-testking.com)
Side: Yes, It Does

Gay marriage absolutely minimizes straight marriage, in the same way that women's suffrage minimizes male suffrage. It isn't necessarily a negative impact, but it certainly lessens the value for those who already held the right.

Side: Yes, It Does
2 points

You must change the pretext of marriage as already mentioned. Therefore, you are effecting everyone who has or will get married. Why not just change it to civil union? Before you attack about it not being the same, what if the government gave all the same benefits to civil union as it does marriage?

Side: Yes, It Does
1 point

The word marriage is something that comes from religous background. It is a sanction between a man and a woman. By allowing it you are changing the definition and pretext in which a straight couple have got married.

The word marriage, should not exist in the legal system. It is something that belongs in churches. Change the word in the legal system altogether and you will not have this problem.

Side: Yes, It Does
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
3 points

The word marriage is something that comes from religous background.

The word "marriage" precedes religion, and so does its concept.

By allowing it you are changing the definition and pretext in which a straight couple have got married.

Nothing for the straight couple (or straight couples in general) would change. And the definition of marriage has already changed multiple times throughout history--both around the world and in America.

It is something that belongs in churches.

Not really.

Side: No, It Does Not
Banshee(288) Disputed
2 points

The word "marriage" precedes religion, and so does its concept.

If I am correct in understanding that by "precedes" you mean "pre-dates," you're going to have a hard time supporting that point (although I agree with both of your other assertions). Religious behavior is tens of thousands of years old; its seeds can be found in earlier hominids -- ritual burial of the dead, for example. While no religion currently in existence is that ancient in its own right, religion itself is a very old part of human societies. But we don't know a whole lot about the formalization of relationships into "marriages" prior to the introduction of writing, because while we can find actual physical evidence of religious behaviors, we must rely more on records to track the history of marriage as an institution. We know that "marriages" do pre-date writing as an innovation in human culture, but I don't think that we have good evidence as to just when the development of "marriage" as an institutional relationship came about.

The word "marriage" is very much younger than either the social institution of marriage or the social institution of religion: "The modern English word 'marriage' derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250-1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre (to marry) and marītus (of marriage)." (The Wiki.)

However, the origins of the word and the custom aren't really all that relevant since, as you say, "the definition of marriage has already changed multiple times throughout history--both around the world and in America." In terms of the legal definition especially -- which is all we really care about in relation to gay marriages -- this is entirely correct. The legal definition and requirements of marriage have changed many times to accomodate our sense of social justice. You can't marry more than one person at once. You can't marry someone under a certain age limit. You CAN marry someone of a different race. And so forth.

What it really comes own to is whether there is a strong social policy in law that justifies denying gay folks the right to marry other gay folks, and since Lawrence v. Texas I think the argument that such a policy exists has been pretty seriously undermined.

As evinced by this debate and just about every other debate on the subject, the primary argument against allowing gay marriages is rooted in a modern-day breed of conservative Christianity, and while said conservative Christians are trying harder and harder to argue that their faith is a basis for acts of government, by the terms of our Constitution and our legal tradition, religion is just not a basis for acts of government.

Allowing gay marriage, as many other people here have noted, would not change one single thing about straight marriages. It might offend some folks' religious sensibilities, but that's just life in America -- that sort of goes hand-in-hand with the whole "separation of church and state" thing. People's religious sensibilities get offended all the time, and there's most certainly no legal right to not ever have your personal beliefs offended. That whole idea is pretty antithetical to our notions of basic liberty rights like freedom of speech, press, association, etc.

And as you say, "civil rights aren't about satisfying opposing parties [but] about social equity and justice"; and nobody is infringing on the rights of conservative Christians to do or believe anything by allowing gay people to marry.

Side: No, It Does Not
kamranw(230) Disputed
1 point

How does changing a word in the legal system to civil union for example, effect either party? The churches can keep their view on marriage, which has no legal bearring, and the gays can have their equal rights. Its a simple solution.

Side: Yes, It Does

Completely agree with your statement, however not with your position.

Marriage is still a choice for couples. If there is a decline in marriage the factor is not just gay marriages. If the question of the debate is whether gay marriage is leading to less straight marriages, the answer is no. this is a ridiculous assumption.

maybe the wording of the debate is not too clear..

Side: No, It Does Not

If there are no gay marriages then all marriages are 100% straight marriages. If there are gay marriages then straight marriages are less than 100%. Hey..., you asked ;)

Side: Yes, It Does
1 point

Heterosexual marriage laws the ground work for a relationship that creates and raises children. (sperm + egg). Now, the goverment gives many benefits economically, tax wise, etc to married couples. [2] The reason they only give them to traditional couples is because of their ability to procreate. Having children is the only way to continue society and advance our culture and race. As the heterosexual couples are the only people who can advance society in this way, and well pay back the benefits they get through marriage, then they deserve a state recognition. The goverment makes laws based of of interests, and their interest in this case is procreation. Therefore allowing gay marriage would be unjust as it debars the special recognition the heterosexual couples deserve.

People who are pro gay marriage usually have the claims that marriage is about love, but this is far from true. If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved? They are involved due to some sort of interest. If the goverment cared about love, then they would attempt to regulate and control friendships or non marital relationships.

The reason they regulate marriage over these other relationships is because marriage is where you are meant to produce a larger workforce. The reason they do not regulate other relationships is because they have no good reason to do so, at all.

The goverment in marriage needs two things: 1) legal commitment, 2) procreation and the ability to raise a child. A boyfriend girlfriend relationship may produce offspring in the process, but as they are not legally binding situation it is easier for them to break apart, and they will not be able to raise the child. A homosexual relationship will be lacking the legal bind, and the ability to produce offspring. Even if we did give them a legal bind, they would not be able to create children therefore not fulfilling the states interest fully.

One argument used against the procreation argument is the infertile argument. This objection is a misunderstood rebuttal, they do not understand the debate at point. The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off. It is not an argument fully based of of the argument they can make kids, but also an argument based of of the ability to have the similar effect, a procreative type union.

My opponent without a doubt will start to argue as marriage has benefits isn't it fair homosexuals receive them too? Any society, goverment, or institution that distinguishes marriage in a certain way will prohibit some types of marriage. A prohibition of SSM does not violate the equal protection clause as we must first have a definition of what marriage is. You cannot confirm that a SSM ban is unconstitutional unless we determine exactly what marriage is, and what it is for. [3]

It is only unconstitutional if they are unjustly debarred the right. Ex: Is it unconstitutional if we debar a murderer from a gun? No. That is a just cause, and with my secular case against gay marriage I have proven they are justly debarred the right. By saying it is unconstitutional you are saying it discriminates without just cause, and that this group deserves the right. As murderers do not deserve a right to a gun, then it is constitutional. In the states eyes homosexual couples cannot produce offspring therefore do not fulfill states interest, and do not deserve the right.

Just because something may have inherent good effects does not mean they deserve the legal benefits. The challenge to my opponent, and the argument he needs to press is: What are the states interest in giving these couples rights? If the State has no reason to give you benefits then why should they? Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.

1." Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust."[1]

By far I owned this debate.

1. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com/2008/10/02/an-argument-against-gay-marriage/

2. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

3. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?"

Side: Yes, it does
1 point

You sir, have owned this debate. All those facts were true and very, very convincing. Heterosexuality does increase procreation. My mind is blown...

Side: Yes, it does
1 point

Except his facts didn't prove that same-sex marriage has a negative effect on opposite sex marriage.

Side: No, it does not
1 point

It redefines marriage, primarily negating the fact that marriage serves the purpose of procreation. Two gay people can live with each other, be kind to each other, but gay sex is immoral. And to call the union of two gay people a marriage, detracts from the meaning of being married - which is to bring new life into the world through a natural reproduction.

Side: Yes, it does
0 points

This was the topic of the show on NBC that comes on before the office. It bothered me that both sides were not represented well.

The truth is that yes, gay marriage minimizes heterosexual marriage in a severlEy minute way in that it makes heterosexual not the only type of marriage.

But that doesn't mean that individual heterosexual marriages would or should suffer.

Straight people are just being selfish bitches.

Side: Yes, It Does
ThePyg(6759) Disputed
4 points

Way to categorize EVERY person of a certain lifestyle into one insult.

What's next "Black people are just being misogynist assholes."

"Gays are just being perverted fuckers".

"Asians are just being reckless driving dickheads".

Side: Yes, It Does
5 points

Wow, I attack stereotyping and I still get down voted.

I guess it's different if you're defending a "white, straight, male Christian".

Side: Yes, It Does
Kingly342(29) Disputed
1 point

Ahem, I'm still waiting for you to apologize for that last statement. Not all Straight people are selfish or quote 'bitches'. So you are in the wrong and used a stereotype as your argument. Say sorry.

Side: No, it does not
Kingly342(29) Disputed
0 points

WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME!? DID YOU CALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE SELFISH!? WELL YOU SIR ARE WRONG! JUST BECAUSE SOME STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE SELFISH IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ALL ARE! IT'S LIKE SAYING ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS BECAUSE OF ISIS. NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS AND NOT ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE BITCHES!!! I THINK YOUR JUST TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING SMALL INTO SOMETHING BIG! SO I'M SELFISH BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE MY OWN GENDER!? WELL FUCK YOU AND I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!!!

(Sorry for swearing though)

Side: No, it does not
9 points

I think a few people on the other side are confusing 'minimize' with 'change'. So the running definition of marriage would be different. Would marriage itself be any worse off? Would the experience of marriage be any less pleasant (or, in some cases, just more unpleasant) for straight couples? That it what 'minimize' implies. And my answer is no.

Side: No, It Does Not
6 points

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should give a damn whether or not a man and another man or a woman and another woman want to spend the rest of their lives together and have the state recognize such a union. Neither is it anyone else's business that they do so, nor is it worth a damn what they call it, "Marriage," or otherwise.

This is a pure matter of civil rights, plain and simple. Anti-miscegenation laws were fought and defeated in the past and I believe, with time, the same force of law which allowed my black father and my white mother to marry decades ago will eventually allow my homosexual friends to legally do so. How anyone can reasonably deny them this right is beyond me.

Side: No, It Does Not

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should give a damn whether or not a man and another man or a woman and another woman want to spend the rest of their lives together and have the state recognize such a union. Neither is it anyone else's business that they do so,

I agree 100%.

nor is it worth a damn what they call it, "Marriage," or otherwise. I hesitate here because I think we may have a slight difference of opinion although the statement is correct. Let me explain. I assume that what you mean is that straights should not care if Gays call it a marriage. Whereas my position is that gays should not care if they call it a civil union. The reason for my stance has to do with my disagreement of your last paragraph.

I do not believe that this is a civil rights issue. First, some definitions since there are a lot of teenagers on this site.

Miscegenation (Latin miscere "to mix" + genus "kind") is the mixing of different racial groups, that is, marrying, cohabiting, having sexual relations and having children with a partner from outside one's racially or ethnically defined group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights

Now, a racially mixed couple who are not allowed to marry are being denied having children by the government. Their civil right are being violated because they are not allowed to participate in the civil life of the state without discrimination or repression (i.e. without going to jail).

A gay couple can't have children so the government is not denying them anything except benefits. However, the government can hand out benefits as it sees fit.

For example, when the government hands out farm subsidies, am I being discriminated against since I'm not a farmer and I don't get my share? Are my civil rights being violated if i don't get the same benefits? See, the whole issue here is that gays call these benefits rights. But these benefits are not rights.

Some would argue that gays are unable to participate in the civil life of the state. But gays are cohabiting and having sexual relations without government interference. They are participating in the civil life of the state. They can have a "wedding" without fear of being thrown in jail. They can tell people they are married without consequence. They just can't say that they are married in order to get benefits.

But what about the discrimination or repression? Well, we have hate crime laws and laws against discrimination based on sexual preference. And, no, the government is not discriminating or repressing gays by not giving them certain benefits. Just as the government is not discriminating against me by not giving me farm subsidies. Besides, civil unions give same sex partners the same benefits as married couples so the whole thing is moot.

Side: Yes, It Does
1 point

Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state

Supporting Evidence: 70-536 braindump (www.real-testking.com)
Side: No, It Does Not
4 points

Hm, the other side is wrong I can say unequivocally, which is odd given the number of responses on it.

Marriage is not a group effort. What I mean is, it is not a group of people all getting married. If a white couple gets married, every white person on earth is not given a wedding gift, or given tax exemptions, or gets to ride off in a limo,

only the couple directly involved.

There are only 2 people involved in a marriage, and to say a gay couple getting married can somehow effect this, one would logically have to except that the marriage of any two would effect one's own marriage or anyone elses.

Are you following me?

Marriage isn't special because other people can't do it.

It's special only to the two being married...

no one else is involved. For anyone else to be involved is all of silly, immoral, and quite unconstitutional as eventually our Supreme Courts will decide.

There is absolutely nothing on this earth separating the following two sets of circumstances:

There are 2 water fountains, black and white.

They have the same water coming out of them. But only whites are allowed to drink from one.

"Why can't they share?"

Strip away everything else, it comes down to blacks being allowed to share the same water fountain minimizes white people's right to drink from that water fountain.

There is nothing I'm very afraid under this sun or in this Universe we live in separating that situation,

from a situation where a straight couple says gay marriage minimizes straight marriage.

All arguements against it are wrought in social concepts,

or as I saw on the other side of this debate,

a complete misunderstanding of how, why, when, who, and what being gay is.

I'm afraid you're all wrong over there, and you should re-evaluate your stance.

Side: No, It Does Not

...and that's my final answer; no it does not! ``````````````````````````````````

Side: No, It Does Not
1 point

The question is whether gay marriage somehow affects straight marriages. There is a simple tests we can apply to this question:

If a person in a "straight" marriage has no knowledge of a "gay" marriage in the house next door, does he or she have any sort of tangible harm to his or her own relationship? Removing the knowledge of the "gay" marriage removes personal bias. If the harm comes only when someone has knowledge of the "gay" marriage, then the "harm" is nothing more than personal prejudice.

The simple answer here is no. A homosexual marriage may offend some people, but it doesn't harm their relationship in any way. For it to be harmed there has to be some mechanism for harm, and there isn't.

If marriage were entirely a religious institution, then it would be controlled and sanctioned by religious authorities. While we pretend that it is religious, a "legal" marriage neither requires a religious component nor recognizes any marriage that doesn't meet legal requirements (in other words, one that is solely religious - try doing it without a marriage license or the proper paperwork). So marriage is legally not a religious institution, only culturally - which has no force of law - it is a legal one, and so law is the only proper thing to consider when discussing laws about marriage.

The real issue here is that by allowing a type of marriage that is not "religiously" sanctioned, this polite cultural fiction (that marriages are religious) is thrown into the light. And that disturbs a lot of people who like to think that their marriage is sanctioned and enforced by some god or another.

But that leads to another question. What about pagans or atheists (i.e., not Christians, Jews or Muslims) who are married by a Justice of the Peace? The social conservatives don't have a problem as such with a marriage that is not religious, because that doesn't highlight the self-contradiction in their argument. Their cognitive dissonance isn't pinged, and so they just ignore it.

If you really think that marriages are defined, enforced and created by a god to be one man and one woman, then just try falling through on your child support or alimony payments and see whether it is God or the government that sends you nasty letters.

Side: No, It Does Not
1 point

Associated Press style recommends the usages marriage for gays and lesbians or in space-limited headlines gay marriage with no hyphen and no scare quotes. AP warns that the construct gay marriage can imply that marriage licenses offered to gay and lesbian couples are somehow legally different.

Supporting Evidence: actual tests (www.real-testking.com)
Side: No, It Does Not

It does not whatsoever minimize any other form of marriage. Marriage is a union of two people that believe they love each other. Divorce is the only way to minimize marriage, and allowing the union of same-sex couples does the exact opposite of minimizing marriage.

Side: No, It Does Not
kamranw(230) Disputed
1 point

Actually, by definition, marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. via dictionary.com.

So in short, you must change the definition of marriage. So now, you change the pretext in which a straight couple have gotten married.

Side: Yes, It Does
Manastacious(22) Disputed
0 points

Definitons are like words themselves. Fickle an capricious. Words such as Fags have been changed from their original meaning (a bundle of sticks) to something derragatory or just something different. Nowadays people have to accept that to different people marriage can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. All that is needed to be married should be an udnying love for the other person. That is it.

Side: No, It Does Not
1 point

It does not. Straight people who have been married several times does though. What minimizes marriage is the rate of divorce, not what sexes are married. People act like marriage is this sacred thing, what's so sacred about it? Law should not be dictated by preference. This is a civil rights arguement the same as when African-Americans and women fought for the right to vote. Back then, you had oppostion just like you do today. And they're wrong to deny anyone the right to marry whomever they please because it has nothing to do with you or me and it won't stop people from being gay. Lets grow up America.

Side: No, It Does Not
2 points

Actually that's not entirely true. The definition of a civil right is as follows:

Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights

NOTE: the government is not taking any unwarranted action against gays in order to keep them from participating in the civil and political life of the state. In other words, gays don't need protection in the form of rights and freedoms. Specifically gays are not being discriminated against nor are they being repressed.

Here's the definition of political repression for your convenience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression

NOTE: gays are politically active, they can vote, they have representatives and there are gays who hold political office. In other words, they are not politically repressed.

And here's the definition of discrimination for your convenience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

NOTE: the only thing gained by a couple who has the title of "married" bestowed on them are benefits like tax credits. But the government is allowed to give away these benefits as it sees fit, to whomever it sees fit. In other words, this does not constitute discrimination.

Now, please explain to me how gays are being repressed and how they are being discriminated against. I would also like to know which rights are being denied to them. Please keep in mind that rights are not benefits and that the benefits provided for under the term "marriage" are granted to gays under the term "civil union."

Side: Yes, It Does

It is impossible! Straight Marriages will always be here and I have never heard of any heterosexual stating that his marriage has been lessened to a degree with Gay Marriage being allowed.

Side: No, it does not

Gay Marriage is not going to berate Straight Marriage in any way.

Side: No, it does not

My take on this is that Gay marriage does not minimize Straight marriange at all. What gays wish is to be recognized in the same way their straight counterparts are...no more, no less. I would tend to believe that straight couples feel their vows are not the same as their gay counterparts but that's wrong. No matter what you call it, civil union or marriage it must be the same all around and not just the government aspects of it. Gays must be recognized in their own right at their jobs where your employer pays for insurance, at churches where they worship and by the government they live under. It's not about changing the name from marriage to civil union...why make a different name for it when marriage is the recognized term for it? It must be the same because it minimizes nothing and no one.

Side: No, It Does Not

NOTE: I'm not disputing you. I just want clarification on the following statement:

Gays must be recognized in their own right at their jobs where your employer pays for insurance, at churches where they worship and by the government they live under.

Recognized how?

My employer allows for "partners." Which is the same as "married."

I don't attend church so I don't know anything about that.

The government has civil unions, which grants the same benefits as being married.

I don't understand how else gays should be recognized.

Side: No, It Does Not

Employers do pay for employees insurance and most times the form says husband/wife and not partner. That is not to say that some employers do not recognize partners but it's almost always a straight relationship. Most churches do not recognize same sex patnersgips or marriages...that's a given. The government, at the state level only recognizes those unions insofar as legislation that has been passed giving it the green light. Gays must be recognized in the exact same way that straight people are recognized with no exceptions otherwise it falls apart at the seams.

Side: No, It Does Not

No it does not! How would it and how could it minimize a sacred institution? It is only that the playing field is now leveled to include varying factions than ever before.

Side: No, It Does Not
0 points

It's none of my business who other people marry. I'm more concerned with people being responsible and honest than the gender of the person they prefer to have sex with consensually.

Only religious fundamentalists really oppose gay marriage - and the easy solution to that is for each religious group to decide if it will marry gay people in it's meeting place or not. The State has no business in how they run their primitive beliefs...and gay people can choose religions that support them or simply get married in a Registry office.

Side: No, It Does Not
0 points

No, straight marriage isn't the shining example of what relationships should be.

Side: No, It Does Not
0 points

Nope It does not in any way shape or form?

Anyone who this differently is a parasite.

Side: No, it does not