CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your own opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
While a person may not agree with it morally, Gay marriage does nothing that physicly hurts anyone. Opponents of this, are forgetting that there is a separation of church and state. Its time to quit policing peoples morals and learn that two concenting adults should be able to have the same rights as anyone else. Its called America folks...Remember "The Land of the Free"?
There is also a separation between public and private. Making your private wants a public issue is an abuse of government. If you don't want your morals policed keep them where everyone else keeps them. Private.
If I wanted to get a tattoo, a perfectly legal decision on my part, and then had a public debate on the values of getting tattoos, do you think I should be surprised if some people disagreed with me? And then, should I cry out that the government is abusing its power?
What is it that makes you think you're funny Joe? What makes you think you can write anything you please on the debate boards and not have to pay the piper for it? I just voted you down for the remark you made in this debate and will continue to do so every time I see an answer from you that is not germane or is disguised as a piece of humor because you don't really care to take a stand. On this one you used the tag to get your true feelings on the board and decided to make a "butt" joke out of the topic.
I can't be an ally anymore Joe. Even though my sense of fun and humor are intact...yours really isn't because you use it to injure and hurt people. You make a mockery of things that are important to many people and you just don't care about anyone else but yourself Joe. I don't really know what you're doing here! You put up debates that are ridiculous, you put up arguments that are even more ridiculous and, quite frankly, I don't know why CD allows it. You lend no credibility to this site nor do you even think about it in that way. You said once that all you want to do is have fun and show people that they take things too seriously in life. This IS a debate site...don't you think that one of the reasons for its existence and success is the fact that people do take things seriously enough to come debate whatever issue they feel is worth discussing? Why don't you take a moment to think about what I've said Joe. Until you can really be an ally or a friend...Adios!
I have put my views out there (made a stand). Maybe it's hard to distinguish when I'm kidding and when I'm being serious.
Here's my position on the subject.
I think that same sex couples should bypass th liberal right and secure civil unions because the rights afforded to married couples are more important than the word "married."
Would you rather use the word "married" but not have any rights or have the rights but not the word? I know you want both but think about this. Demanding both has resulted in a backlash.
The religious right was able to spend less and out organize the gay community in order to get proposition 8 passed. What does that tell you? It tells me that the religious right is deeply offended at the demands made by the gay community. The religious right feels (right or wrong) that the word belongs to them.
The gay community has not understood this and has made matters worse by claiming that the religious right is hateful (I know because I've seen the bumper stickers). This is really strange because in poll after poll people seem OK with civil unions. It is as though the gay community is so focused on their goal that they fail to hear what the religious right is saying and when they do hear they (truly or intentionally) misunderstand the words and misrepresent them.
The religious right is willing to give the gay community its rights....., but not the word. And all the litigation in the world will never force the majority of the religious right that are currently alive to accept gays as married. If anything, litigation will have an opposite effect.
The gay community will eventually win this battle but (if they continue using the current approach) the damage done to the relationship between the two groups will suffer greatly. The gay community is alienating the religious right.
I know that the gay community feels that they are the ones being alienated by the religious right. But think about this. How would you feel if some homeless guy came into your home and (not negotiated but) demanded a place to sleep? You have the room. You don't need it all at any given point in time. He will have all kinds of reasons why he should be allowed to sleep there. And if you refuse because it is your home and he shouldn't be making demands, he'll say that you're a hateful person.
Don't bother answering because if there's anything I have learned is that you can't change a person's mind with just an argument. Just as you wont change mine. And since you have made it clear that friendship to you means that I have to (not only accept but actually) share your point of view, I accept your request to be enemies. I respect your point of view but I don't share it.
One last thing. This is hokey, I know, but it does seem to make me feel better sometimes. Maybe it will make you feel better.
God give me the strength to change the things I can,
Well thanks for the advice straight boy but quite frankly, you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to gay rights, what we want or what we deserve as human beings. It's not the word they object to...it's the entire concept. Your analogy of the homeless guy needing a bed to sleep in is about as demented as you are.
Joe, I don't give a twaddle if you agree with me on any issue but the one thing you're wrong about is that I ever expected you to share my views nor do I expect that from anyone here or in my life. That's not friendship, that's being a puppet at someone else's whim. Being a friend Joe means that one must choose words carefully when you know that the other person is offended or hurt by the subject matter. You don't make a joke about it, at the very least! Think about what I said on the debate when that person was looking for your retirement from this site. I said what I did because it was wrong and you were my ally even though I was still bruised from the last brouhaha regarding Repubgal. You were so busy trying to think of unfunny things to say you couldn't think for one moment that I may have needed some words of encouragement from you on that board! And another thing....you seem to think you have to accept MY decision to relegate you to the cheap seats and name you an enemy. I don't need your permission to do that and I don't care if you like it or not.
And if you're going to quote the Serenity Prayer, why don't you try and get it right. Perhaps the real prayer will mean more than Joe's version of it. It goes like this Boffo:
God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can and Wisdom to know the difference.
I don't need to feel better but perhaps you do. I can only hope that someday you can comprehend its meaning.
"Think about what I said on the debate when that person was looking for your retirement from this site. I said what I did because it was wrong and you were my ally even though I was still bruised from the last brouhaha regarding Repubgal. You were so busy trying to think of unfunny things to say you couldn't think for one moment that I may have needed some words of encouragement from you on that board!"
OK, look. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you needed some words of encouragement from me or anyone. You and I are different in that I'm more callous. I didn't need for you to stick up for me and I never understood why you let Repubgal get to you. This fundamental difference is what makes us be at odds with each other.
For what it's worth, I hope the gay community gets what they want. It doesn't affect me in any way shape or form. When proposition 8 passed and the facts came out (blacks voted overwhelmingly for it, the proponents spent less money and won, etc.) and after talking to people who had signs on their yard, I realized that this was an up hill battle and suggested by passing the religious right. But you're right. I'm a straight boy, as you so eloquently put it, and I guess I will never understand you or your plight. I thought my heart was in the right place; that I was lending a helping hand. But I guess none is wanted nor needed so deal with it on your own. I don't care.
You seem to think that only your vision of what this site should be is the valid vision. Only your vision of how votes should be used is the right one. And on top of all that you want to add even more rules like, you have to leave a reason explaining why they down voted you. That seems strange from someone who wants to be accepted. It's like you want to be accepted on your terms but you don't want to have to accept others on their terms. You want ot have your cake and eat it too. Human nature, I guess ;)
BTW, if log on as downvote, you can down vote again ;)
I accept at least 90% if not more of the people that contribute to this site. You just happen to be one of the three I do not accept anymore and that decision took me a while. My vision of what this site should be does not differ that much from what it is, however, when I do have a problem with something I bring it up and try to talk about it! And I'll bring it up again and again until I can get the attention of the powers that be. My vision of how votes should be used also doesn't differ that much from what was perceived as the correct way to use them, whether they be up or down. I don't have to have a complete reason for why someone up or down voted me or anyone else but down voting has been as huge issue for me since I'm the one who got hit. I certainly didn't notice anyone stepping up to say that was wrong before I made the accusatory debate. People can simply run in and out of debates, down vote someone they don't like and up vote those they do and that is not right! It renders the numbers meaningless. I also haven't heard any suggestions made to make the voting better for everyone!
Accepted? Yes! Everyone wishes to be accepted on their own terms but if that means I must accept a person when they behave like a complete ass, that's not something I would do. If someone else has a problem with me they usually state it but I haven't heard much from anyone except the very young ones so what shall I think? There are plenty of people whose views I don't agree with but I accept them for who they are and how they are, generally speaking. The only thing I do not accept, across the board, are those that are ill mannered and can say nothing in defense of their own arguments other than to start the name calling or rag on the age routine. I don't wish to have my cake and eat it too and I do not understand why you would accuse me of wanting that. The only other thing I don't understand at all is your very last sentence; BTW, if log on as I down vote, you can down vote again ;) What does that mean?
"I don't have to have a complete reason for why someone up or down voted me or anyone else but down voting has been as huge issue for me since I'm the one who got hit. I certainly didn't notice anyone stepping up to say that was wrong before I made the accusatory debate."
I was hit before but I don't care about the points so it doesn't come naturally to me to think that an adult would care about some lousy points. That's why I "didn't step up to say that it was wrong." But after the fact I tried to give you some of my points because I realized that they were important to you and they weren't important to me.
"People can simply run in and out of debates, down vote someone they don't like and up vote those they do and that is not right!"
Yes, that's right and life is not fair. I learned that a long time ago. The difference is that I accept the fact that life is not fair and I learn the rules so that I can bend them. I don't try to change the rules. I guess that's what makes me conservative ;)
"The only thing I do not accept, across the board, are those that are ill mannered and can say nothing in defense of their own arguments other than to start the name calling or rag on the age routine."
You are the one that started with the name calling. I guess that's what makes you a liberal ;)
"I don't wish to have my cake and eat it too and I do not understand why you would accuse me of wanting that."
I said that because it appears to me that you are not interested in negotiating. It seems that when you feel that you are entitled to something to should just demand it and then you expect to get it. This is what I see happening between the religious right and the gay community. I tell you what I see because it may be of some value to you. I'm standing outside looking in. I have a different point of view. When two blind men try to describe an elephant to each other, and they are standing on the opposite end of the elephant, should one man discard the other man's point of view as wrong or should he consider what the other is telling him in order to come up with a more complete picture? Think about that for a moment because we are on different ends of the elephant and I'm just providing input from where I'm standing in the hopes that it is of some benefit to you. If it isn't, then I'll just STFU because I don't have a dog in this fight.
Do you expect me to believe that YOU don't care about points? YOU, who do everything in your power to collect them so that it's at the point of being ridiculous! You tried to give me your points? Yes, right....when you know darned well that cannot be done nor would I expect that of anyone and least of all you!
I'm the one who started name calling? Please tell me you're joking! Outside of this argument between us, tell me who, what and where!
I am always interested in negotiating with anyone who will listen. Successful negotiations need two people to want to resolve something. Who do you think straightened out the terrible incident with repubgal? Yes, you bet I'm entitled, just as everyone else is to be treated fairly and like a human being. Those are things I'll never give up on. I'll fight it for me and I'll fight it for you and anyone else. That's a matter of record on this site and in my life. I could hate you but still stand up for your right to be.
When you stop writing to me I'll stop. I have no intention on answering you otherwise but I won't have you write garbage about me without defending myself.....So why don't you leave well enough alone and I'll have nothing to reply to. It's real simple!
It means that you can click where it says "Logon" and instead of using your user name and password you can use "DownVote@gmail.com" for the user name and then use the password "createdebate" to down vote me again. It is an anonymous account that was created for people that wanted to down vote someone, tell them why they down voted and still remain anonymous. This information was on another debate. Since you are so intent on down voting me I figured I'd help you out.
Well thanks for the info...it sure is interesting that you would know that. I've voted you down a hundred times and all for the same reason. How many times do you wish me to repeat it?
Internet or not...This IS a DEBATE SITE and not a garbage pail! It certainly doesn't have to be C-SPAN but it would be nice if this site and the people who debate here were taken a bit more seriouly than this! This isn't open mike night at The Comedy Club...if it were, he'd lose.
I am a straight Christian and support gay marriage. Why? Simple. Separation of church and state.
Gay marriage opposition states that they want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Let's look at the definition of sanctity: the quality or state of being holy or sacred.
That tells me: you cannot preserve the holiness of an act that is governed by the law. That is a violation of church and state.
If someone, a Christian or other religious person, wants to get married under the eyes of God in their church, then fine. But it is not our place to impede upon the rights of others that want to be married under the eyes of the law. Or even God, for that matter. I know many gay Christians. It is not our place to judge others or take away from them. Prop 8 is threatening to take away the rights of 18,000 ALREADY MARRIED couples. And all because our religious views clash with their lifestyles. This is not our battle.
I support gay marriage, and I support my gay married friends and will continue to fight with them for their equality.
Gay marriage does not hurt anyone except those of whom we are stripping away rights. There is no way to prove that gay marriage would impose upon our children in our schools. And besides, kids are going to learn about it anyway, right? Look at MTV right now. You think these kids don't know what's going on?
Straight people love to pull morality and self righteous dogma from their religions and throw them into this argument but it just doesn't fly anymore. Gay marriage hurts no one in any way whatsoever. From all the studies they've done through the years plus the definitive information that was culled from the brains of dead AIDS patients, it is a fact that there is a center of the brain that is much different than that of the heterosexual, that it can no longer be denied. We're different than you are.
I agree with what you said above, but I am curious, and don't have time to do a literature search (because I am currently doing one of my own for my real job =), do you have the reference to the brain argument? Is it a physiological difference or a genetic difference between hetero- and homosexuals? Is this the case for all of them? At what age does this "kick in"? I am just trying to learn, it is some thing that I have been interested in, I am not trying to be disrespectful or pick on details. =)
I'll search for the links to the findings and get back to you. This began several years ago when they began doing full autopsies on HIV/AIDS patients that had succumbed to the disease via cancer, pneumonia and a host of other diseases. It was the first time anyone in the medical field was alerted to that phenomenon. It's both a shame and a blessing that they were able to recognize this for the first time. In the very beginning it was only on men since they were dying in astounding numbers. I'll find as many links as I can and get them to you Kirstie.
Thanks! You don't have to go too crazy and take up too much of your time, it is just that I was really curious as to what science has been done on this topic.
That's good...but I find I don't have the time or inclination to look it all up for you as I said I would. If you don't believe it then look it up and refute those of us who know it to be true.
Then if you're different pick a different word. Traditionally marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman. To use the same word for same sex partners dilutes the word and makes it less descriptive. It also pisses of the religious right and makes for great CD fodder ;)
You claim to be different but you want to seen as the same. That doesn't make any sense to me. Let us see you as different and accept you for what you are. There's no need to put a requirement forcing us to see you as the same.
BTW, claiming that gays are genetetically different and supporting genetic engeneering means that someday some one will want to eradicate the gay gene. It's a two edge sword that cuts both ways. You have to love it ;)
That is exactly the caliber of response I would expect from a homophobic person. Pick a different word? Different from what? Marriage? I don't care if tradition has heretofore dictated a union between a man and a woman because, guess what? Tradition is on the verge of being expanded to incorporate homosexuals as well and it's high time.
We are different from the majority of people that live on this earth insofar as we are only attracted to our own sex but we are also the same in many ways if not every other way. In another post I told you that we have already shown you how we are different and you couldn't or wouldn't accept that. I'm not forcing you or the world to do anything Joe. When the final votes are in and tallied and we win, bit by bit and mile by mile...you and the rest will see you had nothing to fear, nothing to object to and nothing to lose. You and millions of others will see how alike we really are.
That is such a bogus argument Joe. "You claim to be different but want to be seen as the same." My God man, take a black man and a white woman, they're not the same but they can now marry (since 1967!). You've seen us as different for eons and that hasn't allowed people to accept us! For all intents and purposes we are very much the same insofar as we all want the same things in life. From you, we can't get that without the fight of a lifetime ensuing. I, for one, couldn't care less if genetic engineering can one day change a gay gene! There'll be less pain in the world if that happened BUT, does anyone have the right to do that? Go work on the autism gene or the Downs syndrome gene or the idiot savant gene...then you will have accomplished something!
I do not understand the rationale behind someone wanting a title that comes from a religion that doesn't agree with your behavior. I'm not stating my opinion. Marriage comes from the bible. No two ways around that. Yes I know people were together before the bible but the marriage and the ceremonies come from the bible. Why is the life partner or any other legal term that allows a homosexual couple to have all the same rights as a heterosexual couple not enough. If you are wondering my opinion yes I believe homosexuality is wrong but I believe alot of things are wrong and people don't have to have a stigma for doing those things. I just don't get the argument.??
I don't know if you've noticed but over the last years most churches have been more and more tolerant of gay people and accept them as any other member...just like regular people. Even the civil ceremony calls it a marriage. Pay no attention to what the conversation is between Joe & myself. Most of it doesn't apply...it's a personal thing between us now.
Sorry Joe, I didn't answer you in good time. Yes, the words are there Joe. I am a homosexual woman and you are a heterosexual man. Those words have always existed but it's the straight community who makes us much more different than we really are as people. I've have always shown myself as I really am and I must say that I haven't had too much of a problem with people across the board. You see me Joe...you see me as I really am, for every word I have written and spoken to you is me. I am no different off-line.
I never thought for one moment that you were different in any way shape or form. I have had, and have to this day, gay friends that I never thought were any different. And since I have friends on both sides of the fence, I feel more like someone in the middle of a battle field. I hear both sides and figured I may be able to get one group to bypass the other. However, my solution falls short in that, although it gets homosexuals the rights they're after, it doesn't buy them acceptance. For example, it doesn't get them religious wedding ceremonies from some religions.
BTW, a little more about my personal life, if you're interested. When I was a child I loved to play with toy soldiers. I would spend hours setting them up. Once I asked my sister to play and she immediately started a battle. I said, "What are you doing?" She said, "Well...., they're soldiers. They are doing what soldiers do." I said, "No! they're supposed to make treaties!" She said, "That's boring!" and left. Later that night my grandmother said that it was time to go to bed and that I had to clear the soldiers off the bed. So I had a small skirmish so that I could go to bed and not have to put away those soldiers that were under the bed. In the morning I continued playing but I don't remember if the survivors had a funeral for those who died the night before or if they managed to resurrect them somehow. I guess that little boy that was always wanting to make peace is still alive and well in me. ;)
Ok, after reading the uhh, dare I say, controversial opinions ;)
I am scared to post my own!
Well, sorry, I am going to anyway! =P
I am not gay.
I read Kukla's argument putting down the moral and religous reasons behind people who are against gay rights.
Therefore, I will say only this. The Bible says a man shall not sleep with another man, and a woman with a woman. So, personally I don't agree with those who are gay individuals.
However, I am not one to tell you how to live your life. I do believe that some people are born with an attraction to the same sex. I won't deny that. Now, I have heard in some cases where an individual who was born with more of the opposite sex's hormones is attracted to the oppisite sex. However, they chose to live life as a straight person because they believed that's what God wanted them to do.
Does it hurt anyone? Hard to say. Me, personally? No,just because I disagree doesn't mean I have to be effected with someone else's decision.
So, that's my opinion. Go ahead. Chop me to pieces. I can take it! ;)
Why would anyone chop you to pieces for putting up a well written rebuttal? Is it me you fear?
I've heard of people trying to repress their desire to be with their own sex but I don't know how they could possibly know about their hormones! Many Catholics have tried to do what the church says is right to do...some have failed and some have not, on some level. Look at it this way for a moment. You're straight...you were born that way. 90% of the rest of the world is gay because they were born that way. Could I or anyone convince you, or would you be happy if someone were to try and change you into being gay? I don't think that would be possible, do you?
It's also interesting to me that the churches have softened their views of this too. Not the Catholic church but others. Some even ordain gay people into the priesthood or the ministry. That tells me something has changed through the years. Could it be the medical findings of all those poor dead people who succumbed to AIDS that changed their minds? It certainly would mine or at the very least, re-think it. If people are born this way, how can they help what they were born to be?
No, I do not fear you. If I had made a more controversial argument, possibly, but I was trying to make the point that this was most certainly a heated debate.
If I am not mistaken, there is a hormone balance test. With this test you can measure the amount of hormones your body contains.
I know what research says, but I believe that gay is a relative term. However, if you take a look at many of my past debates you can see I find a ton of things relative ;)...
Now, what I mean is...Let's say Joey is gay (random name, I promise)
Joey was born with a unbalanced of hormones, and he chooses to live the way his hormones balanced him to be.
Now, let's say Mark is also gay. (random, really)
Mark was born with unbalanced hormones. However, Mark is a Christian, and believes God does not want him to live his life as a gay man. Therefore, Mark decides to suppress his gay feelings. By doing this Mark chooses the Lord over his sexuality. It does happen, rarely.
Now, I might come across as a raging Christian here, but that is not my intention. While I am a Christian, I don't run around yelling at people who choose to live a different lifestyle. Like I said, that is not my place.
I also find it interesting how churches have accepted the gay community. My philosophy is we are in urbanized America. When I say that I mean that we have churches that don't use old-time principles any more. Whether that is wrong or right is all in the eye of the beholder.
I think that you hit the nail right on the head when you said homosexuality doesn't affect you personally. If more religious people took this approach then we would live in a world that had a lot less hate. I think Mark Twain put it best:
So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.
I had never heard Mark Twain's quote. Put simply, that is exactly what America should aim for. We call ourselves the country of equal opportunity, and slowly we are becoming just that. To each his own.
Don't be scared of posting your opinion (I don't think you really are anyway.) I'm probably one of the biggest a-holes on this site, so take it from me nothing is personal.
That said, if you want to take the Bible literally, it says sleep not fuck. So fine then, I'm nit-picking.
But the Bible also says this about sex, "It's better to spill your seed on the belly of a prostitute, than to let one drop fall to the ground."
So then, in one sentence the Bible says that both prostitution and "safe sex" (the pull-out method) are better than jacking off.
So where is all the moral indignation at the practice of jacking off? Sure they say not to do it. But what religion has donated money to movements in order to end the practice?
And if it is better to have sex with a prostitute for strictly recreational reasons (not baby-making) where then on the moral hierarchy would homosexuality fall? Is it more or less evil than masturbation?
The point is that, if you choose to believe there's a big, all powerful daddy in the sky, and he's so bored he watches everything we do in our comparitively miniscule lives, yet so communications impaired that he'll only talk to us through a book written hundreds of years ago, you have to believe he meant it when he said, "he who has not sinned throw the first stone" and "judge and you will be judged."
Make no mistake, this denial of gays to participate in basic rights is "throwing stones" and it is "judging."
Fine, the Bible says what it says of marriage. One can choose to follow what it says. But one at least who truely believes it is the word of god cannot deny another their choice of whether they will follow what it says or not.
"So, personally I don't agree with those who are gay individuals." Sure, you agree with a lot of gay individuals on a lot of things. What that sentence really says is that you think either they should not exist, which they obviously do, or that they should just pretend not to be gay. You cannot "disagree" with a state of being. You may not like them, you may not believe in them, but it is impossible to say you "disagree" with something that you yourself claim in another sentence is real.
You're being very melevolent in your paragraph, so I'm not "chopping you to pieces."
If you think about it though, there is an underlying and glaring hypocricy in your arguement.
In one point you site the Bible as a reason for being against something, even though you admit it does not hurt you. And by using the Bible as your reasoning for being against something, you are disobeying the Bible - judge not and all that.
So, you have some very defined opinions. Perhaps if you stopped hiding behind the Bible, and use your own intellect instead, they would hold up better in a debate.
Who's likely to be a better parent, statistically? Those who HAVE to adopt? Or those who can become pregnant by accident, and be forced to marry and raise a child they resent with a person they barely know?
I don't have the stats on that but logically I should think it would lean toward the adoption...although in my own case I've heard the horror stories of my daughter growing up as an adoptee...it wasn't pretty.
Statistically, it's the people who aren't adopting because the people who can accidentally have children don't always accidently have children, and those who do, aren't always bad parents. Also, even though the adopters may be great parents, it doesn't make things any better if the kid doesn't accept their false parents... Most people aren't gay, so the kid may feel even more alienated than if s/he were brought up with straight guardians.
What do you mean by statistically? Are you saying there's statistical evidence?
Did you misconstrue my argument? I said if you're able to get pregnant by accident, you're more likely to raise a child you do not want. If you adopt, you're more likely to actually want the child.
How many adopted children do you know who resented being adopted? For me, zero. I think your whole argument is on very shaky ground.
I actually know of a few, who maybe don't "resent" being adopted, but wished they had their actual parents, and blame a lot of their psychological problems on the fact that they weren't raised by their parents.
Only in THIS time, does this scenario hold so much value. When someone is born by an accident, and then is not wanted, and is raised poorly because of the fact. Why are adoption programs established in the first place? Because there are more people having sex that don't want children, there are more people without the means to have children, but want children, and there are more people out there suffering from bad parenting. This hasn't always been the case, see what I've said to Kukla.
The chances of "accidentally" having children, and the chances of not being able to care for the child, have to be higher now than any other time in history, partly due to the fact that there are just more people in general out there at this moment than any other specific time in history. If the failure rate is higher now than ever, and the number of gays raising children are higher than ever too, logically, the percent of failure has to effect the lower number, the gay adopters, more than the people having the children by accident. Also, something to conceder is, why are they failing? If it's because of the income, look at the percent of failure with a mother and father in the same income bracket than the adopter's, you will find that there is a wide gap.
Most accidental births, I'm sure, are well taken care of despite the fact that they weren't planned, more often in a higher income bracket than a lower. The people with a low income will fail, whereas the people in the higher one, even though it's accidental, will be taken care of just as well as ones raised by adopters, because they are given money, and already have the money to do so.
In all of time, there have been more straight couples with money and children than gay couples with money and children... think about it. Statistically speaking, the straight people may have failed more people over the coarse of history, but that doesn't mean that they haven't also raised more children successfully too.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, how can an infant feel alienated if he/he is brought up by straight people? The child has no idea that one of the parents are gay!
In 1967, all adoptions and all information was sealed...forever!Even if it weren't there is nothing to say the mother was telling the truth about herself or the father of the child! No one checked these things.
And where, may I ask, you're getting your statistics from?
When I said statistically I wasn't insisting there were statistics. There is statistical data in whatever you're looking into wether it already exists as a "statistic" or not.
Just, logically, look at what I'm saying and you shouldn't need a pretty colored chart with numbers all over it. I'm basically saying for every 999,999,999 children born in all of time, into a mother/father environment, how many have really, honestly, failed because they were "accidently" conceived of. less than .05%-.005%, and I would bet money on it. Even at that rate, that's anywhere from 500,000 to 50,000 people effected because of accidental birth, raised in a mother father environment, out of 999,999,999.
How many raised by same sex? Because it hasn't happened in nature, because it can't happen naturally, that number is significantly higher. You have 99999 people raised by gays or same sex, and you have 99 fail, that's still .09%.
Even though 49,999 people is more than 99, statistically speaking, more fail raised by same sex seeing as the the fail rate by the accidental is .005%, and the same sex is .09%.
None of these numbers are taken from anywhere, but they should be adequate enough to demonstrate my point.
What I love is we have 4 people saying it hurts them but all 4 don't have the guts to say how. Come on. If it hurts you personally.. HOW? Have some testicular fortitude and explain your pain.
I hope you are not lumping in with those 4. I'm not hurt by it personally. I'm an outsider looking in and providing input as to what it looks like from where I'm standing and suggesting a way forward. Bypass the religious right, forget the word "marriage" and focus on obtaining your rights through civil unions.
Gays should embrace their difference and chose to create a word that elevates gay unions above the divorce wrought hetero marriages.
The religious right thinks the word belongs to them. They're going to fight for it. Proposition 8 is indicative of how hard they are willing to fight. They are willing to go to the mat. They are not going to roll over. This battle is going to slow the gay community as they attempt to gain their rights. They need a fast track to their rights. Go around the religious right. Forget the word, get your rights now! Focus on what is truly important like being by your partner in his/her time of need if (God forbid) they are ever in the hospital. You should have that right now. You shouldn't have to wait while you argue over a silly word.
Hasn't it become obvious to you as yet that one "silly" word is NOT silly at all to gay people? We wish it to mean exactly what the word 'Marriage' connotes and carries with it. It's a real simple thing but straight people think they are more than we are and that's why they want a copyright on the word.
You are making an assumption and then you act on your assumption by making an accusation.
Assumption: straight people think they are more than we are
Accusation: that's why they want a copyright on the word.
My philosophy is to try and verify my assumptions before acting on them. That usually goes a long way towards saving face later on if the assumption proves to be wrong.
Your argument is also based on emotion and it thus tries to manipulate the reader's feelings. This is done by calling one group bad; the straight people. You do do this by saying that "straight people think they are more than we are." You then call the other group good; the gay people. You do this by saying "We wish it to mean exactly what the word 'Marriage' connotes and carries with it."
I prefer arguments that are based on data and let the reader decide. There is no way to prove that gays wish marriage to mean exactly what it connotes and carries with it. There is also no way to prove that straight people think they are more than gays. Nor is there a way to prove that that's why they want a copyright on the word.
Now, my view on the topic itself. I have three points:
Point one: I am a purist and I want the word 'marriage' to mean exactly what those who invented the word years ago defined it to be, "A civil union between a man and a woman." I don't want to change the meaning of the word to "The loving union between two individuals."
Point two: Just because someone wants something doesn't mean that they are entitled to it. So, no matter how noble gays may be, no matter how important the word is to them, they are not entitled to it.
Point three: Gays started this "war" by trying to take something they feel strongly about but are not necessarily entitled to. Straights responded like anyone who has had someone try to take something away that doesn't necessarily belonged to them. Gays want to force straights to share the word. But trying to force someone into doing something they don't want usually results in them resisting with equal or greater force.
I thus propose that gays create a new word and stop this "war."
"Point one: I am a purist and I want the word 'marriage' to mean exactly what those who invented the word years ago defined it to be, "A civil union between a man and a woman." I don't want to change the meaning of the word to "The loving union between two individuals."
If a Civil Union was what they defined Marriage to be then what? You now have both of the words and/or statements by which the union is known. Does this mean we can have neither? If, as you state, we are not entitled to it then what shall people who wish to be married and enjoy a Civil Union be called? And why should it have to change? All any gay couple wishes to have are the things that are already defined by these words. If you change it, then you must define it. Then the ball starts to roll again in the direction of not being equal to Heterosexual people...but we are in all ways but one.
I, for one, am not in a war of any kind. I use logic and yes, I do use emotion along with logic in order to get some points across. Of course I can agree on the larger picture of people wanting something they are not entitled to but who decides we are not in this case? Straight people! Is this in any way just? I don't think it is and I wouldn't think so if the tables were turned.
"Gays started this "war" by trying to take something they feel strongly about but are not necessarily entitled to."
That's the point. They are entitled to it which is why attempted bans of gay marriage will always fail because it flys in the face of equal protection under the law as stated in the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision.
Gays ARE entitled to equal protection under the law.
Gays ARE entitled to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.
Gays ARE NOT entitled to the word "marriage!"
If gays feel that they need the word in order to be accepted, then they are misguided because you can't legislate acceptance. Even if they get to use the word, they wont necessarily be accepted by those who believe they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as heterosexual married couples. If gays just want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, then they should just call it something else and stop this "war."
Do you even have a clue about the history of marriage? Seriously.
Marriage has meant plenty of things over the millenia. It's not about a word, it's about a right. There were those who said blacks couldn't marry whites once upon a time. The same rhetoric was used against them. Gays are entitled to the word marriage just like anyone else because no one owns that word and any connotation that you ascribe to that word has a historical context that has changed over time and will change more over time. Separate is not equal.
Historically, marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman. If it has ever meant anything other than that, then I would like to see that proof.
When racists said that a black person could not marry a white person, they lost in the courts because the historical definition has been "a union between a man and a woman" not "a union between a man and a woman of the same race."
Racists did not try to claim ownership of the word. The racists tried to change the definition of the word and lost. As they should have.
Now a new group wants to change the definition of the word once again and they should lose that battle but they should win the battle to get their rights.
Historically marriage is a property arrangement wherein a man takes possession of a woman. This has led to forced marriages and polygamy being the norm for thousands of years up to this day in many parts of the world. What you call marriage is a western idea. Western society has changed the definition of marriage a lot to suit their society just like any society does. Considering womena's sufferge wasn't that long ago as far as history is concerned it's suprising that you think marriage has always been a equal union. No, actually it's naive.
On your point about blacks: They had to be allowed equal protection under the law before that could happen. Google: Jim Crow.
The racist were upholding the traditional norm that blacks were subhuman and shouldn't marry whites. You just don't seem to get it. People thought marriage didn't include them at the time either. You are looking at the whole thing backwards. The word is changed constantly through history and those against the change are always on the wrong side of it.
I never said anything about marriage traditionally being an equal union. I said that it was a union between a man and a woman and that part has remained constant. But I like the way you twisted my words in order to call me naive.
Now you insinuate that heterosexuals consider homosexuals as subhumans and thus don't want them to marry. That's an assumption. You're assuming to know "the real reason" why some heterosexuals don't want to allow homosexuals to use the word marriage. Heterosexuals say that the reason they don't want gays to marry is because marriage has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman. You seem to be calling these heterosexuals liars and racists who consider gays to be subhuman.
So, to recap, your argument is based on discrediting me by calling me naive and appealing to the reader's emotions by insinuating that heterosexuals are racists. I tend to find these types of arguments as weak. I mean, name calling and trying to manipulate people's emotions instead of letting your argument stand alone on its merit is weak.
I understand your argument that the word marriage has changed in definition over time and thus there's a precedence for changing it once again. But the changes you site are minor and the underlying definition [the foundation, if you will] has never changed. It has always been between a man and a woman.
As far as your "separate is not equal" statement, it simply does not apply to this situation.
That statement applied to the situation between blacks and whites. One example (for illustrations purposes) is schooling. The idea was that blacks would have their own schools and whites would have their own school. But since at that time whites were more affluent than blacks, their children were able to enjoy a higher level of education.
In the current situation heterosexual couples are not necessarily more affluent than gays. There's no reason to assume that a heterosexual union would be better than a homosexual union. There's also no reason to assume that by calling a homosexual union a "marriage" that they will receive a "higher level" of benefits than if they just called it a civil union. Therefore, the statement "separate but equal" does not apply.
I don't know if you've been reading all of my arguments on this topic but what I'm proposing is for the government to stop using the word "marriage" and replace it with the words "civil union" and have those 2 words apply to heterosexual and homosexual unions. This would give homosexual unions the same rights as heterosexual unions.
However, If the government were to take this advice, the churches would still be able to deny to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies. In this case gays don't miss out on any "rights" because a wedding ceremony [performed by a representative of a given religion] is not a right.
If the government were to use the word "marriage" for homosexual unions, then would churches be required to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies? If so, wouldn't this mean that the government is telling the church what it can and cannot do? Is it a good idea for the government to get into the "business" of religion? And if the churches are forced to perform homosexual weddings, would gay couples automatically be accepted by the congregation?
Having said all of that, I know exactly how you feel because I too want something that I'm not entitled to and the courts keep on deying me.
So my arguments to you are like therapy to me because if I can create a well thought out argument against gay marriage, then I can use a similar argument to justify the court's decision to myself and this in turn eases the pain and resentment and anger that is within me.
So don't think too harshly of me. We're all in this together. We all have issues. ;)
Yes, Joe! We are all in this together and I'm glad you made that statement! I don't think harshly of you when you make an honest and well thought out rebuttal. I only think that way when you start with your other type of debate or arguments!
You say you are also fighting the courts on something you say you're not entitled to. I don't know what that may be but you must keep fighting for a reason. We, too, fight for a reason. We fight for equality in all things because we are also viable human beings who deserve to be treated as such. ;-)
Treating people worse because of them being gay is like treating black or Asian or Indian people worse than others.
Except I've actually seen a black person change his colour (Michael Jackson), but I've never heard of a real story where a gay guy became straight (and not asexual or faking it trough whole life).
In fact there is evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic. At this point people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view. If homosexuals are born that way, then that means God created homosexuals. This is unacceptable to most fundamentalists, so they merely close their eyes, cover their ears and scream "LALALALALA" whenever someone points out the fact that they have been proven wrong.
NO! You're making an assumption as to why people are opposed to same sex marriage! Show me the data proving that "people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view." This is part of the problem. People are going off half cocked making assumption all over the place..... and they are not even constructive assumptions. If the other side doesn't agree with you, just malign them and call them names. The assumption is that there's one reason and only one reason why the religious right is against same sex marriage; they're bigots. Come on, you're smarter than that! The world is not black and white. There are shades in between. That's me and whole lot of other people.
Well Joe, give me one non-religious reason why people are opposed to same sex marriage. Just one.
I try to be as fair as possible in most of my arguments and usually give people the benefit of the doubt. Here though, I feel that bigotry or ignorance are the only reasons to oppose this issue. People don't choose to be gay, that is a fact. By taking away rights from people for reasons beyond their control you are discriminating against them. Plain and simple. The only difference between this and racism is that this is socially acceptable. Why? Because in some obscure passage of the Bible it says homosexuality is wrong. It also says it's okay to beat your slave to death as long as it takes a while for them to die.
I cannot be silent about my beliefs any more then those fighting for civil rights in previous generations could. There is no legitimate reason for denying happiness to another person if you are unaffected by it.
What Happens when Religious Passeges are Taken too Seriously
First of all. I would like to say that you have challenged me and bested me and I have acknolwedged it and up voted you for it. If you're truly a teen, then you're light years ahead from when I was a teen because it has taken me this long to get to this stage. It may have been a backwards journey for me but I like to think otherwise.
Your question was an interesting challenge to say the least. I wrestled with it until my wife got home and helped me see the light. She helped me see what I've been feeling but unable to put into words.
Please bear with me, I'm a little drunk. Which is not entirely fair because you are not allowed to drink and probably in your prime.
A non- religious reason why people are opposed to same sex marriage (by J.C.)
Birds of a feather flock together.
I wish I could make my argument more...... serious.... more..... adult like. It's just human nature.
Joe, I appreciate you compliments and I hope you know that I really do appreciate a lot of your ideas.
As for this argument, you present a very unique perspective. Allow me to respond though.
Although it is true that people often want what they can't have, this does not always mean that their demands are unreasonable. Allow me to first use the example of the American Revolution. You will often hear people say, "we defeated British tyranny over us etc..." What a lot of people don't realize is that we had it pretty good under the British. We had extremely low taxes, protection from others, and a reliable trading partner. Now a lot of stuff happened but the condensed version is, we wanted more: "Taxation w/out representation" and the like. So we had it pretty good already, but we wanted something more: liberty, inalienable rights, representative government. These are the foundations of our society today, but had we accepted what was going on at the time they may never have come to fruition.
Another example would be woman's suffrage. The common idea at the time (or at least rationalization) was that women would vote the same as their husbands so their right to vote was irrelevant. This idea seems archaic to us today, but back then it was the accepted norm. Progress eventually won out and woman gained the right that is most necessary to a democracy: the right to vote.
In both of these cases we can see how the status quo seems fine to a large number of people because it is what they are used to. Others though, see that there is an injustice occurring, and step up to fix it. I believe this explains why so many oppose gay marriage more than anything else. It is what has always been, why change it. I know you are a conservative, so know that I mean no offense when I say that conservative viewpoints have stood in the way of positive change throughout history. It is not bigotry that kept allowed slavery to continue (although that played a role) it is inaction and complacency.
Now we see the same scenario repeated. A group has been denied certain rights and now they are asking for them. You used the word militant, and I have to disagree with its connotations. African Americans were called militant when they demanded civil rights during the 60's, were they just being greedy? Or were they standing up and demanding that they be given what was promised to them as children: that all men are created equal, no different from our founding fathers who stood up during the revolution and demanded their rights.
No different then now, where a group of people want to have their love recognized under the law. They want to be part of a nation that allows the pursuit of happiness. I think that your right on one count, that is human nature. It is human nature to want acceptance, and to want equality, and to want a chance at the happiness that everyone else takes for granted.
I hope you see why I am upset at those people who prevent these people from the happiness they seek, and why I call them bigots. There crime is all too common, an inability to put yourself in your neighbors shoes. An inability to recognize the humanity of others. An inability to empathize with their suffering in a society that does not fully accept them.
The specific thing you requested was for me to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that.
You said that, "I feel that bigotry or ignorance are the only reasons to oppose this issue." I thought I gave a perfect example where this was not the case. Some people just don't want to be around other people. That does not make them a bigot nor does it make them ignorant. Not granting gays the word marriage but granting them the same rights does not make one a bigot nor does it make one ignorant nor does it hurt the gay community.
You say that same but separate is not good enough as though as soon gays are allowed to marry the bigots will suddenly see the errors of their ways. That's not going to happen. All the litigation in the world will never force a bigot to accept you. He will just look at you in the eye, turn around, and roll his eyes.
My argument does not call people names. Your argument calls anyone opposed to gay marriage a bigot or ignorant.
The side you're on is considered liberal. The side I'm on is seen as conservative. I don't categorize my argument as conservative because it takes a middle of the road approach. Take a little (your rights) give a little (leave the word behind). This is what I call negotiation. The side you're on is not interested in negotiation and is seen as militant; it's a "my way or the highway" approach and then your side acts surprised when they encounter resistance.
The side your on wants people to put themselves in their shoes but they are not willing to put themselves in the shoes of the other side.
The side I'm on is seen as being based on religion. I don't categorize my argument as being based on religion because my argument does not invoke religion. It invokes human nature. My argument is also constructive in that it alienates a smaller group on the religious right. It is pragmatic and rational in that it gets gays their rights sooner and all they are leaving on the table is just a word.
People can want all they want. I never said it was unreasonable. I just think that it is not practical at this point in time as evidence by proposition 8. I have said that gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost? Take your time, regroup, do a "lessons learned" analysis of what went wrong and why and then try again later.
People can want all they want but that does not mean that they are entitled to it or that they deserve it or that they have a right to it.
The status quo does not seem right to me. Otherwise I would never have suggested to bypass them. I saw an injustice occurring and I tried to think of a pragmatic approach towards getting what I consider important and leaving behind what I don't consider important in the shortest amount of time. That was my contribution. That was my way of stepping up to the plate and trying to fix things and I got slammed. This explains why others that have tried to help the gay community but encountered the negative feed back have stopped supporting gay marriage more than anything else.
What allowed slavery to continue was not inaction and complacency. People were working towards fixing it. What allowed slavery to continue for as long as it did is that it takes time to change the world.
The gay community is not asking for certain rights, it is demanding them. The gay community is not interested in negotiating and this stance is alienating a lot of potential allies. The gay community is taking an in your face approach and are surprised when the other side responds in kind.
The group that followed Martin Luther King were not militant. The Black Panthers were.
The gays that are peacefully trying to advance their agenda are not militant. The ones vandalizing churches are.
The gay community wants to portray itself as being the new civil rights fighters of our generation. The black community finds this highly offensive. What is the worst a gay man has had to openly endure in the last 10 years and compare that to what a black man had to endure during the 60's. There's no comparison. The gay community as the new civil rights fighters of our generation is an exaggeration; it is a tactic meant to get them what they want, nothing else.
No one promised gays the right to marriage. They can have their love legally recognized under a different name and not suffer because of it. They can be part of a nation that allows the pursuit of happiness without the having the word marriage. The word marriage will not magically get them to be acceptance nor get them a chance at the happiness that everyone else takes for granted. They have to find happiness within themselves. No one can grant it to them so no one can deny it to them.
I hope you see why I am upset at those hypocritical gays that say "empathize with our suffering in a society that does not fully accept us" and then turn around and vandalize churches. Now that is a real crime and it is not very accepting of the other side. I don't think they are empathizing with the other side, do you? I guess they forgot to put on their neighbors shoes.
Do you think that when gays call the other side hateful and bigot and ignorant that they are able to see the humanity of the other side? Does maligning someone help you solve your differences or does it hinder? And if it hinders, why do it. What value is there in calling someone a bigot? It is a great tactic. The Nazis used it with great success to get people to think that it was OK to kill Jews because, after all, Jews were vermin. You see?
Okay, let me first make it clear that I never condoned violent action as a way to solve the problem. Gandhi and MLK Jr. are some of my heroes because they affected change in the most peaceful ways possible. What I also liked about them is they both recognized injustice and stood up to it without compromise. Gandhi wanted the British out of India and did not compromise on this issue. Martin Luther King wanted equal rights for African-Americans and did not compromise. There is a big difference between not wanting to compromise, and being narrow minded.
You say "Some people just don't want to be around other people." This to me is a type of discrimination. If I told you, I am not bigoted, I just don't want to be around Mexicans, you would be appalled.
Here is the definition of a bigot in wikipedia:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own
Looking at this definition you can see clearly that not wanting to be around people who choose to be homosexual is bigotry. But that is irrelevant because no one is forcing people to be around homosexuals. This is what I don't understand about your argument. If homosexuals get married does that mean suddenly they are going to suddenly show up at your door, and when you refuse them say "Hey, you have to let us in, we're legally married now." That is ridiculous.
Of course legalizing gay marriage will not automatically get rid of bigots, I never said that and I don't believe it. When slavery was abolished, did it get rid of racism? When woman's suffrage was granted, did it get rid of sexism? No! But in the long run it helped a lot. Can you imagine anyone believing either of these issues as having two reasonable sides today? The bigots will not change their mind, but their children will be raised in a society that is more accepting, and hopefully this will have a large affect for future generations.
Being intolerant of bigotry cannot be called bigotry.
I agree that maybe gay marriage will not come to fruition in the immediate future, but that does not mean that people should stop fighting for what they believe in. Martain Luther King demanded equal rights for African-Americans. Feminists demanded equal rights for women. Asking nicely, "can we please get married, if it isn't to much of a problem for you?"
Of course what blacks suffered through in the pre-civil rights era was terrible. That does not lessen what homosexuals are going through right now. I know from seeing it at my school how much homosexuals are mistreated and outcast. This is socially acceptable, and it shouldn't be. Progress will probably be attained in smaller steps but only if people continue to fight for their rights. Obama is the perfect example of this: in order to win the presidency he had to support civil unions but not gay marriage. Lucky for me, I'm not a politician. I don't have to temper my views with the current public will. I can say what I truly believe. If a compromise were reached in the federal government that extended rights to homosexuals through civil unions I would be in favor of that, but after it was passed I would go right back to fighting for marriage. Homosexuals even lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because they can't marry or even have civil unions:
I also have a problem with you comparing the Homosexuals to the Nazis. First, the Nazis killed homosexuals, because they thought they were, to use your word, "vermin." What the homosexuals are not doing is killing or hurting others in any way by demanding marriage. By denying them marriage, other people are hurting homosexuals. So who is more like the Nazi's now? Don't you think its justified to loathe your oppressors? This does not mean violence, as I said earlier I am against violence.
Speaking of Bigotry though, I want you to see what homosexuals have to put up with:
So by your definition everyone is a bigot, including yourself, because I can probably come up with a group of people that you don't want to be around.
However, a closer look at the definition of the bigot will clearly show that it is possible for a person to not want to be around a group of people for reasons other than intolerance of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. For example, I do not want to be around people that don't speak my language because I would rather be something else rather than trying to make myself be understood or trying to understand what they were saying. And if we are just supposed to be sitting there saying nothing, I would still rather be something else.
BTW, I think that it is convenient that:
"Being intolerant of bigotry cannot be called bigotry."
If you lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because you can't marry or even have civil unions there, then move to a gay friendly state. But under no circumstance take this advice to mean that you should stop fighting for marriage.
Everyone has their own reality. When I came to this country I had a choice. I could keep my language my culture and all of that crap or I could assimilate, leave all of that behind and live the good life. Guess which I chose? Life is full of choices. There's give and take. People that only take...... make me feel uneasy.
The gay community is uncompromising when it comes to this issue of marriage.
Soccer, you're floundering. lets keep it short and sweet.
The specific thing you requested from me was to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that. You still claim that every person that is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot (period). if you don't think that my reason is legitimate, then say so and we'll debate that.
I never said that people should stop fighting for their rights. I said that they should take the high road, which is a slower, longer road. Take the Gandhi road, the Martin Luther king road instead of the low road that may get you there faster. Don't take the "If you are against us you are " road. The low road is a tactic used to get you there faster.
If I recall correctly, I did not compare homosexuals to Nazis. I said that the tactics being used are the same tactics that the Nazis used. This tactic can be used for good. The tactic itself is not evil. The gay movement is not the first to use that tactic. I don't like the tactic.
I think that calling everyone who is opposed to gay marriage a bigot is unfair and narrow minded.
When I said, "gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost?" What I mean is, That the ends do not justify the means. Calling people a bigot in order to get your way is uncalled for.
I've told you in the past when I have up voted you and why. This is the first time I have ever down voted someone. But I respect you enough to explain why I'm doing it. I'm down voting you for insisting that everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot even after I have given you one reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion and you did chose not to respond to that. Your position implies to me that the ends justify the means. I think you can do better than that.
I think I may have deserved the downvote because I did not organize my last argument very effectively. Instead of getting into a long draw out thing this time, I am going to go back to my original intention.
What I was referring to as bigotry was ignoring certain facts. In this case I was talking about JakeJ, because he repeatedly claimed that homosexuality was a choice, and I repeatedly showed him the proof that it wasn't. JakeJ, and most other people opposed to gay marriage don't use your argument but instead make baseless claims (i.e. kids can be turned gay, or gay parents can't raise children). When these things have been proven scientifically, continuing to use the same arguments is dishonest.
I know that, in probably less then 50 years, the people who opposed allowing gays their rights will be considered bigots, for better or worse, and so I therefore stand by my statements.
OK, so now you're saying that you follow the crowd instead of making up your own mind.
Think about this. In any given argument, to use absolutes is usually wrong. To say that "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" is wrong. To say that "everyone else says that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot so it must be true" is wrong.
Are you saying that it is physically impossible for someone to be against gay marriage for some reason other than being a bigot?
Think about this. If it were a true statement that anyone who doesn't want to be around a specific group is a bigot, then why doesn't the definition of the word say that? Could it be that there are plenty of other reasons for people not to want to be around a specific group? What if you were shy and only wanted to hang around your own kind? What if you were deaf and only wanted to hang around deaf people? What if people with tinnitus wanted to be called deaf and deaf people were opposed, would they be bigots?
I just spent the last five minutes looking through my arguments seeing if I could find where I said "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" and guess what? I wasted my time! Don't put things in quotes as if I said them when I clearly didn't. If you want to use quotes copy and paste, I have written plenty of stuff, I'm sure you can find something that will go to prove your point.
If I am understanding you correctly, here is your argument: People are not being bigoted just because they don't want to be around people. Am I right so far? Because I agree with this part. Next you say: some people who don't want gays to get married only because they don't want to be around them. Is this correct? Because I think you might be right that this could be some peoples reasons. No one is asking them to hang out with homosexuals, or even talk to them so I don't understand their rationale, but at least it's an explanation. So so far we agree.
Now here's where your logic decides to jump off a cliff into a pile of razor blades after having swallowed a gallon of vodka and three bottles of sleeping pills: People are not being bigoted, or intolerant when they allow their discomfort of being around gays to affect their decisions as to whether gays should be allowed to get married. Is this the basic point your making? If not ignore the rest of the argument and clarify your position, but if so keep reading.
Denying others rights because you don't like their lifestyle is intolerant and bigoted. I may not like people with your opinions but I would never try to take away your right to voice them. Here is where the difference lies. You are allowed to be uncomfortable with how people live. I admit, I would be pretty uncomfortable around a man who wore nothing but a thong all day, but I wouldn't take away his rights. I could decide not to hang out with the thong-man. I might purposefully avoid him, but I would not take away his rights or the rights of all the thong-men in the entire state. Why? Because I know that if my lifestyle was not the popular or accepted one then I would not want people trampling on my rights.
Your metaphor is an inaccurate one for two reasons: A) there is no logic in a groups wanting to change the name of their condition; and (this is the important one) B) homosexuals aren't forcing anything on people, merely asking for the same rights as afforded to others. A change in the name of your condition does not afford you more rights. (I considered including a C that said your an idiot but I didn't think that would add anything to my argument)
OK, sorry about the misquote, It was not intentional.
I liked your cliff, razor blade thing. ;)
I stopped reading after the 3rd paragraph because that is not what I'm saying. I think that we are talking past each other.
Here's what I'm saying:
if a straight person said he wanted a kid who shares his same reality and perspective, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then that person would be classified a bigot. And it's really a shame because the only thing that matters is the rights associated with marriage, not the word marriage. If the gay community took their rights and left the word, then there would be peace.
Jake, at this point you are being willfully ignorant. I have shown you scientific explanations for homosexuality on numerous occasions in numerous debates. You have yet to respond to a single one. Is it because you know I'm right? Is it because you are in denial? For God's sake (and yes I use that phrase ironically) tell me what reasons you have for believing that A) "nobody is born gay" and B) they only become gay because their parents are gay?
Also you are implying being gay is wrong...by whose definition and why? Just answer me once Jake. Enlighten me with the reasons that you believe surpass science and logic. Why do you feel discrimination is okay? Have you ever even met a homosexual?
Jake You have no idea what you are talking about. I know plenty of gay people who had no one gay in their lives growing up. In fact all of the gay people I know had straight parents and were scared to "come out". Try again.
Unless you can provide scientific data on this, you are just making things up! If you provide a link for a reference that would be helpful in your debate which should be based on facts not your opinion!
I don't know who you're opposing here but if it's inkeddreams you're off the mark. Ask anyone what it was like for them to come out to their parents and they'll tell you the same thing.
You have to sort this and many other debates that have extended replies by "Show All Replies." on top. The problem with that is if you need to resond to someone and do, it reverts back again and you have to click on it again to expand the debate!
I say, keep gay marriage OUT of religion. HOWEVER, allow it as a legal form of marriage. Shouldn't gay people be allowed to be happy(or gay...lol) as well.
Truly I do not see how it can hurt anyone at all. Studies are showing that some people are born gay and if you want to marry your lover who is anyone else to say that they should not be wed?
Is seeing 2 guys or gals with rings on their fingers really that obscene? What is the difference between seeing a married gay couple and a gay couple? Is there really that huge of a difference? I do not believe so.
First of all, the two options for this debate are a bit limiting and ambiguous. If we define "hurt" as directly set back or disadvantage, then no, gay marriage doesn't hurt even the most vehement of bigots. However, if we define "hurt" as having any influence in which a person may deem negative to themselves, then yes, it is very possible that it does.
I've sided with the "doesn't hurt anyone" because in GENERAL and DIRECTLY it does not influence people who oppose it.
John and Jim getting married and having sex behind closed doors, does not affect the daily life of big Pastor Joe in a direct way.
However, the long term social and political effects will have very real consequences for both Pastor Joe and the rest of society.
If we examine the effects of abortion laws, especially the revision those of 1973, we see how it is possible for legislation intending to provide more individual freedoms may affect the social dynamic. The 1.7 million abortions a year are seen with a more liberal attitude after Roe and other similar historic legal moments.
Compare the average attitude on abortion in 1920 to today, and you will find that the social dynamic has changed. As society becomes more liberal on a certain issue because of legislation, it is possible that Pastor Joe is now surrounded with a warped culture he does not enjoy. This culture, the effects of gay marriage, may very possibly "hurt" Pastor Joe in the sense that he is not happy with the effects of allowing it, later down the road.
Forced to chose one of the absolutist sides, "Doesn't hurt anyone" -- In general, right now, if John and Jim wish to go get a married, this does not influence my life. In an ideal philosophy, the actions of two consenting adults in private are of no business to anyone but themselves, thus "doesnt hurt anyone."
271 days ago | Tagged As: Doesnt hurt - does affect
It can't. It's a free choice, it's not like married gay people are out to get us and murder us in our sleep. I honestly don't know why everyone makes such a fuss about it I MEAN HONESTLY. GOODNESS. That's kind of discrimination.
As quoted, they have every right to believe what they want to believe and behave the way they do. I think that every single one of us should have the right to be with the person they want to be with; be it a man or a woman.
I don't believe gay marriage hurts anyone. The only people truly making it such a mad case is religious people. Sure, marriage is somewhat an act out of religion, but like others said, what is it if someone unreligious gets married? If people are going to make a big deal out of two people of the same sex getting married, then people of different religions, people of no religion, even people guilty of adultery shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Being against gay marriage really comes down to what people that follow the bible say the bible says. Which makes gay marriage against the bible, right? But then again, every single person on this planet is doing lots of stuff against the bible. So, really, what gives these religious people the right to say someone can't do something they disapprove of? Otherwise, I'd like to meet a non-religious person, or even a person acquainted with gay's, who is against gay marriage. (Just because it proves my case otherwise that it's all about religious bitching and it has not one thing to do with them personally). So, really, gay marriage is hurting those that let it hurt them for no rightful reason.
Haven't you heard? The instant that two people of the same sex are married, a cloud of noxious gas descends over the area around them in a six-mile radius.
Of course gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone! It doesn't hurt anyone's religious beliefs, as I'm sure the religious right will cling to their religion with a determination that can only be produced by fear. It doesn't hurt anyone morally, as marriage is something that happens out of love. And, obviously, it doesn't hurt anyone physically.
While I think that it could bring about a whole new class of social implications, I don't believe that any of them have the inherent ability to hurt anyone.
It's like the prohibition of marijuana on the bases that it's a "gateway drug". It may be true that people that are now on heroin have tried weed, it doesn't mean that it lead these people without control, to heroin. The same as saying people that do drive-by-shootings began their vehicular criminal life by driving to the mall, or at the DMV.
The theoretical implication to marriage between a man and man or a woman and a woman are the same as a man and woman. Then again, maybe you should be so bold as to ask a more correct question "How can marriage, in general, hurt anyone".
It hurts families, the more gay marriage the less families there will be, children need a mother and a father to look up to.
Good job voting that idiotic statement down everyone. I don't think the source of that idea has been explored enough though. And personally, I believe in humilating idiotic statements as a form of social punishment, so here goes. Hopefully you read this Jake.
gay marriage = less families only if you believe that people would choose to be gay instead of heterosexual.
that is, you jake, think that someone who is otherwise attracted to the opposite sex, would have had kids and raised them, will now move in with someone of the same sex and not have kids.
ignoring for a moment that this isn't all together bad since there are too many people. what kind of person would think that may be the case?
I know for myself, being very comfortable in my heterosexuality, I would not magically turn gay because a law was passed.
do you fear, jake, that you may magically turn gay if a law were passed?
because that is really the only reason for your statement. if you actually think about what your wrote, I mean, that's the only possible end conclusion.
and if you do stand behind that statement jake, I have to ask myself, what kind of person would have such a ridiculous fear.
and I can only think of one kind jake. a closet gay person.
so if you want to come out, which I'm assuming from your statement deep down you do, then this is the place for it. There seems to be a lot of open people here, and at least one very popular openly gay member.
it's okay jake, be brave.
and if you do choose to not come out, that's okay, I understand it's a cold hard world out there for a gay person. but know this at least.
whatever you do, whatever you say, no matter how much you deny it, I at least will always know that, you jake, are gay. and I accept that.
I am assuming that was supposed to be an insult, yet you have been defending it.
Its like you are saying "protect the gays give them rights," then you you turn around and say "hey i don't like you, i will humiliate you by saying that your gay" -you just contradicted yourself!
Whatever Jake, it's very easy to lie and be a bigot and a fundie, especially over internet.
Approximately 80% of homophobes are gay and I'm SURE the rest have their issues too, mostly connected with sexuality.
If you think that a person would turn gay if he was allowed to, than you must be thinking of a person who is attracted to men, you are referring to a GAY person and a GAY person turning GAY ISN'T VERY DRAMATIC, NOW IS IT?!
An intelligent straight person would never like it to not allow gays to marry and adopt children.
If gays can marry and adopt that means that baby making isn't a very big deal since the gays are going to raise them. (If you are a religions fundie, that means you can be more logically for pro-life if you are pro-gay-marriage)
Plus, if there are so many women left alone, or rather lonely, than you can have a lot of sex.
Oh, and by the way, straight men like sex with women (right guys? :)), so they couldn't mind.
The only people who could POSSIBLY mind gays are gay people who don't want to be gay(...and raise kids and miss all the coitus..., but they don't like it anyway) and women who fall in love with gays. As some comedian woman says: "I'm a fag-hag, but now I think about my wishing in youth about being surrounded by handsome men, I should have been more specific."
Responses are much more effective when you do more than just ridicule the poster. I know a lot of people who decide to be gay, and I know even more people who think they are gay because they are musically inclined or sensitive and they are told their whole life that they are "closet gays." I find it incredibly prejudice to think that everyone who doesn't like beer and football or somehow misses the masculine bar is gay, and I think that IS one of the big problems with the publicity that homosexuality is making. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me, but I think there is a baseline group of gay people and then a huge amount of other people who are gay because of peer pressure, insecurity, and/or because it's the popular thing to be right now.
I know, incoming down votes. Didn't say anyone had to agree, I just think it's stupid to tell someone else about their sexuality.
And please don't respond with "studies prove," because as I've already said, they don't.
And you and jake seemed to miss the fact that, I wasn't ridiculing the fact that jake is gay. That's fine. I was ridiculing his ridiculous response, which proved him to be gay.
See what I'm saying?
Next, you don't know anyone who decided to be gay. You know people who were born gay, but who were told by society they weren't gay and gay is bad, so were in conflict for a large part of their lives until they realized they had been gay the whole time... like Jake :)
I don't know anyone who decided to be gay? How do you know. I in point of fact know a very nice and happy gay man, who was once engaged and has told me to my face that he was a happy straight man, did some experimentation, found someone he really liked who was a man and made a choice to live a gay lifestyle. He said he was happy either way, but thinks this is what makes him happiest.
I think society tells way more people that they are gay than that they aren't. And after reading more of the responses on here it just gets back to this absurd point that those of us who are "opposed", and I use this term loosely because to tell you the truth, until the prop 8 fiasco in which the gay movement has begun trying to steal the right to vote from me I honestly didn't give a damn, to gay marriage are hated, disposed, called names, attacked, been told "no intelligent straight man would oppose gay marriage" as is said on this board, while we on the other side are about as polite as can be.
The only hatred I've seen has been coming from the homosexual community. If you don't believe me, take a look at what they've been doing to the Mormons. I honor democracy and I despise hatred and bigotry, and it saddens me that this seems to make me the enemy of the homosexual community, which wants tolerance only for their way of thinking.
