CreateDebate


Debate Info

778
318
Doesnt hurt anyone Hurts everyone?
Debate Score:1096
Arguments:481
Total Votes:1611
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Doesnt hurt anyone (295)
 
 Hurts everyone? (180)

Debate Creator

Inkeddreams(31) pic



How can gay marriage hurt any one?

Doesnt hurt anyone

Side Score: 778
VS.

Hurts everyone?

Side Score: 318
33 points

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"?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Actually, the person on the receiving end sometimes gets butt hurt. Or so I'm told ;)

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

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!

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Ignore Kuklapolitan, Joe. Your argument was funny, though not quite up to par.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
-2 points
sharpiron(10) Disputed
1 point

A world without morals? Is this your great idea? Sexual deviants would thrive in this environment. Morality is a dimension of a human being which you must not ignore. Or is this your agenda? Neither the church nor America has the franchise on morality. Freedoms are always within boundaries.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Timbo7834(1) Disputed
2 points

First off sharpiron, I don't have anything against you as a person. But have you looked at the world lately, it is already to the point that sexual deviants thrive in this world. That isn't gay peoples fault. The fact that molestation, insert, rape and child pornography and adultery happen is proof of that. Very few are ever held accountable for their actions. Politicians are caught doing it all the time, and its passed off as a "simple mistake". Especially if it is a heterosexual act.

The act of allowing two men or two women to marry does not hurt anyone or even family values, because we just want the same thing straight people already have and take for granted. Acceptance in this world to be able to love whom we want to love. Monogamous, loving relationships with someone of the same gender. We want families and children and the love and respect and adoration from someone who pledges their life to us as we pledge our life to them.

I was raised in a loving Christian home, my grandmother was my preacher until I was 30. I love God and always have even from the time I was a small child. I was raised to believe that all homosexuals were going to hell and that the only cure was a good woman. So at the age of 20 I married. I cried and prayed many nights for God to make the thought of a man be repulsive to me and after 11 years of marriage I finally realized I was gay and had been all along. My feelings for men had been with me since I was young, the first memory I have was at the age of 11. I so desperately wanted to fit in, to be accepted by my family, to go to Heaven. It took me 19 years to realize that I am still God's child and he loves me, even as a gay man. It was definitely hard to understand after years of being told how horrible and wrong all gay people were, only to realize I had been trying to be something I wasn't and it was slowly killing me from the inside out. Many times I just prayed for God to kill me. But it never came. Once I finally accepted who I was, who I had always been, God gave me the peace I needed.

My own mother stated she wished she had never had me and most of my blood relatives have nothing to do with me. You know the scripture that says to not be unequally yoked, well apparently my love for God wasn't enough. I was escorted from my church and told not to come back until I was ready to renounce my sexuality and come back to the fold. I don't blame God for what others do in his name. I am sad that my family isn't judgement free like they claim to be. I am sad that they will never know the man I love and have loved faithfully for over two years. I plan to marry him, with or without a marriage certificate. The way I see it, Adam and Eve didn't need a piece of paper to be married, and neither do I. Marriage is a state of mind and a way of life. Even the most married people fall into infidelity because the words they spake didn't mean anything. So gay or straight if your heart isn't in it, is it really a marriage.

I wish everyone would just worry about themselves and recognize the hurt they cause by telling others to do as they say and not what they do. I hope everyone out there that may read this can get the sense that I am Gay, I am in a loving relationship with a man, I am a God fearing and God loving man. And God loves me for who I am, not what the world thinks I should be.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Facadeon(509) Disputed
1 point

Since when did he intend to rid the world of morals? He is just reminding us that we shouldn't be intolerant assholes in a free county- when the thing we are discriminating doesn't affect us at all- so why should we care what they do in their homes?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

You think allowing gays to marry constitutes a "world without morals?" And sexual deviation can be pretty fun in my experience, and i don't see anything immoral about it. Dont see your point.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
victor714(5) Disputed
1 point

I just find it unfair for a young kid to be adopted by a gay couple. The most probable thing is that the kid will follow the couples beliefs in sexuality...... Remember "The Land of the Free?"

| Side: Hurts everyone?
StickinStone(648) Clarified
1 point

Does this apply to incestuous gay marriage as well?

I like you post, just something to think about from a different debate.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
jwitter(141) Disputed
-1 points

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?

| Side: Hurts everyone?
ace1991(1) Disputed
1 point

Exactly! Keep straight marriage a private thing too! Either take it out of the church or take it out of our government. I don't want to see you hold your wifes hand, or even look at her. In fact, lets kinda dab a little into what Middle Eastern Countries are doing, huh? Put a sheet over her and if anyone asks, she's not your wife... she's just a thing. Gay marriage and everything that goes along with marriage can't be kept private because the Right-Wing is making such a big deal about it.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
17 points

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?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
8 points

I applaud your ability to not impose your personal beliefs on others. If only more religious people could be like you.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
EricM(18) Disputed
1 point

I have noticed that many non-religious people impose their personal "religious" views on others. For example, I would like to see them support polygamy for consenting adults. Despite denying being religious, they want to impose their views on others by denying polygamists the right to marry.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
3 points

This is a brilliant statement, and I have to agree with you on this.

I'm straight and currently have no defined religion (only one born of personal beliefs that has no name) but I don't see the problem with same sex marriage. For this, I use the same philosophy as in every part of my life: If what someone is doing doesn't hurt anyone else, they can keep doing it. Gay marriage isn't exactly killing anyone, people should put their effort into issues that actually matter instead of denying happy couples their right to be legally married.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
necromancer(5) Disputed
1 point

Your rights are endowed by the creator, and they exist as long as they dont infringe on anothers rights, actually when I was growing up they taught this in school, I guess they dont anymore.

Marriage is not a right, but if it were they would have the same right I do to marry someone of the opposite sex, what they are asking for is a special right, this is unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment. All that aside allowing gay marriage hurts many people in many ways, and infringes on religious freedom, because it will now demand people and churches who find it morally objectionable and a sin will now be forced to not only condone it but to fund it through taxation which is the real objective of this law, along with indoctrination.

Just check the lawsuits piling up against business owners (liberals favorite target) even small ones who chose to deny services to a gay wedding, florists, cake decorators, photographers, even churches, many are being sued on court now because of this and will be forced out of business. So tell me who is being hurt?

| Side: Hurts everyone?
LeftyBegone(1) Disputed
2 points

Except there is no such thing as a "separation of church and state," so your entire argument is moot. If there were this "separation," then the federal government wouldn't be allowed to enforce their laws on churches, like telling churches they're not allowed to talk about politics. And yet the federal government DOES punish churches from talking about politics. Of course, the moment something religious enters into public territory, the federal government wastes no time in condemning it like the hypocrites that they are. My point, though, is that "separation of church and state" is nowhere in any of our founding documents. Nowhere. It is a myth. When the Constitution was ratified, many states had their own established religions and NONE of the Founders had any problem with this. They approved of established state religions! The First Amendment merely says that CONGRESS cannot establish any religion. Congress deals with federal laws, not state laws. So it is the federal government that cannot establish a nationwide religion. States, however, can. The Tenth Amendment says that anything NOT talked about elsewhere in the Constitution is up to the states. This means gay marriage, for one thing. Meaning that a federal BAN on gay marriage is unconstitutional; but so is a federal law ALLOWING gay marriage. Gay marriage is not in the Constitution, so it is up to each individual state to decide.

I do find it interesting, though, that you're a Christian and yet you support something that the founder of your religion did not support. Jesus'd be proud.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Bunglenomics(1) Disputed
1 point

But what you are missing in my opinion, is that even if the constitution does not have a specific reference to separation of church and state, does that really make it OKAY to completely ignore that idea? If we just blindly followed everything the Constitution says, wouldn't we still have prohibition of alcohol, and wouldn't it be up to the states whether or not women and minorities not have the right to vote? Those were all changed in amendments. And I personally would support an amendment SPECIFYING a separation of church and state. What you talk about, people enforcing that churches do not talk about politics, I have never heard that before, but if it's true, the solution is not to say that because they can do that, you can ban gay marriage, the solution is to day that you should not be able to ban gay marriage and they can not enforce churches to not talk about politics. You're moving in the complete wrong direction, not in the right one. Without a separation of church and state, you get a government that influences its people or even forces its people to do things against their own religion.

I think you deeply do not understand the phrase "separation of church and state". It does not mean that one can not make references to politics or the state in church as you seem to imply, or even that one can not make references to the church in public funded buildings. What it means is that publicly funded things like schools, and any kind of government facility including courthouses, can not express support for, or utilize public prayers, or anything similar regarding religion, and yes that includes Atheism. A separation is not state-sponsored Atheism, as they are also not allowed to show support for a disbelief in God. A separation of church and state simply means that they can not coerce the people or force them into any kind of religion.

I think that your desire to ban gay marriage is what's really wrong and unconstitutional here. If a gay Christian wants to marry his partner, is it not a violation of the free exercise clause of the constitution to not allow him to do so, that is, if you really believe marriage is a religious institution? My main point as a Libertarian, is that marriage is simply voluntary human relations. As long as it's voluntary, you have no right to step in on people's personal lives and tell them how to live their own life.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
EricM(18) Disputed
1 point

Do you also support polygamy among consenting adults only? If not, you are allowing your church to interfere with the state.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

Amen to that. I agree .

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
anotherguy34 Disputed
0 points

ur catholic or what? A christian that dosent see a problem with Gay marriage is not christian. As homosexuality is against the bible's principles. I agreed with you until you started talking about how it hurts no one but stripping away rights. I agree with you hlf way..But the Bible says sin is detrimental to most evryone while sexual sins are sins against ones own body. do you believe in Sin? or are you one of those watered-down christians? I agree in speration of church and state, And that ppl should be able to make their own choices.. But seriously....

| Side: Hurts everyone?
darthtimon(40) Disputed
1 point

You can be a Christian and still believe in gay marriage. Would Jesus, who would open his arms to everyone, even lepers, shun gays? No.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

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. =)

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

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 ;)

Remember, vote twice, vote often ;)

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
6 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
4 points

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!

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
simoriah(200) Disputed
2 points

gay people shouldnt have to choose a different word.

marriage refers to the union of two souls

yes, generally from different genders, but if not, so what. a word is a word.

this isnt semantics. people need to stop saying "no, bc 'marriage' means a man and a woman"

when we say should gays be allowed to get "married" we mean, "should they have the right to be allowed official union"

| Side: Doesnt hurt - does affect
1 point

I agree with just about everything you just said. Thank you!

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
5 points

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! ;)

| Side: im scared now

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?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

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.

| Side: relative again
sharpiron(10) Disputed
1 point

What evidence do you have to discredit people who have claimed to have become straight? There is a famous singing who publicly claimed that he was gay and is now straight, is he lying? Where is your evidence? It appears that you have a confirmation bias. I understand what you are attempting to say but, a world with a population of 90% gay cannot exist indefinitely (Sex for pleasure and not procreation, even a 90% heterosexual society would be in danger of becoming extinct).

| Side: Hurts everyone?

wow, repubgal, that sounded almost human ;)

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.

- Mark Twain, a Biography

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
5 points

Well, great.

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
iamdavidh(4850) Disputed
2 points

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.

| Side: bible
4 points

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?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Bradf0rd(1427) Disputed
-3 points
HGrey87(749) Disputed
2 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

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?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
4 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
4 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
4 points

I don't see any person hurting just because of gay marriage, unless somebody is in love in one of them. I think that we should give them this complete right to be married and settled life as they wan it. Most of them has really proven their worth and I think that we should give them their much needed freedom to be happy.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
4 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

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.

So what's the problem?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
4 points

It can't and it doesn't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

Gayness is as natural as sex and food.

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).

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

Jake said:

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

Gay "marriage" doesn't hurt anyone in a sense that it threatens traditional marriage (that between a man and woman). I say "marriage" in reference to gay "marriage" because marriage is understood to be between a man and woman in the very sense of the term, as a religious term. Gay's should be allowed to commit to one another and in a sense assume responsibility that a husband and wife would.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

If two consenting adults love each other and want to make a life long commitment of marriage they should be allowed to do so.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
EricM(18) Disputed
1 point

Why should it only be two consenting adults? What about people who were born poly who want to marry more than one person? Why should they be denied their rights? Let's stop with ALL of the bigotry.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
3 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

I don't believe that gay marriage can hurt anyone, people just tend not to like seeing the same sex together, its just awkward,that's why there is men and women. Can't find a woman you like, keep looking because there are plenty in the sea.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

It's this simple.....

You love who you love.

And for those religious nuts out there.....

doesn't it say Thou shalt not judge???

YOU ARE NOT GOD.

Let him sort it out, and you should worry about yourself instead of a gay couple.

| Side: nosey conservatives
3 points

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.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

Ok, this debate has caught alot of attention, so i'm going to put my two cents in...Gay marriage mmmm, so I am going to say is for those of you who thinks it does, do diffrent color people marrying each other bug you or has the debate says hurt you? Should a Elephant marry a mouse? The only person that gay marriage can hurt is the ones in the marriage. Now, I'm not for it, but I'm not going to waste my time fretting over it. Well you can say I'm not against either. Who knows I might fall in love with a chick and marry her one day, it's the love I think that matters, and other people should mind thier own business!

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

It cannot hurt us in any manner that any other marriage couldn't.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

Same sex marriage does not hurt anyone. It is a freedom of religion issue. People do not have the right to force their beliefs on others. And I am a Christian saying this.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

People are generally idiots. They can't accept that someone might be different from them so they create stupid laws and discriminate, it's just.. a mess. But really, gay marriage is like any other marriage.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

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".

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Why would it? If you dont like it, then guess what? You have nothing to do about it! Gay people exist! They are part of our world! The shouldnt be humiliated and, why on earth, would they be?They have a right just like everyone else, they are not aliens!!

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

It doesent hurt anyone, if they want to be together, who are we stopping them?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

It doesn't hurt anyone and for years straight people have been doing a good enough job ruining marriage themselves. Look at the divorce rate gay people have had nothing to do with that. Not to mention the people most likely to divorce do live in red states. Gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else and civil unions are not seperate but equal.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Well me being in the gay community of course i dont think it hurts anyone. The only people i can see that it hurts, would possibly be the parents of gays. Other than that if people just mind there business, and not discriminate against gays then it'll all be ok.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

a good point, no one else has brought up the parents. and not wanting my opinion to be misconstrued, i would like to say that if gay marriage was accepted, and gay people themselves, i dont think that the parents would be hurt so much. i think they are mostly hurt because they dont think it is good for their kids bc society like to push that opinion.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Hurt is a broad term, but if to be taken in the context of marriage the main aspect of this union are the people participating in it. Given this fact, since they choose to marry each other regardless of orientation or gender, it definitely doesn't hurt anyone.

People in contact with these gay couples might disapprove of their status but other than having their ideals or opinions contested, in no way are they distinguishably hurt per se.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

I don't think it hurts anyone, really. Except for maybe people who are indecisive about their sexual orientation and are losing sleep over it.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

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."

| Side: Doesnt hurt - does affect
TheAshman(2310) Disputed
1 point

When laws were passed giving Blacks equal rights using your definition hurt lots of people, the KKK did not want Blacks having the same freedoms as themselves so when the Blacks did they would have been "hurt" and forced to live in a world that made them uncomfotable, so are you saying those laws giving Black people the same freedoms as Whites were wrong? If not why should giving Gay people the same rights as straight people be wrong just because it might make some small minded bigots uncomfortable

| Side: Hurts everyone?
CybrKnyf(11) Disputed
1 point

because black men and women can have babies... Blacks are trying their best to advance the species, unlike gays whose philosophy if adopted by all would end it.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Given your explanation, I am relieved to see someone with real intellect on here. Although against gay lifestyles, as I feel they set a bad example for the youths of today, as well as setting a bad legal precedent - where might we stop; marriage to cows... or rocks... I'm gonna marry myself and get double the welfare checks... That sort of thing is coming, mark my words. There is an old proverb - Give that man an inch and he'll take a mile... This is very worrisome for me. Like Ray Kurzweil I make one my my hobbies studying the future and trends - I worry very much about the evolution of humanity if the gay lifestyle is not kicked to the curb quickly.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

If I was born with a sexual attraction to children, I wouldn't act on it. I know I was born gay. There are some men with an extra x chromosome who are gay and many have sex change operations. Do they have less rights as a human because of that fact. Don't argue the slippery slope. It fails. You may have feelings but u don't act on it with minors period. And with 90 per cent heterosexuals, it's good that there are some people who don't procreate. We live in a world of finite resources. As long as 2 consenting adults love each other, leave them be. It's a free country that way. It's a right. Don't argue over the word marriage,use a different term but give the same rights.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
CybrKnyf(11) Disputed
1 point

You seem to forget a single blazing point - you have a very large number of heterosexual couples to thank for your very existence.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
2 points

i just wanted to add this, but

since aids comes from monkies....

im pretty sure gay people didnt spread the first strain through humanity.

i would venture to guess, that some straight guy out in the jungle on some expedition thing, got really horny and fucked a monkey.

a gay guy, would just go have sex with the other gay guys there. and, they tend to be cleaner and pickier, so i dont think they would go for a monkey....

0.0

(yes, an immature thing to say, but hey, alot of the people here are already saying stupid crap, i thought id add this too)

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

I think that it hurts people's sensabilities if anything, but the amount of adultery and divroce hurts mine. Adultery is immoral, yet that fact isn't stopping anyone. I think it is that individuals choice. What if straight people are simply getting married simply for the benefits, but no one is taking away their choice to get married.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

You seem to forget a single blazing point - you have a very large number of heterosexual couples to thank for your very existence.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

me i have a gay aunt and it doesn't hurt me because its a lifestyle choices so who ever thinks that it hurts anyone then something is wrong with you because there's nothing wrong its that that ginger likes the same ginger son thats what i got to say and remember IT DO NOT HURT ANYONE SO GET OVER IT

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Gay marriage does not hurt anybody, nor does it affect any one around them! In the old testament Samuel II 1:26 it says,"I am distressed for thee. my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." This is a clear indication that King David had a gay relationship and to say otherwise is naive.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

I'm just a kid, and I don't think it hurts anybody. If you think it hurts people, you're a retard.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Why should the government have any say in how people run thier lives? I might not ever know the answer to that but i know why the government does. Becuz even thought we don't say it out loud we think like ing some one of the same sex deserves a title. WELL IT DOESN'T! same sex relationships are the same as different sex relationships. I don't know first hand but i would think that a same sex relationship would be better then a different sex relationship just becuz the SS relationship would mean they new more about how that body type works. BUT the government does'nt work that why all they see is since it is not the same we don't like it. and it is so fucked up becuz it is like the the gov. is yelling " FUCK YOU FAGOTS AMERICA HATES YOU AND YOUR WAYS" and that pisses me the hell off! i think that if you wanna fuck some one with the same gear have fun! just don't try it on me!

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Why would it hurt anyone?

No one should be denied the right to marry no matter who they love and recently in the UK Quaker and Jewish churches have said that if a same sex marriage law is passed they all perform the ceremonies :)

People need to wake up and smell the coffee, homosexuality is not bad, it doesn't cause anymore STI's than heterosexual sex, it is in no way connected to pedophilia and just cause religion says we should condemn them doesn't mean we should

That's gone rather off topic but oh well

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Same sex marriages could not hurt anyone. They just want love and respect, fun and happiness just like everyone else. How could that hurt anyone. & just because someone is attracted to the same sex does not mean they will automatically hit on you, grow up and stop thinking everything is about you, because its not.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. You see straight people get married, sometimes more then once..marriage is for everyone. Gay/Lesbian just want at least one marriage but people are to uptight/all about themselves to let that kind of marriage happen...I'm sick and tired of people not accepting others...I have no spirt or whatever you want to call it for america...we're just going to get worse, and its sickening. Love me or hate me, I'm speaking my thoughts.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

If you want equal treatment, you must behave equally... That pretty much explains everything.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

i really dont see why it could hurt i mean it just like marrage but just the same sex.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

First of all Gay Marriage doesn't hurt anyone, and it even helps the economy. second is that the bible says allot of things that don't make sense, for people to have come from Adam and Eve Cain and Able would have had to had sex with Eve. Third the same would have had to happened with Noah. I'm saying if it's ok to have sex with your mother in the bible it must be ok for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to have sex.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

It really doesn't bother anyone, I am cristion. But I'm also Bi. It is just they way you feel about things. I'm totally for the laws of love and God!

| Side: Love Justice God
1 point

Yeah, I have a 'feeling' for robbing banks - should I be able to do that also? Or how about that feeling of snogging my sister? Do you actually think that if you 'feel' it's okay, then that makes it okay???

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

no - that's stupid. it's just another case of people being overly concerned with other people's lives instead of sticking to their own business.

| Side: nosey conservatives
CybrKnyf(11) Disputed
1 point

If you don't want it to be my business, then don't make it my business - simple enough for ya?

| Side: Hurts everyone?

as long as its not expose in public with groping, there is really no hurt. If they are happy able to make a great future let it be. Marriage is a good thing.

Supporting Evidence: Austin mobile mechanic (www.moonlightingautomotive.com)
| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

M a Christian for example.... Your morals and judgements are shared with billions of other people.

Morality is a mine field,you walk into it blindfolded and you'll get killed... If your morals are not further backed up by science or other sources than... Well...

Morality is no longer a valid argument unless proven by science... At least morality motivated by religion.

Marriage... Marriage began as a business agreement between 2(or more....) families to combine Resources between them. The arguement that marriage is a religous binding and that it is strictly between this and this kind of individual is none-the-less wrong. Besides, marriage even now is longer just a religous binding, it is a legal significance "The Church does not rule the state." If a heterosexual couple is allowed to engage in these legal matters, then shouldn't a homosexual one?

Be as cruel as up you want.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

why should the goverment decide on what is right and wrong.if the goverment said we weremt alound to have children because of all the diseses like herpies all babies at fourteen everybody would say no my point is that if people took those risk what wou;ld we have to gang like lessons our values

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Gay marriage is the union between a man and a man (or woman and woman). It is literally their own business. If you find it repulsive, think it's against the will of god, or anything like that, fine, you have the right to your opinion.

But are you saying gay people don't? And unless they're having sex publically i don't really understand how it's deviant.

What IS deviant is taking such an interest in something that you yourself claim to find disgusting.

What does that say about YOU, hmmm?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Unless it's an arranged marriage... ?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

People do not agree with it beause it is different than what they are used to.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

I have a rather large rant against the choice of gay lifestyle, this is reason #4; I can supply the entire thing upon request - but I can promise NO pro-gay people will want to see it. Not that it's insulting, but that's it's logic is all but impossible to refute.

4-An analogy would be; Try to imagine all the people on Earth are on a lifeboat and in danger of dying through lack of food, fresh water, etc. Now we can see dry land a couple miles away and the only way to get there is for everyone to stick their hands into the water and paddle in the same direction, towards the dry land. For those with rather less than stellar IQ's the analogy is Earth is the boat, the survivors are the people of Earth, advancing the human species is paddling towards dry land, and being gay is paddling the other way or not at all. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. If you are not trying to actively advance the human species, then you should abstain from any benefits derived therefrom. You can choose to rob banks but you must live with the results, you can choose to be gay, but if everyone were gay then it would spell the end of human life on this planet. The movement for gay rights and LGBT equality is doomed to failure, or at the very least a fatally slanted naming convention (equality is equal if we are both trying to be like a standard model). This situation appears similar to the man on the lifeboat who never paddled being proud when the boat touches dry land and tries to grab some shade under a tree when there is only a limited amount. In the real world, almost everyone on the lifeboat would have pitched him overboard if he refused to TRY his best to help at paddling. Exceptions would be given for those that try and fail or that are wounded – but Gays are actively trying to paddle in another direction with no dry land visible. If I was one of those in the lifeboat, I would be angry to say the least. If I was one of those on shore already waiting for my fellow travelers or family members to make landfall, I would be angry as well. Admittedly this argument requires one to look at the bigger picture rather than just their little acorn, but the logic is obvious.

Additionally, It reduces the pool from which to gain a spouse for normal heterosexual people. This is assuming that one starts life as heterosexual and for whatever reason becomes homosexual at some later point in time.

If you consider that being gay is said to be “not a choice” by many people, then you might consider that robbing banks or other immoral behavior is the same. That being the case; When your child is young and tries to steal something, the child should be punished for stealing, if they continue to steal things then therapy might be sought if further punishment proves ineffective. Unless of course the child learns about the gay-rights movement, where then the child will simply say "I was born to steal stuff, I had no choice". So what are you gonna do on that day? Tell him it's okay to steal after all, or seek therapy/punishment for the errant youth??

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

I have Gay friends some of whom are married and some of whom have kids, the Kids do well in school and at least one of them is Straight the other thing I have noticed is that the population of the town is not dwindling in fact its increasing. To me this is proof that Gay people do not make better or worse parents than straight people and the real shocker having married Gay people in the world does not stop people having babies and their straight friends, have all stayed straight its amazing really.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

it can't hurt anyone. When people get married, have sex, adopt kids, or do any of that family stuff, the only people they are affecting is themselves.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

It is not my problem. It is against my Biblical beliefs, but I am a liberal, so my vote will be against a theocratic policy.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

It doesnt hurt anyone. It all depends on the two person who decide to marry each other and live a happy life. Love is between 2 person not the whole world. Let it be, we cant change the way they think or feel. Gay marriage should be legalized.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Being gay is better than being straight hands down. Homosexual parents are STRONGLY better at their job than straight parents, only because they have heart and soul in their child. One thing that doesn't make sense about this debate is this "bible" thing being thrown around. One thing people need to get straight(no pun intended) is that the bible does not support ACTUAL evidence of anything it says. Yes indeed, it brings hope to people that are simply too blind and ignorant to find hope by themselves. Still, this does not show any relation to homosexual marriage. No book of possible fiction should tell who can and can't get married. It's a personal preference and everyone should honor the dignity and pride in a homosexual relationship.

- I apologize for the scattered arguments in this paragraph. It's really hard to stick to one topic when it makes me so angry that people actually believe they can tell who's allowed to get married and who's not. It sickens me that people can get away with such a crime to the point where I lose my train of thought.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

It hurts conservatives when they get butt hurt when they can't force their religion on other people.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
0 points

I think the argument of sanctity of marriage is horrific.

If you make yourself a loaf of bread and eat it day after day, will it taste any worse if someone else on another planet also gets to make his/her own loaf or bread and eat it?

No it won't. Will the loaf you eat be any less nutritious if someone else on a remote planet also does the same?

No.

Ergo sanctity of marriage is nothing but jealousy of marriage in disguise. You only want marriage for yourself so you can have something that someone else doesn't.

GROW UP KIDS! That kind of behaviours is criticized in kindergarten when a bully wants to have a playground ride only to himself.

Not that I support marriage, I just support everyone's right to call their bond marriage. It's such a stupid trivial childish crap, but since people take is seriously, then I suppose I have to too.

[edit]Hmm, I already used that argument on some other debate, except that I used beans instead of bread.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
necromancer(5) Disputed
1 point

Not only is your logic superficial, but it completely lacks any relationship to the topic. There is nothing childish about the loss of religious freedom, or forced funding of something you find morally objectionable. You claim its jealousy of marriage, huh? They only want marriage for themselves? Actually since marriage is not a right, and even if it was they would have the same right I do to marry someone of the opposite sex, what they want is a special new right, and by giving it to them you are now forcing every religious institution to perform them and deny them of their religious freedom, which is a Constitutional right.

You might want to look into the number of lawsuits against business owners currently in this country against people who exercised their rights to deny their services to a homosexual marriage, Photographers, bakeries, churches etc.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington-idUSBRE93I08820130419

This issue has nothing to do with marriage rights, since it isnt a right, it has everything to do with forcing their immorality on the rest of us, and using it as a cover for more degradation of our society and our rights to choose where and when even who we do business with, more importantly, its just another cash cow for the trial lawyers to open new venues for lawsuits, and since they are the ones writing this stuff and are promoted by liberals theres is no doubt its only about money.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
0 points

KMKJFNJNJNM KFKEIHUUBNG N DJUHEJNBJ DF IKJIBDFNJSHDL,LKROE IHHJASFNJK

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
0 points

I support same sex marriage. Marriage is about love, not biological sex.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
-1 points

I want to point out a seldom talked about but nevertheless very important point:

Gay marriage absolutely does erode "family", and here is why: the church - the summation of all religious institutions - wants to control the relationship between children and parents. This is of utmost importance to the church, because parents are the most reliable tool of mass religious indoctrination; and because much of the "sacred" beliefs are delivered as interaction between parents and children, which the followers are supposed to model. This is why the church seeks to control both licensing to procreation (marriage) and procreation itself (promiscuity, abortions, gay marriage). Anyone who treads on these interests of the church is opposed by the church because losing any of these defense lines directly reduces the church's market which is never going to come back.

Gay marriage does exactly what the conservatives are complaining about: the necessity to allow gay people to marry means taking away the marriage prerogative from the church. It directly results in less believers and thus harms the religious thought as a whole.

Gay marriage destroys marriage and traditional values, and that's why it's a great thing.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
redawn(32) Disputed
2 points

"Gay marriage destroys marriage and traditional values, and that's why it's a great thing."

this is why the prop 8 passed.

on the one hand. . .you all want the white picket fence

on the other. . .it sucks and we are freakin' stupid for buying into it. so why do you want that which you claim to hate?

as a married woman with children I have been called a breeder on various women forums. and the concept that children are merely excessive consumerism run amok that they hate seeing in their daily life. this idea was put forth many times by women who thought my being married, to a man no less was pretty much the same as me tattooing slave on my forehead.

I accept you for who you are. why do you want to be me? and if you want to be me why the disdain for my choices?

| Side: Hurts everyone?
simoriah(200) Disputed
2 points

1) gay marriage does not "erode family" if anything, they are happyier bc that family actually wanted their child, they didnt have an accidental condom breaking baby, so they were prepared.

2) if they did, that shouldnt be why you vote for it, that is in fact, the stupidest thing ive read on this page. "ooooo, vote for this bc it destroys religions!!!" how immature and stupid. are you trying to look cool or somthing? bc it didnt work.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
9 points

What people like you don't get is that people who are legally married to a member of the same sex usually want to adopt. The child of the couple is going to be hurt mentally because it is healthy for a child to grow up in a household with one mom and one dad. The mom and the dad each contribute something to how the child acts and feels. Without either a mom or a dad the child is mentally hurt because they do not have that influence. I am not saying the child is mentally retarded, but it is much more healthy to have one mom and one dad. I sometimes will say that I support the right to marry but not to adopt.

My problem with that statement, though, is that the bible makes references where it says that a marrige is to be strictly between only one man and one woman. My stance on the issue is that I am somewhere between no tolerance and some to little tolerance.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
DaddySays(15) Disputed
5 points

So your stance is that a child would rather be in an orphanage than with a gay couple who loved him or her?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

My sentiments exactly.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
ledhead818(631) Disputed
4 points

Thanks for your expert analysis. Congratulations on getting your PhD in developmental psychology by the way. Now that you are done with your speculation I will provide you with an actual study.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

Every other study I have seen found the same results. Furthermore what about single parents? Should they be allowed to have kids or adopt? My guess is you think so. They are not getting the influence of both a mom and dad, just like you think how same-sex couples raise kids, so what's the difference?

The bible should never be any justification for laws. Regardless of the fact that it is a piece of fiction, it violates the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

I was going to reply and then I realized you had basically said everything quite well already. Well argued.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
necromancer(5) Disputed
2 points

Thanks for your attempt at deception and ridicule. But then how else could you promote something that takes little more than common sense to refute.

Since I cant access your link, (I would love to see how that study was conducted or even funded) I will use my own (of which by the way there are many suggesting otherwise), not funded by agenda driven or tax funded political groups determining the outcome.

I guess its only fair that I state I am not a psychologist, I do hold 2 undergraduate degrees and a masters, however I have a sister with a PhD. in child psychology from William and Mary. (who wrote her dissertation on Nature vs Nurture.) Its a good read, you should look into it.

Doesnt make a difference Im still able to research and reason better than most. I think its because Im more interested in truth than I am emotional bias, or personal agenda.

Firstly when discussing something as important as this (the sake of the children) you really should try to take your obvious bias and uncontrollable desire to humiliate someone out of the picture. Furthermore posting a link to one article that cant be accessed for scrutiny and claiming all the others say the same thing is disingenuous at best.

1. No one gives you the right to have children, so your comment about single parents is null and void. As for adoption Despite the greater acceptance of single-parent adoption, the traditional view of parenting, that a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and development, still exists. ""Mental health experts say that the "ideal" is to place a child in a two-parent home with a mother and father who are compatible and loving."" Not my words theirs, but the conclusion is obvious.

Im not against single parent adoption, simply because of the demand not because it would be as good, anyone can plainly see, for developmental and ideal child rearing Nature beats Nurture hands down, it always has and always will. The more you stray from the natural order of things (Nature), the more you decay society

and ultimately aid it demise. Read some history on the fall of ancient civilizations, i.e.ROME, Constantinople etc. the similarities are un-ignorable.

2. Taking issue with 20 years of research conclusions that say there are no differences, two University of California sociologists recently re-examined data from 21 studies on gay parenting dating back to 1980.

(wow 20 whole years and 21 studies and you find that conclusive?)

One study even said that its data suggests that children in same-sex households are less susceptible to child abuse because when the study asked same-sex parents if they abused their children, they answered "no."

Joseph Nicolosi offered the following comments: "This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprisingly that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense -- lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

3. Whats the difference? are you kidding me? Aside from the simple fact that several studies have now found serious flaws in methodology with the ones you are using, but they have also found boys are becoming more feminized, and are more likely to go have a homosexual experience (hmmm indoctrination, I could have guessed that from the start)

http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

4. An amicus brief filed by Professor’s Leon Kass and Harvey Mansfield. There is no scientific basis to make any conclusions about what gay marriage would do for children raised by gay parents or do for society at large, Kass and Mansfield argued.

Professor Douglas W. Allen, who teaches economics at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, came to a similar conclusion. In a paper published last year, Allen reviewed studies of gay parenting from 1995 to 2010. Most of these studies concluded that gay parents performed just as well, or better, than opposite-sex parents – a conclusion that was not warranted given the limitations of those studies, Allen found. Besides being based upon small, non-random samples, Allen found numerous other methodological problems. One problem, for instance, was that for many of the studies the well-being of the children was determined by asking the parents. Parents, obviously, are not an objective source. This may be even more true if the parents know that their answers will be used to answer whether their lifestyle choice is the best setting for the raising of their children.

http://theperpetualview.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/the-supreme-court-gay-parenting-and-science-part-1/

It seems there are only 3 or 4 actual studies being referenced by a multitude of journals including your Medscape article, isnt it interesting that all of the studies were not only by social sciences teachers (not psychologists) but none of them were long term, not even multiple years, most of the children arent even grown yet, so how could they possible no what affects there are coming.

It took me all of 30 minutes to dig all this up, Im astonished at the number of fallacies and flawed statements from someone who begins with condemning someone for speculation, your closing statement isnt any better.

The Bible is a mix of fact and fiction, of history and religion.

As to history, some of the Old Testament has been shown to be historically correct by archeology. Writings and inscriptions in other cultures, and in the Holy Land, have confirmed events which are mentioned in the Bible. The testaments are first hand writings of the time Christ was alive, by the disciples, and have also been proven historically accurate.

Now lets get to the good part The Constitution, which I have considerable knowledge of, and find your justification comment particularly humorous since all of your rights were endowed by the creator, kind of ridiculous for you to now claim political atheism using an amendment endowed by the creator. Not to mention the large majority of laws actually do come from the bible, and religion. As for your claim it violates the establishment clause or even the free exercise clause is absurd since it plainly states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So how does using the bible as a source of ethics and morality (which is what we've been doing since the old testament. And does nothing to establish a national religion,violate either of those?

| Side: Hurts everyone?
simoriah(200) Disputed
3 points

1st off, the bible is not hte government, the two should be separate, that is the point of the constitution, if you get rid of the consitution, you kill america in one fell swoop.

2nd, when i was younger, i knew a kid with lesbians for parents. he was fine, it didnt make him gay, it didnt make him anything other than normal. he was just like all the other kids in high school. something you seem to be missing, is that ALL relationships, especially those with children, have one person who take the feminen part and one who take the masculine part. the gender doesnt actually matter, unless you plan on showing your "parts" to your child, in which case, yes, they will end up messed up bc you have mentally scarred them.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Bohemian(3469) Disputed
3 points

Without either a mom or a dad the child is mentally hurt

This is complete bullocks. There is no evidence to support this notion. Studies have been down that show a child of a heterosexual couple is no better off than a child of a homosexual couple.

Even if this were true, do you really think a child with no parents is better off than a child with two homosexual parents? Such arguments have been rendered moot, long ago. This is merely a rationalization for prejudice.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
nisar444(10) Disputed
0 points

Okay, I know SEVERAL children of same-sex parents and they turn out wacko. I'm sorry, I can't support this scientifically, but anyone else at my school will verify this.

`

A child who grows up seeing same-sex marriage will learn that it is okay. He will even think that it is his decision, just as he may choose his shirt color.

`

Society won't benefit. America will become even more decadent. I'm sorry.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
soulena(1) Disputed
3 points

What about single parents? its the same concept because the other wouldnt be around. So wouldnt it be better for them to have 2 parents of the same sex then only have the one?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

yeah i agree with him, but i don't have any tolerance for it. its supposed to be between a man and a woman. it is their sacred right given to them by God.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
tatmit(9) Disputed
5 points

Can anybody against gay marriage make an intelligent comment without involving God in it? We are not required to believe in God in this country! If you start talking God, then my question will be -who's God? Yours? And how about mine? Who's God is right? Etc... This is the best about this country -God does not have legal rights here.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Ratclatters(2) Disputed
2 points

I'm not sure that growing up with religious nutjob republicans as parents is healthy for a child either, so this argument isn't valid.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
mshaaya123(24) Clarified
1 point

I utterly and irrefutably agree with your view. My concern has always been the emotional, social, mental and particularly the psychological wellbeing of the child. For instance, one growing up with two fathers would merely destroy their sense of belonging. Consider the bullies out there, those who do discriminate on the basis of one’s sexuality. Although I’m against discrimination, I think it’s undoubtedly wrong to be married to someone of the same gender as you. It does in fact mentally hurt a child, to the extent where their perspective on life is altered as they age, wishing they had two heterosexual parents. They themselves would begin to ponder on whether ‘Gay marriage’ and ‘Homosexuality’ is acceptable and serves as ‘normal’. It’s so sad to see that there is a significant rise in Gay marriages, somewhat indicating humankind has lost all respect for their true purpose and ultimately, for God. The Bible, a sacred text which all knowledge is derived from, acts as a source of teaching. This teaching encapsulates the wrongness of homosexuality and places emphasis on the fact that one will not be able to inherit the kingdom of God if they are homosexual. We all know this. Although one cannot rely on the Bible to teach them absolutely EVERYTHING about life as not all is contained, we must also have common sense and recognize that gay marriage is not natural. Despite the so-called ‘love’ that supposedly exists between the two so-called ‘lovers’ who are led to believe that one of them plays the role of a ‘girl’ whilst the other wears the pants, my point is: Gay marriage does not serve to fulfil the purpose of a real marriage which is PROCREATION. Adopting a child is far worse, bringing an innocent human-being into your life to illustrate and teach to them your own wrong-doings, consequently influencing them to view it as acceptable. Please man, where’s the brains.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
riahlize(1562) Disputed
1 point

Is it worth refuting your post, being that it's more than four years old, you obviously don't post here much and your argument sinks to a pathetic low anyway?

If anyone wishes to challenge me on it, I'll refute it, otherwise, I'd rather just leave this post here showing my absolute protest against this post.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Hadouken(21) Disputed
1 point

Except that it's been proven that children of same sex partners have grown up happier and healthier. They are already predisposed to acceptance among other things. However, you are entitled to your own opinion, as am I and I don't think we should base our life's off of 2000+ year old texts that during the time people believed the world is flat, the moon produces it's own light, and that illness was due to evil spirits.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
AlwaysRight(4) Disputed
1 point

I haven't seen a single unbiased study that has shown that growing up in a family with a same sex couple negatively effects the child. If you have, please send me the link.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
SexyBanana(299) Disputed
1 point

Why do you think you can control other people with an old dirty book?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
lgirl9011 Disputed
1 point

I see what you're thinking, but it's wrong. First of all, gay marriage solves part of the world's overpopulation problem. Instead of birthing children, gay couples adopt kids without homes. As for the "mental damage," in most gay couples, one person takes up the motherly role, and the other, fatherly. The world evolved to prepare for homosexuality, so this fills in the cracks. Yes, it says homosexuality is wrong in the Bible, but of centuries the Bible has been modified by untrustworthy people with different opinions. Nobody actually knows what the original copy said. Besides, God and the Bible and Heaven and everything like have not actually been proven. They might not even exist.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
3 points

I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?

Another point of issue, marriage is a religious icon. Why is the government issuing benefits based on the edicts of established religion? If people wish to get married or divorced, why does Uncle Sam or any of the 50 states really care?

So to summarize, Gay marriage does hurt us. It hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion. I vote against Gay marriage and I vote against ANY form of marriage where two people must register their union with the government.

Our forefathers fought against the stamp tax, yet 240 years later the constitution has been raped and the very laws we fought against have been slowly yoked around our necks.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
jessald(1909) Disputed
5 points

"few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union."

I seriously doubt this. People get married for religious, cultural, and personal reasons. I think tax benefits and what have you are just an afterthought for most people.

"Gay marriage hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion."

By this logic, all marriage hurts us.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
5 points

Agreed. I personally think state governments should not be able to grant marriages and should only be able to grant civil unions to everyone. Marriages are too religious. The next best alternative is to allow gay marriage. But I agree that marriage does violate the constitution especially if religious reasons are used to bar certain people from entering marriages.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
E223(189) Disputed
5 points

It's not favoring religion if two atheists get married

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Well marriage is a religious ceremony. If two atheists get married it is still their belief. You cant have a non-religious marriage

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
redawn(32) Disputed
2 points

I did not marry for benefits.

I married to share my life with my husband and make a family.

A good marriage has quite a lot of sacrifice from both the husband and the wife.

Pretty much most benefits (like being able to raise your own kids) have been screwed by this economy.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Cerin(203) Disputed
2 points

I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?

Marriage began as a business arrangement to secure the merging of resources between two families (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#European_marriages). It had no special religious significance. Many people today continue to have secular marriages.

However, once the state started recognizing marriages, then things like tax breaks, parental rights, hospital visitation rights, judicial protections, etc became legal benefits. The church doesn't, has never, and will never give married couples these rights.

To summarize, how does giving others rights take away your rights?

Supporting Evidence: What are the legal benefits of marriage? (lesbianlife.about.com)
| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Agreed. Marriage has its roots as a business arrangement. If you do want to start talking about marriages in the context of religious texts, you will even see it was about joining families or trading women for goats. Women were property and men were allowed to have multiple concubines, mistresses, etc. So I'm not sure saying "it has religious roots" is the best angle. Furthermore, even if it did "because we always did it that way" is not a valid reason to take away rights. . see e.g., women's and civil rights movements

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
TheAlleycat(24) Disputed
2 points

Another point of issue, marriage is a religious icon.

It's possible to marry before the state only, in which case religion has nothing to do with religion anymore.

It hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion.

Not letting gay people marry is a violation to the 14th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If gay people cannot marry, they are deprived of a liberty that other citizens do have. Saying they cannot have this right is like saying they are not citizens, even though this Amendment clearly states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
simoriah(200) Disputed
1 point

im getting married soon myself, and it is not for the benefits, i actually havent even bothered to find out what they are. it is also not for religion, my religion doesnt require getting legally married. it is so that i have somthing to show the world about my life.

also, It hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion.

the point of the constitution was so that we would have to respect the beliefs of other religions, instead of persecuting them. plus, the religion that the law is based primarily on (christianity) is against it, so how is supporting gay marriage supporting a religion?

while i do support your statement about people should not have to register with the government to get married, i do think that it is good, otherwise people would have more than one spouse and get hurt more due to that.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
samhillbhs(9) Disputed
1 point

"I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?"

you list no benefits.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Yakeyglee(45) Disputed
0 points

"I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?"

Is LOVE not an acceptable answer?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1redshirtxlg Disputed
2 points

Love is not an acceptable answer because that opens the flood gates to everything else. Would you exclude a brother or sister who wanted to get married? What if a man wants more than 1 wife or a woman wants more than 1 husband? If the answer is no then why? You're rejecting them their right to marry. Homosexuals can't be the only exception.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
2 points

1. I have nothing against gays being in some sort of legal binding (for the lack of better word I can't think of right now), but do not call it a marriage. Even 50 years from today, it will not be accepted in general although some will accept for the purpose of political correctness.

2. Although many of you might say that it would never happen, this will lead for other movements whose marital ideas would disgust most of us: people marring animals, minors, bugs, extra-terrestrials.........don't be surprised at all if such a movement is strongly established in less than a decade. It is a simple "if he/she can, why can't I?", it is my Constitutional right. Don't forget, people always like to see how far they can take it plus it is a way to differentiate yourself from the general public. It is only in human nature to do so. There has to be some limit.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Bohemian(3469) Disputed
3 points

Except marriage is a legally binding contract. Animals, children, and inanimate objects cannot enter into legal contracts. So your second argument is invalid. It's another slippery slope fallacy.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
DaddySays(15) Disputed
2 points

Are you serious? Are you trying to come out of some kind of closet right now?

Marriage means nothing. I am against marriage personally, I dont think ANYONE should get married. It is just a way for the government to control you. I do not want to have to ask a judge if I can break up with my gf.

I also believe that if someone chooses to do this, whether they are gay, straight, or wants to marry an extra-terrestrial (you do know that if aliens from another planet came here and looked simular to us, that you homo-phobes would not even blink at the prospect of them getting married to us as long as it was male to female?) then they have the CHOICE, that is what freedom is all about.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
nattymoon24(18) Disputed
2 points

Are you kidding me??? marriage is GOOD. it is wrong to just go around and give your heart away to tons of different women or men. God made it so we get married.

Also, Homosexual act is also wrong. God says that marriage is supposed to be for a man and a woman NOT two men or two women.

I will be praying for your heart to change.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
tatmit(9) Disputed
2 points

2. There is a huge difference between supporting gay marriage and supporting man marrying an animal -animal has no voice and can't give a concent. A person should only be able to marry another being that can give a concent -that simple. Both sides must willingly agree to be married -impossible to achieve with animals. So this should help you feel more secur -this will never happen just because of that.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
gdelfman(59) Disputed
1 point

I think you missed the point. What I am trying to say is that humans, by nature, are always willing to take certain issues to see how far they can take, sometimes even if they truly do not believe it. To make things even worse, some will do it just to show that they are not considered out of today's norm. History teaches us that and history always repeats itself, unfortunately. The consent will have absolutely nothing to do with.

I am more than secure with myself so you have to come up with another excuse.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
2 points

I believe that it hurts them because it's a sin. End of story.

Now if this is a government thing; prop 8 was about defining marraige, not preventing "gay marraige".

The people voted. Get over it.

| Side: it hurts them
tatmit(9) Disputed
2 points

How doe the Government of the United States define a "sin"? Where can I find it in our Constitution or may be other legislation. Just for your information, Bible is not our Constitution and should never be.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
JakeJ(3232) Disputed
1 point

I wasn't referring to any sort of law or government. That is simply what I believe.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
SmallWORD(4) Clarified
1 point

Can you tell me sir how does one commit sin? Last time I checked sin was based on one breaking their connection with God. It's one of many theological principles behind the creation story. This being said how does a spouse simply commit a sin by marrying?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

Easy. It hurts homophobes and their fragile world view.

=)

| Side: Hurts everyone?

It doesn't hurt anyone except the right wing nuts because they are delusional to believe that it offends God.

| Side: Hurts everyone?

So I've been reading these points by all and I think we really need to step back and take a "chill pill" :) Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean we're "homophobic" or hate gays, so let's keep the ad homonym attacks to a minimum. I am opposed to gay marriage for a couple of very specific reasons, but I am in the theater business and of about 30 guys who are my close friends, 29 of them are probably gay, and I love them like crazy!

So again I want to say that, to use the debates words (although I think they are a little inflammatory), gay marriage does hurt everyone for the following reason: The prominent justification for gay marriage is that it is a right and that denying it will take away the rights of a minority, similar to the civil rights movement. Using this justification, any religious group that denies gays participation or clergy or marriage will be branded as persecuting homosexuals. The scary thing is that there are some people reading this right now and thinking "yes, that would be discrimination and homophobia and should be stopped." I just read a quote:

'Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”' http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA= (an altogether fetching article which says this entire thing much better than I have)

Gay marriage is an immediate threat to our freedoms AS IT IS CURRENTLY being pursued. The owners of eharmony.com are REQUIRED to provide gay matchmaking. They have no freedom to do otherwise. Doctors who provide in vitro fertilization are REQUIRED to do it for lesbian couples, even if this is against their beliefs. These doctors have lost their freedom.

Now gay marriage DOESN'T have to be this way. Pass legal laws which respect the beliefs of others. As I said, i love my gay friends, and I might be ok with some of them marrying (I say might because of all of these people, I can think of only one couple that even pretends to be serious about their relationship, and I think they are adorable! The others shouldn't marry imo, whether they are gay or straight or anything because they aren't serious, but that's just my opinion and it's honestly none of my business :). So as i said, go ahead and pass the laws, but don't take away the rights of others to believe that homosexuality is wrong, because THAT is what is against the constitution.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
jessald(1909) Disputed
4 points

"The owners of eharmony.com are REQUIRED to provide gay matchmaking. They have no freedom to do otherwise. Doctors who provide in vitro fertilization are REQUIRED to do it for lesbian couples, even if this is against their beliefs."

These are separate issues. Whether or not eharmony should be required to provide service to homosexuals has little to do with whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Same with in vitro. The issue is not "Are gays entitled to do everything that straight people are?", the question is, "How does gay marriage hurt anyone?"

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

exactly, eharmony is required to provide matches to african-american people too, but, what if the owners dont want to? should they have that right? no!

so why should they have the right to descriminate against anyone?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
ledhead818(631) Disputed
2 points

"Gay marriage is an immediate threat to our freedoms AS IT IS CURRENTLY being pursued. The owners of eharmony.com are REQUIRED to provide gay matchmaking. They have no freedom to do otherwise. Doctors who provide in vitro fertilization are REQUIRED to do it for lesbian couples, even if this is against their beliefs. These doctors have lost their freedom."

This is no different than preventing business from refusing to serve certain ethnicities which I doubt you would call a threat to our freedom.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
CML55(5) Disputed
2 points

"So as i said, go ahead and pass the laws, but don't take away the rights of others to believe that homosexuality is wrong, because THAT is what is against the constitution."

Hmm. Looks like we should reread the Constitution. And also understand what anti-discrimination laws do. They DO not require a person be less bigoted, but only require they not be guided by their prejudices to a point where they deny another human being of their equal rights under the law. CRA of 1964 didn't stop anyone set on being a bigot from doing so.

While it's quite easy to capitalize words like FREEDOM and think we are making a stunning point, we must remember that it is impossible for everyone everywhere to have the freedoms he or she would want. Rights and freedoms and privileges will always contradict. Thus, we all have to look around and agree as a society that we will value other human beings and chose not to deprive them of certain rights, especially in favor of our deleterious 'freedoms.'

Remember that not of the 'rights' that we have in American (speech, etc.) are really natural, but the product of a country that was based on the ideals that all men were created equal, working towards the goal of a 'more perfect union' by canonizing laws that are in line with that humanitarian ideal.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
tatmit(9) Disputed
2 points

Believes are not rights. Poeple can have rights to believe whatever they want but me not believing your believes does not take your rights to believe your believes. Do you get that? You can sill believe in your God, while I believe in another. This should not hurt you. It does not hurt me.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

While homosexual marriage may not physically hurt anyone, physical injuries are not the only type of injuries that can be inflicted to a person, to a family or to a nation. Our country was founded upon a system of morals and religion. It was created in a way that it can only exist in an uncorrupt manner if people lead good, moral lives.

Legalizing gay marriage makes homosexual activities seem ok to many individuals, which will lead to an increase of homosexuality in America. If homosexuality increases to the point that more people are homosexual than not, our country's population will decline, since it takes a man and a woman to procreate. Population decline, largely caused by the fact that family size is declining, while it has not had a great effect on the United States yet, has had highly negative effects accross Europe. In a few years, some countries will not have enough younger generation population to support the older generation. It has already become so detrimental to Italy and other countries that in some areas, people are being paid to have children.

| Side: hurt some
jessald(1909) Disputed
4 points

"If homosexuality increases to the point that more people are homosexual than not..."

This is not going to happen. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a trait that only a small minority is born with.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
2 points

you arent born with homosexuality. there is no gay gene. it is all from influences from your peers and society. that statement was unfounded.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Bohemian(3469) Disputed
2 points

Our country was not founded on YOUR set of morals and religious beliefs. We live in a pluralistic society in which many religious and non-religious practices co-exist. To enforce religious practices of a particular religion, would destroy any sense of NEUTRALITY the government may have regarding religion. You cannot ban something because it is against your religious beliefs because not everyone shares your religious beliefs.

the fact that homosexual activities are already legal makes it seem like homosexual activities are okay. Marriage isn't even part of that equation. I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality and what people do in the privacy of their own homes shouldn't be any of your concern.

Gay marriage is already legal in a lot of places and those places seem to be doing fine.

Nor are we in any danger of running out of people, the United states is one of the most populated Countries (#3 I believe) in the world. We have some 300 million Americans with no shortage in sight. If only China and India had more gays then they wouldn't be so over-populated.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
tatmit(9) Disputed
2 points

USA was not founded on the principles of religion. It was founded on the principles of freedom to believe or not to believe. This is why State is separate from religion. You are confused on this issue. It is probably what you would like, but definitely not what it was or is.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Imagine the emotional trauma of being raped. Now imagine the emotional trauma of being raped by someone of the same sex. Gay marriage makes homosexual activity more widely accepted.

Also, anyone who thinks homosexual activity never hurt anyone should read the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah.

| Side: hurt some
simoriah(200) Disputed
3 points

actually, if you have studied crime, you would know, that it is middle aged men who are not gay who ass-rape little boys. people who have been married to women and have their own kids and everything.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
jessald(1909) Disputed
2 points

You think gay marriage will lead to an increase in gay rape?

This is just silly. It sounds like you've got some issues with homophobia.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible is not a reliable source of historical information.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
jtopolnak(156) Disputed
1 point

You can debate unreliable all you want but when the bible gives exact reference to the location and also the writing of the curse it carries that where it lies nothing shall live and even written in as the Dead Sea. It's a lot of pure coincidence for it to not have some validity.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
LeahBear(5) Disputed
2 points

Yes, because rapists care so much if what they are doing is accepted or not.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Give them civil union OK.

My marriage to my wife is something special, I like to know that the definition of marriage means husband and wife which cannot be taken away. What then does marriage mean when I say I'm married if it's not a man and women? It does hurt someone it hurts the people who are married and believe that marriage is and always will be defined as a man and women.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Soccerunman(3) Disputed
2 points

I'm glad you feel like your marriage to your wife is special.

However, how would your marriage be any less special just because same sex couples can marry?

Also, do you want another man to never feel that special feeling you have just because he loves another man?

Your argument is that allowing gay marriage hurts all heterosexual married couples (which I disagree). But not allowing gay marriage hurts all homosexual couples to a greater extent than the prior.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

I think Gay marriage does affect our society. Back in the day There weren't gay people because it was unthinkable. Who Would like another man/woman? But now more and more its being free and open. I saw youtube video for a 14 year old kid. He said in his video "I think I want to be gay" I don't know I don't want to be like everyone else. He's right that its a personal choice but he took it so lightly. Thanks to the media. What if this kid was your son? I'm not against gay people at all. Just how it affects people that would have been straight.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Elvira(3334) Disputed
1 point

People can make their own choices, some people still say that about religion.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

i just dont see why they have to force there ways on everyone it really is not normal to be gay i do respect gay people just not the ones that force there beliefs down everyone elses throats.

| Side: why do they have to
Elvira(3334) Disputed
2 points

Hypocrite !

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

What about the children that will be adopted by these gay couples?

| Side: hurt some
Elvira(3334) Disputed
1 point

From mock the week

I wish I had a gay dad

You remember when you were a child and everyone was always saying "my dad's gonna beat your dad?"

You could say "My dad's gonna do your dad, and your dad will like it!"

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Giving benefits to gay partners will make being gay a more acceptable alternative. It is acceptable to to be nice to people who are really gay, while also trying to prevent it from becoming just another option for people to experiment with. Is it acceptable to try to promote a mother and a father as the preference, and is withholding all the same benefits of marriage a valid way to try to show societies preference for families with mothers and fathers? Obviously gay people have a right to live how they want. You can't be mean to them. You can't discriminate against them in any way as far as career, housing, etc... but if the majority wants to show a preference... So people the belief is that more people will be hurt by experimenting with their sexuality, than if they would have just assumed they were straight. Sure, if you KNOW you are gay, go for it, but let the rest of us sort of ignore it.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

Obama may have been right to do it, but Bush wasn't a really bad guy for not having done it. It can't go too far, but if a society wants to place a preference on heterosexuality, by giving less respect to homosexual relationships, it can do it. It might hurt gay people's feelings if they don't get the exact treatment as heterosexuals, but that is sort of the point. Gays can still live how the want, but they can't force the majority to like it, or accept them, and little laws that don't grant full equality are not fundamental humal liberty issues, we have to draw the line somewhere, and no one would want to legalize bestiality or polygamy, and so we all draw the lines slightly different locations, and it is not worth throwing a hissy fit over... Sure you might be right, but its not that big of a deal. You can't force other people's respect and approval, you already have Massachusetts. Just relax.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

It hurts any children involved who would be deprived of either a mother or a father. I would love to hear an argument that shows that either mothers or fathers are unnecessary. Haven't heard one yet. . .

| Side: Hurts everyone?
SmallWORD(4) Clarified
2 points

Please tell me sir do you treat your parents differently because of their sex? Last time I checked we treat everyone based on character.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Not saying that it "hurts everyone", but the institution of marriage is in trouble as it is.

It is not the fact of the marriage; it is the fact of the message that is being sent to children. Many are being exploited with this new attitude. A lot of problems can and do revolve around emotional, social, and psychological well-being as a child is developing their sexual identity. I think it's really confusing to be taught that homosexuality is "normal". I also think other children's peers are a factor that have not been considered enough. Children can be very cruel to each other.

Simply put, children learn what they see.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

Homosexuality is legalized voyeurism, thus making homosexuals more equal than others. Homosexuality is not an Identity, but more resembles Dissociative Identity Disorder without the memory lost. Once you have the ability to change your sexual orientation as has been proven in our recent past (gays becoming straight and vicei versa) it's a choice. If Africans had that choice during the time of slavery Jim Crow laws would have been obsolete. The logical conclusion to address the imbalance to our society would to institutionalize unisex toilets. This would open the doorway for sexual deviants to molest your children and womenfolk with their eyes once they don't touch. I was once told that in a perfect world unisex toilets would be fine, but our society isn’t. Nature, Nurture, Genes or Hormones, we were given two (2) boxes, male and female and 99% of us have been equipped to know where we belong. Thus we need to have the self-control and discipline to stay in those boxes. If you need help to bridge the gap between what you ought to do and what you are doing, welcome to the human race. Iron is supposed to sharpen Iron. I will follow the debate attentively for your objections.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

I would imagine a gay man penetrating another gay mans ass would be painful and therefor this is why gay marriage hurts others. ROFLMAYO

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

I am not against homosexuals at all but I think marriage should be reserved for man and woman. Many people I know agree they don't want their children to see two homosexuals holding hands and making out in the middle of the street so that their children think it is alright and (if religious) God intended that. Unless the marriage is not at a church and there's no religion involved I don't think it is right. I'm okay with them just signing papers though. I believe it does hurt people because as my first example said many straight parents don't want their children thinking such a thing is natural and it also strongly disturbs some people.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

If God says it's wrong, then it is wrong. What's so hard to understand?

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Elvira(3334) Disputed
2 points

The LORD FROG say's it's wrong to type.

Do you eat shrimp?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

Claiming homosexuality was going to be my last resort if all other ways to avoid marriage fail. If gays are allowed to marry then I'd have to think of something else.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

Primarily doesn't hurt any one physically.Maybe emotionally towards family members and friends. Also relatives that are religious will conduct their views. It may hurt the children adopted by the same sex couples as far as their understanding of a household family unit and what is or should be a regular functioning unit. A unit that is usually between man and woman. Especially life lessons that must be taught to the child as far as reproduction,the original order of nature,marriage,romantic love etc. As long as the child can be raised properly it may not damage her or him to any extent. But precisely it will not or literally cannot affect or hurt an outside party that is completely irrelevant to same sex partners.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

By leading those they rule over to rebellion!

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. 1:26-32).

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

IDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDKIDK

| Side: Hurts everyone?
1 point

There is a manipulation it the way this question is asked.

Of course, if someone gets married, or buys a new car, or gets interviewed for a job - this in itself cannot "hurt" anyone.

However, the real question here concerns the redefinition of the term "marriage", and the relevant adjustment of state laws.

And, in the way it is being done, I think it hurts everyone in the US.

Because it opens a bridgehead for other, even more marginal law changes.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
0 points

It hurts when they want to teach kids in school that. I like that we have a system and a fabric that rewards a man and women to marry. People don't want it and thats why they have petitioned to remove it from states that have made it law only on judicial reasons which is unconstitutional.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
0 points

If Man marry Man then what will happen to those Girls who are already in large numbers. And child birth will be disturb that means you are hurting your countary your economy...

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Elvira(3334) Disputed
1 point

Lesbians! Works both ways, y'know.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
-1 points

gay marriage may hurt some of the children because when a gay couple get married they are unable to have a kid together so they adopt/ sperm donate one. When the kid is around these 2 gays the kid will not know who to call mom or dad and it will cause the child confusion because he will be excluded from some activities. So think about how the kids are affected

| Side: hurt some
LadyinBlue(9) Disputed
5 points

Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds

-- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages"

Taking issue with 20 years of research conclusions that say there are no differences, two University of California sociologists recently re-examined data from 21 studies on gay parenting dating back to 1980.

The new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents show more empathy for social diversity, are less confined by gender stereotypes, and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves. Writing in recent issue of the American Sociological Review, the authors say that the emotional health of the two sets of children is essentially the same.

Leaders of national gay-affirming groups said they welcomed the article, according to an Associated Press story. "I'm thrilled that they're tackling these issues," said Aimee Gelnaw, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition, who is a lesbian parent raising two children with her partner. "Of course our kids are going to be different," Gelnaw said. "They're growing up in a different social context."

Openness to Gay Relationships

Met With "Elation"

Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, also is raising two children with her partner. "There's only one response to a study that children raised by lesbian and gay parents may be somewhat more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation -- that response has to be elation," Kendall said.

But Amy Desai, a policy analyst with the group Focus on the Family, said the new report is alarming in its suggestions that children of gay parents might be more open to homosexual activity. "Kids do best when they have a married mother and a married father," she said.

A Home With No Dad is Better?

The study's co-author, Judith Stacey, is a professor of contemporary gender studies. In addition to pointing out the gender differences in the two groups of children, she states that there are in fact some advantages to an all-female parental team without Dad living in the home: a female couple tends to be more involved in the children's lives and is in greater harmony in terms of parenting approaches.

Among the findings cited by the authors:

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.

2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).

4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.

5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.

"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment," said the authors.

NARTH"s Joseph Nicolosi offered the following comments: "This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprisingly that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense -- lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

"And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families."

Source:

http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html National Association for Research &n;theraphy of homosexuality

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
1 point

So because a homosexual family does not fit the traditional definition of family they shouldn't be allowed to have kids? Orphans who have no parents are better off than if they have two parents who happen to be of the same sex?

Trust me when I say, no kids are hurt by having homosexual parents. I know first hand and many researchers have shown that two parents, regardless of gender, are better off then one or no parents.

Also what activities are you talking about? A girl with two moms won't have a date for the father daughter dance? Is that the biggest complaint you have? If you think we should deny people rights because school functions may need to be redefined then I think you need to get your priorities straight.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
-1 points

1) man+man, woman+woman. . .marriage of equals. man+woman is not.

2) why stop at gay marriage. What about bi marriage? man+woman+woman . .might get a small percentage of Mormons to support this.

3) Where will the line be drawn? AI? All the arguements used in favor of gay marriage could be used to support the idea of android marriage. sure we aren't there yet. .but again the line is where?

4) marriage is not a right. it is tied up in regulations, but the act itself is not done as a right, like voting.

4) it is not religious. religion has taken over the ceremony, but it is not christian or jewish or phoenician . . marriage predates recordable history.

5) war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength changing the meanings of important words can hurt. and if the dialog on this is drowned out by extreme rhetoric than everybody loses.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
Loudacris(913) Disputed
4 points

In #2 you are confusing monogamy with polygamy (you call it "bi-marriage")

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
redawn(32) Disputed
2 points

we are redefining marriage so it is presumptuous of you to assume that monogamy is the only way to live.

it's my right as a bisexual to be able to be with both the people I love. now how can you argue with this? are you not placing the same meaningless societal boundaries on the bisexual that you claim others are on you?

what justification do you have to not allow this? and remember no religion or stupid nonsense taboos. actually as a married woman the idea of an extra wife has always sounded okay.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
jessald(1909) Disputed
0 points

1) Man+man is a marriage of equals. Ok. So what?

2) Marriage between a man and two women. That's a separate debate.

3) Marriage between a man and an android. That's a separate debate.

4) Marriage is not a right. Ok, but gay marriage still doesn't hurt anyone.

4) Marriage is not religious. Ok. So what?

5) Changing the meanings of important words can hurt. Ok. But changing the meaning of marriage to allow gays to marry doesn't hurt anyone.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
redawn(32) Disputed
0 points

1) because spousal abuse is already not taken seriously AND two men have vastly superior earning potential than a man and a woman. . .AND the protection of spousal support will also get clouded.

2) well for some of us this issue is separate. Marriage is one thing. . .man and woman. . .now anything else is SOMETHING ELSE.

3) as I said above. . .

4) still not a 'right' so quit swinging it around like it is a right or a left.

5) so quit saying it is all about religion as the reason everyone is saying no. Maybe it is the 'so what's' that make people think that you really don't want this you just want to 'f' with us.

6) yes it does . . .as a child of divorce (total marriages for both parents 8) I could have either thought marriage bites or learned its importance and beauty. I have been married for over 22 yrs, to the same man. I admit what my parents did was not marriage.

| Side: Hurts everyone?
-1 points

It's one thing for gay couples to adopt their own lifestyle, but they've moved far beyond that. Now they are demanding that the rest of society change its traditions and institutions to suit them. This isn't about insurance or inheritance benefits for gay couples (which I have no problem with). It's about redefining an institution older than civilization itself. If a two men or two women can marry, why not three men or four women? Or fathers and daughters who happen to be consenting adults?

| Side: Hurts everyone?
3 points

Let's stay on subject, okay? Saying that two people who love each other can't get married because it will open the door for other groups is a ridiculous argument. By that logic we should get rid of marriage altogether, this way none of that can happen.

Just because an institution is old doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. Actually, the fact that it is so old is even more of a reason for it to change. Our thinking has advanced since then and our institutions should reflect that . Homosexuals aren't asking anyone to change their way of life...they just want the same rights that everyone else has: the right to marry who they love.

So allow me to repeat the question you failed to answer: How can gay marriage hurt any one?

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Probama123(43) Disputed
3 points

Well, you see gay couples getting married doesn't hurt anyone while the rest of your examples do. A father and daughter getting married, then the kids are usually deformed, and that is hurting their child. Three men or four women, is polygamy which is illegal, because some of those in the marriage could be hurt emotionally by it. Also this is your religious belief with the insitution older then civilisation itself stuff. Seperation of church and state should always be remembered.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
Zahlanzi(14) Disputed
3 points

You make a point against gay marriage by claiming that it would inevitably lead to man-dog marriage or daughter-mother (gay AND incest) which is wrong. There is no logic behind this reasoning. The question is whether gay marriage should be allowed for the gays to benefit from exactly the reasons you claim you have no problem with(insurance and inheritance). The question is if a gay marriage hurts anyone in any way. Which you haven't addressed in the slightest.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
jessald(1909) Disputed
2 points

Nobody wants to redefine marriage. We just want to expand the definition slightly to be fair to homosexuals.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
ledhead818(631) Disputed
1 point

The argument you are making would have applied to interracial marriage when it was illegal, so acknowledge that you would have been against interracial marriage when it was illegal or admit your hypocrisy.

| Side: Doesnt hurt anyone
simoriah(200) Disputed