CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your own opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
People don't have 'rights' as members of a group, but as individuals in society. Marriage is not defined anywhere in the constitution, so the government should not prevent any kind of "marriage" from occuring... I wrote some more at the link below, would be happy to respond there as well as here.
I think the issue being addressed here is a question of whether or not marriage for anyone can be considered a right guaranteed by the United States government. Not necessarily the question of whether or not same-sex couples' marriages specifically are recognized by the government. As for my personal views on the issue I honestly think the best solution is for the government to simply call all civil unions precisely what they are: civil unions.Leave it to individuals and churches to determine the definition of "marriage."
"I think the issue being addressed here is a question of whether or not marriage for anyone can be considered a right guaranteed by the United States government"
Please remember that this is an international website, with people from all around the world. The question is "should gays have the right to marry?" not "under current US legislation do gays have the right to marry?"
Sorry to make a point of it, but this default position of all debates being centred around the US both alienates non-Americans, and absolutely bugs the crap out of me.
I can't speak to policy of any country except for the United States. I don't even know if this is an issue for non-Americans. But more importantly I was rebutting an argument that specifically discussed the issue in regards to the US Constitution, or at least that's how I saw it when I wrote that response. As such I responded to that person's particular point.
The problem there is that the idea of marriage is embedded too deeply into our legal framework. State recognized married couples receive many benefits that gay couples don't. I agree that government should only deal with civil unions, but do you really think it's possible to take marriage out of government? No way, not in Christian America. The only practical, fair solution is to allow same-sex marriage.
Replace the word "marriage" in government documents with the word "civil union", ta da! The government then only deals with civil unions between two consenting adults of any gender. Marriage would then be a word reserved for individuals and churches to define. If a church decides that only a man and a woman can marry then same sex couples will not be recognized as being married by that church or members of that church. They would still receive the same benefits of a civil union (previously known by the government as a "marriage") but the "sanctity of marriage" is maintained for groups who do not approve of same sex couples.
Marriage is a word whose connotation and definition differ from individual to individual. The use of the word by government is provocation for misunderstanding and schism. Will people immediately say "Wow, the government isn't calling your union a marriage so I'm OK with you now,"? No. But that's too bad. A hundred and fifty years ago people looked at a freedman walking down the street and said "Somebody aught to sell him." Society has to change and we as rational human beings have to acknowledge that even when we don't approve of someone's choices they have a right to make them. We have to accept that all humans are entitled to equal treatment under the law. No one should be treated differently by the law because of their social class, their gender, their sexual preferences, their race, or any other traits unless they have in some way harmed another person through direct action or inaction.
Yes, I understand what you're saying and I agree that ideally that would be the best thing to do. But I'm saying it's not practical to do that because people would go apeshit if we replaced the word "marriage" with "civil union" everywhere. They'd say we were "undermining the Christian foundations of our nation." They'd say we were "demeaning a fundamental pillar of society." They'd say it was "political correctness run amok." It would never get done. Legalizing gay marriage is the easier way to achieve equality.
The easy thing is hardly ever the right thing. That's one of the biggest problems with the world in any place at any time, people look for whatever will patch the problem as easily and as quickly as possible. Doing the hard thing requires the willingness to stand up and say we do these things "...not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." And while John F. Kennedy was talking about going to the Moon that's the mentality that we as responsible members of any society must have towards everything we do.
It doesn't matter what action is taken, you can't please everyone so we must do what is right regardless of the criticism and uproar that comes of it. The right thing, the hard thing, is only rarely supported by the masses of the present but is always appreciated by the public of the future.
P.S. Sorry this came out of the blue, this debate came back into my attention and I felt that I should finish what I meant to say but never had the time or the energy when I first got involved.
I do feel sorry for anyone who can't marry the person of who they want to spend the rest of their life with. However, those who choose to go with their desires and follow the gay path with all it's goods also have to accept it's bads. Marriage is accepted as a bond between Man and WIFE. With it comes legal and moral rights and obligations. And some of us do actually still respect them. There are alot of people who aren't able, for one reason or another to marry the partner of their choice, who aren't gay. Do you think a brother and sister should be able to get married if they fall in love. Certain religions will only allow men from their religion to marry women from their religion.And a man who respects that religion will abide by that rule Some nationalities wont allow interracial marriages.. Certain States apparently do recognise gay marriages so if you want to get married as a gay couple and have it recognised than move to that state. But i don't think it should be accepted across the board, which will probably piss off alot of the gays that I know.
However, those who choose to go with their desires and follow the gay path with all it's goods also have to accept it's bads.
Simple question: Did you ever choose to follow the heterosexual path?
Furthermore, what are the "goods" associated with the gay path, compared to the heterosexual one? From what I can see it's a much harder path to go down. I can't really fathom why someone might CHOOSE to go that way, unless of course they were BORN gay, in which case you're discriminating against a condition people have no control over.
As for did I ever CHOOSE to go the heterosexual path , the answer is YES I DID.
As for what are the perks. Many gay people would claim that their coming out has brought them great relief and as much, if not more, possitive attention than when they were choosing to portray themselves as heterosexual. Also many gays who choose a partner of their own sex claim that there are alot of advantages, such as the feelings of love are deeper and feel more real, their desire for sex with that person rather than with someone of the opposite sex is stronger and the sex more satisfying, and I could keep going on and on. Also in certain fields of work, such as fashion design or interior design, the gay guy is usually assumed as going to be good before even showing any other credentials. And how can someone really say they are BORN gay, when boys and girls don't really even know the difference between the sexes until they are at least 2-3.
1. "As for did I ever CHOOSE to go the heterosexual path , the answer is YES I DID." Really? What age were you when you chose to be heterosexual? Is it something you struggle with daily? Do you have to remind yourself that heterosexual is the choice you've made and you're sticking with it? What motivated you to go heterosexual when there are clearly so many damn perks to being gay?
2. "Many gay people would claim that their coming out has brought them great relief"
Duh duh duh. Of course coming out brings them relief. This has nothing to do with a perk of being gay. This is a perk of being who they are and being unashamed of it.
3. "many gays who choose a partner of their own sex claim that there are alot of advantages, such as the feelings of love are deeper and feel more real, their desire for sex with that person rather than with someone of the opposite sex is stronger and the sex more satisfying"
Go figure. Gay people prefer same sex relationships. That's your argument here. In the same way, I'm sure you would claim the feelings of love are deeper and feel more real with someone of the opposite sex, and that your desire for sex with them is stronger and more satisfying. You've just defined what being gay is, not given a perk.
4. "Also in certain fields of work, such as fashion design or interior design, the gay guy is usually assumed as going to be good before even showing any other credentials."
Really? Usually? Not to be a bitch, but prove it. My grandfather owned a flower shop for 20 years, and while gay men worked for him and were damn good floral designers, he NEVER hired on the basis of their sexuality. They were hired BECAUSE they were good.
5. "And how can someone really say they are BORN gay, when boys and girls don't really even know the difference between the sexes until they are at least 2-3"
yeah what if someone wants to marry an animal,or if someone thats mother/son or father/daughter etc. wouldn't that be discriminating against a group because you don't agree with there views just like gay marriage..i mean that's what the gay marriage supporters argue that they should have the same rights as straight couples shouldn't a couple be able to marry even if it's mother/son or father daughter and yeah most people are against such things but its none of our business just like gay marriage and if the gay community says this is wrong isn't that being a little hypocritical?
1. No first of all it's not. Civil unions do not grant all the rights of marriage. Only 9 states offer civil unions to same-sex couples with almost all the rights of marriages. Six other states offer civil unions to same-sex couples with some of the rights. Therefore no civil union has the same rights as marriages, and most states don't even have civil unions. Also the federal government does not recognize civil unions and due to the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships do not have "1,138 rights, benefits and privileges that a married couple has under federal law."
So thank you for the talking point from NOM, but you're totally incorrect. Civil unions are not the same as being married. But even if they were, this would not be acceptable. How can you possibly think it is fair to deem one type of union unworthy of being called marriage. Would this have been an acceptable alternative when interracial marriage was illegal? Oh it's okay you can't get married to someone of a different race because you can just get a civil union?
2. This is a really dumb statement. Yeah sure and 100 years ago women could say they can vote without any problem. Except that it's not true.
I really don't understand why people even care enough to be opposed to gay marriage. It doesn't hurt anybody, what is the big deal?
I have found that there are a few argument tactics that are used to get people to agree with the point being defended. One of those tactics is to associate the opposing point to something that is almost universally despised.
This tactics works because a lot of people are passionate beings that are too lazy to analyze the argument and realize that there was an association made (not an comparison).
For example,
associating civil unions with slavery and no suffrage for women is not a comparison.
Civil unions are the same thing as marriage, only with a different name (this is a comparison). Slavery was not the same thing as freedom, only with a different name. Women not allowed to vote was not the same as women suffrage, only with a different name. Therefore one cannot make the comparison between civil unions and slavery (or civil unions and suffrage) and show that they are similar. In both slavery and not allowing women to vote, people were losing rights. In civil unions, they are given marriage rights (but a different word is used).
Actually the word you are looking for is called analogy. I know it's kind of a difficulty concept so I will explain it. Making an analogy is comparing similarities between to ideas. So if I make an analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage, I am talking about things that are similar between them. No one in their right mind would take this to mean I am asserting they are the same thing.
And I know segregation was awhile ago, so you may have forgotten, but the supreme court ruled that separate is not equal. You can't have one one type of thing for one group and one for another. WARNING: Incoming analogy. White water fountains and black water fountains. Straight marriages and gay civil unions.
WARNING: Incoming analogy. White water fountains and black water fountains. Straight marriages and gay civil unions.
You're right. The analogy doesn't work because you could have dirty run down water fountains reserved strictly for one group and the nice clean ones for another group. However, if the states drop the use of the word "marriage" and replace it with he words "civil union" then there wouldn't be a "separate but equal" situation and only churches and religious organizations will be left using the word marriage and (I know this is difficult for you to grasp but) since we have separation of church and state, the supreme court doesn't have a say in what word churches use.
"The analogy doesn't work because you could have dirty run down water fountains reserved strictly for one group and the nice clean ones for another group."
Here you claim that segregation is unconstitutional because facilities were of a lesser quality for blacks. Your implication is that were facilities absolutely equal in all respects, this would be legal. Therefore you say that since marriage and civil unions afford the same rights (which they don't even come close to doing which I have told you before, but which is irrelevant to the point) that this is also legal.
Unfortunately for you your US history seems to be a bit rusty. The doctrine of separate but equal, was established in the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation was constitutional. Now in 1954 the Supreme Court made a new decision on segregation in the case Brown v. Board of Education. The constitutional basis of the case was the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court decided that the quality of the black and white schools does not change the fact that separate is inherently not equal. A few quotes from the decision:
"Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal."
"Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors."
"To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."
So as you can see segregation would be unconstitutional regardless of the relative qualities of the things being segregated. Therefore my analogy works perfectly. Even if civil unions and marriages granted the exact same rights, which they don't, making gays get a different form of marriage "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Consequently it is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for homosexual unions to be given a different moniker.
And if I had my druthers I would prefer states only issue civil unions to all couples and no marriage licenses because marriage has religious connotations. But barring that gays must be allowed to get married as well.
"(I know this is difficult for you to grasp but) since we have separation of church and state, the supreme court doesn't have a say in what word churches use."
I never made this assertion or an assertion with this as a logical conclusion. Enjoy your red herring. It tastes too fishy for me.
And if I had my druthers I would prefer states only issue civil unions to all couples and no marriage licenses because marriage has religious connotations.
Now the question is, does the state have the power to force the church to marry gays? I say no. But that's OK because the state also does not have the power to prevent gays from starting a religion that will marry them.
No obviously I don't think the state has the right to force churches to marry gays. If they want to be intolerant that is their business. However in a similar vein I do think all religions should lose their tax exempt status. Because I think it violates the Lemon Test decided in Lemon v. Kurtzman for testing the violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It forces the government to decide which religions are legitimate and this "needlessly entangles the government in religion." Furthermore all of the money that is lost in exempt taxes from churches does not benefit the entire country, only members of that religion. Yes money that goes to charity benefits everyone, but then only that money should be deducted from their taxes and they should pay tax on the rest. This also fails the Lemon Test because again it forces the government to decide which religions are legitimate and worthy of tax exemption.
So for you is the second best option allowing gays to be married or do you jump straight from only civil unions for all to no gay marriages?
I'm mostly against marriages for all so the last one... although I'm being forced to chose from a set I wouldn't normally chose from. Especially since there's no explanation for being against marriages for all, leaving room for interpretation, accusations, and long drawn out arguments.... but then again, that's why I'm here ;)
Really? When? Why did it not work out? I mean, I'm thinking I've heard this argument before used as a mantra and no one has explained it any further. ;)
Once upon a time, there were these people. And they came in many colors (Really, only about four or five). Anyway, some of these people thought that they should have separate facilities than those of darker colors. Separate schools, separate bathrooms, separate seats on the bus (Talk about a waste of taxpayer money!).
The light colored people thought it was great, but the dark colored people did not. They realized that they got what is known worldwide today as The Shaft. Separate but equal is never equal.
You either give equal rights or you don't.
---------------------------------
I support civil unions for all marriages that occur outside the church, but let rights be entirely equal for all.
I do feel sorry for anyone who can't marry the person of who they want to spend the rest of their life with. However, those who choose to go with their desires and follow the gay path with all it's goods also have to accept it's bads. Marriage is accepted as a bond between Man and WIFE. With it comes legal and moral rights and obligations. And some of us do actually still respect them. There are alot of people who aren't able, for one reason or another to marry the partner of their choice, who aren't gay. Do you think a brother and sister should be able to get married if they fall in love. Certain religions will only allow men from their religion to marry women from their religion.And a man who respects that religion will abide by that rule Some nationalities wont allow interracial marriages.. Certain States apparently do recognise gay marriages so if you want to get married as a gay couple and have it recognised than move to that state. But i don't think it should be accepted across the board, which will probably piss off alot of the gays that I know.
Clearly you have not heard Quentin Tarantino's analysis on the hidden themes within the cult classic cinema film Top Gun.
Specifically Ice Mans attempt to woo the protagonist, Maverick away from heterosexuality, as represented by lead female character, Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood (played by Kelly McGillis). The film can be seen as a struggle between this love triangle in a battle of lust, the fate of which will determine none other than a mans sexual orientation. While Ice man and his coterie uses his close position as a gay man to try to nudge Maverick to "go the gay way", Charlotte or "Charlie" adopts a masculine identity to try to coax Maverick back from the brink of gayness and to her heterosexual clitoral force.
(spoiler alert)
Although Charlotte initially succeeds in seducing Maverick, the romance is not long lived, as ultimately Iceman succeeds in winning over Maverick in a climactic dogfight scene that eclipses Terry McGillis's sex scene in its orgasmic intensity. (Notable is that Maverick can only have sex with Charlotte in the dark, while the dogfight scenes are in broad daylight.) The conclusion was hinted at earlier in the film with the song "shes lost that loving feeling" and with it "gone, gone, gone", so too is Mavericks hetero persona.
(the deeper message)
The film explores the "rules of engagement" or the boundaries of acceptable behavior in terms of influencing anothers sexuality.
Was Charlotte really justified in her actions trying to win back Maverick to "go the normal way"? Or were her actions ultimately selfishly motivated? By seducing him was she really only vindicating her own sexual power and thereby just using him to feed her own vanity? Did Iceman cross a line in trying to win Maverick over to "go the gay way"? And if so, where was this line crossed? Was it in the locker-room? Or were these antics still within the bounds of normal heterosexual behavior? Did Iceman go too far in taking advantage of Maverick in his time of weakness, after his hetero-friend and wing-man Goose dies in a gruesome accident? Did the lesser characters not do enough in guiding and protecting the troubled Maverick on his sexual journey, when they acted as only passive observers? Did Charlotte go too far, abusing her position of dominant power and authority as flight instructor to seduce young men? Or did Charlotte not go far enough with Maverick? Should she have been more open to his sexual persona in the bedroom, and accepted anal sex as part of that persona? In the end, would this have made any difference? We will never know. But almost certainly any anal sex scene, no mater how tastefully done, would have precluded it from its 1986 PG rating.
(the fallout)
Needless to say Tom Cruises career would never be the same. The effect of the film itself on the direction of the Church of Scientology is as of yet an incompletely explored subject.
.
Her self confidence as a woman shattered, Kelly McGillis retired from the screen a ruined woman.
.
Iceman (played by Val Kilmer) was never again at the top of his game, his film career cooled down too, suffering a similar fate.
Was this a misplaced argument? As much as I enjoy Quentin Tarantino's work his analysis of a random movie has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal.
Did you read the whole statement or just pick something that you could argue with. It's not just the gays that don't get to marry the person that they desire to. And how do you know that maybe I have experienced this first hand. Don't judge me as someone who doesn't understand this circumstance. But why should gays get the rights that others don't.
Did you read the whole statement or just pick something that you could argue with. It's not just the gays that don't get to marry the person that they desire to. And how do you know that maybe I have experienced this first hand. Don't judge me as someone who doesn't understand this circumstance. But why should gays get the rights that others don't.
I believe the question is should gays have the right to MARRY, not do i think gays should have the same legal and moral rights and obligations as married heterosexuals. Gays, when choosing to live together can sign contracts protecting their rights, very similar to vows, and can hold their partner accountable if they dont abide by the contact, protecting themselves financially and morally and creating obligations. This is usually legally stronger than marriage vows as contracts are often added to marriages to clarify the terms.
I agree that a person doesn't Choose who they fall in love with, but they do choose to act on it. There are alot of gay people out there who have chosen to be in heterosexual relationships for reasons of their own, just as someone else has chosen to go with their desires and follow the path they feel is right for them. Living in a gay relationship is definitely a choice.
If a person buys his house knowing he is beside the airport, should he be listened to when he complains about the noise. If your answer to this is no, then why should a gay couple who enter a relationship KNOWING they cannot get married, whine about the fact later.
I believe the question is should gays have the right to MARRY, not do i think gays should have the same legal and moral rights and obligations as married heterosexuals. Gays, when choosing to live together can sign contracts protecting their rights, very similar to vows, and can hold their partner accountable if they dont abide by the contact, protecting themselves financially and morally and creating obligations. This is usually legally stronger than marriage vows as contracts are often added to marriages to clarify the terms.
I agree that a person doesn't Choose who they fall in love with, but they do choose to act on it. There are alot of gay people out there who have chosen to be in heterosexual relationships for reasons of their own, just as someone else has chosen to go with their desires and follow the path they feel is right for them. Living in a gay relationship is definitely a choice.
If a person buys his house knowing he is beside the airport, should he be listened to when he complains about the noise. If your answer to this is no, then why should a gay couple who enter a relationship KNOWING they cannot get married, whine about the fact later.
So I guess women shouldn't have fought for the right to vote, or slaves should have accepted the fact they were slaves, they knew they were black...why complain? Listen, since the beginning of this nation, we as a people have fought for equal rights and fought to be able to live our lives as we wish, with the pursuit of the "America Dream". It has not always been easy, but it has been necessary.
By the way, "buying a house beside the airport" is a poor comparison to gay rights. What does it matter to you what other people do? How does it affect your ability to provide for your family? You have the right to your opinion, but when you assist in the denial of equal rights you have over stepped your boundaries.
There is a Categorical Imperative not to enact same-sex marriage. When you universalize same-sex marriage, it yields a contradiction, so a perfectly rational person would not enact same-sex marriage. In other words, it's wrong.
Quoting from wikipedia here: "From this step, Kant concludes that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person making the moral deliberation. A moral maxim must have universality, which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any rational being. "
Immoral: "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."
Ethics: "the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc."
Ethical values change; I would say they actually improve. Human ethics have evolved from the socially acceptable Mayan rituals of human sacrifice, from the socially acceptable slavery... People like you whose personal ethics isn't keeping up with the social ethics of our time are no better than those who still think human sacrifice and slavery are ok. Try to keep up, using morals as an excuse to condemn homosexuality is outdated.
Well done .............................................................................................................................................................................
I'm not sure if you are honestly looking for an answer to this question, since it is on the argument you disputed. Just read it again.
I copied the definitions of the concepts from a dictionary to show that guy that he didn't know what he was talking about. And I'm guessing neither do you... So I won't spend any more time trying to argue with a guy who uses "AHahahahahahahahaha Ahahahahahahahahaha" as an argument...
Because you might be one of them!! GOD created YOU and everyone else if everyone were gay/lesbian there would be no more humans just the homos who are left then humanity is gone , thats why god would give a shit!!!
But if more people start turning gay then in 20 years where is humanity , about 30% of people would be gay then add another 20 years onto that,60% of everyone is gay and so on,look at the future not the present after about 100 years ''That's going to break mankind.'' more and more people are turning gay it's fine if you want be gay just have your own country where people are gaying it up and let the right minded people live there lives without disgusting homos interupting it, its the work of satan when people turn gay,so why? GAY GUY:Hey buddy can I touch your weiner,GAY GUY 2:sure lets get it on? why? That is so disgusting and thats why now only 3% of the world is gay because its nasty,but more people are becoming gay because of satan ? That will break mankind!
Thats not what I met ,to turn Gay is to reveal yourself ,come out of the closet,I know you can't turn Gay ?! And do you know how many people are turning gay ALOT! which that supports my last argument ok? Do I have to put it on the news? gosh!
So you want gay people to pretend to be straight? That's just stupid. What if somebody told you being straight was wrong and you needed to be gay? Wouldn't you be outraged?
Even if every gay person came out of the closet, they would still make up less than 10% of mankind. It wouldn't be a big deal.
I'm not forcing MY religion on anyone; I'm just stressing the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. And the last time I checked, Christians and Jews are still the largest group of people in the United States. (For those who couldn't tell, I was asking whether gay marriage should be legal in the U.S.)
The U.S. was not founded on religion... in fact the first Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Whether you want to follow the teachings of a religion in your private life is one thing, but when you deny others rights based on the teachings of your religion you are limiting the rights of others.
What if a law was passed that made it illegal to eat meat of fridays?
It shouldn't matter if a religious group is the majority, they still shouldn't be allowed to force their beliefs on others. The majority of the people in this nation are also white, but does that give white people the right to take away the rights of minority groups? Of course not.
The reason our nation is not a full democracy is to ensure that the majority are not allowed to take advantage of the minority. We have checks and balances to stop the tyranny of the majority.
Why though do you consider homosexuality wrong, and not the other things I mentioned? Do you ever eat shellfish or pork? Do you shave? Have you ever touched a woman while she was on her period?
To make laws on religion is foolish. Our nation is not a theocracy. Do what you want in your personal life but don't force me to follow to your rules.
Firstly, I think eating meat on Fridays should be illegal. Secondly, many of the things you listed that the bible bans are made acceptable in the New Testament. I do eat pork and shellfish. I do shave. I do wear cotton/polyester blends. The bible does allow me to do those things. But the New Testament does not make homosexuality acceptable. It is still, under all circumstances, immoral and wrong.
Firstly, I think eating meat on Fridays should be illegal.
Answer me this:
Why should my freedoms be limited because of your beliefs?
Should I also be required to go to church every Sunday?
Does me eating meat hurt anyone?
What gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do, if my actions have no effect on you?
Let me repeat: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. That is literally how the bill of rights starts.
In addition, you clearly aren't a very good Christian if you think your not allowed to eat meat on Fridays. The Catholic Church lifted that ban years ago. It's only on lent that you aren't allowed to eat meat on Fridays. You might want to get your facts straight (otherwise you may end being torchered for all of eternity, because God loves you).
Finally, our constitution was founded on enlightenment principles of rationality and reason. Merely saying something is wrong "because the bible says so" puts us back in the dark ages. Something can be wrong because it hurts people, or has a negative effect on society. Both eating meat, and homosexuality do not fall into either category, and therefore cannot be immoral.
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion
a) Roman Catholics still don't eat meat on Fridays, with the exception of fish.
b) You say homosexuality should be acceptable because it has no negative impact on society. But it does negatively impact society by going against nature and by going against almost every organized religion on the planet: not just Christianity and Judaism, but also Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, and countless others. By advocating acceptance for homosexuality, you are opposing the beliefs of a majority of the world's population.
Roman Catholics still don't eat meat on Fridays, with the exception of fish
1) Actually, my entire family is Roman Catholic, a decent portion of my friends are Roman Catholic, and I have heard the priest at my Church explain multiple times the rules regarding eating meat on fridays (I guess I forgot to mention that I go to a Roman Catholic Church every Sunday). The rules are: it's okay to eat meat on fridays (except lent) however, if you do choose to eat meat you should give something else up.
So in short: you're wrong.
2) First: It doesn't go against nature because it can be found prevalently in nature. Allow me to give you some examples of animals that have observed homosexual tendencies in their population:
African Buffalo
African Elephant
Agile Wallaby
Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)
American Bison
Antelope
Asian Elephant
Asiatic Lion
Asiatic Mouflon
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Australian Sea Lion
Barasingha
Barbary Sheep
Beluga
Bharal
Bighorn Sheep
Black Bear
Blackbuck
Black-footed Rock Wallaby
Black-tailed Deer
Bonnet Macaque
Bonobo
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bowhead Whale
Brazilian Guinea Pig
Bridled Dolphin
Brown Bear
Brown Capuchin
Brown Long-eared Bat
Brown Rat
Buffalo
Caribou
Cat (domestic)
Cattle (domestic)
Cheetah
Collared Peccary
Commerson's Dolphin
Common Brushtail Possum
Common Chimpanzee
Common Dolphin
Common Marmoset
Common Pipistrelle
Common Raccoon
Common Tree Shrew
Cotton-top Tamarin
Crab-eating Macaque
Crested Black Macaque
Cui
Dall's Sheep
Daubenton's Bat
Dog (domestic)
Doria's Tree Kangaroo
Dugong
Dwarf Cavy
Dwarf Mongoose
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Elk
Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)
European Bison
Fallow Deer
False Killer Whale
Fat-tailed Dunnart
Fin Whale
Fox
Gazelle
Gelada Baboon
Giraffe
Goat (Domestic)
Golden Monkey
Gorilla
Grant's Gazelle
Grey-headed Flying Fox
Grey Seal
Grey squirrel
Grey Whale
Grey Wolf
Grizzly Bear
Guinea Pig (Domestic)
Hamadryas Baboon
Hamster (Domestic)
Hanuman Langur
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor Seal
Himalayan Tahr
Hoary Marmot
Horse (domestic)
Human
Indian Fruit Bat
Indian Muntjac
Indian Rhinoceros
Japanese Macaque
Javelina
Kangaroo Rat
Killer Whale
Koala
Kob
Larga Seal
Least Chipmunk
Lechwe
Lesser Bushbaby
Lion
Lion-tailed Macaque
Lion Tamarin
Little Brown Bat
Livingstone's Fruit Bat
Long-eared Hedgehog
Long-footed Tree Shrew
Macaque
Markhor
Marten
Matschie's Tree Kangaroo
Moco
Mohol Galago
Moor Macaque
Moose
Mountain Goat
Mountain Tree Shrew
Mountain Zebra
Mouse (domestic)
Moustached Tamarin
Mule Deer
Musk-ox
Natterer's Bat
New Zealand Sea Lion
Nilgiri Langur
Noctule
North American Porcupine
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern Fur Seal
Northern Quoll
Olympic Marmot
Orangutan
Orca
Pacific Striped Dolphin
Patas Monkey
Pere David's Deer
Pig (Domestic)
Pig-tailed Macaque
Plains Zebra
Polar Bear
Pretty-faced Wallaby
Proboscis Monkey
Pronghorn
Przewalski's Horse
Puku
Quokka
Rabbit
Raccoon Dog
Red Deer
Red Fox
Red Kangaroo
Red-necked Wallaby
Red Squirrel
Reeves's Muntjac
Reindeer
Rhesus Macaque
Right Whale
Rock Cavy
Rodrigues Fruit Bat
Roe Deer
Rufous Bettong
Rufous-naped Tamarin
Rufous Rat Kangaroo
Saddle-back Tamarin
Savanna Baboon
Sea Otter
Serotine Bat
Sheep (Domestic)
Siamang
Sika Deer
Slender Tree Shrew
Sooty Mangabey
Sperm Whale
Spinifex Hopping Mouse
Spinner Dolphin
Spotted Hyena
Spotted Seal
Squirrel Monkey
Striped Dolphin
Stuart's Marsupial Mouse
Stumptail Macaque
Swamp Deer
Swamp Wallaby
Takhi
Talapoin
Tammar Wallaby
Tasmanian Devil
Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo
Thinhorn Sheep
Thomson's Gazelle
Tiger
Tonkean Macaque
Tucuxi
Urial
Vampire Bat
Verreaux's Sifaka
Vervet
Vicuna
Walrus
Wapiti
Warthog
Waterbuck
Water Buffalo
Weeper Capuchin
Western Grey Kangaroo
West Indian Manatee
Whiptail Wallaby
White-faced Capuchin
White-fronted Capuchin
White-handed Gibbon
White-lipped Peccary
White-tailed Deer
Wild Cavy
Wild Goat
Wisent
Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby
Yellow-toothed Cavy
And that is just the mammals! I could go on about birds, fish, reptiles and all sorts of different other kinds of animals, but I think you get my point. If God did create the world, then clearly he is a fan of homosexuality.
Next: Just because a large group of people think something, doesn't make it right. Are you a puppet? Can you not think for yourself? If everyone thought that snowflakes were god's dandruff would that make it right? In fact a large majority of the earth's population thought that the earth was flat, and the majority of the U.S. thought slavery was alright and used Bible verses to support their position.
If all your going to argue is: well most of these religions think this so it must be right, then I don't see the point in continuing. Your argument isn't valid. You also never tell me how, specifically it hurts society. They're not forcing those people who think it's immoral to be homosexual, or even to condone homosexuality. Homosexuals are merely looking for their own rights.
3) Thanks for providing proof that you are using multiple accounts.
2) I still can't think of a good argument against that. Hmm.
3) Socialist is my cousin. Her name is Shiloh Michels. Her political views revolt me and I've just realized that theoretically there is no way to prove anything I just said. Hmm.
I think you might find that most if not all of these animals would be considered to have bisexual tendancies, not homosexual tendencies, as I am sure they are still drawn to mate with the opposite sex or are they all extinct.
I think you misunderstood the list. It is a list of animals in which portions of the population exhibit homosexual behavior. The percentages vary widely, and usually there are sections of the population that are also bisexual, in addition to those sections who appear to be exclusively homosexual.
In all of these populations, there are obviously significant sections (usually the majority) of the population which are heterosexual, because, as you said, they couldn't survive as a species otherwise.
I am a Christian and I can't stand those 'Christians' who make laws reflecting our Bible and then try to say they aren't forcing their beliefs on others.
Let's see how they react if a Muslim or Hindu becomes president. Our pledge of allegiance changes from 'Under God' to 'Under Gods' or 'Under the Sky'. Our ten commandments (which most Christians including myself don't really adhere to that well) are dashed against rocks and in their place are statues of Vishnu and Krishna. Instead of praying before congressional meetings we all get together and meditate on the higher sense of self.
Take your religion out of my government.
Also, if gays can't marry then they shouldn't pay as much in taxes. Our taxes go to pay for TONS of services homosexuals can't benefit from. Marriage bureaus and Adoption Services are two obvious examples.
And don't even get me started on gays in the military when they have to register for the draft.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Thomas Jefferson does not mention in the Declaration of Independence the name of the Creator from whom we gain our rights.
Knowing Jefferson, it can't be a Judeo-Christian creator (God, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc.), but was a deistic creator, so the appeal to scripture-based morality falls flat with regard to this misplaced reference of the Declaration of Independence.
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
I believe my point rests unchallenged. It is clear from the letters of Jefferson, especially to his esteemed Deist comrades, that Jefferson's God was not the God of the Bible. If you can shake that case, I will relent. Until then, you have not confirmed Biblical authority over morality or the law of the United States, nor contributed anything I would call a refutation of my claim.
In Thomas Jefferson's letters and papers (my copy: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094045016X/), ,) he labeled himself a "Materialist" (letter to William Short, April 13, 1820), rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Justin Pierre, Count de Rieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to F. A. Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to John Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, not only did Jefferson deny the central tenants of Christianity, he also issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. As I said, unknowingly, but not unexpectedly, in concert with Encyclopedia Britannica, "The second and third presidents of the United States also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence."
Jefferson studied the philosophy of John Locke and the "natural theology," which was the subject of Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason," and agreed with Paine's convictions that it was a grave injustice to lock God into a sacred text. Paine immeasurably influenced Jefferson's interpretation of the Bible, as evidenced by the so-called "Jefferson Bible," which deliberately excludes the claims of Christ's divinity (...and to deny the divinity of Christ is to not be a Christian). For Thomas Paine, the only revelation from God is one that is perceived in creation. Only through creation does "God speaketh universally to man." To not understand Thomas Jefferson's philosophical relationship with his Deistic colleagues and with the Church is not to understand Thomas Jefferson.
I think I have sourced TJ's Deism enough at least for my own satisfaction, if not for yours, but I will add that the following words appear in Volume 3 of Dumas Malone's rightfully celebrated biography, "Jefferson and His Time," with regard to the accusation that Jefferson was an atheist: "...it was not only made in the public press, it was hurled from pulpits in various places, most of all probably in Connecticut. ... Actually, he was a deist (481)."
This whole problem about identifying the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence reminds me of a similar problem Jefferson encountered with regard to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom. He wrote in his autobiography, "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
This is the very same vision of the Creator mentioned in the DoI; a creator that is accessible to people of all faiths because his name isn't Jesus Christ.
All of this said, I don't know if I want to carry on defending gay marriage in this debate. I did want to defend the historical integrity of Thomas Jefferson and I do not feel you can properly claim that I haven't.
That is all very nice; thank you for supporting your Deism argument. But Jefferson's exact religious beliefs are not relevant here.
The First Constitutional Amendment did not retract religion from the Declaration of Independence. Neither is it separating the United States from religion. That is why it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I agree with essentially all of that, but I feel that some nitpicking is in order.
"The First Constitutional Amendment did not retract religion from the Declaration of Independence."
No, it does not, but as we have been discussing, the DoI does not contain the kindling of any specific religion. The First Amendment does clearly forbid the endorsement of a particular religion by the State. As long as the State is not forming legislation with preference to the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, or any other holy text, everyone can play nice. If the State endorses scripture-dependent legislation, it clearly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I think all of our disagreements are pretty much hammered out now, wouldn't you say?
The First Amendment to the Constitution restricts only Congress, but does not separate religion from the United States in general. The U.S.A. will continue to follow the religious message in the Declaration of Independence.
So, this passage is saying that whoever is listening should not have sex with men the same way they would have sex with a woman. If the reader is a woman, this is basically saying she should be a lesbian.
Oh wait, the Bible wasn't meant to be read by women? Oh well, I guess we would agree that the Bible belongs to a historical context and shouldn't be read literally, or taken seriously at all ^^
Your argument has no foundation. It is like asking whether women in Afghanistan should be stoned if they cheat on their husbands and then quote the Quran. Do you believe in separation of church and state? Policy issues that affect a population that is allowed to freely choose their own religion (unless you state that there is no freedom of religion in the U.S.) should not be addressed through religion.
Gays should be allowed to form unions that are legitimate under the law. Whether it be called "marriage" from a Christian point of view is irrelevant. The legality of a union does not depend on the church but on state laws.
If you are going to keep one of the 614, laws you have to keep them all. I hope you are ready to kill witches and adulterers, too. Oh, and don't dare shave!
the gays have no use in society. think about a nut and bolt you put two bolts together and it won't work. take put two nuts together and you still have nothing. but if you put a nut and bolt together you will get results needed. it works with males and females. being gay needs to be outlawed.
The place was not specified, so I choose my state of Virginia. My state just amended it's constitution about three or four years ago explicitly stating that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Therefore, gays do not have the right to marry. End of story.
Marriaige is completely a religious thing. And religion does not allow homosexuality. Fine you can have sex with anything and anyone you want but when you shun and defy religion and religious people who support and you go against all that religion says, then you try to come back and try to do things completely not allowed and change religion, that is just hypocricy. You want people to listen or so called be opened minded and listen to what you desire, then you should listen to what they desire and thats GO STRAIGHT.
While many of us would prefer that this were the case, our current situation attaches civil benefits to marriage. As such, it is not "completely a religious thing."
I don't like the word gay being associated with homosexuals, I think pervert is more descriptive. Most people view marriage as the unity between two people of the opposite sex. Perverts who perform perverted acts on each other are trying to hijack the word marriage and apply it to their perversions. Perverts are so quick to point out that they are homosexuals, I don't see people on TV running around yelling 'I'm hetero'. Years ago the perverts were out in the streets protesting that the Federal gov. wasn't spending enough money on AIDS research. Excuse me? It's like Reagan said: AIDS is almost a fully presentable disease - don't share needles, and wear a condom if you are going to insert your penis into another human being's rectum. But, but, the perverts don't like the way it feels if they have to wear a condom, and they want your tax dollars to be used to find a cure, so they can just go out to homosexuals bars, pop a pill, and then go insert their penis into a rectum. AIDS is rampant in parts of Africa - up to 70% of the population of some countries have the virus - because the men refuse to wear condoms. Why? Because it doesn't feel good, so the vast majority of people, married, single, man and woman end up with the AIDS virus. Some perverts think they can trick people into making people believe they are hetero by getting married to a woman, and at the same time they are engaging in risky behavior performing perverted acts on other perverts. So now there is a risk of a woman contracting AIDS because she is unwittingly involved with a lying pervert.
All of the people calling certain others hypocrites have obviously never heard of the old or new covenants within which certain things from the old are made obsolete gay marriage is not one of them.
People are blind to the real point. Gay marriage is NOT a matter for the state. Marriage is an institution created by God maintained by the church. The state has no right to dictate the actions of the church. This is a violation of the constitution the state is overstepping its bounds and its encroaching upon the rights of the church. This is an effort to take away the churches power and moral effectiveness. The constitution recognizes the churches role in a free society and the church itself is a needed structure in society, The framers of the constitution recognize and respects the soverignty of God HIS laws and the churches authority to declare them and enforce them. So gay marrige is wrong on a constitutional level and on a moral level so throuroughly it violates the laws of God and nature and lastly it violates the constitution.
I'm not against the gay community in general, but there is a problem with the word "marry". By definition it implies a union between a man and a woman. a gay marriage is an oxymoron.
I am of a neutral opinion on weather or not gay love should be accepted. Personally I think it's disgusting, that's just me. But I should point out that the term "gay marriage" is self contridictory. The dictionary defines marriage as: "the social institution under which a MAN and WOMAN establish their decision to live as HUSBAND and WIFE by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.". so what if someone wanted to marry their pet? Should we allow that too? People are really starting to lose the understanding of what marriage really means.
I think the question of whether they should have a legal right to marry is a no-brainer. Say what you will about your moral and / or religious objections, those are not reasons to be considered as a matter of policy.
We've had this argument over and over again with the same weigh-ins as all the rest. I say yes, they should have the right to marry if they so choose. It hurts no one and helps many...children included. Children don't end up gay because their parents are no more than children grow up straight because their parents are straight. Let it go and go get married!
Wow, there are some serious shenanigans going on in this thread. There's not enough debate on either side to justify a 15-0 (as of this posting) Top-score. All arguments on this side have been downvoted to zero with no additional (primary) rebuttals since yesterday.
Man this debate is active again? Jeez come on guys. Gays should have the right to do as any hetero couple. If it's been proven that people dont have a choice at birth are we gonna go back to the mindset of the 40s ? Black people cant help being black gay people cant help being gay. I'm 17 and most of the people debating on this debate have far more years of experiance in the world but cannot seem to see past this? Grow up.
I mean that I don't agree that homosexuality is a natural thing. I believe it is the result of complex emotional and psychological patterns, similar to those that make people hypersexual. And, yes, I am heterosexual.
What do you mean it isn't a natural thing? Are you saying that homosexuals choose to be gay? And why then are there many species which exhibit homosexuality?
Correct - I do not believe that homosexuality is a natural thing. I think I stated that. I also, however, don't believe that most homosexuals "choose" to be gay. I think that there are many factors that create a state in which one's mind opens to certain desires, and for whatever reason becomes infatuated with it. It then becomes very "natural" to that person. I can respect that in lieu of a more substantiated theory. The fact that there are occurances of this in life only supports the notion that this anomoly exists in more than the human race. We should study the similarities to understand what this better. All that being said, I do not believe that it is very American to disallow marriage based on homosexual tendancies or persuasions, regardless of what I think is "right".
While I am glad you do not support restricting rights based upon your own perception of morality, I encourage you to do research on the nature of homosexuality. The American Psychiatric Association defines homosexuality as a normal variant of sexuality. It wouldn't really described as an anomaly. Approximately 10% of the human population is homosexual, and homosexuality has been linked to genetic factors. It is a natural thing that has been observed in approximately 1500 other species.
Of course they should. What justification is there for recognising one couple's commitment to each other and not another couple's, when they are committed to the same values? Doesn't denying them the same benefits as mixed sex couples constitute a form of sexual descrimination?
I don't really see why not. I mean, they pay taxes and deal with all of the bullshit the rest of the country does every day. Denying them something is basically making them sub-human, and that's pretty sick I think.
Yes, gay people should be allowed to make themselves every bit as miserable as straight people. Why should they get to avoid the endless bickering and squabbling that accompanies "marital bliss"?
By keeping homosexuals from marrying, you are sending the message that something is wrong with them.
To say that they deserve to marry is insane. It isn't a matter of deserving. It is a matter of fair and equal treatment under the law.
Some day, in the future, we will look back at the people who opposed homosexual marriage the same way we view those who opposed interracial marriage or the right of the mentally disabled to marry.
Since a marriage is a government identified institution, the government MUST treat all citizens equally and afford everyone the same opportunities.
A gay guy wanting to marry in a christian church is like a black guy wanting to join the Ku Klux Klan
But Id rather want gay christians to marry then heterosexual christians for gay christians cant have children so they cant spread their stupid beliefs as much as heterosexuals
In terms of going to a city council and get married (for legal reasons) I think any couple regardless of sex should be able to get a certificate of that under law
Since when is government 'approval' (for lack of a better word, perhaps, regarding being tax-exempt) an acceptable litmus test for the legitimacy of a church?
Put another way, Jesus wasn't exactly the Romans' favorite person...
Here's why: there's this one quote in the movie 'What happens in Vegas' that I effin admire... the judge declares that it's not gays that ruin marriage, but people that go to Vegas (or a place similar to it, or no where really) and get married on impulse, and then go on and get divorces... therefore, treating marriage like a bit, fat, joke.
Seriously, marriages should be banned in places like Vegas, places loaded with alcohol and immature behavior, banned for people that have known each other, perhaps, for less than a year, people that treat marriage like a piece of shit. At LEAST gays are fighting for the goddamn thing out of respect, integrity, and love.
So, yes, gays should have the right to marry because they're more serious about it than the common straight couple is. I don't care what's in between someone's fucking legs, it's the motives, desire, commitment and love that counts.
I'm gonna have to say that it's untrue that gays are "more serious about it than the common straight couple is."
Every couples is different, and straight, gay, bisexual, open, polygamous, whatever.... it's the individuals involved that make the relationship work. Not the "mold" it comes out of.
I'd also like to defend Vegas Weddings. They're Cheap, and fun. I actually plan on having one, someday.
stereotyping helps produce statistics. A statistic of approx 45% of all married couples divorcing someday, is a statistic based on a stereotype. In 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants in the US, are from Mexico, is therefore a statistic and a stereotype that at least half of illegal immigrants are Mexicans.
A statistic of approximately 45% of all married couples divorcing someday, would be based on already existing facts about divorce rates, not speculation. Stereotypes are based on opinions, random observations, and speculation.
With statistics, there is control and reason, as well as numerical data.
Legally speaking, all couples should be allowed to marry. All couples should have the legal benefits of marriage. Whether another persons religion or belief wants to call it marriage or not let that be. But for legal terms, all couples heterosexual or homosexual, should have the right to marriage.
One last thought, what is so morally wrong with same sex marriage?
As a law, not in association with any religious organization, ALL COUPLES should have the right of marriage. It does not have to be in YOUR CHURCH/ SYNAGOGUE/ MOSQUE/ WHATEVER. What we are talking about here is not a religious or moral debate, this is a LEGAL debate. CHURCH is SEPARATE FROM STATE!!!!! You shouldn't deny a homosexual couple that is in love the LEGAL RIGHTS of a heterosexual couple that is in love. You can't say to a judge in the supreme court that the reason why homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry in legal terms is because the bible says it is a sin. You'd be told to read the first amendment.
If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. what goes on behind closed doors goes on behind closed doors. As long as it's consensual, it's okay. End of story.
hey, what a question is that? if he wants to do anything why do u care? they have a right to decide what they want to be. so its no harm. pay no attention to it!
As a matter of legality, they should be allowed the same rights and priveliges that married couples are allowed.
However, if a church refuses to marry two people of the same gender, that is their own decision. The right to be married applies only to the legal recognition of the couple having the same legal status as a "Married" couple.
Telling the church they can't reject homosexuality is oppressive. I'm all for gay marriage, but I'm even more against making people do what they don't want to do.
why not?? they are humans arnt they? they have right feelings for eachother they are loyal so i think they have equal rights of society... gay marriges are ok till they are ligal.......Himali.
Yes. I don't agree with it but they should have the right to. If they don't it could cause big trouble and say we are racist or something (which we're not) But, they should have the right to marry. The poore people don't know any better. =(
Ok say you are a straight guy and you find you a nice wife and you guys live happy. Okay with gay people it is exactly the same except for it's the same sex. It doesnt matter what sex you are if you are happy you are happy and nobody should have the right to take that away! If two gay people want to finnally tie the knot then it shouldn't be a problem because they are very happy with one another just how straight guys would be with their wives! they should have a right to marry because it's their life that they are living and they should live it how ever they want to live it..... i think we should all accept that we have gays everywhere and killing their happiness so that we can be happy is so wrong...
anyone should have the right to marry no matter what. there is nothing in the constitution stating it is wrong it is more of a religious belief. If you believe that they shouldnt you should keep it to yourself. everyone is equal and should be treated the same. how would you like it if it was the other way around and straight people couldnt marry other straight people
it does not hurt anybody if they do get married. it does not affect me. there is no reason for them not be be married. if your reason is about religion, then it really depends what religion you are talking about. most people who are against gays are Christians, but then it depends on the church. i know that some churches allow gay marriage such as the united church of Christ or the Quaker group. even if they didn't, gays could still get married in a court by a judge, in that case nobody would be hurt.
OF COURSE GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!!!When its love, it has no limits, right? They shouldn't be discriminated against over something so personal. Its their life and people shouldn't interfere with a persons right to privacy and decision no matter whether or not they're the same sex. And to tell you the truth its not their fault being gay, their born with it. It a mental thing. Their normal people! I don't get how people can say otherwise.
Going by the history and the need for marriage from the days of the caveman and before, I would think that the institution of marriage is meant more as a protection for the children that result from the instinctive act of sex. Civilized society would have decided long ago, that there was a need to protect the offspring and therefore sanctified marriage through religion etc., The importance of marriage is therefore for the protection of all children and to provide for them through the responsibility attached to the marrying couples in exchange for the previlige of having their own children. There are legal rights attached to children and the heterosexual marrying couples such as succession of property etc.,
Obviously a marriage of gays is meaningless in this context, and serves no purpose and also has no liability on the society at large. If they want to co habitate for their mutual pleasure, then they are just in the same position as a heterosexual couple who dont have any children - either by their own choice or by happenstance.
So, let them get married if they want to, it has no harmful consequence on any one.
ya. The onlything that should matter in marriage is love. if you can prove you love him or her than you should be aloud to marry (family or relivtives don't count, i doubt many people out there would support that, not even rednecks)
Okay so when interracial marriage was illegal would you have said "It's alright because anyone does have the right to get married [just not to whom they want]"?
You did not answer my question. If everything is peachy because gays have the right to marry, then doesn't that same logic apply to interracial marriage?
You knew exactly what the debate meant by "Should gays have the right to get marry?" Instead you took the pedantic route and contributed nothing to the debate.
And my reference to interracial marriage was saying that if you think it is okay to have same-sex marriage be illegal because gays still have a right to get married than you should be okay with interracial marriage being illegal.
I knew what the debate meant, but since this debate has been brought up about a thousand times, I should do something different. So I instead pointed out how the title is misleading and is missing the point of the whole gay marriage debate.
If anything, i've contributed even more by saying something different than from the usual routine.
and as I pointed out, if this were an interracial issue, the title would have been "should blacks have the right to marry?" which would have also been misleading.
Don't see why everyone has to make such a big deal out of this. Too much tension on this site sometimes... everything always has to be taken offensively. I support gay marriage, if that's the issue here.
How do you debate a topic that has a different meaning from what is implied?
What we're technically supposed to talk about here is "should gays have the right to marry?" but I know no one wants to talk about that, since that isn't the hot button issue.
Joe would have made a comment that made no sense or would have joked around. While I joke around, this post was not a joke and made perfect sense.
Omg! Are you gonna cry? It's my dream to make you cry!
No, it wasn't legitimate. You knew what the real meaning of the question was, and by picking at you were just being stupid to get your own jollies off.
