CreateDebate


Debate Info

401
478
No!!! yes
Debate Score:879
Arguments:238
Total Votes:1012
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No!!! (86)
 
 yes (159)

Debate Creator

republican(69) pic



Should gays have the right to marry?

No!!!

Side Score: 401
VS.

yes

Side Score: 478
17 points

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.

Supporting Evidence: Argument - gays have a right to marry (arg.umentum.com)
Side: NO!!!
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
11 points

So if "the government should not prevent any kind of "marriage" from occuring," why are you against same sex marriage?

Side: yes
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
17 points

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."

Side: NO!!!
1 point

I would go even further , and say that people should not have to get permission from government to enter into any sort of mutually voluntary relationship.

That having been said, government should not grant married people special privileges that single people do not enjoy.

Side: yes
17 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
3 points

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.

Side: yes
wacko(114) Disputed
4 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
3 points

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?

Side: NO!!!
dacey(1036) Disputed
1 point

now now now.... Incest IS wrong......For mother/daughter/son/father/uncle/aunt/cousin etc would mean that the rights of parenting are being abused. misleading the innocence of a child.tends to produce medical hicks..........next.... RAPE......of animals IS wrong.....they have no ability of consent.....(tho lightheartingly some people like marrying their pets just as they may leave them their estates when they die,you know the non-beastiality, animal lovers types)

Side: yes
freedomrules(33) Disputed
1 point

Ok sure i see your point,but about the men and the religion thing,they made the choice to follow that religion,a choice the gay couples didn't make a choice that they can't marry.Why should gay couples have to move to a different state to be happy?that's like telling all Catholics to go move to Philadelphia,its stupid.This is 2010 why can't people accept others and not allowing these marriages interferes with those peoples pursuit of happiness.

Side: think before speaking
17 points

1. Civil unions is the same as being married. It just has a different name.

2. A gay couple can say that they're married without any problem.

3. What you're really asking is "Should gays have the right to force everyone else call their civil union a marriage?"

Side: NO!!!
ledhead818(637) Disputed
13 points

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?

Side: yes

Well, lets think about this... Which is easier:

1. To force the federal government to give civil unions the same exact right as marriages or

2. To force their version of marriage down the rest of our throats?

Side: NO!!!
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
5 points

Civil unions is the same as being married. It just has a different name.

So...separate but equal? I'm thinking we tried that once before and it didn't work out.

Side: yes

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. ;)

Side: NO!!!
15 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
ledhead818(637) Disputed
9 points

"However, those who choose to go with their desires and follow the gay path"

As opposed to doing what? You do understand sexuality is not a choice right?

"Marriage is accepted as a bond between Man and WIFE. With it comes legal and moral rights and obligations."

In a well-defined statement why do you no want a bond between two people of the same-sex to have the same legal and moral rights and obligations?

Side: yes
nagtroll(274) Disputed
11 points

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.

*

Quentin Tarantino's TOP GUN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyN8VN4BSzM#

Quentin Tarantino's TOP GUN
Side: Quentin Tarantino's TOP GUN
wacko(114) Disputed
5 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
wacko(114) Disputed
4 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
wacko(114) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
wacko(114) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: NO!!!
11 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
jessald(1915) Disputed
11 points

Same sex marriage does not "yield a contradiction" (whatever that means). You just flip the gender of one of the participants. It's still marriage.

Side: yes
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
3 points

By your argument, all marriage would not fit the Categorical Imperative qualifications, so all marriage must be made illegal.

Categorical Imperative

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. "

Side: yes
9 points

No; gays should NOT have the right to marry because homosexuality is immoral and just not right.

Side: NO!!!
chapulina(152) Disputed
15 points

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.

Side: no one should marry
9 points

Well done .............................................................................................................................................................................

Side: yes
nagtroll(274) Disputed
0 points

So...Ethical values change,... but

You would say ethical values actually improve...

Compared to what?!

AHahahahahahahahaha Ahahahahahahahahaha

Fool

Don't try look smart by copying and pasting words and using arguments you demonstratively do not understand.

Side: NO!!!
11 points

Who says it's immoral? ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Side: yes
republican(69) Disputed
3 points

Christians and Jews say that it's immoral. LEVICTICUS 18:22

Side: NO!!!
jessald(1915) Disputed
10 points

Homosexuality causes no harm to anyone, therefore it is not immoral.

Side: yes
Socialist(18) Disputed
13 points

Yes it is immoral no matter what you say its wrong and another thing in the bible stated man shall not lay with man.

Side: NO!!!
aedm(104) Disputed
3 points

Do you want to see two men or 2 women kissing in public , think like god for a minute?

Side: NO!!!
7 points

Levicticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

Side: NO!!!
19 points

How about we list a couple other things the Bible bans:

-Leviticus 19:27 - Shaving

-Ephesians 5:4 - Cursing

-Leviticus 19:16 - Gossip

-Leviticus 11:10 - Eating Lobster

-Leviticus 11:17 - Eating Pork

-Leviticus 19:19 - Cotton/Polyester Blends

-Leviticus 15:19-20 - Associating with women who on their periods

So now tell me why these shouldn't also be illegal?

By making laws based on Bible quotes you are forcing your religion on others.

By picking and choosing which Bible quotes to enforce you are being hypociritical.

Side: yes
wacko(114) Disputed
12 points

If you live in Israel you might find these things are taboo, seeing as most of the things you have mentioned were aimed at the children of israel

Side: NO!!!
10 points

Well said soc, and oh, so true!''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Side: yes
republican(69) Disputed
3 points

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.)

Side: NO!!!
3 points

i agree, i belive in God, but the bible was made by people. And over time other people have used it to controll other people and do horible stuff.

Side: yes
ledhead818(637) Disputed
15 points

United States Constitution: First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Side: yes
nagtroll(274) Disputed
2 points

Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

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.

Side: NO!!!
chapulina(152) Disputed
13 points

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 ^^

Side: no one should marry
nagtroll(274) Disputed
2 points

No, if you take it literally, its basically saying men lie with a woman by sodomy.

Side: NO!!!
vanillasmile(57) Disputed
12 points

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.

Side: yes
nagtroll(274) Disputed
4 points

Your makeup has no foundation.

Consider yourself disputed.

Side: NO!!!
inspyre(24) Disputed
10 points

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!

Side: yes
republican(69) Disputed
2 points

Firstly, see Exodus 20:13.

Secondly, the New Testament makes shaving acceptable, but fails to mention at all that homosexuality ISN'T immoral or wrong.

Side: NO!!!
4 points

NO. The Bible clearly states that marriage is a sacred union between male and female.

Side: NO!!!
3 points

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is against what God wants.

Side: NO!!!
3 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
3 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
3 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
3 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
Avedomni(78) Disputed
3 points

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.

Some dictionaries, maybe.

Merriam-Webster gives us a similar definition, but also "(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Regardless, words change, and dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive: a given dictionary serves only to reflect the usage of words at the time of its printing.

so what if someone wanted to marry their pet? Should we allow that too?

No, at the very least on the grounds that an animal is incapable of consenting to marriage.

People are really starting to lose the understanding of what marriage really means.

On this, at least, we agree. Marriage is, in origin, a religious practice, and it should remain so without any legal connotations.

My personal preference remains that the state should remove itself completely from the issue of marriage and all legal unions should be "civil unions". Then, every church may decide the capacity of its marriages, but the state would be free to place secular restrictions on civil unions. Thus, polygamist-religions can have their multiple-marriages, conservative christian groups can forbid gay-marriage, liberal-christian groups can allow gay marriage, and the legal benefits in all cases remain the same: none. Then, any two people who want the current legal benefits associated with marriage can file for a civil union in much the same way that they are currently required to file for a "marriage license".

Side: yes
3 points

ABSOULUTELY NOT!!!!! Why do men even want to marry each other? there's no good reason about WHY they want to marry each other.

Here are my points:

1. Neither of them can have children.

2. What would they do together at home?

3. Why do they like each other?

4. Wouldn't other people think it's disgusting and gross?

THIS IS WHY GAY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: NO!!!
dacey(1036) Disputed
1 point

You are far too young for me to even explain to you why i disagree...........................

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
Avedomni(78) Disputed
1 point

Marriaige is completely a religious thing.

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."

And religion does not allow homosexuality.

That depends on the religion.

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
2 points

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.

Side: NO!!!
justsaying(1) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: yes
1 point

Not at all. It is not healthy OR natural. It is quite gross. It makes me sick thinking about it.

Side: NO!!!

Having the right to marry or not is not as important as how they get it. If the legislature or the people vote for it, ok. That's how the law works and I will support that. If it is passed by executive order or judicial review, it is an outrageous violation of our system of govt. Like it or not, this is a change, and all changes must go through the proper channels. Oh, and equal protection under the law does not apply here because gays are allowed to marry exactly the same as straight people: a member of the opposite sex. It's not what they want of course, so change the law. I'm behind that 100% When we get what we want legally, it's called constitutional govt. When we get what we want or even think is right but usurp the law, that is dictatorship, and I will fight that forever.

Side: Not as important as
1 point

I have nothing wrong with two people of the same sex having the same rights as two people married via civil union, but marriage is a little too far.

I'm all for individual freedom and that people should have the right to do as they please, but that doesn't mean they have the right to disrespect others. Many gays don't want civil union, they want MARRIAGE which is defined as "Two people joined together in Holy Matromony." Many religions oppose homosexuality and refuse to marry a gay couple. If gays want to be MARRIED instead of legally bonded, then they need to learn a word called RESPECT. There is a very small chance that the gay couple are religious, but they need to respect the fact that for a priest to marry a gay couple it could be considered sack-religious!!!

If gays want the same rights as a married couple, that's fine. If they want to be married in Holy Matromony, that's blasphemy.

Side: NO!!!
1 point

i am absolutely sure that homosexual beings have no right to marry. the nature created male and female for Posterity reproduction. the unite of two people with the same gender has no chance for producing next generation that is why their marriage does not make sense. We must not do things against the nature otherwise we should suffer and die.

Side: NO!!!
1 point

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.

Side: NO!!!

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.

Side: yes

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!

Side: yes

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.

Did fox news issue a call to arms or something?

Side: Shenanigans

Seriously this argument has 14 points right now:

"Yes it is immoral no matter what you say its wrong and another thing in the bible stated man shall not lay with man."

I haven't been around long, but I think I know the community well enough to know that that wouldn't normally get upvoted at all.

Cmon, fess up. Who got all their youth group buddies to band together and teach all the lib'rals a lesson?

Side: Shenanigans
4 points

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.

Side: yes
3 points

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"?

;)

Side: yes
1 point

that was really quite cute Banshee.......................................................................... :)

Side: yes
2 points

Yes. While don't agree morally or naturally with homosexuality, I don't see it as very American to restrict who someone can marry. Seems a bit petty.

Side: yes
ledhead818(637) Disputed
1 point

Just out of curiosity what do you mean you don't agree morally or naturally with homosexuality? Do you mean you aren't homosexual, I don't understand?

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: yes
wacko(114) Disputed
1 point

So do you think brothers and sisters should be able to be married?

Side: NO!!!
2 points

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?

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: yes
2 points

There is only one thing I think should be considered here: equality.

And the Civil Rights Act, which I'm pretty sure demanded respect for people, no matter what sexuality.

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: yes
2 points

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!

Side: yes
2 points

yes! you rock gay people. they are people just like we are and if two men want to marry each other, than go for it

Side: yes
aedm(104) Disputed
1 point

I'm assuming your a fag yourself? I hate FAGS they need to DIE and stop being gay whats the world coming to?

Side: NO!!!
dacey(1036) Disputed
1 point

hi darlin im not gay either but you know you really ought to come to our next mardi gras...but if you do, dont be a little poof about it ,we will reserve a little spot just for you on the "rednecks prefer there momma" float.or is it your sisaunt this week..... make sure you wear your guns loud and clear, we dont want to waste time looking for them when it comes to the sthpectactular finally of ramning them up your bullridden assthes....i hate you and you need to grow up.....btw After finding out about the male g spot and where it is supposedly located are you still haveing trouble finding yours and this is why your all cut up with gay hate. have a Gay DAy:) oh my mate BEN DOVER says to say hello.and can he have your number.

Side: yes
Knowledge(26) Disputed
1 point

Reasons? Can you give an excuse instead of insulting people wit the word "fag"?

Side: yes
2 points

Yes gay people should have that right they are no different then us except there sexuality.

Side: yes
2 points

The idea of restricting the rights of a minority group disgusts me. I thought we had overcome bigotry.

Side: yes
1 point

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

Side: yes
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
3 points

No, It's not.

Gays can be Christian, and can be welcome in certain churches.

Side: yes
PungSviti(552) Disputed
8 points

"be welcome"

name me 3... or no, name me two (2) churches ("tax deduced" churces)in america that marry gay guys

Side: NO!!!
1 point

Yes.

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.

Side: yes
1 point

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.

You're so attached to stereotypes.

Side: yes
Nichole(689) Disputed
1 point

Stereotypes are statistics. You wanna ignore stereotypes, then go ahead and ignore statistics too.

Side: yes
PungSviti(552) Disputed
0 points

Here comes the "marriage" police - party´s over

.........................................................................................................................

Side: yes
1 point

yup,gays should have the right to marry becoz they are attracted to each other...and if they are in true love then they should proceed..

and it will also help to decrease the population...........................................

Side: yes
1 point

yup,gays should have the right to marry becoz they are attracted to each other...and if they are in true love then they should proceed..

and it will also help to decrease the population...........................................

Side: yes
1 point

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?

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: Hell Yeah Bitch

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.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes,they should have the rights to marry.....................

afterall they are to humans not animals to be denied any rights.......

Side: yes

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.

Side: yes
ANJ2kill(302) Disputed
2 points

got to know that you guys are KV students.

if yes from where

Side: NO!!!
paradox(208) Disputed
1 point

you have given me another opportunity to recover more data about alstars...

You are interested in KV students????

That sounds fishy, bcoz either u must be from KV or You must be having a close cousin studying in KV

By the way, what is KV?

Kondom Vidhyalaya?

Or Kiss me Vidhyalaya?

Side: yes
1 point

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...

Side: yes

Give me one reason i can't get married to my boyfriend of two years?

Because we are the same sex? What does that have to do with anything?

This shouldn't even be a question. This country sucks when it comes to this.

Side: yes
1 point

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

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes
1 point

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)

Side: yes
1 point

yes! you rock gay people. they are no different than we are. if to men want to marry each other, go for it

Side: yes
1 point

I believe people have two fundamental rights relating to this issue:

The right to self expression and personal views/ideas.

The right to be secure physically and emotionally.

If someone gets married -gay or straight-, they are expression their personal ideas. This is their RIGHT in Canada and the United States, at the very least. Marriage is a legal thing between two people, and the only part of it that says it has to be man and a woman lies in religion- which is based on ideas founded centuries ago when women were considered objects anyway, and thus fundamentally flawed and not viable as the final word.

If you are telling them that they are not allowed to get married, you are first of all denying them their right to express their ideas by saying it's not allowed, and secondly denying them their emotional security because you're descriminating.

FINALLY. What does it matter to you if a gay couple gets married? Is it hurting you? No. Is it denying you the ability to say you don't like it? No. Is it infringing on those two rights for you? No. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean you should have the right to say it's not allowed at all!

There's no logical reason to say it isn't allowed.

Side: yes
1 point

People should be allowed to marry whoever they want (age permitting, of course). They should also be allowed to fight and die for their country.

Side: yes

Live and let live. They arent doing anything to harm you. Just let them be. Since the opposition is religious, it would actually be un-american to deny them marriage. It says in the constitution that people don't have to be christian and you can't make laws based on religion.

Side: yes
1 point

The ability of any two consenting adults to enter into a legal contract is a constitutional right. Marriage is a legal contract. If you believe homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons, remember this is not about homosexual acts, it is about homosexual marriage. Homosexual acts are legal. Nor can you use your religious beliefs to deprive others of their rights.

Side: yes
1 point

Homosexuals are still people. They can love just like anyone else.

Love is love, and that's that.

Side: yes
1 point

yes they can. why not?! IF they really happy to be together lit it be that way... you can not make a person fell in love or make a person stop loving... Everyone has their right of love.... YOU CAN NOT CONTROL YOUR HEART!!!

Side: yes

Why not? Who are they hurting by getting married? Nobody.

Side: NO!!!
1 point

Gay should have the right to Mar, however they shouldn't use the term married, in fact only people who were married through the church should use that terminology. The church came u p with the term of marriage and if a vast majority says it goes against their religion then they should be allowed to marry through the church, I myself Am agnostic, but I believe all religions should be respected in some way, and if the church says no to gay marriage then I'm sorry but you cannot be wed that way.

Side: yes
AveSatanas(4415) Disputed
1 point

I'm not for the no but what you said is wrong Migs. Marriage was invented by farmers thousands of years ago. They would basically sell their daughters off for cattle and money. It became a religious practice later on. It definately did NOT begin in any judeo Christian religion.

Also, the term 'marriage' doesnt only apply to those wed in the religious way. You can also get married in a courtroom before a judge at your town hall and it's a completely legal legitimate marriage in every meaning of the word. That being said, no religion should have ANY say over who can and can't be married by LAW. I bring up the constitution- separation of church and state. No religion shall have any powers of government nor affect the decisions of lawmakers.

And I've said this before, not allowing gay marriage is discrimination which is illegal. It is denying one group of individuals the same rights as others. A specific church can deny performing the ceremony but by LAW it should be allowed through state or any church that will do the ceremony.

Side: No!!!
1 point

yes gays should have the right to marry because their human as well just because they are gay the government have no write to interfere in their personal life even if they are gay or not!

Side: yes

Absolutely! There should be no restrictions on Same-Sex Marriage on the whole planet.

Side: yes

It is now 2015 and the Supreme Court has declared Gay Marriage to be the law of the land.

Side: yes
1 point

When it comes to the law I don't think there is anything against gay marriage. What you think is up to you, but I feel like since it doesn't hurt anybody, then people should be able to love who they want to.

Side: yes
0 points

Well, they actually do have the right to get married.

I think a better wording would be "Should people have the right to marry someone of the same sex".

Side: yes
ledhead818(637) Disputed
3 points

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]"?

Side: yes
3 points

I bet he says he would have.

He needs the attention just that much.

Side: yes
ThePyg(6756) Disputed
2 points

No, i was merely criticizing the set up of the question. Gays do have the right to marry.

Damn... is it just because you and Pineapple have a problem with me? Cause this is absurd.

Side: yes
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
1 point

That is implied. Please learn yourself on a subject before making stupid and disrupting comments.

You're not Joe.

Side: yes
ThePyg(6756) Disputed
3 points

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.

It's sad that people criticize it.

Side: yes
0 points

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. =(

Side: yes
dacey(1036) Disputed
1 point

Your posts , just makes me sick!! This coming from , a 22 year old, who tarts her 2 year old daughter up to say oh look at my daughter beauty queen. And btw- when are you gonna take your kid out of the damned spotlight bitch.You knew better. Your worse than a damn pimp. So much for your grattitude to Kukla and the like, for the advice you sought. "The poore people don't know any better." Who the fuck are you pittying. Rude bitch. OH JUMP UP AND DOWN ALL OVER ME YOU homophobic ARSEHOLES. Go on about it as much as you like , i couldnt care less about your homophobia . But your attitudes are pathetic ,the way you all carry on , im borderline suspicious :). Fucking wouldnt it be great if we could just cull every "Thing" we dont like. FUCK ! You would all be inbred before long. Maybe the third head will have a brain. Good luck!

Side: WOW WHAT A LOT OF CLOSETS IN HERE