Should same sex couples be allowed to get married?
|
2
points
Marriage is first and foremost a religious institution and it is unconstitutional for any federal court to decide if same sex marriages are allowed or not. The individual churches are the ones who decide the definition of "traditional marriage" as per the separation of church and state. Therefore, same sex couples can get married if a local church will marry them, and if not a civil union with the same legal implications of marriage is a fine alternative. I am personally fine with same sex marriage primarily because it is not my life, and I have no hang up on homosexuality. Boy did the California Supreme Court beg to differ! No one cares if a church chooses to marry a same sex couple or not. Trust me, no self respecting gay person is going to bang down the doors of the local fundamentalist temple of intolerance for any reason. We have plenty of good churches that not only love us but embrace us. I'm the chairman of the advertising committee of our church, and we even ran ads in the local gay newspaper that read, "Any more embracing, and it would be illegal in 37 states!" I wrote the ad, and my rector wholeheartedly approved it! Plus, we paid for and staffed a booth at Tucson gay pride. If the nuts on the right don't want gay people, trust me, our liberal churches do! I just sent off a payment to the Human Rights Coalition to defend newly won rights to marriage. Already the right vows to fight on. Think of this for a moment. The supreme court rules that the constitution gives me equal protection under the law. Marriage grants some 1200 tax benefits to married couples, so it's is NOT just a matter of some church agreeing or not that I am in fact a human being and deserving of marriage rights. I am a taxpayer, a full and productive citizen of this democracy. I DEMAND my full inclusion in that democracy. Who the hell is anyone to say otherwise? Who died and made some right wing wacko supreme being to decide whether I am human or not? The decision is but hours old, and already the right vows to "fight on." How? By launching a constitution amendment denying my basic human right? Yes, that is exactly what they intend to do. Just exactly how cruel can these dead-to-Christ fools be? What sadistic heart do they have that this is an all-consuming passion to them? We don't go to their churches demanding anything. We do demand our humanity and therefore our equality before the government we pay for. Nothing more, nothing less. By denying me this basic human right, foes of gay marriage gain nothing for themselves and only seek to cause me great pain. What possible benefit do they get? What freak show of an impostor to Christianity delights in causing a total stranger pain like this? How do these people stand before a sovereign all-loving God and claim this evil in HIS name? By forcing a constitutional amendment, the right-wing fools send a loud and clear message: you, and you alone, are not fully human, and we delight in causing you pain IN THE NAME OF JESUS. Huh? These idiots claim to be both Christian AND patriots? I beg your pardon? I'm openly gay. I have no desire to get married, partnered, whatever. But I have been privileged to observe the God-centered lives of some fifty people in my church, and in their name, vow to fight with every fiber in my being for their rights. To achieve what any straight couple gets - be it a $2 whore and drug cartel murdering thug - my friends in their twenty-plus year relationships have had to sign legal contracts over an inch thick to accomplish what a simple marriage license accomplishes. These nuts on the right make it loud and clear. My priest associates, our Bishop from New Hampshire, my vestry members, my sub-deacon, all are less holy in the eyes of God and society than common murders and child rapists - all of whom have the very same right to marry, as long as it's not to someone of the same sex. How dare you as a society deny me the same right. 1
point
Evident from your diatribe you've failed to read my post. If you want the tax breaks and what not then get a civil union. If you want that and marriage, than visit a church that tolerates it. Marriage is a religious institution that has legal consequences, not a secular one like Civil Unions. You can't have it both ways baby boy. Bravo at looking like a belligerent ass. There's more to this question than the marriage of people of the same sex. The term MARRIAGE was originally defined BY THE BIBLE to be a union between two consenting members of opposing genders that would last eternity. That being said, the government has since taken it upon themselves to redefine (or add the definition to) the term marriage stating that married couples get tax breaks. Moving on from that, as it stands anyone (read: anyone) can join a civil union in the united states as recognized by the government, the only difference is, they may not receive certain tax breaks left only to those married. So for me the main issue is with the nature of marriage. The real question for me is, "should people get tax breaks based on their marital status" to which I respond, no, the government shouldn't give any special tax breaks to those married or otherwise. A second less favorable option-since it limits those who through one circumstance or another have chosen not to, or are incapable of marriage-would be to offer tax breaks to every kind of union 2
points
Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment.... I can't speak for all languages but at least for the English language, there are certain words that have more than one meaning. Now, we can agree to give religions a monopoly on the word "marriage" but we wont be able to prevent a group of people from starting a new religion that defines the word "marriage" as the union between two people. Therefore, I would propose that we don't get all bent out of shape over the meaning of a word. As far as the government giving special breaks to certain groups of people, the government has always done and will always do so. They give special breaks to farmers for instance. This is not necessarily bad, For example, a country may want to increase their population and give special incentives for that. I guess the real question is, do we want the government giving gays special incentives? I don't believe that the state should interfere with this sort of thing. They should be legally allowed to marry if they are both consenting adults. Surely more harm is done in forcing people who don't want to marry to marry (like that cult marrying off kids) than in letting those that want to marry someone of the same sex who is willing. To Lexfor: What about if someone wanted to marry their sister (over 18), or their Mom for that matter. hell what about if someone wants to marry both their sister AND their mom... assuming they are all deeply in love. Thats pretty messed up, but according to your logic LET THEM MARRY! ... I'm not saying i even disagree with gay marriage. I'm just saying people who claim "Our love is the same as your love and us getting married is the same thing" should really stop being dumb. Or maybe I'm dumb and families should be able to marry. Just a thought. to Eldavidos: How can you bring up that cult... dude forcing people to marry isn't legal. Here let me be more clear. "Surely more harm is done murdering a whole truck full of children than in letting those that want to marry someone of the same sex get married." Sounds dumb doesn't it... The Catholic church defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Therefore a joining of a man and man or woman or woman would not be defined as marriage. Look, civil unions should be legal in all 50 states, but to demand that the government force Catholics to change their religion is kind of a dick move. Why would you want to be associated with an organization that has persecuted you for centuries anyhow? 1
point
Yes. It is they're choice to get married. It isn't anyone else's business. Just leave them all alone. They aren't bothering you are they? NO? Then leave them alone. Gay actors aren't made fun of. Why should normal people be made fun of? If you can tell me 3 reasons why they shouldn't I would love to argue the point. 1
point
Hell yes! Marriage is about love, not biological sex ! 1
point
I thought you read this debate ;) http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Supporting Evidence:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Traditional marriage traditional has gone down the drain like everything in this country. The land of the free o. Yeah what a freaking lie this country is full of lies people come too this place too make there dreams come true too live free and striping same sex partners there right too marriage is going against there right too persud of happiness. People my say is against the word of god and all this other crap but do we live life by the bible word by word no we don't. -1
points
Who think that the state should legalise their marriage? And even if it did, it depends on us if we want to accept it or not. Everyone has got their own interpretations and mine is that we should not legalise it at any cost. I think its absolute bullshit to do that..... What about the law of nature? Do we have to use science everytime we want a baby.... Do we have to reproduce only test-tube babies??? Gay marriages will ruin the foundation of society where we'll see boys with boys and girls with girls kissing!!!! Totally disgusting!! Love is not the rwason for legalising gay marriage!! Love is an illusion. If i love my best girlfriend, sister or mother.... it doesn't mean that we have to marry them!!!! Come on guys.... All gays over there..... Be practical and think of the ways and pleasures you will get when having sex with the opposite sex rather than your brothers!!!!! SHAME!!!! 1
point
One: Get an education. You can't spell, and that proves that you are too incompetent to debate such a controversial topic. Two: Same-sex love is gross TO YOU. Three: Loving your brother is INCEST, not general homosexuality. Four: Society is screwing itself over. The divorce rate is going over 50%. Yeah, marriage is doing great in the modern era. Five: Love is not an illusion. If it is, then you are saying that wanting to be with someone is just lust. If you're only lusting for someone when you marry them, not only are you tarnishing the religious institution of marriage, but you are also sinning a majority of your life. Six: Sex is sex. Homosexuality is a biological feeling. It is not entirely about sex. Pleasure comes from nerves, you ignorant pig. Just like, if you are a guy, and you are blindfolded, and you have sex with several different asses, you would never be able to tell if they are female or male. Nerves will still make a guy orgasm, no matter who it is. Ever heard of heterosexual men gangbanging homosexuals in order to humiliate them? Yeah, rethink your words, genius. |
