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 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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Gay marrige, seems strange to us but to the gays its normal. why shouldn't it be its a life dicission just like eating apound of choclate each say or having moderations of fruit and vegitables. we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin but i dissagree. People say it is a sickness and just because the bible says that its a sin and its wrong that it atomatically is. Voice your opinion and help me undersatn why they dont get the same rights as everyone else didn't we do this with other races thus racist! Its the same descrimination and its wrong. this could lead to somthing bigger like onother holocaust ( i doubt it but could be true) i just find it appoling!!
OK, Does anyone edit anymore? "marrige" "State" come on, for such a serious question, one would expect care and concern in order to discern the truth.
First: Marriage is, in all of the truest sense, a contract between two individuals. A legal document does not ensure that the agreement will be forever upheld. People fall out of love all of the time. Why does sexual orientation, in the land of the free, change the definition of a contract? Marriage is a contract; why else would the courts be bogged down by disputes of property, wealth, and future holdings?
Second: When two people want to have a contract with each other, why should everyone else care about the purpose of that contract or the sexual orientation of the contractual partners? We, in the U.S.A. look away when companies contract each other to form conglomerates. Why do we care so much about people in love that we would show our prejudices?
Third: The human spirit should be without bonds. Let individuals be individuals. An atmosphere of growth will yield much more than the atmosphere of "let's wait and see".
If people want to bind themselves to a legal document, let them. Don't make it an issue of orientation because the end result is the same effect.
but we already have straight marriage! By that means because you support Straight marriage, then you must also support:
Paedagamy
Zoophuligamy
Necragamy
Homosexual marriage
(marriages is only and ever only should be between 2 people who love each other and can support each other financially and emotional, that would rule out Paedagamy, Zoophyligamy, Necragamy; you can't prove a Horse loves-loves you)
Kinda believe? If you say marriage is nothing in particular, just a contract, guess what? it's nothing inparticular and it can be applied to any kind of relationship. If I want to marry my cat who are you to say that I can't? The logic to justify gay marriage can be applied to any relationship. And that should be painfully obvious.
If I want to marry my cat who are you to say that I can't
The inability of the cat to consent would render the supposed marriage a non-starter to begin with--as the ritual, in both its secular and religious formats require that both parties can and do consent.
Oh there it is again, that arbitrary standard of consent. Remember the demand for gay marriage is; " because we love each other" If I could demonstrate that my cat loves me it could be proven that on some level the cat consents because it doesn't run away when I show it love, therefore, we should get married.
If love and consent equals marriage all I have to do is demonstrate that my relationships posses those two qualities and I should be able to marry the object of my affection. To oppose me you would have to invoke another standard. But to that I would ask; On what grounds do you object, your personal preference? How is what you prefer relevant to what I prefer?
Oh there it is again, that arbitrary standard of consent.
It's not that arbitrary, since consent is already defined in law. And the very basic requirement of a marriage is that there are at least two consenting parties involved.
If I could demonstrate that my cat loves me it could be proven that on some level the cat consents because it doesn't run away when I show it love, therefore, we should get married.
Well, homosexuals can make that claim (though I'm absolutely positive that you're oversimplifying their case) because the issue of consent is both de facto and de jure. It's already assumed as a matter of ritual and law. Showing that you love each other is one thing, but not running away is not a form of legitimate consent, since consent is not a passive action, but an active one. It requires that there is a fulfilling of some verbal criteria, whether written or spoken, and it has to be initiated within the strictures of the ritual.
If love and consent equals marriage all I have to do is demonstrate that my relationships posses those two qualities and I should be able to marry the object of my affection.
There are a lot of "ifs" in your argument. But you're also skewing the legal definition of "consent" to make a weak point. Within the strictures of marriage, express consent is required. This means that a personhood of adequate intelligence can make a reasoned decision in response to the prompting or initiations of another and come to accord with said proposal. Your cat can't do that. Now, if you're actually willing to take the time to demonstrate that your cat is capable of such faculties, then you have a case. Until then, you're blowing hot air.
To oppose me you would have to invoke another standard.
It's arbitrary because all I have to do is change the law to suite my preference. Which by the way is something that is actively being done with the age of consent. And this is exactly what is being done with marriage. The law used to say one thing and now that definition is being broadened to suite more peoples personal preferences. Yes, I was using hyperbole to make a point. If we stretch the legal definition of marriage to cover a groups preference what's to stop another group from demanding that it be stretched to cover their preference? Were it ends then becomes an arbitrary standard. And if you don't set one, the thing gets so stretched that it hardly resembles what it first look liked.
Just for the sake of humor:
consent is not a passive action, but an active one. It requires that there is a fulfilling of some verbal criteria, whether written or spoken, and it has to be initiated within the strictures of the ritual.
Me and my cat had a ritual; it actively walked up to the alter in my apartment were I was kneeling and meowed and I respond back with "I love you too" we rubbed noses and I said till death do we part. Then she meowed in response. So I guess we are married and the state needs to recognize it. :)
It's arbitrary because all I have to do is change the law to suite my preference. Which by the way is something that is actively being done with the age of consent.
Preference and the ability to consent aren't inclusive. That, for example, the age of consent might be lowered or raised has no bearing on the legal definition of consent.
The law used to say one thing and now that definition is being broadened to suite more peoples personal preferences
The law has only broadened which consenting parties can be married, the issue of express consent would still need to be addressed if your slippery slope is to be accepted.
If we stretch the legal definition of marriage to cover a groups preference what's to stop another group from demanding that it be stretched to cover their preference?
As long as there are two expressly consenting parties, then nothing should stop us from allowing other people to get married. An animal can't consent. And despite your efforts below to show that your cat can, it's you who's saying it's consenting, not the cat itself. You can't consent on behalf of another unless that legal entity legally acquiesces to your authority to do so.
Were it ends then becomes an arbitrary standard. And if you don't set one, the thing gets so stretched that it hardly resembles what it first look liked.
You're purposefully ignoring the issue of express consent to continue your argument, and it's simply becoming disingenuous at this point.
What are you talking about? If the age of consent is raised or lowered it does to have a direct bearing on the legal definition of consent. The legal definition changes to the new age.
What are you talking about? If the age of consent is raised or lowered it does to have a direct bearing on the legal definition of consent. The legal definition changes to the new age.
You're conflating age of consent law with the definition of consent in law. With age, it's not the definition of consent that changes, it's who is permitted to give the legally defined consent that is changed.
The point is that either one is not fixed. Laws can and have been changed, just like definitions. You are making an appeal to a standard that in the final analysis is no standard.
So my real point in all this is: If there is no transcendent; then all we are left with is personal opinions and might makes right (survival of the fittest)
Remember those lines from the Deceleration of Independence; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
They got it right. Laws and rights are only properly grounded when they are grounded in the transcendent. And the Creator says that homosexuality is out of bounds. To go against Him would be cosmic treason and that is always fatal to nations and people; God plays for keeps.
jstantall has a good point. Under your definition a retard wouldn't be able to marry because you can't prove that he trully consents. And I think that retards should be allowed to marry. Otherwise that's just plain mean ;)
"If I want to marry my cat who are you to say that I can't"
Who am I? Just a sane rational and reasonable person who needs to point out that cats can't give consent and so can't enter into a contract. And that should be painfully obvious.
Homosexuality or, gender disorientation is a mental condition. Weather it be environmental, or genetic, because someone feels as if a specific kind of behavior is "natural" does not make it so. I know I am going to get some blowback from people saying it was removed from the DSM and you are right, however the facts show that this was done under extreme political pressure and not because doctors dont believe that it is in fact a condition.
You would not help a schizophrenic individual by giving them two cups of tea, one for them and one for their imaginary friend, so why then would you support two men or women getting married? This is what I dont understand. Can homosexuality be treated, maybe. Can it be studied, not objectively as Homosexuals dont want to be fixed they want to be accepted which I completely understand. However, you can accept the behavior without condoning it and this is what America is saying. Yes, you are free to do what you want, but we do not recognize it as being healthy and no, we will not legitimize it by recognizing it through one of our most wildly held social traditions. I believe society as a whole has this right and its important that we do.
On a separate note, I dont think the state should have anything to do with making laws with regards to marriage or recognizing them, however I stand by my original premise that at least attempting to correct the behavior is better than condoning it.
What constitutes a pathology? And how does a mental pathology differ from an organic pathology? The DSM in some ways is not only a diagnostic instrument; it is a research tool in which clinicians systematically identify areas of concern in patients lives related to mental functioning, and this is a relationship that cannot be easily detached in theory or reality. Some of these broad categories, then, are just that -- they are useful analytical tools, but they are not necessarily 1:1::theory:reality the same thing as a real disease. We may find one day (assuming this example for the argument) that Autism is not one disease but multiple, perhaps independent, "pathogenic" sources affecting a conglomeration of people who (1) meet the classification due to mostly environmental reasons such as metal poisoning, or (2) meet the classification generally due to a biological reason with both a genetic and environmental cofactor, and perhaps (3) some amount of people who simply represent the statistical extremes of normal human variation. The above example is dry, but the implications are important to what you are saying, because you take the DSM as a supreme way of describing expert opinion on what is pathological (except for when it is corrupted by politicians), when the DSM doubles both as a clinical tool and a research tool.
Also, if you don't trust the DSM IV-TR of current time (because of political powers interfering with the DSM revision process), and you also now believe that research material can be politically influenced (it's fair to say it can, though we must also be concerned with scope and magnitude), what research material are you going to have us trust that also coincidentally supports your argument about how homosexuality is pathological?
Do you anticipate a reversing trend in psychological and medical journals where authors are persuaded that homosexuality is a pathology?
What constitutes a pathology? And how does a mental pathology differ from an organic pathology? The DSM in some ways is not only a diagnostic instrument; it is a research tool in which clinicians systematically identify areas of concern in patients lives related to mental functioning, and this is a relationship that cannot be easily detached in theory or reality. Some of these broad categories, then, are just that -- they are useful analytical tools, but they are not necessarily 1:1::theory:reality the same thing as a real disease. We may find one day (assuming this example for the argument) that Autism is not one disease but multiple, perhaps independent, "pathogenic" sources affecting a conglomeration of people who (1) meet the classification due to mostly environmental reasons such as metal poisoning, or (2) meet the classification generally due to a biological reason with both a genetic and environmental cofactor, and perhaps (3) some amount of people who simply represent the statistical extremes of normal human variation. The above example is dry, but the implications are important to what you are saying, because you take the DSM as a supreme way of describing expert opinion on what is pathological (except for when it is corrupted by politicians), when the DSM doubles both as a clinical tool and a research tool.
Also, if you don't trust the DSM IV-TR of current time (because of political powers interfering with the DSM revision process), and you also now believe that research material can be politically influenced (it's fair to say it can, though we must also be concerned with scope and magnitude), what research material are you going to have us trust that also coincidentally supports your argument about how homosexuality is pathological?
Do you anticipate a reversing trend in psychological and medical journals where authors are persuaded that homosexuality is a pathology?
ha ha you so funny why don't you read Freud or any other psychologist before you throw us more none sens.mental condition means the mind isn't capable of using reason wish is so wrong as many homosexuals have the same capacity as straight men.political pressure O_O u insane,how could the political pressure remove it from the dsm? if it did, means everyone supports homosexuality because politicians translate the opinion of the majority...wish means we wouldn't be arguing about it now.schizophrenia doesn't mean you see 2 people that is so superficial...u talked about treated,studied,cured...what you think gay people are like your lab rats ...if you are homophobic from Ur parental education deal with,gay people are here and they will stay here all you can do is wine and say none sens in the end the will be accepted when all people start to think rationally.
Thanks for making my point. Your argument is a good example of trying to define marriage. You said "Marriage is a contract" it may be true that most marriages have some form of a contract but that is just a formality and not the marriage. A contract defines the parameters of something that exist independent of the contract; it doesn't make the thing. See this is were we get into trouble, when we try to define the nature of something. Because the nature of the object is defined by itself, not the subject. For example lets say I wanted to define you and I said; ostdrauka99 is a long haired cat of about 20lbs and you would reply; no I'm not, I'm a.... See I would do better in describing you as you actually are. So it is with marriage, we need to describe it as it actually is, not what we think it is. And historically speaking marriage has almost always been seen has the joining of male and female for procreation. Which leads us to the next question.
"When two people want to have a contract with each other, why should everyone else care about the purpose of that contract or the sexual orientation of the contractual partners?"
So yes, this type of relationship is of serious concern for government and they would be wise to do everything they can to support and encourage it. And primarily because marriages produce the next generation.
You said" The human spirit should be without bonds" this pernicious little lie has been the root of all kinds of human evil, not to mention the question of this debate. People doing what ever they want without restraint is anarchy and detrimental to society, it's why we have laws. If we are going to flourish some restraint is necessary. But let me ask you, what is more creative and productive, the undisciplined mind or the disciplined mind? Before you respond let me remind you of your education that allows you to read and write, with out which you couldn't have this debate.
Final thought. You said "Don't make it an issue of orientation because the end result is the same effect." Heterosexual couples typically reproduce and homosexual couples never do. How is that the same effect and how does this avoid being a contradiction since you say "A" is the same as "non-A"
See this is were we get into trouble, when we try to define the nature of something. Because the nature of the object is defined by itself, not the subject.
This is true, but while the nature of an object may be objective, the definition of a word is very much a matter for the subject.
For example lets say I wanted to define you and I said; ostdrauka99 is a long haired cat of about 20lbs and you would reply; no I'm not, I'm a.... See I would do better in describing you as you actually are. So it is with marriage, we need to describe it as it actually is, not what we think it is.
You're conflating defining and describing. An object is described, while a word is defined. For an object, it is possible to ascertain by inspection whether or not a given description matches the object. For a word, however, it is necessary to establish the word's definition as an axiom—there is no manner in which is can be deduced.
What you're doing here is describing a specific marriage (or collection of marriages; possibly even every marriage you've ever encountered) as "a joining of male and female for procreation" and then turning around and declaring that this must be the definition of marriage. But that is no more a valid conclusion than describing a specific animal (or collection of animals; possibly even every animal you've ever encountered) as "a large, greyish thing with a trunk" and then trying to use that as the definition of animal. In fact the most we can say is that if the description is accurate (ie, if the collection of animals are in fact large, greyish things with trunks), then the description establishes a subset of things which are animals. Similarly, given that there are marriages which can be described as "a joining of male and female for procreation", then the most we can say is that this description establishes a subset of things which are marriages. In and of itself this does not rule out the possibility of other things which are marriages.
Now, one is perfectly free to subjectively restrict their definitions to the subset under consideration, as an axiom, but there is nothing intrinsic to the subset which requires this, and nothing which forces others to agree with what amounts to an entirely arbitrary decision on your part. All that you've done in choosing that particular subset is declare that anything else isn't a marriage by your definition, which reveals the debate for what it (like so many others) really is—an argument over whether your arbitrary definition is somehow less arbitrary than anyone else's definition.
In the case of marriage it's because they normally produce kids.
Marriage normally doesn't produce children. Sex does, specifically.
Why does that matter to the state? consider the following report
The report in the PDF file only argues the importance of the institution of marriage to the general welfare of the population. It says absolutely nothing about same-sex coupling or marriage. And it would seem like a good idea to promote the act to increase the influence of marriage throughout the population.
Question: would you make illegal couples that are infertile?
That's good. If sex produces kids then homosexuals should be having kids, unless something else is going on here.
I'll bet you didn't read all 44 pages of the report because you missed the point. I see no reason the state needs to get involved in a homosexual relationship but I can see a lot of reasons for a heterosexual relationship. So back to my original stance on gay marriage; government should remain neutral.
If sex produces kids then homosexuals should be having kids, unless something else is going on here.
Homosexuals can and do have children. All the time. It's not like they've suddenly lost their genitalia just because they're gay.
I'll bet you didn't read all 44 pages of the report because you missed the point.
I read enough of it.
I see no reason the state needs to get involved in a homosexual relationship but I can see a lot of reasons for a heterosexual relationship.
That's a silly way of putting it. The state isn't involved in the relationship. It should be involved in ensuring that the rights and privileges granted to one group are not withheld from another. And that's in the constitution.
Wow, that's news to me. I didn't know two sperms can fertilize or two eggs for that matter, amazing.
About rights, gays have the same rights as the rest of. They just choose not to exercise them. Were is the discrimination in that?
About involvement: If the state issues a license, gives tax incentives, sets up family courts and all the other benefits they extend; I think I would consider that involvemnt.
About my evasion; glad you liked it :) I am one of those infertile couples :)
It's news to you that homosexuals have reproductive organs? You do know that a large portion of the current homosexual population has families, and have had children before, right?
About rights, gays have the same rights as the rest of
Except the right to marry. And civil-unions don't grant the same rights as married couples.
They just choose not to exercise them
Like what?
Were is the discrimination in that?
They are prohibited from being married, something that, by the constitution, should be granted. Please see miscegenation case law: Lovings v Virginia, which overturned Pace v Alabama.
If the state issues a license, gives tax incentives, sets up family courts and all the other benefits they extend; I think I would consider that involvemnt.
And thus, it is the business of the government to ultimately ensure that homosexuals can marry as well. If you think otherwise, you're merely arguing "separate but equal", which was found to be unconstitutional as a direct consequence of Brown v Board of Education.
It's news to you that homosexuals have reproductive organs
That's not the point, you need male and female organs to reproduce, gay couples don't have that combination and therefore can't reproduce. They have to adopt from a heterosexual couple or inseminate from someone of the opposite sex,male. Since men can't carry, this procedure is only available to lesbians. And if they obtain children by these means then they logically deny the child a critical element in healthy development, a mother or father depending on the type of relationship.
The goodness of a behavior can be judged by the fruit it produces. In the case of homosexuality it is clear that it produces a tremendous amount of problems and destroys the life of those impacted by it. It would be safe then to say that it is dysfunctional in nature because of the fruit it produces. It would then be poor public policy to endorse and support such dysfunctional and destructive behavior.
Here is Webster's definition of dysfunctional in regards Sociology: a consequence of a social practice or behavior pattern that undermines the stability of a social system.
And just because people take a vote or a judge rules that it is not dysfunctional doesn't change the reality that it is. We don't write the laws of physics, we obey them or pay the price. If we don't use something for the purpose for which it was designed there will always be negative effects. Just try using your cell phone as a hammer sometime if you don't believe me.
In regards the effects of homosexuality please consider the following article from The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005
1) Your arguments are fundamentally the same as the anti-miscegenation tripe of the past.
2) This isn't an argument about the merits of homosexuality and it's disingenuous of you to try to turn the discussion to that end. I'm not going to be sucked into your selfish and vile agenda.
3) You would deny a group of people their rights and privileges as granted by the United States Constitution because you have a problem with their behavior (as if they're doing things that the vast majority of the human population isn't already doing) and who they are. And in that regard you are no better than a common racist. Your bigotry cannot be concealed and I'll have no part of it.
So, let me stop before I get dragged down to your level.
You would deny a group of people their rights and privileges as granted by the United States Constitution because you have a problem with their behavior
And what exactly are these "rights and privileges as granted by the United States Constitution" that are being denied?
And if caring whether our not someone destroys their life is a selfish and vile agenda that makes me a common racist and bigot. Then I'm guilty as charged and will wear that badge with honor because I care enough about my fellow man to warn him when he is in peril.
This isn't an argument about the merits of homosexuality
Ideas stand or fall based on their merits, at least they should. So if you think gay marriage is a good thing, please make your case and show me the merits of it. Because as it stands now when I weigh the issue the negatives far exceed the positives.
So here is my challenge to you; If you support gay marriage convince me that it is a good thing and should be embraced by all people.
Final thought; Insult is not an argument, it's the failure to provide one.
What jstantall is saying is that gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex and that they are thus not being discriminated against. Just because they chose not to marry people of the opposite sex is of no consequence because it is their choice not to exercise their right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They are not being discriminated against. :)
In order to get married, you need a license from a government office. You can't get it from a religious organization. That makes marriage a civil matter.
The meaning of "civil" in this situation is "of or pertaining to civil law". Civil law is "the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters."
One definition of "union" is "the act of uniting or an instance of being united in marriage". As I said, marriage is a civil union.
So people who want gays to be able to form civil unions are in effect supporting gay marriage.
However same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have 1,138 rights, benefits and privileges that a married couple has under federal law.
When African Americans turned to the courts to help protect their constitutional rights, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of any kind deprived African Americans of equal protection. Gay Americans also want the same rights, benefits and protections provided to all other Americans.
Denying gay partners the full benfits otherwise granted to same sex partners is saying that gay individuals and same-sex couples are “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.
On this basis, several state courts have decided it was illegal to deny same sex couples the right to marry. So, the question is not "should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?" but should we continue to allow the government to continue to act in an illegal way toward same sex couples. Obviously, the answer is "No".
I think that gay marriage should be legal in america because one its not really hurting anybody, two its just two people that love each other, and three it doesnt need your opinion in anybodies love life.
Why shouldnt it be? The only thing different to traditional marriage is the fact that it's two people of the same sex getting married. I don't believe in all this guff about people calling it a civil union or whatever
Traditional marriage is one man banging his secretary while his wife stays home and watches soap operas. Eventually, he leaves his wife and kids and marries his secretary. Why do the gays want to destroy that?
I have been in a same sex relationship for 12 yrs and have been legally recognized in New Jersy only by a civil union which has limited benefits in comparison to heterosexual marrige. My partner and I have 2 babies that we love very much. I believe that we should have the same rights as an heterosexual couple.
Same sex couples are allowed to adopt and we are singled out by the US as gay parents and our children are also being discriminated against by NOT giving us the full benefits of marrige. I believe that our children should be recognized as being part of a family. A family is love and who in the hell has the right to say who and what anyone can love. You are taking our right to love away.
The children of same sex families need to feel equal and same sex couples need equality so that we can feel secured as an American Family shoud. We are not asking for anything more than what anyone else has. We are not asking for special privledges. We just want to be treated equally.
Our children have the right to have a sence of belonging without any predjudices. We pay taxes, we are your Doctors, teachers , police officers, servicemen, freinds, neighbors, brothers, sisters, Mothers, Fathers, Bankers, and some of us are even in the military protecting this country!!! We are everywhere and we are not going away. We are only coming out stronger and in more numbers. Hiding in the closet is not an option any longer!
We as Americans desearve equality!!!!
I have one question: If we are not able to recieve full equal benefits of marrige(ie.. survivor benefits), would it be correct to say that we should be exempt from paying taxes since this does not benefit the gay communtiy. I mean come on, why should we pay into social security if we are not able to cash in on our full benefits? Mabey we should get a tax break?? i guess our gay money is good enough to take but we, as gay americans are not worthy to have it work for us when we need it!!!
The worst thing about this is that the federal government is judging us and if I remeber correctly, GOD is the only one to judge me! Rememeber , GOD made us equal and in his vision.
But your not the same kind of a relationship, isn't that why you refer to yourself as a "same sex relationship" and not a heterosexual marriage? Aren't you the one and not the other?
Our children have the right to have a sense of belonging without any prejudices
You are the one who denied them that by your choice, not us. Are you not comfortable with choice you made? Our choices have consequences. If you made the choice I would assume you thought through the ramifications and were willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise you would have chosen differently. Why then must we accept the consequences for you? It's your choice not ours.
GOD made us equal and in his vision.
Not quite, in one sense He did and in one sense He didn't. We know that due to the fact we are all different, some people are just smarter than others. He did however create us all in His Image, But that image has been shattered and distorted by sin. The fact that homosexuality doesn't show up till after the fall ought to tell us something. And don't tell me there was no fall because I see the effects of it every day and I battle against my own inner corruption daily.
Ephesians 2
By Grace Through Faith
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
I believe that gay marriage should be legal. Marriage is a beautiful thing and i don't see why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to get married.
of course who am i to judge people. its their choice and isnt effecting anyone else. i mean lets say when a girl was young a man did something bad to her and after that she was afraid to be with another guy. so what...shes never supposed to be happy again with someone because we think its not "normal" or whatever. i mean we are so used to what is natural we forget that the normal way of living isnt the only way of living.
No majority ever has the right to decide the life of a minority, which does no harm to anyone
It was that logic, which cause the slave trade and while you still decide how others should live then they are slaves
"Why don't you try and use the art of persuasion to convince my that a lifestyle that causes early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing. And that it is some how the more loving thing to do to let someone destroy their life."
- Find one single gay person over 45 should be impossible then?
- straight people can catch those same diseases, they just have better access to healthcare without being discriminated against
- depression and suicide again cause by discrimination and the struggle to accept yourself as different in a world with so many biggots and small minded people
- The above quote was wrote by a clearly retarded person who would have owned a slave, voted against womens and black peoples rights and can't see that being gay is not a disease, it is natural and present in over 500 species
Gay marriage would not and cannot harm straight marriage
It is proven that gay marriages are more stable and that the most suitable family environment is actualy with two lesbian mothers
If anything harms marriage it is straight people like britney spears and people who pass their prejudice onto their kids
if you were gay you might want to get hitched and besides what gives anyone the right to tell anyone else what to do when it comes to something as personal as that
I believe Gay's should be able to marry I'm not gay... However I have a guy that I've been with for over 2 yrs that I would do or give anything for. I see that as an example... if someone were to tell me that this man I spend my time with everyday and plan to raise a family with in the future was illegal... I would riot honestly if any GOOD human being knows what its like to absolutely love someone, then you also know what its like to imagine them being torn away from your arms and how much it hurts.
If honestly you can't let two people love one another then what gives YOU the right to even love someone?!
I don't want to hear the "Well it says in the bible!..." No... shut up just stop right there because I've read the bible and I've read the commandments NOT one single time did it mention that two people of the same sex could not love one another! If you think its the work of the devil then SHAME SHAME SHAME... on you. Because I do know that in the bible it DOES state as a commandment even... THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE! If that's all you can do with your life is tell someone they don't have the right to love then it is you that will judged by god himself and if you don't believe in god. Then I'm sorry you have nothing to believe in but picking on others to make your life complete only makes you lower then the dirt on the ground.
In this country we claim to be the land of a free people, does it say land of the free for only all straight people? No it doesn't if we are a land of free people shouldn't people have a choice to love and marry to whom they wish to? how do we have have the right to tell people who they can marry? does being gay make you less of a American? Last time i checked no. If two males want to marry, or if two females wish to marry in this land of the ''free'' then whom are we to tell then no. and in all reality is it any of our business what two adults do with there love life?
I agree with this statement! It's true... we are adults and some of you may not want to see two men hold hands but honestly I think it gross to watch a man and a women suck face in public. I don't like watching public affection both gay and straight. So if any of you are just saying that gays have no right to be married only cause you're afraid to see them kiss... do what I do when I see a man and a women make out! Ignore it and go about business were grown adults and the only thing majority of adults have to say is "Oh My God two people kissing!" Grow up act your age and move on!
I totally agree . It's just descrimination! Everyone has his or her own right to do whatever he/she wants to do. I think people are just followers these days if you here one person say " No , being gay is wrong... blah blah" than you automatically agree with them. People just need to grow up and understand you cant get rid of life! You cant get ride of someones right ! you cant get rid of gays ! There humans just like everyone else and if they want be with someone of the same sex than so be it.. It has nothing to do with you. Right? ( Let them do them , and you do you)
Yes, gay marriage should be legal. Civil unions are not the same as marriage and despite what everyone tries to make you think, those unions don't give you the same rights and privelages. The only thing keeping them from marrying are some long dead morals from hundreds of years ago. You know, the same morals that kept women and blacks from having any power in this country as well.
Ancient Egypt: A tomb of a same sex gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep was discovered in 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. The tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia!
Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies. 6
Other countries: Same-sex, long-term relationships have been publicly acknowledged in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as Australia, Europe, India, Native America in more modern times. 7 However, they have not necessarily been called marriages."------ religioustolerance.org...P.S I myself am not "religious"
If you believe in God and use him in your argument then you believe clearly that you are inbred - and that can only strengthen your biggoted argument
We will have gay marriage, with each new generation it gets closer as the old prejudices die off a little with the old biggots who pass them to their children
We will win, its just a matter of time until you die and your kids make us legally equal
Trouble is that you can't reproduce. You're a dying breed. Good luck on changing human nature, it has remained unchanged after thousands of years. But let say you do "win" what then? Your civilization goes into negative population growth and dies out, just like every society before it. And the cycle begins again. People respond to tragedy by becoming conservative, gain peace, get comfortable, get lazy, get liberal and die off. Then repeat. That's human history in a nut shell and there is nothing new under the sun, Same old problem with new faces looking at it. If you think this question is a new one, think again. We are locked in a struggle of utter futility. Have fun in your march towards suicide, I've found the door.
The fact of population is that there are currently too many people for the Earth's resources to handle
Gay people represent higher adoption rates to clean up the mess of straight people, to lower the population of people having children they cant care for
Gay people have been around since the times of the Romans and will continue to exist in the future
As it is now countries like the UK, Portugal, Spain and even Pakistan have or are overtaking America on Gay rights
The Americans didn't act on Womens rights until others challenged them to
They didn't act on slavery until challenged
And they won't act on Gay rights now even though there are many gay women and black people challenging them
Gay people pay taxes, they are entitled to the same rights
- Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon; it's just that you're attracted more to the people of the same sex.
- Everyone has the right to be happy, so they deserve the things in which they find their happiness.
- On one hand we talk of equality, and on the other depriving homosexuals from it. Isn't it kind of ironical? I mean, so what if they're of the same sex? Aren't they entitled to love each other?
- No religious books (as far as I know) have ridiculed the whole notion of homosexuality. On the other hand, all of them have a common theme, that is, accepting people as they are, loving them as they are, and that everyone deserves to be happy.
- It has already been legalized in many countries. There are records of successful gay marriages; it isn't that only heterosexual marriages are successful.
y not!?!?!!?! marriage makes a link between two people. let it be a man and a woman. a man and a man etc etc. if two males are happy to be together then y not make them happy. y should we be a hurdle. this is a natural phenomenon and if such a thing happens we as humans shoulf support them. its none of our business!!
Yeah, Oil and toxic waste spills occur in nature to and if such a thing happens we as humans should support it.
yeah, let it be a man and a woman. a man and a man, a man and 10 women, a women and 10 men, A man and a boy, a man and the neighbors little girl. A man and 10 little girls. A man like Warren Jeffs. A man and what ever he wants, 10 men and what ever they want, 10 women and what ever they want. Heck let's all just do what we want and we'll all be happy, Yeah! Oh wait! that's anarchy and in anarchy nobody gets what they want and nobody is happy, except the guy with the biggest gun. Darn I guess we do have to give up lesser freedoms to gain greater ones. Darn, to have real liberty I need to give up certain freedoms for the greater good in order that I might live in peace.
A wise man once said: before you take down a fence you ought to find out why it was put up in the first place.
Or as Edmund Burke (1729-1797) said, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
I hope you don't think this is the first time in human history that a society has wrestled with this question. They have indeed and they put up fences for some really good reasons. You would do well to find them out
I personally dont agree with the gay marriage situation but i do believe that this is a free country and they have as much of a right to get married as any straight couple. They can love each other just as much as a straight couple. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and beliefs. We as a country should not have the right to tell someone if they can get married or not just because of the way someone lives.
Committed relationships make a society stronger and there is no reason to treat them differently just because they are between two people of teh same sex, or two people who are relatives, or more than two people.
Legalize all forms of marriage between consenting adults.
In my opinion, marriage is between a man and a woman. If we are talking about marriage in the sense of a union recognized by the church, then absolutely not. A marriage in the church is for a man and a woman ONLY. HOWEVER! I do think that if two men, or two women want to be recognized legally as a couple, then they ought to have the right to a civil union. They would be legally recognized as married, but not recognized by the church. If they wanted to have a "ceremony" of sorts, that's fine, it just won't be recognized by the church. Legal marriage: yes. Holy marriage: no.
Changing the definition of marriage effecting our legal system and society's view of marriage does have serious effects on us. If you view marriage as an important and serious institution and not something you would enter lightly without thought, then it's very important.
.
I suspect that the high rate of divorce is reflective of the light attitude people have of marriage today. It's nothing to be proud of, the goal should be to reverse this trend.
It should be legal because it is indeed a life decision. "what is straight? a line can be straight, a road can be straight, but the human heart, oh no, its as curvy as a road curving through the mountains"
“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.”
Marriage is both an expression of freedom of speech and religion. By denying homosexuals the right to marry, the United States in violation of the First Amendment. Also, for those who claim it is against the Christian faith: If God was the creator off all, then why did he create gays?
ALL PEOPLE SHOULD GET TO BE HAPPY IN EVERY WAY AND GET MARRIED TO WHO THEY WANT THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T OUR MOMMA OR DAD HELL LETS START A RIOT WHERE WE LIVE AND LETS SEE THEM TRY TO BREAK DOWN OUR HOPE AND DREAMS I SAY "FUCK THE FREE WORLD" (EMINME, 8 MILE) LETS GO WE ARE ALL People.Why is it even illegal??? (sorry if spelling is wrong i have a learning disability) look at this if we are gay the baby rate doesn't go up as much as it does when a man and women do it, and to all you homophobes grow up your not gonna get germs
It is our right! We the people of the United States! There is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage, so we can do it. Then Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, banning all gay marriages. Republican Chris Christie of New Jersey (A blue state), vetoed that would have allowed gay marriage and will let the people vote in December. On another note, it is now fine in Maryland, N.H., N.Y, and after Prop. 8 was banned, in California.
People have no control over who they fall in love with, male or female. It is wrong for gay marriage to be illegal because it's like trying o control people's feelings and feelings can't be controlled.
Sure, many Christians find it wrong, but everyone has the freedom of choice; to choose what they want, whether it's being gay or not.
i think it should be legal because you cant stop who someone loves if they love each other than let them be together. you wouldn't like it if people told you who you cant love. i think its very rude of those who wont stand up for people who want love just like you straight people. all you who don't like gays then stop opening your legs and having gay kids.thats all i have to say(;
Arent we supposed to be a free country?? love is all the same.. it doesnt matter if you like someone the same gender as you... Honestly if they are happy together why try and break them apart?? and honestly if you dont fucking like it... well dont marry someone the same gender as you... dont take away someone elses right just because you dont like it... what if the government says smoking cigarettes is illegal?? Well im pretty sure 1/2 the us would would try to make it illegal while the other half said yes yes yes... So think about it for a minuet before you take away someone elses rights....
This topic gets me so worked up. Let me try to separate my thoughts.
Gays: Hey, guess what? They are humans! And in America, that means marriage is a right for them! Why? Because we have this thing here called "freedom"!
I always ask why people are against it. I always get these four reasons. All of which I have answers to, that prove you wrong.
1) JESUS! Oh praise The Lord!
My answer: Oh so I take it you've read the Bible? (Whole other argument, I'll skip this part.) God loves all of his children, Christians. Gays including. Not impressed? Alright. Furthermore, (this may be a surprise,) NOT EVERYONE REVOLVES AROUND YOUR BOOK! So that is no reason to refuse homosexuals their right of marriage.
2) It's unnatural.
My answer: Oh, is it? I assume you haven't studied, because, yes, it is. There are gay fish, mice, deer, snakes, antelope, elk, dogs, cats, rats, birds, hippos, alligators, crocodiles, hamsters, and, if they existed, unicorns. Need I continue?
3) ...Okay... Oh! THEY CAN'T REPRODUCE!
My answer: This is one of my absolute favorites. So they shouldn't get married because of that? Alright. Let's make marriage illegal if you can't reproduce. So, yes, that includes you silly people, who are incapable of getting pregnant or are incapable of getting someone pregnant. End of story. And most people aren't gay anyway, so who cares? The world is so veer populated that China already has a law against multiple children. ALSO, some people don't even want a child or children.
4) It makes me uncomfortable though!
My answer: They aren't having sex in front of you! Get over it. It isn't your business.
[Same Love by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis. Listen to that song. It's perfect. My two favorite parts
1) America the brave still fears what we don't know.
2) When everybody is more comfortable remaining voiceless rather than fighting for humans who have had their rights stolen.]
I'm Hannah Michelle Donk on Facebook. If you want to continue an argument , message me. I love arguments. (:
Something I've noticed multiple times on this debate is that marriage is meant for a man and woman.
Do you think that it's fair that a drunk man and woman can get married within an hour at Las Vegas, but two men or women who have been together for years and have a true love for one another cant get married at all? Because I don't. Love is love, whether its a man and a woman or not.
Marriage should not be judged upon the gender of those entering its bond, but by the strength of their love for one another. If the average man and woman loved each other as much as the average practically-married couples, I guarantee divorce rates would be a fraction of what they are now. If you have a problem with anything to do with love, have a problem with marriage between two people who do not love each other.
Yes, it should. Love is between 2 people. It shouldnt matter what the gender is or what gender they want to marry. Whats so wrong about it? Put yourself in their shoes wouldnt you want gay marriage to be allowed to so you can marry the one you love?
Gay people are already allowed to marry.... granted that they are only allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, but still, they are allowed to marry. There's no need to modify the law ;)
What a silly old argument. "Gay people have equal opportunity to marry...to a member of the opposite sex."
Here is an idea. Since you like equality so much, let's make it illegal for you to marry the person you love and only legal to marry who we say you can. Ya, lets give you the same "equal opportunity to marriage" as you want to give to gay people.
You don't need a piece of paper to define your happiness. However, you do need a piece of paper -- and be straight -- to be eligible for the considerable financial benefits given to married people. Same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have 1,138 rights, benefits and privileges that a married couple has under federal law.
When African Americans turned to the courts to help protect their constitutional rights, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of any kind deprived African Americans of equal protection. Gay Americans also want the same rights, benefits and protections provided to all other Americans.
Denying gay partners the full benefits otherwise granted to same sex partners is saying that gay individuals and same-sex couples are “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.
On this basis, several state courts have decided it was illegal to deny same sex couples the right to marry. So, the question is not "should Gay marriage be legal in the United State of America?" but should we continue to allow the government to continue to act in a discriminatory way toward same sex couples. Obviously, the answer is "No".
Hmmm...., so when the government gives away farm subsidies then they are actually discriminating against me and violating my civil rights because they don't subsidize me.
Maybe I should get people organized and try to get me some of that action. What is it that I need.... a piece of paper? How do I go about it? Oh yeah, make the connection to civil rights (even though it really isn't the same thing at all. All I will be going after is benefits, not equal protection under the law, but what the heck).
Let's see, what else? Oh yeah, claim that denying me farm subsidies makes me a "second-class citizen" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, farmers. This is good stuff ;)
So, the question is not "should farm subsidies be legal in the United State of America?" but should we continue to allow the government to continue to act in a discriminatory way towards non farmers. Obviously, the answer is "No".
This is easy! Why didn't I think of this before? ;)
But you know, it might be easier to just go after the benefits and maybe try to force the government to stop using the word marriage. That way you'll only have the government to deal with, not the government AND the religious right.
The gay community is fighting two fronts. Make peace with the religious right, let them have "their" "marriage" word and go after the government. Not because letting the religious right have "their" "marriage" word is the right thing to do but because it will expedite the gay community's access to "marriage" benefits.
"so when the government gives away farm subsidies then they are actually discriminating against me and violating my civil rights because they don't subsidize me."
The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the right to marry the person of any race is fundamental. They have not so ruled about your right to a farm subsidy. But you are free to go ask them if you like.
International law has determined that the right to marry is fundamental. They have not so ruled about your right to a farm subsidy. But you are free to go ask them if you like.
The" "marriage" word is on the licenses issued by civil authorities. I see no need to remove the word from them. However, there is a need to extend equal protection under the law to same-sex couples who choice to get married.
You seem very knowledgeable about this so tell me.... How is the gay marriage thing similar to the black community's fight for civil rights back in the 60's? I mean, I haven't seen any footage of gays being hosed down with fire hoses or beaten with batons or any such thing. I have, however, seen gay pride parades but none of those people are thrown in jail (although there are some who should be charged with indecent exposure, but that's a debate for another day ;).
"How is the gay marriage thing similar to the black community's fight for civil rights back in the 60's?"
Not too long ago, it was illegal for people of different races to marry. That changed with a Supreme Court case that ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
One of the plaintiffs, Mildred Loving, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, has said, "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry." [1]
Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, has said, "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."
"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." [2]
Well..., that's too long to read. Especially since I have to go to work. But I'll say this.... I'd rather marry a black woman than a white man, any day of the week ;)
So what's stopping her? I mean, she can live with a black woman. Call her her wife or husband or whatever. And no one is going to care. She should be able to get "domestic partner" insurance and hospital are understanding enough to accept partners as family members. So what's the big deal?
Really, you don't know? Why are we having this debate? What is stopping her is that in most states she will not be issued a marriage license.
"I mean, she can live with a black woman"
As could that white man who instead married that black woman and both where threatened with jail time. The impudence! Imagine -- a white man and a black woman getting married! Next thing you know, people will be asking for same-sex marriage!
"So what's the big deal?"
Well, just to mention one, being denied over 1,300 federal benefits.
She doesn't need a marriage license to live as a married couple. And since we are more tolerant than in the past, no one will threaten her with jail time.
As far as the 1300 federal benefits, I already addressed that issue in one of my earlier argument to you. Stop fighting the religious right and focus on getting the government to stop using the word marriage and apply the words civil union to all unions, hetero and homo. Done.
Technically "Gay Marriage" doesn't exist. The people defined marriage as between a man and a woman. [prop 8]
I don't see why they can't make their own civil unions.
My stance has nothing to do with religion because I believe in separation of church and state. I'm just saying that marriage is our thing and they should get there own thing.
"we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin"
Who is "we"? Of course there are crazy people in the streets with stupid signs. Don't let then tarnish your view of straight Christian America.
Actually gay marriage exists in a number of states [see my picture for exactly how many]. Prop 8 was only in California.
As far as civil unions, I think it's a good first step (many states don't recognize any union between homosexuals) but separate but equal, is inherently unequal, and marriage is a fundamental right (this isn't my opinion, but was decided unanimously by the supreme court).
I am very glad though that you decided to keep religion out of the equation.
Separate but equal is a legal doctrine in United States Constitutional law that justified systems of segregation.
So saying "separate but equal, is inherently unequal" is saying segregation is wrong. The phrase comes from the Supreme Cout decision Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). To quote:
"We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal" has no place". Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
Well, segregation is kind of a bad word. It's not the same as that situation with race and education in the 60's.
Marriage is in most places, defined as a man and a woman. So the best thing to do is create civil unions. It's really simple actually.
Why does a different name make something un-equal? Whats wrong with civil unions? It's not like those black kids in the 60's who had to go to poor crappy schools. I repeat; it's not the same.
Marriage is in most places, defined as a man and a woman. So the best thing to do is create civil unions. It's really simple actually.
An implication of Brown vs the Board of Education, and subsequent integration laws, permitted precedent for Lovings vs Virginia as an addendum to Brown, amending the definition of marriage, institutionally, to include interracial coupling, as a matter of civil rights. Your point, as simple as it is, holds no weight. Lovings vs Virginia effectively trumps you.
Why does a different name make something un-equal?
You can't argue that people or institutions are equal and then legally, and definitionally prohibit one group from participating in the rits of another group. That's not equal. If people are on equal ground, then segregating their practices and institutions contradicts that equity. If they are equal, then there's no reason at all to segregate.
What a silly old argument. "Gay people have equal opportunity to marry...to a member of the opposite sex."
Here is an idea. Since you like equality so much, let's make it illegal for you to marry the person you love and only legal to marry who we say you can. Ya, lets give you the same "equal opportunity to marriage" as you want to give to gay people.
You're correct, gays can go out and get married. They have the same rights under the law as anyone else. They just choose not to and that's not discrimination.
In order to get married, you need a license from a government office. You can't get it from a religious organization. That makes marriage a civil matter.
The meaning of "civil" in this situation is "of or pertaining to civil law". Civil law is "the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters."
One definition of "union" is "the act of uniting or an instance of being united in marriage". As I said, marriage is a civil union.
your qoute does not make since to me "we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin" because it sound to me as if your saying being straight is the sin and did you actually see a sign that said this? i am thinking that you took a qoute and made it different and if thats the case that just makes you crazy for trying to impress upon us a qoute that implies your veiws that does not exist. its like laughing at your own jokes
Gay people should get their own thing? I agree. In support, can anyone provide a very good reason as to why black people should have gotten their own kind of marriage? That is also what you liberals would call an "arbitrary" or "capricious" distinction.
Quite simply people of different races do not get together and they should "get their own thing". There's nothing wrong with the name Mixed Union when they are given the same legal entitlements as marriage (pure-race unions, or clean-marriages, of better defined as those marriages which are in keeping with our honourable forefathers of America).
Marriage is a precious institution of our society and only recently in the history of the US has the mixing of races within this great institution been permitted (research yourself how liberal and "new" this Mixed Union concept is). The other Great nations of the past also did not permit such mixings; even S. American nations (which do not count as one of those capital-G "Great" nations) until recently made explicit laws making sure that those Mixers would GET THEIR OWN THING instead of muddying up the definition of marriage. As other people later put it, and quite logically put it, 1+1 IS NOT 3, IT'S 2. THE ANSWER IS 2. Though, of course, one would argue the real answer is to this problem is 42... anyone with me?
1 Latino + 1 Pure Aryan = DOES NOT MAKETH A MARRIAGE; it makes it a Mixed Union entitled to all the same legal protections as marriage. We do make this extremely precious and important distinction because nowadays our dictionaries are getting muddied with upstart liberal ideas (my god, they want to redefine sexuality and say that men have sex with men... and the women, the pure women as well! it's just inconceivable). For the sacred, time-honored tradition of protecting our dictionaries, we make that important legal distinction.
Yes, that's exactly why we are so passionate about arguing for the non-arbitrary distinction between real marriage and Mixed Unions. We are concerned that 1+1 is not 3, and we are also concerned about the muddying of our dictionaries. And since Mixed Unions have the same legal entitlements as real marriages, my lawyer told me that it does not constitute discrimination and that those liberals are likely to fail at a challenge in the courts. Suckers! Shoulda hired better lawyers, you Mixers!
Oh wait, we're talking about those gay people. Yeah, suckers, you Civil Unioners. I won't call you by your real name, but you know what name I'm thinking for you when I think of you... you non-marriage Unioners!
Separate but equal is just as equal as surely as 2 = 2 or x = x.
btw, with more convincing logic, if a = b and b = x, then a = x. See? Different, yet equal. wow. just wow.
The original definition of marriage does have something to do with race in US legal history, in Mexican history, and in European history. So? Given the long-standing history of race mattering, shouldn't it be in the definition of race? Many cultures understand marriage from a racial viewpoint and this can be anthropologically and historically demonstrated.
"straight christian america" ? are you freaking kidding me? marriage isnt something only some people deserve its a right and everybody deserves equal rights! they dont choose to be gay, like you dont choose to be straight, or you dont choose your gender, or race, but why does it matter how you were born just because of your gender or skin color or sexuality doesnt mean you should be treated any differently, the decleration of independence says "every man is created equal" which means that everyone is equal
How do you make legal a fiction? There is no such thing as a gay marriage. If your gay and you make pledges to each other, that's not marriage. Marriage is something in particular. When we say "that's marriage" we are being descriptive, we are describing something we observe. What we are not doing is defining it. It's definition is inherent in the type of relationship it is. Mine or anybody elses definition doesn't change the reality of the thing observed.
As a mathematical formula it would look like this: 1+1 is 2 we would be wrong to say that 1+2 is also 2 Our saying that the two equations are the same doesn't make them the same. So let's change the symbols in our equation and see if it makes sense; male+female=marriage and male+male=marriage. The values in the equation aren't interchangeable. So you see that we can't say that different combinations equal the same thing. It's the differences that, well, make them different.
A gay relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual relationship. That ought to be obvious to anyone, that's why we give them different names.
Now if your gay and you want to commit yourself to the other person, fine, by all means do it. But don't try say that relationship is the same as another type of relationship when it's clearly not. And yes I know that you love the other person and so does the heterosexual couple. So I would agree that is a shared trait. But it is the object of that love that makes all the difference. One loves someone of the same sex, the other doesn't. That's a difference.
Now to the legality question. People form all kinds of relationship that the government never gets involved with. What interest does the state have in a homosexual relationship? Why should they get involved? As far as I can see the state has no compelling interest in these types of relationships.
So in my estimation, to answer the question of the debate, The government should remain neutral on this issue because it has no reason to do otherwise.
I've include a link to an article that elaborates much more on this issue than I have in my brief treatment of it.
Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Currently it refers to a special kind of relationship between a man and a woman. We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love. By failing to do so, we are collectively deriding gay love as unworthy, and this is a disgusting thing to do.
Words are very powerful Jessald. Try walking into a crowded room and yelling fire, or walk through Watts, Los Angeles and yell out the "n" word.
Homosexuality is an act of gay sex, not gay love. Two men or women can love each other and not engage in gay sex. I have many male friends I have known for a long time that I love very deeply however I am not sexually attracted to them.
Men sexually attracted to other men and vice versa is a type of sexual disorientation. It happens all throughout the world in many different species however humans have the ability to correct behavior as apposed to the animal kingdom which is in some ways what makes us stand out. It can be the result of childhood or adult trauma, genetic hormonal imbalance's, environmental variables, the list is endless.
Forget throwing fuel on the fire, lets start researching the causes of homosexual behavior and find ways to treat the condition instead of pretending like its a matter of choice because to be honest, I dont know any Gay men who would choose to be gay in todays social climate.
Being Gay is NOT a disease buddy. You should do yuour research before you decide to voice a remark as that!! Being stright is who you are. I never had any attraction to the opposite sex, not even as a small child. I did not wake up one day and say, "oh , I want to be gay today". Our lives are very hard because of the ignorance of some people in society. mabey discrimination is a disease or mabey you yourself has issues with your own sexuality and hoping for some magical "gay cure" that will help you with your own sexual insecurites.
remember , GOD made us in his vision. You or no one else has the right to judge or to delegate to me who I decide to have in my bed.
Cagted: "Homosexuality is an act of gay sex, not gay love. "
So, heterosexuality is an act of sex, not love, right?
Because sexual attraction is just an act. There are no emotions involved in attraction. Its just like robot sex. Everyone knows robots can't love! Don't get me started about same-sex robots.
"Men sexually attracted to other men and vice versa is a type of sexual disorientation."
Hmmm. "vice versa?" So what you are saying then is " "Men sexually attracted to other men and men sexually attracted to other men is a type of sexual disorientation." Yes, this is disorienting, when you say it that way.
But you are close to the truth, which is that men sexually attracted to other men is a type of sexual orientation.
And speaking of being disoriented, you argue that same sex attraction is not a choice, but "correcting that behavior" is a choice. You want to "treat the condition".
All such "treatments" to date have been found by reputable scientists as less than worthless -- they are actually harmful. So, until there is a "cure" that is not harmful, and until gay folk decide they want to think of themselves as defective and in need of being fixed, then we ought to just get out of the way and join all the other countries in the world that permit same-sex marriage.
gay marriages should be allowed and there should be not hinderence to it dear. y do you wanna become an obstacle in their way. some men have it internally and if they do then let them. y are we to be bothered??
What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola. Changing the meaning of the word is NOT going to fix the problem.
Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Expanding it so that the definition shows acceptance of homosexual love will NOT magically make them be accepted by society as a whole. By failing to expand the definition, we are NOT collectively deriding gay love as unworthy. What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola.
Society as a whole should accept gays. That would be best.
But if it refuses to, we should still legally allow gay marriage. Because law should be based on reason, not popular prejudices. There's just no logical reason to disallow it.
"By failing to expand the definition, we are NOT collectively deriding gay love as unworthy."
Haha, I like how you added the word "not" in there. I haven't heard such a devastating rebuttal since first grade.
If we give gay love a lower status than straight love, we are saying it is less worthy. How is that not obvious?
You should stick to make witty comments Joe, you're no good at this big people stuff. ;)
I have never bought the argument that by giving gay marriage a different name that you automatically lower the status of gay marriage.
I have never bought the argument that just by having a different word for gay marriage, that you are saying that gay love is less worthy.
That type of stupid reasoning is what has allowed political correctness run amock. If you call a retarded person mentally challenged, it doesn't automatically change the way I perceive the person. By calling the person retarded, it doesn't automatically make me see him as less of a human being.
A rose, by any other name, is still a rose.
If it is not obvious to you that changing the definition of a word cannot change the perception of a bigot, then you are an idiot.
Well the word marriage is used in two senses. There's the sense that people use it in normal conversation, and then there's the legal sense. We obviously can't force people to stop being bigoted assholes, but we obviously can change the legal meaning of the word. And we should do that. Because there's no good reason not to.
There is a perfectly good reason. If you change the definition of the word marriage to be "a civil union between two consenting adults" then there won't be a word specify a heterosexual marriage.
If some one said to you "I know this married couple, Amari and Jaidyn, who...."
and we were to use the current definition, then you would know that one of those people is male and the other female (although you may not be able to decide which is which). If we used your definition then we would have no idea if they were one of each, two males or two females.
The purpose of language is to clarify, not obfuscate. Otherwise, lets do away with half the words in the English language. We can combine the words that kind of have nearly the same meaning into one word. if that sounds like a crazy idea to you, then you are begining to understand that my stance against using the word marriage for gay unions has nothing to do with being a bigot.
Yeah... that's not a good reason. That's a pretty stupid reason actually. Let's come up with a word for red ants, because otherwise people won't know whether we're talking about red ones or brown ones!
Come on Joe, who do you think you're kidding? You oppose gay marriage not because you're a bigot, but because the people you are politically aligned with are bigots. You're coming up with all these nonsense apologies for their blatant attempts to bring religion into government because in return they will support you and your social darwinist views.
That's right, ants are another example. We have red ants and black ants. The red ants are called Solenopsis and the black ants are called Lasius niger. These words are common among scientists that study ants. Your average person doesn't deal much with ants so they don't need to describe them any further than red and black. However, your average person does deal with couples in a relationship and therefore more descriptive words are needed.
Now, the fact that you think that is not a good reason means nothing. Who the hell died and left you as the person responsible for determining what is and isn't a good reason?
"Lasius niger"... hmm... that sounds like two words... kind of like "gay marriage".
On the rare occasions that we need to differentiate between different kinds of marriage we say "gay marriage" and "straight marriage". OMG, an extra syllable!
We shouldn't take away people's freedom to marry someone they love over an extra syllable. It's fucking common sense.
That's right, ants are another example. We have red ants and black ants. The red ants are called Solenopsis and the black ants are called Lasius niger. These words are common among scientists that study ants. Your average person doesn't deal much with ants so they don't need to describe them any further than red and black. However, your average person does deal with couples in a relationship and therefore more descriptive words are needed.
Now, the fact that you think that is not a good reason means nothing. Who the hell died and left you as the person responsible for determining what is and isn't a good reason?
blatant attempts to bring religion into government
Hey got one;
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.
Looks like it's the other way around doesn't it? In America we ground laws and rights in the transcendent. If you don't like that, go get your own country or try China.
We say homosexuality is wrong because the Creator who gives us our rights says it's wrong. Not because of some silly conspiracy theory.
Fuck you, asshole. This is my country. I was born here and I'm not going anywhere.
How do you make the leap from "some being beyond human comprehension created the universe" to "thou shalt not buttfuck"? You can't. Your religion is a huge load of bullshit, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that.
What does it mean to have gay marriages legalized? Can anyone tell me?
1 - Does it give gay married couples certain legal rights afterwards they wouldn't otherwise have?
2 - Or is it about acceptance by society?
If it's 1, then it's easily solved by giving united gay couples the same rights after their union. Taxation without representation is a no no.
If it's 2, here's what I think:
If you love each other, what the hell does it matter what anyone else thinks? But if you really insist, let's have a look at the meaning of marriage to most people. And to do that, let's picture ourselves going to a wedding:
a) We see 2 people who we assume love each other very much and want to be with each other for the rest of their lives (it doesn't matter if it doesn't always turn out that way).
b) We also think that they will want to go on to have children with each other and watch them grow and then to watch their children go on to marry and bear them grandchildren and so on and so forth (it doesn't matter if it turns out they can't bear children).
This is what we picture when we think of a marriage, it doesn't matter if we're in a cannibalistic tribe deep in the Amazon jungle or citizens of India. Of course we'll also form opinions about whether or not they look like a nice couple (amongst other irrelevant things) etc... but in our minds, a and b above are the main elements to a marriage. So if I see a wedding between those below, I'll not think of it the same way:
- 2 people of retired age, or
- 1 of retired age and the other half that, or
- 2 children, or
- 2 people of the same gender,
- a human and something else not,
Sure I'll be happy for them and I will sincerely wish them the best in love and life together, but I'm certainly not thinking of their union the same way I think of a straight couple's union as outlined above. It is what it is, it doesn't matter what you call it.
About changing the meanings of words to be more inclusive? No way, if anything we should be even more precise when it comes to words. Dictionaries don't define words, people write dictionaries that define words (Mahollinger). So I propose to exclude even more when it comes to definition of words and in law, but tax money should be distributed without prejudice by the government so any legal rights afforded a straight couple after marriage should never be withheld from a gay couple after their union.
Both. It's very hard to obtain legal rights without acceptance by society.
"easily solved by giving united gay couples the same rights after their union"
Haha, if it were really that easy, same-sex civil unions would be legal in all fifty states.
"a and b above are the main elements to a marriage."
The "upholding the sanctity of our dictionaries" argument is retarded beyond belief. I can't believe so many of you are picking it up. We're talking about marriage in the legal sense. The common meaning of the term is completely irrelevant in this debate.
This debate is really about one question: Is homosexuality ok, or is it not? And if you leave religion out of the picture, as you should, the answer is inescapable: Yes, it's ok.
Both. It's very hard to obtain legal rights without acceptance by society.
Well, you know my stance. Marriage is about both aandb. Legal rights must be equal for gay couples if their unions are no different to straight couples unions.
The "upholding the sanctity of our dictionaries" argument is retarded beyond belief. I can't believe so many of you are picking it up. We're talking about marriage in the legal sense. The common meaning of the term is completely irrelevant in this debate
What dictionary? You're so paranoid you think everyone around you is homophobic or something? I promise you I didn't look at a dictionary when I wrote this. Scout's honor! The legal sense of marriage comes from the common sense of marriage. You don't just make laws out of thin air, you base it on society's common rituals and traditions and ways of carrying out business and conducts.
The problem is that basing the meaning of a word on its historical usage patterns leaves no room for evolution. When the legal definition of marriage was first established, it was, as you say, based on the views of society at the time.
But the views of society can change, and word meanings change along with them. And our laws should evolve to reflect these new meanings.
There was a time when black people didn't legally count as persons. Not too long ago you could've made the argument that the word "man" shouldn't include black men because generally when the word "man" was used, people thought of white men.
I still don't see what's so horrible about tweaking a legal definition.
I agree with you that words evolve with time as societies evolve.
So I guess the reason why the idea of marriage hasn't included gay unions is because societies haven't yet evolved to accept it.
Like I said before, I personally think of marriage as 2 people coming together with the intention of loving and being with each other for ever and to have children with each other etc.... Now, if some time in the future this picture comes up in my mind when I attend a gay wedding, then I don't even need a dictionary to tell me that a marriage is not just for straight people, the same way I didn't need a dictionary to tell me what a marriage is now.
Geriatrics marry young perky girls all the times, but don't ask me to accept that as a marriage. People do what they want and they're free to do it and I will not stop them, just don't ask me to accept that their idea of it is the same as my idea of it. The word "it" can apply to many things, for example my idea of fun is going to a nightclub, others think it's fun to put a cat into a bag and hit the bag with a baseball bat...
Well, let's go with that example. You don't consider an old man marrying a young woman to be a real marriage, yet legally it is still considered as such. Society hasn't collapsed despite the fact that the legal definition of marriage doesn't square with your personal definition. Thus you have proven that having a legal definition be slightly different from society's definition is no big deal.
Yes, it's no big deal as in the world won't end or society won't collapse like you said, but that's the same as a waiter bringing me an orange juice (OJ) when I asked him for a lemonade and explain to me that it's the same and it's no big deal. I mean it's a drink and it'll quench my thirst, hell it even has a similar citrusy quality, but it's not lemondade so it shouldn't be called lemondade.
.
A marriage is a bit more important than a drink and when it comes to marriage, I do actually want my children to grow up with the same idea of marriage as mine. This is because my goal is to watch them eventually find a suitable partner, love each other forever and bear me grandchildren, etc.. I suspect that lots of other people feel the same way, and even though things do not always turn out as perfectly as we would like, the goal should not shift. Changing the definition of the word marriage is the first step away from that goal. Sure the children will find their own ways and decide what marriage is by themselves and everything like that, and I may not have much input into the process, but if they should ever need guidence in their lives (and I'm sure that we all do sometime in our lives) they can come to me, and I'd guide them accordingly and I'd have a legal backup. In terms of the word marriage, I re-assert my view that its definition should even be more narrow than it is currently. Old men and young women should not be included.
.
Now, people can drink OJ and call it lemonade if they want (in Vietnam they call a cheese sandwich: "hotdog"), I fully respect that, but I don't think that the definition of lemondade should change. I respect people's choices :) and they can do what they like amongst themselves.
The difference between getting the wrong drink and allowing gays to marry is that getting the wrong drink has a direct negative impact on your life. Allowing gays to marry doesn't affect you in any negative way.
Even if you think gay marriage does harm you in some way, weigh that harm against the harm of infringing upon the liberty of a large number of honest Americans. It seems clear to me that the latter is worse.
"my goal is to watch them eventually find a suitable partner, love each other forever and bear me grandchildren"
They can still do that. Allowing gays to marry doesn't impede straight marriage in any way.
The difference between getting the wrong drink and allowing gays to marry is that getting the wrong drink has a direct negative impact on your life
The "drinks" analogy was used to explain why we shouldn't go around changing the definition of words. This does not mean you can't get an OJ whenever you want. You're free to get OJs. No restrictions on getting OJs. Drink OJs until you get OJ poisoning if you like :) But don't get an OJ and call it a lemonade and then expect others to accept that. Of course you're free to call an OJ a lemonade amongst yourselves. That's how you should relate the "drinks" analogy to gay marriage.
.
Gay marriage doesn't harm me in any way and I've never even come close to saying that anywhere, so please don't think that.
.
Allowing gays to marry doesn't impede straight marriage in any way
It wouldn't impede directly, however like I explained, it will alter the idea of marriage. We were talking about the idea of marriage and I simply don't want my children to be confused about that idea and what it means. That's why with the rate things are going now (all kinds of unions are included in the idea of marriage), I'd even like to restrict the definition, not expand it.
Ok then, the difference is there's no good reason for expanding the definition of orange juice to include lemonade, but there are several good reasons for expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage -- reasons like fairness, liberty, and equality.
I don't see how expanding the definition of marriage is confusing at all. You can just tell your kids, "Legally it's a contract between two people, but if you ask me, it's a union between a man and a woman done for the purpose of raising children." Do you seriously think they would have trouble grasping that?
there are several good reasons for expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage -- reasons like fairness, liberty, and equality
Gay people are currently free to do anything they want, so in terms of fairness, liberty and equality, gay people are not disadvantaged at all.
.
You can just tell your kids, "Legally it's a contract between two people, but if you ask me, it's a union between a man and a woman done for the purpose of raising children."
I'd rather not have to stray from the legal definition. Kids are always accusing parents of saying something and then do something else. This will add to that problem.
.
I'm not advocating that we stop gay unions. How can we? It's love right? You can't stop love! Perhaps we should move on to discuss the specific rights of a married couple vs those of united gay couples, see where there might be discrepancies and why they exist, and adjust it if there's no good reasons for them.
"Gay people are currently free to do anything they want, so in terms of fairness, liberty and equality, gay people are not disadvantaged at all."
This is so obvious I can't believe I actually have to state it explicitly: A gay person would want to marry someone of their own sex, whereas a straight person would want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, in terms of ability to marry who they want, gays do not have the same rights as straight people.
Yes, civil unions would be better than nothing. But history has shown the idea of "separate but equal" is infeasible.
Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means.
That's like saying buildings make bricks. It's the other way around. Just like bricks proceed buildings, marriages proceed societies. To put it another way, marriages are what societies are made of just like bricks are what buildings are made of. So it is illogical to say that the thing made defines the thing that made it.
We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love.
Oh I see, you want to use the force of law to make me accept something I find unacceptable. So much for toleration.
Why don't you try and use the art of persuasion to convince my that a lifestyle that causes early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing. And that it is some how the more loving thing to do to let someone destroy their life.
I'm sorry that's not loving, it's hateful to let someone destroy their life. Even more so to endorse it and encourage them. It's like encouraging a man on the ledge of a building to jump.
You lack moral clarity if you can look at something so destructive and call it good. Do you know what they call someone out of touch with reality? Schizophrenic
Take the time to get educated about what you are endorsing. Below is a link that Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. wrote in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005
And just for the record. Homosexuality is not a person, it is a behavior. My comments against homosexuality are directed at the behavior, not the people practicing it. I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and what to see them set free.
And for those in the gay lifestyle. You are not a homosexual, you are a human being.
No, it's nothing like that. Actually, I see Avedomni over there has put it better than I can -- you're conflating description with definition.
Oh I see, you want to use the force of law to make me accept something I find unacceptable.
Accept it? No, I don't think you will ever accept it. Your mind is closed. But I do want to force you to tolerate it. We forced racial integration onto people who didn't want it, and that was a good thing. We should force gay marriage onto people for similar reasons.
early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing
I wouldn't say it's a good thing. It just is. Are you honestly suggesting a large number of people should repress their sexuality for their entire lives?
Problems such as depression and suicide are caused by a lack of tolerance, and we should work to change society's attitude. That's a separate issue though.
Also, American Physicians and Surgeons is a political organization. I'm sure you know that as well as I do. If you want to have an honest debate, cite neutral third parties.
I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and what to see them set free.
No, it's nothing like that. Actually, I see Avedomni over there has put it better than I can -- you're conflating description with definition.
How is it not like it? How am I conflating description with definition when I am talking about the order of something?
Accept it? No, I don't think you will ever accept it. Your mind is closed. But I do want to force you to tolerate it. We forced racial integration onto people who didn't want it, and that was a good thing. We should force gay marriage onto people for similar reasons.
I do want to force you to tolerate it? Wow! maybe I'm wrong but that doesn't sound like toleration or freedom. It sounds more like tyranny.
You assume that racial integration and gay marriage are morally equivalent. Please tell me how judging the color of ones skin is equivalent to judging the behavior of someone. Maybe you should be more open minded to the fact that they might not be morally equivalent.
I wouldn't say it's a good thing. It just is.
You wouldn't say it's a good thing? You just said that racial integration was a good thing and gay marriage is it's moral equivalent. So how is that not saying this is a good thing if this a part of gay marriage?
Are you honestly suggesting a large number of people should repress their sexuality for their entire lives?
Yes, just like thieves and murderers should repress their desires for their entire lives. Some behaviors are detrimental to civilization and should be restrained for the greater good. Just ask the Roman Empire what happens when you let homosexuality be freely expressed.
Problems such as depression and suicide are caused by a lack of tolerance, and we should work to change society's attitude.
Sorry, Loss of hope leads to depression and depression leads to suicide. Telling people the are born gay and can't change kills hope for someones who's conscience is troubled.
See when you tell someone they are born gay and can't change; you shut the door on them and say there is no way out; you seal their fate and condemn them to death.
I however throw the door open and say; your behavior doesn't define you, you can change and there are thousands who have. That's hope and that saves lives.
Also, American Physicians and Surgeons is a political organization. I'm sure you know that as well as I do. If you want to have an honest debate, cite neutral third parties.
Oh there it is, the myth of neutrality and genetic fallacy all rolled in one. Nice job jesseald! Facts are annoying things aren't they? But waving the magic wand of neutrality doesn't make them go away. And neither does disparaging the source of those facts.
Can't be done. Homosexuality is not a choice.
Let me see if I understand you.
Homosexuality is a behavior, we don't choose our behaviors therefore you can't be free from bad behaviors.
So what do ya do with all those people who change their behavior? And why are you trying to persuade me to change my behavior towards homosexuality.
Wow! So you are a fatalist. DNA is destiny right? Oh wait, were is that gene? what they can't find it! darn.
By making this argument you deny the moral component in play and therefore deny the existence of a moral agent (a soul). Your argument therefore assumes naturalism. Oh but wait, your argument is full of moral judgments and thoughts. Darn! those abstract realities always mess things up.
To put it another way, marriages are what societies are made of just like bricks are what buildings are made of.
You could still have society without marriage. And even if that weren't true, expanding the legal definition of marriage to allow for gays would not be a radical change. More akin to changing the texture of the bricks.
doesn't sound like toleration or freedom. It sounds more like tyranny.
Was enforcing racial integration tyranny? No. There are times when tolerance is justified and times when it is not.
You assume that racial integration and gay marriage are morally equivalent.
No, I don't. But I think there are important similarities. Both skin color and sexual orientation are things that are part of ones identity. They cannot be changed. Neither makes a person inferior. Discrimination on the basis of either is logically unsound.
Please tell me how judging the color of ones skin is equivalent to judging the behavior of someone.
Again they are not the same, just similar. But saying homosexuality is a behavior is being intentionally misleading. It's like saying shouting is "just a behavior" and therefore people should repress their anger at all times. It's completely impractical and utterly disconnected from reality.
You wouldn't say it's a good thing?
I was referring to homosexuality, not gay marriage. Being gay is neither good nor bad, it's neutral. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is good, because it shows acceptance of behavior for which we should be showing acceptance.
Yes, just like thieves and murderers should repress their desires for their entire lives.
Oh, wow, that's a pretty hardcore view. How is homosexuality anywhere near as bad as theft or murder? All I see is two people having sex. No harm done.
Some behaviors are detrimental to civilization and should be restrained for the greater good.
Agreed. But gay sex is not one of them.
Just ask the Roman Empire what happens when you let homosexuality be freely expressed.
Hahaha. You're a funny guy.
Telling people the are born gay and can't change kills hope for someones who's conscience is troubled.
Well, they are born gay and they can't change, so that's just telling them the truth. Why should their conscience be troubled? That would only make sense if they bought into all that Christian nonsense.
...waving the magic wand of neutrality...
You wouldn't take seriously a pamphlet from Neo-Nazis about how Jews are inferior people would you? Do you not understand the importance of neutrality?
Homosexuality is a behavior, we don't choose our behaviors therefore you can't be free from bad behaviors.
Homosexuality is not a behavior, it's a sexual orientation. Gay sex is the behavior. We can and should repress bad behaviors, but gay sex is not a behavior bad enough to warrant repression.
you...deny the moral component in play and therefore deny the existence of a moral agent (a soul)
Morality does not come from anything supernatural. True morals are founded on logic, not on faith.
Yeah then nothing will ever change! All the hell and flaws of todays world will carry on to tommorow and nothing will get done out of the fear of change. Yes, let's commit to another genocide to solidify the isolation of our frightful ignorance.
With all due respect, for I know you must be kidding.
Yeah, were all the same. That's why we have different names to show the similarities, like male and female, child and adult, old and young. Wow you are so right; there are no differences.
What do you call someone who is out of touch with reality?
The simple fact that heterosexuality is different than homosexuality does not sway me far. The only determinant to mairrage is love. Two people who are not in love do not marry, as would be expected. Two who are, then may. Reason will always surpass wordplay (if only politicians thought this way)
Also, if you consider men and women to be equal, which I do, your equasion supports my view.
If love is the criteria for marriage what do you do with all the arranged marriages that occurred throughout history, are they not marriages by your definition.
This notion of romantic love proceeding marriage is a fairly recent development. It used to be that love developed and grew within the context of a lifelong commitment. We have just reversed the order. And we wonder why over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Before we remove a fence we ought to ask why it was there in the first place.
About equality; it depends on what you mean by equality.
About differences: it ought to persuade you if you recognize a difference. Because that's the whole point of the debate. Some people want to say there is no difference when there clearly is one.
You, sir, have created a causal fallacy! Congratulations!
"It used to be that love devloped and grew within the context of a lifelong commitment. We have just reversed the order. And we wonder why over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Before we remove a fence we ought to ask why it was there in the first place."
I don't even know how it's possible to make the knowingly make the claim that marriages by love create divorces. It also implies that only those marriages that weren't arranged would lead to divorce. Is that what you're trying to argue? Are you making the argument that marriages should be arranged in order to mutually benefit matriarchs and patriarchs? The only reason why marriages that were arranged tended to stay together was because the women weren't allowed to protest legally. They were second class citizens. Additionally, people were much more religious in times past and the Bible warned against divorce. How could one hope to go against the Bible?
"If love is the criteria for marriage what do you do with all the arranged marriages that occurred throughout history, are they not marriages by your definition."
Well, if morality is the criteria for goodness, what do you do with the crusades that were blessed by the pope (who's infallible, so be careful about contradicting him ;) )?
really what you are saying here is manipulated crap. 1+1=2 so simple unless you are saying that men are a superior being to women....go on you...thing tell me otherwise.
OK, it seems my analogy was a little unclear. I probably should have used letters instead of numbers because it seems that some people read into those numbers the values associated with them, which was not my point. It would be better put like this a+b is not the same as a+c. What I was trying to say is that different combinations produce different results, they don't produce the same results. The easiest way to say it would be that two men joined together don't produce the same thing as a man and a woman joined together, they're different.
So my main point is this. Let's say we all vote and make gay marriage legal. Does our vote change the objective reality that their is a difference in the type of relationship. Does the homosexual relationship become a heterosexual relationship and vice versa simply because we voted and said they're equivalent?
there is no such thing as Heterosexual relation ship and homosexual relationship, its all a relationship. Your logic makes no sense. Love = Love, 2 people = 2 people.
What? there is too a heterosexual relation ship and homosexual relationship. I've seen it with my own eyes. Your logic makes no sense.
Love = Love is not the same for all players.
I love my daughters and I love my wife. It's not the same kind of love. Gay love making and heterosexual love making is different. One leads to procreation. ;)
You give the arbitrary definition of man + woman = marriage and say that this is the only possible definition. You could have been more specific and said specific man + specific woman + marriage, and then the argument would have been different specific man + different specific woman cannot equal marrige. Or you could have said same race man + same race woman = marriage and then the argument could have been made that different race man + different race woman cannot equal marrige.
The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.
The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.
You have exposed yourself to a damaging counter argument.
Such as: If marriage is between two humans then two eight year old boys can be married. Or, whatsoever perversion that can be deduced thereby.
(You failed to be specific, and thereby provided very little in the way of the limit of the extension of your definition. But what you submitted is equally as illogical as the definition you countered.)
Marriage must always be between consenting adults, because children are unable to give consent under the law; that is a seperate issue. This was understood in the previous argument when it was said that man + woman = marriage.
The point I was trying to make however is that all these stupid little formulas are meaningless, and the best definition of marriage would be one between two people regardless of gender. Age is a completely different argument, and not one that is relevent ot this particular debate.
Your "consenting adults" requirement doesn't hold water because that can be legally changed as well. In the old days the age of consent was much lower.
The point that I'm trying to make however is that the best definition of marriage is exactly what it currently is because it is very specific. The whole purpose of language is to add clarity, not to obfuscate the issue. If you want a word to mean the union of two human beings, then come up with one. Don't obfuscate the language.
That would only be true if teachers were really conserned with education. Given the poor education my children are getting, I seriously doubt that they are conserned about education.
"As a mathematical formula it would look like this: 1+1 is 2 we would be wrong to say that 1+2 is also 2 Our saying that the two equations are the same doesn't make them the same."
Then maybe you should go have that nice cup of "shut the fuck up" tea that you tried to serve me. I really feel sorry for kids like you, so brainwashed and so uninformed!
As you say, "Marriage is something in particular." Its a legal union requiring a license from a government office, not from a religious organization. That's why gay people are fighting for "equal rights", not "equal rites."
For the government to remain neutral on this issue, they need to stop denying gay people the same rights as others to marry. As it is, the federal government is anything but neutral. They deny over one thousand federal benefits to people legally married in several states who happen to be of the same sex.
Here is a thought for you. Imagine a large island with just gay people and they are allowed to marry. How long would that population last?
Consider Webster's definition of dysfunctional in regards sociology; a consequence of a social practice or behavior pattern that undermines the stability of a social system.
So someone please tell me why it would be a good idea to legalize dysfunction. Is that not the antithesis of government?
And just for the record. Homosexuality is not a person, it is a behavior. My comments against homosexuality are directed at the behavior, not the people practicing it. I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and want to see them set free.
And for those in the gay lifestyle. You are not a homosexual, you are a human being.
Well, marriage is actually a civil union. It is licensed by a civil authority and it is the union of two people. So lets stop calling anything "marriage", at least legally, and let consenting adults form a civil union with the person they love. And if they want, some of them might want to do that in their church or temple!
I believe in the survival of the human race and if every couple in the known world for say went homosexual humans would thereby go extinct so if we are trying to keep the people in mind here we need to first make sure there are people to look after so same sex marrige should be illegal every where and we cant put limits on it either because that would just be hypocritical
"if every couple in the known world for say went homosexual humans would thereby go extinct"
Right, and if every couple in the known world went to the movies, humans would thereby go extinct. Because, you know you can't have sex at the movies. Especially when it would be so crowded in the theater.
But I think you are on to something here. If people have same-sex relationships BUT don't make it a legal union, THEN the human race will be saved. But once we let one same-sex couple get married, then everyone will go gay!
For example, in the state of MA -- can't find any heterosexuals in that state now. Even the state Senator posed nude, which is, of course, gay gay gay. Damn that MA. The human race is now doomed.
omg what are you saying that if gay people start getting married there wont be anymore procreation...are you like 5 years old,the laws of attraction wont differ if gay men are getting married or no,that will only make a difference for gay people straight people will not be affected. either way gay people wont make other people gay,so procreation is still gonna happen. your point of view is so silly and has no sens. and by your logic it means that homosexuality is a plague wish is so wrong,how can you explain the existence of a gay person then? a woman and a men no???? if your friend is gay doesn't mean UL be infected or everyone around him will be gay that is so absurd. go read some more psychology people before you get influenced by your instinctive reason that was forged by ignorant individuals.
so letting gay people marry is making more people gay? theyre already gay they just want equal marriage rights! its not like letting gay marriage be legal is causing more people to be gay. People are born either straight, bu, or gay theyre not going to change because theyre allowed to get married.
To be or not to be...That is not the question.I would say...THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG!! Gay marriage can never be allowed! A man should marry a woman, and technically vice-versa. Why would a man marry another man?! that action is so abnormal...i say that gay (homosexual) people have a psychological problem. What makes them tick? why would men or women act as their opposite gender? THAT is the question. As a matter of fact, there should be no homosexuals at all because it is not right to start doing things that a gender should not do.
summary: No gay people, not even relationships or marriages.
Need a list of all the countries in the world where gay marriage is now allowed? Boy, oh boy, you have your work cut out for you, trying to get them all to change their laws.
"No gay people." Too late. If god didn't want people to be gay, She wouldn't have created them.
Holy crap how narrow minded and rude omg wtf is your problem. Ask yourself this if you were gay would you want people saying that to you. Think about thing before spraying your B.S all over this site.
you have got to be kidding me. "...to start doing things that a gender should not do". why shouldn't they get married? how is it hurting you? just let people feel the way they want to and stop being so closed minded. what do you care if a guy likes a guy or a girl likes a girl? so what? and how DARE you call gays crazy! my aunts are gay and they are the most loving people i have ever met. they are smart, driven, talented, and have contributed greatly to our world and there is no reason why they should be discriminated against. besides, people do other unnatural things as well.. like medicine, technically it is unnatural because our bodies are supposed to have the immune system adequate enough to fight off all diseases. so would you consider those who have to take meds to survive unnatural?
If you make homosexual marriage legal, then what is marriage? If we don't have a clear, stable, and defined meaning than it means nothing. If a man can marry another man, then when we get used to that what will come next? A human marrying an animal? Then what? A human marrying computers, buildings, and rocks?
My most true motive for this view is what the Bible has to say about it, but I try not to debate based on Holy Books because I'm sure many of you don't trust a word it says!
"If a man can marry another man, then when we get used to that what will come next? A human marrying an animal? Then what? A human marrying computers, buildings, and rocks?"
Yes.... because an animal, a computer, buildings, and rocks, can TOTALLY sign a contract, can TOTALLY feel love, (well, I suppose an animal might be able to) and 100% COMPLETELY have legal standing in the government.
Your argument is invalid.
"My most true motive for this view is what the Bible has to say about it, but I try not to debate based on Holy Books because I'm sure many of you don't trust a word it says!"
The government we have is secular, and it's in the constitution that congress won't make any laws just because of religion. Therefore, no matter how true the Bible is (or you think it is), it is not a valid reason to ban gay marriage. Your argument is invalid AND unconstitutional!
Marriage, by definition, is a legal contract between a man and a woman. Refusing to change this definition arbitrarily is not discrimination. Lawmakers should not allow gay marriage on the grounds that the two counterparts are of the same sex, which does not fit the marriage definition.
This fact does not mean the legal system is discriminating against the gay orientation or of gay relationships. A solution to the problem would be a whole other kind of legal union for gay couples to enter into. As of now, marriage is a legal covenant designed to take into interest the future plans of a man and women and progeny.
The same argument can be used against interracial marriage, against people of great age gaps, the disabled and the abled, etc...
An arbitrary definition is the problem, the other legal union would be the same as marriage; it would just have another name. A non arbitrary definition would be that Marriage is a contract granting certain rights and privileges. That among these rights are the ability to see your spouse in the hospital, to live on a military base with them if they are in the military, etc.
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Since homosexuality leads to high rates of suicide, infectious diseases, depression and a reduction of life expectancy by 20yrs it is clear that this lifestyle denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Making gay marriage legal in the U.S. would therefore seem least likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If it is legalized it then would be the duty of all Americans to change the law since That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
Please read the following article from The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005 if you doubt that the gay lifestyle robs people of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So let me get this straight. Their lifestyle denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. So your argument to combat that is to...deny homosexuals (also US citizens) the chance of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Hmm, seems a bit contradictory.
I guess we should put a stop to divorce as well. Also higher rates of depression and suicide, effects children, decreased well-being, etc. Are you going to argue that should be abolished as well?
No contradiction. let me rephrase what you said so as to clear up the confusion;
Their lifestyle robs them of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
If they want to do that fine. No one is saying homosexuals can't, they're free to form relationships, set up housekeeping and whatever their relationship demands.
What we are saying is if that's what you want to do fine, but don't ask us the American people to support you in that decision. Our Government was established to support Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Anything that works against those goals, like homosexuality, is well, against it and not in support of it. It's their choice that denies them these things, not the lack of our support of that choice. Or to put it another way, We are against it, homosexuality, because we want them to have these things, not because we want to deny it to them. Hence no contradiction
In regards the abolition of the things you mentioned. One of the purposes of government is to promote the common good. If those things aren't good for society then government shouldn't promote them and should in fact work to discourage them. Will people still do those things? you bet they will. But most people will respond to incentives and discouragements. If you make it easy more people will do it and if you make it hard less people will do it, it's really that simple. But some people are so thick headed that they love to do what they know is wrong. That's why we build prisons. Is it a perfect system? by no means. Is it the best in all of human history? I'm convinced it is
Um, guess what. Rejection of homosexuals "leads to high rates of suicide, infectious diseases, depression and a reduction of life expectancy by 20yrs"..that is, if any of what you say is at all true.
And guess what else? Your denigration of peoples sexuality by calling it a "lifestyle" denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It's not a lifestyle fella. Its a life.
And sure. Overthrow the government because people decide to stop denying other people equal rights? Sounds like a plan to me. Not a good plan. Just a plan.
marrige is a institution ceated be GOD it self... is marrige (family) the base of societity... is a relation between a man and a woman not between two person of the same sex... by doing the contrry is going agains God... because you saying with your action GOD make a mistake, and that so wrong... accept your self and try to be what you are a man or woman
If there is such a thing as god, owong, and god made man and woman, and man is sexually attracted to other men and this is against that god's will, then yes, god made a mistake.
okay, first off "i am sure you will be dealt with when your time comes"? seriously? im sure god doesn't damn people to hell for posting their opinions on creatdebate. and secondly, why would it be a mistake that god makes gays? what's wrong with them?
first of all, your enlglish is horrible my friend, i can hardly understand what you are saying. and secondly, some people are born gay and can't help the way they feel. god created people so technically he also created gays. besides, where in the bible does it specifically state that gays shouldn't marry? show me the passages to back up your ridiculous argument
Truth is, why do men and women WANT gay marriage? I mean, there is no point in doing a marriage if its going to be real gay. I mean, who wants to see to men walking together jolding hands and kissing? That's just constipated. :/
Truth is, why do men and women WANT gay marriage? I mean, there is no point in doing a marriage if its going to be real gay. I mean, who wants to see to men walking together jolding hands and kissing? That's just constipated. :/
all you got to say ha,i couldn't find more from you even if i wanted. before saying god said that and that and that,why dint you prove the existence of god at the beginning,then prove his capacity to say something then prove our capacity to understand him...and if god can talk to humans and we can interact with him that would mean he is no longer god because he loses hes main essence.
actually, most people who are gay are born gay and cant help it.. God created people so I guess one could say he also created gays. besides, whats so wrong about being gay? how does it hurt or affect you? why do you care about other people's love lives?
Disclaimer: the minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Well think about it. The gay community has received tremendous opposition in the last few months and have had some pretty heavy set backs. And they still want to pursue the same old tactics. I don't bang my head against the wall. If something doesn't work, I try something else. That something else is to make peace with the religious right and focus on getting the government to stop using the word marriage on marriage licenses.
3. By saying that everyone who voted "yes" is a homosexual, you are being ignorant to the world around you. I myself am not gay, but I do have friends and family who are. There is no difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals besides the gender of the person that they love. And if God did create all, then why did he create homosexuals? I'm sorry that you are to arrogant to realize this.
Men can be attracted to Men.. BUT... Gay Marriage shouldn't be accepted. Think about it, What will happen if Gays are accepted? There will be an increasing amount of Gays. That will create population decrease everywhere, and that's going to lead to an end in the human population.
We can't have the whole world likingh peas -- because we will soon run out. We need a minority of people to like zucchini.
Which reminds me. Someone needs to invent a zucchini detector, to stop people from smuggling it into my house. Why do all these people keep bringing me zucchini? Are they trying to turn me into a zucchini lover?
gays are born, not turned. Gay people cant make more gay people and they alwasy would be the minority. Look at Canada or places where gays are aloud to marry, i havent herd on the news: canada's population gone!
if you go deeper in psychology and genetics you will find that the causes of homosexuality are still unknown meaning that your argument is only a theory wish means its irrelevant and unproven.
Actually its been scientifically proven that the reason people are attracted to the same sex is usually because they have more of the opposite hormones that their sex is supposed to supply. For example. Say female hormones are x's and male hormones are P's well if a male and a male are interested in each other the male produces more x's then p's. Nothing wrong with it, it's normal and it human. Nobody is born perfect and nobody is born flawless. If a man and a women are together awesome! if a women and a women are together great! if a man and a man are together then at least they can act like more of a man then most straight guys can. They aren't afraid of people who are against them they just want to be happy and go for it.
No you misunderstand what I said I meant that there is nothing wrong with being different and that its normal to have problems either mental of physically and nobody needs shots of any hormones. (wouldn't work) Also it doesn't matter if they want to have sex they are obviously not going to go right in front of you and do their business. So like I said stop paying attention to those really stupid details... you're obviously one of those ass hole guys who find it ok for two women to make out and two men can't. If a man is born with all his essentials than HE IS A REAL MAN! Pretty sure gay guys have junk in there pants just like you do. They bleed red like you do and they pee, eat, burp and pass gas like you do!
that is so WRONGGGGGGGG! You really need to do your homework. Did you know that way back during the Greeek times, Men and women only had intercourse to reproduce. Sexual pleasure came from same sex intercourse. Most people will always want children weather they are gay or straight
Well considering we have a OVER populated planet already instead of having to rule how many children a family is allowed to have like China. Why is more gays a bad thing if gay marriage will lead to a slow down in population growth then why hasn't it been legalized sooner? Would you rather have no gay marriage and a over populated plant where children are starving due to having a insignificant amount of food because that is where we are now and going more so to in the near future.
That is a lie!, there would be an increase in gay marriages yes, But not an increase in gays. Your not raised to be gay! It's more of a mental thing, I mean think about it for a minute, If we are raised to like the opposite sex? then why are there so many people wanting to marry the same sex?
if 20 percent of children that are born are homosexuals means 80 percent are not ...the percentage cant be altered into saying the 20 percent will influance the 80 and there would be 100 percent homosexuals...tht is totaly absurd. the gay people will marry gay people and the straight would marry straight people as simple as that.allowing the gay people to get married wont alter the fact of their existance it will alter your conception of their existance. preventing same sex marriage is just like racisme,slavery,despotisme...do not ask for your own rights if you cant ask for the right of an other human.
really? if people already are gay and become married thats not going to lead to an increase in the ammount of gays. plus, i think the world needs a bit of a population decrease anyways
