Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side Score: 167
Side Score: 78
What exactly is love? Do you have a pet? If your pet was in the "Vet" and you couldn't visit them, give them friendship and comfort them in there time of need, then would you do anything you can so you could? If two people love each other, then "The genitalia between"there"...legs shouldn't dictate with whom..."they" can spend the rest of there life..." with.
Procreation is not the reason most people have sex most of the time, very rarely is it so. What is the logical reason when heterosexual couples use condoms?
Emotion and Logic are not distinct. Logic builds off of Emotion, our reasoning is basically preemptively applied Emotional evaluation. For example, as a young child we touch the red coils of a electric stove; we associate that experience with the emotional response and though our reasoning when we see something glowing we think that its likely hot by inductive generalization. With out emotion we would have nothing stopping us from touching the next red glowing thing we see and our hands would be very burnt. Emotionally, we don't like pain.
One of my oldest friends is gay; if he one day wants the legal rights granted by marriage; he should be able to have them even if the other consenting adult in the contract is male. Personally I wouldn't mind marriage being abolished, perhaps replaced with a contract that legally incorporates someone into your family, without the religious and sexual undertones of marriage. Marriage IS NOT a religious thing, its a legal thing; ifs its religious then government needs to stop recognizing marriage and view it as a private religious practice.
Is this an emotional response or a logical response? Laws ought to be based on logic, and there is no logical reason to engage in homosexual behavior.
Laws aren't based on logic. They are based on political compromise and/or majority opinion.
Further, moral values are not logically derived. There is no objective frame of reference to set as an axiom to base objective, logical morality upon. Therefore your statement about homosexual behaviour being illogical is erroneous.
Mhm, and I can logically argue that there is no logical reason for heterosexuals to engage in heterosexual activity if I choose.
There is nothing "logical" about marriage period.
And to hold one group of people to some kind of logical standard and not the other,
frankly is quite illogical
law is not only logical ; It more about about protecting our fundemental human rights.
it is based on equality and freedom.
I don't see how it fair that some people can get married while others can't. that isn't fair.
logic has nothing to do with equality and justice.
Math is logic. It isn't fair
How do you know homosexuality is wrong?
God said so in the Bible.
How do you know God exists?
It says so in the Bible.
How do you know the Bible isn't just a bunch of nonsense written by primitive man that no reasonable person should pay any attention to?
God said so....in the Bible.
Honestly, if it weren't for all the death and despair caused by religious people, your stupidity would be nothing more than amusing.
There is nothing wrong with two consenting adults having more rights to each other and legally incorporating each other into their families. Denying them this right is only done out of bigotry and fear.
Some don't like it because they think the divorce rate will go higher. How is that bad? Its main effect might be on children, which usually isn't that bad. Many of my friends do not have nuclear families, and they are perfectly healthy functioning members of society. Marriage should be like contracts between employers and employees: well defined and voluntary.
Some don't like it because of their (interpretation of their) religion. In short these people do not believe in the separation of church and state, and are nothing less then fear ridden, insecure little tyrants. I can go into the details of their psychology and position, but its not flattering at all. Laws should be backed by secular and logical reasoning with the goal of increasing the well being of society. Marriage improves "the lot in life" of many people, for some it doesn't but they find it worth the try. Allowing gay marriage means that more people will find marriage an improvement to their lives. Marriage, unless combined with other causes, doesn't cause any considerable physical, financial, etc harm to others. Its a benefit to society with out Loss to society. There is no reasonable reason to not allow it.
yes...............................people should mind their own business!!!!! obviously gays are not going away........and i think unless you live in bum fuck Alabama that homosexuality is something a person is born with and the gays are not gonna rub gay on you and make all your kids gay.
Gay marriages should be allowable because gay people have all the rights to love each other as much as the others do and they should be able to express their love by getting married. They shouldn't be banned by society just because their love is wrong and people should have open minds to it because its an emotion that they cannot control.
Marriage is not something you have to enter into just because you are in love. However, marriage is an act of love. It is supposed to mean that "I am proud to be seen with you", "I trust you with my belongings" and "I love you so bloody much that I don't want to share you with anyone else". Once again, I state that you don't have to be married to feel like this or be known to be like this, but a ring on the finger USED to keep other rivals away.
So why can't homosexuals marry? If heterosexuals can, why not they? Oh, if we are using the Bible as an excuse, I would like to say that we don't stone adulterers anymore and God loves us NO MATTER WHAT. He wants us to be happy.
By the way, I like gay people better. They can see things as they are and as what they can be. Close minded morons can't.
Where is discrimination not allowed? People are legally discriminated against all the time. Where is marriage a right? This is a very slippery slope. If the majority can be circumvented anytime someone says it's the "right" thing to do, we are not living in a democracy, we are living in a dictatorship.
We live in a constitutional govt where the constitution shows what the majority can and cannot do and what is legally "right". Show me in the constitution where marriage is a right (or more appropriately, where we have the right to marry whomever we want) and I will concede your argument.
"Q134. "Is there anything in the Constitution, Bill Of Rights or any Amendment that adds to discrimination due to race, color, or creed? I thought that 'Sexual Preference' was added, but I am told that I am wrong."
A. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts. The subject is far from a closed one at this time."
In fact I´m socked. I searched everywhere and it seems the USA doesn´t have any non-descrimination laws :O
I guess you´re right but this is wrong. I live in Portugal and even we have laws regarding this matter. Well I guess leggally speaking you´re right :O
No one has the right to tell others who they can and can not fall in love with. The argument that it is not natural is completely false as well, homosexuality was prevalent in ancient Rome, Greece and China, amongst others, and has been observed in animals from mammals to fish to insects. Should millions of people around the world be denied a rewarding and joyous part of life so that a few bigots feel superior?
No one is telling anyone who they can love, we're talking about who they can marry, something very different. Unfortunately the burden of proof is not on the so-called "bigots" you mention (who just believe something different than you. If you believe everyone who believes different than you is a bigot, you might be surprised to discover that you have become one as well). Marriage is only currently legal between a man and a woman. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right that gives anyone otherwise. So in order to change it, you must pass a law democratically. If you can't do that you are free to try and persuade people why they should change their minds, but the burden of proof is on you.
I think that gay marriages should be allowed, so what if its a man and a man or a woman and a woman, we're all human and should be treated equally and have equal rights. If they are choosing to get married and let people know about it, then good for them, because it shows that they are who they are and they are proud of who they are. As long as they love eachother and as long as they are human who has the right to say that they cant get married.
i think there should be same sex marriages allowed because its a free country and no one cans top you from loving the same sex.Were americans of the united stated were free people so why cant people just support same sex marriages.its not hurting any one and why does religion have to be put into this situation!.it just deosnt make sense it is not a sin even jesus worshippers sin also!.
Just don't call it marriage and the hatred is over! THis forum is full of religion haters is not marriage a religious concept? So let the religious people have it and call it something else. This is a liberal arguement so it makes no sense to me that you want the term marriage anyway, you hate everything that leans towards religion so why not hate the word 'marriage'? Just stay with your 'legal union' or whatever it's called and everyone is happy.
I'm not very well-researched on the topic, so I'm sure someone else could answer this better than I can, but I do know that there are certain things that married couples can do more easily than non-married couples. Things like getting joint insurance and becoming next of kin and stuff like that. I mean, if marriage didn't actually help couples do anything new with each other, in a legal sense, then why would most of us get married anyway? Of course I pose this question in a legal sense.
Homosexuals hurt the idea of family morales, what if they were to adopt a kid, and all of his/her friends ask why they have 2dads, or 2 moms. The kids dont know, and honestly, so do I. I dont really care if there are gay people and they do there freaky stuff in their private life, but getting married is too much. And i agree with soccerstud, there are two sexes on this planet for a reason, if god wanted us to be gay then he would have only created one sex. Plus, you need 2 different sexes to make a normal family work, you need breast milk, you need sperm cells, you need egg cell, you need both the female and the male to function as a normal family, and in my opinion, gay married couples are not a normall functioning family.
Homosexuals hurt the idea of family morales,
They hurt your idea of family morals. Not everyone's.
what if they were to adopt a kid, and all of his/her friends ask why they have 2dads, or 2 moms.
What is wrong with a capable couple giving an unwanted child a home, and their friends being curious about it?
The kids dont know, and honestly, so do I.
So you don't understand gay marriage thus it should be illegal? I don't understand religious fanaticism, but I'm not about to start a campaign to outlaw it.
And i agree with soccerstud, there are two sexes on this planet for a reason, if god wanted us to be gay then he would have only created one sex.
If God didn't plan for gays to exist, they wouldn't exist. Also, plenty of people don't really care what you think God wants or doesn't want, and you have realize not everyone is a Christian or chooses to follow all Christian ideals. By no means should a purely religious restriction ever be legalized.
Plus, you need 2 different sexes to make a normal family work, you need breast milk, you need sperm cells, you need egg cell, you need both the female and the male to function as a normal family, and in my opinion, gay married couples are not a normall functioning family.
This logic would make it illegal to be: an infertile married couple, a single parent, a married couple that adopted children, an elderly ,married couple, a married couple that is childfree by choice, or any other situation where a family consists of something other than a woman legally wed to a man and raising his kids.
Our role in society is no longer dictated by how or if we make babies. We're smarter than that now.
"...there are two sexes on this planet for a reason, if god wanted us to be gay then he would have only created one sex."
What if this entire world wasn't even planned by God? If you believe that God planned for there to be sexual reproduction and for there to be male and female humans, then I suppose you believe that we were intelligently designed, since God has such a direct impact in the world. Well, if he designed us, then why do our esophagus and trachea intersect, which creates a very dangerous choking hazard? And why do our eyes have blind spots where the optic nerve goes into the eye? Couldn't God have designed our bodies to be a little more perfect? I'm not denying God's existence. I'm merely stating that this world wasn't directly created by God like so many people believe. And because of this, there are certain things, like homosexuality, that exist even though they go against religious teachings.
Many studies have proved that parents sexuality has no effects on the child's sexuality. and your "family morals" are already in danger with a 50% Divorce rate. Don't blame it on the gays Just because the rest of America is so morally indecent. And if "God" (I'm atheist, and I even spelled your God's name right with a capital "G") designed us to have different sexes, than why is anal sex one of the largest forms of sex in America between hetero-sexuals in america? i doubt ALL of those people are atheist, liberals, or Democrats.
Marriage is a state-sponsored institution that gives some financial incentive for couples to be married because stable, 2 parent families raising children create a stable society. While it is obviously clear that many families do not fulfill this requirement, no homosexual couple can produce a child on their own. So maybe only 40% of hetro couples fulfill their obligation of being a good home and raising children there (I'm making this number up, but you get the idea), 0% of homosexual couples have children.
Maybe the financial incentives aren't worth it at all, in which case lets get the govt out of the marriage business (my own opinion), but there seems to be no incentive to invest in homosexual marriage. This is why I vote against it, but as I've always said, if a voting majority gives gays marriage, ok. It's really not an enormous deal.
Equality is not about what incentives the government or anybody else has to allow certain demographics a right or privilege. It is not about what return investment you might see from allowing gays to marry; it is about recognizing that people who are not breaking the law or infringing on others' rights are being unfairly denied the privilege and benefits of marriage...almost always based on a religious or bigoted reasoning.
The possibility of making babies is not the sole goal or prerequisite of marriage anymore, but if it were, gays should still be allowed to be married under this logic. Homosexual couples very frequently do raise children, either via adoption, surrogate birth, IVF, or from a previous relationship.
Statistics on Children with Gay Parent/s (adoption.about.com)
but a divorced, widowed, or adopted family is not as strong as a traditional home. This is just the way it is, however unfair. Children from these families are more likely to struggle.
Unfortunately, the govt job isn't to make sure everyone is treated fairly. This would be an impossible and expensive task (this is where we probably will disagree if you don't believe in very limited constitutional govt, which very few people believe in anymore). Besides, right now marriage IS equal: everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. There is no inequality here. If we want to give people the right to marry members of the same sex, then let's do it, but this is, in fact, a change.
Before you call bigot, I am, in fact, not very religious and literally DON'T CARE if gays marry. It doesn't affect my life at all. I have two friends, a gay couple, who would make a perfect marriage. I just think people need to step away from their high emotions and look at this issue from the larger perspective. Also, everyone has a right to their own opinion and religion isn't bigotry. Even though I don't agree, if you don't want to vote for gay marriage because it's against your religion, congratulations, you have that right. In fact, this right actually IS a right, whereas marriage is nowhere in the constitution and not guaranteed to anyone. Don't like it? Change it! That is your right!
I would say raising children in such a fashion that we have a stable society has more to do with family finance, along with guidance and attention a child receives then whether or not the child is part of a nuclear family.
If your raised by one parent, and they bring home 80,000 a year by working just 4 hours a day(lets say their good with stocks), then lets say this person spends considerable time with their children; maybe he/she home schools them or something. That person would still be providing a good home, because the material, emotional and developmental needs of their children would be meet. If later this person gets into a good relationship, either with a member of the same sex or not; then the child needs would be even better supplied; and lets say this couple then wants to make it a triple and bring in a third person; even better for the kid right? This benefit continues for awhile, but eventually the needs of the group would overcome the means of supply; which means the group would become splintered(but still connected) and function more like a tribe then a family. Even that wouldn't be bad for the kid though, "it takes a village to raise a child".
Some homosexual couples adopt. gay marriage would allow for people to pool resources together better because of the financial incentives, meaning more stable families being more capable of adopting which would lessen the burden on foster care. There are many incentives to invest in homosexual marriage, i haven't came close to touching all of them here.
so since the BIBLE says it is not allowed then our Government shouldn't allow it? so what happened to the separation of church and state? the government is not supposed to support a particular religious view and therefore, to ban gay marriage because the BIBLE says it is not allowed, is a direct violation of the constitution.
I wonder why this website is called "Create Debate" when the proper elements of debate are utterly ignored! Why is everyone spitting incoherent insults in the direction of the opponent? If you baldly insult somebody, how do expect them to respond to you? With moderation and respect? Then the response is a discussion about the discussion, not about the original topic.
Side: this is a waste of time
This depends on what you call marriage. If you're talking marriage in the religious sense, then no. No one should ever have the right to force a religious institution to allow something that they don't believe in. If you're talking about marriage in terms of like...a civil union, then go for it. Hell, you can even have a ceremony if you want. For now, I'll assume this is talking about marriage in a religious sense and I'll say no.
I'm all for replacing marriage with a different contract that likewise incorporates someone into your family, just with out the religious and sexual undertones.
Whats wrong with people getting divorces? Especially if their gays because the only kids they can have are adopted ones. Most people won't decide and won't be allowed to adopt unless their in a stable situation. Gay divorce has Little Effect on children, and well...what other effect does it have besides two guys/girls don't have the same rights to each other which they used to. Its a contract, people should be able to enter and leave it.
I'm all for replacing marriage with a different contract that likewise incorporates someone into your family, just with out the religious and sexual undertones.
We already have that. It's called marriage. It's not a religious or sexual issue. It's a state issue in recognizing the merging of two families. The religious ritual is a superfluous (but meaningful to some) practice. It actually has no bearing whatsoever on the actual legitimacy of the marriage. And honestly, I don't see what sex has to do with marriage. If it was relevant at all, we'd stop impotent or infertile people from marrying. But we don't. It's only relevant when all these closeted homosexuals struggle against their sexuality and try to fight the very things they're doing in secret.
Why does everybody think marriage is fundamentally about love? This may seem a strange question, as you need to love your spouse, but what I mean is that the PURPOSE of marriage is not love. Culturally, marriage has meant all kinds of things--transfer of property, alliances between families, legitimization, survival, lust, pregnancy, fathers with shotguns, green cards, etc. It is a privilege to be able to choose the person you will marry, indeed--for marriage to be voluntary, if you're a woman--but the "that I will spend the rest of my life with" bit is much more to the point.
In the Abramic religions, marriage is primarily a commitment before (and to) God for a man and woman to unite as one and obtain God's blessing that legitimizes their marital (sexual) relationship. Marriage, and in fact the figures of the bride and groom are deeply significant in Christianity, as they represent Christ (the bridegroom) and his people, (the Bride) and the Wedding Supper after Christ's Second Coming.
This is the crux of my problem with gay marriage. Although we are talking about civil marriage under no denomination, that does not alter the fact that, to me, bestowing the name of marriage upon people of the same sex is essentially profanity.
Ultimately, same sex marriage will probably become more accepted--as a lot of things have. But I will continue to vote against it, if only because I feel it would be irreverent not to. My friend and I think that resistance to gay marriage for many people is really just an unwillingness to cross a line that indicates "respect for marriage." Thinking, I suppose, of a time when the secular wasn't so thoroughly stripped of anything Godlike, and we remembered he was listening.
Side: not ingood conscience
Well the fact that it's wrong to be gay in the first place...
The fact that marriage is a religious ceremony..
Definitions of marriage
A: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
B.a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
...why would you bring something so immoral and irreligious into the picture?
What exactly is immoral and irreligious about Homosexuality?
You can call them butt-buddies, scissor-partners, bumchums etc. etc. but don't call them a married couple.
Can I, thanks. I will reference you when I need to be a bigot.
Definitions of marriage
This is where it might hurt your head.
The dictionary isn't always right. The dictionary is written by a bunch of people that give the definition of words as they see it. You go to a different country and several words have different meanings. Go to a country with morals and you'll see that marriage is between man and wife and that it is a religious ceremony. However in this new day and age (i agree) it doesn't have to be purely religious. But irregardless it is between a man and wife.
You cannot have a man and man or woman and woman or transexual and transexual or brother and sister or brother and father or brother and mother or sister and father or sister and mother or sister and sister or brother and brother or paedophile and young person or dead body and necrophile or a dog and a bestiality person.
You see what I'm getting at?
What exactly is immoral and irreligious about Homosexuality?.
Lol you being serious?
Can I, thanks. I will reference you when I need to be a bigot.
Blah blah blah anybody that isn't accepting of all types of peoples is a bigot. Have fun advocating paedophilia.
I'm not going to bother claling you a sick fuck cause I think all of you guys know you are...
I need to come up with a new accurate word to describe you queers.