WHY are you for/against gay marriage?
This is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart, being that I am gay. And the truth is, I can't logically see a reason for anyone to actually reject gay marriage. I can understand why they would think what they think. But honestly, I have no clue why they make such a big deal about it. So I don't care what you believe. I don't mind what you share, but PLEASE give me a real reason for your belief.
PS. It's been a long time since I've logged on and a lot has changed. It's nice to see some old faces and a pleasure to see all of the new faces. Of course, I miss the other old faces. Can't say I've missed the site (I think I ran out of things to give my opinion on!), but I do know I've changed a lot in the past few years. Whole new person here! :)
I support it because...
Side Score: 51
|
 |
I reject it because...
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
It's a basic human right to be happy. The Constitution states that we each have a right to pursue happiness, and that goes for every American citizen, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed. Many places across the globe, including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Why, then, is it not formally recognized at the federal level in the most powerful nation on Earth? If I marry another man, how does that affect you? Side: I support it because...
>.< I'm not huge on history/politics. I'm a double major in Biomedical science and Spanish. And there was a point in my life that I knew the difference between major government documents. Like 4th grade. haha I'm a little embarrassed, but what can I do? :p Side: I support it because...
1
point
1
point
If a man and a woman are legally obligated to get married, there is NO reason why men(women) can not marry men(women). Being gay is sinful to many people, and disgusting to others. But in the end, the fact stands that people discourage legalization of gay marriage because they're selfish, and think that gay people are "evil" when they're actually just average citizens who only want to be accepted in society. Side: I support it because...
1
point
I support it because people in love, no matter the couple (man & man, woman & woman) should be able to marry. It doesn't do any harm to anyone and gay people should have that right. If straight couples can do it, then why can't gay couples? I don't care if our "constitution" was generally based off of christianity and rejects it. People who love each other should be able to spend the rest of their lives together no matter of race, sexual orientaton, gender, etc. Side: I support it because...
Government shouldn't choose your mate. It's that simple. If we want to say everyone can choose 1 other person to partner with and get X benefits, that's fine. But the government shouldn't choose who that is, or restrict your choice among adults. If we want to get rid of marriage completely.. fine, but if we are going to allow it, it's the people who are getting married's choice of partner. There is no logical reason to deny them the choice of the same sex... it doesn't hurt anyone. Side: I support it because...
No one is denied choice of mate. Whether gay marraige is rocognized by the state or not, gays are free to couple up with whomever they want. The question is not whether the government should choose your mate, as you say, but whether the government should pretend that conjugal relationships are the equivalent to those that are not. Side: I reject it because...
I support it because adding happiness at the cost of NOTHING is always worth it. Marriage is just a word. If you think 2 guys marrying means your marriage means less, then your marriage was already going down the tube. Also marriage is NOT a religious institution, it's a social one, meaning, it can be changed to suit society. Side: I support it because...
1
point
I support it because everyone has a right to marry whoever they want. marriage should be a societal thing, we as humans created society just like any animal hunts in the wild, its our way to survive and live a better life. so naturally when forming a society we should think about what produces the best lifestyle, that is why we became america, to get away from the religous persecution to follow our own religions, (but even after we did that we just persecuted each other because as soon as we get what we want we ignore what others need). truth is this country being a country of freedom, one of the most important freedoms, so important it was one of the real "freedoms" they had really wanted... religous freedom. this country came out of both freedom and religion, religion having an enslaving quality on society all because there followers can't stop forcing it on to each other to this day, relgions gets in the way of freedom sometimes. which is why we have this problem here, because our religions the society's grew off of have a problem with it. you can't have freedom and religion unless we keep religion to ourselves which we keep proving we can't. Marriage was once simply a religous thing, but now its both a societal thing and religous thing. atheists all the time are getting married, marriage is considered so necessary to everyone no matter what religion, its become more than just a religous thing, and thus we should allow marriage for everyone. plus marriage may came from christianity BUT how do you know christianity is YOUR form of christianity, you can still have gay marriage and those two guys, or girls can still be christian and believe in the christian god just the key difference is they believe in an all loving god and not a homophobic one. Side: I support it because...
Because consenting adults should have the authority to marry and be entitled to the same benefits as all heterosexual couples who perform a ceremony showing their commitment as life partners. Interracial marriages used to be illegal. I view the ban on homosexual marriages with just as much absurdity as I do with the ban on interracial marriages, for the same reasons. Side: I support it because...
"Because consenting adults should have the authority to marry and be entitled to the same benefits as all heterosexual couples who perform a ceremony showing their commitment as life partners. " Why? The only reason the state involves itself in sexual reationships between heterosexual couples is because such relationships usually result in children. Homosexual relationships, by construction, cannot result in children. Hence why should the state involve itself in their relationships at all? What state interest would be served? Side: I reject it because...
The only reason the state involves itself in sexual reationships between heterosexual couples is because such relationships usually result in children. Homosexual relationships, by construction, cannot result in children. Then why are they in the business of heterosexual infertile couples, Voluntary childlessness heterosexual couples (couples who do not wish to have children), elderly straight couples that cannot have children and aren't suppose to? And why is it that on no marriage license application does it ask whether or not we plan to have children? Why doesn't the actual license say that either? Hence why should the state involve itself in their relationships at all? What state interest would be served? The same reason it invests it's interest in the affairs of [temporarily or permanently] childless heterosexual couples. Side: I support it because...
1
point
I believe gay marriage absolutely should be legal. The separation of church and state should allow gay people to be married in a civil ceremony and to have that marriage recognized by the federal government. If a church doesn't want to conduct gay marriages, that is their right, but they also have No right to impose their religious beliefs on others. It's grossly unfair to withhold the protections that marriage brings to both the couples and any children they may have. I think gays getting married would promote social stability and if there's one thing this country needs, it's more stability. As for the sanctity of marriage. I think people like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich pose a much greater threat there than gays and lesbians ever could. Side: I support it because...
Well, i'm not exactly for, but it's better than against. If two people want to be together, i see no reason as to not let them! Two women decide they want to be together, fine. Two men want to gety married, fine! It's not just between a man and a woman. The religious side, yes. But religion has a lesser effect on our lives recently. Side: I support it because...
1
point
Love is love. Sure, there I have standards and limits to what I think love are, but I genuinely believe that two men or two women can love each other as mates. Why not? I've met homosexuals. They act like normal, adjusted people. Why would they lie about who they genuinely can romantically love? Is it unnatural? No, because if it was, it wouldn't exist. That argument is rubbish. There are thousands of species that are homosexual. If homosexuality was detrimental to our gene pool, or any gene pool, then it wouldn't exist. If you argue that it's not detrimental because we are human and have prosperity, then why does the gene exist in animals? Obviously, it has a benefit for our genetics, so the argument of it being unnatural and therefore a threat is poppycock. Since there's no reason therefore to assume it is an unnatural, abominable threat, then you can only see it for what it is: the same sex romantically loving the same sex. The reasons are not clear for why it exists, but once again, they are people just as adjusted as us. If it's love, it's love. If both parties agree it's love, it's love. So, if it's love, why should a ritual to bind two adult humans together as eternal mates be prohibited? There is no logical reason. They are not a harm to non-homosexuals, and both parties agree they want to be mated. WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? It's obvious that there is no problem with this, unless you have a problem with love. If you have a problem with love, that's your own damn problem because society generally agrees that love is a good thing to shape your life around. So again, WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? I cannot see any. Therefore, I am for gay marriage. To be against it is nonsensical, unless you enjoy keeping two people apart who love each other romantically. In which case, you are either a sick fuck, or just completely illogical. Side: I support it because...
"Is it unnatural? No, because if it was, it wouldn't exist. That argument is rubbish. There are thousands of species that are homosexual." This will totally depend on your definition and understanding of the word "natural " . I am still to meet or hear about a single human being who is genuinely homosexual in anatomy and physiology. But as the science now stands there is scientifically no difference between a person who practices homosexuality and someone who does not. Every single human being's body is built to fulfill a heterosexual purpose and the exceptions (hermaphrodites, for instance) are considered anomalies. In this light if we are to think of homosexuality as having a direct biological cause as the skin pigmentation of coloured people it is an anomaly rather than alternative variation in the human species. To compare humans to mindless instinctive species and use this misguided argument to protect human rights is paradoxical and appealing only to the mindless. Again the idea of "love " together with "romance " is also a horrible jiberjaber to conceal the obvious anomaly which homosexuality is. It should be clear here that the "love " here refers to erotic feelings. It has nothing to do with the kind of love one should have for a sibling or for parents or neighbors and strangers in order to maintain a civilized and tolerant society. It is thus a desperate attempt to brainwash normal people who oppose homosexual marrages into feeling guilty about their position. In fact the right word should be "homoerotism" and "heteroerotism " not "love ". "Love " is too general and when used in this very peculiar context is very misguided. And I sometimes think this is deliberate on the part of homosexual activists. That said, it is a scientific fact that all of our romantic feelings come from our reproductive system and its paraphernelia of hormones and the ultimate goal of that is procreation. Thus except for political reasons, homosexuality should be clearly seen as a dysfunction of human reproductive behavior. Homosexual activists would have the world believe that their behavior is purely uncontrollable and instinctive and so is heterosexual behavior. If it is then it is a pathology in need of treatment. If it is not then it is a choice that should be protected by law and also from children since they are too young to decide who they want to have sex with. As a default then children should be taught what is consistent with their anatomy and physiology, and virtue of tolerance to those who harmlessly differ in opinion. Side: I reject it because...
"Is it unnatural? No, because if it was, it wouldn't exist. That argument is rubbish. There are thousands of species that are homosexual." This will totally depend on your definition and understanding of the word "natural " . I am still to meet or hear about a single human being who is genuinely homosexual in anatomy and physiology. But as the science now stands there is scientifically no difference between a person who practices homosexuality and someone who does not. Every single human being's body is built to fulfill a heterosexual purpose and the exceptions (hermaphrodites, for instance) are considered anomalies. In this light if we are to think of homosexuality as having a direct biological cause as the skin pigmentation of coloured people is, it is an anomaly rather than an alternative variation in the human species. To compare humans to mindless instinctive species and use this misguided argument to protect human rights is paradoxical, and it can be appealing only to the mindless and misguided. Again the idea of "love " together with "romance " is also a horrible jiberjaber to conceal the obvious anomaly which homosexuality is. It should be clear here that the "love " here refers to erotic feelings. It has nothing to do with the kind of love one should have for a sibling or for parents or neighbors and strangers in order to maintain a civilized and tolerant society. It is thus a desperate attempt to brainwash normal people who oppose homosexual marrages into feeling guilty about their position. In fact the right word should be "homoerotism" and "heteroerotism " not "love ". "Love " is too general and when used in this very peculiar context is very misguided. And I sometimes think this is deliberate on the part of homosexual activists. That said, it is a scientific fact that all of our romantic feelings come from our reproductive system and its paraphernelia of hormones and the ultimate goal of that is procreation. Thus except for political reasons, homosexuality should be clearly seen as a dysfunction of human reproductive behavior. Homosexual activists would have the world believe that their behavior is purely uncontrollable and instinctive and so is heterosexual behavior. If it is then it is a pathology in need of treatment. If it is not then it is a choice that should be protected by law and also from children since they are too young to decide who they want to have sex with. As a default then children should be taught what is consistent with their anatomy and physiology, and virtue of tolerance to those who harmlessly differ in opinion. Side: I reject it because...
1
point
1
point
|
Meh, I'll be a pedant, but it is really important to me! Marriage is a religious institution (or social if that works for you) Alright, I've been criticized much for caring a great deal about language, but this is a big one that slightly annoys me. Religious have often claimed ownership over religion, and even if this is incorrect, the government is needlessly entangled itself with this either religious or societal institution. This creates an annoying and hotly debated issue. If this can be avoided, it should be. Alternative: Broad title of "civil unions" for all legal partnerships I never understood the coveted nature of marriage, but many people feel that it is necessary to protect it as a government practice. I disagree. It should be destroyed and dismantled in place of domestic partnerships (or whatever you wish to call them). Marriage has too much baggage associated with it, and should be dismantled as a government institution. Having both a societal and governmental institution by the same name (e.g.marriage) creates too many annoyances and should be rejected in terms of "civil unions" or whatever term is deemed appropriate. Side: I reject it because...
It seems to me that rather than being against same-sex marriage, you are opposed to the overall idea of legally recognized marriage. So long as the state continues to recognize opposite-sex marriages, however, would you be in support of or opposed to recognizing same-sex marriages? Side: I support it because...
1
point
You're confusing "marriage" with "holy matrimony." Marriage is the civil contract, holy matrimony is the religious institution. If two people can be legally "married" in a courthouse without a religious agent, then there shouldn't be any religious attempts to prevent it. Side: I support it because...
1
point
At it's core, Marriage is a religious institution. In the United States, that religion is primarily Christianity, which does not support homosexual behavior. Gays should be allowed to get civil unions that grant them the same privileges as marriage, but it should not be referred to as marriage, because it simply isn't. The gays do not have a right to dictate the practices of religious institutions. Side: I reject it because...
I am an Atheist. I have a disdain for organized religion (as opposed to faith) including Christianity. I was married by a justice of the peace at a banquet hall, with not a single mention of god or religion. I am "Married" I have a legal "Marriage" I dispute that "Marriage" is religious in this country. It may have been once, but no longer. No religion has a claim on it. It predates Christianity by centuries, animals mate and likely so did the earliest humans. The concept of a lifelong partnership is not a religious idea. Christians may have a sacrament for it, but marriage in this country has long since ceased to be religious. Side: I support it because...
I agree with you that marriage isn't fundamentally a religious institution, but I disagree withour characterization that it's merely a "lifelong partnership." If marriage is nothing more than a lifelong partnership, why should it concern the state? People develop many types of long-term partnerships in life, and yet the state only provides special recognition to one. Why do you think that is? Side: I reject it because...
Your statement that marriage is a religious institution "at its core" is simply wrong. Marriage predates organized religion. While many religions endorse marraige and endow it with religious meaning, its primary purpose is secular: to encourage conjugal unions likely to result in children and protect the latter's interests. And that is the reason why homosexual "marriage" makes no sense. By construction, homosexual unions cannot produce children, so it is absurd to consider them marriages, or to extend to them the institution of marriage. Homosexuals can adopt children, but if they do so, the state's interest in the children is already protected by the adoption agreement. Side: I support it because...
As I wrote in another post, the purpose of marraige is to encourage conjugal unions that are likely to produce children, and then to protect the interests of any such children born from the union. Only heterosexual unions fit this category. Hence extending the institution of marraige to non-conjugal unions that by construction simply cannot produce children (i.e. gay unions), is nonsensical. Allowing gays to marry is about as silly as allowing sterile siblings who live with one another in a non-sexual union to "marry." If you don't buy that, think about it this way. There are many valuable types human of relationships in a society. Generally speaking, the state only involves itself in one: exclusive, conjugal heterosexual unions between unrelated consenting adults. Why? For one reason, and one reason alone: by construction, such unions (with few exceptions) result in the birth children, and the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the parents of such children fulfill their obligations both to each other and the next generation. There is no similar state interest in homosexual unions. Yes, gays can adopt, but the adoption agreement already lays out enforceable obligations of the adoptive parents to such children, obviating any need for gay marraige, even in the case of a gay couple who wishes to adopt. The fact that gays adopt does not make their union a conjugal, which it simply cannot be for bological reasons. Gays asking their non-conjugal relationship to be declared the equivalent to marriage is the equivalent of motorcycles drivers asking to be declared the equivalent of automobile drivers. They are different by their nature, no matter how much you would like it to be otherwise. Note that my argument makes no moral judgements about homosexuality. Nor does it deny anyone any rights. It simply recognizes that marriage has a certain secular purpose that is only served when extended to conjugal heterosexual unions. Side: I reject it because...
The purpose of marraige is to encourage conjugal unions that are likely to produce children, 1) Then why are heterosexual infertile couples allowed to marry? 2) Why do we allow heterosexual couples who prefer not to have children, marry? 3) Why is there no inquiry at all about producing children when filling out an application for a marriage license? and then to protect the interests of any such children born from the union. Only heterosexual unions fit this category. Wrong. Fertile, child-wanting heterosexual unions fit this category. The rest of your post relies on the sentences I have responded to and makes no other claims, therefore I feel no need to respond. Side: I support it because...
To answer your questions in order: 1) Because we almost never know ahead of time who is and isn't infertile, and trying to test everyone for fertility is expensive and invasive. 2) Because perferences for children can't be observed by anyone except the marrying couple. 3) Because it would be pointless. A couple not wishing to have children could easily lie and there would be no way for the state to know. However, I do note that in some secular jurisdictions, the willingness to accept children is part of the couple's marriage vow. Now I have a question for you: why has nearly every secular society in the history of humankind chosen to give special recognition to exclusive, conjugal heterosexual unions, and given no comparable recognition to any other? Side: I support it because...
The benefits derived from the marriage go far beyond protecting the rights of the children. Say there were a heterosexual couple who's children grew up and left home. Both parents retired, one dies, another continues to receive her/his spouses pension. How does this protect the interests of the children? In my opinion this has nothing to do with the children's interests. This is what gay want -to derive the benefits that have nothing to do with having or not having children, but the interests that nonetheless ARE protected by state! Side: I support it because...
"The benefits derived from the marriage go far beyond protecting the rights of the children. " The only reason the state involves itself in heterosexual relationships by recognizing the institution of marriage is because such relationships usually result in children. "Say there were a heterosexual couple who's children grew up and left home. Both parents retired, one dies, another continues to receive her/his spouses pension. How does this protect the interests of the children? " By creating retirement security for the spouse who works less in order to care for the childern. If a non-working (or part time working) spouse could not collect on the working spouse's pension, then he or she would be reluctant to take time off work for the sake of the kids. "This is what gay want -to derive the benefits that have nothing to do with having or not having children, but the interests that nonetheless ARE protected by state!" Domestic partnership laws already do that. Side: I reject it because...
1
point
I don't mind if gays want to get married. Where it becomes an issue for me is when they insist utilizing Christian churches and/or Christian pastors to marry them, knowing that since the dawning of the religion, it has never condoned homosexuality. If they find a pastor willing to forsake the teachings of Christ and marry a gay couple, fine, so be it. But they shouldn't be able to take legal action against pastors, churches or Christian-based businesses for not catering to them. Get married somewhere else, but do not force Christians to sidestep their religion because you think they owe it to you. Because here's the thing... we don't. Side: I reject it because...
When does that really even happen though? Most homosexuals and most movements have not demanded that Churches (or other religious congregations) marry them against the religious beliefs of that Church/congregation. Most just want those Churches/congregations to stop imposing their beliefs upon them through the law. Side: I support it because...
Most homosexuals and most movements have not demanded that Churches (or other religious congregations) marry them against the religious beliefs of that Church/congregation. #1 These Christian Oregon bakery owners must pay hundreds of thousands for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding -- their children even received death threats and they had to close their shop; #2 This Colorado man is being sued because he refused to make them a cake for their wedding, even stating that it was because of his Christian beliefs; #3 Millionaire gay couple are suing to force churches to marry gay couples; #4 Denmark is forcing churches to marry gay couples; #5 This New Mexican photography company is being sued for their refusal to work with a gay couple; #6 This poor bed and breakfast owner (also religious) was sued by a lesbian couple and they won; #7 This religious florist refused service to a gay couple and was sued and subsequently forced to provide services to gay couples, despite her religious beliefs. Search Google, I'm sure there are boatloads more. But these despicable human beings are ruining mom-and-pop businesses and shutting down people's livelihoods because they knew the religious affiliations of these owners and insisted on pursuing them anyway. Side: I support it because...
-1
points
Ok I Love gay people they are my bros. and sisters. :) But.. God says a marriage is between a man and a woman. Holy Matramony It is disrespect for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to marry Legally! God made Eve for Adam A penis goes in a vagina. Not trying to disrespect and be Vulgar. God told the people to multiply (so as to populate the world). 2012 Modern Day Spoiled Americans Gays are sin. I love them but they sin. I sin no sin is worst then the other. Its not my place to judge them for their sins its Gods. He without sin should cast the first stone. But AMERICA was founded "IN GOD WE TRUST" Our Laws Are the laws of the Bible. Based on the Bible. Dont lie, steal, commit adultery, and many other things. Holy matramony is between a man and a woman. We dont make these things ,SINS, legal to do just because we want to do them. They are morally wrong. And you say gay marrriage doesnt hurt anyone neither does lying when we do it to protect someones feelings from being hurt. But its a sin. And God doesnt want you to do this. Neither does the law. -Obama- He is the Dad of our country. He should keep us in line with laws, worry about Americas debt, and protect us from war. The Dad of our country should say "You want it but its no good for you." Gay marriage is not Right. BEING GAY IS NOT RIGHT. Its what you want not need. AND our WANTS in America are out of control. We think we can make it or have it our way so thats how its going to be. We get what we want because its possible. And we lose sight of our values. But Judgement Day comes for all of us. Im upset because AMERICA IS TELLING God we dont care about what we are supposed to do. What you told us is right and wrong. We are doing whatever we want because we are a spoiled country who dont need a GOD. And I do not judge or look down on Gays yall are everyday sinners like me. BUT AMERICA SHOULD BE ASHAMED! WE ARE ONE NATION UNDER GOD ! DOES OUR ANCESTORS HARD WORK MEAN NOTHING TO YOU! THEY BUILT THIS COUNTRY ON FAITH AND THE BIBLE! YES YOU CAN PRACTICE YOUR OWN REIGION HERE BECAUSE GOD ONLY WANTS US CHRISTIANS TO SHOW YOU THE WAY AND ITS YOUR DECISION WHAT ROAD TO TAKE. YOU TRY TO TAKE AWAY IN GOD WE TRUST AND OUR PLEDGE BUT YOU GIVE GAYS THE RIGHT TO GET LEGALLY MARRIED! YOU MAKE US FOLLOW THE RULES BUT BECAUSE YOU ARE A SOCIAL PRESIDENT WHO WANTS EVERYONE TO LIKE HIM YOU GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT WHETHER IT GOES AGAINST OUR BIBLE AND AMERICAS RELIGION. BECAUSE AMERICAS RELIGION IS GOD. CHRISTIANITY. YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR OWN RELIGION BUT SO DOES AMERICA. AND ITS RELIGION IS GOD. SO GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT BECAUSE SPOILING OURSELVES AND NOT WORRYING ABOUT CONSEQUENCES IS GOING TO END THE WORLD. Side: I reject it because...
3
points
I believe in God, but you if believe everything the bible says than you are a fool. And no, it is NOT disrespectful for same sex HUMANS to get married. It IS, however, disrespectful for you to say that gays are sin. People are born gay, they do not decide to be gay, it is NOT a choice for them. Side: I reject it because...
Actually, the USA is a secular nation. Many of the founding fathers were at very least agnostic. As well, you are either forgetting or did not know that gays are born gay, they do not choose to be gay. You said you "do not judge" gays, but when surrounded by judging words, these few words mean nothing. You are absolutely judging them. You are judging using only the bible. It is not "disrespectful" for a homosexual couple to be legally allowed to marry. It is disrespectful for them NOT to be. Side: I support it because...
2
points
THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING! It cannot talk, it is an inanimate object. The Bible itself was written by over 40 men in over 60 books over 1500 years and has been translated hundreds of times. We, as humans, can read, interpret and process the words contained within it, which also are the interpretations of the many men that wrote it. For you to believe that every word of the Bible is complete truth is misguided. The Bible says argument is completely invalid. The Bible also decrees that divorce is a sin and slavery is okay, but why aren't you fighting for those today?! You say Gays are sin, but the Bible also teaches us not to judge people, accept everyone and to hate the sin but love the sinner. America was founded for religious freedom, not on one God alone. Side: I support it because...
|
