Should Gay Marriage and/or Civil Unions for commited Homosexual Couples be legalized in the entire United States?

Vote

Want to post a match question to the forums?

It's easy! Simply click the "open for debate" link on any match question.

Atl_Pencil

Nov 12, 2009

If gay marriage were allowed it would dis-honor all marriages.

It's already been done. So are marriages permanently dishonored? Not that it matters. The ritual of marriage is not a person and it has no rights. Even if it was, no one has the right to not be dishonored.

So anyways... Pretend gay marriage were legal. Whats next? Gay married people are allowed to adopt kids?Kid walks into bed room, "daddy what are you doing to daddy?"

Gay marriage is already legal in several places, and gay people can adopt children. Your argument about children walking in on parents having sex is a lame attempt at emotional manipulation, and parents of all kinds have had their children see them having sex. No damage has been done, other than slight nausea. If you want gay people to not be able to adopt kids, you have to prove that they're unsuitable parents because they're gay. No one has proven that yet.

Homosexuality is against my religion. The Bible says if you are homo, you go to hell without repentance.

I'm sure that you can appreciate the importance of separation of church and state.

Definition of marriage: Between a man and woman.

Incorrect. Or rather, specific only to your religion. Marriage is far, far older than the Bible or any other Abrahamic religion by tens of thousands of years. It's been done many ways, and its origins predate recorded history. Marriage is whatever a society chooses it to be.

 

JaronK

Nov 12, 2009

Even in the bible both polygamous and homosexual marriages exist.  The "marriage is between a man and a woman" thing is just an invention by homophobics... don't blame bigotry on the bible.  Not that it matters, as the separation of Church and State means that decisions by the state must not be taking into account religious dictates.

Meanwhile, gays want to marry for love, and because being able to support your partner if they get injured and end up in the hospital is important.  I've known a number of charming gay and lesbian couples.  And yes, they made great parents too.  Of course, I've met lesbian couples that made terrible parents too... point being, the gender you are attracted to does not make you a better or worse parent.

But gays marrying does not devalue marriage.  Marriage should be because you love your partner, and that doesn't change if someone else marries someone you wouldn't marry.  So marry for love, not to show how much better you are than people who are different from you, and your marriage will be fine.  If you just marry to spite others, your marriage has no value anyway.

I_am_AlanG

Nov 12, 2009

In response to no_name_avail's post.

I don't want to subvert the forum post but what is wrong with homosexuals being allowed to adopt. Oh no, little johnny might walk in on his two dads. I know you're coming from the belief that male-on-male love is wrong but that is your own hang-up. No doubt johnny is likely to be appalled much like he would be if he walked in on mom and dad. But the kid, even without that particular situation will likely learn to be a more accepting of others. I hope we're all striving to be more acceptable.

People have always been married for reasons other than love. My straight marriage would likely be meaningless to you. But to my wife and the people I care about, it would be nothing but a great expression of our love. My kids would be brought up to respect others. Yes even when they learn that their friends mom wants to marry a cat.

 

Great Atl_Pencil and JaronK stole all my good points. Daggers

Erik86

Nov 12, 2009

There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever for gay marriage to be illegal. It's thoroughly depressing that in an age where we can fly to the moon, manipulate the sub-atomic building blocks of all existence and create staggeringly powerful computers or robots that mimic human intelligence, we still deny people civil equality based on sexual orientation.

Smokin_joes

Nov 12, 2009

I've heard a lot of arguments against gay marriage. After tossing out all of the arguments that contained some kind of fallacy, all the arguments that revealed some kind of falsehood based on prejudice/bigotry, and all the arguments which appealed to some sort of religious principle (which has no basis), I was left with two arguments.

One of semantics and one of tradition.

The semantics argument claimed that "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and we shouldn't re-define it". Well, obviously I'm not going to think a simple argument of semantics supercedes the need for equality. Even more awesome is the fact that marriage has already been redefined. No, I'm not talking about how it's changed so that interracial marriage is okay or how women are no longer the property of their husbands or anything like that. I mean that "marriage" already applies to "same-sex marriage" in many dictionaries. Dictionaries update their words and definitions based on common usage, and with all the talk of same-sex marriage, the word "marriage" has already been re-defined.

marriage

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

So, the next time someone shouts in fear, "THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE!!!" just tell them that that ship has already sailed, and that they helped the definition change by complaining about it so much.

 

The second argument, of tradition, argues that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and that it should stay that way. Well, this argument isn't exactly true either; there is a history of same-sex marriage and several famous examples (even examples of same-sex marriages being performed by the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago!), but I'll grant them the benefit of the doubt and say that, for the most part, marriage has been between a man and a woman. However, I still don't think that an argument of "Well, this is the way it's always been, and we can't change it now" in no way supercedes the need for equality in marriage. After all, if we had stuck with what marriage was traditionally, women would still be property and interacial marriage would still be illegal.

no_name_avail

Nov 12, 2009

Marriage as a word, based on its origin, actually simply means "to put together"

you can marry a handful of dollar bills by putting them together in your wallet.

However, I don't think that it is a really good idea to allow same sex marriages. I think that the word, as we have came to understand it should be respected.

I think that it would be fair to allow same sex unions, with equal rights as a marriage, however, not calling it a marriage.

Additionally, with absolutely no knowledge of gay adoption, common sense tells me that this is a very bad thing. If you are gay, then you can't have babies (by your instinct alone...) so... i think that is evidence enough to prove that gay couples are not fit parents (I am not talking about social responsibility.)

It seems to me that being raised in that sort of an environment would be detrimental to a child. He/she would have no role model of either the same sex or relationship with the opposite sex. Additionally extremely confusing to the child.

I was unaware that homosexuals could adopt, and I think that this seriously need to be re-evaluated...

Its about what the adults want, failing to take into consideration the needs of the child. Extremely selfish.

As is with the idea of gay marriage. Since the idea of the union is based primarily on sexual preference.

Traditionally marriage was supposed to be based on family.

So by legalizing gay marriage, apparently the "sacared union" will be reduced to sexual preference. Instead of (weather religious or not) a "holy sanctimony."

Marriage is supposed to be "spiritual." Not about sexual preference.

Like I said before. I could careless weather there are equal rights, or not. Sexual preference has nothing to do with someones humanity. In America everyone should have equal rights. And just to really prove a point... Gay men have every right to marry a woman, and gay women have every right to marry a man.

So its already equal.

Anyways, baseing marriage off of sexual preference, as the primary definition of marriage, is not a good option.

So no. No to gay "marriages."

sing_le

Nov 12, 2009

There is absolutely no logical reason for anyone to ever gratify a homosexual desire.The persons being of the same sex completely nullifies any rationale that can be purported for sexual activity between them.And the ability to deny this is irrelevant.

The state has a compelling interest and obligation to promote the formation and maintenance of opposite-sex relationships.It has an obligation to the general welfare to discourage same-sex relationships.Either marriage exists to further these ends or it shouldn't exist at all.Helping someone have an easier time in a same-sex relationship is no different than easing an alcoholic's ability to keep drinking.

And as I remind one and all,this has nothing to do with religion and neither do I!

JaronK

Nov 12, 2009

Thank you Sing for demonstrating how bad the arguments against gay marriage are.  For example, there are obvious logical reasons for people to gratify homosexual desires... they're the same reasons to have protected heterosexual sex (increased intimacy, physical pleasure).  Gaining something, even pleasure, with no downside (assuming you're being safe) is logically a good thing.  But you're so far out in your own world that you're unable to see even that.  The entire rest of your argument is nothing but assertions of your own bigotry (the state has an obligation to screw over certain people, with no listed reasons).  Alcoholics shouldn't drink because it hurts their mental and physical well being.

jhopel

Nov 12, 2009

How can it be called "equal" rights if it excludes people?

JaronK

Nov 12, 2009

Some people are more equal than others and Seperate But Equal totally works, evidently.  No_Name can't even see the irony, believing that it counts as equal rights if one group is only allowed to marry the gender they can love and the other is only allowed to marry the gender they can't.  No empathy there... No_Name evidently can't put himself in someone else's shoes long enough to realize how horrific being told you can only marry the gender you're not attracted to is.

sing_le

Nov 12, 2009

No,JaronK,those arguments that work for heterosexual sex only work for heterosexual sex.Standards of conduct are not "bigotry" and the necessity of partners being of opposite sexes is primary to all sexual relations.Feeling entitled to homosexual sex is a symptom of mental disorder...but it's curable by education.

Jhopel,what's excluded is activity from which all are equally excluded.

no_name_avail

Nov 12, 2009

Like I said in the post that apparently no one read...

Homosexuals already have equal rights.

Homosexuals equally have the right to enter into a marriage with the opposite sex as do heterosexuals. Heterosexuals do not have a right to enter into a same sex marriage, neither do homosexuals.

What isnt equal about that?

Done.

JaronK

Nov 12, 2009

It should be obvious No_Name.  One has the right to marry people they can actually love, and does not have the right to marry people they can't possibly love.  The other is the opposite.  Put yourself in their shoes for a moment... would those rights feel equal to you?  Imagine if a religious amendment were put through that says "everyone has the right to worship Hindu gods, but not Christian gods."  Would that feel equal to you?  After all, you and Hindus would both have the right to worship the same gods.  Ignore for the moment the first amendment issues, and just think about whether that's equality.  This is a test of your ability to feel empathy for other human beings who are different from yourself.

no_name_avail

Nov 12, 2009

Well, also...

as I said...

same sex unions would be fine by me but not marriage.

As we have come to know the word: it is a holy sancitmony between a man and a woman (regardless of your religion, or lack thereof) marriage is supposed to be a spiritual wedding, with the purpose of creating a family.

Creating an allowance for homosexuals to marry would degrade marriage. How? by reducing the meaning of the wedding to being based on sexual preference.

Some kind of equal union is fine by me. However, ruining the meaning of marriage is not acceptable.

superherolover

Nov 12, 2009

There is a button that some of my same sex oriented friends have that says, "love+love=marriage." I love this button and one day I'm going to steal it. But the point is that I do not have the right to prevent two people, who are in love, from getting married. I like to turn it around for other people who are against same sex marriages and put it in this senario: suppose that it wasn't socially acceptable to have opposite sex marriages, that they were frowned upon or illegal. Wouldn't you want someone to fight for you, or take up the fight yourself, in order for you to be able to marry the one you love?

JaronK

Nov 12, 2009

Why can't homosexuals marry for the purpose of creating a family?  Do sperm doners no longer exist?  How about adoption?  And if it's about who can make children, should infertile poeple be told they can never marry?  And is it really so bad to reduce the meaning of marriage to "people who love each other joining together?"  Also, a number of religions and cultures are just fine with homosexual and polyamorous relationships.

Smokin_joes

Nov 12, 2009

I find this pretty interesting:

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

Smokin_joes

Nov 12, 2009

Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions (which, of course, isn't currently the case), the fact that a civil union would remain a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

For the same reasons that black schools were neglected, same-sex unions will not be respected as equal to marriages until they are under the same institution. It's a second-class citizenship.

Atl_Pencil

Nov 12, 2009

I think that the word, as we have came to understand it should be respected.

But "we" didn't come to understand it that way. You may have. Regardless, fuck it. It's just a word.

I think that it would be fair to allow same sex unions, with equal rights as a marriage, however, not calling it a marriage.

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow everyone to have civil unions, and for the government not to use the word "marriage" at all?

Additionally, with absolutely no knowledge of gay adoption, common sense tells me that this is a very bad thing. If you are gay, then you can't have babies (by your instinct alone...) so... i think that is evidence enough to prove that gay couples are not fit parents (I am not talking about social responsibility.)

That is fucking retarded.

It seems to me that being raised in that sort of an environment would be detrimental to a child. He/she would have no role model of either the same sex or relationship with the opposite sex.

So it would be almost as bad as a single parent raising a child, but not quite?

I was unaware that homosexuals could adopt, and I think that this seriously need to be re-evaluated...Its about what the adults want, failing to take into consideration the needs of the child. Extremely selfish.

Except that the child's needs already have been taken into account, and so far kids with gay parents are doing just fine. If you want to have them not be able to adopt kids, prove that it's harmful. No one else has been able to do it.

As is with the idea of gay marriage. Since the idea of the union is based primarily on sexual preference. Traditionally marriage was supposed to be based on family.

Whose tradition? Marriage has been used as all kinds of things. Regardless, why wouldn't two gay people make a family?

So by legalizing gay marriage, apparently the "sacared union" will be reduced to sexual preference. Instead of (weather religious or not) a "holy sanctimony."

Again, marriage has been whatever society wants it to be. There's nothing inherently "sacred" or "holy" about it.

Marriage is supposed to be "spiritual." Not about sexual preference.

I'm not spiritual. I can't get married now?

Like I said before. I could careless weather there are equal rights, or not.

Sure you care. You just don't care when it's not you that's getting shafted.

Anyways, baseing marriage off of sexual preference, as the primary definition of marriage, is not a good option.

Why isn't it?

sing_le

Nov 12, 2009

Nobody has the right to decide what sex they marry...we don't get to choose what side of the road we drive on either.The system works thanks to its being uniform and overriding individual preference,and would be useless if it didn't.

Post a comment