Gay Marriage

[Drake Glau]

Well in my opinion the opposition has no good points at all for a few reason:

1. The USA proudly screams separation of church as state , yes? Therefore christian, or any religions idealism should not come into play when deciding the rights of other peoples lives.

First off, don't quote me on this, my knowledge on religion is umm small. But to what little knowledge I have and I believe I have stated this in my first post in this thread marriage is a religious (christian) sacrament. This is why gay marriage gets complicated because now you're trying to justify gay marriage, a religious idea, based off political rights. By trying to do this I find that it is inevitable to avoid mixing the two.

2. The freedom to pursue happiness is also the basic right of every USA citizen. Unless it directly harms another living being it shouldn't matter.Two homosexuals getting married does neither, and while people don't like to admit it they're equal citizens to any heterosexual so they should have every right.

I honestly don't understand to be honest I say let homosexuals be just as miserable as every straight married couple

Still not for or against gay marriage, I keep my mindset of "to each his/her own". I just don't agree when people try to separate politics from religion especially during such debates as this when it is seemingly impossible to do so.

[~Lc~]

Ah and now we get into the discussion of what is natural and what is not. Because what is defined as natural for one person may not be defined as natural for another. Expected cultural norms are considered 'natural' also. It used to be natural in China to bind womens feet, own slaves, and treat women LIKE they were slaves but cultural perceptions change. So I guess it all goes back to perception.

p.s I cited! Cus you know how the IB is anal (no pun intended) about citing your quotations? The 2010 is APA format.

i think what you're confusing in this argument is the words natural and conventional. I would have to agree with Maha that the natural course of things are penis vagina, proof is that naturally sex is for the purpose to reproduce, and for that to happen you need penis, vagina and a well functioning womb.

What you're debating is the conventionally acceptable social norms of this particular issue

[fhaheen]

Personally I'm not in favor of homosexuality since i am a muslim, however, most i have nothing against gays praticing their sexuality as it cannot harm anyone else. Gay marriages should be legalised as it is a human right to be treated fairly, from what I've read its not for outsiders who are not gay to decide whether someone who is gay to have a gay marriage. similarly, how a human being cannot decide whether or not we stop normal marriages.therefore, freedom of choice should be respected.

[~Lc~]

I think it should be a allowed in a civil sense, Making it through a religiou insitution is ridiculous, because it is too many contradictions (as if there isn't enough of that in religions already!)

So if the couple are looking for signing a peice of paper in court, then why not?

if they're thinking of kissing the bride/groom infront of the preist... well!

Still not for or against gay marriage, I keep my mindset of "to each his/her own". I just don't agree when people try to separate politics from religion especially during such debates as this when it is seemingly impossible to do so.

what? how is this impossible. People should always separate politics from religion! the more secular the state, the less possibility it will be run on rules written for societies that have long been extinct.

please elaborate on this point!

it's not impossible to do it in this debate at all. For the religious this is unacceptable. It's unconstitutional, if you wish to think of the religious books as a constitution. For the non-religious it's a matter of being a homophobic bigot or not. For the liberal it's on whether or not you can be bothered to argue against it, which most probably will end with " meh let them do what they want, who cares?" sort of attitude!

[Drake Glau]

I think it should be a allowed in a civil sense, Making it through a religiou insitution is ridiculous, because it is too many contradictions (as if there isn't enough of that in religions already!)

So if the couple are looking for signing a peice of paper in court, then why not?

if they're thinking of kissing the bride/groom infront of the preist... well!

Still not for or against gay marriage, I keep my mindset of "to each his/her own". I just don't agree when people try to separate politics from religion especially during such debates as this when it is seemingly impossible to do so.

what? how is this impossible. People should always separate politics from religion! the more secular the state, the less possibility it will be run on rules written for societies that have long been extinct.

please elaborate on this point!

it's not impossible to do it in this debate at all. For the religious this is unacceptable. It's unconstitutional, if you wish to think of the religious books as a constitution. For the non-religious it's a matter of being a homophobic bigot or not. For the liberal it's on whether or not you can be bothered to argue against it, which most probably will end with " meh let them do what they want, who cares?" sort of attitude!

How do you separate it then? There was another part of my post that would of helped here

And what you said it exactly why I see it like this. There are religious people in congress (and this is where I start talking about the U.S. because its the only government I know, sorry) and due to this the "constitution" of religion and the actual constitution are going to start bumping heads. Anyway, it's early, I'll think about this today and see if I can think clearer later...

[Daedalus]

I think it should be a allowed in a civil sense, Making it through a religious insitution is ridiculous, because it is too many contradictions (as if there isn't enough of that in religions already!)

So if the couple are looking for signing a peice of paper in court, then why not?

if they're thinking of kissing the bride/groom infront of the preist... well!

Still not for or against gay marriage, I keep my mindset of "to each his/her own". I just don't agree when people try to separate politics from religion especially during such debates as this when it is seemingly impossible to do so.

what? how is this impossible. People should always separate politics from religion! the more secular the state, the less possibility it will be run on rules written for societies that have long been extinct.

please elaborate on this point!

it's not impossible to do it in this debate at all. For the religious this is unacceptable. It's unconstitutional, if you wish to think of the religious books as a constitution. For the non-religious it's a matter of being a homophobic bigot or not. For the liberal it's on whether or not you can be bothered to argue against it, which most probably will end with " meh let them do what they want, who cares?" sort of attitude!

You're right in saying that politics should always be secular (note, however, that a secular President of the USA is more unlikely than a Black one).

But it's just not true that it's unacceptable for all religious people to be homosexual; you need to check your facts (there are many more religions than you'd think)! And even with the 'big' ones, over the years we have learned to contradict the Bible and the Quran on issues that are outdated and impossible. Just look at the Old Testament! I think we should be able to have marriages in front of priests if we want and yes the bride should kiss the bride or the groom kiss the groom and everybody should go "aww". I think it's wrong to condemn homosexuality (no matter what any idiot argues, people *don't* choose it) in any way shape or form, and if people can't control their feelings at least as a society we should control the laws.

Btw, isn't it funny how the institution that was all over the "marriage for love" and everything suddenly starts justifying its policies using sex?

[ShineeLikeMe]

Btw, isn't it funny how the institution that was all over the "marriage for love" and everything suddenly starts justifying its policies using sex?

This is why i tried to rope it back in. I think what were debating now is whether or not a government can ever be completely separate from the people that run it.

In my opinion this can be done to an extent but in a democratic society like the US, the PEOPLE choose who runs them. Those people will be the majority and that majority will have voted for this leader based, not only on their political views, but also their moral views. And what influences moral views? Well doesn't religion do that?...(<<<that's not me trying to be dramatic, thats me honestly asking...)

[xXaliceinibwonderlandXx]

I suppose but its not fair, and i have no problems with people personally protesting it I say protest as you please, but you dont take away someones human rights because you don't like them, or because they're different thats just plain selfishness.

[ShineeLikeMe]

Aha! Human rights. Someone elaborate on this if you please. Because Article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights states

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

(DHR, 2010)

[xXaliceinibwonderlandXx]

lol i was taking alittle more basic

"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." Is America not a country that was built on fighting oppression? Or only people allowed not to oppress when they're heterosexual here.If a non heterosexual believe he wants to get married he has every write to pursue his happiness, he should legally have the right to do so. As for the religious aspect people who scream gay marriage s wrong in America are mostly christiian and they should be rightly ashamed of themselves because morally your breaking your own religous code:

Matthew 7:1a: “Judge not, that ye be not judged”

Matthew 5:39:But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Its neither a persons (morally and judicially) place or right to take away the ability to be married. Non-homosexuals arent asking you to do anything but let them show theyre love for another the way homosexuals do so why cant people let them.

I miss my debate class then need it for more than one semester

[~Lc~]

How do you separate it then? There was another part of my post that would of helped here

And what you said it exactly why I see it like this. There are religious people in congress (and this is where I start talking about the U.S. because its the only government I know, sorry) and due to this the "constitution" of religion and the actual constitution are going to start bumping heads. Anyway, it's early, I'll think about this today and see if I can think clearer later...

That's why you VOTE for the congressmen you feel who will represent your ideas best. You separate it, but voting for the politicians who won't have a specific religious attitude, which condemns other religion hence other people. As we are talking about the US, I believe the 2nd of your four freedoms is freedom of worship no? hence having people with certain religious beliefs elected to represent a general majority who will not necessarily have the same religious belief, is misrepresentation. Well depends on the proportions of each belief in each state of course. Which is why states like Texas will almost always have a christian congress person. Agreed?

I think there will be a major uproar if constitution start bumping head with religion in the states. ESPECIALLY when they condem countries such as Iran who implement religious constitution as their Land and Law policies. Just because it's a different religion doesn't mean it's more wrong than the one more popular in the US less ethical, perhaps... but that's an argument for a different day.

You're right in saying that politics should always be secular (note, however, that a secular President of the USA is more unlikely than a Black one).

But it's just not true that it's unacceptable for all religious people to be homosexual; you need to check your facts (there are many more religions than you'd think)! And even with the 'big' ones, over the years we have learned to contradict the Bible and the Quran on issues that are outdated and impossible. Just look at the Old Testament! I think we should be able to have marriages in front of priests if we want and yes the bride should kiss the bride or the groom kiss the groom and everybody should go "aww". I think it's wrong to condemn homosexuality (no matter what any idiot argues, people *don't* choose it) in any way shape or form, and if people can't control their feelings at least as a society we should control the laws.

Btw, isn't it funny how the institution that was all over the "marriage for love" and everything suddenly starts justifying its policies using sex?

I apologize, I was refering to the 3 religions of the book (which is what it's called in Arabic: Judaism, Christianity and Islam). I don't know much about other religions so my paradigm, hence answer, is limited to these. That being said I know a bit about Hindu Gods (very interesting) but not enough about their views on homosexuality.

What is the point of having a church wedding for gays? clearly, if they are practicing Christians and are homosexual, they're contradicting their lifestyle and belief so much it shouldn't be humored. It would seem to me more of a search for conflict than anything else.

If it's the tradition of it, well then get a fake priest, what's the difference? you'll need to sign the piece of paper in both ways, which is the real marriage license. I'm not condeming homosexuality at all. I'm looking at things rationally (as rational as religion can be looked at of course).

[ShineeLikeMe]

Lc you say that christian homosexuals are contradicting their lifestyle and beliefs so much it shouldn't be humored. But then what kind of contradiction of lifestyle and belief CAN be humored. The Bible has changed so much over the years that we as a culture tend to contradict its teaching whether intentional or not. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't going against the Bible considered a sin? And arn't all sins equal?

What I mean is, does each sin not have the same consequences after one dies? And if not what constitutes a 'biggger' sin. When two gay christians want to proclaim their love with a priest, this means that they are wanting, not only a bland piece of paper from the government, but also the spiritual unity that comes with marriage.

Just to bring in another religion, I'm buddhist and there are no mention of homosexuality (right or wrong) in Buddha's teachings and so this topic is VERY much based on cultural beliefs.

" In Western Buddhism, there seems to be a growing acceptance of consensual and safe same-sex sexual activity as moral. In many Asian countries, cultural influences cause many Buddhists to continue of a long tradition of considering same-sex behavior to be a form of sexual misconduct, no matter what the nature of the relationship is." (Religioustolerance.org, 2010)

I think this really gives light to how much our own morals are influenced by our upbringing and cultural views as a whole.

[BigBangHwaiting]

The way that I see it (and I am one of those gays who can get up in arms about gay marriage) is that the gay marriage debate is sort of like the satirical YouTube video "Why Homosexuality Should Be Banned" that makes fun of the arguments about homosexuality.

"First of all, homosexuality is completely unnatural, just like eye glasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural." Although, in a way, homosexuality is natural. There are many animals that show homosexual tendencies, such as sheep. (Cloud)

"Second, gay marriage is not supported by religion, and in a theocracy such as ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country, that's why we only have one religion in America." I think this one has already been addressed, and basically speaks for itself.

"Third, homosexuals are invalid because they can't produce children. That's why infertile and old couples can't get married, because the world needs more children." This one is the entertaining one for me because it always comes up. Homosexual sex does not produce children, therefore it fails at the biological game, hence the reason that gays should not be married. But what about infertile heterosexual men and women? They can't produce children either...so they shouldn't be able to get married either? What about older couples too? After a certain age, it is difficult for women to bear children, so they shouldn't get married either? Production of children is a totally ludicrous argument, at least to me it is.

"Fourth, gay marriage will encourage more people to be gay, just like hanging around tall people makes you tall. Basically, scientific evidence has proves it to be a contagious disease." This is just a ridiculous argument. I just find it entertaining. Granted more people may be likely to come OUT, but they were gay anyways.

"Five, if we allow gay couples to adopt, they will obviously raise gay children, just like straight parents only raise straight children." This is a ridiculous statement. I'm a contradiction to it.

"Six, homosexual marriages are just plain weird, just like interracial marriages and instant oatmeal. We should probably ban those too." Interracial marriages WERE banned until 1967, in a Supreme Court case that cited the 14th amendment as defense. If interracial marriages were deemed unnatural under the pretext that God separated the different races on different continents in order to keep them apart so they couldn't interbreed. (Loving v. Virginia)

"Seven, when it comes to gay adoption, children can never succeed without male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children." This is not true for children, and even in the animal kingdom, same-sex couples raising children is not uncommon. For example, the famous case of two "gay" male penguins raising a chick from an egg that was rejected by its biological parents. These two male penguins were indeed mates, and they raised a perfectly healthy chick. Also, there are other pairs of male penguins that try to mate also, just saying. ("Male Penguins Raise Adopted Chick")

I'm just curious to see what the response to this is...I have a whole other set of arguments I can bring up(:

Cloud, John. "Yep, They're Gay." Time Magazine 26 Jan. 2007. Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 26 Jan. 2007. Web. 16 Oct. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336-2,00.html>.

Loving v Virginia. Supreme Court. 12 June 1967. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html>.

"Male Penguins Raise Adopted Chick." BBC News - Home. BBC| Europe, 3 June 2009. Web. 16 Oct. 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm>.

Why Homosexuality Should Be Banned. Perf. Kayjen. YouTube. 23 Aug. 2007. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o&feature=player_embedded#!>.

[ShineeLikeMe]

First of all *applause*

Second, Thanks for all the sources. Like on the citations.

[~Lc~]

Lc you say that christian homosexuals are contradicting their lifestyle and beliefs so much it shouldn't be humored. But then what kind of contradiction of lifestyle and belief CAN be humored. The Bible has changed so much over the years that we as a culture tend to contradict its teaching whether intentional or not. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't going against the Bible considered a sin? And arn't all sins equal?

There are so many contradictions in all religions, shall we start naming them all? I guess I can see your point now that I've mentioned that, it's all a bunch of rubbish anyway why not let them have another one! because allowing gay marriage as a religious thing, will be like a public display of the church contradicting itself, which is not how the Church likes to perform its contradictions.

Why be a practicing christian if you're gay? this is what I don't understand. If I was, I'd be angry at such an institution from banishing me from their idealist beliefs to want to join their ranks! This is why I have the impression that those who are, have deeper psychological issues.

What I mean is, does each sin not have the same consequences after one dies? And if not what constitutes a 'biggger' sin. When two gay christians want to proclaim their love with a priest, this means that they are wanting, not only a bland piece of paper from the government, but also the spiritual unity that comes with marriage.

right.. spiritual unity of a piece of paper. Sorry I don't believe in marriage in the first place to believe in the spiritual part of it!

Just to bring in another religion, I'm buddhist and there are no mention of homosexuality (right or wrong) in Buddha's teachings and so this topic is VERY much based on cultural beliefs.

" In Western Buddhism, there seems to be a growing acceptance of consensual and safe same-sex sexual activity as moral. In many Asian countries, cultural influences cause many Buddhists to continue of a long tradition of considering same-sex behavior to be a form of sexual misconduct, no matter what the nature of the relationship is." (Religioustolerance.org, 2010)

I think this really gives light to how much our own morals are influenced by our upbringing and cultural views as a whole.

Good! there we go a religion that's open to societal developments then

What sort of response were you trying to invoke Lyz? is this related to my discussion, or a new one which is pointing out what you've seen?

[Drake Glau]

How do you separate it then? There was another part of my post that would of helped here

And what you said it exactly why I see it like this. There are religious people in congress (and this is where I start talking about the U.S. because its the only government I know, sorry) and due to this the "constitution" of religion and the actual constitution are going to start bumping heads. Anyway, it's early, I'll think about this today and see if I can think clearer later...

That's why you VOTE for the congressmen you feel who will represent your ideas best. You separate it, but voting for the politicians who won't have a specific religious attitude, which condemns other religion hence other people. As we are talking about the US, I believe the 2nd of your four freedoms is freedom of worship no? hence having people with certain religious beliefs elected to represent a general majority who will not necessarily have the same religious belief, is misrepresentation. Well depends on the proportions of each belief in each state of course. Which is why states like Texas will almost always have a christian congress person. Agreed?

I think there will be a major uproar if constitution start bumping head with religion in the states. ESPECIALLY when they condem countries such as Iran who implement religious constitution as their Land and Law policies. Just because it's a different religion doesn't mean it's more wrong than the one more popular in the US less ethical, perhaps... but that's an argument for a different day.

Yes I agree this is why we vote, and our main freedoms are all in the same amendment really (speech, religion, press, assembly), but yes freedom of religion is in there. However it is already almost impossible to equal out the political parties (currently our government is almost completely controlled by Democrats) not to mention trying to get equality in religious representation. There is already major uproar honestly.

Also like to add that I do believe religion needs to stay completely out of politics, the freedom of religion is the only part of politics that should deal with religion in my opinion. I am just saying that most everyone's morals are religious based taught from the bible or the quaran (spelling? sorry, Islamic holy book) or whatever it is you follow which is where religion indirectly enters politics through the people. This is also where the "majority" religion in congress will rule and if it happens to be a bunch of Christians against gay marriage, we get problems until the next round of votes, and even then if theres still a majority of people against gay marriage we'll get another congress against it. It's a rather bad fix for minority groups because it becomes difficult to get a say anywhere that it truly matters and will get stuffed changed.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Drake

[~Lc~]

That's where pressure groups and the media come in. Change takes time, and more often than not it's a pinch of luck people get when the word is spread and everyone shares an opinion about a certain aspect of society.

that's the beauty of politics, its constantly contingent. Which is why I don't like the politically passive

[solastalgia]

Sometimes... I don't even understand why this is a debate.

I don't think it's fair to say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because one believes sex works better between a man and a woman.

1) Sex works just fine with two men and two women.

2) That's not the idea here, anyway. Love is love is love is love. It doesn't need to be characterized by whatever one thinks the sex is like.

3) It has been shown that homosexual parents are just as good parents as heterosexual ones. Many have raised heterosexual children.

4) The allowance of marriage between homosexuals has not been shown to be detrimental to society anyway.

5) Adoption centers are overflowing. Perhaps one's own personal views may be that the function of union is to produce children, but there are many children that were dumped by their (heterosexual, mind you) biological parents and need love and attention. I don't think they would care whoever their parents are, as long as they can love them, and homosexual parents can do that just fine.

6) Sexual orientation does not determine potential for parenthood. Straight people can be horrible parents, gay people can be amazing parents. And to be fair, the opposite is true as well. People who make this argument are generalizing something that can't be generalized.

In my experience I've found that people who dislike homosexual marriage usually do so because their religious beliefs. But they know that's not a valid argument, so they hide it with shaky assumptions that marriage is somehow not good enough between two men or two women. Or, they oppose the "gay agenda" which does not exist. However, evidence has shown in places where gay people can marry, that there is no bad effect on society.

The bottom line I'm trying to get to here, is: Gay people aren't hurting anyone. If anything, the more offensive and hurtful people are the ones who oppose homosexuality. I just don't see how it makes any sense to keep them from having the same rights.

Anyway... my two cents... take it as you will. *shrug*

Edited October 18, 2010 by solastalgia

[Robertito]

Oh I was wondering when someone against homosexuality would respond ahaha.

I'm not trying to be offensive I promise. I've spoken to my friends on the topic but I wanted to see why others are against it.

Would you care to explain?

-I t

I am by no means trying to bash homosexuality, and I completely respect it, but that being said-I personally think it is wrong because it is just biologically unnatural and the basic purpose of a bond between two people is to reproduce but with homosexuality you can't have that, also studies have shown that kids develop more properly if they have both a mother and father to look up to. But as I said before I disagree with it but I still think people can make their own choices on sexuality

Actually there are numerous, documented instances in nature of animals engaging in homosexual behavior, from two male flamingos raising a single chick to two male dolphins having blowhole sex. Basically the whole idea that it is not natural is an outdated argument, but I can understand your other reasoning.

[Smiley Face]

I don't really have anything against gays , but their marriage isn't really something to look forward, I mean, When straight people get married they mostly want having kids and making a family- Not counting sexuality-, but a gay marriage wouldn't have anything to do with kids and family, so it's really not a big deal to ask for.