by AFL
CATEGORIES

 Military  
 Current events  
 Religion 
 Technology 
 Countries 
 Politics 
 Society 
 Other 






There are currently no top
rated posts : don't forget you can "thumb" up or down posts.

Website intro. Please login or register (it's very fast and free).



  • Index
  • » Society - Room 1
  • » Gay Marriage by Warenz
  •    Debate whether or not you think gay marriage is okay.

    Today I came across a debate about gay marriage however that was on a internet site with mainly trolls. So I thought that this might be an interesting topic especially if people that are actually willing to debate are participating. Afterall it is interesting to see another persons point of view.

    Yeah, so.. What are your thoughts on gay marriage. Do you approve it, do you reject it or are you completely neutral and just don't care about it?

    Well I guess I should remind you that this debate's goal is not to get to a conclusion but to see and understand each others point of view.

    Arguments can be either in religious matter or ethical matter.

    Edit

#1 2015-09-19 02:59:50

          United States    crossel
               Reply
   1    

Re: Gay Marriage




I don't believe in gay marriage. I can allow it but if I say I am against gay marriage don't be on my door waving a rainbow flag that is what gets me mad:mad:.

Offline

#2 2015-07-08 20:11:27

          United Kingdom    Higgins
               Reply
   1    

Re: Gay Marriage




Homosexuality is OK

Gay marriage is OK

Gay couples adopting is OK


None of it is a big threat to humanity, so why not let people follow their destiny in life, rather than constantly interfering?

Offline

#3 2014-08-08 15:56:12

          Taiwan (ROC)    Archduke
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@blossom 

I just mean that for some people it's irrelevant. Like me.

I personally think if people asking for gay marriage are fine with it and don't force me into the gang then all right. I support IF. There's that. lol2

Offline

#4 2014-08-08 10:48:23

          United Kingdom    blossom
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@Archduke 
                       
Wait, so a debate about gay marriage isn't allowed to mention civil rights in a response? That's a bit reductive, no?

Offline

#5 2014-08-07 01:44:07

          Taiwan (ROC)    Archduke
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@blossom 

Human rights are not a valid point. nono

Please go to

http://www.theworlddebating.com/viewtopic.php?id=305

and

http://www.theworlddebating.com/viewtopic.php?id=359

for more information.

Offline

#6 2014-08-06 15:53:50

          United Kingdom    blossom
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




 Bottom line, society in general does not accept homosexuality as normal behavior (ditto incest or polygamy) but most tolerate it. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but don't subject MY children to it with flamboyant public displays. Nobody would CARE what a persons sexual orientation was if they weren't flaunting it in the first place. 

 

People are raised to see heterosexuality as normal and so regard homosexuality as abnormal. That's nothing to do with nature; it's entirely nurture. So using majority rule here is redundant, because if the majority were raised in a society wherein heterosexuality has always been deemed the superior sexual orientation then it's obvious that the majority will disapprove of homosexuals and their lifestyles.

Then you go on to say you don't care what homosexuals do in the bedroom. But you just said yourself most people don't accept homosexuality. If you don't accept homosexuality, then you will refuse to accept it in our out of the bedroom. You can't pick and choose where you think it's acceptable just because you belong to the privileged majority.

Finally, you say nobody would care what a person's sexual orientation was if it wasn't publicly flaunted. So why do heterosexuals need public occasions to declare love for one another? That's public flaunting. Why are heterosexuals allowed to kiss and hold hands in the street without people threatening them or making them feel uncomfortable? That's also public flaunting.

Homosexuals are led to ask questions like: Why can heterosexuals be 'out' about their sexuality but homosexuals cannot? Why do heterosexuals feel threatened by acts of affection that in no way are directed towards them? Why do heterosexuals feel their children need to be protected from homosexuality?

I can postulate some answers to these questions. Heterosexuals can be out because they're in power, and can punish any deviance from their stipulations on sexuality any way they like. This leads to answer #2, such that heterosexuals feel threatened by acts of homosexuality because it breaks their prescriptions of how people should sexually behave. Answer #3 therefore is a problematic conclusion that children should not bear witness to homosexuals because they are impressionable and will be more susceptible to sexual deviance.

This is where gay activism steps in. #1 Homosexuals demand, as functional citizens of their society, to be granted rights to make up for the imbalance of power arbitrarily given to heterosexuals by accident of nature/societal development over time (these two are very difficult to separate). It is up to a modern society, where citizens are given human rights, to balance out the disparities of power between groups, else risk continuing the abuses inflicted on the weaker groups. #2 Homosexuals don't want to be punished for something they have no control over, and don't want to lose out for example, on the spouse rights gained from marriage - such as next of kin, and hospital visitation - because of these natural tendencies that are personal to them and affect no one else. #3 Children are not sexually developed and are not susceptible to becoming homosexuals. The proof of this is the fact that the vast majority of homosexuals are the offspring of heterosexual parents. If sexuality were inherited, then homosexuals would not exist.

Without going into further details of why you as a heterosexual should feel responsible for the protection of vulnerable groups of people in your own society, I would like to conclude by saying that homosexuals from a very young age experience a torturous and oppressive life, and if something as arbitrary as marriage can be a step towards a brighter future for people whom exhibit disproportionate rates of suicide and depression, then is that such a bad ask?

Offline

#7 2013-05-18 16:27:35

          United Kingdom    NewAtheist
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@madd693 
                       
@madd693

I disagree because this is not a federalist issue.

This is about recognising basic human rights, which have nothing to do with the Constitution, the states, federalism, or anything like that. A basic human right applies to everyone, regardless of state or even nationality. So I will quote from the UN Declaration of Human Rights (which the US willing entered into):

Article 16 (1): "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."

Article 2: "
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

(https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

The only way I can interpret this is that "other status" includes sexual orientation, and that therefore gay couples should be allowed to marry. And I know it says "men and women", but come on, times have changed. Marriage is a worldwide right and to restrict this to a minority group is undemocratic discrimination. Gays have the same desires, and therefore the same rights, as the rest of us.

As for your spiel about marriage being tied to religion, I will mention that marriage existed long before Christianity, such as in the pagan society of Ancient Rome. Also, the laws of the United States are NOT based on Christianity:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." (Treaty of Tripoli 1797, ratified by John Adams)

(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp)

Besides, "marriage licenses" are merely a legal contrivance. A marriage is basically a personal commitment between two people which has no affect on the church or the state, and therefore neither has a right to restrict it. By extension, since the church is separate from the state according to the US Constitution, the church can have no effect on marriage in the US.

As for you main point, that marriage is a state issue, I disagree. It is an overreach of state power to deny a human right. By your logic,Plessy v Ferguson should be reaffirmed. The fact is that there are some rights that are basic human rights, and thus apply to all people, irrespective of location or national law.

Offline



   

#8 2013-05-08 14:55:49

          United States    visverbi
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@madd693

 

  That might be the most ridiculous thing stated on the subject of Gay Marriage yet. Tell me, which of two homosexual MEN are going to be inseminated, artificially or otherwise?

I'm afraid I'm guilty of not explaining fully my argument about artificial insemnation. The use of a surrogate mother is an (expensive) alternative to procreation for not only gay couples, but also women who are not able to have children. At least one of the men could be a genetic relative by means of sperm donation.
The study you referenced (below) has been widely disputed, and as such is not exactly admissable as-is. Attached are links to news about it.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/201 … ing-study/
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa … cus_brief/
The first one questions the close ties between the witherspoon foundation and the study, citing EMails that Regnerous himself released. The second one is an independent analysis of the study by the American Socioloical Association, by way of the Amicus brief, that states, "First, the Regnerus study does not specifically examine children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, but instead examines children who, from the time they were born until they were 18 or moved out, had a parent who at any time had "a same-sex romantic relationship." As Regnerus noted, the majority of the individuals characterized by him as children of "lesbian mothers" and "gay fathers" were the offspring of failed opposite-sex unions whose parent subsequently had a same-sex relationship. In other words, Regnerus did not study or analyze the children of two same-sex parents.

Second, when the Regnerus study compared the children of parents who at one point had a "same-sex romantic relationship," most of whom had experienced a family dissolution or single motherhood, to children raised by two biological, married opposite-sex parents, the study stripped away all divorced, single, and step-parent families from the opposite-sex group, leaving only stable, married, opposite-sex families as the comparison..."
Thus, it was hardly surprising that the opposite-sex group had better outcomes given that stability is a key predictor of positive child well-being. By so doing, the Regnerus study makes inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons."
All in all, the Regnerous study is certainly not proof that homosexual couples should be unable to raise children.

(Here is a link to the oriinal Renerous study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 9X12000610)
 

 Homosexuality is abnormal behavior . (If everyone were gay the human race wouldn't have made it to a second generation, hence it is abnormal by natural standards) practiced by a small but vocal minority of people 

 
A study by Camperio-Ciani has found that female relatives of gay men tend to reproduce more often and have fewer genotypical disorders than those with no gay relatives. Just because a group (or gene) is a minority, does not mean it is abnormal or counter-productive.
Also, this is not a discussion of gay pride, or of any parades that ensue.
And as a final note, you said:  

Bottom line, society in general does not accept homosexuality as normal behavior  

 
but as this society shows, opinion is heavily divided, with neither side singnificantly larger.http://www.norc.org/PDFs/2011%20GSS%20R … pt2011.pdf

Last edited by visverbi (2013-05-08 14:57:00)

Offline

#9 2013-05-04 02:15:20

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@visverbi 

 

 The idea that society progresses only through procreation, comforting though it may be to opponents of gay marriage, would also bar infertile heterosexual couples from marriage 

 

You completely miss the point. First of all, NOBODY is 'banned' from marriage. That people keep claiming gays are prevented is pure ignorance. There are churches in every state in the US that will marry gay couples. It is only state recognition of their marriage that they do not receive in 40 states.

Traditional marriage is not encouraged SOLELY because of fertility, but that is a large part of it. No, you can't issue marriage licenses based on if a couple is fertile or not, but we know for CERTAIN the gay couple won't be reproducing via sex.

 

 Indeed, a homosexual couple, with the help of modern medicine, has a very good chance of creating a child through artificial insemnation.  

 

That might be the most ridiculous thing stated on the subject of Gay Marriage yet. Tell me, which of two homosexual MEN are going to be inseminated, artificially or otherwise?

 

 Likewise, studies have shown that gay couples are just as capable of raising well-adjusted children 

 

While other studies conclude that is incorrect. (so does common sense)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 9X12000610

Being 'capable' is not cause enough to accept it.

 

  I found particularly offensive the idea that because a homosexual person cannot reproduce, they make no contribution to society. 

 

They make no contribution to the furtherance of society. Their individual accomplishments and contributions have nothing to do with sexuality, marriage, or anything else. Sexual behavior has nothing to do with advancing society beyond procreation. IOW, the people you mentions contributions have nothing at all to do with their choice of bed mates.

 

 And yes, there is no right to marriage in the United States constitution, but there is a right to due process under the law, a right that I believe is violated by denying gay couples marriage. 

 

You believe incorrectly. This is addressed by civil union laws. Due process protects one's rights, it doesn't grant said rights. It does not state that every person, gender, race, etc. must be treated exactly the same. It simply requires that a person or entity (such as a corporation) must have their rights respected. Equal protection does NOT mean identical protection. There are hundreds of examples I could give if you like. A 'women only' health club, for example (nothing prohibits men only health clubs so there is no equal protection violation by banning men even though they aren't allowed in the women only clubs). Homosexual couples have civil union laws that are akin to a heterosexual couples marriage laws. There are some differences, primarily because there are differences in the types of relationships and how they relate to society. But in no way can you claim that gays don't receive equal protection.

 

 Also, the point I was attempting to make with the slavery analogy is that issues that seem muddled at the time (e.g. slavery then, gay marriage now) often appear clear-cut in hindsight.
 

 

They only become 'clear-cut' when societal norms change. Of course in 2013 slavery is abhorrent to westerners, however other things are now socially acceptable where the change is not (necessarily) a good one. The analogy was bogus.

Slavery is abnormal (by natural standards.) behavior practiced by a small but vocal minority of people, it was then, it is now.

Homosexuality is abnormal behavior . (If everyone were gay the human race wouldn't have made it to a second generation, hence it is abnormal by natural standards) practiced by a small but vocal minority of people. It was then, it is now. If you want to draw comparisons to slavery, then the homosexuals would be akin to the slave masters, not the slaves.

You are proposing legislation to force acceptance of a behavior that most people do not find normal or acceptable. The same exact arguments could be made for adult incest or polygamy. Two other large minority groups that are still socially unacceptable, indeed aren't even tolerated, mostly because they aren't as flamboyant in their demands. Homosexuality gained tolerance by shoving it down the public's throat. If a group of heterosexuals had a "straight pride" parade with men and women dressed in their underwear flaunting their sexuality down main street the thing would be shut down and people arrested for lewd acts in public. If a group had a 'white pride' parade they'd be shut down as a "hate group". But the homosexuals got away with it for fear of being labeled bigots, or worse, if you spoke out against their flamboyant shows of public sexuality. Much easier to tolerate them than oppose them.

Bottom line, society in general does not accept homosexuality as normal behavior (ditto incest or polygamy) but most tolerate it. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but don't subject MY children to it with flamboyant public displays. Nobody would CARE what a persons sexual orientation was if they weren't flaunting it in the first place.

Offline

#10 2013-05-04 00:47:16

          United States    visverbi
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@madd693 

The idea that society progresses only through procreation, comforting though it may be to opponents of gay marriage, would also bar infertile heterosexual couples from marriage. Indeed, a homosexual couple, with the help of modern medicine, has a very good chance of creating a child through artificial insemnation. Likewise, studies have shown that gay couples are just as capable of raising well-adjusted children.http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parent … ight-ones/

I found particularly offensive the idea that because a homosexual person cannot reproduce, they make no contribution to society. The likes of Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, and Sally Ride I'm sure you have nothing but contempt for, seeing as all are gay.

As to the idea that legalizing gay marriage is legislating acceptance of the aforementioned institution, I have only to say that I am not so naive to believe that acceptance of anything can be legislated. However, we can take the first step to a mutual understanding by putting gay couples on equal footing with their heterosexual counter-parts. And yes, there is no right to marriage in the United States constitution, but there is a right to due process under the law, a right that I believe is violated by denying gay couples marriage. 
Also, the point I was attempting to make with the slavery analogy is that issues that seem muddled at the time (e.g. slavery then, gay marriage now) often appear clear-cut in hindsight.

Last edited by visverbi (2013-05-04 00:52:27)

Offline

#11 2013-05-03 02:40:26

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@visverbi 

1. There is no "gay marriage act". It's not a federal issue and should not be.

2. I don't think anyone believes gay marriage only affects gay people. It affects EVERYONE for multiple reasons.

3. You can't create a law simply to make people feel better about themselves which is in essence what you are saying here:

 

  I believe that gay marriage can only act to provide legitamacy to a segment of the population that has so far been limited in its role in society. Additionally, this legitamacy will provide confidence in closeted people and their allies to defy a societal norm that has served only to opress 

 

The last part of that is also incorrect. It does not 'only serve to oppress'. Quite the opposite. Society only progresses through procreation, something quite impossible with homosexual couples*. Governmental recognition of heterosexual marriage serves many societal purposes that do not apply to homosexuals. The aforementioned need for procreation necessary to advance any society, encouraging family's (mom, dad, children), etc. While true that not all heterosexual couples choose to, or even can, bear children, it is in societies best interests to encourage them not only to do so but to also raise those children responsibly as they represent the next generation of said society. Without them, the society eventually fades away. Homosexual couples, by definition, can not reproduce, hence are not a benefit to society as a whole.

The slavery analogy isn't worth addressing but I will anyhow. Comparing gay marriage to slavery is ridiculous. Slavery is in fact a well accepted violation of a persons human rights. There is no right to marriage, gay or otherwise.

There are 10 states that recognize gay marriage. That is 20% of the union that any gay couple can choose to live in if it is that important for their self esteem or whatever other silly reason you can come up with that they need the word 'marriage' attached to their relationship.

By the way, there are many Gay activists who OPPOSE Gay marriage for multiple reasons. Those that demand it do so not because they seek equality (civil union laws already accomplish that) or societal tolerance (they already have that too with a multitude of laws including 'hate crimes' legislation) but rather forced acceptance of their lifestyle. You can not and should not legislate acceptance of anything (what you are advocating). Or do you believe polygamy, bestiality, and incest should be legislated into societal norms, too? IOW, you should not create laws with the sole purpose of societal acceptance of a sexual preference.

*On a humorous, but serious, side note: There is a law proposed to deem homosexual couples as 'infertile' for the purpose of granting them some Governmental benefits afforded to infertile couples. The proposed proof of being infertile is their testimony in court that the couple had been having sex together for at least a year without pregnancy occurring. Never mind the absurdity that it takes a year to figure out that a homosexual couple will not result in pregnancy EVER, but that 'proof' would absolutely not be accepted for heterosexual couples making the same claim as fertility can be fairly easily identified.

Welcome to the bizzaro world of socially accepting Gay marriage. Like any special group, once they get a foothold in something they demand more. They don't want equality, they want special rules and privileges that apply only to them even when the issue at hand doesn't apply to them AT ALL.

Another example: Less than two weeks after 'don't ask don't tell' was stricken and gays were officially allowed in the military, the activists demanded the military put out a gay version of "stars and stripes", the official military newspaper, that addresses issues important to gay soldiers. Again, they want special rules that apply to them alone.

Offline

#12 2013-05-03 01:47:11

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@NewAtheist 

The debate has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is "wrong" or not. That is clearly a moral issue that can only be decided by the individual considering it. Your propaganda from the pro gay marriage proponents and your atheist view that religion not enter into it not withstanding, marriage itself, gay or straight, is most assuredly NOT a "right".

To have your marriage recognized by any state in the US you must first obtain a marriage license. This requirement alone establishes that marriage is no more a 'right' than driving a car on public roads or practicing medicine is a right. The mere existence of a license requirement mandates that you must meet certain qualifications in order to establish a legally binding marriage. It is up to the individual state to determine what those qualifications are and they vary greatly by state.

To exclude all religion from the discussion is nothing more than your own personal bias as it plays a prominent role here. Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the state, it is not something that was invented by the state. The state mandates for licensing is solely to recognize a marriage at the state level in order to set legal requirements and determine benefit eligibility. In essence it is little more than a legal contract at that level. Most states have 'civil union' laws that provide for the same exact protections for non-heterosexual couples so there is no discrimination at the state level. Simply calling it by a different name for different groups does not on it's face make it discriminatory.

Each state does, and should, determine what is the socially responsible definition in their jurisdiction. A broad based definition from dictionary.com does not and can not serve as a legal definition. You can not set federal mandates on this issue as the Constitution does not mention marriage at all, hence it's not a federal issue. Do understand, the federal Government of the United States ONLY role is to uphold the Constitution. On issues not addressed in the Constitution it is the role of the states to set their own individual definitions, rules and laws as they see fit.

The fact that marriage is not addressed is THE reason gay marriage is such a debated topic. Since there is no Constitutional protection for Gay couples they have to try and back door it with wildly broad claims of "equal protection under law", however, that issue is certainly addressed with civil union laws as well as others.

The reasonable response on this issue is the will of the people in each individual state. The liberal political machine isn't content with this approach, however. Even in VERY Gay friendly California the citizens, when allowed to vote on the issue via referendum, voted to NOT allow Gay marriage. The legislatures and judicial authorities were shocked (it's why they allowed the referendum in the first place, they were certain the people would vote to allow it) and are now suppressing the will of the people by fighting the Constitutionality of their own referendum. I guess if you can't bend the will of the people to your side, tie them up in court instead.

I repeat, gay marriage is NOT "illegal". Nobody is going to put you in jail for marrying someone of the same sex in any state (as they do with polygamists) so the argument of 'legalizing' it is moot. What is actually in question is state recognition of your marriage. If you simply want to get married to the person you love, the state recognizing your nuptials should be of little consequence, particularly if they already recognize the contract via 'civil union' laws. You can fly to New York or Massachusetts and get married with a license, but that doesn't mean other states must recognize said license, just as having a license to practice law in New York isn't recognized in a Tennessee court room or a license to carry a firearm in Tennessee isn't recognized in New York.

To further establish this is a state issue, different states have different age requirements for marriage regardless of sexual orientation. In one state you may be allowed to get married at age 16 while in another you must be 18. At one time, Illinois law required the Woman be 18 but the male 21 or have parental consent. Different states have different requirements that are unique to their jurisdiction. There is no one size fits all definition of what marriage is and who it applies to.

In short, it's a state issue. If you don't like the laws in your state, move to a state that is more in line with your beliefs, don't demand that the state bend to your will. That is the intention of a republic to begin with.

Last edited by madd693 (2013-05-03 01:52:35)

Offline

#13 2013-04-30 23:32:35

          United States    visverbi
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




Gay marriage.
Pariah of progressive debate in the U.S.
While it may seem that gay marriage will only affect gay people, it will most certainly have an effect on our societies perception of them, and thus, society.
On the one hand a seemingly sound argument can be made that as society has been thus society must be lest horrors untold be wreaked upon us.
Yes, gay marriage will change societal norms, but what sparks contention is whether that change will be positive or detrimental.
I believe that gay marriage can only act to provide legitamacy to a segment of the population that has so far been limited in its role in society. Additionally, this legitamacy will provide confidence in closeted people and their allies to defy a societal norm that has served only to opress.
Remember, slavery was once a societal norm, but hindsight condemns it as tyranny.

Offline

#14 2013-01-27 11:48:06

          United Kingdom    NewAtheist
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@calibur

That's just sad. I mean, this site may be open and informal but you should actually know how the debate before you create an account.

Here in the UK, we have a nice compromise. It's almost certain that same-sex marriage will be introduced soon (it's endorsed by all three major political parties and public opinion seems to agree), but religious organisations won't have to marry homosexuals if they don't want to.

Last edited by NewAtheist (2013-01-27 12:01:36)

Offline

#15 2013-01-26 22:54:02

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@NewAtheist 

I'm not thanking you, I'm saying good job... Many people come in here and have no idea that, as you said, presenting evidence is the most basic requirement of debate, or have no understanding of evidence.

Offline

#16 2013-01-26 22:48:27

          United Kingdom    NewAtheist
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@calibur

Thanks, but I'm not sure why you're thanking me for presenting evidence. That's a basic requirement of debate.

As a addendum:

Many people think that homosexuals marrying is going to affect their heterosexual marriages. This is of course absurd-- how are two completely separate people who love each other getting married going to affect you? If homosexuals marrying is going to affect your marriage, your marriage must not be that stable in the first place.

Offline

#17 2013-01-26 22:31:01

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




It's basically already been accepted here that gay marriage is okay. Indeed, most of our debaters are quite liberal by American standards, so it wasn't a big fight anyways.
However, good job presenting evidence.

Offline

#18 2013-01-26 21:44:59

          United Kingdom    NewAtheist
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




(First of all, I would like to make it clear that responses to this argument that rely on religion of any kind will be rejected for the simple reason that this is a non-religious debate; bringing religion into it just makes you look like a a-- I mean donkey.)

Firstly, marriage in its broadest sense can be defined as:


mar·riage
  [mar-ij]  Show IPA 

noun 
1.

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. Antonyms: separation.

b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.  Antonyms: separation.

2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.  Synonyms: matrimony.  Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

3.
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.  Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding.  Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

4.
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. 

5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.  Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation.  Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage)

Using this definition, I don't see why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. The biblical definition (and other religious definitions) does not count as the laws of the US and other countries do not rely on religion:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli 1797.  Unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams.

Secondly, if two people of the same sex wish to become married, why should they be denied that right? The right to marriage is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. If gay marriage can be considered part of marriage, it follows that gay marriage is a guaranteed human right. (And yes, I am aware that the text says "men and women", but you have to put this into historical context. It was written in 1948; back then, gay marriage wasn't even being considered.)

Thirdly, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people have been proven to be just as capable at rearing children as heterosexuals. Major psychological associations in North America and other countries have not found data otherwise. The following PDF (www.3dca.flcourts.org/opinions/3D08-3044.pdf) shows a Court of Appeals Decision that decided that it would be irrational to rule against LGBT parenting.

Fourthly, homosexuality has been proven to be fixed at birth and to have biological basis. Interestingly, it seems that a woman's body may see a male foetus as a foreign object and start feminising it. As a woman has more babies, their body becomes more adept at this; therefore, the more sons a women has, the more likely one will be a homosexual. There is other evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an … rientation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM

Fifthly, very little non-religious evidence has actually been presented that suggests that gay marriage is wrong.

Last edited by NewAtheist (2013-01-26 21:54:54)

Offline

#19 2012-11-04 17:45:35

               Fogle.M
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




I think gay marriage is fine.  Its just like between a man and a women if they love eachother it should be fine.  Gay marriage is not a sin they didnt choose to be that way in my oppion.  :)

Offline

#20 2012-10-29 00:41:02

          Canada    SgtPeppers
               Reply
   0    

Re: Gay Marriage




@HighFive5 

So if someone is infertile, they can't marry? Also, all marriages should be dissolved once the woman reaches menopause, as she can no longer produce children. Homosexuality is perfectly natural, as evidenced by the fact it is FOUND IN NATURE, Humans, penguins, snakes, deer, etc if a species has a male and a female sex, then their will be cases of homosexuality and in fact we also know the naturalistic causes of it. It also isn't a gene mutation, it is a person with 2 copies of a gene for promiscuity. People with this gene (especially men) are actually more successful because they tend to spread around their DNA, some individuals get it from both parents and it makes them interested exclusively in the same sex.

Offline

Board footer

Created by AFL, powered by FluxBB
© 2011 theworlddebating.com