Gay marriage: for or against ?

[issue100]

Are you for or against gay marriage ?

This is an issue among many Americans, as it concerns many of them.

I believe homosexuals should be accepted for who they are. I think if two people fall in love they should marry, even if both happen to be of the same sex. I don't believe two people, no matter who they are, should be prohibited to fall in love. These are humans; humans all have fantasies of having families and love. And I don't think anyone should be prevented from this fantasy.

[irishdragonlord]

iElementa said:

Are you for or against gay marriage ?

This is an issue among many Americans, as it concerns many of them.

I believe homosexuals should be accepted for who they are. I think if two people fall in love they should marry, even if both happen to be of the same sex. I don't believe two people, no matter who they are, should be prohibited to fall in love. These are humans; humans all have fantasies of having families and love. And I don't think anyone should be prevented from this fantasy.

Now I can debate this ethically and non-ethically

What surprises me is that the government is begginning to accept it - they can do nothing but lose money on the deal. The marriage benefits = less politician pocket money.

In addition, this could make pressure to make polygamy, bestiality, etc. legal, thence creating many complications and less money for D.C.

Now, to bring in morality -

If homosexuality is a choice, I give a resounding no. If not... I haven't really made up my mind. Maybe gain self-control? Live with it? I don't know, I haven't thought enough about it.

Also, I do NOT believe it is natural, even if it is a condition of the mind. There is little to no proof of it in the animal kingdom, and - evolutionarily - it serves no purpose. Religiously, it is a perversion.

Now - I say, to anyone who rejects a homosexual for BEING a homosexual - God may just land the hammer harder on you. Homosexuality is not some easy think-it-over matter and I have no illusions on that; but I do know, religiously, it is wrong, and I am still looking for more solid answers as to why.

Finally - did you know that gay radicalists threatened Massachusetts politicians last year that they would harm their children and/or otherwise harm them if they voted against the matter? These people were in the ranks of PETA and other extremists, but the fact remains that people should do something about that - not gays, the radicalists.

[issue100]

So you're against, I assume ?

Also, I do NOT believe it is natural, even if it is a condition of the mind. There is little to no proof of it in the animal kingdom, and - evolutionarily - it serves no purpose. Religiously, it is a perversion.

Please clarify, what isn;t natural ?

[Rider]

[glow=red,2,300]Pfft, radicalists ruin everything. I say, disregard the radicalists from your argument. There are extremists on both sides, on any side of the coin.

Anyay, whether homosexuality is a choice or not is not the point. No one should be penalized for their choices if the choices don't threaten or harm people.

And I believe that true love comes in many shapes and forms. (I'm a dang romantic, you know that.) I believe that marriage is the ultimate expression of love. Saying, "Never in my life will I love anyone the way I love you."

People talk about "civil unions" and say they'll get all the same rights and that's what matters. That's not what matters! Civil unions are cold and legal. Marriage is a covenant, like the one that God made with mankind. Marriage is a reflection of godly love.

Why have gay mariage? I say, why not? Not that it should be said so casually. I wish tone of voice could be read over a computer...

Plus, as long as we deny marriage to homosexuals, that gives homophobes more fuel for their fire. If we're going to be a united nation, we need to give the same laws and the same rights to everyone!

I'm a dang romantic. [/glow]

[irishdragonlord]

iElementa said:

So you're against, I assume ?



Please clarify, what isn;t natural ?

Correct assumption.

By not natural, I am saying, not the norm, I.E. a sixth thumb or yellow eyes. Not saying it's some sort of mutation inasmuch it's a derivation. If that makes sense.

[kittygirl]

Let's say you and this other person are in love. You want to get married, but you can't. Why? Because some people think that it is wrong.

In dealing with whether it is moraly ritght with religion you have to ask yourself, Does it matter? What will change bettween them when they get married? Nothing will change. So why stop them?

People say it isn't right because nature doesn't do it. Nature doesn't have alergys why don't we let those people with allergys die? We don't live in nature.

[Lazy lazy CW in school]

I'm for. People shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason whatsoever, let alone the choices they make.

[Lazy Lazy CW in TROUBLE inclas]

Oh, and about the 'not in nature' thing--

Scientists discovered that when pregnant mice consume a certain type of chemical, they produce gay offspring...

It was on a study about Viagra... Apparently the chemical is in a pretty common drug... Some headache thing...

[Tracy]

Finally - did you know that gay radicalists threatened Massachusetts politicians last year that they would harm their children and/or otherwise harm them if they voted against the matter? These people were in the ranks of PETA and other extremists, but the fact remains that people should do something about that - not gays, the radicalists.

Saying "radicalists" do horrible things is a terrible argument. Radicalists on the other side of the spectrum have been known to kill gay people. Those so against the idea of homosexuality that they've actually beaten people to death.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. However, I've been thinking about this alot lately. What is love? Does there need to be physical attraction to count something as love. No offense meant, but some less aesthetically pleasing people still get married, and they're not attractive. Maybe in the same way as someone of the same gender. Most people marry people of similar ages, but some fall in love with much older or younger people. Call me naive for saying all this, but I'm really unsure as to where I stand about all this. Plus, I love looking at you guys bringing in all these debating points, and they really make me think.

[Stal]

You know what I have yet to see pointed out in all these debates...?

That everyone automatically goes for the assumption that all homosexuals are monogamous and loving and everything and if they could marry they'd be together forever and stuff like that.

When in reality, I believe the statistics of homosexual couples and the longevity of the relationships is even worse than the longevity of Heterosexual relationships.

Just some random point I'm making.

EDIT -- Then there's the sanctity of marriage points.

That by allowing this it would destory the sanctity of marriage even more. That is true. But everyone throws up the Britney Spears marriage as if that was even something we agreed could happen. They say the sanctity of marriage is all ready being destroyed.

I just have to ask...why the fail? So it's being destroyed by our culture today and because of that we have to stand by and let even more destruction? That people legally (the divorces over anything and stuff) doing things we don't believe should be right anyway suddenly makes everything else fine as well?

Plus it's way to close to a child going "BUT JOHNNY HAS A COOKIE! I WANT A COOKIE! GIVE ME A COOKIE! THIS ISN'T FAIR" to which a response would be life isn't fair.

Third...

They claim they were born this way. I was born naked and dumb. I was born with the desire to shove anything and everything in my mouth. I overcame.

Fourth...

They have impulses and desires that just can't be helped...

so do killers, rapists, and child molestors. They have the impulse and desire to do what they do and they either resist, get help, or something.

as I've said many times before, homosexuality used to be treated as a mental condition and overcome, just as those above things are treated. I've known homosexuals who've gone to get help because they know it's wrong and have been able to get the help they need.

And the point about a rat being turned gay because of a chemical only proves even more that it is normally a mental imbalance of something or other.

Just points. You all can pick at them. I won't defend them. I just felt like saying these.

[Rider]

[glow=red,2,300]Stal, I'm going to pretend that you didn't just use some of the comparisons that you just used.

Sanctity of marriage- You know what should happen? Couples should be forced to live together/whatever it takes to get them to know each other better for about 6 months before they marry. But they don't. And we offer them marriage liscenses.

Are we really "sanctifying" something by excluding a certain group of people?

Also, may I point out that a homosexual couple would have to love each other a heck of a lot if they're going to flaunt thier relationship in the face of the world by asking for a marriage liscence in a homophobic world. If some of today's heterosexual couples thought that they would be hated, scorned, and possibly even endangered by asking to be married, would they still do it?

The "born that way" argument- It's not like you were born naked and dumb. It's more like you were born black or Asian or white or freckled or whatever. The "urges" argument; these aren't a couple of teenagers with the "urge" to do it under the football bleachers. This is love, and love is more than just an urge. I'm not homosexual, so I don't know what goes on inn their minds. But I think that they have the same feelings that we do. Can you truly say that emotions are unnatural?

The cookie analogy- That'd be like Johnny getting a cookie because he's white and leaving the little black child to lick the cookie crumbs. Would you tell that child that life isn't fair?

And I don't think it's a mental condition. It could very well be a mutation. But can you really talk to a counselor to make yourself fall in love with someone else? Again, I don't know. I've never tried it. [/glow]

[irishdragonlord]

Ridergirl- said:

[glow=red,2,300]Stal, I'm going to pretend that you didn't just use some of the comparisons that you just used.

Sanctity of marriage- You know what should happen? Couples should be forced to live together/whatever it takes to get them to know each other better for about 6 months before they marry. But they don't. And we offer them marriage liscenses.

Are we really "sanctifying" something by excluding a certain group of people?

Also, may I point out that a homosexual couple would have to love each other a heck of a lot if they're going to flaunt thier relationship in the face of the world by asking for a marriage liscence in a homophobic world. If some of today's heterosexual couples thought that they would be hated, scorned, and possibly even endangered by asking to be married, would they still do it?

The "born that way" argument- It's not like you were born naked and dumb. It's more like you were born black or Asian or white or freckled or whatever. The "urges" argument; these aren't a couple of teenagers with the "urge" to do it under the football bleachers. This is love, and love is more than just an urge. I'm not homosexual, so I don't know what goes on inn their minds. But I think that they have the same feelings that we do. Can you truly say that emotions are unnatural?

The cookie analogy- That'd be like Johnny getting a cookie because he's white and leaving the little black child to lick the cookie crumbs. Would you tell that child that life isn't fair?

And I don't think it's a mental condition. It could very well be a mutation. But can you really talk to a counselor to make yourself fall in love with someone else? Again, I don't know. I've never tried it. [/glow]

I, in turn, will pretend YOU didn't just pull that racial analogy, which should be left out of homosexual debates entirely. They were being denied unalienable rights; marriage does not fall in that cateogry.

Fun fact: Most couples who live together before marriage actually tend to have less-than-desired turnouts with their relationships. Not all, but it's there.

Yes, you sanctify it when you exclude people who want multiple wives, want to marry a horse, and, in this case, a member of the same gender.

Today's world is pretty anti-religious, yet, I don't lie down and take it. People fight for what they believe in, period.

As for the white/asian/freckle argument - is homosexuality genetic? If not, that analogy won't work.

About the urges... isn't it? Don't you have an 'urge' - love can be classified that way, at least loosely - around someone you love (in that way)?

And people who claim to be Napoleon can talk to counselors and become someone else. Obviously these analogies are-less-than perfect, but they do have some merit.

And again, for the white-child/black-child thing - racism has no place in the homosexuality debates, because you can't change your pigmentation, and, some homosexuals DO become straight.

[Rishiy]

I am for homosexual marriage, or at least some kind of civil union that gives gays the same rights as married straight couples. I don't think its right to force a religious institution to preform a ceremony that infringes on their beleifs.

I think it is inhuman and unnatural to vote against giving homosexuals the same rights as married couples. Its disgusting! If you're religiously opposed, be religiously opposed, but don't vote for inequal treatment. Homosexuals getting married does not affect you now, and will most likeley never affect you in any way in the future.

I just don't understand how the 'Christian' (or any other religion) thing to do is to dissalow two people to see eachother in the hospital, or take away benefits all 'normal' people would receive. It is hypocracy.

[Linnen Malfoy]

IDL said:

There is little to no proof of it in the animal kingdom, and - evolutionarily - it serves no purpose. Religiously, it is a perversion..

Sorry IDL, however you are wrong. It is in the animal kingdom.

My favorite is the gay pengiuns in New York. ^_^ Here is the article.

www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

One particular book is helpful in this case. Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance," published in 1999, documents homosexual behavior in more than 450 animal species. The list includes grizzly bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls and even several species of salmon.

Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Females have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.

So yes, it is natural.

Do I support it? Yes. You cannot deny who you are. I know people who are gay and they are just like everyone else. Does that mean that because they have the courage to be who they are meant to be they should be treated like some sort of freaks?

No.

They are entitled to love and happiness like every other person. They are being who they are and are doing what they want to do. Because we are simply blind to what is our happy little niche is unacceptable. This is the modern day - we know that gay people are like you and I.

...on a side note, gay pengiuns are cool.

IDL said:

I, in turn, will pretend YOU didn't just pull that racial analogy, which should be left out of homosexual debates entirely. They were being denied unalienable rights; marriage does not fall in that cateogry.

I belive marriage carries more laws with it than one would belive. I think that you are entitled to tax breaks, ablity to take care, healthcare, etc. Also gay people are not allowed to adopt children in most states (such as Florida).

[Rishiy]

IDL said:

And again, for the white-child/black-child thing - racism has no place in the homosexuality debates, because you can't change your pigmentation, and, some homosexuals DO become straight.

Some black people DO become white. But they have to pay a lot of money and go through procedures that are TRULY unnatural. Why should people even HAVE to change?

The analogy about murderers is overused and wrong. Homosexuals hurt nobody. Murdurers, rapists and the like are only condemed because they are harmful to society.

A lot of you seem to be forgetting that humans are part of nature. There are a lot of traits that are unique to us, just as there are a lot of traits unique to other animals. I beleive seahorses are the only species where the male carries the children. There are only a few species that are naturaly haemaphrodites. Are they unnatural just because that only occurs within their species? No. So what if homosexuality only occurs within humans? Is it still unnatural?