Let's talk about GAY MARRIAGE!

[Yuika]

I think it's OK for them to get married, but NOT IN A CHURCH because the church has its own laws and it would be a real mockery for the church if that would happen. I mean, you don't have to be a believer (I'm personally not) in order to respect church laws.

Um, this may sound silly coming from an atheist, but there are churches who support gay marriage. In fact, my church choir directer when I was a child was openly gay. Churches make a mockery of themselves, often enough. Besides, no one ever said that churches should be forced to house gay marriages.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I think it's OK for them to get married, but NOT IN A CHURCH because the church has its own laws and it would be a real mockery for the church if that would happen. I mean, you don't have to be a believer (I'm personally not) in order to respect church laws.

 

I tend to agree that it would be silly to force a church to marry against the church's doctrine. However, if a minister of that church is willing, then there should be no problem.

 

A few (seven) of my friends posted this today, and I think it's definitely worth a watch. It addresses how gay parents will supposedly mess up their kid. Here's one man who was raised by a lesbian couple.

Raised by gay parents

[April]

I think it's OK for them to get married, but NOT IN A CHURCH because the church has its own laws and it would be a real mockery for the church if that would happen. I mean, you don't have to be a believer (I'm personally not) in order to respect church laws.

 

Not all churches have a problem with the fact that people are gay.

 

In fact, it is said God loves us all equally, if that is true, then why should there be a problem with gay marriage? Or as Karina likes to call it (and I agree), marriage?

 

If the church is against it, fine. But if a gay couple is religious and devoted to their religion, then I hope that they can find a church that will marry them and I know some that would.

 

I just think it's crap how people can argue "God loves you" then say "you're denied because you're gay"

 

In the eyes of my church, there is nothing wrong with being gay. :)

 

Although, even though I am Christian, I am going to get married on a beach. <3

[Grawsee]

If gay people are subjected to paying taxes, obeying the general law, and being humans like everyone else, they should be allowed to marry.

[lils]

I personally don't care if gay marriage was legal or illegal.

my have 2 room mates that are lesbians, dating eachother too.

they act like any other pair of couple (a bit more PDA than most though), and they get it on very loudly every now and than like a straight couple (yes i hear them clearly).

 

so i would understand that some people find it wrong for gays to marry, but then again why does it even matter to people who think that? it's not like seeing gays marry will do harm to them =/

 

my points are very mixed lol but in conclusion, gay should be able to do what they want. haters gunna hate.

[Alice ☮]

It is my understanding that there is currently a debate going on in Australia about whether they should allow same-sex couples to marry. (I'm from Canada, so Australian politics are a bit beyond me to be honest). This is a pro-same-sex-marriage ad (for lack of a better term) which I thought I'd share, since I agree with the message. It is definitely time.

 

[Russ]

I tend to agree that it would be silly to force a church to marry against the church's doctrine. However, if a minister of that church is willing, then there should be no problem.

 

A few (seven) of my friends posted this today, and I think it's definitely worth a watch. It addresses how gay parents will supposedly mess up their kid. Here's one man who was raised by a lesbian couple.

Raised by gay parents

 

Oh my god my sister showed me that video and it like gave me chills I love it. As far as the whole church thing, yeah it'd be incredibly stupid to force churches to allow marriages they don't condone. Forcing acceptance is the opposite of tolerance.

 

Aw that australian video was sweet and cute and made me smile.

[GlitteryCupcake]

I will say it again. This forum is the *debate chat*. In a *debate*, you need to back it up with actual evidence. So while you are allowed to say your opinion, everyone else is entitled to refute your opinion with cold, hard facts. In fact, if you ever want to participate in a real debate, you HAVE to back it up with actual evidence.

 

I skipped to this page of the thread without reading more than a few posts, so I haven't gotten a chance to see what everyone's opinion is yet. So, without even knowing what your opinion on the topic is, I just want to objectively say that this is absolutely true. I'm quoting this because I think it's super important, and I hope more people see it.

[lilshadowdweller]

We shouldn't even have to debate this! One day, there won't be any need to debate it. It will be as normal as having an interracial relationship.

 

Love is love. Homosexuals do not choose their sexuality anymore then we choose ours. There is nothing weird about it. Pro-creation isn't always needed for love, should we ban all couples who choose to not have children too?

 

In regards to "The Terminator", it appears suspicious to me how you took a situation often described by the opposing side and claimed it to be your story. You would think you'd attempt to change society's impression rather then attempting to tell people to conform. I'm curious: what is your idea of a "normal" family? A Father and Mother? The "nuclear family"?

 

So is a single parent family inappropriate too? What about those divorced ones, where in many cases, kids end up with two different families?

 

Why should a family be forced to change just because someone bullied them into it? It lacks sense, it lacks justification. Even if it were the case, why would you attempt to contribute to harsh laws which prevent loving couples from adopting children? -_-;;

 

It doesn't even matter if you are religious. In Christianity, there are many times where Jesus preaches about love and tolerance. Allow your God to make the judgements...what makes you the special mistake proof human who knows what God desires?

 

If religion isn't the issue, don't assume that every homosexual person will hit on you, in the same manner that not every straight person does.

 

I'll never understand people. I've had many good homosexual friends with no problems. Their sexuality didn't alter their personality or the fact they that they were my friends.

[billpika_x8]

Sexuality is a touchy topic. Let me try to give an opinion without sounding completely ignorant. I do have gay friends. The only difference between them and my hetero friends is that they like rainbows. That's about it. Friends are friends. And gay marriage was recently legalized in my state. A win for activists :rock:

[GlitteryCupcake]

Sexuality is a touchy topic. Let me try to give an opinion without sounding completely ignorant. I do have gay friends. The only difference between them and my hetero friends is that they like rainbows. That's about it. Friends are friends. And gay marriage was recently legalized in my state. A win for activists :rock:

 

It is a touchy topic, sometimes, but it shouldn't have to be. As long as one group is considered "different" or "lesser," it will be continue to be touchy. However, when gays and straights finally are considered equal, different sexualities will be no different from different hair colors! This is a day I hope to see.

 

Also, I don't think you sound ignorant at all! Your statement that "friends are friends" is simple, genuine, and touching.

[Trig]

I 100% support and agree that you should be able to love whomever you love and marry whomever you wish to marry, and the government shouldn't be able to step in between you. I live in Canada, and we have legalized gay marriage, but I agree that it shouldn't even be an issue. If these people, who are no different from anyone else in reality have to pay taxes and conform to the other same governmental expectations as 'straight' people, then why can't they get married? And yes, some churches totally approve of gay marriage, and I think it's fantastic, because I also think that if God was alive right now, and is such a great person (not saying he isn't- I'm actually Christian) then I don't think he would be 'condemning people to hell' for loving someone. Just my opinion. I might be slightly bias though because I like...run my schools Gay Straight Alliance and such :)

[neoskulltula]

I see it like this: Marriage already has a definition. So something that is not that should not be called that. Civil unions with the same legal rights should be enough as far as a compromise goes - on both sides.

[Trig]

Sorry neoskulta- but I don't fully agree with you, unless I'm misunderstanding you. I wouldn't define marriage as "the union between a man and a woman" I would be define it as "the union between two people that love each other". So why shouldn't those two people, regardless of sex, gender, or orientation not be able to call it that if they wish? I mean I agree that civil unions with the same legal rights as a marriage would already be a huge step forwards, but there shouldn't be an issue with who the people are that want a marriage.

[hrtbrk]

The "definition" of marriage has evolved over time. Traditionally, marriages used to consist of a man having as many wives as he chose and they were his considered his property. Today that seems very wrong and of course women now have rights and it is against the law for us to be treated differently than a man.

 

Sounds familiar?!

 

Gay couples have married in other places around the world - how much of an impact has this had on anti-gay or homophobic people? I'm going to guess none other than the time they chose to invest in protesting against it. Other than that, your life and their life carried on as normal - going through the same tribulations in their respective lives.

 

Skewing the definition of a word to fit your dogma is... very wrong and hurtful in my opinion.

[neoskulltula]

My aforementioned opinion is a compromise between both sides, so I obviously expect it to be rejected by most. :P Many want it one way only, others want it another way only. Compromise gets only a small following sometimes. *hides*

[Chives43]

i strongly agree if gays what to get married they should, if the US is truly a free county we should have freedoms like this one

[lilshadowdweller]

My aforementioned opinion is a compromise between both sides, so I obviously expect it to be rejected by most. :P Many want it one way only, others want it another way only. Compromise gets only a small following sometimes. *hides*

 

It's not a compromise.

 

Marriage and Civil Union mean two different things, especially in different countries. Why not just call it straight out marriage?

 

You're discriminating and supporting discriminating people just because they are a tad different then you. You are openly saying: straight people have these rights, but because you are not straight, you do not have our rights.

 

It's not an opinion. It's human rights. People used to say the same thing you did, back when people of different colour/ethnicity were fighting for their rights.They offered "comprimising" and talked about like it was an "opinion".

 

Put it this way: have you ever seen the videos or read the books about how people of different ethnic origins were treated? Have you ever shook your head at disgust when you heard that some people supported others who beat up or discriminated against differently ethnic people?

 

Guess what? In the future, you're going to be one of those people who everyone will be shaking their heads at for your generalized discrimination.

 

It does not affect you any way, shape, or form to give homosexuals the right to marry. Science is pointing towards homosexuality being a trait many are born with. If they are born that way -- there isn't a choice.

 

You don't discriminate against people of different ethnicities just because you know they were born that way -- why discriminate against homosexuals? Now, perhaps you still fail to see how you are discriminating and maybe you feel you're an opened person. But by failing to give homosexuals the same rights as people who are straight, you are in directly discriminating.

 

Furtheremore, it's been explained to you that the definition of marriage has altered dramatically over many, many years, and that the marriage you are familiar with WAS NOT the most common one. So, where do you ground such logic? You're saying a newer form of marriage is the ONLY form of marriage when it was altered, too.

[April]

While I support gay marriage, I do find it unfair how people that don't get attacked. They are entitled to that opinion. And yet I saw on a different board on a different site a girl saying she doesn't agree with it, but it doesn't affect her and she got attacked! Called all sorts of names I can't say here.

 

As long as they aren't harassing or being rude to people that are gay, I think their opinion should be left alone. *shrugs*

 

Perhaps they have certain beliefs.

 

Either way, I'm all for gay marriage. Considering, I am gay. XD But while I am gay, I do respect other's opinions and as long as they aren't rude to me... I won't be rude to them.

[lilshadowdweller]

While I support gay marriage, I do find it unfair how people that don't get attacked. They are entitled to that opinion. And yet I saw on a different board on a different site a girl saying she doesn't agree with it, but it doesn't affect her and she got attacked! Called all sorts of names I can't say here.

 

As long as they aren't harassing or being rude to people that are gay, I think their opinion should be left alone. *shrugs*

 

This is a debate board. Their opinion needs to be addressed because that's debating. If one doesn't want a comment back, then they should not be in the debate thread to begin with. I'm "attacking" his opinion, not him. I'm not going to not debate because someone's feelings could get hurt.

[neoskulltula]

Marriage and Civil Union mean two different things, especially in different countries. Why not just call it straight out marriage?

 

 

One side wants marriage to stay the way it has been. They get that.

A lot of the reason people want gay marriage is so that the partners have the same legal rights if say one dies. That side gets that.

 

If two sides get something, that is called a compromise. :P

 

 

 

Guess what? In the future, you're going to be one of those people who everyone will be shaking their heads at for your generalized discrimination.

 

 

 

So the old "agree with me or you'll be demonized" tactic? Sort of weak in my opinion. Supporting tradition is as much of an example of discrimination as changing tradition is discriminating tradition. It really does go both ways there. You'd be surprised how many people don't view not supporting gay marriage as discriminatory. It's just my opinion, please don't launch any personal attacks upon me for having it.

 

 

 

 

Furtheremore, it's been explained to you that the definition of marriage has altered dramatically over many, many years, and that the marriage you are familiar with WAS NOT the most common one. So, where do you ground such logic? You're saying a newer form of marriage is the ONLY form of marriage when it was altered, too.

 

 

Despite the fact the definition has changed, has there been any point at which marriage's purpose was not to produce offspring? The idea of marriage is to give legitimized children a way to inherit from the father (this has gone by the wayside but only recently). I can't see a time where marriage wasn't about the offspring to some degree.

[April]

This is a debate board. Their opinion needs to be addressed because that's debating. If one doesn't want a comment back, then they should not be in the debate thread to begin with. I'm "attacking" his opinion, not him. I'm not going to not debate because someone's feelings could get hurt.

 

I wasn't referring to you. I was putting in an opinion on something that I wanted to be addressed about how it's become common for people to attack people who don't agree with their view points. I wasn't referring to anyone on the board, but just giving everyone something to think about. I guess I never meant to say their opinion, but them as a person. And again, I wasn't referring to anyone here. I was just talking about it because on a different gay rights debate board, I saw some things happen and it was just aggravating me how people seem to think if someone doesn't support gay rights, there's something wrong with them.

 

I do have a question though, I'm not American, so is gay marriage legal in most of the states?

[neoskulltula]

And I will defend pretty staunchly that marriage was an evolution of the family model where the same male and female repeatedly mated. And instead of moving on to the next female he stayed to protect her and the offspring.

[lilshadowdweller]

Marriage and Civil Union mean two different things, especially in different countries. Why not just call it straight out marriage?

 

 

One side wants marriage to stay the way it has been. They get that.

A lot of the reason people want gay marriage is so that the partners have the same legal rights if say one dies. That side gets that.

 

If two sides get something, that is called a compromise. :P

 

It's not a compromise. That's the problem.

 

If you call it by a different name, you are stating that it is not equal.

 

Why it's not a "compromise":

 

- the right to marry is a BASIC HUMAN right

-if straight people have can have a Civil Union to avoid calling it marriage, then it's not the same.

-civil unions HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED, while marriage DOES NOT.

-Civil Unions face more legal complications then marriages

-Marriage has ALWAYS evolved; therefore, it's null-and-void to stick to a new form of marriage when it was something different

-marriage is symbolic, why deny this symbol to homosexuals?

-denying gay marriage does NOT effect religion. Divorces are against many religions, yet the law allows for it.

-children in Civil Union relationships ARE NOT protected the same way children of marriages are

 

You can read more here:

http://www.philosoph...-not-enough.pdf

Guess what? In the future, you're going to be one of those people who everyone will be shaking their heads at for your generalized discrimination.

 

 

So the old "agree with me or you'll be demonized" tactic? Sort of weak in my opinion. Supporting tradition is as much of an example of discrimination as changing tradition is discriminating tradition. It really does go both ways there. You'd be surprised how many people don't view not supporting gay marriage as discriminatory. It's just my opinion, please don't launch any personal attacks upon me for having it.

 

Claiming victim like you just did is no way to debate. Sort of weak in my opinion. :)

 

I'm bringing up a true point based on an discriminative opinion you carry. And it's discriminative; whether you want to admit it or not. And yes, I hope you change your opinion -- because you wouldn't be so opened to this if many people didn't carry this opinion on homosexuals. Keep in mind I don't treat you any differently than my own Mother or Father, who both carry your opinion.

 

And I will defend pretty staunchly that marriage was an evolution of the family model where the same male and female repeatedly mated. And instead of moving on to the next female he stayed to protect her and the offspring.

 

And yet to fail to see that many unique cultures where marriage was differed significantly.

 

Wikipedia:

 

Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups.

 

The traditional ("conventional") form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony.^[21] In this type of marriage, a woman lost her family rights of inheritance of her old family and gained them with her new one. She now was subject to the authority of her husband.^{[citation needed]} There was the free marriage known as sine manu. In this arrangement, the wife remained a member of her original family; she stayed under the authority of her father, kept her family rights of inheritance with her old family and did not gain any with the new family.^[22] The minimum age of marriage for girls was 12.^[23]

 

Hm, these marriages seem to mean women were not permitted equal rights within marriage -- certainly not the same now, is it?

 

It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,^[44] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.^[45]

 

Same sex marriages were actually accepted in the past! Wow! o_O

 

And...I'm not even going into how the Old Testaments version of marriages (which permitted multiple wives) went.

 

So why do you insist that people can't be married again due to others stating it's not "traditional"?

[neoskulltula]

Not gonna lie I am way too out of it to read super long posts so I will do the honorable thing and cherry pick your responses and defend amazingly. :)

 

 

 

If you call it by a different name, you are stating that it is not equal.

 

 

Things can be equal and not the same exact thing. That's how you can tell them apart to say they are equal in the first place. :D

 

 

 

I'm bringing up a true point based on an discriminative opinion you carry. And it's discriminative; whether you want to admit it or not.

 

There are (and this is true) two kinds of discrimination: Excluding a group because of who they are, and INCLUDING a group.

Make of that what you will.

 

 

Btw, listing examples such as multiple wives does not change what I said about marriage evolving from a man sticking around and protecting his interests. In the case of polygamy, he DID move around but still protected the group he mated with. :P I told you the root of marriage. Waving around different branches does not detract from this. :P

 

 

 

 

Same sex marriages were actually accepted in the past! Wow!

 

 

You just called them unions, you changed the wording to marriage :P Everyone knows Greeks fooled around with little boys. Doesn't mean they wed. We call that pedophilia now. Talk about changing values throughout history.....

 

 

 

 

So why do you insist that people can't be married again due to others stating it's not "traditional"?

 

 

See that's still like picking at denominations and denying they are of the same religion.

There is a tradition of men and women being together and producing children. Polygamy, monogamy, whatever you want. You're looking again at the branches not the roots.