Gay marriAge

[Skylord]

Okay. Why should it be eligal for someone to marry who they love? By the way don't be any crap that is untrue, or you will be called out. I am pulling up this debate to see why some people are against it.

[Bowie20049]

Okay. Why should it be eligal for someone to marry who they love? By the way don't be any crap that is untrue, or you will be called out. I am pulling up this debate to see why some people are against it.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/11844550/images/1282939758564.gif http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqepvga6zs1qafrh6.gif Homosexual Issues thread #57

[Jack]

Okay. Why should it be eligal for someone to marry who they love? By the way don't be any crap that is untrue, or you will be called out. I am pulling up this debate to see why some people are against it.

Illegal.*

Everyone should be eligible to marry anyone they want at the state-level. I wouldn't like to pass a law saying what private religious institutions can and can't do, though.

[Bowie20049]

Illegal.*

Everyone should be eligible to marry anyone they want at the state-level. I wouldn't like to pass a law saying what private religious institutions can and can't do, though.

Polygamy, marriage between adults and children, marriage between people and animals and inanimate objects, etc etc.

[Julian]

... to an anime

[Jack]

Polygamy, marriage between adults and children, marriage between people and animals and inanimate objects, etc etc.

I only see a problem with marriage between adults and children, and you know damn well what I meant.

[Bowie20049]

I only see a problem with marriage between adults and children, and you know damn well what I meant.

incest, etc.

[Jack]

incest, etc.

You're a dick.

[ScottyMcGee]

http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq100/genagirl/Gay-Marriage-Legalized-Chart.gif

[Dabs]

I'm gay myself, so obviously I don't see a problem with it. If two consenting adults want to wed, it's no one else's business. I don't believe that the government should really be involved with marriage at any level of government, really. Let the churches marry whomever they want so long as they're consenting adults.

[Queen Kanen]

Oh good lord this debate is pretty much pointless. Everyone on this site is either gay or at least supportive of the gay rights movement. If there are any homophobes, they're few and far between, and smart enough to keep their head down. Would I like to see a debate spark up? Sure, they're fun. And I'm gay, so it'd be extra nice for me. But no, not going to happen. Basically, this is pointless.

But if you really want to hear both sides of the debate, watch this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtcoBLDuwoE&feature=g-all-u&context=G2aa5460FAAAAAAAAAAA)

And yeah, I basically agree with everything Jack just said. Oh, and look at this. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali)

[The Enchanted Muggle]

http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq100/genagirl/Gay-Marriage-Legalized-Chart.gif


Like teaching them gay sex is any different then teaching them straight sex....

So i suppose when the plagues came to Moses, he and his people were having homosexual relationships?
btw, I hate when the people pull out the Christian card when arguing homosexuality. I'm a Christian and I believe in gay marriages so.....

And terrorism's going to get bigger and bigger regardless of whether there are gay marriages or not.

Basically, I believe that anyone should be allowed to marry and love and have sex with whoever they want and no one else should be saying yes or no.

[lostbookworm]

Their main argument is that gay marriage will rip the fabric of society apart. I don't see why gays would want to harm fabric though.

[13lia1]

(Hi I'm new and trying this out)
Well, some comments (I'm totally for gay marriage btw, but I'll just try to add to the debate):
- If you're liberal, gay, etc. then obviously you don't have a problem with this. This is a problem for basically everyone else. You either go with the social trend portrayed in the media (which is exceedingly liberal nowadays) or you stay silent, or you do.. something. It's still a problem.

- Well, love (and therefore marriage) is for everyone, right? (Except for the underage, polyamorous, inter-species love, and some weird cult-like sex groups) Except obviously it won't ever come to that. Because the barriers on the slippery slope right now are: major ick factor, consenting ADULTS, and, well, the law. Polyamorous pairings will never be because of scare examples like Warren Jeffs, which contribute to major ick factor. And the major ick factor is omnipotent and will never be destroyed, despite popular reform.

- We still do have to respect conservative / religious beliefs. Believe it or not, there are still more religious people than atheists worldwide. They take up the majority vote. Besides, slowly eroding away at religious values despite and in spite of all the demonstrations going on is just rude, isn't it? The sanctity of marriage doesn't mean much to my atheist friends, but it's so, so, so important to many different world religions. Don't tell me that religion will fail until it does; otherwise, be quiet and listen to the majority population of the world.

[FayGee]

Their main argument is that gay marriage will rip the fabric of society apart. I don't see why gays would want to harm fabric though.

Kyle, I'm opposed to gay marriage (the reason I didn't post until now is because I'm the worst ever at debating), and I think you're just making fun of people like me. The only reason that I'm opposed to gay marriage is because God said it's wrong. That's all. It's really simple, actually.

[Bowie20049]

Kyle, I'm opposed to gay marriage (the reason I didn't post until now is because I'm the worst ever at debating), and I think you're just making fun of people like me. The only reason that I'm opposed to gay marriage is because God said it's wrong. That's all. It's really simple, actually.

You have to be kidding me. No, it's not simple. Actually, it is really simple, but people like you try to complicate things. It's a form of minority discrimination for one. Two, if God is all-loving, why would he support something that promotes hate?

[Majyk]

Kyle, I'm opposed to gay marriage (the reason I didn't post until now is because I'm the worst ever at debating), and I think you're just making fun of people like me. The only reason that I'm opposed to gay marriage is because God said it's wrong. That's all. It's really simple, actually.

I don't even know if something like that deserves a response...

God gave us free will. God is all loving.

Also, gay marriage doesn't hurt your, so why does it matter to you if two consenting adults want to get married? Answer: it shouldn't.

[Dabs]

- We still do have to respect conservative / religious beliefs. Believe it or not, there are still more religious people than atheists worldwide. They take up the majority vote. Besides, slowly eroding away at religious values despite and in spite of all the demonstrations going on is just rude, isn't it? The sanctity of marriage doesn't mean much to my atheist friends, but it's so, so, so important to many different world religions. Don't tell me that religion will fail until it does; otherwise, be quiet and listen to the majority population of the world.

Just because there is a majority doesn't mean you have to listen to them. You don't have to respect conservative or religious believes if they're rooted in hatred.

I don't understand the third sentence at all. Regardless, you can be rude if you want to.

Who cares if the sanctity of marriage is important to other people if those people want to take away my ability to get married? They're restricting my freedoms! I don't care if I'm being rude to them or offending them! They're doing worse to me.

Ugh, this post is too much for me. Do you realize how dangerous it is to just shut up and listen to the majority? Do you realize how much damage the mob mentality has caused over the years? If we just shut up and listened to the majority we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't have nearly as many rights as they do now, and monarchs would still rule the first world.

Kyle, I'm opposed to gay marriage (the reason I didn't post until now is because I'm the worst ever at debating), and I think you're just making fun of people like me. The only reason that I'm opposed to gay marriage is because God said it's wrong. That's all. It's really simple, actually.

You're right, that is simple, but it's a flimsy reason to restrict someone's right (and yes, it is a right because it's a religious practice, and the government can't ban religious practices, in the US at least) to get married. You would restrict my right to marry a man I love because you think your sense of morality is superior to mine? You don't see anything wrong with that?

[FayGee]

You're right, that is simple, but it's a flimsy reason to restrict someone's right (and yes, it is a right because it's a religious practice, and the government can't ban religious practices, in the US at least) to get married. You would restrict my right to marry a man I love because you think your sense of morality is superior to mine? You don't see anything wrong with that?

You're putting it a certain way just to convince me that your opinion is correct, but I'm not taking the bait. Need I repeat my opinion? Because there's no point in doing that.

@Maj and Bowie: I will answer you, don't worry. I'll post my reply a little later. I'm in the middle of writing up what I want to say, and I'm finding it hard to think of the right words.

[Dabs]

You're putting it a certain way just to convince me that your opinion is correct, but I'm not taking the bait. Need I repeat my opinion? Because there's no point in doing that.

That's not even remotely accurate. If you have a problem with how I've worded my argument then feel free to point it out. I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to tell you that if you were to vote in accordance with your view point you'd be restricting my freedoms.

[FayGee]

You have to be kidding me. No, it's not simple. Actually, it is really simple, but people like you try to complicate things. It's a form of minority discrimination for one. Two, if God is all-loving, why would he support something that promotes hate?
I don't even know if something like that deserves a response...

God gave us free will. God is all loving.

Also, gay marriage doesn't hurt your, so why does it matter to you if two consenting adults want to get married? Answer: it shouldn't.

The answer to both of you is not hard to understand: God loves everyone. However, when someone kills another person, that's an explicit disobeyance (I know that's totally wrong grammar-wise but whatever :rolleyes:) of Him, and His rules. (When a male marries a male, that's an explicit disobeyance of what He said.) Is it discrimination against the murderer that God disapproves of what he did? Now you will probably say that I used a strong example, and you're right. I didn't mean to insinuate that gay people are killers or anything, I just used that example for emphasis.
And, Maj, God gave us free will so we could do the right thing, not the wrong.

That's not even remotely accurate. If you have a problem with how I've worded my argument then feel free to point it out. I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to tell you that if you were to vote in accordance with your view point you'd be restricting my freedoms.

To what point should freedom of choice exist?
"Why did you assault this lady?"
"I have freedom of choice!"
Point proven.

[lostbookworm]

Kyle, I'm opposed to gay marriage (the reason I didn't post until now is because I'm the worst ever at debating), and I think you're just making fun of people like me. The only reason that I'm opposed to gay marriage is because God said it's wrong. That's all. It's really simple, actually.

God also said that you should stone whores, etc. We've passed that law, so why the hell do we still say that God's right when it comes to gay marriage? Because humans are bigots who fear for the safety of their clothes, have no opinion and still believe the metaphysical voice in a book published over 1700 years ago.


To what point should freedom of choice exist?
"Why did you assault this lady?"
"I have freedom of choice!"
Point proven.

Your point is irrational. It can be thrown right back at you, only stronger.
"These people can not be married!"
"They love each as much as any other couple, it would be against their human rights to deny them and it's not breaking any laws, so why not?"
"Because a book published 1700 years ago says so!"


...gay people are killers

My point that your opinions are wrong has been proven.

[Jack]

Kyle, I'm opposed to gay marriage (the reason I didn't post until now is because I'm the worst ever at debating), and I think you're just making fun of people like me. The only reason that I'm opposed to gay marriage is because God said it's wrong. That's all. It's really simple, actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

[ahlaj77]

I side with FayGee and that is all i'm going to say :) Also, I dont like debating either!

[GeorgeMichael]

I find it comforting how those that disagree conveniently dislike debating.

Jack that video was incredible, and it is very worthy of everyone's time, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

[ahlaj77]

Because debating turns into rambling

[Jack]

I side with FayGee and that is all i'm going to say :) Also, I dont like debating either!

If you have nothing to add, add nothing and stop spamming.

[ahlaj77]

Its a free country and I am not spamming. Anyhoo I am not for gay marriage.

[Jack]

Its a free country and I am not spamming. Anyhoo I am not for gay marriage.

I find it comforting how those that disagree conveniently dislike debating.



^ this.

[Bowie20049]

Because debating turns into rambling

Bad debating turns into rambling

The answer to both of you is not hard to understand: God loves everyone. However, when someone kills another person, that's an explicit disobeyance (I know that's totally wrong grammar-wise but whatever :rolleyes:) of Him, and His rules. (When a male marries a male, that's an explicit disobeyance of what He said.) Is it discrimination against the murderer that God disapproves of what he did? Now you will probably say that I used a strong example, and you're right. I didn't mean to insinuate that gay people are killers or anything, I just used that example for emphasis.
And, Maj, God gave us free will so we could do the right thing, not the wrong.



To what point should freedom of choice exist?
"Why did you assault this lady?"
"I have freedom of choice!"
Point proven.

You're comparing gay marriage to murder? Murder is when you take away someone's sanctity of life. Gay marriage isn't doing any of that. You just made a huge fallacy in your argument. Yes, people are free to make their own choices, but as long as they do not breach another person's freedom of choice. This is why we can't make newspaper articles saying why you suck or why I should have access to unlimited chocolates. Murdering is taking away someone's choice to live. What is gay marriage? It's a conscious decision between two people in response to their mutual love. It's not taking any choice away from anybody.

In conclusion, your point has been disproved and my point is proven

[Majyk]

You're comparing gay marriage to murder? Murder is when you take away someone's sanctity of life. Gay marriage isn't doing any of that. You just made a huge fallacy in your argument. Yes, people are free to make their own choices, but as long as they do not breach another person's freedom of choice. This is why we can't make newspaper articles saying why you suck or why I should have access to unlimited chocolates. Murdering is taking away someone's choice to live. What is gay marriage? It's a conscious decision between two people in response to their mutual love. It's not taking any choice away from anybody.

In conclusion, your point has been disproved and my point is proven

^That, and...

And, Maj, God gave us free will so we could do the right thing, not the wrong.

So your version of "right and wrong" is more "right" than someone else's, which means it's okay for you to tell people that gay marriage is "bad."

But I don't really feel the need to debate this with you. You've got your opinion, and I've got mine, and I don't see either of us changing our minds any time soon.

[Wolfie]

This isn't just in response to Faygee, this is to anyone who opposes gay marriage because of religion:

Where in the bible does it say it is wrong to be homosexual? I want book, chapter, and verse please, because I haven't seen it.

[Jack]

This isn't just in response to Faygee, this is to anyone who opposes gay marriage because of religion:

Where in the bible does it say it is wrong to be homosexual? I want book, chapter, and verse please, because I haven't seen it.


You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (Timothy 1:9-11)

[FayGee]

God also said that you should stone whores, etc. We've passed that law, so why the hell do we still say that God's right when it comes to gay marriage? Because humans are bigots who fear for the safety of their clothes, have no opinion and still believe the metaphysical voice in a book published over 1700 years ago.



Your point is irrational. It can be thrown right back at you, only stronger.
"These people can not be married!"
"They love each as much as any other couple, it would be against their human rights to deny them and it's not breaking any laws, so why not?"
"Because a book published 1700 years ago says so!"




My point that your opinions are wrong has been proven.

Ok, Kyle, you're really infuriating me. If you can't debate without making fun of my beliefs and principles, I'm just not going to answer you. And I shouldn't have to.

[Jack]

Ok, Kyle, you're really infuriating me. If you can't debate without making fun of my beliefs and principles, I'm just not going to answer you. And I shouldn't have to.

If you're going to base your entire opinion on your beliefs and principles and then use those beliefs and principles to restrict the way other people can live their lives independently of you, expect those beliefs and principles to be called in to question. If you don't want to debate, then leave the debate thread. If you do, stay here and actually back up what you have said with reason and logic like a sensible person.

[FayGee]

If you're going to base your entire opinion on your beliefs and principles and then use those beliefs and principles to restrict the way other people can live their lives independently of you, expect those beliefs and principles to be called in to question. If you don't want to debate, then leave the debate thread. If you do, stay here and actually back up what you have said with reason and logic like a sensible person.

I have no problem with the way that most people are saying things. It's just the way Kyle said it that got me upset. Even if you don't agree with my views, don't mock them!

[Dabs]

To what point should freedom of choice exist?
"Why did you assault this lady?"
"I have freedom of choice!"
Point proven.

You have some nerve to compare a bond of love to taking a life. Murder isn't legal because it infringes upon another person's freedom--their freedom to life. Marriage doesn't do that. So no, point not proven. Not even remotely.

[Bowie20049]

I have no problem with the way that most people are saying things. It's just the way Kyle said it that got me upset. Even if you don't agree with my views, don't mock them!

But it's exactly what you're saying. BTW I'm closing this dumb thread

[Shaun]

FYI: This needs to be said if anyone is going to bring religion into a gay marriage debate.

The word "homosexual" does not exist in any original translation or in the original Hebrew. Why? Because there literally was no word to describe homosexuals at the time. All insertions of homosexual or homosexuality into the Bible are modern insertions taken from interpretations of an incredibly tiny number of passages which, only within certain interpretations, apparently see homosexuality as abominations.

But the Bible calls a lot of things abominations which we have found easy ways of ignoring, so any argument from a Biblical perspective of purity and absolutism are fallacious at best unless they come from someone who takes the Bible not only literally, but believes that it must be followed as literally as is possible. There are no existing or past denominations of Christianity which do this, just denominations that claim they do. Why? Because to follow the Bible's codes of conduct and laws and what not "literally" would require you to live a life so contradictory and paradoxical that you'd cease to resemble a sane human being, simply because the Bible's own codes and laws are regularly contradicted or would fly in the face of what we now understand to be the moral codes of civilized society.

So when we talk about the Bible, we have to take the word "homosexual" out of it and we have to reason from a perspective that is inherently contradictory. You cannot argue, on the one hand, that it is an abomination for one to engage in supposed homosexual activity (what is that exactly?) but also say that it is morally reprehensible to support slavery. Why? Because the Bible says a lot that supports slavery too, and we've found a way to get beyond that without anything resembling a religious or moral crisis.

That is all.