|
Post by zAkAtAk on Mar 4, 2010 9:51:21 GMT -5
Creating topic for discussion. Let's see where this goes.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 4, 2010 10:31:06 GMT -5
Alright, here's the deal from my perspective.
The marriage we are referring to is a Christian custom. The Bible disses homosexuals big time, so I understand why a lot of people are against this. However, if somebody chooses to be Christian and happens to be gay, then it is not in our power to deny them the right to marry.
I think civil union is a different thing entirely. We have no right, no matter how you look at it, to deny them this liberty. If gay people can't get married, then neither can black people or asians or people with a certain shade of blonde hair. At least, that's about as much sense at it makes to deny a homosexual any civil right.
A lot of this depends on whether or not you believe homosexuality is a choice. For most gays, it is in the brain and it is there from birth. However, I won't deny that there are people who become gay through different life experiences. For example, if a girl is raped by a man, she may become a lesbian and develop a sexual fear of men. However, you can't just make yourself gay by wanting to be gay. Sexuality is a gene. You can't force yourself to be sexually aroused by trees, can you? (if you can, just don't answer that. You're weird.) You cannot control what pushes your buttons, so to speak.
There's my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by MattGilb3rt on Mar 4, 2010 10:35:05 GMT -5
Of course it should be allowed.
The bible was written along time ago.
Life evolves and changes, and it will always will do.
Adapting to life is how we move on in this world.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 4, 2010 12:31:26 GMT -5
Careful with that marriage being a Christian custom argument. They may have used different words and different ceremonies, but nearly every culture on earth has used marriage of one sort or another.
Allowing gays to marry each other has no negative impact on anyone else around them. It neither ruins the definition of marriage, nor harms the existing marriages of any straight people, nor in any way harms the marriages straight people will have in the future. There is no downside to it, except perhaps that some religions teach that it is evil, and some of those religions' followers haven't given up that ignorance yet.
Given that the country must remain religiously neutral, meaning that they cannot take arguments based on religion into account, then it becomes exceedingly obvious that gay marriage should be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Mar 4, 2010 13:17:04 GMT -5
Each other? ...or other people?
|
|
|
Post by itsbrianna on Mar 4, 2010 18:22:38 GMT -5
Alright, here's the deal from my perspective. The marriage we are referring to is a Christian custom. The Bible disses homosexuals big time, so I understand why a lot of people are against this. However, if somebody chooses to be Christian and happens to be gay, then it is not in our power to deny them the right to marry. I think civil union is a different thing entirely. We have no right, no matter how you look at it, to deny them this liberty. If gay people can't get married, then neither can black people or asians or people with a certain shade of blonde hair. At least, that's about as much sense at it makes to deny a homosexual any civil right. A lot of this depends on whether or not you believe homosexuality is a choice. For most gays, it is in the brain and it is there from birth. However, I won't deny that there are people who become gay through different life experiences. For example, if a girl is raped by a man, she may become a lesbian and develop a sexual fear of men. However, you can't just make yourself gay by wanting to be gay. Sexuality is a gene. You can't force yourself to be sexually aroused by trees, can you? (if you can, just don't answer that. You're weird.) You cannot control what pushes your buttons, so to speak. There's my two cents. I agree with you, but I don't think religion should play any role in why people think it should or shouldn't be legal. In America, we're actually contradicting ourselves by not making it legal. The United States doesn't even have a national religion. Also, take the pledge for example, "For liberty and justice for all." It just doesn't seem fair to me. I mean, why can't gay people get married? It's their life. It should be their choice.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrope on Mar 4, 2010 18:31:39 GMT -5
I agree with all of the above. I'll even go as far as saying this falls under the human rights treaty: "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into force: 1969)" [source]
|
|
|
Post by graceface on Mar 4, 2010 18:34:18 GMT -5
Careful with that marriage being a Christian custom argument. They may have used different words and different ceremonies, but nearly every culture on earth has used marriage of one sort or another. Allowing gays to marry each other has no negative impact on anyone else around them. It neither ruins the definition of marriage, nor harms the existing marriages of any straight people, nor in any way harms the marriages straight people will have in the future. There is no downside to it, except perhaps that some religions teach that it is evil, and some of those religions' followers haven't given up that ignorance yet. Given that the country must remain religiously neutral, meaning that they cannot take arguments based on religion into account, then it becomes exceedingly obvious that gay marriage should be allowed. But why haven't they allowed it yet? That's the question. Because everyone, everyone, knows that Christianity really is the major religion in the U.S.A. and we say we're religiously neutral, but if you truly look at it, we're not. All of the Religious leaders are getting into politics that way they can oppose such 'sins' like homosexuality. Haven't you noticed? They're Hell-bent on this ridiculous quest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with gay marriage, they're not ruining the 'sanctity' of it (even though nowadays people are getting married in those In-N-Out's in Vegas or filing for divorces), if anything, gays are reviving marriage, they're bringing it back, because we heterosexuals have dragged so far and fast through the mud that it's dirtier than it's ever been. Most of us don't even use it anymore! Whatever happened to the Constitution this country was built upon? There is nothing, nothing at all, wrong with gay people. Your arguments are invalid, because I'm sick of having the Bible being shoved in my face.
|
|
|
Post by americanarchon on Mar 4, 2010 18:47:39 GMT -5
The religious marriage is not the center of the debate, though it is involved.
The Christian marriage ceremony/ideal is separate from civil marriage, which is what is being denied. It includes certain privileges, like hospital visitations and joint custody of children, some of which are denied to gay couples.
Now if a religious group can't cope with that, no one's twisting their arm over it. But don't come into government trying to mess with people who want to live differently.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 4, 2010 18:50:36 GMT -5
Agreed wholeheartedly, graceface, and I do know that while the government is supposed to be religiously neutral, it isn't as neutral as it ought to be a lot of the time down there in the states (especially when the real wingnut republicans get involved). I've always been glad that Canada has managed that neutrality better.
Here's a rough summary of how gay marriage happened in Canada:
Random Dude: Prime Minister sir, some gay people are saying that they should have the right to get married under the constitution!
PM: Hmm... sounds logical. Senate?
Senate: Hmm, makes sense to us. Approved. House?
House: Yep, makes sense. I guess nobody really thought of it before. Approved.
People of Canada: Oh, gay marriage is legal now? Guess that makes sense, good on 'em.
---
Now obviously that's rather paraphrased (lol), but really, gay marriage passed with scarcely a blink up here. Word that it happened mostly passed by word of mouth, and the reaction was mostly "You know what, I wonder why that didn't happen sooner? Guess it never came up." It was quick, easy, and totally supported; it really felt a lot like just fixing an old mistake (which, really, is exactly what happened).
I wish it had been that easy for you guys.
|
|
|
Post by americanarchon on Mar 4, 2010 20:45:31 GMT -5
Yeah, down here it was more or less like this
Citizen: You know, it would be nice if gay couples had comparable legal status as hetero couples
Other Citizen: Yeah, that's a nice idea
Right-Wing Nut: WHAT!?!?!?!?!?! HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT!!!!! THAT'S WHAT THE VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY WANTS!!!!!! FIRST IT'S GAY MARRIAGE, THEN IT'S MASSIVE GAY ORGIES ON OUR CHURCH LAWNS!!!!!!
Citizen: How does allowing gay people to live as legally married lead to that...come to think of it, why did you did of that when we never mentioned homosexual intercourse?
Right-Wing Nut: Well, uh...NEVERMIND THAT!!! THE SOCIALIST-NAZI MEDIA IS ALWAYS BRINGING THAT UP, FOR NO GOOD REASON!!!!!!
Courts: Well, after having reviewed state laws, we think it would be a good idea to try gay marriage in places like California and Iowa.
Right-Wing Nut: HOW DARE YOU GO AGAINST TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, YOU SECULAR-PROGRESSIVE!!!!!
Courts: We are just interpreting the law. There is no real political agenda here.
Right-Wing Nut: BUT AHA!!! I CAN JUST AMEND THAT LAW YOU "INTERPRETED IN A NON-POLITICAL WAY" AND MAKE GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL AGAIN!!!!!!
Concerned Citizen: I heard you would do that. But I looked through your ads and literature on the subject, and you often employ ad hominin attacks, half-truths, and sometimes just outright lies.
Right-Wing Nut: What, well, uh...ALL THE BLACKS VOTED FOR IT!!! LOOK AT THEM, YOU KNOW THEY'RE ALL HOMOPHOBIC!!!!
Concerned Citizen: Yeah, but why did the Mormon Church donate so much to your campaign?
Right-Wing Nut:..........OBAMA IS HITLER....I MEAN STALIN...I MEAN, THE IMPERIOUS LEADER......PALIN 2012!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 4, 2010 21:07:44 GMT -5
There's no decent argument against gay marriage. I mean, if a church decides that it won't wed a gay couple, then so be it. But they can't try to take away the legal rights of married couples from gay people who want those same rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage.
|
|
Camoon
Star
[AWD:01020307]
Trust your pilot, respect your monkey.
Posts: 574
|
Post by Camoon on Mar 4, 2010 21:12:40 GMT -5
Whoever said NO has no heart and is an evil person with no soul.
|
|
ElfLady
Planet
I'm a crazy!
Posts: 409
|
Post by ElfLady on Mar 4, 2010 21:14:38 GMT -5
I agree Cameron. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by banditnator on Mar 4, 2010 21:26:31 GMT -5
love is the same no matter what gender, I really think if it was legalized across the world, it would be a good sign for humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 4, 2010 21:26:50 GMT -5
Who the heck just voted 'no'? They better post a decent explanation why.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Mar 4, 2010 21:30:36 GMT -5
Who the heck just voted 'no'? They better post a decent explanation why. It was Insane_Zang. His reason was "because everyone else voted yes!"
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 4, 2010 21:32:06 GMT -5
That's not really the reason >.>
|
|
Camoon
Star
[AWD:01020307]
Trust your pilot, respect your monkey.
Posts: 574
|
Post by Camoon on Mar 4, 2010 21:34:12 GMT -5
I was kidding with the whole "has no soul" thing. I was speaking to Zang at the time and posted it as a joke xD
People are entitled to their opinion, if Zang thinks it shouldn't be legalized that's his choice.
(I voted yes)
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Mar 4, 2010 21:53:09 GMT -5
then why zang?
|
|