Xcaezarx

Hello all, I am new to the forum. I am doing a paper for my english class on gay marriage. In searching for material, I came across this site. Since I like to debate opinions with others, I decided to join, and will be involved in other debates as well as this one.

Anyways, I did not see any topics specifically devoted to this subject. The last one I saw was the issue in Iowa, and the last poster was on Jan. 17. If there is another post on this subject already, could someone please post the link? Thanks.

I am for gay marriage. I am well aware of several arguments against it, but I want to hear from others what their argument against it is, or if you are for gay marriage, but have heard an argument, then please share it.

Thanks for the help everyone.

cheapseats

High school, college, or other?

__________________

cheapseats

Can't help you with that but perhaps you could cut and paste the couple things you DID find, as a starting point, or relay the gist of what you already found here.

__________________

cheapseats

I can only imagine being "for" gay marriage if one is actually gay. I can only imagine being "for" abortion if one is actually in need of an abortion.

But I am ALL for these being personal affairs in which We...the government-religion-business complex...have no business.

Since even 'pro-choice' has been relegated to a 'side,' I am Pro-Free Will.

__________________

Vicariously I

Well that's great but gays cannot get married in states that will not allow it so how does that help at all?

I'm assuming the paper is on whether or not gays should be allowed by the government to get married and have the same rights as others.

I'm I right on that or is this just a paper on peoples opinions?

__________________
"It's hard to face reality when you're busy living in the American Dream."

Vicariously I

cheapseats

Laws in the various states and the Laws of the Land will not change unless there is outcry for change that is too great for the Politicos who write laws to ignore. Obviously, the existence of the laws as they are is owing to someone, sometime, contriving for them to be the law. Someone, somehow is served by laws as they stand, or they would not stand.

Politicos align themselves SECOND with whomever butters their bread. FIRST, they cozy up to whomever will keep them in office.

Large public outcries balance large dollars. Overwhelming public consensus is...well, overwhelming.

__________________

EvilMonkey

I would like to think that we are at the point for this country to accept gay marriage but very few politicians will accept it yet, at least none that have a chance of winning. If it were on my ballot I would vote for it without hesitation.

Xcaezarx

@ cheapseats: I am a college student. If you really need to know, yes I am gay. I am also pro-choice, but I am hardly in need of an abortion, so your theory needs some work.

Anyways, as far as arguments against gay marriage are concerned, here are the ones I have heard so far. Brace yourselves, some of these people have no idea what they are talking about.

1. "Homosexuals are seeking to elevate homosexuality to the moral level of marriage. When they bring the law into it, they are no longer just minding their own business, but imposing it on every single citizen."

Response 1. Actually, I really could care less about your morals, since morals are based on personal experience, and not on a constant basis for each person. Therefore, my morals are, obviously, different from his. And we would hardly be imposing it on every single citizen. You dont have to come to the wedding if you dont want.

2. "Businesspersons (got to be politically correct) will have to subsidize homosexuality or face legal sanctions. Schoolchildren will have to be taught that homosexuality is the equivalent of marital love."

R2. To be honest, I, being 19 (gasp, young person), am not fully aware of the workings of the government yet, so I didnt know that businesses would have to subsidize homosexuals if they legalized marriage. However, they seem to have no problem with subsidizing things that are hardly "more moral" than homosexuality. I can't think of any right off the top of my head, but I am sure that some of you can. Second, the fact that schoolchildren would be taught that homosexuality is the equivalent of marital love should already have been taught. You think that two men or two women cant love each other as much as one man and woman? Oh, and this would be a case of the person not knowing what they are talking about, since we dont want HOMOSEXUALITY to be viewed as equal to marital love, but for our MARRIAGE to be viewed as marital love, which, taken in the literal sense, if marriage is legalized, would be true.

3. "Homosexuality has been discouraged in all cultures because it is inherently wrong and harmful to individuals, families and societies."

R3. HA. Where to begin. Well, first off, I would have to disagree that it has been discouraged in all cultures. Greeks and Romans both had a very tolerant view of homosexuals. Spartans in particular, the manliest men that people think of when you picture the greeks, were encouraged to pick a male "partner". It was believed that it helped form bonds between them when they were in combat together. Second, "Inherently wrong" is a perception by people who disagree with somthing. If I disagree with your opinion, I could say that you are inherently wrong, regardless of what your opinion is. More on that later. Harmful to individuals, families and societies. That will probably be visited later on in more detail, since they are all major issues against homosexual marriage.

4. Anyone disagreeing with same-sex marriage would be denounced as a "bigot"

R4. This is another case of an idiot arguing things that they shouldnt be thinking about. Straight from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

So he is arguing on a whole different point. "Same-sex marriage" is not a group either ethnic, racial or other. Now if you disagree with homosexuality, and are intolerent of people who are homosexual, that is different. Then you are a bigot, by definition already, and so disagreeing with same-sex marriage wouldnt be a step down for you anyways.

5. "Homosexuality is the conduct of engaging in sodomy (homosexual relations) with members of the same sex. This is a clear definition. Civil rights, on the other hand, are also known as “natural rights,” because they are based on things that cannot be changed or chosen. Conduct is not a civil right. The whole idea of civil rights is that our civil government will respect, approve and award protected status to persons who are born with certain unchangeable qualities. This is why civil rights law prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity and nationality, sex and age — all immutable characteristics."

R5. "Anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex". More from Merriam-Webster. He didn't define it right. Well, all that aside, this is partially true. Homosexuality INCLUDES sodomy at times. However, I know for a fact that there are hetrosexual couples that engage in sodomy too, so it is hardly a homosexual trait alone. As far as the civil and natrual rights of a human, they are dependant on the belief system that is in place at the time, as well as what is known at the time. For example, the nature Vs. nurture argument is still going on right now. What if evidence is found that there is a gay gene? That would be an Immutable characteristic, and as such, fall under this persons definition of civil rights. If this is found to be true, does that mean that all the people who believe what this person said have to accept gays and all the rights that go along with that? Probably not. I am sure they will come up with somthing else. You can not say that it is or is not a civil right until it is proven to be one or the other. As there is still a debate as to whether being gay is a product of your genetics or environment is still going on, you can not make a distinction between the two.

6. If you are a devout Christian, Jew or Muslim, or merly someone who believes homosexuality is immoral and harmful, and the law declares homosexuality a protected status, then your personal beliefs are now outside civil law.

R6. This one is interesting. First off, I am atheist. So that is why I have ommited any purely religious arguments here. Second, your personal beliefs are hardly going to be silenced because the law say so. You can certainly have the same beliefs. There are still people who are against african americans because of their color. There are still anti-feminists, who disagree with womans rights. There are plenty of cases where, even though it is "illegal", people still hold certain beliefs. Besides, church and state should be seperate. If you let the church and other religions weigh in on state problems, then are you not violating the exact thing this country was based on?

7. Marriage is a sacred bond under god and should be protected.

R7. My favorite. I had to put this in here just to further what I said in "R6". Seperation of church and state. This one is big. Marriage is NOT a bond under god, regardless of the "proper" or "traditional" ways it is performed. It is a legal contract recognized by the American government. Beyond all moral and ethical arguments, you can not use a religious argument against gay marriage without stumbling upon this fact. And this is assuming that all religions are against gay marriage. Some support it. Some CHRISTIAN groups support it. It is certainly not without its religious supporters.

Finally, there is no argument for this. This is just stating some facts that go along with not being married. If gay marriage is not instituted, homosexuals can not, by law, unless legally permitted to:

visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital;

inherit from your partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will;

obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;

enter joint rental agreements;

make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;

take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child;

choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;

obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

get an equitable division of property in a divorce;

have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;

determine child custody and support in a divorce;

have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;

file joint tax returns;

obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;

apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries; and

obtain domestic violence protective orders.



These are all things that hetrosexual couples enjoy that are denied to homosexual couples, simply because they are not legally family memebers. So my significant other could be dying of some uncurable disease and have 12 hours left to live, and instead of being able to go see him, I have to go ask his parents if I can have visitation rights? How is that moral? How is that just or fair? How can a country that is supposed to represent freedom stand by and deny simple rights to see someone you love before they die?

That is about all I have to say on the subject right now. If anyone thinks of another argument that isn't already here, that isn't an argument of just "it is immoral, wrong or against god", then please post it. Thanks all.

Xcaezarx

The paper is a persuasive paper for the side of pro-gay marriage.

Yes, you are right.

Vicariously I

I get what your saying and what you were saying I was suggesting that the first opinion may not be what the paper was about.

I was hoping the OP would clarify that for me so I could try and help him/her out.

__________________
"It's hard to face reality when you're busy living in the American Dream."

Vicariously I