Same Sex Marriage Debate

[ARealRevolution]

I was just wondering to see what your thoughts on this subject our. Up here in Canada, same sex marriage is legal. So should other countries follow?

Im personaly opposed to same sex marriage, but I think countries should legalize it. Because most of the people who are opposed of same sex marriage are religious people. Letting religious people get there say in the political process is wrong. Its called Seperation of Church and State.

[Temple of Time]

I think it's completely up to people what they want to do with their lives. If 2 of the same sex are attracted to each other then that should be completely fine and marriage should commence. I personally am attracted to the opposite sex but people should have the right to choose.

[GarmGarf]

Originally Posted by Temple of Time

I think it's completely up to people what they want to do with their lives. If 2 of the same sex are attracted to each other then that should be completely fine and marriage should commence. I personally am attracted to the opposite sex but people should have the right to choose.

That would be ideal, but unfortunately, people can't choose their sexual preference types, and therefore, same sex marriages must be legal for fairness.

[Sage of Earth]

I'm opposed to marriage in general, but since we allow marriage as standard, we should allow same sex marriage as well. I've never heard a particularly good argument against it.

[Safer]

Alright, here we go. Same-sex Marriage should be legal. My reasoning:

• There is absolutely no reason that is not backed up by religion that supports why gay marriage is a harmful thing.
• However, we as a nation CANNOT force a priest who does not believe in said marriage to marry two gay people. This violates the separation of church and state.
• On that note, the current illegality of gay marriage in the US also violates the separation of church and state as said in my first point. Just because a particular religion believes something is wrong is not grounds to make it illegal. Doing so breaks the separation of church and state.
• Therefore, we must make it legal for priests who condone gay marriage to marry two gay people. That way, one particular branch of the church doesn't HAVE to do something it doesn't want to, while another particular branch can do something it wants.

It's all about how things harm society. Two men or two women getting married does nothing harmful to society. Therefore, it should be legal.

[Liquid Fire]

It should be allowed, but its religion. They pick and choose what they can follow. "the bible says gays are wrong, therefore gay marriage is wrong also" yet the bible also says stone your disobient children to death and they don't follow that.

Eventually people might get over their little thing against gays, but they might not. Morally it should be allowed but since when has the world been ruled according to morals. *shrug*

[ARealRevolution]

The bible is not the Constitution of any country.

[Orici]

I think if a same-sex couple wants to marry, that's their choice and we dont have the right to stop them.

[Tazryl]

The only reason I can see it not being legal because of religon. That its wrong to be gay.

Now another sin in the eyes of christians is being athiest. I mean to christians they turn their backs to god... which is a sin.

So why can Athiests get married and not homosexuals? Just thought I point that out.

[morval]

Everyone has pointed out that it is violation of church and states to prevent the issuing of same-sex marriage ceremonies and official certificates. However, I would venture to say that it is against separation of church and state for the government to legislate marriage documents at all, be it same-sex or otherwise. Let the religious groups decide for themselves. Yes, I know you are wondering "but if the government didn't issue legal marriage documents, then any two people could claim marriage status for immigration or tax benefits, or even citizenship. Well I would propose, let the churches, synagogues, etc....issue marriage documents and the government issue civil union, spouse status, etc.. documents. Every type of marriage, union, spouse relationship, etc...would be treated equally under law and all would be recognized as a civil union for the sake of federal neutrality on the marriage issue. No exceptions.

[silentbob10]

I totally agree with same marriages.I mean it's the persons own choice to marry the same or not.

[Kouten]

Anyone has a right to get married. My view made clear, the following are my thoughts towards homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Safer

It's all about how things harm society. Two men or two women getting married does nothing harmful to society. Therefore, it should be legal.

I agree. As far as marriage goes, they should have their say, and I don't have a problem with it, even though I'm religious. They're God's children too (imo). Here's the problem I have with it. It was just a plain old day, and my family decided to go to Disney World. Turns out that it was Gay Day (is that it's official name?), and they were celebrating it at Disney World. Now I think some boundaries should be made. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but in front of children, should we perhaps consider it in a different light? And someone, when responding, please don't answer with "then why should any couples get to demonstrate affection in public?" That doesn't help me much because I see it from the other side. I'm simply curious to others' thoughts on this.

Originally Posted by Liquid Fire

...yet the bible also says stone your disobient children to death and they don't follow that.

Really? I haven't finished the bible, but I hope that by now, I would have seen something like this. Not to bring religion into this, but I'm simply asking if you could give me the verse for this. And please don't take the wrong tone to this request. When I hear things like this, I really want to learn about it instead of simply brushing it off like others might.

[OniZack]

Originally Posted by morval

Everyone has pointed out that it is violation of church and states to prevent the issuing of same-sex marriage ceremonies and official certificates. However, I would venture to say that it is against separation of church and state for the government to legislate marriage documents at all, be it same-sex or otherwise. Let the religious groups decide for themselves. Yes, I know you are wondering "but if the government didn't issue legal marriage documents, then any two people could claim marriage status for immigration or tax benefits, or even citizenship. Well I would propose, let the churches, synagogues, etc....issue marriage documents and the government issue civil union, spouse status, etc.. documents. Every type of marriage, union, spouse relationship, etc...would be treated equally under law and all would be recognized as a civil union for the sake of federal neutrality on the marriage issue. No exceptions.

Exactly. If this is about the legal tender of the matter, Two people should be able to bind for the benefit of a family environment regardless of the couple's gender.

As far as religion goes, if you want to fight with a priest over your right to marry, don't expect the government to jump in. It's not the government's business what the church decides.

[Safer]

Originally Posted by Kouten

Anyone has a right to get married. My view made clear, the following are my thoughts towards homosexuality.



I agree. As far as marriage goes, they should have their say, and I don't have a problem with it, even though I'm religious. They're God's children too (imo). Here's the problem I have with it. It was just a plain old day, and my family decided to go to Disney World. Turns out that it was Gay Day (is that it's official name?), and they were celebrating it at Disney World. Now I think some boundaries should be made. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but in front of children, should we perhaps consider it in a different light? And someone, when responding, please don't answer with "then why should any couples get to demonstrate affection in public?" That doesn't help me much because I see it from the other side. I'm simply curious to others' thoughts on this.

I believe demonstrating it in public is the first step towards greater acceptance. If gays have to be afraid of expressing their love in public, then it's because people are still not accepting of them. Gays should feel like what they are doing is perfectly fine.

Also, if a child asks "Mommy, why are those two men kissing?" then the parent is obliged to say "because they love eachother." It annoys me when people say that in order to explain homosexuality to children you have to explain sex and such. You don't have to explain heterosexuality to children using sex and the like, do you?

Originally Posted by Kouten

Really? I haven't finished the bible, but I hope that by now, I would have seen something like this. Not to bring religion into this, but I'm simply asking if you could give me the verse for this. And please don't take the wrong tone to this request. When I hear things like this, I really want to learn about it instead of simply brushing it off like others might.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, `This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

[Chencheya]

I'll requote myself and bring up the argument I had last time we had a homosexuality debate.

You know, I've often heard people quoting two particular verses that seem to be against gay people. These two verses, both of which appear in the book of Leviticus, are rightfully said so in the Bible.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (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." (Leviticus 20:13)

True that. It certainly says so, indeed. Still, let's look a little beyond that since Leviticus is the word of the day and that's all that one needs to say. Below, we'll take a look at other scripture verses that are in the exact same book (Leviticus) as the above verse. This exercise will prove that those people who are so enthusiastic about quoting the book of Leviticus to affirm their personal prejudice against people who are gay or lesbian, become awfully quiet when it comes to other verses that appear in the very same book. They choose the Christian Bible as the tool with which they attempt to affirm and legitimize that pre-existing prejudice.

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Yet I'm sure some people will attempt to explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and, of course, not meant to be taken literally.

But the above verse is just a mere 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, they do choose to apply literally.

It's just incredible, isn't it?

People who change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose, even when dealing with verses that are a just couple of sentences away from each other!

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

Imagine what would happen today if we deported every man and woman from society who had ever had sex together while the woman was having her period. Yet I'm sure that people decline the opportunity to take this verse literally, which is merely only 5 verses after Leviticus 20:13.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

Did you ever wonder where racist, uneducated and ignorant people in the 19th century got the idea that slaves were mere property and not people? Directly from the above verse, which I'm sure that good Christians do not, of course, take literally.

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

Golly, well I've never heard a Bible-believer preach against the evils of shaving, as they do not take this verse literally for our day and age. Of course, they most certainly would do so if they had a personal bias against shaving, but apparently, they do not.

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

As you can see, the book of Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork (a swine is a pig, you see). Of course, I'm sure good Christians do not choose to use this verse to preach against eating pork. Sadly, however, they have no problem using and choosing bits of the Bible to condemn gay and lesbian people.

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

Farmers (in most countries anyway) almost always grow more than one kind of crop in their fields. In fact, they often must do so for ecological reasons. Yet I'm sure good Christians do not apply this verse literally. If they were to preach against farmers, then there would be an uproar, and rightfully so.

Good Christians also seem to ignore the Biblical command to not wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. The shirts that many fundamentalists are often seen wearing must be a cotton/polyester blend, the most common in the United States of America. They may be "Bible believing" Christians, but this is yet another verse that they don't believe should be applied to today. Certainly not looking good now, is it?

An "abomination?"

Good Christians also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-homosexual prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22. But did you know...

* The Bible also says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination?

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

So, in conclusion . . .

The above exercise proves that some people selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above. After all, how many times have you heard somebody say that eating shellfish was an abomination? Bet they sure don't hesitate to preach it out about gay people, do they? What does that tell you about their faith and standards?

I've never, EVER heard a decent argument against homosexuality or same-sex marriage. The only argument I keep hearing is that God doesn't like it, and that's from the religious side. I hear nothing except personal dislike against it, and you know what? That is the ****tiest reason to want something banned. I mean, I don't like guinea pigs, loathe the little things actually, yet it would be idiotic of me to want people banned from keeping them as pets merely because of my personal bias. The same applys to homosexuality, it affects nobody but the people doing it themselves, so what right has somebody got to deny two consenting adults from having a relationship together? None, I think.

So religious peeps, religious gays, whatever. You don't have to have homosexual relationships if you don't want to, or because you think your god doesn't like it, but leave others to make that decision for themselves, especially if they don't share your faith. Let others be, aye?

And... I think America has no right to ban homosexuality/same-sex marriage, since it's not built on a Christian nation. I think I proved that when I pulled the Treaty Of Tripoli into a previous debate. The priests are the only ones who can decide if marrying gays is okay or not, since it's in their churches, but if they've progressed a little and feel like it's okay to marry off gays, well, isn't that nice for everyone involved?

P.S: I fail at quoting.

[Kouten]

Originally Posted by Safer

I believe demonstrating it in public is the first step towards greater acceptance. If gays have to be afraid of expressing their love in public, then it's because people are still not accepting of them. Gays should feel like what they are doing is perfectly fine.

And I agree. Gays shouldn't be afraid of being in public; they deserve the rights everyone does. But taking the situation as I saw it, I don't feel that the gays here were afraid of showing their love. Several men and women in their mid-twenties or thirties with no kids of their own at Disney World. Why Disney World? I should hope that this specific park is for the children; though there are several places at which they could have spent the day, they chose Disney World instead. It appeared that they had no other reason to be there than than to express their pride, not their love or affection for one another.

Again, I support gay rights. It's just that I think this particular situation was somewhat questionable.

[Aralith]

Originally Posted by Kouten

And I agree. Gays shouldn't be afraid of being in public; they deserve the rights everyone does. But taking the situation as I saw it, I don't feel that the gays here were afraid of showing their love. Several men and women in their mid-twenties or thirties with no kids of their own at Disney World. Why Disney World? I should hope that this specific park is for the children; though there are several places at which they could have spent the day, they chose Disney World instead. It appeared that they had no other reason to be there than than to express their pride, not their love or affection for one another.

Again, I support gay rights. It's just that I think this particular situation was somewhat questionable.

I'm sorry, I know that you asked this argument to not be brought up, but I cannot help but be continually convinced of its relevance to the situation. If a bunch of heterosexual couples decided to show their love (or pride, whatever) for each other at Disney World, the population of the United States would have no problem with it, or at least they would have far less of a problem with it, than with homosexuals. To add a little twist to this argument, and to be far more relevant to what you feel the true problem is, what if the group of people showing their pride were black and not gay? Would you have any different feelings towards it, and if so, why?

As for my feelings about same sex relationships and about the supposed "reasons" (though it seems these reasons have nothing to do with reasoning) for why it shouldn't be allowed, I share the same mentality as Asmodeus does.

[Liah]

I am not against same-sex marriage. That, I'd like to make clear. I believe people have the right to be with whoever they want, regardless of sex, and that letting them choose to bind themselves to another person is absolutely no problem with me.

But, I am genuinely curious about people saying things like "it's only religious people" or "Why? Because *God* doesn't like it?" because isn't it a sacrament of the church? Marriage? I'm not saying that people should be religious to get married, but that those who see it as a religious issue - would the fact it's considered sacred within their religion, or even something that came from religion, be a reason that would cause them some upset? (btw, I don't ask in a b*tchy manner - just curious and wanting to provoke a little more debate on the issue <3)

[Cody]

I (as a Christian) think that a religious rule shouldn't be enforced by the government. If it doesn't actually hurt anyone and it's simply a religious rule, non-Christians shouldn't be expected to follow it. To quote C.S Lewis from his book Mere Christianity:

"At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives."

This was on the subject of Christians pushing their views of divorce on the government, but it holds equally true for same sex marriage.

[Holic]

I am one hundred percent for same sex marriage/civil unions. And I really wish my country shared this view.

At least they're heading in the right direction. I'm pretty sure they just amended a few acts to remove discrimination against same sex couples (heard it on the news), and we recognise same sex defacto partners. I'd like to see them take it all the way, though. I agree with everyone else here, we need to take a more secular approach to things like this.

I support people's right to believe in and abide by absolutely anything they please, but I don't approve of trying to force your own beliefs on others, and that's what is happening.

However, Liah makes a good point (if she's making the point I think she is ). Marriage is a religious concept, right? I mean, non-religious people are obviously married, but they're not going against the key rules of a religion by doing so. So maybe we should refer to them as civil unions or something, removing the religious connotations somewhat? Of course, religious homosexuals wouldn't like that too much.

[The Great Panda]

I'm neither against it nor supportive of it. I'm in the "I-don't-care" category when it comes to this. Still, I don't like it when the religious gurus of today bash it and call it "ungodly," nor do I like it when the (as I like to call them) new-age "open minded" people say it's the way to go and we need to accept it. Either way, something is being shoved down my throat, and I'm not okay with that.

As for gay marriage itself, I don't care if they do it or not. Just be gay behind closed doors. Unless you're a lesbian. Make out in front of me all you want. I'm sure all men can agree on this.