Support or no?Arguments for both sides, it's a much better debate that way.

 

I'll post my argument tomorrow, it's much better if I'm able to see other views before posting my own.

IMO it's a choice. I have no problem with homosexuals as long as they aren't hitting on me or anything. I can see the otherside from the religous point of view though, but the American government needs to be fair to all sides, not just the Christian church.

I have absolutely no problem with it. To me, this is one of those things where it's not anyone else's business. I don't think something like this should be able to be illegal, as I see it as a personal choice. If someone doesn't like it, too bad. It's not like it affects them in any way.

Support, i have totally no problem with it and there just two lovers who want to take it a step further. Nothing more beautiful than that.

Hmm yeah support dont see a problem with it rly.

Why not? Just let them do it like everybody else.

What I want to know is why does the definition of marriage itself, have to belong to Christian/Islam/Judaic teachings? Marriage ceremonies are pretty universal in every single culture and existed long before any Christian, Islam, or Judaism beliefs. Even here in America, us Native Americans accepted same sex couples and marriages, we had weddings ceremonies for all couples no matter what the genders.

 

So when our government backs up that statement about it only being between a man and a woman, your applying specific religious beliefs/traditions to the definition, and trying to pass laws in a country where the church and state are supposed to be separate. If someone truly loves someone, they should have every right to be legally recognized as a couple like anyone else. Marriage should have nothing to do with government period, but unfortunately it does nowadays.

 

 

Gay marriage will be legal eventually. It's just a matter of time. Slaves were freed, us Natives got our rights back to practice our culture, women got the right to vote....and gays will get to marry legally.

Why wouldn't I? Only a homophobic bigot wouldn't support it. Let's be real: this has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage; it doesn't even really have much to do with the Bible or the Koran. It has everything to do with the fact that a lot of humans on this Earth are disgusted by homosexuality and see it as perverted. Of course they use their Holy Books to justify their disgust, but that really doesn't change where the original disgust came from.

 

They say it's only in the name, but they're hiding their homophobia behind this just like libertarians hide their "f u I got mine" mentality behind buzz words like liberty and freedom. If we agree to everything-but-the-word, they’ll go to work on the “everything.” There can be no compromise on this.

 

Just look at the debate about DADT. All of these made up excuses about why it can't be repealed. Thank the universe for honest people like Peter Sprigg who exposed himself for what he really is: someone who is just disgusted by homosexuality.

 

The hate group the Family Research Council really exposed itself for what it is. I think it's great, and it shows exactly why free speech should reign supreme: these bigoted asshats just can't resist themselves, and eventually, will be so honest that all sane people will feel nothing but contempt for them:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN8D40qRWW4

 

Matthews: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

 

Sprigg: Well, I think certainly it’s defensible –

 

Matthews: I’m just asking you: Should we outlaw gay behavior?

 

Sprigg: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned, uh, the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

 

Matthews: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

 

Sprigg: Uh, yes! [laughs]

Personally, I think gay/lesbian marriage is all purely up to choice. However, governments and religions are right to some extent - having this type of marriage defeats the purpose of marriage itself.

 

You see, the whole point of marriage is to live and take care of your loved one, have children and start a family. This is impossible with gay/lesbian couples.

 

Though, it's still wrong to BASH gay/lesbian marriage. Sure, it doesn't really accomplish anything, but it's not like it's harmful either.

You see, the whole point of marriage is to live and take care of your loved one, have children and start a family. This is impossible with gay/lesbian couples.

 

 

So what if a woman or man was unable to have children, as in the case of thousands of people, does that mean since they cannot have children and start a family, that they too should not be able to get married? I think the point of any serious relationship is to take care of your partner, which is why same sex couples want equal rights as well.

 

To say same sex couples cannot start families is absurd. Homosexuals and Lesbians are still perfectly capable of having children, obviously not with their partner, but many gay and lesbians do have biological children, and many more adopt. Adoption is a whole nother debate, it's legal in many places, more than gay marriage is.

Civil union exists for homosexuals in Canada. It's NOT marriage, but provides the same benefits as marrying would.

 

Marriage is a religious concept that doesn't really fit the homosexual lifestyle.

Personally, I think gay/lesbian marriage is all purely up to choice. However, governments and religions are right to some extent - having this type of marriage defeats the purpose of marriage itself.

 

You see, the whole point of marriage is to live and take care of your loved one, have children and start a family. This is impossible with gay/lesbian couples.

 

Though, it's still wrong to BASH gay/lesbian marriage. Sure, it doesn't really accomplish anything, but it's not like it's harmful either.

Adding onto what arc_druid said --

 

What about a woman and a man who get married but never have any children (by choice or by physical inability)? While I know you aren't against it, you can't say that same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of marriage because of the inability to start a family when there are plenty of man/woman married couples who are unable to have kids or choose not to. And in the case of gay/lesbian couples, adoption is always an option.

If Archimage gets in, I think me and him are going to have a very tedious multiple-page-debate just like the New Jersey one... Lol...

 

OT: I believe same-sex marriage should be legalalized, yes.

No.

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

 

I'm not religious nor do i got a ton of arguments on why it's "right", that's just my belief.

Personally, I think gay/lesbian marriage is all purely up to choice. However, governments and religions are right to some extent - having this type of marriage defeats the purpose of marriage itself.

 

You see, the whole point of marriage is to live and take care of your loved one, have children and start a family. This is impossible with gay/lesbian couples.

 

Though, it's still wrong to BASH gay/lesbian marriage. Sure, it doesn't really accomplish anything, but it's not like it's harmful either.

 

The point of marriage is something beyond just love and taking care of children, it's a legal contract. By getting married, you're getting benefits from the State, and there are certain advantages you obtain relating to your partner. Such as if your partner is in the hospital, you're able to visit them more often. Marriage was also something to bind two families together, such as a King from one area marrying the Queen of another, and extending the boundaries of their land.

 

Also, even from the idea of love, gay/lesbian/trans couples are able to love each other and adopt or use other methods for children (surrogate mothers for gay couples, surrogate fathers for lesbian). Same-Sex Marriage accomplishes a lot for people who need it.

Support, I imagine most people here will be as well. Marriage is not a religious concept but religious people are offended by it.

You see, the whole point of marriage is to live and take care of your loved one, have children and start a family. This is impossible with gay/lesbian couples.

I support same sex marriage but i don't agree with what you said here. As others have said, many couples can't start families of their own but can adopt/ have IVF treatment so they can still raise children. On the other hand, many folk get married and don't want children. The whole point (reason) of getting married differs from person to person.

Do I support Gay marraige? No, I do not. It's nothing I would ever do myself, it's not something I can see too many of my friends doing, so therefore it truly has nothing to do with me. Would I do anything to stop a Gay marraige from happening? No I would not. That's none of my business, and I have no control over what you do with your own life.

Do I support Gay marraige? No, I do not. It's nothing I would ever do myself, it's not something I can see too many of my friends doing, so therefore it truly has nothing to do with me. Would I do anything to stop a Gay marraige from happening? No I would not. That's none of my business, and I have no control over what you do with your own life.

 

If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced.

Question here, religion is the biggest opposition against same sex marriage right?

Religion and tradition, I would say. Almost all arguments that don't fall back to religion are based either on an historical definition or on seeing gay marriages as an attack on families (probably because homosexual love is seen as impure, so marriage equality would somehow devalue heterosexual marriages).

I personally disagree with it, but it doesn't really affect me, so I don't mind it. Tolerance doesn't mean you like something, it means you deal with it.

 

Marriage is a religious concept that doesn't really fit the homosexual lifestyle.

 

 

But there are religions that accept homosexuality and same sex marriage. Just because a few of the more popular religions today don't really accept it doesn't mean they get to own the definition.

 

 

The concept of Marriage predates Christianity.

Same-sex marriage gets a thumbs up in my book :thumbup:. If the two people really care and love each other, we shouldn't deny them the right to be able to wed. Honestly, I think gay couples are happier than straight couples. Even from a legal standpoint, gays should be able to marry other homosexuals. I would want to have all the legal benefits of marriage, with my spouse, wouldn't you?

There is no good argument for why it should be illegal. It doesn't even affect heterosexual couples. And I also think it's funny anytime people bring up the "sanctity of marriage". It's more sacred for two men in love to get married than for a female gold-digger to marry a rich old man for his money. There has never been a sanctity of marriage, even in the old days when the father would give away his daughter for marriage if the boy would give the father something in return (even though it was against the daughter's will).

 

PS: I'd be interested in seeing statistics comparing the gay divorce rate with the straight divorce rate. That should be interesting.