Forums → WEPR → Same-Sex Marriage
| 98 | 21584 |
Foreword
I'm mainly making this thread because the same-sex marriage thread on the forum I frequent is getting boring to be honest, with all but a couple posters advocating same-sex marriage. I didn't see a thread on this on the last 5 pages or so (and couldn't help but notice the spam of religious threads. Honestly, you guys can't keep the stupid religious arguments to just one or two threads?), so I decided to make a new thread rather than bump an older one. I'm looking forward to see how the AG community views the issue of same-sex marriage, especially since this forum seems to be filled with more, uh, "immature" users than what I'm used to dealing with. And as you can tell by my lack of posts, I'm new to the AG forums, so if I commit some faux pas here, be sure to point it out to me. Until then, I'm just going to assume that the forums here operate like most others I frequent.
Background
The LGBT (which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender for any who doesn't know and is too lazy to use google) community has long had troubles with gaining acceptance within most religious communities, especially Christianity, which generally dominates many facets of society here in America, including the concept of "marriage". Social Liberals on this issue believe that (legal, not religious) marriage should be available to all couples, same-sex or heterosexual, and it goes against the constitution to deny same-sex couples this right. Meanwhile, social conservatives argue that the LGBT community are "deviants" who do not deserve "special" rights, such as the ability to have same-sex marriages recognized by the state. They sometimes say that the LGBT community are pushing their "agenda" on society, especially youth, and laws need to be passed that prevents them from achieving equa-*cough*, sorry, special rights.
Up until the last decade, there had been little progress as far as achieving same-sex marriages go, and all of the efforts to raise awareness seemed to just cause states to specifically ban same-sex marriage in their constitutions. But, recently there has been relatively huge steps toward equality in marriage, with several states starting to hand out marriage licenses to same-sex couples and many more allowing "civil unions" (basically the same-sex marriage equivalent to the separate but equal doctrine). But still, married same-sex couples are denied many benefits that other married couples enjoy due to the "Defense of Marriage Act" passed by Congress in 1996. The Defense of Marriage Act also allows states to not recognize same-sex marriages done in other states.
Questions
(brotip: the "why" parts are just as important as the question itself. Just posting your side of the issue without giving any arguments is practically useless)
1. Do you believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe Christianity should influence our country's laws when regarding same-sex marriage? Why or why not?
3. Should the federal government repeal the Defense of Marriage Act? Why or why not?
4. Should the federal government enact a law that forces the legality of same-sex marriages? Why or why not?
5. Do you believe allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow endanger society in some way? Why or why not?
That seems to be enough to get this topic rolling. Looking forward to your replies.
- 98 Replies
1. same sex couples should be able to marry, equallity for all is the way it needs to be.
2. no christianity shouldnt influence the laws. murder and punishment isnt a great way to run a country, and christianity isn't even a majority in america, so why should americas laws be based on it?
5. (ill need further reaserch to answer 3-4) No i dont believe it will endanger society. the endangerment of society is the homophobic religous people that go around murdering gays
Do you believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry? Why or why not?
I believe that same-sex couple should have all the rights of heterosexual couples, however, it should be called a "civil union" and not marriage in order to appease the heavily religious and the right-wingers.
Do you believe Christianity should influence our country's laws when regarding same-sex marriage? Why or why not?
I believe that NO religion should be allowed to influence our nation's laws, however, in inevitably does, which is unfortunate because our constitution specifically bans the mix of church and state.
Should the federal government repeal the Defense of Marriage Act? Why or why not?
Yes, because in this day and age, the thought of keeping other people repressed just because of sexual orientation and their preferred choice of partner.
Should the federal government enact a law that forces the legality of same-sex marriages? Why or why not?
Yes, because of the reasons I said above.
Do you believe allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow endanger society in some way? Why or why not?
Absolutely not! The thought that just because you want to marry someone of your same sex does not make you dangerous to society. People will be gay or lesbian, and people will be heterosexual. Just because people will be "allowed" to be gay does not mean that the "erfect picture" of a family will be disturbed.
1. same sex couples should be able to marry, equallity for all is the way it needs to be.
I agree.
no christianity shouldnt influence the laws. murder and punishment isnt a great way to run a country, and christianity isn't even a majority in america, so why should americas laws be based on it?
I'm pretty sure christians are. I think at about 75%.
No gay or lesbian marriages.
Why not? What bad would come out of it?
5. Do you believe allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow endanger society in some way? Why or why not?
I don't think it will endanger society at all. We should legalize it around the country. I haven't heard a good argument against it. And there are some good ones for it.
Well, for one thing, it's disgusting. (except for lesbians, that's kinda hot)
Another, it's weird. I mean, seriously. They shouldn't get married, Stick with Boyfriend and boyfriend for crying out loud.
Finally: Gay=queer.
No good arguements.
[quote=zakyman]I believe that same-sex couple should have all the rights of heterosexual couples, however, it should be called a "civil union" and not marriage in order to appease the heavily religious and the right-wingers.[/quote]
Why should it be so important to label same-sex marriages differently just because of some bigots? We don't call interracial marriages "civil unions", even though many people opposed it back when it was first legalized.
Also, would you find it acceptable to label all legal marriages "civil unions", heterosexual or otherwise? So until you have a marriage in front of a church, it wouldn't be referred to as "marriage" in conversation, and the word "marriage" would completely stay out of the lawbooks, since religious ceremonies have no place in them.
Well, for one thing, it's disgusting. (except for lesbians, that's kinda hot)
Another, it's weird. I mean, seriously. They shouldn't get married, Stick with Boyfriend and boyfriend for crying out loud.
Finally: Gay=queer.
No good arguements.
Its wierd and disgusting to you, but not to them. Its not fair that you control others harmless lives. A great argument is that gays are people too and if they love their partner they should have the right to marry them like any other person.
I'm looking forward to see how the AG community views the issue of same-sex marriage, especially since this forum seems to be filled with more, uh, "immature" users than what I'm used to dealing with.
Faux pas. It's typically not in your best interest as a brand new member of the community to already give us judgement as we could very well produce the same for you. I'm also fascinated in this deal with how you dub the community "immature" when your "last forum" you've dealt with had many posters arguing against the right to same-sex marriage? Maybe I'm missing something here. Now for my opinions.
1. Do you believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry? Why or why not?
Yes, same-sex marriages should be allowed; we are vastly overdue on giving the LGBT community acceptance, let alone equality, and as you can probably understand from some of the latest news involving such and our traditional acts being the causes, this is the cost of not obtaining it.
2. Do you believe Christianity should influence our country's laws when regarding same-sex marriage? Why or why not?
Absolutely not. No religion, let alone Christianity, should be an influence towards any laws. This is unfortunately a dream state, because we really cannot stamp out personal or religious beliefs when voting or acting on an issue. It is impossible to just say "Hey, we cannot allow you to vote on this issue; you're religious and we know exactly where you guys lean" and remove the privileges, because one, it compromises our nice double-edged sword amendments, and two, no religious person is the same.
3. Should the federal government repeal the Defense of Marriage Act? Why or why not?
Not sure whether to remove this entirely or to just tweak it to include same-sex couples. Either way, this act should include same-sex couples in order to give them more of the equality they deserve. Doing this may also increase the process of obtaining acceptance to others, and you can look at number 1 for the reasons why.
4. Should the federal government enact a law that forces the legality of same-sex marriages? Why or why not?
Forcing legality? Yes. Reasons? 3 and 1.
5. Do you believe allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow endanger society in some way? Why or why not?
Absolutely not. What...dangers? I didn't know the TGBT community were considered and otherwise thought to be dangerous? Though some of the guys against same-sex equality would think so. Why? They are people. Just like us. Wtf.
Well, for one thing, it's disgusting. (except for lesbians, that's kinda hot)
Another, it's weird. I mean, seriously. They shouldn't get married, Stick with Boyfriend and boyfriend for crying out loud.
Finally: Gay=queer.
No good arguements.
ah i love how humanity is so accepting, why not let them marry, why should guys and girls get married? why shouldn't they stay girlfriend and boyfriend?
Gay=queer.
can you hop out of your bigot room and join humanity?
[quote=Freakenstein]your "last forum" you've dealt with had many posters arguing against the right to same-sex marriage?[/quote]
Uh, you must have misread that part. I said all but a few posters advocate it, not are against it. As in, we basically all agree with each other so no exciting debates really happen.
Faux pas.
Sure, but looking at the some of the arguments of many of the previous posters here, am I really so wrong in perceiving this? I mean, I didn't call you all immature.
Not sure whether to remove this entirely or to just tweak it to include same-sex couples.
Why just tweak it when the law's entire purpose is to try to ban same-sex marriage in as many places as possible without directly contradicting the constitution?
1. same sex couples should be able to marry, equallity for all is the way it needs to be.
What molybdenum42 said.
2. Do you believe Christianity should influence our country's laws when regarding same-sex marriage? Why or why not?
No, in fact I think we need to be stricter about our separation of church and state.
5. Do you believe allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow endanger society in some way? Why or why not?
I don't see how it could.
however, it should be called a "civil union" and not marriage in order to appease the heavily religious and the right-wingers.
I see no reason to pander to bigots.
Well, for one thing, it's disgusting. (except for lesbians, that's kinda hot)
Another, it's weird. I mean, seriously. They shouldn't get married, Stick with Boyfriend and boyfriend for crying out loud.
Finally: Gay=queer.
That sounds like something a two year old would regard as good reasoning.
1. Yes, I support same-sex marriage for many reasons. Here's two:
A. In most cases, homosexuality is caused by a genetic mutation(I use mutation in the most objective way possible). In fact, after every male child a woman has, the greater chance the youngest will develop homosexuality.
B. These people love each other.
2. Absolutely Christianity has affected our laws. Do you realize how many Republicans are of a Christian faith?
5. (Due to lack of knowledge on the subjects of 3 and 4, I have skipped to 5) Freeing the slaves caused a lot of controversy, as did the Civil Rights movement. I believe this will be no different, although it should be. People can't seem to remember how violent some of those riots were.
I said all but a few posters advocate it
When I see that, I assume you mean a few saying its okay and most not agreeing with it >.<
Sure, but looking at the some of the arguments of many of the previous posters here, am I really so wrong in perceiving this? I mean, I didn't call you all immature.
Then by that, every forum in every community is like this.
Why just tweak it when the law's entire purpose is to try to ban same-sex marriage in as many places as possible without directly contradicting the constitution?
That's why I wasn't sure, since I don't know the details of what the Act actually does. What was put up top was really condensed. So I'm assuming right now tweaking the Act to include same-sex marriage would also defeat the "trying to ban same-sex marriage" part. I mean sure, we could create an entirely new Act and remove the old one, but anything beyond the two choices is just splitting hairs I suppose.
Why should it be so important to label same-sex marriages differently just because of some bigots? We don't call interracial marriages "civil unions", even though many people opposed it back when it was first legalized.
Because if people call it full blown marriage, it will never make it past the Republican-controlled House. It will pass in the Senate, but no vote would even be held on the bill! Also, those "some bigots" are a large amount of the population in the US, and it would not sit well if we suddenly called gay/lesbian marriage, "marriage."
I kindof agree with zakyman. Unless we have really big protests against it, we'll probably need to ease it in.
You must be logged in to post a reply!