ForumsWEPRSame-Sex Marriage

98 21520
MisterArb
offline
MisterArb
9 posts
Nomad

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
hojoko
offline
hojoko
510 posts
Peasant

1. Do you believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry? Why or why not?

Yes and no. I do believe any same sex couple should have the same rights as a married couple, but calling it marriage makes no sense to me, as marriage is a practice based on a religious tradition, of which many believers of that religion don't believe God would want same-sex couples married under Him.

Basically what I'm saying is that I don't see the necessity of the label, i.e. marriage. If you find a church willing to marry you, that's fine, but the label shouldn't even be a part of the state records. It would make most sense to record all couples as "Civil Unions" and let those couples decide how to label themselves.

2. Do you believe Christianity should influence our country's laws when regarding same-sex marriage? Why or why not?


Yes, because marriage is an Abrahamic institution. However, do I think Christianity should affect the rights of someone's legal union? No. And, like I said, legally calling a union "marriage" has too much religious basis, and so that in itself creates huge problems for any creation of a civil union law, because the government will recognize them as "marriages".

I won't get into 3 and 4, because they bring up the issue of State vs. Nation, and I don't especially feel like debating that.

Will this eventually stop? Or will we become more and more free and accepting of people? Too much of anything is a bad thing after all. Will this slow down at gay rights, or will it only speed up? Sorry, I got a little off topic, I tried to connect it back at the end.


The thing is the Gay community (at least where I live) differentiates themselves so much from the 'mainstream' culture that they end up polarizing themselves more, and creating more resentment. Strangely enough, I've never experienced any kind of hate from heterosexuals for my sexuality, only the gay community (and many of them being part of the GSA) for 'not being gay enough'.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

This is no more than a pointless argument about semantics. Try not to derail the thread with a definition, okay?
I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to avoid stagnation. Notice how just about every opinion on this thread, mine included, has been a rehash of the pro gay marriage argument? Argument sharpens our wits. By arguing against each other, we learn both good inductive (the interesting topics are induction based) reasoning and solid rhetoric. We don't fight because we dislike each other (or, I don't dislike Kasic at least), but rather because we do respect each other.

It's not pointless semantics because there is disagreement. There is a difference between the very foundation of our arguments, which in itself is worth comparing, but moreso because these foundations lead us to the same places. Don't you find that the least bit curious? Argument about semantics? Yes. Pointless? Not really.

Regardless, as I alluded to before, the purpose of the argument is largely not for informational purposes. While I think the distinction between whose rights are violated is important, the pragmatic gain here is that fighting about it helps both me and Kasic. The fact that we can go at each other about these things is not what makes us immature, it is what makes us strong.

Or, in a more argumentative form, let's explore ad hominem attacks. These sorts of things are generally made when one has no counter to the actual argument presented.

Anyways, for all the people saying the majority of people in America are against same-sex marriage:
Empiricism? Is that all you have to offer!? /quotingpretentiously

Again, you attempt to act superior to us.
Relax, he was just addressing his error with the quoting system. It was a diplomatic action. Besides, if there was an edit function that he couldn't find, someone would have helped him out, because he mentioned it.

I forget what we're talking about. Wait, I've got it.

And Homosexual does not equal women only. I agree that feminists may have an interest in it, but it is not "solely" a feminist issue. Are we both in agreement?
Largely. Note that feminism also does not equal women only. Beyond that, I think we're on the same page here.

Actually, one more note: I feel I should also cede that aggressively labeling it a feminist issue may not be, ah, pragmatic. While feminism advocates equal rights for genders, it is deeply rooted in the vindications of the rights of women (see what I did there?). My point is that in a legal sense, the denial of rights is sex-based, not sexuality based.

Will this eventually stop?
Yes. Everything will stop. Someday. But anyway, progress isn't quite that fixed. People becoming more liberal is not a done deal. The Victorian era in Britain was far more sexually repressed than Britain under the Roman Empire... or basically any other time in Britain :P Rather, progress, whatever that is, is something we have to work to make happen.

I think the current political climate does indicate that it will become a non-issue in a few years. It's the next great civil rights movement in America, after racial equality and women's rights. But it won't be because of the march of time. It will be because of the efforts of people like us, arguing about it tirelessly.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Yes and no. I do believe any same sex couple should have the same rights as a married couple, but calling it marriage makes no sense to me, as marriage is a practice based on a religious tradition, of which many believers of that religion don't believe God would want same-sex couples married under Him.


So long as there are government benefits connected to it religion doesn't get a claim in a state issued marriage.


On the defining feminism bit how is this?
"Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/
hojoko
offline
hojoko
510 posts
Peasant

So long as there are government benefits connected to it religion doesn't get a claim in a state issued marriage.


However, the government labeling it as marriage, something that many people see as a religious institution (people, not the government), will automatically create more opposition from certain religious voting demographics. It makes more sense for it to be called a civil union universally, and let peoples ideals of marriage as a part of religion be preserved.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

It makes more sense for it to be called a civil union universally, and let peoples ideals of marriage as a part of religion be preserved.


Basically what you are saying is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If a homosexual union was called a marriage, we would have massive protests from the religious masses, calling on their representatives to repeal the law.
frisko12
offline
frisko12
420 posts
Nomad

zakyman:So, are you going to listen to the Bible, or are you going to bend to the will and the modern thought of society?

my reafrase:
are you going to listen to God or man

God of course.
hojoko
offline
hojoko
510 posts
Peasant

Basically what you are saying is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If a homosexual union was called a marriage, we would have massive protests from the religious masses, calling on their representatives to repeal the law.


Exactly. So maybe the government should just call all marriages (heterosexual or homosexual) civil unions, and let couples decide how to label it themselves?
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,508 posts
Jester

my reafrase:

are you going to listen to God or man

God of course.


I won't dispute whether God did or did not have a direct influence on the bible, but I will dispute how you quote other peoples' posts. There shall be no Strawman fallacies here, no sir, especially ones that are more...direct.

The bible condemns sodimites(quiers,gays,***ets,etc.)in Gen 12.


Ignoring the breach of T&C for now, where in blazes in Genesis 12 does the bible condemn them? Please point this out to the rest of the community after I give you your warning on your profile. Thanks!
frisko12
offline
frisko12
420 posts
Nomad

Ignoring the breach of T&C for now, where in blazes in Genesis 12 does the bible condemn them?

God destroyed the city of sodome and gomora threre.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

God destroyed the city of sodome and gomora threre.


Ummmmm, no. It says that Abram passes through the city, but it is not destroyed. Plus this is not an argument about whether or not God condemns homosexuals. This is an argument on whether or not our nation's laws should permit gays and lesbians to marry, and you have helped us prove our point by saying that they shouldn't because God doesn't like homosexuals. This says that our nations laws would be influenced by Christianity (any Abrahamic religion really) if gays and lesbians are disallowed from becoming married, which is a violation of the First Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional!
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

You still have yet to tell us where in Genesis 12 it even mentions this.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

1. They should be allowed to. Why?, Well, why not? After all, it won't change much, couples are couples no matter what is written on paper. And there is absolutely no reason why they should be refused a right that so many other people have. For those who find it gross, it's evidently not the case for homosexual couples, and since you're not the one getting married to a same-sex partner, what's your problem? Let them do what they want, you're not obliged to watch them...
2. Christianity will always influence the laws through it's supporters, but a direct influence should be avoided as much as possible. Because, after all, belief is a matter of belief, not a matter of laws.
3. Don't know enough about that act for a response..
4. Yes. I consider it their duty to grant all people same rights, so it's also their duty to allow and enforce same-sex marriage legality
5. What dangers are you afraid of? Honestly, homosexual couples aren't any more dangerous than heterosexual couples. If you prohibit same-sex marriage because it might be dangerous, might as well prohibit marriage as a whole.
And there is no reason to think that adopted children might get negatively influenced by homosexual parents. It doesn't have an influence on their sexuality either. If something happens, then because of individuals/character and not because of sexual orientation.

frisko12
offline
frisko12
420 posts
Nomad

Ummmmm, no. It says that Abram passes through the city, but it is not destroyed. Plus this is not an argument about whether or not God condemns homosexuals.

chapter and verse.
This is an argument on whether or not our nation's laws should permit gays and lesbians to marry, and you have helped us prove our point by saying that they shouldn't because God doesn't like homosexuals.

Our nation was founded on the bible, and even today we should still follow it.
Oh, by the way, It's Gen.19:24+25. Read it, I dare you.
Moe
offline
Moe
1,715 posts
Blacksmith

Our nation was founded on the bible


No it wasn't.

and even today we should still follow it.


And no we shouldn't. This is a nation for all belief systems, one should not rule them all.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

Read it, I dare you.


Read it before. The bible is simply a almost 2000 year old book of farmer/sheperds myths and racial hatreds and superstitions. Leviticus in particular pretty much tells you to go out and kill everyone who is not exactly like you.
Showing 46-60 of 98