ForumsWEPRSame-Sex Marriage

98 21521
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
wipe42
offline
wipe42
819 posts
Nomad

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.


So this is really offensive to some people. It hurts to see such closed minded people against homosexuals like this. How is it disgusting? You may not be into the same thing as we are but you don't need to act like it's a vile piece of crap. Sticking with boyfriend and boyfriend? Why can't we marry again? Oh right we can and you can't do much about it.

however, it should be called a "civil union" and not marriage in order to appease the heavily religious and the right-wingers.


I don't think that's a good thing I mean if I wanted to marry my boyfriend why couldn't it be called marriage? If they don't like it then they should get over it. Religion, to me, has done more harm than good, however I will not bring religion to this topic just to start a fight over it.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

I don't think that's a good thing I mean if I wanted to marry my boyfriend why couldn't it be called marriage? If they don't like it then they should get over it. Religion, to me, has done more harm than good, however I will not bring religion to this topic just to start a fight over it.


If you are gay, then I mean no offense, however it would not be realistic to try to pass a law in this day and age that calls for same-sex unions to be called marriage. The Republicans would shoot it down, and the Christians would get all riled up. Yes religion has done more harm than good, except the people stick to their ethics, and they probably will not budge on their position.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

If you are gay, then I mean no offense, however it would not be realistic to try to pass a law in this day and age that calls for same-sex unions to be called marriage. The Republicans would shoot it down, and the Christians would get all riled up. Yes religion has done more harm than good, except the people stick to their ethics, and they probably will not budge on their position.


What's it called in New York and other states where it's legal?
wipe42
offline
wipe42
819 posts
Nomad

If you are gay, then I mean no offense, however it would not be realistic to try to pass a law in this day and age that calls for same-sex unions to be called marriage. The Republicans would shoot it down, and the Christians would get all riled up. Yes religion has done more harm than good, except the people stick to their ethics, and they probably will not budge on their position.


Yes I'm gay. Just a side note. I usually only take offense to things when you say no offense.
Now I see were they would get angry but I still really feel it's wrong that any heterosexual couple can get married and homosexual couples can't? Now I know you might just say that's them but it's a bit different for me.
Anyway...

...except the people stick to their ethics, and they probably will not budge on their position.


Well yes people tend not to change when it comes to things like this, but why don't they just try something new and see how it goes? I don't really ponder about how others think and their ethics so I honestly wouldn't know.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

but why don't they just try something new and see how it goes?


While I fully support you logic, it is highly improbable that you will be able to convince about 1/3 of the nation that you are right and that LGBTs should be allowed to have a "marriage"
wipe42
offline
wipe42
819 posts
Nomad

While I fully support you logic, it is highly improbable that you will be able to convince about 1/3 of the nation that you are right and that LGBTs should be allowed to have a "marriage"


I think I see what your saying now. It's unfortunate but you're right.
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,488 posts
Blacksmith

I myself wouldn't have a problem with it, even though I am a christian. if you wan't to call it marriage, that's also fine. I have two gay neighbors, and they seem just like normal families to me. however, this isn't the same in the rest of my family. it's kinda divided down the middle in my family. half are right-wing nuts, and the other half is the really to the left liberals we all know and love.

from what I have seen, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality whatsoever, but people oppose what they hate, hate what they fear, and fear what they don't understand. by this logic, since most of us aren't gay, chances are we will as a whole oppose it. individually, however, is another matter.

the only thing that I don't like is when they flaunt it flagrantly (yes, that actually happens).

dair5
offline
dair5
3,379 posts
Shepherd

the only thing that I don't like is when they flaunt it flagrantly (yes, that actually happens).


I don't feel that is nessicary. If thats who you are thats fine. But you don't need to exclaim it, its kindof annoying. The same goes for those who exclaim that they are heterosexual.

"NO HOMO!"

Before anything was even thought of. Its a litle annoying.
wipe42
offline
wipe42
819 posts
Nomad

I don't feel that is nessicary. If thats who you are thats fine. But you don't need to exclaim it, its kindof annoying. The same goes for those who exclaim that they are heterosexual.


It is very annoying even when it's a guy, actually especially when its a guy. It's not a necessary, pointless to say, and it just makes you actually look gay.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

so if I commit some faux pas here
A few. Don't infantilize us. I don't mean the calling us immature thing. That's just basic manners. I mean the manner in which you explain LGBT. It comes off as though you have a misplaced sense of superiority. And yes, we know what social conservatives are, and we understand how religion affects the issue. This isn't some grand untapped playing field. In fact, people agreeing on gay marriage has nothing to do with your past community. It does not indicate maturity or intellect. People on Internet forums are socially liberal. The fact that they are on the right side doesn't mean they're on the right side for the right reasons.

Now you see the risk of calling us immature, don't you? It gives us an indignant sense of superiority.

As in, we basically all agree with each other so no exciting debates really happen.
Well, you won't get debates here. Not a one. AG is not a debate forum. The WERP section neither endorses nor facilitates debate these days. Polemic arguments, yes. Okay, the point's been almost made. Onto the topic:

Gay marriage is not a gay rights issue. It has nothing to do with marriage rights for homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. The law does not discriminate. Sexuality has no effect on one's ability to be married in a legal sense.

Rather, it's a feminist issue. "But Xzeno, you say EVERYTHING is a feminist issue." That's true, rhetorical device, and it's true in this case.

The law discriminates against homosexual couples. There's a difference. A straight man's right to marry a man is no more protected than a gay man's. The problem with this is it creates a gender inequality. Men are being denied a right afforded to women. Women are being denied a right given to men. It should be clear that that is unjust. "Separate but equal" isn't equal, even in rights.

Questions:
1. Yes. Because gender equality.
2. Yes. Because democracy.
3. Yes. Because justice.
4. Yes. Because it will prevent future issues a little.
5. Yes. All legal actions endanger society in some way.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

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


Yes they should be able to, they are harming no one by doing this and marriage is a way for them to publicly show that they are devoted to one another.

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


No. Religion should play no role at all in our government. It's even in the constitution. Laws should be passed for the betterment of society, not to uphold the beliefs of a particular religion.

3. Should the federal government repeal the Defense of Marriage Act? Why or why not?

Yes, it should. It is simply a law which is just the beliefs of a particular religion and thus should be considered invalid. There is absolutely no reason to not allow same sex marriage.

4. Should the federal government enact a law that forces the legality of same-sex marriages? Why or why not?


I think that it would certainly speed up the process of having it legal. I doubt such a law would be passed at this time though.

5. Do you believe allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow endanger society in some way? Why or why not?


I fail to see how it could harm it and see several ways it could help it.

1) Same sex couples cannot reproduce unless using other means, thus adoption of orphaned children will rise.

2) Eventually it will become familiar to everyone and there will be one less thing that we argue about and have people inflamed about.

3) The happiness of those couples who would then be allowed to marry would increase.

Rather, it's a feminist issue.


Sigh, no, it's not. If it were, then male/male couples would be allowed to marry. Since this is not the case, it is not a feminist issue but a homosexual/heterosexual inequality.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

Sigh, no, it's not. If it were, then male/male couples would be allowed to marry. Since this is not the case, it is not a feminist issue but a homosexual/heterosexual inequality.
Learn what feminism is. And learn to read.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

I'm sorry. That was a mite more curt than intended. I mean to say: Feminism is about gender equality. The fact that women have a right that men do not is just as anti-feminist as men having a right women do not.

It is not a heterosexual/homosexual rights issue. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same marriage rights provided that they are the same gender.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

Heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same marriage rights provided that they are the same gender.


Uh...No. If they are the same gender as each other, they do not have the same marriage rights.

Male + Female = Marriage

Male + Male = No Marriage

Female + Female = No Marriage.

Both Males and Females can get married, so it's not a gender issue. However when two of EITHER try, they cannot, making it a sexuality issue.

Definition of Feminism is...the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men And since in this case they are equal to that of men...

I suppose you could argue this definition... an organized movementfor the attainment of such rights for women. But then it would "just" be homosexual women we are talking about, not Same-sex marriage in general.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

Male + Male = No Marriage

Female + Female = No Marriage.
But it doesn't matter what their sexuality is. Heterosexuals have no right that homosexuals don't. The law does not acknowledge sexuality. A homosexual man and a heterosexual man have the same right to marry. A homosexual woman and a heterosexual woman have the same right to marry.

Rather, heterosexual couples have a right homosexual couples don't.

Both Males and Females can get married, so it's not a gender issue.
They both have marriage rights, but they have different marriage rights. Unlike homosexuality and heterosexuality, sex is a factor that restricts someone's right to marry whom they choose.

Definition of Feminism is
First of all, dictionary.com is a terrible dictionary in general. Oxford English is where it's at. More important, you do understand that a single dictionary entry is not the complete summary of any complex philosophical idea, right?

Sample:

Existentialism:
a philosophical attitude associated especially with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual's unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.
Now, if we were talking about existentialism, and I mentioned death's role in the philosophy, or its views on establishing context, you wouldn't go "No, that's not existentialism. Because it's not in the dictionary." Existentialism is complex. People have written entire books about it. You can't expect to gain a compete and comprehensive understanding of it OR feminism from any dictionary. Not even an actually good dictionary.
Showing 16-30 of 98