Forums → WEPR → Gay Marrige??
| 203 | 34340 |
I think that gay marrige should be approved in every state in the U.S. I know it has been approved in California and just recently in Pennsylvania, but should it realy be allowed? I think it should be, I mean just because your gay doesn't mean you shoud have less rights then straight people. Gays should have the equal rights to get married just the way I do. Shouldn't they?? Tell me what you think.
- 203 Replies
well me beeing bisexual i think that gay marage sould be allowed because if i find my true love i sould be able to marry him souldn't i!!!!!!!!!!1
Well, I myself hang out with a lot of bisexual and such people, no not all my friends are like that so there's no reason to start anything if you're against that stuff, and while I myself am straight, I think all people should be able to marry who they find their 'true love' to be, same sex or not. As far as I'm concerned, love is love and there's no stopping that, it's just the problem of people being 'afraid' of a different type of love that is the problem.
Recently, one of my friends was going out with another girl, they both liked each other very much, but my friend's mom was a 'homophob', or whatever those people are called so they had to break up and never talk to each other again, that, in my opinion, is very wrong and is really stupid. If being straight and getting married to someone not the same sex were strange and unnatural, how would everyone who is straight feel exactly?
@CaptainDJ
Okay, that was really, really, stupid, no offense, but gay people don't eat other people, perhaps where cannabalism is allowed maybe, but then again, straight people eat people there too, so are you afraid of straight people as well???
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there is an unalienable right to marriage. Plus there is no real discrimination going on here. NOBODY is allowed to marry people of the same sex. If it WERE discrimination everybody BUT homosexuals would be allowed to marry members of the same sex, which is not the case, hence no discrimination. I have my own personal opinions about gay marriage, but unfortunately when i bring them up people usually usually accuse me of being "close minded" and "intolerant", so I won't argue about that, all I'm here to say is that it is NOT discrimination.
I am opposed to legal marriage in general, but I think if they are going to have it they should allow anyone to enter a binding contract with anyone else, if they of course, both consent. Why should rights be limited to people who are straight, I have heard 11 out of 100 people are gay/bi, that is a large minority you are suppressing.
@donosld-Yes it is discrimination, defined by American Heritage as: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice."
People are prejudiced against gays because their religion tells them to be. They do not grant marriages impartially, they clearly divide them based on the gender of their partner. Your example of when it "actually" is discrimination is absurd; when would a homosexual want to be married straight, and on how it would only be straights allowed to marry gay, is not th element of discrimination; it is only straights who may marry whom they want to. Also, the 14th amendment says,"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
@Necromancer
No it is not discrimination. NOBODY can marry members of the same sex. In order for it to be discrimination against a group everybody BUT one group (in this case homosexuals) would be allowed to do it. Saying the government is discriminating against gays for marriage is just like saying that they are being discriminated against because they can not murder people. NOBODY can commit murder, so how is it discrimination against gays if they can't do it either? Same principle with same sex marriage. Also the 14th amendment is completely irrelevant to this argument. It states that nobody can be sentenced to death, thrown in jail, or have their property taken without a fair trial. What exactly does this have to with marriage? Also as you said, equal protection under the law and in most states it is currently against the law to be engaged in a same sex marriage. Due process has already been taken into effect when the laws prohibiting it were passed in the first place.
@donosld
Once again it is in fact discrimination, a straight man may marry his lover, while a gay man may not marry his lover. It takes away their right to choice and liberty which is more of what I was angling at with the 14th amendment.
Further, the 14th means laws are supposed to protect people equally and be applied equally. It would be counterproductive to its original aims if the South could reinstate slavery then "equally protect" its slaves by imposing harsher restrictions.
Nobody has an unalienable right to choice and liberty. If that were so I could easily choose to not pay my taxes, or choose to go around on a killing spree, a 15 year old kid (you?) could choose to go and buy a playboy. The whole point of laws in general is to prevent people from making bad choices. And quite frankly the law IS being carried out equally, NOBODY is allowed to marry a member of the same sex, sounds pretty equal to me.
To answer your semantic argument, donosld and necromancer, read this.
In particular, see how my explanation of what PM Rudd did addresses both of your arguments equally. Donosld can keep his semantical defense (which, IMO, is pretty shoddy as it only constitutes evasion) and necromancer can have those discriminatory laws circumvented.
@Donosld
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there is an unalienable right to marriage
Well, no where in the Constitution does it say there is a right for straight people to marry. No where in the constitution does it say child porn is illegal. No where in the constitution does it say that rape is illegal. No where in the constitution does it say women have equal rights. No where in the constitution... etc. Do you see what I'm getting at? The US constitution, though the best constitution in the world in my opinion, needs to be updated with the times.
For you to say that not allowing gays to marry is equality is just completely ignorant. Your defense would then also work in the 1950's when blacks were segregated. Because the Constitution said nothing about segregation, according to you, it was equality. Your thinking is so backwards and idiotic. I cannot believe someone could even say what you said.
@thelistman
There are LAWS which government straight marriages, there are LAWS which make child pornography illegal, and there have been LAWS passed that grant women equality. Since there is no unalienable right to marriage granted in the constitution, the LAWS which state that gay marriage is illegal are not unconstitutional.
Quite frankly my defense wouldn't have worked in the 1950's because blacks were not being treated equally. If you read my post I stated that nobody was being discriminated against because everybody is being treated the same, nobody can marry a member of the opposite sex. I'm not against gays getting married, I'm against same sex marriage. A gay man has the same rights as I do when it comes to marriage, he just chooses to not exercise them.
@donosld
Quite frankly my defense wouldn't have worked in the 1950's because blacks were not being treated equally
And gays are not being treated equally right now. Your defense doesn't work now.
I'm not against gays getting married, I'm against same sex marriage.
Is anyone else confused by this? Is he saying a gay man is allowed to marry... but only to a woman? How is this equality?
As a straight man I'm only allowed to marry a woman, same goes with a gay man. Equality.
That's not equality at all. It's special rights for those who are straight. It would only be equality if a person could marry someone who they are romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted too.
What you are saying is that a gay man/woman should only be able to marry someone they are not attracted to in any way. What if you were not given the right to marry someone you were attracted to? If the law stated that you had to marry an unattractive, promiscuous, and STD filled woman, would you say it's equality since everyone else has too? No. It's authoritarian, not equality. Your thinking is so backwards and contradictory in every way.
By the way, I refuse to debate with someone who sports such idiocracy and backward-mindedness. Don't expect any more responses. I only want intelligent debate.
You must be logged in to post a reply!