• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why I think gay marriage should be legal.

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

press

I am one of the few straights who supports gay marriage. Prepare for a semi-long read.

Where do we get our anti-homosexuality attitude? That's right. The Bible, and get this: The Bible does speak of homosexuality being a sin, but it also speaks of morals such as tolerance and acceptance. I told this to a family member, and she said "Not on that, though." Wtf? If anybody, ANYBODY, can think of a vurse in the Bible that makes and exception on acceptance for gays, please give me the vurse adress and the wording to the best of your memory so that I can look it up. The Bible also speaks of not judging people, so that law was put in the Bible for God to enforce, not us.

When the Constitution was first written, the Founding Fathers set up a system of government that, they hoped, would always reflect the will of the people. However, the anti-federalists were worried about minorities. To compromise, when the Constitution was adopted, the First Congress passed ten amendments to it in 1791 called the Bill of Rights, which would prevent the federal government from doing certain things, even if the majority felt the government should do them. One such amendment is the Ninth, which protects all unwritten rights. Don't you think forbiding gays to marry is a violation of a ninth amendment right to marry who you want? Now before you go saying "They CAN marry who they want, as long as it's somebody of the opposite sex," I want to point out that if two men or two women want to get married, but can't, then technically, they can't marry who they want.

The next piece of writing I would like to talk about is the Declaration of Independance. In it you will find the phrase "All men are created equal, and we are bestowed upon by our creator with certain, unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How do you expect gays to live happily and with liberty the way we straights treat them?

Plus, it's not like they chose to be this way. Despite what the Christians brainwash you into thinking, homosexuality is NOT a choice. Any gay you come across will tell you that they didn't choose to be gay. It chose them. Do you have any idea what gays would do to be either straight or accepted? They'd probably give up their citizenship, along with all their constitutional rights.

My 45-year-old mother is a devote Christian. She opposed gay marriage like she opposes murder. However, when I asked her "Would you befriend a gay?" She immediantly spat out "Yes. I'm not going to hold that against them." I came back with "Well, if you accept them, why won't you deny them basic rights, like to marry?" To this day, she hasn't found a comeback to that, and that's when I was sixteen.

Just my two cents. Let the debate BEGIN!
 

marchare

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well said, press. I agree fully.
I am one of the few straights who supports gay marriage.
Maybe we’re not so few.
One big problem is that the Righteous Right has been allowed to depict “straight” marriage as being under attack, the habitual “victim” spin of the crybaby conservatives. The mainstream media don’t ask “How is gay marriage a detriment to anyone?” Can anybody show me this detriment?
 

cjwb2005

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Before I begin, I must stress that I in know way feel any bias towards gay and lesbian couples. I accept them without giving much of a thought about it. But, as far as being able to marry? It just doesn't make sense.
Now, I am totally for equal rights, and I definitely believe that gay couples should have the same rights bestowed upon the rest of the people in the United States, just not in the court of marriage. Marriage is not just a state right that provides certain couples with certain privileges, their is also a holy aspect as well.
I can see that Mr. "Press" fully acknowledges that the bible has clear scriptures showing the act of being gay to be a sin, so in that stead I feel no need to defend my point. But I must further emphasize the fact that marriage is a holy act, you marry under God. The bible, the holy testament, states that gayness is a sin. Therefore, a gay marriage under the holy spirit of God seems to me like a slap in the face for our holy creator.
However, there is a solution to this, and its quite simple. Gay people should be able to have the various innumerated rights, and they should be acknowledged as a legal couple. However, the holy aspects should not be incorporated into their union. Rather, what I'm getting to is the act of Civil Unions. Where Gay people are able to obtain the rights of married couples, just without the word of God, who obviously opposes them.
 

clone

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
press said:
Plus, it's not like they chose to be this way.
are you kidding. no matter what they say, a person ALWAYS has the choice to be straight. ALWAYS. it was their choice to be gay, not matter what they say to make you accept them.

my anti-homosexuality attitude does not come from the bible.

it comes from morals, and scientific values, however i will speak of God in this post just to make it an easier read, and type. in this post you can substitute the word God for evolution or w/e.

God created us, and made us intelligent. God knows everything, and knew that if he had not created a sense of pleasure in sex, we wouldnt bother with it. homosexuality is abusing that pleasure for your own desires.

whenever we do something, or something happens to us, that wasnt meant to be done to a human, it hurts. various ways of torture hurt, being shot hurts, and oh yeah, anal sex hurts. i only know this because of what ive heard from my female friends. humans were not made to be tortured, shot, or to have a penis put up their ass. it is JUST UN-NATURAL.

we were made a certain way, we need to have at least SOME respect for our bodies. being gay is disrespecting not only yourself, but your body, and indirectly, your creator.

being gay is not right.
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cjwb2005 said:
Before I begin, I must stress that I in know way feel any bias towards gay and lesbian couples. I accept them without giving much of a thought about it. But, as far as being able to marry? It just doesn't make sense.
Now, I am totally for equal rights, and I definitely believe that gay couples should have the same rights bestowed upon the rest of the people in the United States, just not in the court of marriage. Marriage is not just a state right that provides certain couples with certain privileges, their is also a holy aspect as well.
I can see that Mr. "Press" fully acknowledges that the bible has clear scriptures showing the act of being gay to be a sin, so in that stead I feel no need to defend my point. But I must further emphasize the fact that marriage is a holy act, you marry under God. The bible, the holy testament, states that gayness is a sin. Therefore, a gay marriage under the holy spirit of God seems to me like a slap in the face for our holy creator.
However, there is a solution to this, and its quite simple. Gay people should be able to have the various innumerated rights, and they should be acknowledged as a legal couple. However, the holy aspects should not be incorporated into their union. Rather, what I'm getting to is the act of Civil Unions. Where Gay people are able to obtain the rights of married couples, just without the word of God, who obviously opposes them.
I see what you mean, but I have a question. What if a particular denomination interpret homosexuality in the eyes of God differently? Should they not be allowed to marry gay couples in the eyes of God?

clone said:
are you kidding. no matter what they say, a person ALWAYS has the choice to be straight. ALWAYS. it was their choice to be gay, not matter what they say to make you accept them.
This point is repeated very often on this forum, but hey ho, here we go...if homosexuals have chosen to be homosexual, is it possible for you to be homosexual? To be attracted to anothe man? Could you, as teacher so often puts it, get a woody for another man?

clone said:
whenever we do something, or something happens to us, that wasnt meant to be done to a human, it hurts. various ways of torture hurt, being shot hurts, and oh yeah, anal sex hurts. i only know this because of what ive heard from my female friends. humans were not made to be tortured, shot, or to have a penis put up their ass. it is JUST UN-NATURAL.
So? If homosexuality is unnatural, then it must be a choice...I've already discussed this but for the sake of argument lets say it is. I would argue part of the beauty of being sentient is the ability to go beyond instinct and nature. To go beyond the fact that we are here for the sole purpose of ensuring the efficient transfer of genetic material to the next generation, but instead revel in our sentience. We design building, devices, electronics to make our lives easier and more enjoyable. If we just follow what nature told us to do, and not stick a hand into the gently steaming blueberry pie of pleasure occasionally then all we'd do as a species is sleep, excrete, reproduce and eat. Some may enjoy that, I quite enjoy that but I would also like something more. We're sentient either for a reason, or just because we evolved that way, so why not use it?
 

Auftrag

Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why on earth do homosexuals want to partake in sich a heterosexual institution?

As for homosexuality being a choice. This is proven to be bullshit. Italian scientists have discovered how the gay gene is passed through the generations. Down the mothers side apparently.

I didn't choose to be a homosexual, but I'd rather be a homosexual than a heterosexual. The historical importance of homosexuals is vastly more than heterosexuals. All our modern undersandings came from the minds and workings of homosexual societies; from philosophy, politics, government, military strategy and medicine!
 

cjwb2005

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"I see what you mean, but I have a question. What if a particular denomination interpret homosexuality in the eyes of God differently? Should they not be allowed to marry gay couples in the eyes of God?"

Well, as far as I am aware of (and correct me here if I am wrong), there are currently no such religous cultures that believe the act of being gay is not sinful. However, for the sake of preserving the value of "what ifs", I shall attempt to answer one question with yet another.
What if their were certain denominations who felt entitled to marry another species, would you allow it? Would you care? Perhaps in time, people would learn to accept it. Yet would you want them to be married under God, who clearly expresses that man can have no sexual feelings for another species, even if they were to somehow interpret the meaning to be something different?
The idea might seem all to atrocious and highly unlikely today. But isn't that how gay rights started years ago?
 

clone

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Plain old me said:
To go beyond the fact that we are here for the sole purpose of ensuring the efficient transfer of genetic material to the next generation, but instead revel in our sentience. We design building, devices, electronics to make our lives easier and more enjoyable. If we just follow what nature told us to do, and not stick a hand into the gently steaming blueberry pie of pleasure occasionally then all we'd do as a species is sleep, excrete, reproduce and eat. Some may enjoy that, I quite enjoy that but I would also like something more. We're sentient either for a reason, or just because we evolved that way, so why not use it?
Ill respond to this, as i dont get the first part of your repsonse. if you could just clear that up a bit....

so you call this sentient? your wrong. because of all the buildings we are making, the technology we are designing, the advancements in genetics, because of all that we are destroying our enviorment. i dont usually talk like this, but as you said "for the sake of argument"....

this is in NO WAY sentient. People wandering around with thoughts of suicide, people quiestioning their purpose here, drugs, disease and the list goes on and on. some people have actually argued that it would be better if we WERENT SENTIENT, if we went back to being hunter-gatherers("Ishmaeel" by some guy whoes name i cant remember...). if this is the cost of being intelligent, unnatural and erratic behavior, then i believe it best if we had not evolved this way. instinct and nature are there FOR us to use, for us to know our boundries. how do you think we developed instincts? from ages and ages of experience, 2 billion years of knowing that this is the way it works, this is the only way it works. going against that is unnatural.
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cjwb2005 said:
"I see what you mean, but I have a question. What if a particular denomination interpret homosexuality in the eyes of God differently? Should they not be allowed to marry gay couples in the eyes of God?"

Well, as far as I am aware of (and correct me here if I am wrong), there are currently no such religous cultures that believe the act of being gay is not sinful. However, for the sake of preserving the value of "what ifs", I shall attempt to answer one question with yet another.
What if their were certain denominations who felt entitled to marry another species, would you allow it? Would you care? Perhaps in time, people would learn to accept it. Yet would you want them to be married under God, who clearly expresses that man can have no sexual feelings for another species, even if they were to somehow interpret the meaning to be something different?
The idea might seem all to atrocious and highly unlikely today. But isn't that how gay rights started years ago?
I'm not aware of one either, I suppose I was just making a point. Surely if a groups believes that it is possible for God to bless a union of homosexuals, then they should be allowed to do so. What makes marriage different from a civil union - As you quite rightly said...it is based upon religion. I fully agree that if a religion does not believe in gay marriage, then it should not be forced upon them. However, I also believe that if a religion does believe in gay marriage then it is wrong of the law to deny them the right to believe and practice that.

I understand many religions, many people, believe homosexuality to be a sin, fine, don't marry two men / women. but I do not take this to be an adequate reason for the govt to illegalise it for everyone.

I assume the point you were making with the bestiality was would I allow anything to be practiced by a religion if they believed it? No, i would not, as long as a religion operates within the law then I would accept that. I would not allow beastial marriages, as it is not between two consenting adults, homosexual marriages are. Would I care? Yes, probably, but not because it is against my religion, but because it is not between two consenting, unrelated, adults.

clone said:
Ill respond to this, as i dont get the first part of your repsonse. if you could just clear that up a bit....
Oops, sorry :3oops:

The first part was in response to your claim that homosexuality is a choice. Surely if it is so that homosexuals are only homosexual by choice, then it is possible for you to be homosexual...is it? Can you be attracted to another man?

I apologise if i wasn't clear enough the first time.

clone said:
so you call this sentient? your wrong. because of all the buildings we are making, the technology we are designing, the advancements in genetics, because of all that we are destroying our enviorment. i dont usually talk like this, but as you said "for the sake of argument"....

this is in NO WAY sentient. People wandering around with thoughts of suicide, people quiestioning their purpose here, drugs, disease and the list goes on and on. some people have actually argued that it would be better if we WERENT SENTIENT, if we went back to being hunter-gatherers("Ishmaeel" by some guy whoes name i cant remember...). if this is the cost of being intelligent, unnatural and erratic behavior, then i believe it best if we had not evolved this way. instinct and nature are there FOR us to use, for us to know our boundries. how do you think we developed instincts? from ages and ages of experience, 2 billion years of knowing that this is the way it works, this is the only way it works. going against that is unnatural.
We are destroying are environment, you're absolutely right in that with sentience comes the responsibility of having to know our boundaries. Some 'unnatural' things are wrong. but purely because something is unnatural does not mean it should not be allowed. Homosexuality may be biologically 'unnatural', even if it is, why should this mean we should not allow it? Homosexuality does not destroy rainforests, it does not present a danger to anyone, or to the public. Only could you slimly argue that it presents a danger, as you mentioned with your 'pain' argument, to the people partaking in it. No greater, i would argue, then the dangers of heterosexuality. What is wrong with allowing this bit of 'unnaturality' as long as it is between two consenting, unrelated, adults.

Besides, how do we know it is not natural? I believe it is. I do not believe homosexuality to be a choice, so the only logical conclusion for me is that it is natural.
 

clone

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you contradict yourself too much.

you said yourself that being gay is not natural, meaning it goes against our instincts.

one thing leads to another, it starts with "oh theyre ONLY gay" and then it proceeds to greater and more unusual things happening, until we eventually completly abandon our natural instincts, and do something so increadibly irrational that we end up destroying the world.

this is why we have so many problems today, because we dont stop them at the root.
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
clone said:
you contradict yourself too much.

you said yourself that being gay is not natural, meaning it goes against our instincts.
Where do I say that? I said "homosexuality may be biologically unnatural, even if it is, why blah blah", I didn't see this as indicating I think homosexuality is unnatural. but perhaps I'm not that clear. Sorry...s'too late on a Sunday night :yawn: I'll make myself clear now...I do not think all homosexuals are homosexual by choice, I believe homosexuality can come naturally.

clone said:
one thing leads to another, it starts with "oh theyre ONLY gay" and then it proceeds to greater and more unusual things happening, until we eventually completly abandon our natural instincts, and do something so increadibly irrational that we end up destroying the world.

this is why we have so many problems today, because we dont stop them at the root.
End up destroying the world? Perhaps I am quite shortsighted in these terms but how is not illegalising gay marriage going to end up with the planets eventual destruction? What problems will this lead to?
 
Last edited:

clone

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
many people in the 40s and 50s could never imagine men having sex with other men.

perhaps i overdid it a little, but it goes against human nature, and that is never good.
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
clone said:
many people in the 40s and 50s could never imagine men having sex with other men.

perhaps i overdid it a little, but it goes against human nature, and that is never good.
I'll admit that going against human nature can sometimes end badly, but why should gay marriage?
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
clone said:
many people in the 40s and 50s could never imagine men having sex with other men.

perhaps i overdid it a little, but it goes against human nature, and that is never good.
Seeing as there have been homosexuals for as long as there have been humans, I think it is a little presumptuous to say it is against human nature.
 

clone

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
how long have homosexuals been around for anyways...

even if it isnt against human nature, its not right. we were made a certain way, and we should respect that.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
clone said:
how long have homosexuals been around for anyways...

even if it isnt against human nature, its not right. we were made a certain way, and we should respect that.
:confused: "even if it isn't against human nature, it's not right"?

What kind of silly statement is that?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mod Note.

Locking this thread. One on gay marriage is enough. Feel free to join the debate here.

/Mod Note
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom