Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?

[Harry]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot.

If you think that gay couples shouldn't have the same rights as straight couples, you are bigoted against them, regardless of your reason.

I would think your argument would be that it's ok to be bigoted against gays, not that it's not bigotry?

[shua]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

So if someone disagrees with you then they don't know how to think for yourself?

At this point people who say that opposition to gay marriage is bigotry aren't saying anything, because they are just redefining bigotry to be synonymous with opposition to gay marriage.  It doesn't describe motivation or provide a logical argument.  It's lazy, and if you think you are convincing anyone of anything by throwing the term around, you are kidding yourself.

[Prez Duke]

Let the gays marry. Why we are still having this debate is beyond me. Who on earth are they hurting by doing it? It's not like straight marriage is in great shape these days with half of marriages failing.

[Chareth Cutestory]

Let the gays marry. Why we are still having this debate is beyond me. Who on earth are they hurting by doing it? It's not like straight marriage is in great shape these days with half of marriages failing.

Exactly

[Jbrase]

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

Unless you are Jewish and only read the OT I am not getting how your faith can  make you opposed to gay marriage. The 2 times homosexuality are mentioned in the NT they are talking about just going out and having copious amounts of sex with just anybody, but it doesn't say anything about loving relationships.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I oppose gay marriage, but I support civil unions that give homosexuals equal benefits; just don't redefine marriage.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

Unless you are Jewish and only read the OT I am not getting how your faith can  make you opposed to gay marriage. The 2 times homosexuality are mentioned in the NT they are talking about just going out and having copious amounts of sex with just anybody, but it doesn't say anything about loving relationships.

The majority of Jews ignore the law of Moses. Some Jews are even athiests.

[Grumps]

Pro, duh.

[opebo]

All marriage should be banned, and we should have a Festival of Fornication in May every year.

[TNF]

I oppose gay marriage, but I support civil unions that give homosexuals equal benefits; just don't redefine marriage.

Ah, so the old 'Separate, but equal' thing?

I support full marriage equality because marriage should be defined as a commitment between two persons to love and cherish one another. Gender shouldn't factor into that at all, nor should race (obviously).

[ShadowOfTheWave]

I struggle with it. I myself am bisexual and don't think it is something that is biologically healthy, or something that should be validated. I won't lie to myself to make myself feel better about it. But I don't want it to cloud my judgement about constitutional rights and whatnot. I'm just not sure.

[Supersonic]

I struggle with it. I myself am bisexual and don't think it is something that is biologically healthy, or something that should be validated. I won't lie to myself to make myself feel better about it. But I don't want it to cloud my judgement about constitutional rights and whatnot. I'm just not sure.

What do you mean? Pray tell.

P.S. Are you a Republican or a Greenie? Avatar confusion here!

[ShadowOfTheWave]

I struggle with it. I myself am bisexual and don't think it is something that is biologically healthy, or something that should be validated. I won't lie to myself to make myself feel better about it. But I don't want it to cloud my judgement about constitutional rights and whatnot. I'm just not sure.

What do you mean? Pray tell.

I don't think it makes sense that it is not a genetic defect of some sort, although we don't all just to procreate, it is still without a doubt the natural reason for sexual attraction. Same sex attraction does not seem to serve a purpose naturally. People on the left seem to want to validate by making it the same thing as black vs white, it's not the same to me because there is no huge difference between races, or gender, there is no 'advantage' there. But people of the opposite sex can have children together, and people of the same sex cannot. So sexual orientation just doesn't make sense people looped in with those other things, and since same sex attraction serves no natural purpose (and actually hinders procreation for those who have it) it is a defect to me.

I change my avatar all the time, I don't label myself as anything.

[Supersonic]

I struggle with it. I myself am bisexual and don't think it is something that is biologically healthy, or something that should be validated. I won't lie to myself to make myself feel better about it. But I don't want it to cloud my judgement about constitutional rights and whatnot. I'm just not sure.

What do you mean? Pray tell.

I don't think it makes sense that it is not a genetic defect of some sort, although we don't all just to procreate, it is still without a doubt the natural reason for sexual attraction. Same sex attraction does not seem to serve a purpose naturally. People on the left seem to want to validate by making it the same thing as black vs white, it's not the same to me because there is no huge difference between races, or gender, there is no 'advantage' there. But people of the opposite sex can have children together, and people of the same sex cannot. So sexual orientation just doesn't make sense people looped in with those other things, and since same sex attraction serves no natural purpose (and actually hinders procreation for those who have it) it is a defect to me.

I change my avatar all the time, I don't label myself as anything.

You have to be a robot to think that sex is solely about procreation. Jus' sayin'.

[afleitch]

I struggle with it. I myself am bisexual and don't think it is something that is biologically healthy, or something that should be validated. I won't lie to myself to make myself feel better about it. But I don't want it to cloud my judgement about constitutional rights and whatnot. I'm just not sure.

What do you mean? Pray tell.

I don't think it makes sense that it is not a genetic defect of some sort, although we don't all just to procreate, it is still without a doubt the natural reason for sexual attraction. Same sex attraction does not seem to serve a purpose naturally. People on the left seem to want to validate by making it the same thing as black vs white, it's not the same to me because there is no huge difference between races, or gender, there is no 'advantage' there. But people of the opposite sex can have children together, and people of the same sex cannot. So sexual orientation just doesn't make sense people looped in with those other things, and since same sex attraction serves no natural purpose (and actually hinders procreation for those who have it) it is a defect to me.

I change my avatar all the time, I don't label myself as anything.

You have to be a robot to think that sex is solely about procreation. Jus' sayin'.

Essentially yes. Biologists will tell you that it was a mistake to view sex as a means of procreation; it is also an act of social bonding. Given that same sex attraction and sex is found in all observed species that have sex by procreation separated by at least 100 million years of evolution (therefore we can conclude animals have been doing it for millions of years) it is natural (though not common) and by extension biological state. To view it as 'defective' is a human construct not a reality.

[Emperor Dubya]

Why do gays need marriage?

(apologies for offending anyone, I'm not trying to troll you into an angry response, I just don't understand why, with civil partnerships, gays need to be married)

[Governor Scott]

Why do gays need marriage?

(apologies for offending anyone, I'm not trying to troll you into an angry response, I just don't understand why, with civil partnerships, gays need to be married)

For the same reason straight people need marriage?

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Why do gays need marriage?

(apologies for offending anyone, I'm not trying to troll you into an angry response, I just don't understand why, with civil partnerships, gays need to be married)

For the same reason straight people need marriage?

In fairness, there were never any laws that said gays couldn't be married, just that they couldn't marry whoever they wanted.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Why do gays need marriage?

(apologies for offending anyone, I'm not trying to troll you into an angry response, I just don't understand why, with civil partnerships, gays need to be married)

As a straight person, I think it's incredibly condescending that we've created this bizarre separate class for gay people.  For ages, I've never had my potential relationship held up to strict scrutiny.  Now that gay marriage has come up, people are bending over backwards to define gays out of the things we associate with marriage.  If marriage has a reason to exist, it has reason to benefit gays (and society by extension.)  If it doesn't, we are still being jerks by not extending the symbolic treatment to dedicated gay couples.

The idea that the highly dedicated gay couples I know -- many who have children -- should be denied equal government recognition because of some abstract normative concept of marriage, or because of vague demographic reasons, is just totally laughable to me.  The only things that distinguishes this from anti-miscegenation laws, to me, are uncompelling arguments about biology (not that we straights have ever been judged for marrying without children) and fallacious appeals to tradition.

It's not that gay marriage is a big deal.  It's just that it's one of a tiny number of public policy issues where I genuinely believe one side has an obviously superior argument.

[Governor Scott]

Why do gays need marriage?

(apologies for offending anyone, I'm not trying to troll you into an angry response, I just don't understand why, with civil partnerships, gays need to be married)

For the same reason straight people need marriage?

In fairness, there were never any laws that said gays couldn't be married, just that they couldn't marry whoever they wanted.

Semantics tricks don't get you anywhere here.

[Governor Maxwell]

All marriage should be banned, and we should have a Festival of Fornication in May every year.

this.

[Spanish Moss]

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage.  I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman.  For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue.  Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."

[Platypus]

Actual gay marriage: couldn't give a damn

Legal discrimination: anti

[hawkeye59]

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage.  I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman.  For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue.  Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."

Then don't allow civil marriage in general and make marriage solely religious. Either everyone is allowed to get a civil marriage or no one is.