The gay marriage debate... is there any way to make this civil?

Question

There are people who think homosexual acts are immoral, and there are people who don't think that they are. That's fine, people can disagree. But why does the debate have to become so hateful from both sides? Is it so hard to put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to examine their argument from their perspective? I can understand why someone might think that it is not immoral, but I disagree, that's all. It's like drug control. Some people think marijuana use should be illegal except in rare medical cases (using pills, not cigarette smoke), and some people simply don't think drug abuse is immoral. Some people think polygamy is immoral, and some people think that it is perfectly acceptable, because the people involved are all consenting adults. Others believe that just because something is voluntary that does not make it ethical or moral.

No matter where you stand, is it possible to debate the other side without using ad hominem attacks like "sinner" and "homophobe"?

Feel free to comment, but be civil, or I will delete your answers. Where do you stand and why? Do you debate the other side with civility and good faith, or are you set in your ways and simply hate them for disagreeing, and cannot find their humanity (or your own)?

Answer 1

I agree, too much rancor on both sides. But I believe there must be some way to give gay couples the same rights as straight married couples. Maybe some kind of civil union would satisfy both parties (as long as it's not called "marriage" I suppose).

At the very least it should be a state issue. I don't see where in the constitution it says the federal government should set family law. But it does say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment).

Answer 2

evidently to be an worry for communicate yet marriage, as an college in call for by way of law, isn't a civil ultimate. that is like saying you could have a civil appropriate to call your self a farmer and get each and all the advantages that farmers get interior the tax regulations. If gay marriage is a civil ultimate, then what is going to ensue is the comparable as got here approximately interior the racial civil rights action, i.E. All regulations that element out marriage will exchange into null and void. Gays won't get different reward; all precise reward would be rescinded for each individual.

Answer 3

Here's one way to keep it civil.

Those who don't support homosexuality do so for one of three reasons: 1) they believe it is a Biblical sin or 2) they believe it is a mental sickness or 3) because they believe the winky dink was only made to go in the poony pie. So using the pooty poo or the mouthy mouth is bad too.

1 can be disregarded because the first amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion. Supporting one religion's strictly moral interpretations without legislative backing is illegal based on the supreme law of the land.

3 can be disregarded because any man that turns down a BJ by an attractive young lady has to have something wrong with them... maybe THEY have the mental illness. That, and the benefits of a good climax outweigh the results of being pent up, like rape and child molestation.

Therefore, the basis on which we should regulate the behavior is number 2, which would result in millions or billions of dollars for institutionalization of those with the "problems". Voters would never go for that. If not, letting these nutcases live in the street would be heartless.

Therefore, homosexual marriage should be allowed because the alternatives are illegal, completely illogical, or too expensive.

How's that for civil argument?

Answer 4

It is the Government who made marriage attractive by offering perks. Homosexuals want equal treatment but laws are in place that will give them the same rights but filling out different paper work.For example they can set up a Trust Account and not pay inhertance tax.The can jointly owen property with a survivers clause,have advance medical directives and appoint some one as a guardian
If you check your history women were property,marriage was an exchange of property.Women could not own property in there own right. Why would any one in this day and age wanted to be considered chattel. There have always been taboos with reguad to marriage and I don't remember seeing any cave drawing of homosexual tollerence. In the countries who have permitted homosexul marriage it has failed. The only reason the government is in the marriage business because is produces income.

Answer 5

i have no issue with homosexuality and i believe that a homosexual couple who give themselves to each other is some sort of ceremony have the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

However they cannot get married... in a church. That is where marriage originated and homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the church.

I also think that the people who jump up and down about gay marriages should stick to fighting a real fight. Like the rediculously high divorce rate or the disgustingly high rate of infedelity. They allow only certain people into their "club" but those people are the ones who give the whole idea a bad name.

Live and let live... thats what i say.

Answer 6

I think that the best way to approach the problem is the "30 days" method. The guy from "supersize me" had a homophobe live for 30 days with a gay guy, going to gay bars, etc. At first he started off hating them and just in general being disgusted. Finally, he met a parent of his gay son who had grown to accept his son's sexual orientation. He as a parent realized that love for your family was more important than anything else, and that started his transformation into open-mindedness.

The trouble is that anytime a gay guy contracts AIDS and starts spreading it around the chelesa out of spite, this is what people see on the news and make the association that all gay people are promiscuous and evil... instead of seeing that there are all types of gay relationships, from the loving couples to the orgy guys... just like there are in straight relationships.

As you said with the polygamy, gay marriage can be a slippery slope - do we resrict marriage to just two people? After all, Abraham had 4 wives. How about if you are really in love with your goldfish? I read somewhere that a woman had a "marriage ceremony" with a dolphin in an aquarium (it didn't hurt that she made a large donation to the aquarium).

It is all a question of exposure. I think the Dutch way is the best - coffeeshops and gay tolerance out in the open in the same way that our straight relationships are. Love those coffeeshops!

p.s. right on to Debra H!

Answer 7

Good Post.

I honestly think that the biggest obstacle to a great solution is simply semantics.

The term "marriage" has always denoted a union between a man and a woman - and this is a very legitimate argument from people who oppose gay 'marriage'.

On the other hand, I think people who choose to have a same sex partner should have the same rights and privileges as any couple.

I don't understand the gay's objection to a "civil union" as opposed to a "gay marriage."

Given all of the rights and privileges of a "marriage" without the stigma more traditionalists associate with it.
And, as you know, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Answer 8

Well i guess it depends on what your definition of marriage is.
Is it just two humans screwing or a commitment for life. Marriage historically has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman
Gay used to be happy, so rules change.
Is it right to just change the meaning of a word?

Answer 9

The greatest known arbiter of Civility in our day and age, Miss Manners herself, saith thus:

"Indeed, Miss Manners has come to believe that the basic political division in this country is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who believe that they should have a say in the love lives of strangers and those who do not."

And that is what it really boils down to.

Answer 10

I do not believe that "Marriage" should be offered to Homosexuals.
I do believe that some sort of Civil Union should be recognized giving them the same basic rights as a Married Man & Woman.