Do you agree on same-sex marriage?

Question

We have a debate tommorow, our topic is on allowing homosexual marriage legal... I am on the positive side...

Answer 1

NO.

1. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws.

2. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.

3. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, a great depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

4. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

Answer 2

You are approaching this from a defensive posture. This is not good Your goal is for your opponents, rather then yourself, to be in the defensive position.

The problem is your phrase "ALLOWING homosexual marriage". This implies that it is the responsibility of individuals to prove that they have the right to something. But this is incorrect, and it is the opposite which is true -- it is the responsibility of government to prove that IT has the right to interfere with individuals' personal choices.

Which leads to other questions. When does or does not the govt have the right to interfere with individuals' personal choices? First rule: if a behavior infringes on the rights of others, then the govt MUST act to protect those rights. For example, theft interferes with our right to be secure in our property, therefore the govt MUST act curtail theft.

Second rule: if govt cannot show that individual rights are being violated, govt MUST just back off and leave people alone. That is govt can interfere ONLY when there is a compelling reason (compel = force), and the only compelling reasons are to protect individual rights OR national defence.

What are the rights that govt MUST protect? The rights in our Constitution, including The Bill of Rights and other ammendments -- along the basic rights of being secure in ones person (the right not to be physically assaulted) and the right of being secure in ones property (the right to OWN stuff, and have others leave your stuff alone).

In the case of same sex unions, the govt doesn't seem to have any case that these individuals are (1) infringing on the rights of others or (2) a risk to national security. If the govt can't make a case for having a COMPELLING reason to interfere with these individuals' personal choices, then it MUST just back off and leave people alone.

Part of the confusion (and strong emotion) that goes with this issue is our long-standing mis-use of the word 'marriage'. This word is being used in two ways, one a correct usage and one incorrect and highly misleading.

First, there is the holy sacrament of marriage, the notion of 'being married in the eyes of God'. We have freedom of religion in USA, so different churches are free to have different rules and beliefs. The Unitarian Church is perfectly free to bless same sex couples. And the Baptist Church is perfectly free to refuse to bless that same gay couple.

Second, there is the legal agreement, the 'marriage' licence from the court house and so on. This is where the unfortunate incorrect language enters the language. Calling it a 'marriage' licence is a misnomer. A mere govt flunkey at the courthouse does not and can not dispense holy sacraments. All that the govt can do is recognize that people have formed a legal union. But 'marriage' is easier to say, easier to write, and more polite. Besides, habits are hard to break. So for hundreds of years, ever since the secular institution of 'legal marriage' (as opposed to 'holy matrimony') was initiated, we have been calling it by a polite but inaccurate term.

Of couse, some churches have a policy of automatically blessing every civil union. And, as we spoke about earlier, the Unitarians will confer the blessing and consider such a couple 'married in the eyes of God' while the Baptists will DENY the blessing to a same sex couple and consider that these two people are NOT 'married in the eyes of God'. (Freedom of religion is wonderful.)

Some opponants of same sex unions will imply that recognizing these unions will somehow force churches to bless these unions, even tho the unions are contrary to the beliefs of that church. This is an 'appeal to emotion' and should be dismissed as such. Freedom of religion is a basic right in USA and the govt NEVER has the right to tell churches what to believe or how to practice their faith (so long as their practices do not violate the rights of others).

{Someone is sure to bring up the point that there are many area where things are illegal which do NOT clearly infringe on the rights of others or endanger national security -- a good example is laws against smoking marijuana. Your defence is that although our adherence to the principle is imperfect, this imperfection does NOT negate the principle itself.)
That is really long, but I hope it helps.

Answer 3

I disagree with it. Marriage was instituted as a legal joining of a man and woman in order to have legitimate children and form a family unit and share benefits and fulfill mutual needs. Gay marriage serves no purpose other than causing problems and drawing attention to homosexuality. It is ruining the entire concept of what marriage is about and I believe that it's wrong. If they want some kind of contract for financial or property purposes then they can have legal papers drawn up they don't need to try and destroy the ideal of marriage just because they feel that they can.

Answer 4

I believe they should have a legal form of commitment available to them. I would not call it marriage, but it should have the same legal rights for the parties to the union. This is for the protection of not only both parties, but also any children - and same sex partnerships do have children.

I think the word marriage should be reserved for a union that can involve procreation.

A same sex partnership, while they can have children with the involvement of a third party, is not strictly the same thing as the traditional view of marriage.

Answer 5

Any two persons of the same gender can and do partake in making love, its their right. However, Marriage is a sacred religious rite, and was created between a male and female, and in religious practice to legitimize procreation only. Fornication
et'al, is a pagan ritual wich only satisfies the scenses. For procreation, marriage is a neccessity to further the human race.

Answer 6

I am on the negative side. The homosexual orientation is unchangeable and that's a fact we have to accept, but marriage is a sacred and religious connection between a man and a woman. Now homosexuality is not religious, nor are partners of the relationship a pair of a man and a woman.
Maybe a new system can be created to legalize affairs between a homosexual couple and make the bond between them stronger and more legitimate, but it should not be under the same name as a religious connection between a man and a woman simply because it's a completely different meaning.

Answer 7

Don't you guys think if the same-sex marriage is allowed now.people will later try to on...justify incest too.Where should the line be drawn as to what is accepted and what is not?

Answer 8

Yeah, im all for it.

Its just civil rights to me man, marrige is a right not a privlige. No minority or majority in my opion has the right to deny anyone or anything its rights.

Lets get right down to the bare undenyable face...MAN CREATED MARRIGE therefor IMO (means in my opion for you non internet type types) since man created it it only makes sence that 2 men should be allowed to get married.

It really pisses me off when some courts will give gays and lesbions all the right and privlagis of marrige but refuse to call it marrige...i mean...WTF?!?!?

If two people are in love then why should we deny them the final stage in their relationship. Who is anyone to say "no, you cant do that because he's male too or shes female too."

Answer 9

Yes. I believe that all people should have the right to marry, of course there are limits, but suffice it to say, it is discrimination not to let two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry. And if I may add, it is a violation of human rights to discriminate against someone due to circumstances of birth. Since we know that being 'queer' is not something that can be willingly chosen, then biology comes into it. Take a look at the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and subsequent international treaties, which the US has ratified by the way.

Answer 10

Yes, I feel that same-sex marriage should be legal. Any two people that are in love should be allowed to get married if they want to. I heard about a lesbian couple, her partner was in the hospital after an accident and they didn't let her in to see her partner. If same-sex marriage was legal, that wouldn't have happened, she would have had a right to see her partner.