Should gay marriage be allowed?

Question

all right. heres how my unorthodox questions work. they do not give my stance or anything, however, i'm gonig to provide 3 valid points for each side (con. and liberal) and whichever side you choose to side with refute the opposite points. I. E. if i said 1. i like watermelon because... then you would say no, you do not like watermelon because...
PLEASE do not say "i agree with these points!" unless you are also refuting the opposite side's points. thank you!
now then:
Liberal first.
1. people should be allowed to follow their own hearts
2. State/gov should have no right to meddle in people's love lives
3. if the church can decide this, what about atheists and other religions? we're going to make a law based on majority?
Conservative:
1. Many religions say things about not associating sexually with the opposite gender. are we going to oppose our religion?
2. Underpopulation, if too many gay couples get together
3. it's simply wrong...are opposite-sex marriages going to be threatened?

-_-.. i know that the conservative arguments are weak, peter, but if i set up really powerful arguments, usually people have not been able to refute them -_- i didn't set up very powerful arguments here.

Answer 1

1. I'll comment on Christianity. Jesus was not homophobic, it is not in his statements as quoted by the Apostles who walked with him. Homophobia was introduced later by Paul, who was NOT one of Jesus' Apostles. Jesus said to watch for hidden heresies in the church and gave many warnings that things would go wrong in his absence. In the New Testament, the Apostles give different details of events related to the Resurrection and give different "earthly lineages" for Jesus. It is impossible that every word in the Bible is true for these descrepancies prove that. Homophobia is a dark force introduced by Paul and reinforced by the male-dominated European church that elevated Paul's status so that his words are somehow as good as Jesus'. Nothing special about Jesus if you folllow Paul's homophobic teachings. Jesus offered no homophobic teachings, only teachings of tolerance, love and to let one another be. Paul tried to be a good man, but he was human, and he made a mistake that has allowed others to cause much harm to innocent human beings. They never quote Jesus on this issue, they quote Paul and Paul was not Jesus nor anywhere nearly as close to God as Jesus.

2. Non-child producing couples are good for this world because of our over population issues. It is possible that this is part of nature/God's way in keeping our numbers down. It is also possible that "gay unions" were first tabooed because of a pressing need for all sexual unions to produce children so the population would not die out several thousand years ago when this may have been an issue. (It's like how marijuana was outlawed in the 1930s to drum up hype to round up and deport Mexican "illegals" but now that original reason has been forgotten and the hype has become "truth" in the minds of many people. I learned that in a Chicano studies class and it was on the History channel.)

3. "It's simply wrong" is not an argument, just a feeling. Opposite sex marriages are not only NOT threatened by "same sex" marriages, but the entire institution of marriage is strengthened. It is absurd that people would call something sacred and then say, but only we can have it, not you. There is nothing sacred in that. The world is not coming to an end because of gay people either, another ridiculous argument some alleged Christians like to make (I make distinction between Christians and Saulites, those who follow Paul instead of Jesus). Not one of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalype is described as being gay. One is described as being a capitalist, interestingly enough. Nowhere is there any evidence in the New Testament that God is against gay people or that they are responsible for humanity's downfall, unless you believe there was something really really special about Paul that puts him on level with Jesus. What is actually suggested is that greed, self-centeredness, and the willingness to use violence to perpetuate injustice and exploitation are our downfalls, and this is suggested over and over again by Jesus himself.

One thing you have not asked about is, what about intergender/intersex people? There are thousands of us born each year and when I ask homophobic Christians who am I supposed to be allowed to marry, they are lost to give me an answer. They never knew people like me existed, some of them do not believe we exist even with the evidence standing right in front of them. They deny God made us, so they deny truth and they deny God and believe they know better than God.

When the existence of intersex/intergender people, thousands of us born visably intersex at birth each year and more that it becomes apparent at puberty, is recognized then homophobia will go away as it erases all these questions about the body vs. the soul and gives the soul the priority that it should have and should be given by Christians and other followers of God.

Answer 2

I don't think anyone has a problem with two gay people comming together. The problem i think lies in the fact that they want to call it marriage. That has the connotation that it was a union involving the church. The U.S. government has put forth the idea of civil unions where gay couples would have the same rights as the rest of us, it would simply have a differnent name. And i knwo that the gay community doesn't like the idea of that, but the straight community isn't exactly ok with the idea of gay couples. Many of us, though good luck getting anyone to admit it, still get uncomfortable when around a gay couple. We can't help it, if it were up to us we wouldn't but there is something about it that is always going to seem unnatural. I say take the civil union, because if gay couples want marriage they are going to be wating awhile. At least this way couples can get the rights they want and in the mean time, let the rest of the people get used to the idea. Lets be real here, the population has never taken kindly to something different, i say give it time and before lone we won't care at all. Demanding that we just flat out accept it is not going to happen.

Answer 3

OK.

1. (Against religion) Doesn't matter. We do not have a state religion, this allows us to practice our religion as we see fit. The government should not be allowed to limit people's rights based on religious ideas.

2. (Underpopulation) Honestly, I can't say that I've ever heard this argument before, but homosexuals are enough of a minority that it won't really make any difference, and it's not like they're going to be having kids whether they're allowed to get married or not.

3. (Threatening Same-Sex Marriages) This is just something that the people from #1 made up. I've never heard any convincing evidence to support it.

Personally, I'm not sure why the government has anything to do with marriage in the first place.

Answer 4

I side liberal.

To refute the con side:
1) It's fine for a church or religion to not recognize a marriage or deny their services for one. They already do that (can't remarry in a Catholic church if divorced). The question is whether or not the state should do so. The state, in the US thanks to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, should and must remain religion-neutral on policy questions, thus whether or not a particular religion opposes gay marriage or not is moot. A better question is whether or not gay people have equal protection under the law that heterosexuals do. Gay people cannot obtain tax advantages for marriage, cannot be certain of inheritance, or the ability to make medical decisions in emergencies for their partners without legally sanctioned relationships.

2) Underpopulation is not a problem the world is facing. Overpopulation is. Besides, if gay people are only 5-10% of the population, they'll hardly make a dent. Also, since marriage generally facilitates having kids, due to weeding out the legal uncertainties in the relationship as well as forming a stable home, allowing gays to marry will probably help increase the number who do have kids.
If underpopulation were really a compelling problem, wouldn't it be more appropriate to force childless heterosexual couples (who are quite free to not have kids) to bear children?

3) My marriage isn't threatened by other people getting married, even if I don't think they should do so. My marriage is my marriage. Nobody else's marriage affects it.

Answer 5

This topic is one particularly of interest to me.
I am on the liberal side, and would agree that anyone should be able to get married (gay, straight, bi, lesbian etc).
My argument for this is that the current law against gay marriage is based on Christian beliefs and what the bible and church teaches. If this doesn't merge church and state I don't know what does, which in turn violates the constitution.
If all people in this country are supposed to be equal, then all people should have the equal right to marry whomever they choose, isn't that what this country was originally supposed to be based on?
As for underpopulation i hardly think so as i think the statistics say that only 1 in 10 people is gay, that still leaves 90% of us who are not.
One more point, which is important, is that even in gay relationships, domestic abuse (used when someone has been in an intimate relationship) is not considered a factor like in hetero relationship, and i think that DAs need to start prosecuting as such.

Answer 6

Hopefully I am answering this in the format you are requesting!
Conservative rebuttal

1. If you take one religion and you ask about a specific verse in their Bible, then you poll each member of that religion's church you will get a different view of the specific verse. If you ask at several churches within that religion you could get literally thousands of different views of that specific verse.
And before anyone says that the Bible is truth just remember that the King James Version is simply that- one humans version of what the ancient text was. Therefore we should not allow religious views to enter into this argument.
2. Under population---As long as sex is legal for heterosexuals of all ages I seriously don't think this will ever be a problem. On the contrary, there are so many unwanted children or parent less children in the world that many gay couples should be encouraged to adopt if they meet the criteria.
3. Just because same sex marriages would be allowed does not mean there will be a decline in opposite sex marriages. One does not just "turn gay".
Just my 2 cents.

Answer 7

Tell me this, how will gay marriage being legalized affect your life? Allow me...it won't!

I am inclined to agree with the liberal perspective on this. But then again, that's me a social liberal.

Refuting Conservative points:

1. Religion does not dictate laws for all people except in a theocracy which we are not. Yes, our laws are based on English Common Law which was based on Judeo Christian beliefs, but we are not a Christian State.

2. Our birth rates are sustanable and there are ways that gay people can have children, adoption/ invitro fertilization.

3. Love is between two souls, not two physical beings. The soul is ageless, genderless, colorless. Opposite sex marriages are not threatened because there is no mandate outlawing conventional marriage.

Answer 8

I will refute the conservative arguments.
1. I think religion shouldn't influence our laws.
2. This is ridiculous. People won't turn gay all of a sudden just because it is legal.
3. I can see the slippery slope argument and the "tradition" of marriage. But those same arguments were used back when blacks couldn't marry. We treat gays the way blacks were treated before civil rights. Can't we just redefine marriage as between two consenting adults?

Answer 9

look, I love my kids, but I am not going to marry my kids.

A man was created for a woman and vic-versa.

A P*N*S was Ment for a V*G*N*. Point Blank.

1. Sometimes people get lust and infatuation confused with love.
2. The law is the law, what it is and has been. What this great country was founded on rather mans or Gods.
3. The church cannot decide this. Our creater has already decided that marriage is between a man and a woman.
4. You cannot practice a religon, to only denie some aspects of that religions laws just to suit your personal lustation lifestyle. You will inturn be poised as a hipocrit.
5. A liberal is a party name created for those who are in limbo and cannot decide which political party they want to represent.

Answer 10

Marriage is a covenant between man and woman with Gods consent. The institution of government gives benefits to that covenant even though the government isn't supposed to be biased based upon religion. Why are conservatives so worried about giving consenting adults the right to civil unions and benefits allowed to others that are married? Not all married individuals are followers of God.

Conservatives and narrow minded people are scared of what they don't know. The thought that people that are in love with each other can't share a life together because of their sexuality is wrong and immoral. Absolutely allow it.