topic: we should allow gay couples to be married?

Question

our english final is a debate, and i really need help on thinking of arguments...


First, if you are for this topic ... what is the necessity? whats the beneficiality? (please provide 2 if you can)

And if you are NOT for this topic... what is the non-necessity? and whats the non-beneficiality? (please provide 2 if you can)



Thanks A lot!! you have no idea!!!

Answer 1

For:
-Equal rights among fellow humans; this is going through almost the same phases that ***** rights went through: White men claiming superiority over black people based on the Bible, recognition of the evil of oppression, "separate but equal facilities" (in this case, civil unions), social slurring (in the past, the derogative form of ***** was used in the same way today's youth call things "gay", and hopefully, eventual acceptance and equality.
-Personally, I see the idea of claiming that love can be wrong is ridiculously selfish and evil. The only times God has ever made a passing reference to hating homosexuals were ambiguous at best, and based off of mistranslations of Hebrew terms for (if I recall correctly) "heathen" priests and priestesses. And if you are going to make such broad attacks on love, based on the Bible, then you shouldn't stop there; you should follow ALL of the details, including (my favorite), the idea that wearing a cloth of two linens is a horrible thing and should be punished as such.

Against:
-Biblical claims (although, from an investigative report I conducted, this is largely based on the erroneous translations of the English Bible).
-Issues of economic benefits; purportedly, differences in actual use, by men and women, of the economic benefits of marriage are great enough that a same-sex couple would use significantly more or less than the "average" that is typically considered for opposite-sex couples.

Answer 2

Of course they should. If you remember when the constitution was written, they said that no religion would be placed into making laws. Even though the makers of the constitution was all from a church who probably didn't agree with gay marriage, they didn't involve that or else their would have already been a law. And because the only people saying no to gay rights, is from certain churchs (I know their are more, but they basically started it) and that is from a religion. And the thing is, not only can gays not marry, they also don't get any help on taxes, like refunds, and deductions. All of this is prejudice, and the constitution CLEARLY states that their will be no prejudice . And if you ask the other side of the debate, why not? I have done this and the only people who say no say it is because of the bible and that G-d says that only a man and woman can be married, WELL that is involved in a religion, which their should be none of in the constitution. The first amendment, says their is freedom of speech, freedom to say they are gay and not be packed with prejudice. I really do hope this helps your debate, and the legal system to realize the damage they are causing. Thank you for reading!

Answer 3

I am for.

Reasons: Gay people are humans as well. The idea of equality is to allow equal rights, and that laws would support things like this. It is basically the same thing as saying that blacks may not marry. Also the benefits of marriage should be allowed for all people. This is why we want equal rights. To make sure that "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander".

Also equal laws tend to promote acceptance and tolerance. An ongoing issue with the LGBT is homophobia and hate crimes.

To the person who was basically implying that marriage should be for procreation only, and that "if we promote abortion, we could speed up the process" : Are there not enough children in orphanges? Are there not enough starving children in the world? And funny all these dilemma's are caused by heterosexuals, who are also against gay adoption. It is time to put your feelings aside on that, and make the issue ACTUALLY about the child.

Answer 4

The fact of the matter is, marriage between two people is between those two people and no one else. How can straight people butt into our lives and tell us what is good for us. They think it is against God's will, but we are not talking about a religious ceremony. We want to be able to marry civilly.

The solution to the problem is this. Make everyone have civil unions and leave the debate of religious marriages up to the church.

I've read responses that have comments about gays spreading disease as their argument. This is just dumb. If we are allowed to get married then we now have a goal to stay with the same person. How will any disease be spread?

Answer 5

i think of so. i've got paid extra or less 1 / 4 of each thing i've got earned over 25 years to multiple taxes designed to assist human beings in later years. If i'm purely courting, or in a civil union, and die, my companion would not get any of the advantages. have been I immediately, they had get 0.5 of mine on precise of their earnings from the distinctive plans. because of the fact the government would not know civil unions or maybe legal gay marriages, i'm nevertheless demanding relating to the financial look after a kinfolk member as i'm expiring in in a wellness center mattress. My coverage won't pay my dying earnings, and that i won't be able to anticipate the government to pay my companion what they might if i grew to become into immediately and married. specific, gay marriage must be legalized. D

Answer 6

yes. why not? i think it's complete BS that gay couples are not allowed to be married and i'm not even gay. why does the government have the right to say whether gay couple can or cannot have the same benefits as another straight couple? why does it matter to other people whether gay people are married or not? are they saying it because it is going to have a negative impact of society? the government should not be allowed to dictate moral situations. besides, just because a gay couple is labeled as married is not going to change anything morally, they're still going to be together whether they're married in the eyes of the law of not, the only thing is that they will share the same benefits as a straight couple.

Answer 7

Regardless of sexual orientation, everyone should be allowed the same equality in every form that is provided to hetero's by the government. eg. marriage, taxes, property rights, family, health, inheritance, etc.

The divorce rate in this country is well over 50%. The hetero's did that on their own. AIDS/HIV is spread more commonly by hetero's. I could go on and on. The reality is the hetero people making policy are control-freaks purely driven by hate and fear.

This country has so much potential for progress.

Answer 8

My feelings are if two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together and chose to be married to one another then so be it.There is a benefit to their being married if one passes on and chooses to leave something to their life partner this may not be possible,without marriage in a homosexual relationship if the one who has passed on has family they haven't spoke to in years seep out of the wood work to get a piece of the pie so to speak,when indeed the wishes of the one who has passed is for the estate,belongings or what have you go the life partner.

Answer 9

For thousands of years Marriage was a religious ceremony until governmnets relaized they could benefit by making it a legal contract. Thats when it all went bad! Considering that marriage has always been between opposite sexes for the primary purpose of reproduction it should stay that way... but legal unions should be allowed and differentiated from marriage.

Answer 10

Yes. We deserve to share legal responsiblities the same as straight couples do.