what do you guys thing about same sex marriage?

Question

right or wrong? Im doin a research project on it....lol

Answer 1

Alrighty.

First, we need to get this straight... If you want to do a good job on your project, wow your teacher and use ethical thinking. Ethical thinking is supposed to be what we use in the medical field, psychology and in day to day living, and is the true model for defining what is "right" and what is "wrong."

When debating an issue from an ethical standpoint, religion, the law and social norms/personal opinions are thrown out the window. These are known as the three pseudo-ethics and cannot effectively be used to argue a point. Here's why:

***Religion is individual and not a constant throughout the world, and can easily be used to justify harming other people. It can advocate killing certain people, slavery, etc. It can also be corrupted easily.

***The law also varies through the country, and can also be used for unethical purposes. It can also be corrupted.

***Social norms and personal opinions can be corrupted, and can include things which can be unethical. For example, it was the social norm to keep slaves in the Civil War era and beat them, or someone could personally believe black people are gross and seek to kill them when possible.

Thus, religion, the law and social norms/personal opinions cannot be used to debate ethical issues; they cannot be used to determine if something is "right" or "wrong."

Instead, when debating if something is "right" or "wrong," you must ask yourself these questions:

**Does it cause harm?
**Who does it harm?
**Does it give people rights or take them away? Does it give dignity or take it away? Does it give people hope or take it away?
**If there's a choice between two outcomes, which outcome will cause the least harm or damage? Which outcome will give more rights, dignity or hope?
**With the chosen outcome, will everyone's rights and dignity still be respected?
**Who has stakes in the outcome? Why? Which option is fair to the stakeholders?
**Would you want to be on the "losing side"? How would it affect you if you were part of the "losing side"?
**If you had to explain your choice to someone you respect, what would they say?

These are all questions you should use to determine if something is TRULY right or wrong.

Applied to this situation, my answer would look something like this:

Gay marriage doesn't cause harm to anyone. The people in question are consenting adults, and the only harm that could come from such a relationship are dangers present in any relationship (domestic abuse, divorce, death of spouse) or dangers faced by unethical actions (hate crimes, discrimination) from outside forces.

Allowing gays to marry would give them equal rights and benefits given to heterosexual couples, would allow partners to cement their relationship in a way they see fit and would give them the happiness of being recognized as a truly married couple; banning gay marriage would strip couples of many rights, possibly destroy relationships (if one of the two is from outside the country) and cause people to feel as if their feelings and devotion are not valid based on reasons that are in and of themselves unable to be used in ethical debates.

If gays were allowed to marry, everyones rights would remain intact. Heterosexual couples would still be allowed all the benefits of marriage, would still be able to feel validated and would still be able to live their lives as they see fit. If gays are banned from marrying, their rights and dignity are stripped away, and they are barred from important benefits and would not be allowed to live their lives as they see fit.

Heterosexuals have absolutely no stakes in the outcome of this issue. Whether or not gays are allowed to marry, they still may marry; their rights are intact, they have access to the benefits of marriage and their dignity is left whole. Gays have high stakes in the outcome of this issue. If they are allowed to marry, their rights are respected, but if they cannot marry, their lives are altered forever in the ways stated in the above paragraph.

The only true arguments against gay marriage thus far are religious in nature, and because religion is not to be used in ethical thinking to debate a point, all true arguments against gay marriage are rendered useless. Also, marriage licenses are given by the state, and taking the separation of church and state into account, all true arguments against gay marriage are null, ethical thinking or no. Therefor, were gay marriage legalized, the "losing side" (religious conservatives, etc) is owed no true consideration in the matter, as their arguments are invalid in both ethical and legal respects. However, were gay marriage banned, it would be stripping people benefits and legal rights based on inherently unethical reasoning, and thus would be morally corrupt and "wrong."

In conclusion, ethically speaking, the only outcome that could be considered "right" would be to legalize gay marriage on a federal level. When using ethical thinking, gay marriage is morally sound as it harm no one, strips no one of any rights and is only offensive on levels that are ethically invalid to begin with, whereas banning it is unethical and harms an entire group of people, strips them of several rights and degrades them for completely invalid reasons.

And anyone I respect would tell you exactly the same.

Good luck with your project.

Answer 2

Well, in America, people are allowed to have their own opinion about whether it's right or wrong, because that is a highly subjective question.

I do think it should be allowed, because the Constitution of the United States guarantees equal rights and protections under the law, and denying a particular right to a group of people because they are a minority or because they're different is discrimination in the purest sense of the word, and is strictly prohibited.

Denying Gays and Lesbians the right to marry and have the civil protections and responsibilities that marriage imparts would be no different than denying someone of a particular race the right to marry.

Years ago it was actually illegal for whites and blacks to intermarry. The law was challenged over time and eventually repealed. Today, we look back on that law with scorn and a little embarrassment. It seems silly to us today. I believe that the gay marriage issue will follow the same path. Eventually, they will gain the equal rights that they deserve under the law, and in 50 years we'll look back on this whole debate with embarrassment and wonder how so many people could have been so wrong-headed about the issue.
__________________________

Oh, and to the wrong-headed Zuker, comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is a fallacious argument, because we are talking about consenting adults getting married here. Children are not adults and there are laws that protect children from pedophiles and other predators. Under the law, children cannot consent to relationships with adults, so your strawman argument doesn't hold up. You are an intellectual cad that is incapable of debating a topic without resorting to faulty logic that would be ban ned from any halfway decent high school debate team. I am truly sad for you.

By the way, while I know it won't change your bigoted mind, I thought you may like to know that it is a fact that most pedophiles are straight.

Answer 3

Aint marriage about love?? No wait its about money.

Answer 4

Right, and inevitable. Once religion, tradition, and anti-gay prejudism are removed from the discussion, along with the irrelevant "a child needs a mommy and a daddy"-type arguments that have nothing to do with the purpose of marriage (legal and financial protection and support for the family unit), there exist no legitimate arguments for why it is not in society's best interests. What makes absolutely no sense is that if people really believe that a child in a non-"ideal" family is already at a disadvantage, and they just want what's best for the child, why would they act to further disadvantage the child by preventing him from having the financial and legal protection that comes with having two legally married parents?

Answer 5

I think that anyone who wants to make a legal lifetime commitment to another person should be allowed to do so, and be able to gain all the legal benefits of that, including survivors' benefits, tax benefits, and hospital visitation rights, among other things. Why should it matter?

Much of the opposition to gay marriage is based on religious dogma, but it is a legal issue, not a religious one. How would you feel if we had a law today that was created because somebody's church decided long ago that people with blue eyes shouldn't be allowed to marry other blue-eyed people just because they had some physical characteristics in common, and therefore today could not have the same legal rights as blue-eyed people who married brown-eyed people?

Besides, if our legal definition of marriage is based on a religious definition of marriage (from the Christian Bible, as many conservatives like to state), then aren't we violating our own law that maintains the separation of church and state? In that case, all marriages are unconstitutional!

That may be a bit extreme, but in my opinion, you can call it what you like (marriage, commitment ceremony, etc.), but a legal commitment with all the benefits should be available for everyone who wants one.

The way I see it, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Answer 6

Ask yourself this: Is it ok to discriminate against a particular group of people? or Is it ok not to award ALL members of society the same rights?

You are a woman, would you like to have fewer rights because of that? Just based on the fact that you are a woman?

Why should it be ok to deny the same rights to everyone just because of their sexual orientation or preference?

Marriage for gays and lesbians is not only right, it's fair and just. Marriage is just more than about a union, it's about legal rights, property rights, inheritance etc.

This business where it's being left up to the states and they put it on the ballots and it becomes an electoral issue is only about cowardice, if the rights of blacks had depended on votes they would still be slaves and sitting at the back of the bus.

Answer 7

I think that marriage has changed in definition during the past hundred years or so. Then it was meant basically as a means of condoning sex and starting a family. Now we do those things with or without marriage. Being married today is just a symbol of commitment to another person. Why shouldn't everyone be able prove their comitment to someone else?

Answer 8

I have no problem with same sex marriages. If two adults love each other I think they should have the right to get married, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.

I think it's wrong to try to stop people from loving each other or living a happy life just because their relationship doesn't fit the social norms. We need more love in this world.

Answer 9

I just want to say first of all that I am not a religious person. On that note, the term "marriage", to me, has a religious connotation. Therefore marriages should be kept on the religious level. If the marriage takes place in the church, then I feel it should uphold the values of that church. However, I think the controversy is over the rights people gets when married. I strongly believe everyone should have the same rights whether it is a marriage or a union. It truly is simply a "play" on words. Marriage=Holy ceremony binding two people together in the eyes of G-d...Union=ceremony binding two people together in our eyes.

Answer 10

Of course enforcing the Constitution is right.
That document says that ALL citizens should have the same rights [including the 1000+ marriage rights]. Anything else is state-sponsored discrimination.

Note that those who would ban same-gender marriage would need to AMEND the Constitution to support their hatreds.

Our founding fathers had the right idea.
This is all the argument you need - 'because the Constitution says so.'

Answer 11

Real Christians support marriage equality and our numbers grow every day. Have heart. Homophobia is dying and we are hearing its last gasps. It may flop around on the ground for a few more years. But the 1980's when evil anti-gay activists began the "culture war" are over and gone.