• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why should Homosexuals be allowed to be married?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
1
71
Do people in this day and age still take the Bible and the like seriously?

Well I know the answer is yes.....but I hope to live and see the day when people finally mature.

Regarding the topic....let them do whatever they want to. If anything it will help slow down the population growth a bit.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
So now I am a bigot? Just because I disagree with someone's lifestyle? That is pathetic. I didn't say I was the head of a anti-gay group that wanted to ban homosexuals from our country. I said that poeple have the right to be gay, but not the right to receive marital benefits. Now, if a company decides to offer gay couple benefits, I don't care. All I said is that gay couples cannot be what we like to call "married". They could come up with another ceremony, in which a same-sex couple expresses their love for each other and receive a license, but it cannot be marriage. How is that bigoted? This does not limit their rights or lifestyle, all it does is point out that there is a difference between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. If you believe that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, you are ignorant. This has nothing to do with morals, just facts of life.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Why should Homosexuals be allowed to be married?
***************************

I guess because the 'Equal' section of the 14th Amendment and the absence of law indicating Lesbianism is illegal. In the Constitution we find we have many rights not explicitly stated but, by common sense, inferred. Perhaps the Articles of Churchdom indicate that God finds the case an abomination... but, god don't sit on the USSC... whose god is blind and by the nature of this land ought to be.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Originally posted by: daniel1113
So now I am a bigot? Just because I disagree with someone's lifestyle? That is pathetic. I didn't say I was the head of a anti-gay group that wanted to ban homosexuals from our country. I said that poeple have the right to be gay, but not the right to receive marital benefits. Now, if a company decides to offer gay couple benefits, I don't care. All I said is that gay couples cannot be what we like to call "married". They could come up with another ceremony, in which a same-sex couple expresses their love for each other and receive a license, but it cannot be marriage. How is that bigoted? This does not limit their rights or lifestyle, all it does is point out that there is a difference between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. If you believe that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, you are ignorant. This has nothing to do with morals, just facts of life.
You are contradicting yourself. It wasn't so long ago that you typed:

I find homosexuality wrong and immoral because I think it is disgusting AND I think it is disgusting because it is wrong and immoral.

And I think this for the reasons you would expect: Because of my religion, because the basic instinct of a population is to reproduce and homosexuality limits population growth, etc.

Humans are capable of many evils, why can't they be capable of choosing homosexuality?
You called it evil and even tried to compare it to "killing babies" and slavery....and "perverting the world".

I find it very immoral of you and therefore believe that you should not be able to marry, raise kids, or enjoy company benefits.


 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
40% or more of Americans also believe that it is legal to kill unborn babies, and this may or may not be murder. I don't want to open another can of worms, but I don't think you can base any moral debates on the "natural laws" of a population.
I won't get into the abortion issue... lets just say murder is immoral

140 years ago, 60% of Americans believed salvery was moral. Of course now we know slavery is immoral, so how do we know that our population is right now?

I donno know about those numbers. How can something harmful to an unwilling party be called moral?..The slaves certainly did'nt feel it was moral but then they were'nt counted in that poll.. Do you see how stardards of morality have been corrupted by mens selfishness wanting to dominate others? It has nothing to do with morality it's called bigotry/eugenics/selfishness been relabled to morality. The same is with true with the homosexuality issue: We want to feel special, that our man-wife relationship is more valueable than a couple of men because to us it's discusting, we can't understand how men can feel about one another the same as we do about a woman because we don't, so we must keep it away, out of sight, not talked about. Then we label it immoral to add an aire of credibilty or finality to our bigotry. Homosexual behavior fails to pass the natural law test, while discusting to you, it's not immoral only an abomination for a moment in time. I would argue it's immoral to resrict two men from having a consentual relationship since it imposses our will on a unwilling third party who should free to do as they please as long as it does'nt conflict with anothers freedom.

However, to answer your questions, I think I find both statements to be true:

I find homosexuality wrong and immoral because I think it is disgusting AND I think it is disgusting because it is wrong and immoral.

... how do you define immoral? Is it scripture? Is it what you feel? Why are you feeling it on this issue? I'm tring to see what makes something right and wrong in your eyes... so far for me, I've only found the golden rule and natural law tests which are both univeral and really simple to apply....Everything else to me feels like control and bigotry over and unto others, a need to control and conform others to your ways. If they are not hurting or cheating anyone else why should I care?


Humans are capable of many evils, why can't they be capable of choosing homosexuality?
As you might guess I don't agree gays nor thier actions are evil, it's a choice they make which has no effect on you or me so i don't care if it's genetic or they just choose it later in life...It is after all thier choice
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,725
3,544
126
Originally posted by: daniel1113
So now I am a bigot? Just because I disagree with someone's lifestyle? That is pathetic. I didn't say I was the head of a anti-gay group that wanted to ban homosexuals from our country. I said that poeple have the right to be gay, but not the right to receive marital benefits. Now, if a company decides to offer gay couple benefits, I don't care. All I said is that gay couples cannot be what we like to call "married". They could come up with another ceremony, in which a same-sex couple expresses their love for each other and receive a license, but it cannot be marriage. How is that bigoted? This does not limit their rights or lifestyle, all it does is point out that there is a difference between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. If you believe that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, you are ignorant. This has nothing to do with morals, just facts of life.
Remember Jim Crow? Equal but separate isn't equal. Marriage is a legal agreement before the state of a lifetime emotional committment. It has unjustly been restricted to straights. Call it what you want but make it equal for all. Time to evolve up and away from bigotry.

 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Why should anybody be allowed to do anything?

Who decides what two adults do that only concerns the two individuals?

Surely, in the land of the free, people are free to make their own decisions...

...in the land of the free.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
Marraige originally had nothing to do with religion. It was a means of securing property (a wife) that included certain legal rights such as: being able to force a wife to perform her duties at your whim, the right to inflict punishment as great as death for infidelity - insuring that your wife's children were yours and preserving the line of succession and inheritance. Since the common people did not have much use for it (as the had little wealth and less position or title), religions decided to claim it had significance in the eyes of god so that they could insure that offspring were bound to the church, increasing the churches' numbers and influence.

And I'm sorry, but I have to mention my personal opinion that I still find it hard to believe that people in the 21st century still quote supernatural folklore from 6000 years ago as valid reasoning of how and why we should do things today. And since religion seems to be such a personal thing for most people, why would you want all of those other religions that you think are false to have a say in the government? If yours has a say, the others will too. The founding fathers knew that and created a secular government.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Remember Jim Crow? Equal but separate isn't equal. Marriage is a legal agreement before the state of a lifetime emotional committment. It has unjustly been restricted to straights. Call it what you want but make it equal for all. Time to evolve up and away from bigotry.
Now you are changing the issue. We have seperate but equal bathrooms for men and women. Why isn't that considered unconstitutional? Maybe I want to use the women's bathroom. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? I feel it is ok, so what does it matter what everyone else thinks? It's not like I can change how I feel... I was born with an urge to go into the ladies' restroom.

Moving on, the original question was: "Why should Homosexuals be allowed to be married?"

And my answer, REGARDLESS of my personal beliefs, is that a homosexual couple cannot be "married".

Can they live together? Yes.
Can they love each other? Why not.
Can they devote their lives to each other? Of course.
Can they be considered "married"? No.

Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. THAT IS MY POINT.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Remember Jim Crow? Equal but separate isn't equal. Marriage is a legal agreement before the state of a lifetime emotional committment. It has unjustly been restricted to straights. Call it what you want but make it equal for all. Time to evolve up and away from bigotry.
Now you are changing the issue. We have seperate but equal bathrooms for men and women. Why isn't that considered unconstitutional? Maybe I want to use the women's bathroom. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? I feel it is ok, so what does it matter what everyone else thinks? It's not like I can change how I feel... I was born with an urge to go into the ladies' restroom.

Moving on, the original question was: "Why should Homosexuals be allowed to be married?"

And my answer, REGARDLESS of my personal beliefs, is that a homosexual couple cannot be "married".

Can they live together? Yes.
Can they love each other? Why not.
Can they devote their lives to each other? Of course.
Can they be considered "married"? No.

Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. THAT IS MY POINT.
No Daniel, that's YOUR OPINION. And your bathroom analogy is just ignorant.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
LATimes.com - Bush Plays Pope on Marriage Issue

I agree with the president and the pope: Marriage is a very serious endeavor, not to be trifled with. Just ask any of the tens of millions of divorced parents who are tied together for life in a precarious, often combative attempt to raise their kids well in separate households.

Done right, marriage ? or "civil unions" if the M-word is too loaded ? can be a bridge to loyalty, sexual stability, shared financial responsibility and the more efficient rearing of children. All the more reason, then, to support anybody, gay or straight, who wants to commit to a lifelong union. Whether you are united in "holy matrimony" or simply trying to build a lasting relationship should be of no concern to the state, nor should your sexual orientation.

Where I differ from the president and the pope is in defining marriage in religious terms. Under the U.S. Constitution, after all, church is clearly separated from state, and thus marriage is a civic institution not in any way requiring the participation of religious organizations. Government policies favor the family unit. If the state is offering special rights and benefits for those couples who marry, then to exclude gays is simply unconstitutional.

In Germany, France, Canada and Vermont, state-sanctioned unions help gay couples clarify the legal status and rights of their partnership in everything from bank accounts to hospital visitation to child custody. For gays seeking these rights elsewhere, this is primarily a practical struggle, and it is wrong for the president to exploit it for political purposes.

The drive for gay marriage is also an affirmation of responsible love, and it is bizarre that this honorable impulse could be blocked on the basis of someone else's religious views. The desire of two people to commit to some shared order in their lives, presumably reinforcing notions of sexual monogamy, has particular relevance in the gay community, which has paid an enormous price for promiscuity. It is also a community riven by the loss of loved ones in which a partner's rights to share in managing grief have been painfully challenged when a mate faces death.

It is one thing for the pope, a religious leader, to oppose gay marriage based on the theology that "homosexual acts go against the natural moral order." But the president of the United States, as the highest official in our secular government, is overstepping his bounds mightily when he lectures about "sin" and "the sanctity of marriage."

"I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush said last week, seizing upon a question about homosexuality that didn't mention marriage. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Well, lawyers can do just about anything with the law to make their case, but it is hoped that most judges will have read the Constitution and seen that it says nothing about merging church and state.

What the president didn't mention was that the U.S. high court finally has acknowledged that homosexuality is not a threat to public order, striking down discriminatory anti-sodomy laws in Texas.

If homosexual sex is legal, it doesn't matter if our born-again president believes it's a sin on the grounds that it offends his or anyone else's interpretation of Christian Scripture.

Ironically, in the same press session in which Bush acted as if our nation is a Christian theocracy, he applauded Iraq's faltering steps toward a secular society that would break with Islamic dictates. He even mentioned the prospect of an Iraqi Thomas Jefferson emerging to show those folks how to go about building a free society.

But Jefferson was an awkward choice for Bush because he was as responsible as any of the founders for the very notion of the separation of church and state. As a public man, Jefferson even resisted identifying himself as Christian, being, as he wrote, "averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public because it would seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed."

And, as the Supreme Court has clearly stated, being gay, even in Bush's home state of Texas, is one of those rights of conscience.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
for the gOD lovers and bible thupmers, if man is the only one with the ability to think and make decisions how could homosexuality be considered anything but a supernatural creation?
You see examples of this throughout the animal kingdom, from insects to reptiles. According to you they have no rational thought, your gOD did not give them the ability to choose what is right or wrong, so homosexuality must be approved, somehow you misinterpreted his words apparently....
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Remember Jim Crow? Equal but separate isn't equal. Marriage is a legal agreement before the state of a lifetime emotional committment. It has unjustly been restricted to straights. Call it what you want but make it equal for all. Time to evolve up and away from bigotry.
Now you are changing the issue. We have seperate but equal bathrooms for men and women. Why isn't that considered unconstitutional? Maybe I want to use the women's bathroom. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? I feel it is ok, so what does it matter what everyone else thinks? It's not like I can change how I feel... I was born with an urge to go into the ladies' restroom.

Moving on, the original question was: "Why should Homosexuals be allowed to be married?"

And my answer, REGARDLESS of my personal beliefs, is that a homosexual couple cannot be "married".

Can they live together? Yes.
Can they love each other? Why not.
Can they devote their lives to each other? Of course.
Can they be considered "married"? No.

Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. THAT IS MY POINT.
And the (real) POINT is: "the LEGAL definition of marriage is about to change." :p

You are a bigot. Imn attempting to defend exclusive hetrosexual marriage you call it "pure". What a load of nonsense . . . 50% of mariage end in divorce and most of those that don't are plagued by adultry. Your ilk quote the Bible to condemn gays yet overlook the fact that it condems adultry eqally as much as homosexuality.

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
In order to be a bigot, I would have to be intolerant of homosexuals. I am not intolerant. As I have already stated, I see no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to live together and do what they want. Personally, I do think it is wrong and immoral, but that is unimportant. I am not going to treat homosexuals any different than heterosexuals. However, this argument is obviously going nowhere. The moment I bring my religion or morals into a debate, I am automatically tagged a bigot. So, I will leave you all with this: Not allowing homosexuals the to get married is not limiting the rights of anyone. Everyone has the right to get married, being that it is a heterosexual relationship. Therefore, homosexuals are not being treated any differently than anyone else. They can get married to the opposite sex, just like everyone else can get married to the opposite sex. You cannot get medicaid if you are 22, well-off, and healthy; just as you cannot be get married if your spouse is not of the opposite sex. You can have a relationship, but you cannot become married. You cannot receive the benfits of something that you are not applicable for!
 

Citadel535

Senior member
Jan 16, 2001
816
0
0
I too find it wrong because in a way it breaches the line in society that accepts homosexuality as a society norm. Many tv shows already depict it this way (notably MTV's Real World etc.). This also goes back to a sort of recruitment tactic. People who are unsure of their sexual orientation can be pushed towards it as it is accepted by say a government institution as being valid for homosexuals to marry. This is why I think many openly homosexual oriented festivals, activist groups, etc. are so active because they are in a way recruiting.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,909
1,057
126
Originally posted by: Citadel535
I too find it wrong because in a way it breaches the line in society that accepts homosexuality as a society norm. Many tv shows already depict it this way (notably MTV's Real World etc.). This also goes back to a sort of recruitment tactic. People who are unsure of their sexual orientation can be pushed towards it as it is accepted by say a government institution as being valid for homosexuals to marry. This is why I think many openly homosexual oriented festivals, activist groups, etc. are so active because they are in a way recruiting.
Just like BET is trying to recruit the rest of us to be Black, right? Most homosexuals I've talked to have been gay since puberty or earlier (you know, that time in life when they actually start thinking about sex). It's not a choice, it's not something you can one day decide "Oh, I think I'll be gay now.", it's something you're born as. Many try to hide it because of non-acceptance and bigotry. But they all know they're gay from an early age. It's a very natural thing, and it is not anyone's place to tell them how to live their lives.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Another way to look at it is: why shouldn't two people be given equal protection under the law if they, by common law definition, meet the test of "married" notwithstanding their individual sex. It would be denying equal protection to folks who genetically meet the DNA test of being neither or both sex...
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Now you are getting into the few exceptions. There will be and are exceptions to everything. I cannot tell you how these sort of cases should be directed, simply because I do not know any specific details about the causes, solutions, etc. However, you do bring up a good point about the considerations that need to made before ANY law is passed.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
In order to be a bigot, I would have to be intolerant of homosexuals.
No, you're a bigot because you hold blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed and because you're narrow-minded. Maybe you should look it up if you don't understand it.

I am not intolerant.
Really? Here's some choice quotes from you: "...I think it is disgusting and wrong..." ... "...same sex couples cannot be married..." ... "Calling a gay or lesbian couple a "family", in my opinion, is the greatest perversion of the purest thing we know." If that's not intolerance, I don't know what is.

As I have already stated, I see no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to live together and do what they want. Personally, I do think it is wrong and immoral, but that is unimportant.
So why don't you stop saying it if it's so unimportant?

I am not going to treat homosexuals any different than heterosexuals.
But you are! If it were up to you it would be legal for heterosexuals to marry, but illegal for homosexuals to do so.

However, this argument is obviously going nowhere. The moment I bring my religion or morals into a debate, I am automatically tagged a bigot.
Right, because we live in a secular nation where we don't have to be subjected to your religious beliefs or so-called morals.

So, I will leave you all with this: Not allowing homosexuals the to get married is not limiting the rights of anyone. Everyone has the right to get married, being that it is a heterosexual relationship. Therefore, homosexuals are not being treated any differently than anyone else.
Wow, your logic is so screwed up here, I really don't know where to start... What you're saying is essentially analagous to: Everyone has the right to get married as long as you're the same race. If you're white and you marry another white person, that's fine. But if you're white and you want to marry a black person. That's NOT okay. Would that scenario be OK in your book?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Now you are getting into the few exceptions. There will be and are exceptions to everything. I cannot tell you how these sort of cases should be directed, simply because I do not know any specific details about the causes, solutions, etc. However, you do bring up a good point about the considerations that need to made before ANY law is passed.
The point exactly! The legal definition of what "married" means does not necessarily have to mean a boy and a girl agreeing to the consequences of "marriage". It must mean, however, two living persons. Not a corporation and a lady etc. There are codes in almost every department of the executive that refers to "spouse", "married", "issue of Marriage". etc. etc.

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Well, one might ask, "Why Not?" I mean, are people afraid that gays are gonna screw up "Marriage" more than straight people have? Or is it that they're afraid gays might make a better go of it where straights have so obviously flopped and floundered?

Personally, I could care less whether they get married. Not my business what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. Let them live, for goodness sakes, you wouldn't tolerate someone making these decisions for YOU, why do you think YOU are better equipped to live THEIR lives than they are? :)

Jason
 

mooncancook

Platinum Member
May 28, 2003
2,846
23
81
let's put the religious and legal issues aside, do you think allowing same sex marriage can encourage our children to experiment with homosexuality?

by legalizing same sex marriage, it's basically recognizing homosexuality as a normal human nature. To us adults, it may not have much effects, but to young kids and teens in pubity, the effect can be much greater. a straight kid thinking that homo and hetero are both natural might be tempted to try both kinds of relationship. it's like why don't we allow people walking down the street naked or public sex? not that it'll harm someone, it'll corrupt the minds of our children. I certainly don't want those thoughts to be implanted in my kids in the future.

-----
not related to above topic:
imagine in a wedding: "now I pronounce you both husband and...... errr.... husband." well.. doesn't sound like a marriage to me.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
Originally posted by: mooncancook
let's put the religious and legal issues aside, do you think allowing same sex marriage can encourage our children to experiment with homosexuality?

by legalizing same sex marriage, it's basically recognizing homosexuality as a normal human nature. To us adults, it may not have much effects, but to young kids and teens in pubity, the effect can be much greater. a straight kid thinking that homo and hetero are both natural might be tempted to try both kinds of relationship. it's like why don't we allow people walking down the street naked or public sex? not that it'll harm someone, it'll corrupt the minds of our children. I certainly don't want those thoughts to be implanted in my kids in the future.

-----
not related to above topic:
imagine in a wedding: "now I pronounce you both husband and...... errr.... husband." well.. doesn't sound like a marriage to me.
So instead of buggering each other in secret you think this would encourage your kids to ah heck other kids of the same sex out in the open?
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: mooncancook
let's put the religious and legal issues aside, do you think allowing same sex marriage can encourage our children to experiment with homosexuality?

by legalizing same sex marriage, it's basically recognizing homosexuality as a normal human nature. To us adults, it may not have much effects, but to young kids and teens in pubity, the effect can be much greater. a straight kid thinking that homo and hetero are both natural might be tempted to try both kinds of relationship. it's like why don't we allow people walking down the street naked or public sex? not that it'll harm someone, it'll corrupt the minds of our children. I certainly don't want those thoughts to be implanted in my kids in the future.

-----
not related to above topic:
imagine in a wedding: "now I pronounce you both husband and...... errr.... husband." well.. doesn't sound like a marriage to me.

ROTFLMAO ! If your a teenager and you are tempted into having gay sex maybe it's because.....I don't know maybe you're gay ? Or at very least Bi. Come now you can come up with a better arguement then that ! I don't know any "straight" kid/teenager or anyone else when I was growing up who has been tempted into having gay sex because someone else was gay, and I grew up in San Francisco ! If you are straight you are striaght and nothings going to change that, just like if someone is gay/bi they will always stay gay/bi. No one can implant thoughts into your head ! Chances are if you are having gay thoughts it's because you are gay and just to scared to admit it ! LOL - Whole argument is a joke !
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY