Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

Simply loving a person doesn't grant a heterosexual any more right to marry that person than it would a homosexual. I'm a straight male. There are other males in my life whom I love deeply. I love my brothers. I have some life long male friends whom I love. Whether I want to marry any of them is irrelevant. I'm forbidden to do so, by law. I don't have any special priviledges in this regard. Why? Because I have the same rights and restrictions as do homosexuals. We all have equal rights when it comes to marriage.

LOL. Hardly. Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of loving a person of the opposite gender? Here in Washington DC, we have a significant gay population. I know of several gay men that have married women and love their wives. They aren't interested in having sex with them, but in the ways that really matter, they love them nonetheless, as they love their children. How they satisfy their sexual urges I couldn't say, but again, they enjoy the same legal benefits of marriage as I do. So if any argument has been killed, it's yours, my friend.

Having put to rest this notion of equal rights, I will say once again that I support the concept of civil unions, which the UK and some US states (Vermont comes to mind) in which homosexual couples get the same legal benefits (and entanglements) as married heterosexual couples.

 

1) you think the government should control who you can and can't marry?

2) why does it matter what's between a person's legs? hopefully a person's reason for marrying is more then just because they like the other ones body anyways...

3) i see what you're saying, that everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex... but don't you think it's discrimination that a person can't marry a person of the same sex, just because the person was born an X chromosome instead of a Y?

4) there used to be state bans against interracial marriages. a person couldn't marry another person of a different skin color, simply because the person was born that way; in your opinion, was that fair? it was the law

Thanks for bringing that up! That's one reason why eventually gays will be able to marry (or atleast civil unions) in every state...

Ever heard of the Full Faith and Credit clause?

 

If your gay "friends" are happy with that arrangement then good for them.
I don't see what point it proves other than you know some guys whos wives are happy for them to go out having sex with other men, How wholesome, What a lovely marriage.

What about the gay men who want to be faithful? Why shouldn't they marry the person they love?

 

I look at government control as a necessary evil that great efforts should be taken to minimize. In the case of marriage, we're talking more about legal benefits than control. The government doesn't forbid homosexuals to co-habitate. It merely refuses to recognize them as valid recipients for marital benefits. Also, lets remember there are other legal restrictions to marriage. Age, consent, ect.

In short, no I'm not in favor of government control, but nor am I in favor of redefining a long standing institution simply to provide tax breaks for a minority.

I can only answer for myself. As far as somebody on the street, you're right, I don't care what's between their legs nor what they choose to do with it.

However when it comes to family, I do care. I want my uncle to have a penis, and my Aunt to have a vagina. I want my grandmother to be female and my father to be male. Why is this important to me? Because family is the root of who we are. It's the first thing that beyond my own needs ever mattered to me as a child. I simply don't wish to live in a world in which family gets redefined so radically. Call me old-fashioned all you want, but it's important to me to preserve the traditional family roles.

Perhaps. But if that's true, we "discriminate" in other ways too. Isn't it discrimination to forbid a man to marry a girl simply because through no fault of her own she happened to be born only thirteen years ago?

It was fair in the sense that it applied to everybody equally, but there was no justification for it. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. There is no stipulation for race. Only gender, age, and species.

I've got nothing against civil unions. Call it anything you want, just don't call it marriage.

 

It proves that homosexuals DO have the same marrying rights as heterosexuals...the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

Any number of possibilities. The person he loves might not wish it. The person he loves might not be of age....might not be of sound mind. Gender is but one restriction of many.

 

And you don't think a gay couple should have the same rights.

I'd like to see your "ect"...
1) age: a minor can sometimes be easily taken advantage of. age restrictions try to prevent harm from being done.
2) consent: come on. you have to admit that's a horribly irrelevant example.

How can any harm from from allowing gays to marry?

It's more then just tax breaks

That sounds a lot like an excuse a person would have used in the 60's to keep blacks from marrying whites...

But age restrictions try to prevent harm from being done by not allowing people to take advantage of children. How is a ban on gay-marriage preventing any harm?

We, as Americans, changed our rules to allow blacks and whites to marry, don't you think we could afford to change it again to allow this minority to marry?

 

Here's my post from the "people marrying animals" thread:

Here's my stance on it: Give gays marriage rights. Religion has their own definition of marriage, and they are perfectly fine if they wish to restrict that based on their own rules. The purpose of legal marriage, through the state, is an entirely different matter. The purpose of legal marriage is to simplify a lot of matters and to give benefits to two people who are starting a family: tax breaks, makes it easier to buy property and get loans, and a number of other social programs. People have made the argument that gay marriage should not qualify in this arena because they are not forming families, but in many cases, they are. With in-vitro fertilization, adoption, etc, gay couples are forming families, and they should have the rights and benefits that a government sanctioned marriage affords them, just like groupings of men and women do. We don't make couples have kids before they get the benefits of legal marriage, right? Hell, some couples never will.

Under this argument, the only grouping besides a man and a woman that would be legal would be a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. People. And only 2 people. Just because your partner is the same sex on you, it should have no bearing on you willing to dedicate your life to that person, and you should be afforded the legal benefits we afford everyone else through legal marriage.

The only issue here that I'm undecided on is whether this grouping should be called marriage still, or a civil union, or something similar. I can argue both sides there, but aside from that, WHO CARES.

 

They already DO have the same rights. I thought we were past this, already.

Sorry, no can do. I'm a married man.

I never said any harm would "from from" allowing gays to marry. They are already allowed to marry, remember?

Feel perfectly free to elaborate.

To you perhaps, but not to me. Perhaps you can tell me how my objections fail without comparing them to other "excuses."

When have I ever mentioned "harm" as an objection? I've spelled out my reasons for opposing same sex marriage already. Simply reread them if you really feel the need for repetition.

No, I don't.

 

It was a link... I'll try again: "It's more then just tax breaks" <--- Click that

There's really nothing else to discuss then, I believe in equality, you don't... I'm happy with my stance, and as long as you can live with yours, all is good...

 

Be away from your Gay friends they will spoil your life

 

Not that much more, really.

Suit yourself. But for the record, I'm a firm believer and supporter of equality. It's a long long-standing tradition with me. You however seem to favor political correctness over tradition. You're values will change and be swept up by every new brand of thought that becomes popular. Good luck with that.

 

umm no you don't , you think some people should be able to marry who the WANT and others shouldn't, based on their sexual preference

 

Just taxes, you say?

It's not just taxes, it ties into so many legal and medical issues. Ferret is right when he says it's not equality. Equality is letting you have your religious practice of marriage, free to discriminate as you choose according to the laws of that religion (I mean discriminate as in free to decide, not in the negative context), while still affording legal marriage rights to those couples who are truly dedicated to each other. And like I said, I'm half and half on thinking it should be called something else entirely to appease the Christian side and their definition of marriage, but those rights should still be afforded.

 

Sorry to be the one that breaks the news for you, but you are a hypocrite, and surely no firm believer and supporter of equality.

 

It's refreshing to see this many people arguing on the side of equality...

 

You are too pedantic to take seriously. Ok, What if the person they want to marry wanted to marry them, They were of legal age, Sound mind (though i don't think that is a reason to not get married) and the only restriction is that they are the wrong gender. Why should they not be able to marry?

I hope i have covered all bases, But feel free to continue making yourself look like a pedantic ass.

 

Note that all the other restrictions are legal ones, but gender restriction is based in the Christian definition of marriage.

-Age : The legal argument is that one has not reached an age to be able to reason out their actions and understand the full responsibilities of a marraige

-Mental State : Same as above. Acting party must fully understand what they are doing.

-Other party wants it : No brainer here. Both people need to consent to the marriage.

-Gender : Based in the Christian definition of marriage, not in a legal justification.

 

I hated gay people in tha past, but now I feel that they are sinners, just like those who watch porn, like those who commit abortion and they need to be forgiven. But that doesn't mean we have to approve gay marriages since approving them will be tell the kids that being gay is good and thats bad for the future.

 

Because of that one restriction, of course. The same restriction that applies to all of us. If the law is to be fair and equal, it must apply to everybody. To make exceptions to accommodate a few speaks more to favoritism than it does to equality.

Name-calling. The last desperate resort of the immature. Congratulations on arriving at rock bottom.

 

I question. Are you Gay?