Gay Marriage Thread

In my writing class, we need to write a 2500 word persuasive essay about something we believe in and support (or rally against), and I've been drafted by a pair of bisexual girls into writing about gay marriage in the United States. However, one of the key things about the assignment is we must present both sides of the arguement. We can't just write our own personal views, we have to write both the views of people that support it and the views of people who are against it, and only then do we try to argue why we believe what we do.

That said, I need you people to help me out with my assignment by giving me some fresh views on the legality of gay marriages and their subsequent rights. Are you for it? Are you against it? Why? Do you care either way? If you had to choose, would you make it legal or illegal? What do you think about Maine having popular vote to legalize gay marriage? My classroom is filled with liberals who are either all for it or totally indifferent about it, so no one is truly against it. It'd be nice if I could get some people who are against it to tell me why they think gay marriage is a bad idea. Anyone?

It doesn't matter to me either way.

Personally I find it exhausting to hear these fundamentalists giving shit about someone else's happiness. Is it really a bullet to the heart to legalize Gay marriage? How bad can it really be, honestly, to swallow your pride for but a moment and enable thousands, if not millions, to let someone get married to someone they love. Gays should also be allowed to have equal rights, it's kind of sad to hear about those who can't be with their loved one because they're not family or spouse, and other related things.

On the contrary I don't see why Gays/Bisexuals make such a big deal out of it. I've heard gays argue that marriage doesn't mean anything really, but they still want it legalized. I should point out that I've only heard it a couple of times.
If it's just because heteros get it and gays want it too then I really can't understand where they're coming from, but I can definitely imagine there are those who want it legalized for that very reason. And that's not a double standard: I'm saying they're uninterested but they'd go out of their way to defend their right to be able to do something they don't really care about in the first place.
I honestly don't see the big difference between living with someone you really love and getting married. Although to be honest, I would get married if I found the right person. Suffice to to say, it seems to be a growing trend to just live with your mate, obviously heterosexual, and if that's the case I can see this slowly becoming less of an issue. And because if you really think about it, if you love someone you don't need the State or the Church's permission to let them know it.

However I think gays are taking a poor approach in many ways; during the Prop. 8 campaign in California, many gays would go and vandalize Mormon Churches (Mormons were the biggest backers of Prop. . You shouldn't go vandalize someone else's property, and again I hoesntly don't think it's that worth it. In that position, are you really serious and wanting to get this done or is it more of a rebellious act? If you want it done and at the same time want to be taken seriously, you can't go and vandalize the opposition, especially when they're such a powerful organization. You'd want to be taken not only serious but seen as peers to the opposition on a political standpoint.

And again, the American values that "built" this country were based on the Churches (an interesting and not entirely irrelevant thing is that Elijah said God's followers will See but not Perceive and Listen but not understand, or something to that effect, which explains a lot of things "in the name of god" but that'd be off topic).
Honestly I cannot say I'd see this nationally in my lifetime, but maybe the next generations.
There are always those who will oppose it, then there are those who want to be PC so they vote for it, then there are the ones who actually want it, and then there are the impartial people, and in that order I think is from greatest to least.

And to end my post I'd like to be a little redundant one final time. Nobody should have to give you permission to love someone, nor should one require a certificate to show love to someone. Is it really worth all of the stress and anger that goes into these campaigns, on both sides, to end up no better than you were before? If you could spend that time being happy, why wouldn't you?

Spoiler for And kind of related:

Something hilarious is Alan Shore's closing in an episode of Boston Legal. He's defending a Judge who went to this institution to be cured of his homosexuality or something but it didn't work, so his closing is this:
He starts off by talking about "Restless Leg Syndrome", and how it doesn't harm you, and isn't serious but it annoys you so you should get this prescription anyway. Then about all other sorts of useless drugs and that the drug companies can find ways to just about cure anything, but they haven't found a drug for homosexuality.

Hopefully you can work with some of this stuff and I'm glad I could help out.

I agree with gay marriage, obviously, but I disagree with how things are being handled by the pro-community.

I don't agree with forcing churches and courts to go against their personal beliefs for someone else.  I don't agree with parading down the streets with floats and flags and such (you thought I was going to say fags didn't you? ;p) because it's forcing things down the throats of people who might otherwise just not care.

I believe that what should be done is that it should be legal but not force anyone against it to sanctify the marriages, but that pro-gay marriage locations would be more accessible if not more plentiful, allowing those that agree to handle them, rather than forcing people who disagree to.

I agree with gay marriage, obviously, but I disagree with how things are being handled by the pro-community.

I don't agree with forcing churches and courts to go against their personal beliefs for someone else.  I don't agree with parading down the streets with floats and flags and such (you thought I was going to say fags didn't you? ;p) because it's forcing things down the throats of people who might otherwise just not care.

I believe that what should be done is that it should be legal but not force anyone against it to sanctify the marriages, but that pro-gay marriage locations would be more accessible if not more plentiful, allowing those that agree to handle them, rather than forcing people who disagree to.

You couldn't be more right on the money. The last part is especially true, you don't see anti-global warming politicians handling the global warming bills.

Honestly speaking, if it's being forced down my throat I'd be very inclined to vote "No", and if my house or church (less church more house, I'm not too religious) was vandalized I would be again very inclined vote "No".

What sort of class is it, that is, what sort of reasons do you want... political, social, moral?

I'm not really sure if I can help you. Even though I am a Christian who does not believe in homosexuality, I don't really see legalisation of gay marriage too much of an issue for me.

First, my personal view. The bible clearly says that homosexuality is one of many sins. Every every sin is alike in that it separates you from intimacy with God and frustrates the purpose for which he made you. It also says that if you become a Christian you are set free from sin (including homosexuality), and it exorts you to stop sinning, continually pointing to the gracious provision of God ... a new spirit and a new life.

Apart from not wanting to observe homosexual acts and feeling sad for those who feel they need to act out the "gay stereotype", I don't really have a problem with homosexuality.

For me, reasons for gay marriage would be that if you don't believe in God there is no reason to think its wrong, and people should have the right to do (mostly) what they want.

For me, reasons against gay marriage is that by opposing it, at least society in general will know that Christians don't believe in homosexuality and those that want a way out of homosexuality will know where to turn. (By the way I don't believe in the born gay theory.)

Some Christian-based reasons (I may ascribe to some of these ideas to varying degrees):

Homosexuality is contrary to God's design: male/female genitals make this evident; sexual reproduction makes this self evident
In general, male homosexuality has historically been an unhealthy lifestyle (higher rates of promiscuity, sexual violence, STD)
It is the right of a child to have a mother and a father.
Gay marriage erodes the institution of the family unit.

Hope this helps.

Apparently God loves some of His children but not all of them. He clearly gets to pick and choose. God made you the way you are, so it's His design if a person is homosexual and therefore it IS part of His plan. Considering being homosexual isn't a decision, it'd be impossible to be contrary to God's design. I doubt God just goes and makes gay people just so he can have heterosexual people who believe in what you do to hate or look down upon them for what humans interpret as sin. I'm pretty sure it's fucked up to say it's okay to be gay if you don't believe in the Guy that created you. In my opinion, religion is dumb. I also do not want to hear the excuse "Ask for forgiveness" or something absurd like that because being homosexual is absolutely nothing to have to be forgiven for. It's dumb of me to ask, but I've seen that excuse before and it's almost the most absurd thing I've ever seen pertaining to this topic.

Also, let me just state that, you don't have a personal view on the subject. You clearly do what was written in a book. You're a follower. You're not independent in your views or opinions of the subject. You can't say that your personal view is the bible. Your personal view is that of the bible so you're doing what the bible says. It's not personal. This bugs me. I think that's pretty evident. I'm being very redundant.

Apart from this, I would agree with not wanting to observe homosexual acts. I don't care if two dudes hold hands or something, but I think it's a little uncomfortable for me to watch two dudes kissing. I think for me it's because I just assume further affection imagery and that makes me very uncomfortable as a straight guy. I'm not opposed to the love of two men or two women, but I think it'd be more appropriate to say that I'm less disturbed by two women than I am by two men as it would be for a woman to say that she'd be less disturbed by two men than to two women.

Also, I just thought it was worded oddly to say 'does not believe in homosexuality' like you believe that it doesn't exist (when clearly it does). That's what first came to mind but I knew that what you meant was that you don't approve of the act.

Small debate. Note that this is all opinion. So don't take this all personally or to heart too hard if you care that much.

This subject has been debated to death in many of the circles I fly in, and I'm a bit exhausted by it. On the other hand, I see it as the duty of one who has loved a member of my own gender to get up and carry the human rights flag again, even if it is in a forum.

As briefly as I can: As long as everyone is talking about faith and values, here are what mine are. I'm Wiccan. I believe everyone is entitled to love who they like, provided noone is hurt- you know, consentual stuff and all. That being said, I also think that if the only reason you can give me is your faith and values, you have no real reason why not. You present a weak, unsustainable argument that comes more from your ignorance and intolerance and I can't get behind that. Tell me it increases crime rates or causes food shortages or erodes the ozone and we'll talk.

Guess what? Marriage IS between a man and a woman. So call it something else. Call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for all I care, just give GLBT's the same opportunities as straights.

ON THE OTHER HAND, a state's law is supposed to be a reflection of the will of the people, and if the will of the majority of the people is to disallow gay marriage, then I cannot say it is an unlawful process. I wish I could.

P.S.: Pursuant to your first two paragraphs, you are a fucking genius, graf

Also, let me just state that, you don't have a personal view on the subject. You clearly do what was written in a book. You're a follower. You're not independent in your views or opinions of the subject. You can't say that your personal view is the bible. Your personal view is that of the bible so you're doing what the bible says. It's not personal. This bugs me. I think that's pretty evident. I'm being very redundant.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're telling him he can't have something because he got it from a book, just like the Church is telling gays they can't have something because they got it from a book?


Another thing is Jesus said to make disciples, not converts or blind followers.
It's entirely unfair to argue against the Bible because it may as well be a terrible translation for all we know. An interesting thing is Koine was the original language of the New Testament. I read that Koine was written without spaces, and those were left entirely up to the translator. However I can't find anything on the wikipedia page, but to be fair I'm pretty tired.
There was an example, where the same letters made up two entirely different sentences.

Also, let me just state that, you don't have a personal view on the subject. You clearly do what was written in a book. You're a follower. You're not independent in your views or opinions of the subject. You can't say that your personal view is the bible. Your personal view is that of the bible so you're doing what the bible says. It's not personal. This bugs me. I think that's pretty evident. I'm being very redundant.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're telling him he can't have something because he got it from a book,

Can't have something? He can have whatever the hell he wants, but I said he can't have a personal view of something if that view is something he was told to have by believing in the bible. It's not a personal view, it's the view of those that wrote the bible or God, but not his. He could have said that he agrees with the views of the bible about homosexuality. I am very clear in that he does not have a personal view of this topic. I would be incorrect if he said that he believed in the views of the bible but also his personal view was different from it. This is pretty basic stuff here dude. If you say the sky is red and then you convinced me that it was and then I went around saying my personal opinion of the sky is that it is red is not my personal opinion unless I came to that conclusion myself, but instead you tainted my opinion by telling me what to believe. Not a personal view. It's just your personal view through my mouth. Same with him. It's the bible's view through his keyboard. Nothing more.

just like the Church is telling gays they can't have something because they got it from a book?

What? What is the church telling gays they can't have because of a book?

Also, I fail to see how it's unfair to argue against the bible. Obviously there could be an extreme amount of translation errors. That's WHY we argue against the bible.

It's not that bad of a translation. And anyway, Greek is still a living language; find me a Greek who doesn't speak it. The problem with the Bible or any other religious text is not the translation, it is that it comes down to a question of what you believe. I personally don't believe a word of it. That someone would make state policy based on a 2,000 year old book which never actually explicitly states homo= sin that I don't even buy is inexcusable. I elect my politicians to make laws based on the constitution, not the Bible or Koran or Maxim magazine or anything else. But as I said before, if the will of the people says a/b/c, then that's how it has to be untill their minds can be changed.

It's not that bad of a translation.

It's pretty bad.

"First, my personal view. The bible clearly says that homosexuality is one of many sins. Every every sin is alike in that it separates you from intimacy with God and frustrates the purpose for which he made you. It also says that if you become a Christian you are set free from sin (including homosexuality), and it exorts you to stop sinning, continually pointing to the gracious provision of God ... a new spirit and a new life."
I think we read his statement as something different. I most definitely didn't read the same thing, I stand corrected.

Also, I fail to see how it's unfair to argue against the bible. Obviously there could be an extreme amount of translation errors. That's WHY we argue against the bible.

It was partially unrelated. I'm saying you shouldn't take everything it says as what it was intended to say.
The arguing part was a the wrong word I guess.

It's not that bad of a translation. And anyway, Greek is still a living language; find me a Greek who doesn't speak it. The problem with the Bible or any other religious text is not the translation, it is that it comes down to a question of what you believe. I personally don't believe a word of it. That someone would make state policy based on a 2,000 year old book which never actually explicitly states homo= sin that I don't even buy is inexcusable. I elect my politicians to make laws based on the constitution, not the Bible or Koran or Maxim magazine or anything else. But as I said before, if the will of the people says a/b/c, then that's how it has to be untill their minds can be changed.

And no, the language has most definitely changed.  Even if it hasn't been to drastic, I'm sure absorbing more than two dialects will sure change the way its spoken and translated.

In short, Koiné Modern Greek is the natural continuation of Koine Greek, an ancient Greek dialect (known also as the "Alexandrian language") which came into existence after the conquests of Alexander the Great and the Hellenization of the known world. Hellenistic Koiné had assimilated many elements from various different Greek dialects (such as Ionic, Doric and Aeolic) but its nucleus had always been Attic (the dialect of Athens). Hellenistic Koine had been spoken in several different forms in the region of Greece and the Greek speaking world during the entire Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods, until it took the shape of Demotic in the Middle Ages.

How can you possibly argue that over the course of 1100+ years a language hasn't change?

 Some of the cultural aspects of Christ's time are sorely taken out of context, and the Aramaic translations are horrible, sure. Even if the translation sucks, there are plenty of language scholars who have re-translated it; the vast majority of them agree on the new translations. Problem is, printing companies don't want to put them out to the public because (and this is straight from the horses mouth) they wouldn't sell as many bibles. But don't take my word for it. I'm not even Christian.

"

In short, Koiné Modern Greek is the natural continuation of Koine Greek, an ancient Greek dialect (known also as the "Alexandrian language") which came into existence after the conquests of Alexander the Great and the Hellenization of the known world. Hellenistic Koiné had assimilated many elements from various different Greek dialects (such as Ionic, Doric and Aeolic) but its nucleus had always been Attic (the dialect of Athens). Hellenistic Koine had been spoken in several different forms in the region of Greece and the Greek speaking world during the entire Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods, until it took the shape of Demotic in the Middle Ages.

How can you possibly argue that over the course of 1100+ years a language hasn't change?

This, sir is new information to me. I stand corrected, and thank you.

Its all a very strange debate ruled mostly by religious beliefs. Time to throw some of my own thoughts out there.


@ SirJackRex - You're right in a sense, the act of marriage itself isn't that big of an issue, since if you love someone you can still live and be with them as partners for the rest of your life if you like, just like married couples do. Some people see it only as a religious ceremony and tradition, and really don't believe in it. HOWEVER! The two things people want most is the equal rights that come with being married (both social and financial, as will be listed later), and the romantic tradition of being joined in title and official status too (though that varies for most). And even if a gay person didn't care about the rights or was completely atheist and don't believe in marriage as a valid tradition, there are going to be lots of people he/she know who that DO want those rights and want to be allowed what they see as the most romantic moment of their lives. It's the same reason that many of the people who support gay marriage are actually 100% straight. You care about the people and what they fight for, even if you don't want it yourself.


@ NAMKCOR - You're biased, you don't count. 

Just kidding. To answer you, isn't it personal belief that's being shoved down the throats of gays and lesbians? Gay pride parades and stuff is unnecessary, yeah, and I can see it being kinda annoying since it is being flung straight into the faces of people who don't agree with it, but on the opposite paw aren't those people doing the exact same by denying gay people the right to be married? You're bi, you want the marriage legalized, so I imagine you know full well the reasoning behind the pro-gay marriage campaign. You shouldn't force people or churches to go against their personal belief, but those people shouldn't force you to go against yours either, hence why this is such a big debate across the United States.


@ BlueEagle7 - Ah, the religion factor. I definitely can understand your reasons, though in my personal view I have to disagree here for the reason that this is the United States of America, and right in our first amendment it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words, in the billions of people across the country, we're going to have tens of thousands of different views of various religions (or lack thereof), not just one singular Christian view. I myself am a homosexual and a Christian, as is my boyfriend. We both believe that God made us who we are, that it is no sin to love someone. Your view is different and I quite respect that, but under the equality of the United States, my view should not be crushed out to match only yours.

The main problem is that the first amendment only forbids a federal law from being made to ban gay marriage, each state still maintains the right to have a state law, or so I've come to understand. And I think the state laws are being based on the personal belief of the courts right now (with the exception of Maine, which is doing it via a vote right now). Don't quote me on the legal matters; I'm a screenwriter, not a lawyer. Just throwing out things from the one law class I've ever taken. If anyone is more familiar with the law without going to Wikipedia, feel free to chip in.



TO BE CONTINUED. D:<

I think the best way to play devils advocate is to apply it to a law that would seem unrelated, yet most people even on this forum would feel very odd about. So let's just imagine for a minute that it is no longer illegal to commit acts of indecent exposure. period.

Got past the images that excite you and got to the downsides of this yet?

Good.

Why did I do this? Because neither law has a practical purpose, only an emotional/traditional one. If we had it become legalized and no longer culturally taboo, in a generation no one would think twice about it, it wouldn't be a sexual thing.
Now, in this law one would not be forced to be nude, nor would nudism be pushed on students (anyone would be allowed to wear whatever they want.) Many people would not want this law to be passed because 1. pedophilia 2. creepy 13 year old boys checking them out 3. it would promote promiscuity, or 4. it's a sin (or it goes against tradition)

In truth, many of our first cultures had no laws against nudity OR homosexuality, and both were acted upon.

It's not the act that matters, it's how our society views those acts. If America got the stick out of there ass (no pun intended) and allowed gay marriage, guess what would happen: people who already classified themselves as gay would be married. That's about it.

@Bible discussion: Just because you read something doesn't mean you have to follow it or obey it completely. If you disagreed with it, you wouldn't be a part of the religion to begin with.

Also, I'm impartial to gay marriage. I don't understand why Christians would spend so much time depriving people of their happiness and desires instead of doing what Christ said in the Great Commission, going and making disciples of all nations. He didn't say make sure that gay people don't have the same liberties as you do just because they're different.

It's not that bad of a translation.

It's pretty bad.

I actually read a book about this recently called The Secrets to Religion or somehing similar, I borrowed to to my friend but as soon as I get it back and I know the name I will recommend it to you. It does in-depth about how the translation of the bible has slowly been 'modernized' to fit the modern religious standards. It was voted the most controversial book of all time because it said stuff that most christians would suffer a heart attack over, and the worst (best?) part is that it has been verified by numerous people over the world who study the bible for a living. If they all agree that in Genesis it is stated that the world was created by multiple gods we can probably all agree that christianity has misunderstood itself.

This is derailing heavily and I apologize but it pains me that most christians these day who follow the bible haven't actually read and studied it yet they believe in it so much (or rather, believe in what they've been told to believe in from people who have also been told to believe in this and that, etc.). Believing and devoting yourself to something you have not extensively studied and read is absolutely idiotic if you pardon my vulgar expression.

A bit more on-topic I do believe it is okay for gays to marry. Nowadays marriage comes with all sorts of added political and economical benefits and these benefits are written in law. If something so religious has become so beneficial then it would be in everyones best interest to be able to marry whomever they choose. It's really not a big deal for an individual human being if someone gets married to another person of the same sex, it doesn't affect you any way and it shouldn't unless homosexuality makes you very uncomfortable and you happen to witness the act. The only one affected by this is the church and they can't go around letting homosexual people get married since their unbiased holy book that was written ages ago states that this is a grave sin. The theorist inside me thinks that the church is basically just afraid of their image and don't want to lose even more followers.

I could go on and on comparing all sorts of holy scriptures and speculating about the real nature of the church and so on but this is hardly the right topic for it, sorry >w<

Hey Sir Jack Rex, I read up on Greek dialects and found your information to be right on the money. Thanks for the education.

Back to topic, I spoke to a few people I know who are opposed to gay marriage, and here is what they say:

"The current laws of the United States do not support gay marriage because it is left to the individual states to decide, and the majority of those states' populations do not want gay marriage in those states. This is perfectly constitutional; no part of the constitution speaks about marriage laws. If the state of, say, Iowa legalizes gay marriage, there is nothing in any body of law in the US that says any other state has to support or recognize it. As far as the issue of children, gay couples' kids tend to have more problems at school and at play, and do not perform as close to the average for most students theur age. They further have problems with romantic relationships, as the lines between gay and straight have been blurred to them and so cannot make normal decisions regarding their own sexuality."

Now, before anyone comes to hang me, please remember that these are not my opinions. I'm just serving as a counter point to the issue without using a religious argument. Also know that while I don't think the above statements are true, I have not had time to verify or debunk them to my own satisfaction. I'll get back to you on that.

EDIT: Here's a site that seems to be the source of my co-worker's information: http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

Here also is an article that seems to disagree: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html

So if kids are the big deal, it seems we can't agree on that , either. I suppose people are just gonna believe what they want to believe.

It's not that bad of a translation.

It's pretty bad.

I actually read a book about this recently called The Secrets to Religion or somehing similar, I borrowed to to my friend but as soon as I get it back and I know the name I will recommend it to you. It does in-depth about how the translation of the bible has slowly been 'modernized' to fit the modern religious standards. It was voted the most controversial book of all time because it said stuff that most christians would suffer a heart attack over, and the worst (best?) part is that it has been verified by numerous people over the world who study the bible for a living. If they all agree that in Genesis it is stated that the world was created by multiple gods we can probably all agree that christianity has misunderstood itself.

This is derailing heavily and I apologize but it pains me that most christians these day who follow the bible haven't actually read and studied it yet they believe in it so much (or rather, believe in what they've been told to believe in from people who have also been told to believe in this and that, etc.). Believing and devoting yourself to something you have not extensively studied and read is absolutely idiotic if you pardon my vulgar expression.

A bit more on-topic I do believe it is okay for gays to marry. Nowadays marriage comes with all sorts of added political and economical benefits and these benefits are written in law. If something so religious has become so beneficial then it would be in everyones best interest to be able to marry whomever they choose. It's really not a big deal for an individual human being if someone gets married to another person of the same sex, it doesn't affect you any way and it shouldn't unless homosexuality makes you very uncomfortable and you happen to witness the act. The only one affected by this is the church and they can't go around letting homosexual people get married since their unbiased holy book that was written ages ago states that this is a grave sin. The theorist inside me thinks that the church is basically just afraid of their image and don't want to lose even more followers.

I could go on and on comparing all sorts of holy scriptures and speculating about the real nature of the church and so on but this is hardly the right topic for it, sorry >w<

I love you