Homosexual Marriage.

[Luna Lovegood]

I'm going to mention some ground rules. Do not mention religion. Do not tell me you think gays are 'disgusting'. Do not say 'I'm for it. Duh' or anything of the sort. None of these are legitimate arguments. If you don't think you can handle these rules, get out. Now, feel free to DEBATE.

[Just Crouton]

They should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us.

[NumberCruncher]

While I understand the sentimental and emotional side of marraige, from a stricktly practical standpoint, there is no reason gay people should need to get married. The purpose of marraige is only to insure the woman that, should the woman and the man get it off, any baby that should be produced from said encounter would be the dual responsibilities of the two parties involved. That being said, gay relationships have no reason to fear this result from a sexual encounter, thus marraige would not be required and laws need not be made to accomadate for them.

[Luna Lovegood]

[quote name='NumberCruncher' timestamp='1315290024' post='5495793']
While I understand the sentimental and emotional side of marraige, from a stricktly practical standpoint, there is no reason gay people should need to get married. The purpose of marraige is only to insure the woman that, should the woman and the man get it off, any baby that should be produced from said encounter would be the dual responsibilities of the two parties involved. That being said, gay relationships have no reason to fear this result from a sexual encounter, thus marraige would not be required and laws need not be made to accomadate for them.
[/quote]
I am for gay marriage, because the world is designed to accommodate married people, not life partners. The point of marriage is most certainly not to force parents to share the burden of children. It is a signal of love and affection. Not to mention a gay couple could adopt a child.

[NumberCruncher]

[quote name='Luna Lovegood' timestamp='1315290885' post='5495798'] I am for gay marriage, because the world is designed to accommodate married people, not life partners. The point of marriage is most certainly not to force parents to share the burden of children. It is a signal of love and affection. Not to mention a gay couple could adopt a child.[/quote]

There are many better ways to show love and affection than marraige, as one does not need to feel love or affection to be tempted into marraige, only lust. Certainly you might think your "love" is based a deep-seated emotional connection, but if it were, then divorce would be much less frequent. Not only is love not the point of marraige, marraige does not even necessarily indicate love. As for adoptions, many single people do chose to adopt children, so marraige isn't necessary for all child rearing, only that which you fear to take on alone. Since one has to intentionally adopt a child, and both parties would have to agree to take custody of the child in the adoption forms, a member of a gay couple has other legal means of preventing the abandonment of the child by the other member.

[Dark]

Homosexual couples should have [i]just as many rights[/i] as heterosexual couples. You have to treat homosexuals in the same way that you treat blacks and women; all three are a protected class, women received their equal rights first, blacks second, and homosexuals are clearly next in line. There are still sexist and racist people out there, just like in the future many of the redneck morons in the south are going to be bigots who discriminate against homosexuals. We can't change that, just like we can't change sexism or racism in society, in a workplace, or even with teachers in school or college. The government has no right to tell someone how to think, they only have a right to tell someone what is legal or not. I'm sure some bigot still wants slavery to exist, but it [i]clearly[/i] doesn't.

That being said, homosexuals clearly don't have the rights they [i]should[/i] have. Civil unions exist, sure. And yet there is no logic put forth to why a homosexual couple can get a civil union but a heterosexual couple also has the option of getting a marriage. Also, just as a side point, homosexual couples cannot list an adopted child as the child of both of them. Maybe the data is a bit archaic, but civil unions don't (or at least, used to not) allow homosexual couples to mutually [i]own[/i] a child, meaning that the child will only have one legal parent. [i]Meaning that[/i], if the parent decides to randomly get a divorce, the other partner cannot legally claim ownership of the child because it was never listed under his/her name. Not to mention that homosexual couples aren't allowed to freely adopt children in every state, because people just love to believe psychological studies that are clearly made-up. The sexuality of the parent or parents has been proven time and time again to not have any effect on a child. The only effect I can really see is that the child is more accepting of homosexual marriage because, well, his parents are homosexual and were kind enough to adopt him. So maybe conservatives think this liberal bias in adopted children by homosexual parents is actually going [i]to change[/i] anything.

Many argue that civil unions are more than good enough for a homosexual couple. If civil unions offer the same benefits as marriages, and if they're just as good as marriages, why don't more heterosexual couples get civil unions? No, they want to get marriages instead? Why? To pull a parallel argument, everyone's been telling me that the school my black child goes to is more than good enough for him. In fact, segregation of schools is perfectly fine, especially when the schools are equal. Okay, well, if the schools are supposedly equal, [i]why[/i] can't my black son go to a white school? Because clearly the schools aren't equal, and believing so is ignorant and moronic. Civil unions are intended to shut people up.[i] Oh, you guys want to legalize homosexual marriage? Haha, no. But instead, we'll give them civil unions to make the liberals seem like we care, but it's still not giving homosexual couples a fair playing field. Ooh, we're so devious. [/i]If you're in favor of banning homosexual marriage and leaving things at civil unions, by extension, you are also supporting segregation. And while segregation usually refers to discrimination by race, I'm applying the word to everything now. Why should blacks go to schools that are only good enough for white people? Why should females get jobs that are only good enough for males? And why should homosexual couples get the same rights as heterosexual couples?

Marriage is not a religious institution, and it's stupid to think so. I, as an atheist, having no declared religion, not believing (and even despising, to a point) in Christianity (the supposed "founding" religion... claimed by Christians), can go out whenever the hell I want with a female partner of mine and get married. And all I have to do is sign a document. Marriage is not intertwined with religion, it's clearly a government issue. [i]And even if[/i] we assume that marriage is a religious institution, what about the religions that don't personally care about homosexuality? What about Buddhism, where the scriptures make little to no mention of homosexuality, and clearly don't condemn it? Does that mean [i]Buddhist[/i] homosexuals can get married but [i]Christian[/i] ones can't because of the Bible? Making marriage intertwined with religion is clearly a lot more complex and creates a lot more bullshit cases than having them separate, not to mention that marriage never was and never will be a religious institution. Everyone against homosexual marriage is just trying to put down a minority class for whatever reason.

Homosexuality is not a [i]choice[/i]. It's clearly in someone's genetics, it's with someone at birth. They can choose to accept it or subdue it, but when is the last time you saw someone who was clearly heterosexual turn homosexual on his or her own whim? If it's in your genetics it's fairly hard to refute, and there is absolutely no reason to refute it except we live in a bigoted society where it is [i]frowned upon[/i] to be a homosexual, just like it was frowned upon to be a female or a black. Conservatives like to say that we're shoving liberalism down their throat. But we clearly aren't. They can choose to tell their kids that homosexuality is immoral, they can choose to lash out (though not violently) against homosexuals. I've said this time and time again, liberalism in social issues allows for [i]more[/i] freedom. We're not forcing people to turn homosexual, we're just giving homosexuals the option of getting married like [i]everyone else is allowed to[/i]. Whereas conservatives are restricting their rights because they are different, because they have something different in their genes that makes them attracted to someone of the same gender. Where's the logic in that?

TheAtheistExperience made a brilliant argument regarding this topic: what if we made something called [i]smarriage[/i], a type of marriage reserved [b]exclusively [/b]for homosexual couples? Would anyone be opposed to that? I highly doubt it. But that just means you're arguing over a useless term. You are willing to give homosexuals just as many rights as heterosexuals, you are willing to throw at them civil unions and tax benefits and adoption rights and everything. But you won't let them get [i]married[/i], only [i]unionized[/i]. What kind of logic is that, fighting over an institution that really doesn't mean anything anyways? And if you are opposed to [i]smarriage[/i], you're clearly just a bigoted individual without a capability for rational thought, or at least that's the only conclusion I can come to. If you're against homosexual marriage, you're a less intense version of the Ku Klux Klan; you hate a group of people because they're genetically different from you. And you'll do whatever you can to stop them from becoming your equal. Because, let's face it, if you subconsciously think they're lower than you, you sure as hell don't want them to be your equal. But it's that kind of bigoted mindset that has killed America before and will kill America.

The best solution is clear. Get rid of civil unions entirely, define marriage as the union between a (wo)man and a (wo)man, completely suck whatever religion is left completely out of the institution of marriage, give homosexual couples full adoption rights, and finally, put marriage ceremonies [i]completely[/i] in the hands of religious officials. A marriage, at its core, is just signing a document. Just like a civil union. It's redundant. Make marriage the [i]new[/i] civil union, abolish the old one, and give everything that actually is religious (but has absolutely nothing to do with the government anyways) to the religious people. And if [i]they[/i] want to discriminate against homosexuals, we can't stop that. And homosexuals should maybe find another priest that's willing to conduct a ceremony. And I personally don't understand how anyone could logically think otherwise - unless someone would like to offer a solution that makes sense where homosexual marriage isn't needed. Please, I'd love to see it.

[Shradow]

As long as two people love each other, heterosexual or homosexual, they should be able to get married, no, ifs, ands, or buts.

To put it simply.

...

How am I supposed to follow a Dark post? XP

[Dark]

[i]The purpose of marraige is only to insure the woman that, should the woman and the man get it off, any baby that should be produced from said encounter would be the dual responsibilities of the two parties involved.[/i]

Since when has that been the purpose of marriage? The purpose of marriage is to a.) reap government benefits, and to b.) be identified as a legal couple. All marriage does is give you the title of a [i]married couple[/i], and it bestows tons of rights that single people don't get. Marriage deals with visiting hours at hospitals, how you file your tax forms, custody of a child in case one parent dies, et cetera. Marriage has nothing to do with childbirth, not to mention that a bunch of married couples don't even sexually reproduce for kids. And some couples don't have kids at all, adopted or otherwise.

Also, if that is the purpose of marriage, why are old people still considered married? Their kids are already capable of self-sustenance, so marriage should only be applicable to those that are raising a kid under the age of eighteen, twenty-one, twenty-six, or whatever arbitrary age you'd like to choose. But that clearly isn't the case, meaning your logic of what the purpose of marriage is must be wrong.

[i]gay relationships have no reason to fear this result from a sexual encounter[/i]

As Luna said, homosexual couples can adopt children. Therefore, using your logic, homosexual marriages should be legalized to ensure that the baby would be the responsibility of both parties involved, either both fathers or both mothers. Just because a child is not genetically related to you doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to have two parents. Legally, if I adopt a child, it's mine. It's not related to me in any blood way, but the emotional attachment one would have to a child that [i]is[/i] genetically related is the same. So I don't know where your logic is stemming from.

[i]here are many better ways to show love and affection than marraige[/i]

Marriage is not a way of showing love, it is just an indicator of love. Also, because marriage does not show love, that in turn bolsters the fact that marriage's purposes is not love-related. It is simply to reap government benefits that [i]everyone[/i] should be entitled to, and it is to provide marital status for couples. I can love someone and have sex with them and be their baby's father without marrying them, sure. But if you're going to force homosexual couples to do that, why are heterosexual couples allowed to be married?

[i]marraige does not even necessarily indicate love[/i]

It indicates a strong emotional relationship. I'm not going to marry my best friend because I am not emotionally attracted to him or her in that fashion. I will, however, marry my girlfriend because the emotions decree it. We can raise children together without being married, sure, but what about the government benefits that we are both entitled to? What about our social title as a married couple? I want both of those things for us, and I'm sure she does as well. And those feelings would be the same if my girlfriend was a guy, instead. Gender clearly isn't the issue here, since you are not understanding the point of a marriage.

[i]How am I supposed to follow a Dark post?[/i]

By either responding to it if you disagree with it or disregarding it if you do agree with it (or a mix of those, where "responding" then becomes "expanding upon" if you do agree with my views). In a nutshell, it's how you would treat [i]any[/i] post. My posts are no different in concept from other posts, just like Crab Helmet's posts or Striker's posts are no different in practice.

[Shradow]

I meant it like following a big act in a talent show or something. You have you big long awesome post and mine's just a couple sentences. XD

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Gay marriage has been in Massachusetts for awhile and we haven't utterly collapsed upon ourselves. Yet.

I have a hard time thinking of a decent counterpoint whenever it comes to gay marriage. It really seems like simple conclusion. But civil rights tend to take awhile.

[Grunt Issun]

I'd like to say something, but it would look like I'm copying Dark, and just saying it in a really dumbed down way.

[CDDRodrigo]

Dark, how can you write that much with that much quality

I'm not against the happiness of a couple. Be it any kind of combination between the genders.

[evilhorus]

I like the way Dark says

[i]"In the September 2011 YCM Awards, I received first place for [b]Best Debater[/b] and [b]Most Likely to Succeed[/b]. However, neither of those labels accurately describes me, especially not on this forum. Nevertheless, I thank all of you morons from the top-most atom of my heart that you voted for me, regardless of your faulty logic driving that vote"[/i]

Then he posts an amazing post like the one above.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

He's just extending basic points in a really obvious debate(as most only truly supported on the other side by religion are), but as one can see such a post gets lauded by YCM, mostly due to length and eloquence of speech. That's what he was getting at - the judging process of the voters. Though they still might be worthy titles, at least compared to the rest of the forum base.

Though when it comes to succeeding, it's a common procrastinator trait to put a lot of effort into the useless(YCM debate posts for example) and not much into to useful, but whatever.

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='~Coolio~' timestamp='1315791960' post='5508754']
He's just extending basic points in a really obvious debate(as most only truly supported on the other side by religion are), but as one can see such a post gets lauded by YCM, mostly due to length and eloquence of speech. That's what he was getting at - the judging process of the voters. Though they still might be worthy titles, at least compared to the rest of the forum base.
[/quote]

And that, my friends, is how the Democratic Party thrives.


OT: I see no reason that civil unions should not be available. But to be honest, I see no reason why the government should even make any rulings on marriage at all.

[Agro]

As some guy from Staten Island once said: "If two dudes want to hook up, that's fine. If two girls want to hook up, that's GREAT."

It shouldn't matter whether or not they NEED to. No one NEEDS to get married. Heterosexual couples don't NEED to get married. Let them be, they don't concern you, so there's no reason to not let them marry.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

[quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1315830186' post='5509427']
And that, my friends, is how the Democratic Party thrives.
[/quote]
While that's a common trait throughout mainstream politics, the Republicans just use buzz words. Obamacare, terrorism, socialism, etc. While Democrats at least have to make some level of sense, Republicans only have to use religion as a means to control, or references to the founding fathers, or control the crowd with fear and anger.

[King of Nothing]

From an economic standpoint it'd be a horrible thing to do. The ban on homosexual marriage is in order to stop them from getting tax breaks. It has nothing to do with religion, that's just the scapegoat that's been chosen for it all. From a moral standpoint it's the right thing to do, but we're not debating morals.

EDIT: @above - Implying buzz words aren't a tried and true form of delivering the media? Because headlines don't attract attention, right?

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='~Coolio~' timestamp='1315964044' post='5513382']
While that's a common trait throughout mainstream politics, the Republicans just use buzz words. Obamacare, terrorism, socialism, etc. While Democrats at least have to make some level of sense, Republicans only have to use religion as a means to control, or references to the founding fathers, or control the crowd with fear and anger.
[/quote]
Republicans always try to put out that they know the constitution like the back of their hand when even they don't understand that the constitution has its own fallacies...

[Tentacruel]

It's true. The politicians are only concerned with money.

[Shradow]

I found this to be interesting.
[img]http://i41.tinypic.com/2luazoj.jpg[/img]

[Tentacruel]

Well of course all those arguments are wrong, but I still stand by my original stance.


Get rid of legal marriage, replace with civil unions for everyone.

Getting married is no longer a matter of being legal or illegal, and you can register it if you wish to.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I support homosexual marriage. I'm just here to knock down Dark's hole-ridden wall so that it doesn't hurt anyone.

Feels good being an upholder of justice/justace.

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
Homosexual couples should have [i]just as many rights[/i] as heterosexual couples. You have to treat homosexuals in the same way that you treat blacks and women; all three are a protected class, women received their equal rights first, blacks second, and homosexuals are clearly next in line.[/quote]

They're "equal", not "protected". Should they do anything any non-black/homosexual/woman would be punished for, they should also be punished. Rookie mistake amongst political correctness activists.

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
The government has no right to tell someone how to think, they only have a right to tell someone what is legal or not.[/quote]

By this principle it would follow that those who stopped the Nazis had no right to. "What is legal or not" is born of thoughts of what should be legal or not. If any given person should have the power to express anti-Nazi sentiments, why shouldn't a person who happens to be in the government also be able to? When they do it they simply do it with amplified power.

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
I'm sure some bigot still wants slavery to exist, but it [i]clearly[/i] doesn't.[/quote]

Within what restrictions? Because it certainly still exists throughout the world, most prominently in Africa as various groups part of various staged civil wars turn to enslaving people to harvest enough Tantalum to sell to companies like Nintendo and Samsung and buy guns.

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
That being said, homosexuals clearly don't have the rights they [i]should[/i] have.[/quote]

Who [i]does[/i]?

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
The sexuality of the parent or parents has been proven time and time again to not have any effect on a child.[/quote]

Not that it even matters. What problem would there be if it did?


[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
Why? To pull a parallel argument, everyone's been telling me that the school my black child goes to is more than good enough for him. In fact, segregation of schools is perfectly fine, especially when the schools are equal. Okay, well, if the schools are supposedly equal, [i]why[/i] can't my black son go to a white school? Because clearly the schools aren't equal, and believing so is ignorant and moronic.[/quote]

Under the assumption that there're no inequalities in blacks and whites simply through their being black or white, a "black school" IS a "white school".

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
If you're in favor of banning homosexual marriage and leaving things at civil unions, by extension, you are also supporting segregation. And while segregation usually refers to discrimination by race, I'm applying the word to everything now. Why should blacks go to schools that are only good enough for white people? Why should females get jobs that are only good enough for males? And why should homosexual couples get the same rights as heterosexual couples?[/quote]

The word "segregation" actually CAN be applied to everything, but if you're going to denounce ALL segregation as you're doing, you're also denouncing the hiring of those who are trained in the field they're being hired into over those who aren't, which isn't a bad thing as those who are trained are more likely to do a better job because of their training. I could use the more extreme example of your considering it wrong to disallow a baby from flying an airplane to make you look more stupid, but I won't.

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
Marriage is not a religious institution, and it's stupid to think so. I, as an atheist, having no declared religion, not believing (and even despising, to a point) in Christianity (the supposed "founding" religion... claimed by Christians), can go out whenever the hell I want with a female partner of mine and get married. And all I have to do is sign a document. Marriage is not intertwined with religion, it's clearly a government issue. [i]And even if[/i] we assume that marriage is a religious institution, what about the religions that don't personally care about homosexuality? What about Buddhism, where the scriptures make little to no mention of homosexuality, and clearly don't condemn it? Does that mean [i]Buddhist[/i] homosexuals can get married but [i]Christian[/i] ones can't because of the Bible? Making marriage intertwined with religion is clearly a lot more complex and creates a lot more bullshit cases than having them separate, not to mention that marriage never was and never will be a religious institution. Everyone against homosexual marriage is just trying to put down a minority class for whatever reason.[/quote]

BZZZZZZZZZZZT OP'S "GROUND RULES" VIOLATION.

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
TheAtheistExperience made a brilliant argument regarding this topic: what if we made something called [i]smarriage[/i], a type of marriage reserved [b]exclusively [/b]for homosexual couples? Would anyone be opposed to that? I highly doubt it.[/quote]

I would think that it would depend on the implications of this "smarriage" and whether or not said "type of marriage" would actually be completely parallel to marriage. Highly doubting opposition to it is highly doubting opposition to allowing homosexual marriage, which there is opposition to. Prefixing an "s" wouldn't quell opposition as I'm pretty sure it's not [i]the term[/i] that people who oppose homosexual marriage are at issue with, it's the rights therein.

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315308045' post='5495963']
Homosexuality is not a [i]choice[/i]. It's clearly in someone's genetics, it's with someone at birth. They can choose to accept it or subdue it, but when is the last time you saw someone who was clearly heterosexual turn homosexual on his or her own whim? If it's in your genetics it's fairly hard to refute, and there is absolutely no reason to refute it except we live in a bigoted society where it is [i]frowned upon[/i] to be a homosexual, just like it was frowned upon to be a female or a black. Conservatives like to say that we're shoving liberalism down their throat. But we clearly aren't. They can choose to tell their kids that homosexuality is immoral, they can choose to lash out (though not violently) against homosexuals. I've said this time and time again, liberalism in social issues allows for [i]more[/i] freedom. We're not forcing people to turn homosexual, we're just giving homosexuals the option of getting married like [i]everyone else is allowed to[/i]. Whereas conservatives are restricting their rights because they are different, because they have something different in their genes that makes them attracted to someone of the same gender. Where's the logic in that?[/quote]

Not that it even matters. What problem would there be if it were a choice?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

And blindly assuming it's genetic is pretty unscientific. Liberals will tend to act this way whenever you strike some of the more tender social issues - they generally have the humane and proper conclusion, but reach it through a couple leaps in logic.

Examples:
-On average certain regions of the brain on gay men are larger or smaller than in straight men.
-Therefore homosexuality is genetic.
Flaw: The brain's course of development isn't solely based on genetics - plasticity exists. If anything this can suggest that typical gay behaviors or a brain that develops in this manner is more inclined towards/formed by homosexuality.

-With each older brother a child's chance of being gay increases.
-Therefore homosexuality is genetic.
Flaw: As these numbers are ever fluctuating as far as statistics go, this seems a lot like an example of Freudian birth order influence and maternal pandering. It could very well be genetic influence, but obviously this gradual shift in the statistics should indicate the fluidity of sexuality, not a gene to flick on or off.

-Children that act feminine are likely to become gay when they grow up.
-Therefore homosexuality is genetic.
Flaw: Completely ignores placebo. Gender roles vary from society to society; cultures can have varying views on femininity and masculinity. If a kid grows up acting differently in a society where gender roles are so solidly defined, they'll probably be subconsciously driven to follow other trends of that role. Liking dolls may lead one to further immerse themselves in the scene by building gay attractions, while someone who's gay may immerse themselves by engaging in stereotypically gay things. Metrosexuality and manly gays should disprove this point, but it's still brought up like such a superficial topic holds much barring.

-My schoolteachers all told me that it's genetic.
-Therefore homosexuality is genetic.
Flaw: I will concede on this point.

I don't think people are naturally born attracted to dogs or with a fetish for bubble-wrap. I do think that we are born with inclinations and are more flexible in some regards than we are in others. There are probably some people so entrenched in homosexuality and so developed that little else would attract them, but the concept of genetics and environment is generally accepted for most brain functions and it shouldn't suddenly be an exception here just because people think it will further their cause.

[size=4]
[center]Hope abides; therefore I abide.
Countless frustrations have not cowed me.
I am still alive, vibrant with life.
The black cloud will disappear,
The morning sun will appear once again
In all its supernal glory.[/size][size=4]
~[/center][/size]

[John A. Zoidberg]

[quote name='Comrade Trollestia' timestamp='1322839350' post='5680481']
Well of course all those arguments are wrong, but I still stand by my original stance.
[/quote]

Y... You do realize that that picture is entirely satirical, right...?