Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
Let's keep this organized, folks. Firstly, state just your opinion on the matter, then justify it. Because it is relevant to the topic, state your sexual orientation if you are comfortable doing so. Try not to use any justification that would not hold up in court, which includes religion.

I support same-sex marriage. I am heterosexual.

A person's sexual orientation does not make them any less of a person. There is no reason to discriminate, no matter what attribute of a person you are looking at. You wouldn't discriminate by race or gender (I hope), so why sexual orientation? I feel that there is nothing that should discriminate against. An @sshole is an @sshole, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else. In the same way, a kind person is a kind person, regardless of anything. If someone is in love with another person of the same sex, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry and get the same benefits that different-sex couples get?
I am heterosexual, and I'm not for or against same sex marriage. I believe it should be legal everywhere because they have the same rights as any of us do, but besides that, what they do is up to them. You know it will never be legal all over the US, because the southern states are big in religion. Other then that, I totally agree with SirCmpwn.
I do not support same-sex marriage. I am heterosexual. As I do believe that religion, specifically Christian world view based on the Scriptures of The Bible, can be used as a valid argument, I will say that the when God first created Man, he created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

As for a non-Christian view, evolution is what most of the scientific community believes, correct? Let's assume that Evolution created a man and woman, judging from the fact that they both exist today? Why would evolution force them to coexist? If evolution was to make same-sex marriage okay, then why did it not allow same-sex couples to be able to re-produce.

The tribe of same-sex species would die out, because they could not reproduce. Therefore, there would be no new child species that would have the ability to reproduce using the same sex, because all their would-be parents didn't reproduce because they couldn't. There would be nothing to propagate the need to the children.

Just my views, though. Notice that I said "do not support".
personally i dont really care either...
if it makes people happy, why not?

just dont let it get to their adopted children if they aren't homosexual though...

it would be kinda bad if it influences heterosexual children in to becoming homosexual because of confusion... so i think education and self awareness should remove this problem... thus personally i think its fine...

p.s. i am a guy and i like girls XD
p.p.s. and i am Catholic btw...
In response to graphmastur, a tribe of same-sex species does in fact exist, and they are doing fine. Also, allowing gay marriage does not stop reproduction - there are still plenty of fertile, heterosexual couples happy to continue the species. In fact, humans are not the only species to include homosexuals. Homosexual behavior has been documented in more than 1,500 species, so it definitely is not unnatural.

As for the biblical view, doesn't the bible also encourage the use of slaves and the like? You can't just pick and choose, in my opinion (I'm non-theist, for the record). Someone who argues that the bible is against same-sex couples tends to let their eyes slip over the use of slaves and the use of God's name in vain, the latter of which occurs quite a bit more often than homosexuality.
whatever, if they want to do what they have to do, without hurting anyone, then I dont have a problem
graphmastur wrote:
I do not support same-sex marriage. I am heterosexual. As I do believe that religion, specifically Christian world view based on the Scriptures of The Bible, can be used as a valid argument, I will say that the when God first created Man, he created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
It's a valid argument in terms of who your particular religion believes should be married in your church, I think, but it's not valid in the eyes of the US Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and legal precedence set in the 20th century. In the eyes of the Founding Fathers and Supreme Court justices of the 1970s, among many others between and beyond them, the government of America should be a fundamentally separate forum from any religion, and no religion should impose its unique views on the government of the nation. I quote Wikipedia:

Quote:
The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878), where the court examined [Thomas]
Jefferson's involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning.


Quote:
The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."

Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.
A ban on same-sex marriage on the basis that it is viewed as wrong or immoral by one or more religions falls under at least the first and third clauses of that paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
What this topic seems to be now is to find a good, non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.
As I am neither specifically for nor against it as a heterosexual, I have very little else to say, except to possibly agree with SirCmpwn.
calcdude84se wrote:
What this topic seems to be now is to find a good, non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.
As I am neither specifically for nor against it as a heterosexual, I have very little else to say, except to possibly agree with SirCmpwn.
That's an excellent point. OK, on what grounds could there be a non-religious argument to same-sex marriage? Something with economics; would it cost us more in taxes somehow? Would it violate some other law? I can't really think of anything.
I believe exactly what graphmastur believe's. I am heterosexual and I am too a christian and view what graphmastur views. That's my statement.
Hmm... interesting controversial topic, eh?

My opinion is this: I neither support nor am I against same sex marriage.
As long as they don't teach homosexuality or coerce it, I'm perfectly fine with it. (I'm heterosexual.) I'll let my children or people I know decide for themselves, not the government.

(Something crazy like this happened in Montana: http://www.parentdish.com/2010/07/15/montana-school-board-gets-an-earful-on-sex-ed-proposal/)
graphmastur wrote:
As I do believe that religion, specifically Christian world view based on the Scriptures of The Bible, can be used as a valid argument, I will say that the when God first created Man, he created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


if you are going to use an argument that is not accepted by everybody ipso facto could you provide some sort of reason why it is a valid argument?
expanding on sir's slavery comment, what about other things, like sheol.

graphmastur wrote:
As for a non-Christian view, evolution is what most of the scientific community believes, correct? Let's assume that Evolution created a man and woman, judging from the fact that they both exist today? Why would evolution force them to coexist? If evolution was to make same-sex marriage okay, then why did it not allow same-sex couples to be able to re-produce.

the scientific community does not "believe in evolution". natural selection/mutation/genetic drift has been proposed as a theory to explain why the things we see are the way they appear to be, and any legitimate conflicting evidence that may be found will be taken into account and this theory will be revised. furthermore, what correlation is there between evolution and one's personal preferences? even if people tend to be homosexual less often than they are heterosexual(as you sort of explained) how does that relate to societal concepts of morality(which seems to be the underlying issue here)?
Marriage in a traditional sense has been about 3 things.

1) Property Transfer
2) Child Rearing (and inheritance, ie. property transfer)
3) Politics and tribal unity (again, more property transfer)

In a traditional marriage, the father of the bride and the father of the groom are the ones to come to an arrangement about who should marry whom.

In modern times, it is very much the same. I would love to see an Astor marry a factory worker. The point being, there is nothing special about marriage from a traditional point of view. What is special is what has arisen in the last century as arranged marriages have fallen by the way side (for all but the aforementioned Astors and their ilk). In the last century, more and more marriages are stressing love over parental arrangements.

All things considered, I would be wholly opposed to marriage were it not for the financial rewards and legal rights which are bestowed upon these unions by the government. As it is, if these benefits are to be bestowed to one particular kind of human, consenting , adult couple, they should be extended to all human, consenting, adult couples. Modernity has defined marriage to, at least some of the time, be about love and commitment. Committed partners of any gender can reduce the economic strains on the government by allowing people to support one another, while also strengthening the economy by reducing redundant costs, allowing a couple to spend more as a group than they could individually.

I am a homosexual, a very much jaded one, and painfully single. I say, if the straights have to suffer marriage, so too shall the gays. If you want to protect traditional marriage, let your father tell you who to marry, and outlaw divorce.
I live in the Bible Belt (Arkansas) so we do not have many outwardly gay couples. I do, however, work in an Episcopalian church (One of the most liberal Christian sects). We have a gay couple in the congregation. Two men of fatherly age, they have a heterosexual daughter and three kids below the age of three (triplets). All of these kids are some of the nicest well behaved kids I've had to work with.

That being said, I think the only presence government should have in marriage is that of a civil union. If you want to have a "wedding" and a "marriage," good for you, do it in the religious scene of your choosing. The only the government should be concerned with is a name change or a tax break, not gender.
Of course, in modern society, not as many pay attention to religion as, lets say, 100 years ago :/
Unfortunately, those who do are rather loud about it
I happen to disagree with this view but I figured I should share it. The catholic church's view on this is more or less, they can do whatever they want, as long as they don't actually have sex. Then again, they say the same thing for non married couples as well, since they view sex as only for propagation and well, same sex couples can't.

Personally, I more or less couldn't give a rats a about what they do as long as they are decent about it in public, I don't want to see extreme PDA's whether the couple is same sex or not. As my boss and a few of out customers have put it, their money is still green and they are still people.
qazz42 wrote:
Of course, in modern society, not as many pay attention to religion as, lets say, 100 years ago :/
You say that because you live in New York, in the liberal northeast. If you lived in the south or midwest, your upbringing would have been much different, and you would not think that religion was something people keep well-separated from the rest of their lives.
I grew up in the bible belt of PA and currently live in Harlem....Religion is still alive and strong. That said, not all religious folks are discriminatory. Except that most of the ones I have met are.....
KermMartian wrote:
qazz42 wrote:
Of course, in modern society, not as many pay attention to religion as, lets say, 100 years ago :/
You say that because you live in New York, in the liberal northeast. If you lived in the south or midwest, your upbringing would have been much different, and you would not think that religion was something people keep well-separated from the rest of their lives.



good point, but, remember that just because a religion says it is wrong doesnt mean it is legally wrong. the constitution and the bible are different. Smile
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 22
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement