Gay Marriage
 

So I have to do a debate about allowing gay marriages.

My personal views are, let it happen. BUT, I have to argue the other side too, and since I'm not religious...I really don't know what to say.

The only argument I have is that, there's some policy where if you live with someone for more than like...5 yrs, you're legally married (good ol' Canada)...and that'd be a little confusing for all the college roomates...

But seriously, other than a religious argument, please feel free to help me.

Also, if this has been done before, please direct me to the proper link, since the search function is disabled :p.

Let the fukin people do what they want. This debate about whether or not should gay and lesbian be allowed to get married just infringes on their personal rights and freedom. It's just fukin ridicious to allow the government get involved just because the other 50% of the idiots in the population says that God doesn't allow it

It has been a lot.
Here are just a couple

http://flounder.tfproject.org/tfp/sh...threadid=36367

not about marriage per say but interesting

http://flounder.tfproject.org/tfp/sh...threadid=34897

Marriage is by law, showing the love between two people, and thus getting benefits by being bonded together through it. To forbid gay couples is to disclude part of our freedom that these States in the US of A are supposedly all about. They can raise just as good families as heterofamilies can. It costs money to adopt, if they can adopt, then it shows they'll actually take CARE of their children. I'm all for it. I guess I should point out that I'm also a christian.

yet anthoer thing we agree on gak

Gay marriage is an oxymoron.

If gays want legal protection, they need merely file for power of attorney.

Equal rights for all I say!

Mind you I wouldn't get married even if it was legal lol. :D

power of attorney doesn't provide the same spirit of the law that marriage does.

while letter of the law it does, it does not give automatic benefits of survivorship that marriage does.

Care to elaborate on this? Why should gays have to go through any more trouble than heterosexuals to receive the same benefits?

There is no legitimate reason for the Federal government to have anything to do with marriage, which is a social institution. Any mention of marriage should be removed from Federal law. Let the states handle this on their own.

something I don't understand, is why people still resist the idea of gay marriage being allowed. Clearly, gay marriage is an idea that is much more accepted than it was, say, a generation ago. It is *so* just a matter of time before it's completely legal (which is a good thing). Do people who are against gay marriage actually think there's a chance in hell that society, as a whole, will revert and unify to say that it should be illegal? (Here's a link to the article that got me thinking about this.)

I think gay marraiges should be allowed. When will this world WAKE UP and realize that gays are not going anywhere anytime soon. They are here to stay and they should be given the same rights as the rest of us HUMAN BEINGS.

However, I see a serious flaw in the system of instituting gay marraige. The biggest one is the fact that married couples get different benefits financially because they are married. Hypothetically, I see a bunch of heterosexual males filing for marraige with their heterosexual roommate because they can take advantage of the tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc....which in a sense is screwing the system. But, I have seen this from non-gay marraiges as well. I know a guy who got married while in the military to take advantage of the perks of being married. He does not love this woman, nor does he ever talk to her. She lives on the other coast. This is just as wrong, so might as well let gays share the same rights.

whats that if you live together for five years rule, never heard of that


were i work there was a christian girl and she was like mad and would talk about how disgusting and wrong it is... some christian people are fucked up.... anyways i only mean when they get to messing with other peoples life like that,.. who cares what other people do,. whatever floats thier boat...

im sorry im sure someone is now mad at me

The odd part of all this is that even though the attacks against gay marriage come pretty much from the religious right, there's no denying that the Church itself has countless gay members.

The sex scandal would indicaite this.

So some of the same people who are supposed to sermonize about Christianity are completely contradicting their own scripture.

Jam... you know me.. you read my post.. might wanna fix that by saying SOME christians are fucked up. ;)

The rights, benefits and pitfalls of marriage of a "GAY" couple should be granted.
I see it not being a debate, but yet another social stigma about a lifestyle. union, and contract law that need to be changed.

Um, folks... lafemmefatale's actual question, which this hot-button issue appears to have prevented anybody from actually reading, is this: how does somebody who's pro-gay marriage approach a debate where they're assigned to argue the anti-gay marriage side? She's not asking your opinion. That's been done before.

First of all, I'm PRO same-sex marriage. They're people with whole, functioning sets of emotions, just like straight people, and they should be free to express their love for each other just the same way I can. For me it's not about legal protection, it's about self-expression. That's my OPINION on the matter.

Now, how I'd argue this if I had to argue against gay marriage is this: cultures are based on traditional families. With some small number or exceptions, children are raised in the context of one mother and one father (even in the case of divorced families, that context still exists). To replace that with a potential context of two fathers or two mothers is to undercut the whole structure of society. We just don't know what result that would have if it took place in a significant percentage of families, but the incremental increase in individual freedom is not worth the extreme risk to our culture and society.

I'm glad I don't have to make that argument, though, because it kind of makes my skin crawl. :)

This institution has staying power that stretches my credulity:

I don't see a reason for legally defined marriage for anyone. It would be a better world if individuals were treated individually for tax and property purposes.

The notion of a business partnership would cover the necessary economic and tax advantage items that make a difference regarding marriage and the law. As for children, the same type of business partnership arrangement could cover mutual responsibilities.

Marriage just doesn't create anything but another layer of conceptual problematics in people's lives. If people want to overlay romantic love on their business partnerships, that's their call. I just don't see a reason to "legalize" it - doesn't matter which sex, gender, or preference is involved.

Finally, someone actually read the thread. I too would hate to have to argue the anti-gay marriage side. As Seretogis said, it's a 'social institution' and the Feds should let the states decide how to handle it. If I had to argue the point I couldn't have put forth a better reason than ratbastid. I wouldn't be very persuasive though.

Like ratbastid and bent, I'd have a hard time arguing against gay marriages. But perhaps you can look at statistics and see if there are any studies on the stability of gay marriage once children are brought into the equation. If a high percentage of gay marriages (or unions) fail after kids, then you might have an argument.

It reminds me of when Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher had their two children. It was so high-profile. When they broke up, all I could think was that unfortunately, they probably wound up setting the movement back a bit.

It's very difficult to argue against gay marriage because, despite the conservative rhetoric and trotting out some skewed studies on the relative benefits of having both a father and a mother, there aren't any compelling arguments against it that don't rely on religiously-based moral objections. If you start arguing about the benefits of having both a mother and a father, you get into all sorts of trouble when also discussing divorced couples, single parents, etc. The only argument that holds any water in my book is that marriage is a religious institution, and should be regulated by religous organizations, not the state. The state has no business meddling in religious matters. The problem (for conservatives) is that this argument suddenly deligitimizes marriage as a social institution and would replace it with civil unions for ALL, not just gay couples, with marriage as a completely separate religious matter. I love seeing them choke on their own inability to overcome the inherent illogic in their arguments.

which grants them maybe one twentieth of the legal rights afforded by a marriage.

OK, if people are so opposed to gay marriage (not saying they are, but if...) why not just create something that has, in one blanket motion, all the legal and civil rights of marriage but is a purely civil ceremony between any two consenting adults, and call it 'googlesnork'?

If I had to argue against gay marriage, I'd have to use the fact that 'marriage' is written into law as a union between a man and a woman. Instead of adapting marriage itself, it might be better to allow gay people to bypass it entirely, creating a new and binding civil union that grants the same rights as marriage while leaving marriage alone.

I agree that marriage is a social institution and should not be regulated by law, but to me that means that the federal and state governments are out of it.

Let each social group define their own rites and rituals. Most churches can have marriage in the traditional sense. Mormons can do the polygamy thing. Gays and Lesbians can define whatever they want. The state can then decide which ones they want to recognize without requiring further documentation. If further documentation is required, write it into a contract. By the way, this is not significantly different with current marriage law. Being marriage does not automatically confer power of attorney or other decision making authority that must be written into a living will.

Seems like a lot of concern over a not so important issue.

Marriage is more than a set of laws, it's an outward symbol of a couple's commitment to each other.
I won't go into the religion thing, because frankly, I don't believe in organised religion or deities.
If two people love each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives together, then let them get married if that's important to them. I don't think it should matter what sex those two people are. The love they share is all that's important.

Sorry, just want to point out that polygamy is very much AGAINST mormon doctrine. It hasn't always been that way, but modern mormonism decries polygamy in all forms. It's a bad sterotype to propogate.

BTW, I'm not mormon, for what it's worth.

Thank you everyone who have replied, I have to say it makes my heart all warm and fuzzy to know so far, everyone here is open minded and are on the same page more or less about gay marriage.

On the greater scheme of things, this is good, but for my upcoming debate (in french too :p)...the lack of anti gay marriage sentiment is not lol.

ratbastid, good argument, probably the best and most logical of any argument I have heard/could think of yet against gay marriage...thank you.

Funny story though, up here in Canada, the legal definition of marraige has already been changed to include gay marriages, and it is legal in BC and Ontario...or was it Quebec. In other words, this debate topic is getting harder and harder for the negative side. Yay for humanity, nay for my marks. :p Thanx again to everyone.

Too bad there are so many people who think correctly on this issue. I was hoping to be the Voice of Dissent here ;)

As far as I'm concerned, I like women. I'm gonna marry mine. I really don't give a damn who someone else marrys (as long as it's not also my girl ;). 2 homosexuals getting married is not gonna hurt me in any way, and it's not gonna hurt ANYONE in any way, so why the hell do so many backwards dinks in this country oppose it?

It's amazing how many issues attract such strong opposition despite the fact that they won't hurt the opposers one bit.

Y'know, back in the 50's if a black guy married a white woman they got just about the same reaction as gays are getting today. It's amazing how people can't seem to figure out that being prejudiced against blacks is no worse than being prejudiced against any other group of people, yet they'll decry the racists while at the same time persecuting the gays. It's mindless.

Why shouldn't two people who are in love be able to marry who they want? Why should they be stopped simply because they enjoy sex with someone you won't?

Why is the risk not worth it? So society can keep pretending that normality exists only between opposite genders and not in same gender ex/inclusivity.

And what do you mean by "the incremental increase in individual freedom?" Please explain that because it sounds like a bunch of nonsense double speak that thrives on university campuses.

I think your reasoning,even if you are playing devil's advocate is weak and harkens back to the male and female stereotypes of years gone by.

And the 'extreme risk to our culture and society'? Get real. I don't think things can get much worse for the so-called family unit however dysfunctional. If anything, I think kids growing up in same sex marriages would have more tolerance than the prescribed notion put for by church and state.

that's kinda the whole trick isn't it. Any argument against gay marriage will be fundamentally flawed and will have no basis in logic or reason.
Basically, in order to fulfill the assignment, he has to sound like a dumbass ;)

You're welcome. It's the best I've got, but it's pretty weak. OFKU0 is right, it doesn't really hold much water. But it'll probably stand up in a debate.

I know, I know. It's almost entirely based on scare tactic and opinion (two of the classic logical fallacies).

I'm not saying I was convinced by any of that. But it's the best I've got if I HAD to argue against same-sex marriage.

The whole (gay) marriage thing is just more evidence that the United States has more work to do on religious separation.

Join the cause!

Didn't mean to jump all over you ratbastid and I know what your saying. The scare tactics and opinions put forth against this type of union by the state and mainly church are nonsensical.

I would suggest one way for lafemmefatale to debate the anti-gay aspect is by defining the causal societal effects individually or other wise as secondary to the power that can and will be lost by both state and church by the acceptance of gay marriages. This however from the state and church point of views must be done without acknowledging the vast amount of power already available by both. Hence the cry of victimhood by both because of the eroding political and religious values that are supposedly cast in stone. That arguement will get someones attention.

On a stricly social level, I agree with your argument. However, a legal definition is necessary because of other aspects of our lives where the law affects us--and I'm not talking about tax breaks. There are certain wards in hospitals that only allow visits from family (which would include a spouse). In theory (and I'm sure it's happened in practice), a gay person could be denied the right to see his or her life partner in the hospital because he or she would not be considered "family" under the current laws (in the US). Just to drive the point home... now imagine that the person's life partner dies while still in the hospital.

this whole thing that bush is doing will be looked back on in 40 years and resemble the segregation laws

interesting that a mayor in NY state did the same thing that the mayor in SF did...and he's been arrested.

New York mayor criminally charged with marrying gays



THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


NEW PALTZ — The mayor of this village was criminally charged Tuesday for marrying gay couples who did not have a license. Jason West faces 19 separate counts of solemnizing a marriage without a license, a misdemeanor under the domestic relations law, according to Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams.
Although West could face a maximum penalty of up to two years in county jail, Williams said a jail term wasn’t being contemplated at this point.

The 26-year-old Green Party mayor said he will plead innocent at his court hearing Wednesday evening and that he would still go through with his plans to marry one to two dozen gay couples Saturday.

“I’m incredibly disappointed,” West said. “Apparently, it’s a crime to uphold the constitution of New York state.”

West performed wedding ceremonies for 25 gay couples on Friday, making him the second mayor in the country to perform same-sex marriages. It also made this small college village 75 miles north of New York City another flash point in the national debate over gay marriage.

More than 3,400 couples have been married in San Francisco and West has about 1,000 couples on a waiting list. Punishment for the misdemeanor could run from a $25 to $500 fine to jail time.

Williams said he still did not know whether West performed the marriage for his own gain or after bad legal advice.

“If he’s doing it sincerely out of a moral conviction and out of some naive misunderstanding of the law, then that would enter into the equation,” Williams said. Williams said his charges do not judge whether gay marriage is legal in New York, only that the weddings were performed without a marriage license.

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said he will decide this week whether New York law allows gay marriage. He did not comment Tuesday night on the criminal charges.

Williams said the misdemeanor complaint lists 19 charges — instead of 25 for the number of weddings performed — because police at the scene provided eyewitness accounts of only 19 ceremonies. He said more charges are possible.

With West vowing to go through with more gay weddings, opponents had hoped Williams would act to stop him. But he said he did not have the legal power to do that. West said the prospect of further punishment does not deter him. He said the newlywed couples inspire him.

“Just the looks on their faces, just the absolute joy of finally being able to be equal,” he said. “...That is the highest moral calling I could possibly imagine.”

State Sen. Thomas Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and one of three openly gay state lawmakers, called Williams actions “malicious” and ignorant.

“Does the Ulster County D.A. really want to put someone in jail for recognizing long-term relationships between people?” he said. “Does he really want to put in jail someone who recognizes same-sex families? Really, the Ulster County D.A. should be prosecuted for malicious prosecution, which is a felony in New York.”

Originally published on March 2, 2004
http://nydailynews.com/front/breakin...p-148188c.html

i only suport gay marriage if both chicks are hot

You guys should read what AR gov. Mike Huckabee thinks about it:

He said it's a fact of human history that marriage has always been understood as being between a man and a woman.

"And once we change that definition, where's the next change, polygamy?" he said. "It's the same because if the tradition has been historically one man, one woman in a marital relationship, and if you can change that tradition, then any tradition is open to change. That's undeniable."

He said many men and some women might want multiple relationships.

"Could you legitimize that and call it marriage? Why not. You could, once you've decided that you're going to change what has forever been ... I don't know that you could go back in any part of history and say there once was a time when marriage meant something different than one man, one woman. You can't do that."

Being, originally, a baptist preacher, Mike doesn't know his biblical history. Polygamy is older than the bible and many of the most important characters in the old testament were polygamous!


This I ask you: HOW does gay marriage jeopardize my marriage to my wife? if 1 million homosexuals get married, how is my wonderful union to her lessened? i am sure at a loss to explain it.