JokingClown

This is entirely written by me, although, most of the ideas I have compiled over time from other people, and even the ones I thought up on my own have been thought up countless times by others.


I believe that gays should have the right to marry into a union in the same manner as heterosexuals enjoy. Currently, in the United States, civil unions do not grant the same rights and privileges that a marriage does.

Those most strongly opposed to gay marriage are generally religious. One of the most used arguments in opposition of gay marriage centers on the fact that allowing gay marriage directly opposes God's teachings. This is an understandable concern.

I believe if we are to come to a solution on this issue, both sides must work towards a rational solution. One possible solution that I personally endorse is to divide that act of marriage into two entirely separate parts.

The first part would be a legal joining. This holds no religious implications. This is solely to join a couple together and grant them the rights associated with the joining. This includes joint custody of children, certain tax changes, etc. This applies to any two consenting adults and it is important to note the couple does not have to be sexual active. Any two good friends can be legally joined in this manner if they wish. And some ay wish to do so, even if they are not romantically involved with each other. Perhaps they have been friends for years, and love and trust each other so much (non-sexually) that they decide they want to combine the legal assets together. It's only a small step away from two long time friends who own a business and have joint ownership.

The second section would basically allow any religious or spiritual group to perform ceremonies and marriages how they wished within the parameters of the law. These would have no legal implications, which would allow freedom for all groups to perform the marriages how they wished, including the right to deny whomever they wish the privilege. The fact that government would not legally regulate these marriages does not imply it disapproves. It takes a neutral stance, because it does not need to meddle in those religious affairs, a current example is baptism, there is no reason for government to regulate baptism. This division would allow the most religious freedom to the most people while still allowing people to stick to their morals by not allowing certain people into the ceremonies. With this system, gay marriage would not be legally recognized, and ANY church who chose to not allow gay couples to marry, could do so freely. The only thing that would be recognized by the government would be the right for any two people to join many of the legal responsibilities, and their assets together.

With the above suggestion in mind, let's take a look at some common reasons given in support of banning gay marriage.

"We must preserve the sanctity of marriage"
In the Christian Bible, God warns his followers to not take marriage lightly. He goes as far as to condemn divorce and remarriage, except in a few special circumstances. The Bible also condemns sex out of wedlock. It is also blasphemous for someone who is a straight atheist to get married in a Christian ceremony, by a priest.

The "sanctity of marriage" is a very vague term, and the vast majority of those who use it do not actively condemn the above activities.

---------------------------
Slippery Slope Argument:

There should be as much sexual freedom as you can have while still ensuring that as few people as reasonably possible are abused, which is why there should be some clauses for people/things that can marry.

- They have to be able to decide for themselves that they want to get married, and able to communicate, and tell everyone that they do in fact want to get married. This is necessary so that we know no one is being forced into marriage. This at the same time excludes animals and objects. If an alien comes to earth that is intelligent and can communicate with us, and would like to marry an adult human, I see no reason to stop them. This is of course rather unlikely, and not really worth exploring since at the moment, since it is theoretical.
- Over the age of _?_. I leave the age blank, because there is no magical age at which everyone is mature enough to have sex or get married. All humans mature in different ways and at different speeds. But, I believe, like most of you, I am sure, that a five year old should not be having sex or getting married. Why? It isn't because they are short, or in the body of a five year-old. Midgets should be and are allowed to marry. The reason is because children's minds are more vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation. They can be tricked into believing all sorts of things easier then adults can. They are also growing rapidly, and what they believe they want now may change in a few months. Since it isn't logical to judge each child on a individual basis (too much work, and room for discrimination) an age should be set for all children. Many states in America, and countries use 16, 17 or 18.

-----------------------------
Gay marriage, or as the suggestion stated above calls for, "legal joining" does not hurt anyone. One popular claim is that if homosexuals are allowed to marry they will feel the need to make out in the streets, or perhaps, if gay marriage is legalized, a large percentage of the population will turn gay. Both claims are completely illogical and unfounded.

-------------------------------
"Marriage is between a man and a woman"
Sometimes this is used to imply that the "Founding Fathers" did not intend for gays to be able to marry, which I'm pretty sure is true. Then again, pointing this out is rather pointless. The Founding Fathers were not saints. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves and supported slavery. I realize using the slavery card is cliche, but something only becomes cliche because it must be repeated over and over again, even if it is still just as relevant as the first time.

Also, it should be noted that marriage was never originally a Christian ceremony, most or many cultures have a similar ceremony.

----------------------------------
"We must preserve the traditional marriage."

Up until recently, marriage was traditionally between two people of the same race. Marriage was traditionally between people of the same social class. Marriage was decided by the parents of those who were marrying. Until recently, the husband was traditionally the "king�" of the house, and the wife traditionally had no say in financial matters. I could go on, but my point should be obvious at this point. Perhaps gay marriage is wrong, but using the excuse of preserving tradition is illogical, unless you advocate preservation of every tradition.

Preserving traditions is not a bad thing, but it is illogical to preserve and continue a tradition just because it is a tradition, instead, some traditions should be preserved because they hold great value, and others should be preserved in history books.

-----------------------------------
"The gays are trying to push their Gay Agenda by pushing for Gay Marriage"
This argument really doesn't deserve my effort in writing a response. People said the same thing about blacks when they wanted equal rights. Cliche comparison? Yes. Relevant, appropriate and true? Yes. Most are asking for equal rights, not asking for extra. If by "Gay Agenda", you mean "Equality" then yes, they have an agenda. If by "Gay Agenda" you mean "Homosexual conspiracy to infiltrate America, take over the government, and destroy Christianity" then you are delusional.

--------------------------------------
"Gays want to steal money through tax benefits."
If straight couples can "œsteal" money through tax benefits, and gay couples want to be able to, how are they more evil?

---------------------------------------
"Homosexuality is not natural"
This statement's accuracy is debatable in itself, but as of now I'll ignore that. Choosing not to have sex until marriage is not natural. The Bible says God gave man free will so he could choose to make moral or immoral decisions.

----------------------------------
"Marriage, at its base, has always been a function to serve procreation, and should only be granted to straight couples, since gay couples cannot reproduce naturally".
Unless you are also advocating banning marriages of infertile couples, older couples who can longer bear children, and couples who openly say they don't plan on having any children, then this argument is fundamentally flawed.

---------------------------------
"If gays can get married, they'll be allowed to adopt easily, and they'll force and manipulate their kids into being gay."
While it is true that a few gay people will try to convince their kids to be gay, this claim is blown way out of proportion. Also, if you look at the thousands of cases where straight parents have disowned their children for being gay, beat up their kid for being gay, pushed their kids so far to committing suicide, etc, it becomes obvious that this argument works when only one side of the argument is shown. Both religious and atheist parents often try to strongly influence their children's religious beliefs.

---------------------------------
"AIDS is God's way of punishing gays."
Lesbians are the least likely of any sexual orientation to contract AIDS. Does that make lesbians God's chosen people?

If anyone wants to contact me outside of this thread, the email I use is: LoganMontgomery@gmail.com