Gay Marriage

[DarkWarrior]

DarkWarrior, heres what I have a problem with. What you are basically saying is that homosexuality should be allowed to have marriages (leaaving religon out of this purely), but not be allowed child support benefits.

Exactly.

So, gay male couples who can't have kids outside adobtion won't have child benefit support.
I doubt that will get many complaints.

Actually, it would.

Lesbian couples, who could feasible have access to IVF (and in fact here in Britain do), and can also adobt kids however is a different story.

Just because they have access doesn't mean they should use the access. I'm not a big fan of IVF myself in the first place anyways.

And before you start on how Families need to be kept together with roles for both parents, allow to me to tell the tale of my childhood. When I was growing up, in the city of Oxford, my mum was our families breadwinner, while my dad stayed back home and looked after me and myy brother. This resulted in my sterotypes getting twisted from alot of people consider normal by this. I thought it strange that my friend's mothers looked after them. Does this not say that different genders can fill in the other gender's sterotyical role? But even so, it's highly unlikely that a kid won't have role models for either gender somewhere in their lives, unless the family lives in a cave.

Saying that a child needs a mother and father is not stereotypical. I agree that there are a lot of circumstances that people are forced to live with. But if people don't set standards for society, society is doomed to fail. In an everything-goes world, people find misery. I cite the whole damned country for this. The people are leaning towards the liberal end of everything, and everyone's miserable. No structure at all. Also, in your instance, you're just citing what they did, but not the true roles they played in your life.

So, in other words, gay couples shouldn't have child benefit, unless they adobt (in which case a different benefit should come into play) or a lesbian couple apply for IVF or other forms of artifical fertilisation (where legal), in which case they should be able to get benefit. Clear?

No, not "clear", and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't talk down to me like that. I disagree totally with homosexual adoption and IVF and the like. Subsequently, I do not believe the child-support benefits should be there.

However, if people do want to get married (gay or not), it should be legal. The church should choose whether or not they wish to marry the couple because I do think it is unfair if they are forced to do something against their beliefs. You would not want someone to force you to do something you believed is immoral, so why should the church be made to?

Well, first and foremost, I am getting a bit weary of this "Oh, you shouldn't go by anything based on what the church says." If people find that their moral & political decisions line up with that, then they should be making their decisions that way, not based on what makes another group happy.
That being said, society needs to set limits and standards. Without those, there is no society, only something resembling anarchy.

And now, for all of you who think being gay is a matter of choice: For the last time, IT'S NOT !!!

Whether or not it is or isn't, it doesn't really play a role in this issue.

I definitly don't care whether churches want to marry homosexual couples or not, because for me it's not neccessary, BUT I do care about my rights! And aslong as homosexual marriage is not allowed homosexuals do not have the same rights as other people.

Last I checked, state-defined marriage wasn't a right, but a benefit. Don't confuse the two.
And like I said, there is a distinct difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple, and I've made my reasoning based on that distinction. Look back and read up a bit on that.

So regardless of what you believe, I hope you will all agree, that all people must have the same rights.
And also regardless of what you believe, you will notice that that's not the case as long as homosexual marriage is not allowed.

Again, state-defined marriage is a benefit for couples, not a right. And I'm having a bit of a problem understanding that second sentence.

Any more questions?

Why do you insist on same-level benefits on two different relationships? You can not deny, no matter how much you dislike it, that there is a fundamental difference between homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships, and that being the ability to naturally have children. The difference is there, and why do you insist on same-level treatment of that? I've said that the benefits of the couple should be there, without the child-support benefits due to that difference. Why do they need to be there?

Also, if marriage is a declaration of love, then why are there child-support benefits within it? If that's all marriage were, a declaration of love, the support benefits would not be there in the first place. But they're there, and this leaves a big, gaping hole in the theory of "Marriage is all about love".

And, why should society suddenly change because it would please a smaller group? Marriage has been around for quite some time, and now, all of a sudden, a group has decided it wants to change that, regardless of what that means overall. Again, without limits, there is no society. So where and when is the line drawn? It needs to be somewhere, and regardless of where, some people aren't going to like it.

[Amber]

Well, first and foremost, I am getting a bit weary of this "Oh, you shouldn't go by anything based on what the church says." If people find that their moral & political decisions line up with that, then they should be making their decisions that way, not based on what makes another group happy.
That being said, society needs to set limits and standards. Without those, there is no society, only something resembling anarchy.

I said nothing about that. I said that the church should not be forced to marry gays, seeing as they believe it is immoral. I believe gay marriage should be legal, but let the church decide whether or not they wish to marry gay couples.

Society as a whole is changing. Canada and the US are countries with many different people. Now, I will bring up the point that the church should not play a part in our government. It's unfair that the government in the US is Christian. There are so many different people from various societies that it is cruel that the government would make a certain group of people feel like they are lesser because of some Christian beliefs. Just because Christianity would not set all of the morals for the country (that a lot of people don't follow anymore) does not mean there would not be limits.

[Amaryllon]

And I'm having a bit of a problem understanding that second sentence.

Is it the meaning or the language? (My english is not so good... so sorry if it was the language...)

Why do you insist on same-level benefits on two different relationships?

To say it in rather extrem words: It's just a few steps from "It's just not the same.." to "It's much less... They shouldn't have rights anyway..."
Ok, that was very extrem, but I hope it makes my point clear.
And I still don't understand what you, DW, have against a homosexual couple adopting children... There are surprisingly many families like that, living happily together! (Well at least in germany there are, I don't know about the USA.)
If you succed in convincing me without saying things like "It's just not natural.." then I'll be happy and stop posting in this thread!^^

[DarkWarrior]

I said nothing about that. I said that the church should not be forced to marry gays, seeing as they believe it is immoral. I believe gay marriage should be legal, but let the church decide whether or not they wish to marry gay couples.

But why should it be legal? Again, you're ignoring the reasoning, just saying it should be.

Society as a whole is changing. Canada and the US are countries with many different people.

This isn't just mere change, this is a rather sudden twist in what's been the standard since the founding of the country. It's radical, and, even if it were right, it's just a ridiculously sudden move.

Now, I will bring up the point that the church should not play a part in our government. It's unfair that the government in the US is Christian. There are so many different people from various societies that it is cruel that the government would make a certain group of people feel like they are lesser because of some Christian beliefs. Just because Christianity would not set all of the morals for the country (that a lot of people don't follow anymore) does not mean there would not be limits.

Then who should run it? The atheists? Hardly, they're already pushing their "Remove God from every public form of ANYTHING!" agenda. There needs to be more acceptance of the other religious beliefs, not a deterrent of all of them. Also, if it's a Christian majority in this country, then, uh, why force a non-Christian government? For the few to get what they want? You're not looking at the bigger picture here.

Is it the meaning or the language? (My english is not so good... so sorry if it was the language...)

The whole sentence, it was worded in a way that made it incomprehensible.

And also regardless of what you believe, you will notice that that's not the case as long as homosexual marriage is not allowed.

What's the case? And what about homosexual marriage not being allowed? What do these relate to?

And I still don't understand what you, DW, have against a homosexual couple adopting children... There are surprisingly many families like that, living happily together! (Well at least in germany there are, I don't know about the USA.)
If you succed in convincing me without saying things like "It's just not natural.." then I'll be happy and stop posting in this thread!^^

Because I've found The arguments against it here to be better and more well-grounded than the "It's all about love and everything goes" logic.

[Someguy]

Sorry if this is in a small way off topic, but.........

There needs to be more acceptance of the other religious beliefs, not a deterrent of all of them.

So what minor/frowned upon religions/beliefs that accept gay marriage, such as Satanism or Nihilism? Should they also be accepted DW?

[Amaryllon]

Sorry DW, I've read everything what you have written so far and I don't see ANY logic argument against homosexual marriage...
Yes you're right, marriage is not "all about love". That's the past. Today, it's indeed a construct of benefits that helps families. But that's no argument against homosexual marriage, since a homosexual couple can adopt children and (since you gave us that link) even use today's technological advances to get biological related children!
So there is even no argument against homosexual marriage because of reproductional reasons.
There is in fact no difference between "normal" and homosexual marriage.
Oh and before I forget it, against the adopting of children by homosexual couples:

I believe that the differences between the parents' genders actually matters in a family

It matters not. Just search the Internet.

So your main points from post #7 are disproven. They CAN have children AND children adopted by them develope just as normal as others.
So much to DW, who is almost the only one who is arguing against homosexual marriage logically. (More or less... ...Sorry, I couldn't hold it back ^^)

Any other arguing against it is either religiously founded or just the fact that some people are afraid of things that are "different".
If you said something that disproves that I must have missed it, because I don't see anything...

[inamerica55585]

are you saying homosexuals are second class citizens? by saying that, you have effectively called most of the catholic faith racist. or maybe not. but I don't care, since I'm jewish. speaking of jews, reform judiasm has nothing against gay marriage and would marry a gay couple without complaint. so would several other faiths. gay people are certainly no different than heterosexuals, and not enough people realize that most gay people are discreet about their homosexuality and it barely influences their personality if at all. not all gays are flamboyant about it. and that's all I have to say about that.

[RedRook]

Gay people are simply better than normal people. I mean who started saying straights could marry? Thats blatantly wrong and an affront to marriage as a whole. There is nothing good about two straight people marrying, all it does it cause misery and dysfunctional children.

Now when you think about this statement which part of it makes it false? The part that straight people are worse than gay people or is it thew idea that someone in the world believes that? I for one just tend to believe that people are inherently scared of things they don't understand and if a guy sticking it to another guy scares you, that just means you should stop thinking about it or get over it. Seriously, like if two women decide they want to be together by legality standards (which mind you can be done outside of a Christian church and in all reality has just as much to do with the Christian Church as genocide does, I.E. sure they do it a lot but they're not the only ones who do, or matter) it really makes a difference on the world around them or effects others in any way. Same with Gay Adoption. So what? if two people are willing to take care of a kid then they have the right to as long as they don't hurt the kid. I've seen almost every friend I have raised by straight parents and they turned out generally abused, neglected and mentally scarred, so claiming that two gay people will mess up a kid holds very little, petty and selfish merit. If that kid grows up to be Gay, guess what? Makes no difference to anyone. Theres almost 7 billion people in the world, 9 or 10 Homosexuals don't make the world any worse than the seething cesspool of pus it already is. As a matter of fact it can only make it better because then you have at least 9 or 10 people in the world who will eventually realize their own insecurities instead of a world full of people who hide behind their wall of massed idiocies to eventually vomit forth great pukes of acid to make up for their own insecurities and selfishness.

Have a fun day.

[DarkWarrior]

Sorry DW, I've read everything what you have written so far and I don't see ANY logic argument against homosexual marriage...
Yes you're right, marriage is not "all about love". That's the past. Today, it's indeed a construct of benefits that helps families. But that's no argument against homosexual marriage, since a homosexual couple can adopt children and (since you gave us that link) even use today's technological advances to get biological related children!

A technology that I feel should not be used. Just because people can do something doesn't mean they should or that it should be publicly endorsed.
Also, if you were right, and marriage is currently about love, then there would be no child support benefits.

See, there's something you fail to understand here. I don't care how many artificial means the two people can use to have children. They're artificial, and should not be used. Period. So regardless of what they can do, I believe that they shouldn't be doing it. Again, I have no problem with them getting legal recognition. It just should not have the child support benefits that traditional marriage has.

It matters not. Just search the Internet.

The same internet that has places that states that it does matter.

So your main points from post #7 are disproven. They CAN have children AND children adopted by them develope just as normal as others.

Explain how a gay couple can have children without any third party. I also disagree with homosexual adoption, so, as far as I'm concerned, point #7 stands.

[RedRook]

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>

[DarkWarrior]

It appears as if you can't present a point in anything but the wrong way. Act mature. Idiotic sarcasm will get you nowhere. Have a point to make? Make it without using the terrible method you used.

[Amber]

But why should it be legal? Again, you're ignoring the reasoning, just saying it should be.

You didn't ask for my reasoning. But if you want it, I believe it should be legal because I don't think the church should be involved with the government. The government should not control what goes on in the bedroom.

This isn't just mere change, this is a rather sudden twist in what's been the standard since the founding of the country. It's radical, and, even if it were right, it's just a ridiculously sudden move.

It doesn't affect anyone but gays. If you don't like gay marriage, ignore it. Don't marry a gay or go to their weddings. Canada made this change and we're doing just fine.

Then who should run it? The atheists? Hardly, they're already pushing their "Remove God from every public form of ANYTHING!" agenda. There needs to be more acceptance of the other religious beliefs, not a deterrent of all of them. Also, if it's a Christian majority in this country, then, uh, why force a non-Christian government? For the few to get what they want? You're not looking at the bigger picture here.

Religious beliefs should not run the country at all -- that includes the atheists. I agree that religious beliefs need to be more respected, but that's something that society needs to work on.
There are not just a "few" non-Christians in America. The bigger picture is that the non-Christian population is growing and it will continue to grow, so therefore the government needs to change.

[Amaryllon]

/quote of myself/ Sorry DW, I've read everything what you have written so far and I don't see ANY logic argument against homosexual marriage...
Yes you're right, marriage is not "all about love". That's the past. Today, it's indeed a construct of benefits that helps families. But that's no argument against homosexual marriage, since a homosexual couple can adopt children and (since you gave us that link) even use today's technological advances to get biological related children! quote of myself
[...]
Also, if you were right, and marriage is currently about love, then there would be no child support benefits.

I guess I missunderstood you, but I said that love is NOT about love but to support families and that's why there are child support benefits!

I don't care how many artificial means the two people can use to have children. They're artificial, and should not be used.

...And WHY do you think they shouldn't use it? Let me guess... it's because of your religious beliefs! XD No, really, why shouldn't they use it?

The same internet that has places that states that it does matter.

You are very difficult, you know? Let's say it like this:
As I said before many homosexual couples have children and these children have developed perfectly well so far.
There boys and girls, 3-year-olds, 16-year-olds, almost anything...
Well this doesn't prove or disprove anything, BUT according to this it's much more likely that children develope in such a "special" families just as they would do in any other family. So PLEASE don't be so (excuse me) naive and stick to your "They shouldn't raise children"-attitude.

Explain how a gay couple can have children without any third party.

That's really no argument... There are many heterosexual couples who can't have children without a third party.
And even if there weren't it would still be no argument, since it doesn't mean that they couldn't raise children.
EDIT: It appears I can't quote in a quote...

[DarkWarrior]

You didn't ask for my reasoning. But if you want it, I believe it should be legal because I don't think the church should be involved with the government. The government should not control what goes on in the bedroom.

Uh, how does not making the relationship a marriage control what goes on in the bedroom?
Also, as I said before, if people feel that their political viewpoints line up with what the church teaches, you can't tell them not to. That's the same "opression" that people claim the church is doing.

It doesn't affect anyone but gays. If you don't like gay marriage, ignore it. Don't marry a gay or go to their weddings. Canada made this change and we're doing just fine.

The problem doesn't go away if you "just ignore it". I believe that the negative impact on society will make itself present, not immediately, but in the long run.

Religious beliefs should not run the country at all -- that includes the atheists. I agree that religious beliefs need to be more respected, but that's something that society needs to work on.

I'm interested in hearing more on how this might be accomplished. Please, elaborate for me.

There are not just a "few" non-Christians in America. The bigger picture is that the non-Christian population is growing and it will continue to grow, so therefore the government needs to change.

The government needs to change when society is ready to change it. Forcing it to change in the current manner isn't a wise idea. Government changes need to be gradual, not sudden.

...And WHY do you think they shouldn't use it? Let me guess... it's because of your religious beliefs! XD No, really, why shouldn't they use it?

Because of the reasons I stated many previous times in this topic.

You are very difficult, you know? Let's say it like this:
As I said before many homosexual couples have children and these children have developed perfectly well so far.
There boys and girls, 3-year-olds, 16-year-olds, almost anything...
Well this doesn't prove or disprove anything, BUT according to this it's much more likely that children develope in such a "special" families just as they would do in any other family. So PLEASE don't be so (excuse me) naive and stick to your "They shouldn't raise children"-attitude.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge based on the current situation. This will change things drastically over time. Not just now.

That's really no argument... There are many heterosexual couples who can't have children without a third party.
And even if there weren't it would still be no argument, since it doesn't mean that they couldn't raise children.
EDIT: It appears I can't quote in a quote...

I've actually addressed this too.

[Amber]

Uh, how does not making the relationship a marriage control what goes on in the bedroom?
Also, as I said before, if people feel that their political viewpoints line up with what the church teaches, you can't tell them not to. That's the same "opression" that people claim the church is doing.

I'm done stating my opinion over and over. So I really have no more to say on this.

The problem doesn't go away if you "just ignore it". I believe that the negative impact on society will make itself present, not immediately, but in the long run.

I'm saying if you don't like gay marriage, ignore it. It does not affect you. It is not a negative thing for two gay people to be joined together -- they aren't going to set some example for our whole society to turn into "sinners". People need to be more open-minded to alternative lifestyles.

I'm interested in hearing more on how this might be accomplished. Please, elaborate for me.

Who said I have a solution? There are still lots of prejudice people, and they need to learn how to be more tolerant of other beliefs/races/etc. Society has changed some (Black people are no longers enslaved, "witches" are not being burned at the stake, etc.) but we still have a long way to go.

The government needs to change when society is ready to change it. Forcing it to change in the current manner isn't a wise idea. Government changes need to be gradual, not sudden.

Obviously going totally liberal all at once is going to upset [some] people. But, I will still use the example of how Canada legalised gay marriage and we are fine. Of course some people don't like it, but we haven't turned into savages because we have no "boundaries" or "morals".

[DarkWarrior]

I'm saying if you don't like gay marriage, ignore it. It does not affect you. It is not a negative thing for two gay people to be joined together -- they aren't going to set some example for our whole society to turn into "sinners". People need to be more open-minded to alternative lifestyles.

Open minded != willing to accept and embrace it. I'm not going to ignore what I see as a problem, because, as I said, ignoring the problem doesn't stop the problem.

Who said I have a solution? There are still lots of prejudice people, and they need to learn how to be more tolerant of other beliefs/races/etc. Society has changed some (Black people are no longers enslaved, "witches" are not being burned at the stake, etc.) but we still have a long way to go.

You suggested that society has to be more tolerant to different religious and cultural heritages, all of them. I want to know exactly how this would work, out of sheer curiosity.

Obviously going totally liberal all at once is going to upset [some] people. But, I will still use the example of how Canada legalised gay marriage and we are fine. Of course some people don't like it, but we haven't turned into savages because we have no "boundaries" or "morals".

I never said that we'd be savages. But I expect society to evolve in a way that will eventually be less than what it could be. It's way too early to start using other countries "success" of gay marriage.

[Amaryllon]

I wouldn't be so quick to judge based on the current situation. This will change things drastically over time. Not just now.

Could you enlighten me what could ever change drastically? I mean, do you honestly believe that anyone who has been raised by homosexuals turns out to be homosexual himself?
Being homosexual is neither a matter of choice nor a matter of education. There are many factors that may influence whether a person is homosexual or not. Some of them are some genes which are making it more likely. (Scientists are not quite sure which genes but they are quite sure that there are some.)
Another may be the surrounding in which a child grows up. (Scientists are not quite sure in this point, but surprisingly (for you that is) according to researches done so far it's often not a homosexual surrounding that makes homosexuality more likely but a surrounding where the own gender is very dominant.)
As you can see I often write things like "Scientists are not quite sure" so you could say my argumentation may not be well-founded BUT you can still see that anyone who thinks that homosexuals only raise more homosexuals is just narrowminded and naive. Sorry to say it like that, but that's it...
And I REALLY hope that you are not one of these fools (again, sorry..) but according to what you've written so far one could think that you may be one of them, but as I said, I really hope you're not..

I'm not going to post in this thread again because I think this topic is too much for me..

My last words: I hope anyone who thinks homosexual marriage should not be allowed will come to his/her senses.

[DarkWarrior]

You apparently don't pay attention to much that I say, else that would not be the conclusion you'd have drawn.

My last words: I hope anyone who thinks homosexual marriage should not be allowed will come to his/her senses.

That is sheer arrogance, and will not win anyone over to your cause at all.

[ArtificialRobot]

1) A moderator with strong feelings on a certain topic should not be allowed to moderate content in a thread on that topic. It just plain looks bad for the forum as a whole. Especially when it alienates a significant portion of the forum's population.

2) Every person is a person. That is to say, we are all the same, and should be treated as such.

3) I think it's hilarious when religious people have to fall back on the ideas of evolution to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

3a) If homosexuality were wrong, evolution would have weeded it out a long, long, long, long time ago.

4) Don't want to give homosexuals (et al) equal rights? Then take them away from everyone.

5) If you are anti-gay I seriously recommend swallowing your pride and befriending someone who is gay. They aren't as scary or sinful as you think.

6) Who else will adopt all of the kids the unwed single mothers put up for adoption? I mean, we have to make up for the fact that we demonize birth control, tell people condoms give them AIDS, destroy a woman's right to choose, and improperly subscribe abstinence to innately curious creatures (who would make better choices in their lives if only they were privileged enough to be properly educated)?

6a) And for IVF, I mean, since we can't use them for stem cells they might as well go somewhere.

7) To those opposed to gay-marriage - if they make it legal, are you suddenly going to go run off and marry someone of the same sex? Probably not, unless you were gay to begin with. It's a little thing called none of your business.

8) I'd like to see an argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I challenge someone to seriously present such an argument, and to make it compelling. It would stand to say that if one really cared as much as they said they cared about the topic, then they would take up the challenge.

9) Atheists are concerned with many issues, not just taking religion out of the affairs of a secular public (a/k/a - maintaining the true definition of secular). I personally prefer the term secular humanist. Don't make the mistake of assuming they want to take religion away just because they have to repair the massive amounts of damage that religion has done to our world as a whole.

10) Remember that part about people being equal? If opposed to gay marriage, try to explain how homosexuals are a different species. That might be the only way to convince anyone of the argument. Of course, then one would have to go up against PETH (People for the Ethical Treatment of Homosexuals).

11) To say that gays are not equal to others is an irrational statement. The expression "Coming to your senses" really means that one needs to think rationally again. I believe this goes back to what has been said about equality, proving homosexuals aren't humans, and not using religion as an excuse?

12) Returning to IVF. Would the "it's artificial so don't do it" excuse extend to everything? Stop going to the doctor. Don't use a hearing aid. Rip out the pacemaker. Remove the metal plate. Take off your glasses. Turn off your heat in the winter and build a fire in your livingroom. Throw away your microwave. Raise livestock and crops on a farm. Don't use the internet. Don't wear clothes. Don't use tools.

12a) Kind of reminds of me of how no matter what a god says, we are still selective about what to take literally and what to take metaphorically, depending on what we chose to believe outside of said god. The same thing applies here - we don't stop using artificial means elsewhere because it would be an inconvenience to us.

Overall, I suppose my theme here is "all or none." By the way, I obviously support the idea of equal rights.

[killshot]

I also disagree with homosexual adoption

I challenge you to provide one logical reason why homosexuals should not be able to adopt. For someone who is against abortion you sure are picky about who can adopt. Two people of the same sex are perfectly capable of providing for a child. I see no reason why adoption should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

[Zalera]

I challenge you to provide one logical reason why homosexuals should not be able to adopt. For someone who is against abortion you sure are picky about who can adopt. Two people of the same sex are perfectly capable of providing for a child. I see no reason why adoption should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

I think that he has the impression that the parents will spread their "homosexual agenda" and "turn"/raise the kids to become gay themselves. That seems to be the most common response when anti-marriage people are asked this particular question. Actually, that's the only answer I've ever received. But of course, you were asking DW and not me so feel free to ignore my answer. ^^ -my 2 cents

[DarkWarrior]

1) A moderator with strong feelings on a certain topic should not be allowed to moderate content in a thread on that topic. It just plain looks bad for the forum as a whole. Especially when it alienates a significant portion of the forum's population.

I'd like you to cite a specific instance of using the abilities I have as a way to further my own opinions. Can't show, irrelevant statement. On the other hand, I was the one that pushed and pushed for this forum to be made so that the community (Moderators and Administrators are both parts of the community) could engage in legitimate discussion/debate.

2) Every person is a person. That is to say, we are all the same, and should be treated as such.

Great, but that doesn't explain why an entire institution institution should be changed. Marriage concerns more than one party, therefor, the "every person is a person" argument doesn't apply, because it involves more than one person, and needs a definition of what the institution is.

3) I think it's hilarious when religious people have to fall back on the ideas of evolution to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

And I think it's sad that people who tend to back up the more liberal idealisms spend time mocking other people's religious beliefs.

4) Don't want to give homosexuals (et al) equal rights? Then take them away from everyone.

Marriage isn't a "right". It's a special grant.

5) If you are anti-gay I seriously recommend swallowing your pride and befriending someone who is gay. They aren't as scary or sinful as you think.

...What? Where the hell did I say either one of those things? You have no idea who my friends are, and are assuming an awful lot based on nothing.

6) Who else will adopt all of the kids the unwed single mothers put up for adoption? I mean, we have to make up for the fact that we demonize birth control, tell people condoms give them AIDS, destroy a woman's right to choose, and improperly subscribe abstinence to innately curious creatures (who would make better choices in their lives if only they were privileged enough to be properly educated)?

We don't have to "make up for the fact". Simply because if people bothered to learn self control, all these issues would be irrelevant. People don't, and I blame people who blatantly advertise and justify birth control & condoms as an to self-control. Like it or not, that's what you're doing.

7) To those opposed to gay-marriage - if they make it legal, are you suddenly going to go run off and marry someone of the same sex? Probably not, unless you were gay to begin with. It's a little thing called none of your business.

It's society's business, regardless of whether or not you like it.

8) I'd like to see an argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I challenge someone to seriously present such an argument, and to make it compelling. It would stand to say that if one really cared as much as they said they cared about the topic, then they would take up the challenge.

Did that.

9) Atheists are concerned with many issues, not just taking religion out of the affairs of a secular public (a/k/a - maintaining the true definition of secular). I personally prefer the term secular humanist. Don't make the mistake of assuming they want to take religion away just because they have to repair the massive amounts of damage that religion has done to our world as a whole.p

Because the liberal ideals of most atheists have done such a wonderful job for humanity as a whole so far. Really, no, it hasn't. Most of the ideas of the atheists and the left-wing as a whole have left so many problems, it's sad. Especially after the sexual revolution of the 60s. Childhood pregnancy and STDs have been awfully high since then. I wouldn't call that "repairing" damage in the slightest.

10) Remember that part about people being equal? If opposed to gay marriage, try to explain how homosexuals are a different species. That might be the only way to convince anyone of the argument. Of course, then one would have to go up against PETH (People for the Ethical Treatment of Homosexuals).

Stupid leap of logic that I'm not even going to bother addressing.

11) To say that gays are not equal to others is an irrational statement. The expression "Coming to your senses" really means that one needs to think rationally again. I believe this goes back to what has been said about equality, proving homosexuals aren't humans, and not using religion as an excuse?

Because the big argument is that homosexuals aren't humans, right? Please, show me this.

12) Returning to IVF. Would the "it's artificial so don't do it" excuse extend to everything? Stop going to the doctor. Don't use a hearing aid. Rip out the pacemaker. Remove the metal plate. Take off your glasses. Turn off your heat in the winter and build a fire in your livingroom. Throw away your microwave. Raise livestock and crops on a farm. Don't use the internet. Don't wear clothes. Don't use tools.

We're talking about the start of a sentient life and where that life will be, not simple health issues. The two are unequivocal, therefor, this argument is void.

I challenge you to provide one logical reason why homosexuals should not be able to adopt. For someone who is against abortion you sure are picky about who can adopt. Two people of the same sex are perfectly capable of providing for a child. I see no reason why adoption should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

Because the natural difference between a father and a mother is not present. I believe that adoption should be limited to a married couple, with no bad history together, for that reason. Children have a right to both, and people are more concerned with giving homosexual couples their desires than giving these children what they need.

[killshot]

Because the natural difference between a father and a mother is not present. I believe that adoption should be limited to a married couple, with no bad history together, for that reason. Children have a right to both, and people are more concerned with giving homosexual couples their desires than giving these children what they need.

Should divorce be made illegal because it denies children of a mother or father? I would think having two mothers or two fathers is preferable to a single parent.

That being said, I have researched this matter further and discovered that there does exist substantial evidence that supports DarkWarrior's claims. Although I am still strongly in favor homosexual marriage, I think more studies need to be conducted before gay couples are allowed to adopt. Its important to remember that the needs of the children come before the civil rights struggle. I would encourage everyone to research this subject in more detial before drawing rash conclusions as I have.

[darkarcher]

There is quite a bit here that is interesting, and I would like to address all of it. However, there is just too much volume to reply to, so I will just say one thing and let the discussion continue.

I think it's hilarious when religious people have to fall back on the ideas of evolution to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

This confuses me, because you tell people to come from a non-religious angle, so they come from an evolutionary angle as a way to relate to you. Then you try to shoot them down for that.

Anyway, what I would like to hear are the reasons people say that homosexuality is right, since we keep addressing why it is or isn't wrong but never get the other side. However, I would like for whoever answers this to avoid the "love" approach unless they want to prove it from a religious standpoint, since "love" from an evolutionary standpoint would merely be considered an instinct promoting procreation and therefore against homosexuality.

[Someguy]

Sorry to pick a person out and that I could not find the quote from him, but DW said that if a 'sudden change' was made to society, such as suddenly allowing gays all the rights straight people have in marriage, it would be disastrous (or bad, or something like that), so why not take it in steps? Would that be wrong too? Start with civil unions, and see where it goes from there. If that works, then move a small step further, and so on.
Eventually, gay marriage will then POSSIBLY not only have an existence, but it will in time POSSIBLY be accepted as an equal to straight marriage. If not made as a sudden change, but taken in slow steps, would it still be wrong?

EDIT: ALSO, DW, you have also stated that religions should be recognized as equal, so what about religions that support and/or accept gay marriage? Religions that would allow it? Should they also be respected then? Or are you not counting them as religions, or thinking that they should be exceptions to the ideas of equality of religions?

I would really like a response to these points...as I check this forum every day to see what people have to say... :)

[DarkWarrior]

Sorry to pick a person out and that I could not find the quote from him, but DW said that if a 'sudden change' was made to society, such as suddenly allowing gays all the rights straight people have in marriage, it would be disastrous (or bad, or something like that), so why not take it in steps? Would that be wrong too? Start with civil unions, and see where it goes from there. If that works, then move a small step further, and so on.
Eventually, gay marriage will then POSSIBLY not only have an existence, but it will in time POSSIBLY be accepted as an equal to straight marriage. If not made as a sudden change, but taken in slow steps, would it still be wrong?

If the end result will be the same as a sudden change, than yes, it would still be wrong. I don't see either method working, I was just addressing a specific point there.

EDIT: ALSO, DW, you have also stated that religions should be recognized as equal, so what about religions that support and/or accept gay marriage? Religions that would allow it? Should they also be respected then? Or are you not counting them as religions, or thinking that they should be exceptions to the ideas of equality of religions?

Then they should be able to get married in their church, plain and simple. I just don't believe the government should be extending the definition of marriage to gay couples, when that extension includes the child support benefits. Throw out an alternative that doesn't include the child-support benefits, and I'll gladly support it. Also, said alternative would need to keep the benefits there for heterosexual couples.

Should divorce be made illegal because it denies children of a mother or father? I would think having two mothers or two fathers is preferable to a single parent.

It depends on the case. If it's for some benign reason that really doesn't affect the children (Even the cheating on of a partner really shouldn't affect the children), then no, there shouldn't be a divorce issue there. If there's something more serious going on, like abuse, then divorce would probably be the best solution. While the child should have both parents, in such an instance as that, separating the child from one parent is necessary. One might argue "But you said they need both a mother and a father", and that's true. However, separating the child from the good parent would probably do quite a bit more harm to the child.

The thing is that with divorce, most of the time, the parents aren't thinking of what's best for the children. I suspect the mentality is "Oh, they'll learn to cope.", but really, that's selfish motivation and isn't taking into account what those kids need. The two made a commitment when they got married, and they need to honor that.

[agrajagthetesty]

The thing is that with divorce, most of the time, the parents aren't thinking of what's best for the children. I suspect the mentality is "Oh, they'll learn to cope.", but really, that's selfish motivation and isn't taking into account what those kids need. The two made a commitment when they got married, and they need to honor that.

Sorry to suddenly leap back into the discussion, but I really can't let this one go. I apologise for using a personal story, but I can't see any way around it, and anyway we all have personal reasons for our opinions on this.

My mother suffered some sort of trauma as a child. I don't know too much about it, but her own mother was very neglectful and her father was found shot by his own gun when she was 12. As a result, she became co-dependent and had a number of destructive relationships, one of which she had to escape from by hiding at a friend's house and telling her family to lie about where she was. In comparison, the relationship she had with my father was more healthy, but he was controlling, possibly unfaithful, and neglectful to the point of leaving her at home alone all day while she was in labour. He also used to hit me and my siblings. About four years ago, they separated. Now I live with my mother, and see my father (who, incidentally, has changed phenomenally over the last few years) every few weeks.

I am ten times happier than I was before the split, but even if I weren't, it's really their issue and not mine. A large part of the reason why I am glad the divorce happened is that I can tell how much better this situation is for both of them, especially my mother. There is no rule saying that divorce is always a bad thing to go through. Yes, it was upsetting at the time, but now I look back on it with no bad feelings whatsoever. Divorce can free people, and make them happy. Staying in an unhappy relationship fools no-one, and can ultimately make the inevitable split worse.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to honour vows that were made years ago if you or the situation have changed. People's feelings don't remain the same forever. Neither is it a case of "facing up to your mistakes". A couple can seem perfect together at one point, only to become aware of flaws in their relationship later on, or to have a new situation like a job that keeps them away from home, which would alter the dynamics between them. You can't accuse someone of being selfish when it comes to their own marriage, even if the problem is "only" being unfaithful. If one partner has cheated, and the other partner knows about it, there will be tension and most likely arguments, which will create an extremely unpleasant environment. Surely it would be better for a child to live somewhere without this sort of conflict. The number or gender of the parents present is far less important than being in a safe, reliable and loving environment, which can't happen when the parents are fighting.

[DarkWarrior]

I did acknowledge that these kinds of things can happen, actually.

If there's something more serious going on, like abuse, then divorce would probably be the best solution. While the child should have both parents, in such an instance as that, separating the child from one parent is necessary. One might argue "But you said they need both a mother and a father", and that's true. However, separating the child from the good parent would probably do quite a bit more harm to the child.

No, I didn't address that the child would specifically benefit from the separation in that instance, but it is implied. In your situation, believe me, I agree fully.

[agrajagthetesty]

If there's something more serious going on, like abuse, then divorce would probably be the best solution. While the child should have both parents, in such an instance as that, separating the child from one parent is necessary.

Yes, I did read this. However, I would argue that the term "abuse" is fairly strong, and at least for me would apply to crimes such as domestic violence, marital rape and so on. I wouldn't say there had been abuse in my situation.

What about the cases where the problems in the marriage are indirectly affecting the children, such as unfaithfulness?

[DarkWarrior]

Then the parents need to sit down and handle the situation head-on, and not avoid each other about it, or get confrontational about it. There are things more important than one instance of unfaithfulness to go on there, unless it's a constant. In which case, if it's damaging enough, there needs to be some way to work it out without the kids either being involved in some custody battle or shuttling every other week or something.