Help me for debate class: Same-sex marriages

[merc]

Hey guys, I am having a debate coming up and I have to argue FOR and AGAINST same-sex marriages... Personally I am leaning more towards the against side, but like I said I have to argue for it and against it in class... Could you guys help me out and put up your best thoughts and arguments on the subject and maybe even use facts and whatnot? Thanks a ton if you can help me out

-merc

 

[MadHatter]

Didn't you start a thread covering the same subject before?

 

[KagePrototype]

"Sure Merc, we'll start a flame war just for you!! Who wants to go first?!"

 

[merc]

no guys im being serious here, this is for school... im sorry about last time that was just me being real bored one night.. plz guys forget about that this is serious i need your best debate opinions on this

-merc

 

[bliink]

Here is a very good source... have a read
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

 

[MadHatter]

I'll contribute to this later. Not in the mood to debate about homosexuals right now.

 

[Frank]

People say that there's no reason for gay people to get married because they can't have kids - yeah, some people actually say that.
So here are my 5cent: What about impotent people? Then there's no reason for them to get married either... let's all celebrate!

Can you hear how stupid that is?

 

[merc]

Here is a very good source... have a read
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

lol bliink that is a great source i was actually on the website looking at the stuff when i came back and checked this post... any one got more good arguments and things that most people wouldnt know? i need some super stuff so i can just make people cry when they dont know what to say after i give me argument... lol

-merc

 

[bliink]

lol bliink that is a great source i was actually on the website looking at the stuff when i came back and checked this post... any one got more good arguments and things that most people wouldnt know? i need some super stuff so i can just make people cry when they dont know what to say after i give me argument... lol

-merc

are you affirmative or negative?
EDIT: and whats the argument?

 

[merc]

well here is the deal, my teacher tells us this friday if we are giong to be arguing for it or against it... that is when i will find out what side i have to be on, but to be prepared, i want to start getting as much info as i can so i can dominate in the debates and get a good grade post guys post i will use your stuff in my class!

-merc

 

[Neutrino]

I don't know why I'm even bothering to help, but alright. However, I don't have time to rehash everything so I'm just going to copy and past something I said earlier on it:

Sorry, the post was too long for the forum so had to split it into parts:

Most of this really isn't applicable at all to the argument of it being legal or not as we are a secular state, but it is still important to the controversy as religion is the primary reason people use to try to ban gay marriage, so I'll include it.

I did some research into the issue concerning biblical passages and gay marriage, which I found to be quite interesting.

Ok, the main argument that many people use against homosexuality is one of a biblical nature. So it is only fair to address that issue as the main one and examine just what exactly the Bible says on the issue. Throughout the examination I will assume that you are right in saying that we cannot redefine the text of either the New or Old Testament. (This of course means the original text, not the English translations.) I think that is a reasonable assumption from a religious viewpoint. Also, please feel free to point out if I misquote something along the way.

To begin it must be pointed out that there are two entirely separate issues here. One is the marriage or loving relationship between to members of the same sex and the other is the act of sexual intercourse between two members of the same sex. It must be clear here that these are not the same thing as they are not dependant upon each other and thus must be addressed as separate issues.

1) The issue: According to the Bible are same-sex marriage and/or same-sex relationships right or wrong?

First, let’s look at the issue of same-sex marriages. To determine this we need to look at what the Bible says about same sex marriages. Wait a minute. It doesn’t say anything at all. Yes that’s right, the bible does not talk about same-sex marriage whatsoever. In other words, nowhere in the Bible, either New or Old testament, does it ever condemn same-sex marriage.

Conclusion: The bible neither condones nor condemns same-sex marriage. It is silent on the issue.

Next is the issue of same-sex relationships. To be clear I am talking about the love between two people of the same sex, not sexual intercourse. That is a separate issue. So what does the Bible have to say about same-sex relationships?

Here are three passages which talk about them:


Ruth and Naomi
Ruth 1:16-17, 2:10-11, and 1:14

Example 1:
"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

Example 2:
When talking about the relationship between Ruth and Naomi it says, "Ruth clave onto her." This same word was also used in another passage when referring to a heterosexual marriage. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 (Clave and Cleave come from the exact same Hebrew word before they were translated to English.)


David and Jonathan

Example 1:
“...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself”. and "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" - Samuel 18:1. The word “soul” most likely means “body and spirit” in the original texts. Thus this is an indication that David and Jonathan loved each other both physically and emotionally.

Example 2:
“From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.” - Samuel 18:2. David moved to Saul’s where he would live with Jonathon. (Jonathon was the son of Saul)

Example 3:
“And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." - Samuel 18:3-4. Note: people at that time did not wear underwear so in this passage Jonathan stripped naked in front of David, a somewhat unusual action if their relationship was not physical.

Example 4:
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" - Samuel 18:20-21. Later in the King James version it goes on to say, “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain.” Now Saul first offered David his Daughter Merab but that union was rejected, so the second quote would seem to be saying that David would become his son-in-law by one of his two daughters. That makes sense, except for one fact. The quote is a mis-translation of the original text. In the original Hebrew the words, “the one of” do not exist. So the real quote goes like this, “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain.” (Twain means “two”) This certainly changes things. To paraphrase in modern English this phrase can be written, “Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children.” From this it would appear to acknowledge Jonathan and David’s homosexual relationship as being equivalent to David and Michal’s heterosexual marriage.

Example 5:
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." An interesting thing to note here is that many different version of the Bible translate this passage quite differently. The most noticable one is the Living Bible, which translates the passage as, "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more.". This is a completely wrong translation and the authors mistranslated it so that instead of kissing the two men shook hands. Seems somewhat odd. Every other version agrees that they kissed. Furthermore, the original Hebrew text say's that they kissed until David became great. The word used in the original was "gadal" meaning "great". There are some theologians that think the word "gadal" means David had an erection.

Example 6:
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." The important part about this passage is that this is referring to ancient Isreal. During this time platonic relationships between men and women were not accepted as proper. Therefore the only relationships between men and women were of a sexual nature and thus it would appear that David refers to his sexual love for Johnathan.


Daniel and Ashpenaz
("Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.")

In this example there is one passage that is translated many different ways by different Bibles. It is translated anywhere from "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" to "Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" to "God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel". So again it requires looking at the original Hebrew text to really understand the meaning of this passage. The actual words used to describe the relationship between the two men were, "chesed v'rachamim". Chesed means mercy and v'rachamim is a plural form of the same word used to emphasize it's importance. This plural form can mean both "mercy" and "physical love". But in the original passage it would be somewhat unlikely that it meant mercy because the passage would then have said, "showed mercy and mercy." It seems more likely that the second word meant physical love and the passage went, "showed mercy and physical love"


Conclusion: No where does the Bible condemn a loving same-sex relationship. In fact it could be argued that from the above examples that it in fact accepts them.

Now I'll address the seperate issue of actual sexual intercourse.


1) The issue: According to the Bible is sex between two members of the same sex right or wrong?

There are several popular quotes and passages from the Bible that are used to support the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Let's look at these from both the Old and New testament:

Old Testament:

Example 1:

This is the story of Sodom. This story is used so much that the word "Sodomite" has changed from being an inhabitant of Sodom to a derogatory term for homosexuals. However, there are multiple interpretations to this story.

To sum it up, the story of Sodom goes that God sent two angels to Sodom to relay his displeasure with that city and a few others and they were welcomed by Lot. But the people of the city demanded that Lot send out the two so that they might "know" the angels. As an alternative Lot offered the mob his two virgin daughters to be raped by the mob, but that offer was refused. God later destroyed that city and others around it.

As I said, there are multiple interpretations of this story. However there are two main ones that stem from the opposing views of conservative Christians and Liberal Christians.

The conservative Christians think that the mob planned on having sex with the angels, a homosexual orgy, if you will, and that is why God destroyed the city. There's really not much more to this view than that. They say it is clear what happened and what it meant about homosexuality.

But on the other side are the liberal Christians who have quite a different take on the story. I'll just list out some of their points here:

a) It is not a literal story, but instead more a kind of folk tale. This is also supported by the fact that Lot offered his virgin daughter to be raped. If you accept the conservative interpretation then you also have to accept the fact that God did not punish Lot for wanted a crowd to rape his own daughters, not a very palatable viewpoint. Additionally, here are some quotes by liberal Christian pastors and academics:

- K. Stendahl: "It's a folk story. It even has a little black humor, in the fact that he [Lot] is so anxious to protect his guests that he's willing to sacrifice his daughters. To make a biblical ethics story out of it is not very wise."
- D. Bartlett: "Many of the Bible's stories don't mean what they seem on their face. Many mainstream scholars say it [the Genesis passage] is about hospitality and how to deal with the messengers of God. If it does refer to homosexual behavior, it's homosexual rape. They don't just want to lie down with them voluntarily; they want to rape the angels."
- R Kimelman: "In the Mideast then, once a man has entered into your home, your responsibility to his protection is your primary moral obligation, even if it's at the expense of your own daughters. The Bible is recording a story; it is not mandating behavior."
- J.K. Nelson: "If you read it literally, in its English translation, without considering its context, one could say the Bible condemns homosexual activities. When we look at the Bible and try to draw moral rules for living, but we take it out of the context of the time when they were written, we do them a great injustice."

b ) The story has nothing to do with consensual same-sex behavior. Instead it was about homosexual rape, which is just as abhorrent as heterosexual rape. This does make quite a bit of sense as if you accept that the mob wanted to have sex with the angels it was obviously non-consensual sex. So it is more likely that the story is about rape in general, not homosexuality.

c) The Bible translates the story to say that the mob consisted of the men of the city, which would reinforce the idea that it was about homosexuality. However, from the original Hebrew, this is not clear at all. The Hebrew texts says, "anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom." which can mean either "men of the city, even the men of Sodom." or "the people of the city, the people of Sodom." which may obvioulsy include men, women, and children. This undercuts the idea that the mob planned a homosexual orgy as it would be unlikely that the women and children would be present.

d) The mob called to Lot to bring out the angels so that they could "know" them according to the King James version of the Bible. Also of interest is that The New International Version translates the passage as, "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'". But what was really meant by this passage? The original Hebrew word that the Bibles are translating into "know" or "have sex with" is the word "ya,da". It is translated as "know" but it's meaning is far from definite. It appears 943 times in the Old testament and mostly means to "know a fact". It only is used to mean something sexual about a dozen of those times, in which case it refers to the sexual act between a man and a women. Thus, it is unclear just what the mob wanted. It could just as easily be the case that the mob wanted to interrogate the angels as they distrusted them for some reason.

e) Some Christians maintain that the mob only consisted of homosexual men. But if this were so why would Lot offer his two daughters to them to be raped? In this case the mob would have had no sexual interest in them.

f) Why did God kill everyone in the city including the women and children? It it was just about the homosexual men than that doesn't make sense either. Additionally, it seems unclear the exact reasons God had to be upset with the inhabitants of the city.

 

[Neutrino]

Part Two:

The next two examples are probably the two most quoted passages. They are from Leviticus.

Example 2:

This first passage is translated by the King James Bible as "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind" Seems pretty straight forward doesn't it? This is also the passage I hear quoted the most to support the argument that homosexuality is a sin. But the English translation is actually quite deceptive. The actual passage in Hebrew was, "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." which literally translates to, "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman." What exactly does this mean? The honest truth is that we really don't know. There is no obvious english translation of the words, "lay lyings". The passage actually could have any one of the following meanings:

- Forbidding anal intercourse between two men.
- Prohibiting all sexual activities between two men.
- Forbidding sex acts between two men or two women, irrespective of the nature of their relationship.
- Prohibiting sex between two men as part of a ritual in a Pagan temple.
- Forbidding two men from having sex, but only if they do it in a woman's bed.
- Forbidding two Hebrews from performing anal intercourse; the law had no impact on Gentiles.
- Forbidding anal sex because it could not result in a pregnancy. A high birth rate was was badly needed in a nation that was constantly being attacked by foreigners. This is not applicable today.

As for the, "it is abomination." part of the King James translation, this is also not entirely clear. This part of the passage describes what type of sin it is, but it is not clear whether the actually meaning is a "moral sin" or a "ritually impure act". The original Hebrew word that was translated into English as either "abomination" or "detestable" is "to'ebah". This word is used quite often in other parts of the Bible and often is used to mean a "ritually impure act" and not a "moral sin". Here's a couple examples that use this word among many:

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." - Leviticus 11:10. This is talking about eating things like lobsters. This is not considered to be a moral sin by Christians today, yet it is also described as an "abomination".

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God." - Deuteronomy 22:5. Might want to reconsider ever wearing jeans or pants again.

There are many such passages which use "to'ebah" that refer to a ritual law of some sort and are not considered to apply to people outside a specific culture or religion. Thus, the this quote from the Bible is unclear in two ways. First, the translation of the first part is open to interpretation and second, the second part could mean either a moral sin or a the breaking of a ritual law. Nobody really knows for sure.


New Testament:

Example 1:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:26-27. There are again many interpretations of this passage. Christian conservatives claim it unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. Here are some of the arguments against that:

a) The passage itself should be rejected as immoral because elsewhere Paul advocates the oppression of women (Corinthians 14:34 - 35) and accepts slavery as normal (Philemon 1:15 to 16).

b ) The passage is not condemning homosexual behavior itself. Actually the passage is condemning homosexual behavior for heterosexuals. It means that the homosexual acts were "against nature" and "unseemly" to these specific people because they were heterosexual. This would mean that the passage is also condemning heterosexual behavior for homosexuals because it is against their nature. Someone once said in reference to the passage, ""...God created each of us with a sexual orientation. To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong. The creation (us) does not have the right to 're-create' itself."

c) The passage is not talking about homosexual behavior in general. Instead it is actually referring to specific acts such as:

- casual homosexual activities outside of a committed, monogamous two person relationship, or
- homosexual molestation between a man and a child. In Paul's day, the latter was often a slave.
- group homosexual practices of any type, or
- group homosexual practices in a religious setting. This was a common practice among Pagans at the time; e.g. in the temples dedicated to the Goddess Aphrodite).

d) The passage is only referring to non-procreative sex. It is not condemning homosexuality because it involves sex between two men or two women. It is only condemning any form of sex that is of a non-procreative nature. Thus "against nature". There are more, but that covers a few of the basic arguments.

There are of course quite a few other Biblical passages that mention this issue, but I can't cover them all. However, there are similar arguments against every one of those passages as well.

Conclusion: The Bible's direction on the morality of sexual intercourse between homosexuals is ambigous at best. It is purely based on interpretation both of the original Hebrew as well the English versions and can be argued either way. But in my opinion there are very strong arguments against the conservative interpretation.


Next is another argument against what the Bible says about gays. For this argument let's make the tenous assumption that the conservative view is correct about these passages in the Bible.

1) The issue: Are the passages in the Bible supposedly comdemning homosexuality actually valid?

First we begin with the logical assumption that if you accept one passage from the Bible as being literally true and without fault then you must do the same for the other passages of the Bible. To not do so would be a contradiction. Furthermore, if a person takes one passage as literally true and another passage as figuratively true they open the Bible up entirely to personal interpretation, making it mostly useless as a way to determine God's absolute will.

Here we take a look at just what else the Bible has to say.

a)
"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." - Genesis 6:5-9.

Literally: God killed every man, woman, and child on Earth by drowning them, except for Noah.

b )
"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them." - Deuteronomy 7:1-2

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." - Joshua 6:21

Literally: God condoned genocide.

c )
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." - Exodus 12:29-30

Literally: God killed every first born child in Egypt.

d)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do." - Exodus 21:7

Literally: No explanation needed really.

e)
"If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." - Exodus 21:4

Literally: If a master gives a women to his slave as his wife the master will keep the slaves wife and any of their children if the slave is set free.

f)
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." - Exodus 21:7

Literally: It condones the selling of a man's daughter into slavery.

e)
"Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you."

"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you. "

"But all [other] flying creeping things, which have four feet, [shall be] an abomination unto you."

"And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth [shall be] an abomination; it shall not be eaten."

"Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon [all] four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they [are] an abomination." - Leviticus

Literally: I hope you don't like lobster or pork, because apparently eating them is just as sinful as homosexuality.


Conclusion: One cannot take all the passages of the Bibles literally, at face value, or even adhere to them at all in some cases. To do otherwise would be to condone things like slavery, rape, and genocide to name a few atrocities. Therefore if one does not support those thing, to then take the passages about homosexuality at face value and as literally true, would be an illogical contradiction.

There is one final issue on this subject. This is the issue of what else the Bible has to say about marriage.

1) The issue: What exactly does the Bible say about marriage??

The argument of many people is that the institution of marriage is sacred and should only be between a man and a women. They claim this is the definition of marriage given in the Bible so it should be honered. Well, logically if we are going to base our system of marriage from the Bible it would make sense to take into account everything the Bible says about marrriage to make sure we get it correct. So here are some of the things the Bible says on the subject of marriage:

a) Marriage may be between one man and two women. - Gen 29:17-28(Jacob married both Leah and Rachel.)
b ) A man may have concubines in addition to his wife. - II Sam 5:13 ("David married more concubines and wives from Jerusalem after he arrived from Hebron. Even more sons and daughters were born to David.")
c) A husbands wife must be a virgin before they marry. If she is not, she must be killed. - Deuteronomy 22:13-21 ("I married this woman but when I had relations with her I discovered she was not a virgin....if the accusation is true and the young woman was not a virgin, 22:21 the men of her city must bring the young woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death")
d) A Christian may not marry a non-Christian. - Gen 24:3 ("so that I may make you solemnly promise by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth: You must not acquire a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living.")
e) Niether the federal government nor the state governments may allow divorce. - Deut 22:19 and Mark 10:9("She will then become his wife and he may never divorce her as long as he lives." and "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”)
f) If a woman's husband dies his brother is obligated to marry her and give here children. If he refuses he shall be punished. - Gen. 38:6-10 ("Then Judah said to Onan, “Have sexual relations with your brother’s wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her so that you may raise up a descendant for your brother. But Onan knew that the child would not be considered his. So whenever he had sexual relations with his brother’s wife, he withdrew prematurely so as not to give his brother a descendant. What he did was evil in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord killed him too.")

Conclusion: If the government is to base marriage off the Biblical meaning of it, then it must take into account all the teachings of the Bible on marriage and not selectively choose which one's to make law and which one's not to. This is obviously undesireable, thus the government should not base the institution of marriage off of Biblical teachings.

That concludes the points I wanted to bring up in relation to the Bible and homosexuality.

 

[Neutrino]

Part three:

So in the end I see many problems with trying to condemn homosexuality as a sin using the Bible. Here's an outline of some of these problems in the context of religion:

1) The Bible does not condemn gay marriages or loving same-sex relationships. It even seems to accept loving same-sex relationships and possibly sexual relations between same-sex partners in a couple passages. This is very relavent and important as marriage and sex are not synonomous. The legal question facing the country today is not about outlawing sex between homosexuals. I think this gets confused by some people, but it is true. The government cannot regulate sexual acts and it would be absurd of it to do so. The issue is solely about marriage, not sex. Thus the fact that the Bible does not actually condemn gay marriage at all becomes a very important point in the debate and weakens the argument made against gay marriage.
2) The word of the Bible concerning sexual intercourse between two members of the same sex is ambigous at best. If God actually wanted to condemn this action he could have easily made sure it was stated clearly that it was a moral sin. Most moral sins such as the ten commandments are very plainly written and not open to interpretation. But the passages concerning homosexuality are not, and therefore there is doubt over whether it is indeed a sin or not.
3) The people condemning homosexuality are doing so using an imperfect English translation of the orginal Biblical text. That is wrong in my opinion.
4) To take the passages about gays literally and at face value or to even accept them at all while at the same time not accepting other Biblical commands about morality is a contradiction and severly undercuts the argument that homosexuality is a sin.
5) Lesbianism is almost completely ignored in the Bible. In the entire thing it is only referred to exactly once when it says, "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature". This statement is unclear and can be interpreted several different ways. Aside from that the fact is that every other passage that people use to condemn homosexuality only refers to men. There are a few versions of the Bible that claim it refers to both men and women, but those Bibles are guilty of mistranslating the original text. So the case against allowing women to marry is even weaker than the case against men. Yet people are equally against both female and male forms of homosexuality. This is illogical.
6) It does not make sense to use the Bible to define marriage as between a man and a women as it also condones many marriage practices that are seen as wrong in today's society.


Other arguments:


Every minority in this country has had to fight for their basic rights at one time or another. This includes Native Americans, African Americans, women, and homosexuals. Every single one is a relatively small group in comparison to the population at large that was or is discriminated against. They all fought or are fighting for just one thing: equality. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, there are two other consideration. One is that some people do care about being legally married. We have no right to tell them they can't have that. The other is that it's also a legal issue. Currently a gay couple in a state that does not support gay marriage does not have the same rights a heterosexual couple has. They cannot inherit from each other if one dies without a will, if one has children the other would not be able to keep them if their partner died (I know people this affects), they do not get the same tax breaks married couples do, they do not get the same options in health insurance as a married couple, and they would have a hard time seeing their partner in the hospital if they were critically wounded.

Also, as I've stated earlier some people are for civil unions but against gay marriage. I'll just reiterate that this position is in essence just as discriminatory as being against gay marriage. At one time in our past the exact same argument was used to justify segregation in schools between black and white students. The argument was fundamentally flawed then and it is just as flawed now. For an example consider this:

Segregation was justified by the argument that both the black students and white students received the same treatment and the same education so there was no discrimination. After all, if you have two identical schools with identical curriculums and you fill one with white students and one with black students where's the problem?

Niether school is superior to the other, both groups get the same rights and the same access to an education so what's the problem? But of course there was a problem. This is because they were forced to attend different schools. This kind of segregation has been shown to be discriminating and is of course why this sort of thing is illegal now.

This first paragraph is pretty self evident wouldn't you agree? I think everyone can accept it and agree that black segregation is wrong. So what if we take that above statement and just change a few words shall we?

Niether union is superior to the other, both groups get the same rights and the same access to a union so what's the problem? But of course there is a problem. This is because they are forced to use different names for their unions. This kind of segregation has been shown to be discriminating and is of course why this sort of thing should be illegal now.

Answer me this: How can you agree with the first paragraph and not the second one?

It's the same thing. Both are using the exact same "different but same" argument. In both cases it is flawed.

Oh, and just before anyone brings is up, there are the arguments that homosexuality is somehow unnatural and also the argument that marriage is about procreation. Both these are easily refuted. To address the former one it has been shown that homosexuality is not a choice and there are indeed genetic causes involved. This argument also fails in the face of the fact that probably somewhere between 5% and 10% of hte population is gay. Additionally, it has been shown that homosexuality has existed all throughout history and in every culture. All the evidence points to it being just as natural as heterosexuality, just for a smaller number of people. The latter argument is dismissed by bringing up infertile couples. If gay people cannot marry because they cannot procreate then neither can infertile couples. Of course that would be ridiculous to ban marriage for infertile couples so it is just as ridiculous for gays.

I just want to finish up here by pointing out the one main reason that gay marriages should be legal. Regardless of anything else on the subject it would be unconstitutional to make gay marriages illegal.

The first amendment of the constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The only real argument against gay marriage is an argument that is based solely on the belief of one religion. You absolutely cannot use the beliefs of one religion to discriminate against the practices of another. The fact of the matter is that there are many different belief systems in this country. To force any one of those belief systems to conform to another set is wrong in every sense of the word. So after all is said and done, I fully respect the opinion of someone who is against gay marriage. That is their right which is protected by the first amendment quoted above. However, I cannot understand how anyone can justify making their belief into a law. To do so essentially hurts them just as much as it does gay people. To not respect religious freedom undercuts the very system that allows them to have their beliefs in the first place, and I hope eventually people will understand that.

Even after all that, there is still one more independant and compelling argument left in favor of gay marriage. It affects no one else but the gay couple being married. It in no way infringes on the rights of others or affects their lives at all. It hurts absolutely no one. Therefore it is no one's business but the couple getting married. Niether government nor anybody else has any right to have a say in the matter.

Keep in mind that this was a response to someone else so some of it might not make perfect sense out of context. However, it contains a bit of information on the subject so it's still somewhat useful. There are of course other arguments for and against it which I do not cover here. You can find them on some neutral websites. As I said I don't have the time to go into them right now.

Edit:

I mentioned above that being gay had a genetic cause.

Here's some links on that subject:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993008
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996533

 

[bliink]

STUFF

Neutrino wins the debate i think lol

 

[MadHatter]

Dude, you just murdered the thread.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Hey guys, I am having a debate coming up and I have to argue FOR and AGAINST same-sex marriages... Personally I am leaning more towards the against side, but like I said I have to argue for it and against it in class... Could you guys help me out and put up your best thoughts and arguments on the subject and maybe even use facts and whatnot? Thanks a ton if you can help me out

-merc

What, you? merc? homophobic? with all the nice things you've said about Gay people.. never..

 

[poseyjmac]

some reasons why gay marriage should be OK.

-until it can be proven that jesus was the messiah, or that god exists for that matter, his teachings should not be taken as fact, let alone be a basis for a governmental decision. EVEN THEN, a single religion's teachings shouldn't be forced upon a whole country. there is no ounce of logic in it. the only defense is, he said it so its wrong. again, if there is proof that jesus is the messiah and that gay marriage is indeed wrong and worthy of hell, then it could be taken more seriously.

-it wouldn't hurt anyone. this is the first thing to look at when considering what should be legal and what should not be legal.

 

[Spartan]

Hey guys, I am having a debate coming up and I have to argue FOR and AGAINST same-sex marriages... Personally I am leaning more towards the against side, but like I said I have to argue for it and against it in class... Could you guys help me out and put up your best thoughts and arguments on the subject and maybe even use facts and whatnot? Thanks a ton if you can help me out

-merc

If it's about marriage, it's the church's decision. It's got nothing to do with anyone else.

 

[bliink]

If it's about marriage, it's the church's decision. It's got nothing to do with anyone else.

Marriage is part of the legal system too

 

[Spartan]

Marriage is part of the legal system too

Then the legal system needs to be changed.

 

[bliink]

Then the legal system needs to be changed.

Maybe the church needs to be changed?

(and what happened to church-state seperation? you wouldnt be *gasp* an enemy of democracy would you?!)

 

[Neutrino]

Then the legal system needs to be changed.

Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion. If you think it should you need to really think about what you're saying. Just whose religion should it be about? Yours? Or mine? Or someone elses?

You might be happy if it was based on your religion, but you probably wouldn't like it so much if it was based on someone else's religion. Thus the reason legal marraige and all other government doings must remain secular.

If it's about marriage, it's the church's decision. It's got nothing to do with anyone else.

First of all, that is completely wrong. Like I said above it has absolutely nothing to do with the church as there is no "the church." There are many churches. Second, some of those churches support gay marriage and some do not. But again, we are talking about the legal institution of marriage not the religious one. They are two seperate things. Also, gay marriage affects no one else and should be a decision of a gay couple. To use your own words, "It's got nothing to do with anyone else."

Which is rather nice because that way a non-religious person like myself can get married just as easily as a religious person. Or would you prefer it if I couldn't marry?

 

[Spartan]

Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion.

Obviously, I wasn't talking about legal marriage.

First of all, that is completely wrong. Like I said above it has absolutely nothing to do with the church as there is no "the church."

Every church should decide on their own. It's their religion, and they don't need to allow or deny any gay marriages just because someone tells them to.

Or would you prefer it if I couldn't marry?

I really couldn't care less.

 

[Neutrino]

Obviously, I wasn't talking about legal marriage.

Legal marriage is what the debate is about, so no, it wasn't "obvious."

Every church should decide on their own. It's their religion, and they don't need to allow or deny any gay marriages just because someone tells them to.

Of course. This is not an issue. No one is going to force any churches to perform gay marraiges. That's not what this is about at all. Churches that support gays can perform them and churches that do not don't have to. That's not a problem or part of the debate.

I really couldn't care less.

Well, I care about you being able to get married if you want to.

 

[bliink]

Obviously, I wasn't talking about legal marriage.

well, you seemed to be, when you said the law should be changed

Every church should decide on their own. It's their religion, and they don't need to allow or deny any gay marriages just because someone tells them to.

true, but would you be part of a church that say... hates black people? whats the difference between that and being anti-gay?


I believe that would be some kind of constitutional contradiction or something??

Freedom of religion and all?.... hows that work?

 

[Neutrino]

true, but would you be part of a church that say... hates black people? whats the difference between that and being anti-gay?


I believe that would be some kind of constitutional contradiction or something??

Freedom of religion and all?.... hows that work?

I do agree that being against gays is basically the same thing as being against blacks. However, I dont think there are any laws that would stop a church from being against blacks as long as they did not infringe on anyone else's rights. As far as I know you could probably form a religion that prohibits people with blue eyes from joining and it would be legal. After all, the KKK is still around, not to mention the Aryan Nations.

 

[The Dark Elf]

I do agree that being against gays is basically the same thing as being against blacks. However, I dont think there are any laws that would stop a church from being against blacks as long as they did not infringe on anyone else's rights. As far as I know you could probably form a religion that prohibits people with blue eyes from joining and it would be legal. After all, the KKK is still around, not to mention the Aryan Nations.

The KKK is still around, as are rapists, murders and thieves

doesn't make it any more right.

 

[Neutrino]

The KKK is still around, as are rapists, murders and thieves

doesn't make it any more right.

Of course. I'm not saying it's right by any means am I'm certainly not defending them. I absolutely despise those groups. I was just saying there's no legal way to stop them as long as they remain peaceful.

It's one of the prices we pay for granting freedom of speech and freedom of religion to all.

 

[Sprafa]

You guys all suck. If you forbid same-sex marriages there goes the lesbians. Who will live without lesbian pr0n ?

 

[The Dark Elf]

You guys all suck. If you forbid same-sex marriages there goes the lesbians. Who will live without lesbian pr0n ?

Not all of us, name names of the people trying to stop lesbian porn so they can be dealt with!

 

[merc]

thx a ton neutrino for that massive amount of information... remember guys keep posting for different sides of the argument so i am ready to show my class who is boss

-merc

 

[f|uke]

Merc, just start out by saying that its people like you who are against same sex marrages.

If that isnt a great argument for them, I dont know what is.

 

[SidewinderX]

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I'll just put it this way..

I have yet to hear a valid logical argument against gay legal marrige. Keep in mind anything that mentions "the bible" or "jesus" != valid argument.