Should gay people be allowed to marry? No religion in your arguments, please.

  • Gay people should be allowed to marry.

    Love is love. How is it affecting you if they get married. It probably wasn't their choice if they are of another sexual orientation than heterosexual. Some of them actually have to pretend to like the opposite sex to fit in and that angers me. It's sad that teen pregnancy is more acceptable than being gay.

  • Why aren't they ?

    Everybody knows that people can be gay - even everyone borns bisexual- .Everyone accepts that , so they're falling love each other - not like some other allowed marriages - and want to live together or already they are and they want to hold a wedding . Isn't it human right ? Anyone can get marry with someone even there're still marriages allowed with more than one woman , sometimes even not woman with child.So there's no harmful side of this marriages for anyone, why even this topic still in discussion

  • Who does it hurt?

    Really, how is gay marriage so detrimental to the institution of marriage? Need the statistics be quoted on the numbers of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce, not to mention those that don't result in children, those where the spouses abuse each other and/or their children, etc? The sanctity of marriage is about as intact as the idea of job stability. If you find someone or somewhere you want to be with for the rest of your life, good luck. You're gonna need it.

  • Of Course They Should

    This is ,in my opinion, the same as the civil rights movements in the 60's. The people who oppose this will be looked back on as poorly as the people who were against rights for minorities, interracial marriage etc... Those who say it damages the sanctity of marriage are clearly ignoring the fact that so many couples get divorced anyway. In the end any people who are of the age of consent should be able to marry one another regardless of sex.

  • Yes They Can

    If 2 people love each other dearly then they can marry they should express there love in marry not have to hide it from the world. In all of time that man has been hear a man and man or a woman and a woman that love each other. And they could be gay or lesbian when did it turn from perfectly explicable to no you cant love each other. We (I come from new zealand so referring to New Zealand) are 1 of 7 country's that let it happen and that singles that its OK and it will be good for the world in the long term if we accept it maby other countrys will start to accept it too.

  • Yes, no religion, no problem.

    Religion and Government are the big dictators of lifestyles, and if we take out religion, then all we have left is the government and its people. Nobody really cares who people married. They may hate who people marry, but they won't care about it.

    Marriage is a choice between two adults, and if they choose to be stuck to each other for the rest of their life, then so be it. The pain and happiness will be all theirs to endure and enjoy. Straight people have no better luck at marriage happiness anyways, because a successful marriage is dependent on if you're straight or gay, but more so on if the two individuals know how to sustain that relationship.

  • Yes, if straight people can marry, so can they

    Yes if straight people can marry so can they. It's mostly about basic human rights. Men are created equally, they should have all the basic rights as other people without being judged. Homosexuals doesn't harm anyone or even your marriage if they so wish to get married by their choice. Everyone should have the same rights.

  • There is no reason why not

    If gays marry, it will not affect the antigay people at all. Are they going to come and live in your house? NO. Will they even know you? NO. Antigays' lives will not be changed.
    Also, it is a basic human right to get married. Do you let single parents marry again? What about divorcees? You don't argue against child marriage, yet you feel a need to challenge gay marriage! Gays are no different than other people, they should have a right to get married.

  • Hear me out.

    I think the issue with "gay marriage" is in the term marriage. It is treated as both a religious and legal term at the same time and that is what has created the large rift.
    To maintain the separation of church and state, the government should stop issuing "marriage licenses". Instead they should offer civil unions to BOTH gay and straight couples. This does more to remove religion from the issue without treating homosexuals as second class citizens.

  • A civil union perhaps.

    Just as gay couples have the right to be together, so to do people like Christians have the right to (what is to them) a sacred practice. A civil union would solve the rift and get the government out of a large mess. Most gays don't really care deemed "married", just to receive the same benefits, recognition and legitimacy that married couples experience. If gay couples want gay marriage for the pure sake of the title, then they should bring it up with the churches not the government.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
thg says2013-08-19T18:02:59.407
Intriguing opinion question...Especially since you requested "no religious arguments". I am of the opinion that "marriage" is best explained with theological underpinnings, and I have yet to hear a persuasive account of why we have marriage at all (let alone gay marriage) without including some theological underpinnings. The argrument from nature/evolution, I believe falls short on several fronts. There's simply no sound reason for marriage, other than "God designed us this way" or "we just kind of came upon it by accident" or "we've just always done it". The theological explanation, at any rate, purports to shed light on a non-utilitarian view of marriage...That marriage is not simply for procreative purposes. The claim that marriage came about for procreation purposes is shaky. If procreation were our only concern, why not encourage all young folks (in their sexual and child-bearing prime), say from 15-35, to bear as many children as possible with as many partners as possible? We could abort all the deformed and weird babies, and could let the state sponsor orphanages and schools that would train the rest, and we'd have a much stronger and "fit" world. This comes closer to what evolutionary survivalism yields. All this about love, romance, fidelity, raising kids in a home with a mom and dad, loving each other even with deformities and even when we aren't useful to society (the very young, the very old, the sick, the disabled, the misfits) is pretty much a waste of time and cannot be explained by mere evolutionary survivalism. There's something to be said for the pursuit of happiness and loving even when that love is undeserved or does not serve some utilitarian purpose. But, as soon as you allow for any of this "other" stuff, you're going to have to allow for some theological underpinnings. So, I'll respect your opinion question and not weigh in above, but I figured I'd use the comments section here to add my two cents'.
thg says2013-08-19T18:09:56.020
Sorry...Allow me just a follow-up to my previous comment: So, asking that we weigh in on "marriage" (gay or not) without including any theological underpinnings is like asking us to comment on the greatest guitarist of all time (as in another opinion/forum thread) but leaving out classical, rock, blues, jazz, rock, pop, Spanish, bluegrass, folk, and fusion.
leonardlewis4 says2013-08-19T18:47:40.153
"No religious arguments, please..."

I wonder why?

Romans 1:28-32 (NASB)
[28] And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, [29] being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; [32] and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-19T19:01:56.907
The only reason I asked for no religious arguments is because in these opinion questions, Christians would quote things from the bible without giving attention to the fact that religion should not affect gay marriage legalization since the US has a separation of church and state. I wanted to see if there were any arguments that did not have religion.
Although, thg, I do respect your opinion-love doesn't really have anything to do with survivalism, and yes, gays can't reproduce. But they can definitely take in/adopt the thousands of orphaned children around the world, giving kids a stable place to live. I do like how you are saying that procreation may not be the only reason for marriage and your "15-35 year olds reproducing" thing.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-19T19:52:07.337
Sorry, I should have said gays in the US.
thg says2013-08-19T20:38:14.147
@toinfinityandbeyond: Thx for your gracious and diplomatic explanation for why you wanted to avoid religious points in this discussion. I, too, often tire--and am ashamed of--many of the "religious" contributions made by my fellow believers. Nevertheless, I would question your notion that a moral standard that has religious underpinnings is irrelevant for those who want to discuss the role of moral standards within any given legal system...Including even in the US. I happen to be Baptist, and I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. Baptists, in fact, were very influential over the writing of the US constitution. It is true that many "original" settlers expected to formulate a "free" country where Cny would reign supreme. But Baptists knew from their experience in Europe and England that religious freedom would not work if the government endorsed or made any laws preferring one religion over another. Baptists (unlike the Puritans) were ADAMANT that Cny should NOT be given any legal preference whatsoever. Unfortunately, many Baptists today have forgotten their roots and appear to opt for a Cn state, not realizing that this kind of thing in England, Europe, and (today) in the Middle East, is EXACTLY the kind of thing they opposed originally, and why they came to the New World in the first place.

Still, I wouldn't begrudge anyone for quoting the Bible or claiming some faith-based idea...As long as they gave it some thought and explanation. Furthermore, if we don't like a moral standard or law, we shouldn't change it or abolish it because it is based on religious underpinnings, but because it is a bad law. Many laws are faith-based (and/or consistent with faith-based claims), such as "thou shalt not kill", "steal", and so on. So just because a law happens to have religious underpinnings doesn't make it a bad law, and doesn't contradict the principle of separation of church and state.

I, like you, believe gays can raise children...Surely as effectively as many heterosexual parents I know! I also, like you, am interested in hearing people's arguments (pro or con), whether they are religious or not. I just would tend not to phrase it as you did here. I might ask something more like: "Are there any valid non-religious arguments for why gays should not be allowed to marry?" If that were the question, I would tend to answer: "Very few, as best I can tell."
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-19T20:56:38.347
Well yes, I understand how some laws, even if they were based on faith, are good(although, I might want a moral explanation of why the law should affect people of different religions). Quoting the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc would be acceptable in these cases. And you are right, I probably should have phrased the question differently.
It is just that I think that the laws that are based on faith like "no killing, stealing, etc" regulate crimes that significantly affect other people. Gay marriage is not like that, it doesn't have effects. The faith-based arguments would be very close-minded, seeing as they could only include things like "the Bible says so" instead of other crimes, where the arguments could be something like "it hurts you too". Faith-based arguments only work with thought and only when they apply to everyone.
We don't want to create a religiously oppressed world in the US, like the places you stated.
thg says2013-08-19T21:47:49.220
@toinfinityandbeyond: By the way, it's a good idea to address the person you're responding to, as other commentators might get confused about the flow of our exchange.

Yes, we appear to agree that the "faith" component doesn't have to be dropped in order to establish good laws. I know several folks, in fact, who are opposed to homosexual behavior morally but who believe gay marriage should be legalized. It's kind of like our free speech laws (speaking of democracy...)...I don't always like or agree with what people say, but I will defend their right to say it. I am opposed to drinking and doing drugs, but I believe alcohol (and, btw, marijuana, which is FAR less dangerous than alcohol) should not be made illegal. So the legal question is different from the moral one.

As for how we establish moral standards, you hit on something I've been trying to express here on DDO for several weeks...Which is that sexual morality cannot be established using many our common moral metrics (harm? Consent? Natural?...Etc.). By those metrics, we end up approving pretty much any sexual behavior (polyamory, group, incest, prostitution, bestiality, etc.). Sexual morality is very weird deal. I believe this is an area that almost HAS to include theological underpinnings...Or else we pretty much end up with "anything goes". I agree with you that crimes such as "killing" or "torture" can include the metric of "pain" and "harm". "Stealing" not as much...Since we are assuming the "right" to private ownership...Itself a very weird concept that I believe is largely undergirded by religious precepts. But sexual behavior? That's a whole different ball of wax. And I am very intrigued by it.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T00:39:36.627
@thg: I think as far as sexual morality is concerned, we should be focusing on consent. Obviously rape is not consent, so that should be against the law. And the animal cannot give consent in bestiality, so that is the same as rape. Prostitution, however people may see it, is consensual (I believe it should not be banned, but regulated harshly so diseases are not spread). And so on and so on. If you want to link to the original opinion, gay couples are consensual(although gay rape or something like that should be treated the same as regular rape).
As for stealing, well I guess the original thought that it is wrong might have come from faith. However, once a system of money was put in place, it made sense even without faith-you paid for it, it's yours. So in that case a society with a form of currency would normally institute a right to private ownership.
leonardlewis4 says2013-08-20T00:41:27.467

Ask a former prostitute how "consensual" prostitution is... Of course, if you ask a pimp or a john, they'll agree with you.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T00:43:34.083
@thg: Well, I agree with you that faith doesn't HAVE to not have a basis in good laws-it just depends on the law as I believe in the separation of church and state.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T00:47:22.460
@leonardlewis4: Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone with that. Obviously if the sexual activity engaged in prostitution comes to a point where the prostitute or the other person doesn't want to do it anymore, and is forced to, that would be rape. I'm just talking about the actual definition of prostitution-when someone basically (on their own terms) sells consensual sex(it's consensual since the prostitute agrees to do the act with another person, and the other person wants to too). This definition is often twisted as sometimes the sex can get out of hand.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T00:48:10.550
@leonardlewis4: The thing is, in that case, the crime would be "rape" and not "prostitution".
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T00:50:31.950
Leonardlewis4: The thing is, in that case, the crime would be rape and not prostitution.
leonardlewis4 says2013-08-20T00:54:55.173

No offense here... I understand what you meant. I just wanted people to consider that in the vast majority of cases, prostitution is basically a slave trade--where young women (even little girls) are enslaved to perform dozens of sexual acts daily with little more than the most basic provisions of food, clothing and shelter in return. Often the enslavement is further sealed by drug-addiction.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T01:01:07.527
@leonardlewis4: Yes, of course, the majority of prostitutes are girls and women enslaved. It's extremely horrible. I'm sorry, I just forgot about that when I posted my comment.
Although, laws won't help them as I'm sure there are hundreds of laws where they're enslaved that forbid child prostitution, and yet it still happens.
leonardlewis4 says2013-08-20T01:08:20.397
In any case, prostitution (much like pornography) is sexual exploitation--even for the few women who think they are choosing to do it. The fact that it is a viable option for some points to deep societal issues. In a modern civilized society, a woman should not have to resort to prostitution to live. If there are any women out there actual choosing to do it because they like it (I'm sure there are a relative few crazies like that), then those women are sexually exploiting the poor slobs who think they have to resort to that kind of transaction for sex.

Either way, it should be illegal.

BTW: In most other things, I'm quite libertarian, but I've seen enough sexual exploitation of human beings to make most people puke. It just isn't pretty.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T01:48:28.330
Your arguments are correct, you have changed my opinion!
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T01:50:49.597
However I have some questions. If the "poor slobs" also want the sex, then how is the prostitute exploiting them?
And also, you are not saying that women who like (normal) sex are crazy, right? I'm assuming you're not, but just to make sure.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T01:54:11.220
And, also, if prostitution becomes illegal, what will happen to the prostitutes that depended on prostitution as a source of income? They may have families (yes prostitutes can have families) to support and without the income, they are lost. Although yes, women should not have to resort to prostitution to live, the fact is they do. New jobs cannot be created within a month, which might be a month the former prostitute and her family goes hungry. How do you think we should go about that?
leonardlewis4 says2013-08-20T02:28:42.867

| RE: "If the 'poor slobs' also want the sex, then how is the prostitute exploiting them?"

Well, obviously, my use of the term 'poor slobs' was probably biased... The point is, the poor slob probably thinks he can't get what he wants/needs without paying for it... In that sense (in my mind), he is pitiful. The prostitute is exploiting him both sexually and financially. Granted, now I am arguing according to my Christian beliefs, but here it is... Human sexuality was intended to be a spiritual act of the joining of two people, man and woman, as one flesh. If the poor slob doesn't understand this, he is deceived. The prostitute is taking advantage of (and promoting) this deception for personal financial gain. As a result, the deception becomes even more ingrained and the poor slob's destructive self-opinion is reinforced.

| RE: "You are not saying that women who like (normal) sex are crazy, right?"

Absolutely not! I am saying that women who enjoy (in any sense) trading sex for nothing more than financial gain (with or without the sexual pleasure aspect) are crazy. The behavior is risky at best and physically/emotionally destructive at worst.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T02:33:22.307
Oh, ok, I understand. The only thing holding me back from agreeing that prostitution should be banned is my third question.
leonardlewis4 says2013-08-20T02:34:33.387

| RE: "...If prostitution becomes illegal, what will happen to the prostitutes that depended on prostitution as a source of income?"

Prostitution is already illegal almost everywhere. But to address your question... Let's say we got really tough on prostitution here in the U.S. ... In that case, society could provide for prostitutes to be rehabilitated (half-way houses, job/technical training, etc...) rather than penalized and incarcerated. In the long run, the cost/benefit would work out.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T02:45:26.160
You are right. I know prostitution is immoral, and if it does stay legalized, it should be harshly regulated.
leonardlewis4 says2013-08-20T02:53:39.533
BTW: We discussed female prostitution, but all of the same arguments hold true (in my view) if we turned the gender tables.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-08-20T03:12:07.640
Yes they do.
If you see any double comments in the future, please disregard them, they were an accident. If you don't, well then good.
toinfinityandbeyond says2013-09-07T17:23:33.977
By the way, thg, just tying this back to your original comment. You say that marriage is best explained with religious underpinnings. However, then why do we allow atheists to get married? Why aren't there protests about that? Atheists are allowed to have all the benefits of marriage even though they are not religious.