Should there be gay marriage and/or civil unions?

Asked by: willbertbot
  • There's no such thing as gay marriage: Just marriage between two people who love each other.

    I've seen man people on here talking about how if we allow gay people to marry each other, next thing we'll be legalizing zoophilic marriages, or pedophilia, etc.. But that's splitting hairs. There is a large difference between pedophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality. Homosexuals don't try to have sex with children, or animals. As well, I've seen many others talk about how the point of marriage is to create a secure home for a child. The same can be given by a gay couple. Sterile people are allowed to marry, and considering that there are hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. In need of adoption, heterosexual couples can't always provide it. By denying gay people the right to marry, and restricting their right to adopt, we are also denying the right of thousands of children to have a loving and secure home.

  • Civil unions are demeaning.

    When people want to take away your rights, demean you, or even go the extra mile and blurt out a bunch of delusional nonsense about the destruction of society, then let me make my self absolutely clear: you don't compromise with these people. Honestly, it's ridiculous, and there's never going to be an end to their non-arguments.

    'The sanctity of marriage!'

    You mean like 30 year olds marrying their 13 year old cousins?
    Marrying slaves against their will?
    Pawning off a woman to a man she doesn't want to marry so the family can gain more prestige?

    If you want to talk about the 'sanctity of marriage', then you clearly haven't read up on your history. No, we don't want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Because it wasn't until it became a SECULAR institution that we stopped treating people horribly. Otherwise, women and black people would have never been granted the right to marry whoever they want. And funnily enough, this 'sanctity of marriage' was the exact same argument people used against interracial marriage and woman's rights. Seriously, guys? You don't see a pattern?

  • Institutionalizing discrimination is simply wrong.

    A "civil union" does not have the same rights and privileges as marriage. It is no different than the bogus "separate but equal" nonsense the government tried to foist on African Americans as a way to institutionalize their lower status.
    There is absolutely no reason that two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Heterosexuals clearly are doing a wretched job of marriage, marriage is unrelated to whether or not a couple has natural children, and religious claims do not matter to the law in a secular democratic republic like the United States.

  • Reproduction is not the main goal of a relationship.

    To me, there are several factors weighing in heavily towards the legitimacy of gay marriage. First off, we cannot exclude these people from marriage, on account of equal rights. We are all born with the same fundamental human rights that transcends every other type of law established by us. To discriminate purely on the basis of sexual preference is to create a second class citizenship, completely contradicting our universal human rights.

    Second, procreation is not the main underlying principle of a relationship; love is. If the fact that homosexual couples are incapable of reproduction is a sound argument to exclude them from the right to get married, then by all means we should exclude heterosexual couples that have no desire to have children from marriage as well. We should exclude couples who are physically incapable of having children from marriage. It is obvious that this is appalling; why is it not equally disturbing that people are being rejected their happiness with this same flawed reasoning?

    The single fundamental of a relationship is love. Any two people who are in a mutually loving and caring relationship should have the right to get married. As Chris Rock once said, gay people have a right to be just as miserable as everybody else.

  • 'Separate but equal' isn't equal

    The literal definition of marriage, as defined by dictionary.Com:
    1. A legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present.
    2. A. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
    *b. A similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sex marriage.*

    Even if the correct literal definition didn't provide this, it still wouldn't matter. Marriage is generally a religious event, but it is not, and has never truly been, *defined* by religion. Marriage is nothing more than a word that is used to identify the legitimacy of a long term pair-bond between human couples. Using different terminology entirely for homosexual couples that have been recognized as 'legitimate' and heterosexual couples that have been deemed 'legitimate' implies a fundamental difference.

    Using 'potential for reproduction' as the basis for this terminology fails in basic logic; even in cases where one party is sterile, or totally unwilling to have children, or both are too old for this to work, heterosexual unions are still called 'marriages'. The reasons for love between two individuals and the desire for long term companionship has infinitely more to do with the personalities and individual psychology of the individuals involved than it does with any physical attributes. There simply is no logical basis for required difference in terminology, and it's discriminatory and incorrect to imply that there is.

  • A False Choice?

    Do we really have to choose either of them? Marriage has commonly been understood to simply denote a union of a man and a woman. This family structure seems to have served us well for a long period of time. I see no reason to alter it for a 2 to 3% that choose to identify themselves through a sexual fetish and there are even instances where we do not permit a man and a woman to enter into this union when they are siblings or very close relatives. There are of course many bizarre desires like a woman that wished to "marry" a 600 year old bridge, if you can fathom that, and a woman that wished to marry her cherished pet. I would simply end by saying that people have the freedom to partake in all sorts of perverted fetishes and whatever floats their boat and given the growing social problems as a result of out-of-wedlock births and rising divorce rates, we don't need to further disrupt the institution of marriage.

  • Don't Ruin Marriage

    Marriage is between a man and woman with the purpose of establishing a family unit.
    Not between two of the same gender, in which there can be no establishment of a family unit except by artificial means, and thus it is not a marriage with purpose. I have nothing against gay people, but I do have something against gay marriage.

  • There is no state interest in gay marriage.

    The state (ie the people) has decided that the best way to raise children is to have a mother and father who are committed to each other and their children. To that end they established the institution of marriage. Since the state has decided that procreation among married couples is desirable if we expect to have future generations of our society and that being married and raising children requires sacrifice it provides incentives for doing so such as tax deductions. It's as simple as that. Marriage is not about who or what you love, the dress, the cake, a means to spousal benefits or state approval of one's sexual proclivities.

    It's odd that the same people who want gay marriage (ie straight liberals) are the same ones who worked so hard to disparage marriage with their support of no fault divorce and the feminist idea that men aren't needed. Gay marriage is just another way to make a mockery out of marriage. We can see the results. The preferred method of procreating in certain areas is to have the local gang bangers breeding the 14 yr old's, or for high school girls to form get pregnant cliques. We can see from the crime statistics and welfare tab how this is working out.

  • NO State-Licensed Marriage for Anyone

    Marriage is an institution that predates organized government. It originated when families developed and we were far more tribal-ized social creatures. As such, it is an institution of organized religion, and under the doctrine of church & state separation, the state really has no business saying ANYTHING about it--not even licensing it to straight couples. That said, any couple should be free to marry, in the privacy of their church or civic organization of their choice, but on a purely secular level, the state should have no say in the domestic affairs--positive treatment or negative treatment--of such arrangements.

    The only reason this is an issue nowadays is because of the associated tax, financial, and legal benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples. These benefits should not be conferred to ANY couples--straight or gay--at the expense of others. Straight people should not have to finance (through taxes) benefits of gay couples any more than gays & single people should have to subsidize straights. All such arrangements should be privatized, and the state should let any and all private associations be undertaken freely.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.