The debate "Gay marriage should be legalized in every state." was started by
May 24, 2015, 5:20 pm.
63 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 41 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
soullesschicken posted 3 arguments, PsychDave posted 12 arguments, Amanurl posted 1 argument, WordSpeller posted 5 arguments, bearunter posted 3 arguments, lararea posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
toughgamerjerry posted 3 arguments, GetRekt posted 2 arguments, MJ posted 1 argument, tr posted 1 argument, action007man posted 2 arguments, Damn3d posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
alma_theo, soullesschicken, PsychDave, fabian3546, Sosocratese, I_Voyager, INDIA, WordSpeller, jedty, invincible_01, Amanurl, bearunter, amanofprogress, DanielleR123, drama, rishab, thatjonathanguy, WesleySr, Zero0, fgarcia505, lararea, ScarletandRose, Chabii, stantinou93, Mathew, Upbeatethan, PhoenixF1re, weneedchange09, Afshin, denno27, whymlxxx and 32 visitors agree.
toughgamerjerry, jonatron5, GetRekt, MJ, tr, sdiop, Damn3d, action007man, evamara, danval130, Maxx_Royy, jj_jaim, KimUri, raz, vumtucks, DavidStuff777, Flaming_Butt_Tart_42, kyaah, The_lamp, kay_joey1101, sabrina, Ashna, Alp4president, jjrocks1738 and 17 visitors disagree.
I'm sorry but disliking what somebody does and who they are and how they act upon with such strong feeling is very hateful. What happened to God being omnibelevolent? If he is all-loving and as you claim 'created everybody in bis own image' why exactly did he create them as gay? And why EXACTLY can he not love his unique creation? I think if you are going to follow the church then you need to look at your 'values'. God 'apparently' gave us freedom and he told us to 'rule over the fish of the sea....' if you follow this then why don't homosexuals have the freedom to marry in society without it being deemed as a sin in the eyes of the church and the majority of the christians. If you can answer my questions morrally then I might just have to believe you. But I highly doubt that you will. Because you can't.
That argument sounds reasonable until you consider that some people would like to reinstate segregation. Should the state be able to strip people of other races of the right to shop in certain stores? What about making interracial marriage illegal, since it bothers some people? The state should never withhold rights from someone because it is a popular idea.
Fair enough. But don't Christians also believe that God made each of us individually, with love? I do not believe that being gay is a choice, some are and some are not. God would not create a human just to hate him/her for how they were created.
This is why I say that Christians do not hate gays for simply being gay. They were created that way and there isn't a heck of alot they can do about it. Maybe some of the more extreme protestant sects hate them, but I don't see how you could call yourself Christian and disagree with the way someone was created.
It is the act of marriage which is the problem - The Bible clearly states marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman. So, most sects will not agree with gay marriage.
@Damn3d First off, I said Christians see being gay as wrong. The church is not just Christians. There are other groups that go to a church who are not Christians. And the Bible says that God meant for man and woman to be together. Not just marry, not just sex. Being together in general. Also, I never said that the Christians hate the gays. I said that the Christians see the gays as wrong. Those people may be gay, but they are still human beings. They just, to Christians, made the wrong choice, like all of us have done at some point in our lives. So I cannot see how being gay is not wrong to Christians. Could you please elaborate on why you believe that?
@PsychDave, I'm not saying that our founding fathers were perfect. Nobody is perfect. There have been new laws placed and laws taken away since our founding fathers. But nobody can deny that our founding fathers were good leaders and based America off of biblical morals. That being said, I do not believe that our founding fathers said anything on gay people. That could be because the gays were not as popular back then. Or it could be because they wanted to see this country as a free country and letting people be free without saying anything against their faith. That is up to you to decide.
Now back to the actual topic. I do not believe that the states should be forced to let gays be legalized. As was said earlier, the gays are a minority. The states have a governor, but every state law that he/she makes or changes, has to be voted by the people of the state. There are people who support gays but are not gays and so I think that there are some states that, if voted on would have gays be legalized. But not every state. And so if the people do not want them to be legalized then they should not be forced to. Or else, (worst case scenario) riots may start. So I think it should be up to the states to make that decision.
Jerry, being gay is not wrong in the eyes of the Church. It's a common misconception bit it is simply untrue. It's just the act of marriage / sex that is the issue. Just thought I'd say that, too often I hear 'The Church hates gays'. False.
What the founding fathers wanted is irrelevant to modern society. Slavery was protected when America was founded and sexism was rampant. Black people and women had to fight for the vote and equal rights. We cannot base moral or legal judgments off what we think important people might have done. We should think for ourselves and base our decisions on what is right, and legal.
If you must depend on their words, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By denying gay people right to marry, you are saying that they are not equal to heterosexual people, and denying them the right to pursue happiness. These words are the most iconic part of the declaration of independence, and by fighting against gay people having equal rights, you are going against the letter and spirit of these words.
Being gay is wrong from a religious point of view. When you say state I'm gonna assume you mean United States. And what sadly, a lot of people have forgotten, is that America was founded off of a religious point of view. When the constitution was signed, only one or two people had not openly said they were a Christian. The four founders were all Christian and based the laws off of biblical morals. But there were things like stoning people that were left out of the laws. What we do not know is if the founding fathers had wanted gays to be illegal or not. None of them said they supported gays but they never outlawed gays either. It is very hard to say what their intentions were but since America is still based off of biblical morals, as seen in the pledge of allegiance, I think it should be outlawed. But not everyone in the US is Christian. So this may not apply to them.
Fair enough. I just hadn't heard any non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, so I was curious.
Religion is the foremost one.
My point is that GetRekt was probably not basing his opinion on religion, or anything for that matter.
So his reason was absent.
What are the legitimate reasons many people don't agree with gay marriage?
Yeah, that's what I said too. If he had a legitimate argument you should listen to him, but since he seems to have absolutely no reason for finding gay people "disgusting", you should just ignore him.
Maybe it is a trend. But then again remember that many people don't agree with gay marriage for legitimate reasons.
In this case, I'm pretty sure GetRekt was trolling and you did just what he was looking for people to do.
While bearunter did make some hard to defend assumptions about GetRecked, parroting someone's words back can be am effective way of pointing out the flaw in their argument. It may not have been a good idea to pair that with a comment about respecting people's opinions, which bearunter has already acknowledged, but you cannot simply dismiss opposing views based on one comment.
yes I understand I jumped to conclusions but don't deny others speeches because of my rash argument.
if I were to edit that I would simply put it as I would say all sexist homophobic racist people believe in that due to them not respecting others and I understand I was being hypocritical.
Not only did you contradict yourself, calling for tolerance and then calling someone who disagreed very intolerant insults, you proceeded to jump to the conclusion that he was racist and sexism. Why should I listen to your perspective when you devolve yourself to his level?
I try to be respectful and tolerant of anyone who is respectful and tolerant. If someone is religious and speaks out against gay people because they honestly don't want those people to go to Hell (and in their view that's what will happen) I consider it a very different situation than those who preach hate and advocate assaulting and killing gay people.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if the opinion is that someone else is less of a person or should have fewer rights, in my mind they lose the right to have their opinion respected. They should still be respected, but their opinion is fair game.
No! Don't feel sorry. It's good to don't listen to people who despise of others for absolutely no reason.
I understand I was a bit of a hypocritical
Wait, I mean, there's nothing wrong with you disrespecting his opinion, not him disrespecting other people for their view :/
Haha I'm just kidding. You dislike his opinion because he's against other people's opinion. There's nothing wrong with that xD that's just a sort of inception o.0
What!? You say that everyone's opinion should be respected, but you just called getrekt DISGUSTING for the way the thinks! Are you ok with that?
Who said anything about getting married in a church? There are states that do not recognize gay marriage at all. That is what I was responding to. You are fighting a strawman that you are setting up and it doesn't help your argument.
I agree but this...
WHY ARE THEY SEEKING TO GET MARRIED IN A CHURCH. A COURT ROOM IS ENOUGH.
IT'S LIKE YOU WANT TO SAY FK U GOD BY CHANGING A RELIGION.
HERE A SOLUTION. MAKE YOUR OWN DAM CHURCH
Not the point. Gays are a minority. All men will never marry all men or vice versa. its for the minority's. and you know it.
Why is your belief in who should marry who more important than another person deciding who they love? That kind of intolerance is kind of disgusting, in my opinion.
I have never heard of anyone making gay marriage mandatory. What is the point of this argument?
let's consider that all men married men .. and women have married women .. how will the human life circle continues ..
Gays should be condemned.. A man is for a woman and a woman is for man. Very simple.. Why do they need to make it complicated. smh disgusting creatures..
OK I will accept this only if I may find any benefits of it
Marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It has legal, tax and insurance implications. My wife is on my health insurance. If I was gay and not legally allowed to marry my partner, he would not be eligible to be on it. That means if he doesn't have his own insurance, if he got sick it would be expensive. Even if he does, it means we would be paying twice for the same coverage that a married couple gets.
If your not religious you shouldn't have any problem at all with it.
Why get married in the eyes of a God that believed that ' a man who lays down with another man shall burn in the fire' ? I'm not even religious, just saying.
That is a dangerous line of thought because for years people were offended by interracial marriages. Someone taking offense at an action that does not on any way impact their life is not the problem of the person doing the action. If someone told you that they found the color of your shoes offensive and told you to change them, you would likely not receive it well because what right do they have to dictate what you can and cannot do, if it doesn't impact them. Some atheists are offended by all religions and all religious ceremonies, but I would never agree that we should bam them to make these people happier or more comfortable. There is a point when it is seeking to take offense at how someone else lives.
If that belief is in the equality if every person then you can. Especially in the US where the declaration of independence explicitly says "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." By banning some people from being married, you are prevention them from seeking the same happiness that others are allowed. It goes on to say "... To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." Meaning that the government not only has the power to refuse to allow discrimination, it has the duty to do so.
If you are talking about another nation, there are likely other sources (though likely less known), but most of the people I have spoken to who strongly opposed gay rights were from the USA, so I have addressed my comments to that audience.
First of all, the most sensitive topic to tackle is the right to do what you want to do. Yes it is given that all people are entitled the right to marry any person they have a relationship with
But this right ends at the point that it offends peoples' opinions and especially belief.
You can't push / force your belief in some countries especially on those christian countries..
The state is not an entity. It is made up of the people living in the region. To say that the state shouldn't be forced to do anything it doesn't want to is to say that the people running government shouldn't have to listen to the people who elected them.
Even if your argument were to be interpreted as the National government shouldn't tell the states what to do, in the case of equality, they should. If a state wanted to legalize slavery, take away women's right to vote or ban interracial marriages, the federal government would have to step in because all of these are protected groups. If sexual preference became protected under national law, discrimination becomes illegal whether the states like it or not.
Or the states can allow it. It doesn't hurt those states. It only makes those people move. There is absolutely no reason to make gay marriage illegal. The states aren't put over the people.
I agree that every person should have the opportunity to make their own decisions, but it's also the states right to have their own law. I don't think it should be forced upon the state to legalize it if they don't want to. America is the land of the free, but forcing a law upon the states is taking away that freedom. If people want to be gay but live in a state where it's illegal, then they can just move to a different state. But this is also a very debatable topic because people could say that because America is the land of the free, that homosexuality should be legal everywhere. But if that comes up, think of it this way. The people can move to a different state. But the states can't move.