Chozo Tiger
74% complete
So. Do you support gay rights? Do you support same-sex marriage? Vote for the option which best describes your stance. Post your thoughts with it.
Go.
Go.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Same-sex marriage and gay rights in general: Yes or No?
- Thread starter Chozo Tiger
- Start date
- Status
Zazie
So 1991
This shouldn't be in the debate forums because it isn't a real debate. Does other people's sexual preferences effect you? No. Then keep out of other peoples buisness.
As for Gay Marriage, I don't support the government recognizing marriage at all, but if they must they should let any two consenting adults get married. A for Gay rights, of course they should have rights, everyone should have rights.
As for Gay Marriage, I don't support the government recognizing marriage at all, but if they must they should let any two consenting adults get married. A for Gay rights, of course they should have rights, everyone should have rights.
It's as valid of a debate as any, really. Abortion doesn't really effect anyone other than the person recieving it, and it's still a hotly debated topic. There's no legitimate reason to look down on this subject.
My views on this have gradually evolved over time, and as I've matured as a person. For the most part I support gays having the same rights as heterosexuals. Marriage I'm still a little unsure about. I feel that marriage, within the U.S. has strong religious, specifically Christian connotations. (Yes, I am aware of marriage in other cultures and how it's different, please don't feel the need to give me a history lesson.) I really feel that the gay community should compromise and accept civil unions. As long as the same rights and or benefits are granted with civil unions as are marriage, then I don't think discrimination is an issue. Unless... a title really means that much. I don't know, maybe it does.
Then there's the whole issue of whether or not you choose to gay. I'm not even really sure on this one anymore. To me it sounds sort of silly that you can "inherit gayness" but some of those studies sure are convincing. Inconclusive sometimes, but convincing. I think some people really do choose, as I can say that I've seen it happen. Especially in highschool where everyone seems to be sexually confused. Many I believe come out as gay or bisexual because they have large self esteem issues, and figure that if they can't get attention from the opposite sex, that maybe they can with the same sex. Then again, I think there are genuinely people that don't choose.
So, I believe in compromise. Accept civil unions, give gays the same rights as others, some people choose to be gay, some people don't. Simple stance I think.
Aquanova
Well-Known Member
I believe in Gay Marriage. I dont understand why its a big deal. I really dont understand why marriage still exists anyway. If two consenting Adults Gay or Straight want to live and raise children together they should be free to do so. There is no need for a legal, binding ceremony, or a contract. There is no need for2 people to be bound together by law. In this current age thats just ridiculous.I have nothing against relationships, I just dont think that Marriage is really nessesary.
I'm not saying that the term "marriage" is the make or break deal, but it seems that a lack of a title can increase infedility and disease. I feel that the fight between terms is a feeling of separate but equal kind of thing. It's a dumb fight, and personally I feel that being so nitpicky isn't helping the gay community.
While I agree that some people identify with a minority for attention, it seems unlikely that the majority of gays and lesbians and bisexuals choose such an identity for such purposes. Especially in this social climate when there is a huge division over this issue and you have Huckabee equating gays with drug users or the Vatican... well, they have their own **** to deal with.
But in all honestly, being gay isn't any easier than being straight - in fact, it may be harder. Finding a gay partner is extremely difficult. The process of coming out is pretty traumatic. The risk of being bullied, the mental health problems caused by such acts can really wear down on somebody. Fun fact: Did you know it is legal in more than 30 states to refuse service to a person(s) because of their sexual orientation?
But as I said, I don't doubt that some people feel some confusion, especially when our society puts such heavy importance on labels. I do know some people who explore their sexuality by labeling themselves as gay - for some it works, for others it doesn't. I think human sexuality is a very complex and fluid thing that never remains constant nor does it significantly change. The Kinsey scale, while its the best measurement we have, can't possibly account for everyone's sexual desires.
Because America does have a strong religious background, marriage, traditionally a religious ceremony, has several legal benefits and if history says anything, it's that America has trouble letting go of tradition.
Anyways, me time: and I have a lot to say.
DADT - The famous military policy. I don't see why we're discharging people who want to protect their country. Shouldn't we be taking the help? I mean, when you're out in the warzone, your fellow soldier isn't trying to feel up your junk - they're probably trying to stay alive. Plus, with the recent study of military attitudes towards homosexuals going on, the Pentagon is spending taxpayer money to safely get the opinion of gay soldiers. Doesn't it seem ridiculous how the Pentagon has to tiptoe around a policy meant to make things easier?
DOMA - Despite popular belief, this provision actually goes against several clauses. "Equal Protection" was a promise for equality and was written in a very broad scope. While it was written during the integration process, most laws are written with such a language that they can be adapted later on. That's why the Constitution is known as the Living Document. Plus, there's the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" which says that each state must respect the institutions of other states, which is impossible when DOMA allows states to arbitrarily pick and choose what rights they recognize.
Origins of Homosexuality - as I said above, human sexuality is a very complex thing, but lately I've seen little relevence as to how this questions plays a role in the recent marriage debates. A choice is no reason to be discriminated against. People choose to be Muslim, but they can still get married. People choose to kill, but they all still go to jail. Choice was never a reason to deny equality.
Conversion Therapy - I can't talk about this without throwing up a little. Just, read this if you want to be slightly disturbed. There's also this interesting muckraker article.
Gay Families - I can't deny that having gender-specific role models has an effect on developing children. But I don't see how having gay parents poses such a significant risk to deny gay couples to have children. I mean, some kids have one parent, soem don't even have their real parents. But as a developing child, I think having loving parents is mor eimportant than having a mom and dad. Besides, with surrogacy and all that, there's a chance that a little boy could have one mom, her husband, and his two dads, comign to a total of 4 parental figures. Not too bad, right? or is it only limited to 2?
Religion - Specifically, Christianity (sorry, I'm really only familiar with this religion.) Until all of the passages in the Bible are said to come from the Book of God instead of Paul, Eziekel, etc., I can't really accept that the Bible is exactly what God wanted, but rather it was mortals who thoguht they knew what God wanted. Besides, when did religion become a deciding factor in politics? Like, it didn't work well with miscegentaion, did it?
I think that about sums everything up.
Last edited:
Considering how the USA has had civil (read: non-religious) marriage since long before any of us were born, what the hell is the big deal in calling same-sex unions "marriage" which have all the same rights as any other couple?
There is absolutely no reason to make a "separate but equal" institution for same-sex couples, so uh, yeah, just call it marriage like we do in Canada. And hurry up while you're at it, America.
There is absolutely no reason to make a "separate but equal" institution for same-sex couples, so uh, yeah, just call it marriage like we do in Canada. And hurry up while you're at it, America.
Juputoru
M-m-m-m-onobear?!
There is literally no reason whatsoever not to give gay couples the same right to marry as straight couples. Well, unless you count "pissing off homophobes" as a legitimate reason to stop gay marriage, which I don't.
It's not(or to put it more accurately, it shouldn't be) an issue of "tradition" or the question of "is homosexuality a choice?" Gay marriage hurts no one, and it allows gay couples the same rights straight people are afforded. Tradition and the cause of homosexuality don't matter at all when such a simple law could help so many people without hurting anyone.
As for civil unions...you can throw around civil unions all you want, but there are two big problems with them:
1)They're not "marriage." You can claim they give couples the same rights as marriage, but many laws are based around the specific language of "marriage." Can a civil union-ed couple carry over their union to another country the same way they could with marriage? Would legislators really want to sit down and make sure that every law in the entire nation that mentions "marriage" has civil unions added in the appropriate places? Would civil unions as a seperate status from marriage not be an incredibly easy target for homophobes looking to take away rights?
2)Seperate is not equal. I'll spare you the tired old comparisions to segregated facilities for blacks, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that unless you're proposing forcing everyone into civil unions - with marriage becoming a purely religious term(and that "solution" to the gay marriage issue has its own problems) - civil unions are inheritantly seperating gays from straights. It makes them into second-class citizens who aren't worthy of marriage in the eyes of the law.
Will we end up accepting civil unions in a lot of places that aren't yet tolerant enough to accept gay marriage? Yes. But we should push for full equality anyway.
It's not(or to put it more accurately, it shouldn't be) an issue of "tradition" or the question of "is homosexuality a choice?" Gay marriage hurts no one, and it allows gay couples the same rights straight people are afforded. Tradition and the cause of homosexuality don't matter at all when such a simple law could help so many people without hurting anyone.
As for civil unions...you can throw around civil unions all you want, but there are two big problems with them:
1)They're not "marriage." You can claim they give couples the same rights as marriage, but many laws are based around the specific language of "marriage." Can a civil union-ed couple carry over their union to another country the same way they could with marriage? Would legislators really want to sit down and make sure that every law in the entire nation that mentions "marriage" has civil unions added in the appropriate places? Would civil unions as a seperate status from marriage not be an incredibly easy target for homophobes looking to take away rights?
2)Seperate is not equal. I'll spare you the tired old comparisions to segregated facilities for blacks, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that unless you're proposing forcing everyone into civil unions - with marriage becoming a purely religious term(and that "solution" to the gay marriage issue has its own problems) - civil unions are inheritantly seperating gays from straights. It makes them into second-class citizens who aren't worthy of marriage in the eyes of the law.
Will we end up accepting civil unions in a lot of places that aren't yet tolerant enough to accept gay marriage? Yes. But we should push for full equality anyway.
There's actually quite a few protections/rights/etc afforded to people who get married in the legal sense. Visitation rights if your partner's in the hospital, protection from having to testify against your partner in court, joint adoption of children, automatic inheritance of jointly-owned property, joint tax filing, and much much more!Arceus-sama said:
My view on this is: Who cares what connotations marriage has in the US? Marriage changes all the time. It used to be about tying together two families for mutual economic or social benefit. The man used to have complete power over his wife. People of two different races weren't always allowed to get married. Yes, marriage has certain connotations, but those connotations can change, and people aren't required to follow those connotations. At any rate, the religious aspect of marriage should have absolutely no bearing on the legal aspect of marriage. We do not live in a theocracy. The first amendment is there for a reason.Ethan said:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Wow - Fused's last thread actually died.
I'm with Glass Eye, this shouldn't really be a debate. Although I understand it IS a debate, as Ethan pointed out it's a perfectly legitimate thing to talk about, I think that:
a) Most people against full gay rights are uninformed, or vote against the issue because they have no part in it. For me, I have gay parents, and going on anecdotal evidence throughout my life I'm fairly certain it's legitimate brain chemistry and not a trend (although teenagers can decide to be faux-gay) but those who have no emotional investment need scientific proof.
b) As Jupitoru mentioned, marriage has indeed changed over time, it is just harder to consciously force a change today because everyone tuned into the media will be aware of it.
c) Voters sure how to legislate what they largely percieve to be an private matter, so they simply reject it saying it's none of their buisiness, inadvertantly holding back the gay rights movement which thrives on the acceptance of other people, or worse, are offended because they percieve the gay rights movement as trying to force them to change their mind about whether being gay is good or bad, forcing them to withdraw even more.
I'm for freedom of speech, even if it seems prejudiced, and I think it's ridiculous to arrest someone or put someone in therapy for being a homophobe. This sort of stuff is actually going on, and makes me heavily sympathize with those who skeptical of the gay rights movement.
Personally though, I would want a Federal Marriage Clearance law, stating that gay marriage is legal in all states, although any church may opt-out of marrying gay couples for holy reasons. In the midst of such a law, I'd like to learn more about how to accomodate people, institutions who are uncomfortable with gay couples. Since I'm pro-state rights, my own stance confuses me, but it's evolving as I learn more.
I'm with Glass Eye, this shouldn't really be a debate. Although I understand it IS a debate, as Ethan pointed out it's a perfectly legitimate thing to talk about, I think that:
a) Most people against full gay rights are uninformed, or vote against the issue because they have no part in it. For me, I have gay parents, and going on anecdotal evidence throughout my life I'm fairly certain it's legitimate brain chemistry and not a trend (although teenagers can decide to be faux-gay) but those who have no emotional investment need scientific proof.
b) As Jupitoru mentioned, marriage has indeed changed over time, it is just harder to consciously force a change today because everyone tuned into the media will be aware of it.
c) Voters sure how to legislate what they largely percieve to be an private matter, so they simply reject it saying it's none of their buisiness, inadvertantly holding back the gay rights movement which thrives on the acceptance of other people, or worse, are offended because they percieve the gay rights movement as trying to force them to change their mind about whether being gay is good or bad, forcing them to withdraw even more.
I'm for freedom of speech, even if it seems prejudiced, and I think it's ridiculous to arrest someone or put someone in therapy for being a homophobe. This sort of stuff is actually going on, and makes me heavily sympathize with those who skeptical of the gay rights movement.
Personally though, I would want a Federal Marriage Clearance law, stating that gay marriage is legal in all states, although any church may opt-out of marrying gay couples for holy reasons. In the midst of such a law, I'd like to learn more about how to accomodate people, institutions who are uncomfortable with gay couples. Since I'm pro-state rights, my own stance confuses me, but it's evolving as I learn more.
Last edited:
~Spacial_Rendation~
De Ibwis Twigga!
I think gay rights and Gay marriage should be legal. If 2 people love eachother, than why should we intervine what happens behind closed doors? It doesn't effect us.
Vermehlo_Steele
Grand Arbiter II
I support equal rights for gays, as they're just people. Their sexuality has no bearing on what type of person one will be. To an (varying degree of intensity) extent, one's gender [1], race [2] and religion [3] do have an effect, but not sexuality, to the best of my knowledge. (unless they act like the gay/lesbian stereotype)
My only concern is this, and it may be irrelevant, what happens to any adopted/IVF child? Does that child become confused because their family isn't 'normal'? Orientation isn't supposed to matter, but I'm too much of a cynic to think children wouldn't live in mainstream society and have gay parents and then not be effected in some way.
[1] mental/physical/emotional differences.
[2] In the USA the most economically successful races are (from most successful to least) Asian, white, black, hispanic (not a race though)
[3] Ideas, traits and beliefs.
Last edited:
7 tyranitars
Well-Known Member
ofcourse they should have the same rights/marriage, they are just normal people who just happen to love people from the same gender.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
I'm not sure if your concern is relevant or not. It may be relevant to question all unusual families, such as kids that live with a single parent, kids that live with grandparents, kids that live with aunts and uncles, kids that live with their siblings, cousins, or someone not related to them at all.
(Anecdotal evidence alert) I haven't, myself been perturbed by being raised by two lesbians. Orientation didn't really bother me. My only concern was that I was sometimes angry that they did not keep contact with my father, who I never met. (/Anecdote)
But then again, that sort of situation can arise from being in anything other than a nuclear family, and to just single out gay adoption as being damaging without considering the spectrum of other family-types makes me wonder why gay families are questioned so much more.
Also, I would argue that the "mainstream" is just an illusion. Nobody really fits into it, and even if someone did, there are still many more people who don't fit into the "mainstream".
Last edited:
At the risk of sounding like a parrot, yeah, I'm all for gay marriage.
And why should they have to? To appease the homophobes who are worried about the validity of their marriage somehow being undermined by two people who are different from themselves have it too? To support the thoughts of people who hate the idea that not every relationship is exactly like theirs?
You mentioned that you feel marriage is a Christian thing in the U.S. Your marriage, maybe. But judging by the existence of civil marriages (you know, non-religious ones), not everyone feels the same way. If you're arguing that marriage in the U.S. is and should remain a Christian thing, then you're also saying that only Christians should be allowed to get married (which oddly enough still doesn't exclude all the gays either!). And I'm pretty sure that violates some sort of law your country has.
Compromising at this point and settling for civil marriages is saying that this "separate but equal" crap (which isn't even true in this case, because I'm pretty sure "civil unions" don't give the same rights as marriage) is okay. It wasn't okay when black people got separate drinking fountains, separate schools, and separate bus seats; why is it okay here? And don't give me that "THAT'S INSULTING TO BLACKS, THEY WENT THROUGH WAY MORE THAN GAYS DO" thing you went through last thread. The only reason gays weren't as persecuted as blacks is because it's way easier to hide your sexual orientation than it is to hide your skin colour.
The only reason gays have to "compromise" and accept reduced rights and/or this "separate-but-equal" ******** after all the advances they've made in gaining equal rights is to appease the hyper-religious who feel threatened by their very existence and are the reason gays had to fight for their rights in the first place. If people were forced in the past to "compromise" in such a way, human rights would have gotten nowhere. Asking gays to do so is flat-out unfair at best.
EDIT: Curiosity leads me to ask a question of the person who answered the poll with the third option. How can one say they're all for gay rights, but then turn right around and say they're against the idea of both gay marriage and gay civil unions? I'd think the two are kinda contradictory. It's like saying you support the rights of black people while standing atop your boat full of slaves.
Alternatively, they could just be a troll. =/
Ethan said:
And why should they have to? To appease the homophobes who are worried about the validity of their marriage somehow being undermined by two people who are different from themselves have it too? To support the thoughts of people who hate the idea that not every relationship is exactly like theirs?
You mentioned that you feel marriage is a Christian thing in the U.S. Your marriage, maybe. But judging by the existence of civil marriages (you know, non-religious ones), not everyone feels the same way. If you're arguing that marriage in the U.S. is and should remain a Christian thing, then you're also saying that only Christians should be allowed to get married (which oddly enough still doesn't exclude all the gays either!). And I'm pretty sure that violates some sort of law your country has.
Compromising at this point and settling for civil marriages is saying that this "separate but equal" crap (which isn't even true in this case, because I'm pretty sure "civil unions" don't give the same rights as marriage) is okay. It wasn't okay when black people got separate drinking fountains, separate schools, and separate bus seats; why is it okay here? And don't give me that "THAT'S INSULTING TO BLACKS, THEY WENT THROUGH WAY MORE THAN GAYS DO" thing you went through last thread. The only reason gays weren't as persecuted as blacks is because it's way easier to hide your sexual orientation than it is to hide your skin colour.
The only reason gays have to "compromise" and accept reduced rights and/or this "separate-but-equal" ******** after all the advances they've made in gaining equal rights is to appease the hyper-religious who feel threatened by their very existence and are the reason gays had to fight for their rights in the first place. If people were forced in the past to "compromise" in such a way, human rights would have gotten nowhere. Asking gays to do so is flat-out unfair at best.
EDIT: Curiosity leads me to ask a question of the person who answered the poll with the third option. How can one say they're all for gay rights, but then turn right around and say they're against the idea of both gay marriage and gay civil unions? I'd think the two are kinda contradictory. It's like saying you support the rights of black people while standing atop your boat full of slaves.
Alternatively, they could just be a troll. =/
Last edited:
Chozo Tiger
74% complete
Saying that gays shouldn't have access to marriage (MARRIAGE. Not civil unions, none of that separate but equal ********.) is a lot like saying that black people shouldn't have access to an education.
Equality for all. Period. Especially if it's not hurting anyone else.
Equality for all. Period. Especially if it's not hurting anyone else.
This is a major concern for some opponents, and it really has to do with our insistent urge to uphold tradition.
Everyone is self-concious - that's a fact of life. But when people single it out and tease you for whatever reason, that only perpetuates the situation. That's why tolerance and acceptance is so important. Kids should be aware of diversity, they should be proud of how they are different, or how their parents are different. I don't think opponents of these issues know how damaging their remarks and opinions really are - they can easily create a riff between adults and their peers, children and their peers, parents and child, etc. Ignorance is truly toxic.
Either you're going for very risky sarcasm or you agree with how countries like Malawi or Iran deal with these human issues.
You better have a damn good reason for supporting the treatment of gays in countries like the Gambia and Uganda. In the last thread, your arguments were based on apathy and laziness ("the god we call status quo says that being gay is wrong, therefore it should stay wrong forever"). Now you're just outright hostile. Any explanation you have ought to be interesting.
Cutiebunny
Frosty Fashionista
Meh. This is one topic that I'm not too interested in. I honestly don't care what other people do. As long as it doesn't infringe on me(because, regardless of whether you're straight or homosexual, I don't want to see people sucking face when eating) and I don't have to pay taxes to fund, I don't care.
But, homosexuality concerns me, if only for the immigration application that it is. Yes, immigration. That's my favorite topic ever. But, in the US, as well as in many first world nations, we allow heterosexuals to petition their fiance(e)/spouse to join them in the US. Once they've received status, they can petition over all their family members. In the US, one person can sponsor, through marriage, family relationships, etc. up to 273 people.
That's a lot.
So, if the US grants the same rights to homosexuals, consider that this will already increase the amount of people in the US. Not only that, but the field is rife with fraud(as is heterosexual marriage fraud). Now, my best friend of the same gender can petition me and we'll act like we're gay and no one will know the difference! This is especially true as most states do not allow and/or recognize same sex unions. So, then, how would you prove that you and your best mate are married?
But, homosexuality concerns me, if only for the immigration application that it is. Yes, immigration. That's my favorite topic ever. But, in the US, as well as in many first world nations, we allow heterosexuals to petition their fiance(e)/spouse to join them in the US. Once they've received status, they can petition over all their family members. In the US, one person can sponsor, through marriage, family relationships, etc. up to 273 people.
That's a lot.
So, if the US grants the same rights to homosexuals, consider that this will already increase the amount of people in the US. Not only that, but the field is rife with fraud(as is heterosexual marriage fraud). Now, my best friend of the same gender can petition me and we'll act like we're gay and no one will know the difference! This is especially true as most states do not allow and/or recognize same sex unions. So, then, how would you prove that you and your best mate are married?
- Status