1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Same-sex marriage and gay rights in general: Yes or No?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Chozo Tiger, May 24, 2010.

?

Your stance on gay marriage and gay rights?

  1. Same-sex marriage; Gay rights all the way.

    75.1%
  2. I support civil unions, not marriage; Gay rights all the way.

    7.6%
  3. Not civil unions nor marriage; Gay rights all the way.

    1.8%
  4. Not civil unions nor marriage; Against gay rights.

    7.3%
  5. Homosexual activity of any kind should be punishable by law

    8.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GaZsTiC

    GaZsTiC Alternating

    This thread isn't necessarily a terrible idea but it isn't ripe for debate. The majority of people on this thread have matured enough to know that homosexuality is nothing wrong. And any person who has voted against gay people having rights will turn away from posting their feelings because everyone else doesn't feel the same way.

    In the same manner as any straight married couple would: they are married under the law and will have a wedding certificate.
     
  2. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    Depends on what context you're talking about.. I think it does exist in some topics such as race, movies, etc.
     
  3. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Marriage certificates? The exact same way a heterosexual couple would?

    That is seriously one of the weakest arguments I've heard against gay marriage. What, exactly, keeps heterosexuals from doing the same thing? Nothing - you said it yourself, it happens already. By your logic, that can apply as an argument against heterosexual marriage as well. Plus, gays are estimated to be only about 10% of the population, so immigration due to what you just explained wouldn't increase overall immigration that much. Furthermore, unless I misunderstand the law, wouldn't gay marriage have to be legal in the country the spouse is in as well?

    Even if you're arguing that it would just be easier for it to happen (for example, for a heterosexual to pretend to be gay and do the same thing as an actual heterosexual), they'd still have to go through the exact same crap that heterosexuals go through to prove their marriage. Why is this any different? And, once again, every word you just said can be used to argue against heterosexual marriage as well.
     
  4. SergeiDragunov

    SergeiDragunov Crits Everywhere

    I can name 5 of my best friends off the top of my head who are bi, and two that are gay. So yes, I support it.
     
  5. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Interesting perspective... if it didn't sound so crazy. You honestly just thinkly connected two completely different issues together - gay marriage and mass immigration.

    First of all, can you think of a real life example where someone has petitioned over 273 people via a marriage certificate? Probably not.

    You know what, I'm not even arguing this. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, it has to do with current immigration standards. Don't lump completely separate problems on an already suppressed minority.
     
  6. SparklingMistral

    SparklingMistral The #1 Remus Lupin f

    I'm all for same-sex marriage and gay rights. People should be allowed to fall in love with whoever they want, whether they be male or female. Sexuality shouldn't matter that much in society. People can be who they want to be; they shouldn't have to be hated for their sexual orientation. A gay person is still like every other male. A lesbian person is still like every other female. A bisexual person is still like every other male or female. The only difference between a gay/lesbian/bisexual person is their sexual orientation. Just because they're homosexual or bisexual or whatever doesn't mean that you should shun them from society.

    Some of my closest friends are homosexual or even bisexual. Do I care? No. As a matter of fact, I support them in their decision. They're still my friends, regardless of their sexual orientation.
     
  7. HoennMaster

    HoennMaster Well-Known Member

    I support Gay Marraige and Rights 100% I don't see why not. There is absouletly nothing wrong with it and I love the fact that straight people really don't have good arguments against it. "God said marriage is between a man and a woman". That same God also said not to commit adultery, yet married people do sometimes, and God also said he would love you no matter what. So going by that, God really doesn't care apparently.

    No to mention they say Gay Marraige would ruin marriage, yet marriage has already been ruined by straight people. Divorce rates are super high.

    Seriously, I don't get why this is such a debated issue in this country, there's nothing wrong with being gay.

    Why should they have to compromise and even if Civil Unions had the same exact benefits as marriage, what would be the point in calling them two different things.
     
  8. Ethan

    Ethan Banned

    Three birds with one stone, fancy that.

    Let's not be so quick to equate the plight of black people with the gay community. Separate buses and drinking fountains are very different than a game of semantics. While one is inherently unequal, civil unions run the risk of being discriminatory. Having two different names for two different things isn't, in itself, discriminatory. A legal union between a woman and a man is called marriage, a legal union between a man and a man is called...a civil union? It can be discriminatory in America's political climate, as Juputoru pointed out and it might be politically messy and or complicated to grant them the same rights as a couple umbrellad under the title marriage. But really, as far as the concept is concerned there's nothing inherently discriminatory about it, in my opinion.

    It also seems like you make compromise into a dirty word, when it shouldn't be, really. Our country is a democracy, and part of that very definition is compromise through politics. The Christian fundamentalists that you talk about, are, like it or not part of the system. The government can't cater to any specific group, nor is it necessarily just to force moral progressiveness. Black people didn't get equal rights in one day, niether will gays. For starters, slavery was banned first, then sharecropping, then Jim Crow laws. Is there a higher chance of getting eventual marriage rights in a state that enacts civil unions first as opposed to nothing? My guess would be, yes. There would be.

    I am bisexual, first of all. Which seems very strange to say since I've argued ever so vehemently against it on this forum. Denial does funny things like that, go figure. So I'd like that my opinions weren't valued less because I give the aura of being Christian conservative or looked down on for using the word "compromise.", which I do still carry those values.

    I agree with this.

    I don't know about that. Hit a gay club or something.;munchlax;

    Your fun fact is also very saddening...source?

    I agree this too.


    Anyways, me time: and I have a lot to say.
    Well, technically gays can serve in the military. They just can't say anything. The reasoning is that an openly gay man compromises the stability of an all male platoon. Debate the reasoning, it may be fualty it might not be. I'm not in the military nor served in a platoon so I don't know. I don't think the policy was crafted from homophobes looking to discriminate however as some seem to say. Misguided though, perhaps.

    I agree with this.

    I don't know about this one. Not conversion therapies, but the idea that you can't change your orientation or that it can't change. I don't feel that enough is know about sexuality to say whether or not it can be changed. By and large, a lot of research is still being done and there's a lot we still don't know. For example the APA, while a largely credible source, when they said orientation could not be changed I found that as somewhat of a dubious claim. Many people have come and admitted that their sexuality has changed overtime. Some figure it out as soon as puberty finishes, other say they didn't "know" until college. I find the range of "self discovery" very interesting, actually. I don't want to say suspicious, but certianly interesting.

    I have absolutely no opinion on gay adoption. ...on the fence? Yeah.
     
  9. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    It's not a perfect comparison, I''ll give you that. However, the attitudes and current laws are in somewhat the same vein as back 'n the day.

    While I doubt anyone would go for it, I agree that having civil unions first would make the push for marriage somewhat easier. However, you said it is not discriminatory if they are two different things - there's still a problem. Most places that offer civil unions can also offer them to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. This once again would make marriage an institution that is being kept to only one certain class of people.

    Congratulations.

    A little hard when you're still in high school.

    It's not even limited to sexual orientation

    The thing I find funny about the law is that we've had quite a few military conflicts between the time that homosexuality became somewhat common (70s, maybe?) and the passage of DADT (1993, I believe.) Gays never seemed to compromise campaigns then. Plus, the number of discharges has gone way down since 9/11 while conversely prominence of homosexuality has gone up.
     
  10. Cutiebunny

    Cutiebunny Frosty Fashionista

    Except that most states don't recognize homosexual unions....

    So, until it is recognized federally, it'll kinda be a moot point. And, in this environment, no one wants to touch this bad boy. It's like immigration - every party can agree that it's an issue they don't want to address.

    It's actually a really strong argument when you realize how much immigration has changed the face of the US, UK, France and pretty much every first world nation(with exception to S. Korea & Japan, since those two countries do not allow for much immigration to occur). Look at how the US was 60 years ago and compare it with how it is today. BIG difference.

    I can think of several cases where people have, through an exponential effect, petitioned hundreds of relatives. And those are just the ones that they have petitioned legally. Immigration petitions are rife with fraud - it's not that difficult to find someone who was petitioned to the US by bribing someone already there with either money or sex.

    Not really. Even if a large portion of the heterosexual population in the US is ok with gay sex, they may not be open to the idea of being personally involved in it. I can see homosexual marriage fraud occurring much more than heterosexual marriage fraud. Hook up with your best friend and get a green card.

    However you look at it, the dynamics of female/male relationships are different than those of the same gender. Honestly, I haven't read of a lot of research showing that homosexual unions end in sexual/physical/verbal abuse. Perhaps that's just the sources that I get my information from...

    Google says that the current population of the US is 307,006,550 as of July 2009. Assuming that this number is correct and we also assume that 10% of the population is gay, that's over 3 million people. And, for the fun of it, let's assume that 1 million of them are immigrants and that each one of these will petition(either by themselves or through relatives) 100 people. That's 10 million people. That's a lot.

    I already mentioned that the dynamics of a female/male relationship are different than those of a marriage of the same gender. A lot of these marriages are abusive, specifically because you have men that marry a woman 30+ years younger than the man and he is marrying because he views that foreign women love servitude.

    At least in the US, when it comes to obtaining legal status through marriage, we make people earn it.

    Gas, Cash or Arse...;347;;munchlax;
     
  11. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Which is the main debate of this thread. Not immigration.

    This is why we have invasive agencies to first make sure that a married couple is truly married and displays common interactions of a married couple. It's a little tough to imitate those intimate connections with just a friend.

    That is still no reason to discriminate. Everyone's relationship dynamics vary.

    And its incredibly doubtful that any government would stand idly by and let 10 million immigrants enter their country. That's why we have restrictions and standards for immigration.

    This basically supports mine and JT's points that you can't just whisk your family over here by saying you're married.
     
  12. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    ffffffff then what the hell was the point of making that argument against gay marriage if all you're going to say is "WELL GAY MARRIAGE ISN'T ACCEPTED YET LOLOLOL"

    You basically just said "if we legalize gay marriage, we won't be able to judge if they're married or not, because gay marriage isn't legal yet". Circular reasoning to end all circular reasoning.

    Look back on absolutely any country 60 years and you'll see a "big difference" between now and then.

    Also, immigration problems are exactly what your current system seeks to stop. Interracial marriages can cause many of the same problems you describe, since if someone is married to someone from a different country and wants to bring them into this country, they may well be of different races; want to argue against those too?

    Sources please?

    What does that have to do with anything? I may not want to be "personally involved" in the fast food industry, but that doesn't mean no one else should be allowed to work in it.

    As Fused said, it's kind of hard to fake that kind of relationship with your best friend. The problems resulting from immigration from false homosexual relationships reflect more on the system seeking to prevent such fraud than it does homosexual marriage in general, just as it does in the case of heterosexual marriage.

    Again, what does this have to do with anything?

    Unintentionally hurting your own argument?

    Okay.

    Wait, what the ****? Where did you pull this from? The whole thing reeks of assumptions (pun intended). Where did you get this statistic that 33% of the population is made up of illegal immigrants (and if you're not implying that they're illegal, then what's the problem)? Where did you get that average number of petitioned relatives/friends? And plus, what makes you think, like Fused said, that the U.S. would just stand back and let this happen if it was such a bad thing?

    ... What the hell does any of this have to do with your argument? You're jumping from gay marriage to immigration to relationship differences to abuse to age gaps in marriage. We're not talking about abusive homosexual relationships. I'm sure we can all agree that abusive relationships of any orientation and in any culture are wrong. That's not what we were talking about.

    Not to mention that your point (whatever it may be) was just nullified by your claim that homosexual relationships don't result in abuse nearly as often as heterosexual relationships.

    Which was exactly my point. Your system exists to prevent this kind of fraud from happening, and would do the same in gay relationships. You just weakened your own argument.
     
  13. Deku_Link

    Deku_Link ,,|,,

    This is already an issue when dealing with family structures that differ from what we stereotype as "normative" in the United States. If same-sex marriage is to continue to be denied on fear of abuse of the immigration system, then there damn well better be some kind of immigration reform following that decision.
     
  14. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    I'm sort of confused on why married people can't move in with their loved ones? There are ones out there that generally need a reason to stay in the country. Are we really going to have a say in something like that?
     
  15. Cutiebunny

    Cutiebunny Frosty Fashionista

    It's all related.



    HAHAHAHAHA! ;492-s;

    Oooh! That's a good one. Let me ask you this - how do you think that a government agency can 'verify' that someone is in an authentic union? Popping out kids? Checking to see if they travel together? Taking the temperature of the bedsheets to see if it's warm on both sides of the bed?



    Discrimination will always exist until mankind gets over the need to feel 'special'.



    And the reason we have over 12 million illegal immigrants in the US is because...?

    Standards are pretty low in most first world countries. It's generally determined by blood relationships or marriages. Or cheap labor.



    Yes, you can. In the US, it's called "CR1".
     
  16. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Somehow. When people see "Same Sex marriage" they don't typically jump to "Immigration."

    You're obviously unaware about ANY kind of relationship dynamic. People involved romantically... they really do just interact differently. They look at each other differently, they communicate with more emotion, they are comfortable breaking the "touch barrier", they have a good idea of the person that they are involved with, even small details. That's how you confirm an authentic relationship, not by asking how hot the sex is.

    Because illegal aliens are crafty in their methods of arrival. Because there is no way that a government can catch all of them. Because the government isn't just saying "Oh look, immigrants."

    You also have to take into account that a good number of those Americans arrived here by legal means, such as visas, but have remained her even after their visas have expired.

    Again, this fails to put a good blame on marriage at all.

    CR1 is getting a visa for your spouse, not their family.
     
  17. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    It's really not, unless you connect all types of marriage with this too.

    Like I said, marriage certificates. Don't you guys get those kinds of things?

    Also what Fused said.

    Which somehow makes it okay?

    Because they're intelligent in coming up with ways to sneak in, and there's no way the government can expect to catch all of them.

    Which isn't just "whisking your family into the U.S." I'm pretty sure the process is a long one to get your spouse (you know, one person, not an entire family) into the country, not just "hey we're married" "okay welcome to America hurkadurk". And if that is how it works, then that reflects way more on the system than it does on gay marriage.
     
  18. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    One thing I've always found rediculous when it comes to Anti-Homosexual arguements is that they can't have their own children. To which I find hypocritical.

    I mean, if gay marriages have to be banned or scorned for that purpose, then shouldn't the same rule be applied to couples in which one of the partners is sterile? I mean sterile couples are just as incapable of producing as a homosexual couple.
     
  19. GaZsTiC

    GaZsTiC Alternating

    Oh, hi Skymin!

    Duh! Wedding certificates!! And yes, many governments do send invasive spies to make sure that couples engage in those kinds of things.

    *Google searches "CR1"*

    That only applies to spouses, not children or any other family.


    Honestly, this thread has really derailed from the topic.
     
  20. ShinySandshrew

    ShinySandshrew †God Follower†

    That's about as good logic as saying that police say it's wrong to murder but people on the street do it so the laws against it must be nonsense.

    Thank you, Ethan, for using such sound logic in this statement. You cannot compare the two scenarios because homosexuals can come from any ethnic group.


    Take a look at what Wikipedia says about what happened.
    These laws were designed to oppress a certain group of citizens. The laws that are being brought forward today are not designed with the intent to oppress a certain people group. The laws are stating that no men have the right to marry men and no women have the right to marry women. So in fact everyone does have equal rights. They are not being denied something that heterosexuals get.

    Except the problem with that statement is that homosexuals choose to not have kids. J.T. won't like this, but let me use an argument from evolution. If beneficial mutations are passed down by reproduction, isn't it possible that homosexuals are prohibiting evolution by wanting to be married to the same gender? If you believe evolution, why would you want to endorse a law that hinders evolution?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page