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.

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

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

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

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. foxyman1167

    foxyman1167 From Zero To Hero

    Yes, everyone should have the same rights. The same thing already happened with women, blacks, and native americans. It'll be a struggle for now, but eventually it'll happen.
  2. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Actually, you can compare the two scenarios, not equate them but compare, and they can be compared with one simple fact: mass discrimination to an oppressed minority.

    That's a very twisted way of thinking, but I can tell you how homosexuals are actually oppressed: they can't marry the person of their choice, like heterosexuals; they can't securely hold down a job like heterosexuals; they can't freely adopt a child like heterosexuals; they can't serve in the military like heterosexuals. How can you logically say that none of these laws do not oppress a specific group of people?

    Again, you seem to be good at twisting what would be logical. Gays do not choose not to have kids - in fact, many are pushing for laws that allow them to securely begin a family with the partner of their choice and whatever kids they may have. All animals have the selfish desire to pass on genes, and the social nature of mammals causes us to create family units. Any laws that hinder such a unit being formed is against basic biology, but I digress.

    Beneficial mutations are passed on through evolution. However I can tell you right now that this isn't going to work in your favor. Homosexuality is nothing new to the animal kingdom. It has been observed in so many species of animals, including us, that its not even recorded anymore. Now, we now from several sources that homosexuality has been present in humans, the youngest creatures on the planet, since ancient Egypt. And China, Japan, Thailand, Peru, Melanesia, Greece, Rome, and several societies of the Americas. That means that for thousands of years, homosexuality has been present in animals and has not yet been destroyed by evolution.

    Were it detrimental to specie's survival, evolution would fix that trait. But the fact that it hasn't taken care of homosexuality shows that homosexuality is not the downfall of an entire species.

    However, if you continue to disagree, there is one way to ensure that no one is ever homosexual again - stop having kids. Sure, there's a rare chance that a child will be gay, but it's a "risk" nonetheless and you seem to want to obliterate that risk. There can't be gay people if there are no people, right?
    Last edited: May 29, 2010
  3. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    It's more like if the police do absolutely nothing to stop it.

    Also lol at comparing homosexuality to murder because gays clearly hurt everyone around them.

    You completely dodged the point of the analogy. Like I said, the only reason gays weren't as oppressed as black people is because it's a hell of a lot easier to hide your sexuality than it is to hide your skin color. Black people were denied rights that were granted to everyone else because of the way they were born. Gay people are currently denied rights that are granted to everyone else because of the way they were born.

    Yes, and? We can all agree these are terrible.

    Do me a favour and go look at all the things gays can't do today that anyone else can. Then come back and say that to my face.

    (Why yes I did just recently discover the image tag code and am abusing it whenever appropriate why do you ask.)

    But seriously, this is a completely ******** argument. They are indeed denied something that others get - the right to marry someone they actually love. (Among other things, like the right to donate blood, the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital, even the right to keep their jobs in some places - and I just scratched the surface here.)

    And even if we take your logic as true, it's still a complete crock. If we legalize gay marriage, then hey guess what? Straight people could marry someone of the same gender. What's that? You don't want to marry someone of the same gender, therefore it's a moot point? Congratulations, you just figured out why your point is a crock.

    Wrong. Maybe some don't want to have kids, but many gays are completely capable of having them through artificial insemination, sperm donations, surrogate mothers, or adoption. And again, even assuming that there is not a single gay on the planet who wants kids, what the hell is your point? By your logic, heterosexual people who are celibate or just plain don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

    Unless you're saying that gays choose their sexuality, in which case scientific study can be used to verify something that should be common sense to anyone who's ever been in love - that choosing your sexuality is a load.

    Oh, this oughta be fun - I love being told arguments from evolution (as if it's a moral code rather than a biological process, as something like 95% of creationists seem to think), especially from people who don't have a damn clue what evolution is and have proven such in the past.

    Gays can still have children, human morality trumps evolution, technology has greatly changed humans' evolutionary path... I could give you so many responses right now, but how about I decide to play your (completely retarded, and I don't toss that word around often) game for a second.

    Currently, the human population is extremely high. Gays can help to keep the population under control by not popping out ridiculous numbers of kids, just as heterosexual parents who decide to adopt a child, have only one child, or just have no children do. It helps the survival of the species as a whole to have a few individuals who don't breed like Duggars.

    Aside from the above?

    Because I'm not a Social Darwinist. Asking me this is the equivalent of asking why I would endorse a law that hinders gravity by making a minimum standard of production for jet wings so they don't fall off in midair. Evolution is a biological process, not a moral code. You are using the same strawman that almost every creationist I've ever met has used at some point before, and it's gotten even more pathetic than it was when the first idiot came up with it.
  4. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    Other posters have provided a response to this, but I'll add something to it. By your logic, anyone who chooses to marry a sterile person (who can't produce a child because their reproductive organs don't work) is automatically making the choice not to have kids. So why should the sterile person be allowed marriage?

    Simple, society for the most part dislike homosexuality, where that same society doesn't have problems with sterile people.

    Fact is many arguements against homosexuality have flaws that could be counterargued or are hypocritical. Arguements made by those who simply can't look at themselves and say "I'm a bigot". I'll get into this at the bottom of the post.

    I don't, but even if i did believe in evolution, I don't believe in forcing my will on others.

    As for the other arguements and my response:
    1. Homosexuality isn't natural: Neither is fashion products or plastic surgery. Let I don't see the same crowd protesting againt fashion.

    2. Gay marriages will ruin the sanctity of marriage: Divorces and affairs have already ensured that the ship on marriage sanctity sailed a long time ago. And really, if we can allow for a marriage between two heterosexual couples who marry for any reason, but love (like money), then a homosexual couple that love each other should be permitted marriage.

    3. God says it's wrong: Yeah, this is one of the weakest arguements and copout that only a bigot could conceive. And I say this as a Christian. My response to this arguement:

    A. For one thing, we're are told by the same God, "Judge not, lest you be judged."

    B. God gave us free will. A common fact overlooked by many who play "God hates homos" card. Does he oppose homosexual marriages? No clue. But does he oppose the hateful behavior towards homosexual couples? You better believe it.

    Sorry, but good intentions don't automatically justify deplorable behavior.

    Faulty comparison. Murder, rape and theft infringe upon the freedom of others, hence them being deemed as wrong:

    Murder: You take someone's right to live. Not to mention that friends and families of the victim suffer in the process.

    Theft: You hurt someone financially to where they can't provide for themselves or their family. Even potentially putting them out on the streets.

    Rape: Forcing yourself on someone, and mentally scaring them.

    But in a consenting relationship by two guys or two girls, no one's freedom is at jeopardy. No one in being harmed. Thus why it is in poor judgement to compare homosexuality to the aformentioned crimes.
    Last edited: May 29, 2010
  5. kresslia

    kresslia New Member

    as a gay person myself, i'm a little afraid to read through this because i don't want to rage and depress myself. so all i'm going to say is YES. YES. YES. it is RIDICULOUS that some people are against the rights of other people. it's pretty sickening, really.

    things are working in the right direction, and i can't wait for the day that all gays are accepted with love.
  6. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    So far there has been a minimum of people who argue against gay marriage. The majority of the people voting on the polls don't post at all. I'm pretty sure the majority of people voting for the third, fourth, and fifth options on the poll are trolls, with maybe one exception (who chickened out on the debate instead of backing up his position that being gay should be illegal).

    Overall, you're in good company, save for a vast minority.
  7. deoxysdude94

    deoxysdude94 I'm gonna miss my boi Deoxys...

    I'm not gay, but I believe all gays should have the right to marry. Some gays can't help it, it's in their genetics. And the government is not listening to SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
  8. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    But the thing is I tend to think like the other arguements, the religious angle is an excuse so that those against it don't have to admit that their's is a personal problem.

    When you get right down to it, the majority that oppose it religious or no, are the kind of people set in the ways of tradition and status quo.

    Heck one person provided an arguement that approval of homosexual marriages would be bad simply because that would mean changing the dictionary definition of marriage.

    As for my stance on the debate, I'm heterosexual, but just the same have never really believed in conforming to fit the beliefs of the "normal" crowd. If someone could present an arguement that proves homosexuality is 100% harmful, then I might be willing to change my stance.

    But so far all arguements boil down to conforming or merely provide speculation on how homosexuality is harmful (rather than the here and now facts).

    Rant ended.
  9. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Just one? I've seen dozens of people make that argument. You know your side is weak when that kind of thing is what your argument boils down to.
  10. Sapphiredragon929

    Sapphiredragon929 A r t i f i c e.

    Yes, I think they should have the right to get married. There is really no logical arguement as to why they cannot that is not connected with religion. It's a shame how we left England for freedom but can't give it to those who need it though.

    but then again if you aren't a white God-fearing "global-warming is a myth" republican in America, you're pretty much fucked |:
  11. Penguinist Trainer

    Penguinist Trainer Well-Known Member

    I am all for gay rights and I have nothing against any homosexuals. I am against gay marriage though. I am fully supportive of civil unions which is basically a government sanctioned marriage. I do not believe gay couples should be married in a church.

    As I said, I have nothing against gay people. I just don't believe you can force a religion to change it's belief structure just because society as a whole is changing its attitude. Religion is supposed to be a personal and private matter. If the government just came along and forced churches to marry against their belief structure, then that is an attack on your belief structure as well.

    It would be a completely different story if the church came along and said, "You know what, there is nothing wrong with the way you are living. You are fine people and as long as you love each other, you deserve to be together." Then I would be all for gay marriage. I just don't think you can force a religion to change its whole belief structure with a bunch of protests.

    Personally, I don't understand why people get so hung up on whether its called a marriage or a civil union. They are both binding you as a couple legally. They both give you the same benefits as a couple (insurance, hospital visitation, tax deductions, etc). The only difference is one's in a church and the other isn't.

    My mother when she got married the 1st time, she had to have a civil union because her husband wasn't catholic. so what if she didn't get married in a church. we rented out a hall and the ceremony was still beautiful. of course later on down the road, he converted to catholicism for her and they went to our church to have the wedding blessed by the church.

    I think people are getting too hung up on the word marriage.
  12. Sapphiredragon929

    Sapphiredragon929 A r t i f i c e.

    Actually I hate to challange you here, but you're wrong. Marriage is also a social-economic-political thing as well, and not just involved in Religion.

    Also, Civil Unions and Marriages do not have the same rights, Marriage has a lot more (most hospitals do not accept civil unions as a way to visit a lover)
  13. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    It's not about changing their beliefs, but convincing them to respect the rights of others.

    A person can't and shouldn't be punished for merely disliking homosexuals, but they can and should be penalized for forcing that hate onto others and denying homosexuals their freedom to marry (ala Prop 8).

    So while religions should have the right to have their beliefs, they shouldn't be given the right to force those beliefs on others. Live and let live afterall.
  14. Penguinist Trainer

    Penguinist Trainer Well-Known Member

    I don't take it personally if you want to say I'm wrong. I know there are hospitals that do not recognize civil unions. There are a lot of hospitals that tend to be very religious as well. Whether they are just religious hospitals, or are actually run by their respective religion, I do not know.

    But the same thing goes for private schools. Certain religious schools have been excluding the children of gay couples primarily for the reason of "sparing the kids feelings when they preach on how their mommies or daddies are going to burn in hell".

    Personally, I just think everyone should mind their own business and what happens behind closed doors should stay that way. No one needs a parade to show off their sexuality. It's like painting a bulls-eye on your back in some situations.

    Actually the whole point of religion is to convince others why your way is the right way. I fully agree with you about the live and let live, but a person can't go into a religion that disapproves of homosexuals and then announce "HEY I'm GAY... DEAL with it!!!". For the lack of any better comparison, it would be like watching Dave Chappelle's skit of the black white supremacist...
    Last edited: May 30, 2010
  15. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    And what about the churches who would allow gay marriage without the bat of an eye? Must their own religion be forced down their throat? Besides, most laws that involve religions in any way typically include some kind of opt-out.

    Isn't that what happened with interracial marriage?

    Actually, unlike marriage, civil unions have a varying amount and library of benefits and the benefits included are chosen by the government. Some civil unions do not recognize foreign relationships.

    Also, civil unions, if equal to marriage, definitely falls into the category of "separate but equal" which we all know stop being equal at some point, fit hey ever were.

    Well, at least their story had a nice ending. Gays are still trying to write theirs. Conversion to Catholicism is much simpler than conversion to heterosexuality, which is pointless if you're trying to "get gay married."

    It's not a display of sexuality; it's a display of pride. In a culture that tells an oppressed minority how immoral and damned they are, pride is really important to hold onto.
    Last edited: May 30, 2010
  16. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    Attempts at persuassion is fine, but playing the part of a tyrant isn't acceptable under any circumstance. Afterall, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions (something that many followers of God don't consider).
  17. Iron-Man1

    Iron-Man1 Shiny breeder

    gays are sick its sooooooooooo gross
  18. GaZsTiC

    GaZsTiC Alternating

    Come back after you have grown up so that you can actually contribute to the debate. Stupid kid.
  19. Vermehlo_Steele

    Vermehlo_Steele Grand Arbiter II

    Playing devil's adovocate* here for the sake of arguement, Why should gays be allowed to marry? If they marry only other gay people and don't have babies of their own, the gays, therefore, can't help replenish and renew the population. Gays should be forced to conceive their own children to help stave of the ageing population and/or shrinking population problems that are the plague of the developed and civilised world.

    *May as well, given the homophobes are too scared and the thread is still open.
  20. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    You do realize that whether gays get married or not doesn't affect your issue?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page