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. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    I've already cover this arguement. Why should sterile people be allowed to get married? They can't and never will be able to produce children. Their reproductive organs don't function, thus no babies.

    What's your response to that?
  2. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Same reason as anyone else?

    Considering the current population, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Also, by this logic, sterile people, celibate people, or people who just plain don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Marriage is not all about having sex and making babies.

    Forced to conceive? Isn't that, you know, a massive violation of human rights?

    In my mind, this is a huge contradiction. "I'm all for racial rights, but I'm against interracial marriage."

    Right, except, you know, with less rights than actual marriage and a different term to appease the religious bigots and tell the gays that they're inferior and don't get the same rights as everyone else. Totally fair.

    Even if said church marries gays by its own accord due to its own religious doctrines, like I'm pretty sure Unitarians do? I'm pretty sure gays respect the church's rights to deny gay marriage if they decide to be that close-minded, but not every church is against gays.

    You're right. I may disagree with pretty much every single idea Christianity has beyond a few of the "respect thy fellow man" messages, but I can't force them to change their beliefs, otherwise I'm no better than them. It's a damn good thing, then, that that's not what I going for. We're looking for gays to get the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love. If they can't find a church who's open-minded enough to accept and marry them, then they can go get a secular marriage.

    Oh, a secular marriage? Yeah, those happen. See, if those kinds of things didn't happen, you'd be hard pressed to find a non-Christian married couple, and you'd pretty much never see an atheist married couple, unless they faked their religion for the sake of the marriage. Gays should have the right to get that kind of marriage - not all marriages require a church or a religious leader.

    You're right. Good thing that's not what we're looking for here.

    Few things wrong with this.

    - People complain because it's a "separate and equal" thing, and when it comes to things like this, if it's separate, it's not equal.
    - Civil unions do not have all the same rights as marriage.

    You may think giving them civil unions is enough, but it's still incredibly unfair, because it's not the same thing. The only reason there is to keep gays from marrying, instead forcing them to get an inferior civil union, is to appease religious fanatics - because, as I pointed out, allowing gay marriage does not force churches to marry gays.

    That happens. Look at the Unitarians.

    Again, that's not what we're looking for.

    Good for your mother. Damn shame this kind of thing doesn't happen with homosexuals.

    I think people are getting too hung up on denying gays the same rights as heterosexuals, but that's not changing anytime soon.


    Guys, judging from his previous posts, I think Iron-Man is a troll. Let's not feed him anymore.
  3. Juputoru

    Juputoru M-m-m-m-onobear?!

    I'll bite.

    1)Why is the shrinking population of the developed world a problem? If it is a problem, developed countries should allow more open immigration systems so they can boost their population by letting in some of the people from overcrowded, less-developed countries. Furthermore, if the population troubles of the developed world are as much of a plague as you say they are, I doubt that forcing a relatively small segment of the population to have children would do much to fix the situation. If you're looking to make the population of developed countries grow again, it would be much more efficient to go after all the straight people who never have children or who only have one child.
    2)Some people who have children put them up for adoption. Someone has to take care of those children. Having two parents(no matter what genders are involved) in a stable relationship is better for those children than being shuffled around from foster home to foster home. Although unmarried couples could theoretically adopt children, marriage makes relationships much more stable. By allowing gay people to marry, they can adopt children into a stable environment. Though this doesn't directly answer your point of "gay couples are not making children!", it's still important to remember that developed nations already have people who bear children but decline to raise them themselves, and this problem has to be dealt with if you're going to encourage people to make even more babies.
    3)Some gay couples do have babies of their own, thanks to the magic of in vitro fertilization and sperm donors.
  4. John13wb

    John13wb Earthbound Hero

    Way to stereotype. Considering how it's liberal types that continue to run our country into the ground and then sit back while Republicans fix it, its just ironic that you should say that.
  5. Carlisle

    Carlisle BAM

    Way to stereotype. Since when have Republicans fixed anything? Our country has been on a downward spiral since 2000, and neither party has done anything to fix it. Our economy, and our problems in general, are never going to be fixed until everybody in Washington is thrown out.

    Of course gay marriage should be allowed. It's ridiculous that it is even an issue. I love how many of the people who are against gay marriage speak for small government, but then they go on to say that the government should get involved in such a personal matter. When two consenting adults love eachother, it's their own business.
  6. Vermehlo_Steele

    Vermehlo_Steele Grand Arbiter II

    No! We can't possibly treat them nicely, what are they? Human?

    It's a measure of how poor the anti-gay side of the arguement is that there is no logical answer to this question.

    Homosexuals aren't neccessarily sterile and ergo can bear children. Celbates usually have reason for their celibacy. They may be a priest or incredibly anti-social. Gays are most likely to be fertile and as such, should have babies like the rest of the population has babies to contribute to the fight against an ageing population. The birth rate for gay people should reflect the hetero population.

    According to homophobes, gays are a blight on the world and aren't quite human. As a homophobe would be writting these laws, there's no real difference in their eyes. Anyway, isn't any law a violation of freedom when one looks at it from a certain view?

    @Juputoru: I'll try and see if there's any logic on the homophobic side.

    1~As we're seeing with Russia and some parts of Europe, immigration as the major drive for pop' increase is undesirable. We need some immigration to help growth, but with large amounts of immigration in short amounts of time (as would happen if immigration was the main factor for population growth) any indigenous population is likely to feel threatened by a mass of new-comers who haven't had time to assimilate properly and as such react with prejudice. The minority in return radicalises and creates their own sub-culture, as they feel alienated from wider society. In response to this radicalisation, the majority futher discriminates against the minority. This discrimination causes the minority to be disadvantaged due to wide-spread racism and to typically form the underclass of the nation as most members of their internal society can't obtain sustainable employment and income, they then resort to crime, which only further alineates them from mainstream society.

    Even Europe, the most liberal, progressive and left-ward part of the world has troubles with racial tensions that are the result of too many migrants coming too quickly and not assimilating properly. On to Russia, even with immigration, Russia's popualtion is predicted to fall in the coming decades. Birth rates are the optimum way of ensuring sustainable and comfortable growth, by making gays have their own children, it helps push growth up somewhat. But there would need to be a massive increase in birth rates for any real change. Gays will need to contribute if there is to be a massive increase in birth rates.

    ~2: Point conceded, as their is no logical way to retort.

    ~3: Then the ratio of homosexual couples having kids to heterosexual couples who have kids should be equal then for a happy society. However, Again, this isn't really a proper answer as kids aren't industrial goods and shouldn't be demanded, but I did nominate to play the devil's advocate.

    @Carlisle: Way to stereotype, Republicans fixed the economic slump of the 1970s, the Republicans were (usually) anti-slavery in the Civil War (the Dem's were typically pro-slavery) and the Republican party didn't start Vietnam, they ended it. These are just some of the tings that the GOP solved.

    Anyway, the early 2000s was actually the best time for America after WWII as you guys were riding a high wave of success, had no equal in the world and things were happy (until the Republican Bush started 2nd Iraq War). It was about 2006, when Iraq started to sour and when the public and government both realised that things weren't so good for the USA anymore.

    @John: 2nd Iraq War? Reagonomics? Segregation? Iran-Contra? Ring any bells?
  7. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    I like how the central point is completely ignored: whether gays get married or not has no affect on the 'central population' in terms of how many births are had. Thus it just sounds like a silly hate law against a large portion of people for a childish reason. What is the fight against the aging population anyway? Why is it important?

    There's devil's advocate and then there's just looking silly.

    I'm confused at this response.. is this.. a refutation of some sort? If I got this correctly, your essential reply to basically forcing people to have children (oh think of the horror) is basically 'well I'm a homophobe.'

    I don't even know where this debate is going anymore.
    Last edited: May 30, 2010
  8. John13wb

    John13wb Earthbound Hero

    I way stating I'm upset the way that people always criticize Republicans for being intolerant when it was Democrats who refused to give up on slavery that lead to the largest loss of life in U.S. history: the American Civil War.

    But anyways, I never stated that I wasn't for gay marriage. I couldn't care one way or the other. I have homosexual relatives and none of them seem upset that they can't marry in the state they live in.
  9. Carlisle

    Carlisle BAM

    The Democrats of the past are the Republicans of today, and the Republicans of the past are the Democrats of today more or less. The ideals of the two parties switched during the Progressive movement, and that is when the modern day party system began.

    What you just said about your family members makes me think of an interesting point. The gay movement is not mobilized as previous movements. Many gay people complain, yet they do nothing about it. Dancing around in heels and a thong during a parade is not going to give you equal rights, it's only going to make you look like an idiot.
    Last edited: May 30, 2010
  10. Tokens

    Tokens Member

    It is funny that you said that, because up until this point I followed and agreed with everything you said, including the political points you made.

    It is silly to think that the gay movement is not mobilized like other movements. The movement gets media attention in varieties all of the time. Ever heard of Harvey Milk? There are gay people in politics, and political positions fighting for gay rights all of the time. You see people all over the world (because keep in mind this is a world movement for gay people) in protest and getting visibility for their cause.
  11. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Playing devil's advocate doesn't work too well. Let's just assume that most gay people won't have children. Well, they aren't going to have kids unmarried or married, so why are they denied marriage? Let's assume that gays will only start a family when married. You're hurting your own cause.

    What's funny is the reality: many gay people want marriage, and they want children, be it their own or adopted. Gay people want to start their own families - and the government deneis that because they are content with the status quo that gay people are a secret society that wants to end family and marriage.

    Yep, all liberals are destructive psychopaths. Way to stereotype.

    Funny thought, considering the gay population is a dwarf compared to the heterosexual population. So, maybe proportionate to the heterosexual population, but not equal or anthing.

    Parties have flip-flopped roles since their conception, and at once were the same party. It was the Great Depression and the leadership of Democrats between two World Wars that lead to the major role-reversal of the two parties, and by the time that social issues took center stage (1950s and 60s) Democrats were known for helping those minorities, such as blacks, as Republicans were mostly attracting more conservatives. I mean, if you look at common Democratic beliefs before the 1900s, they are almost identical to common Republican beliefs of today.

    I've found that age plays a major role in this kind of stuff. Its mostly the younger generation that wants gay marriage. The older generations have just accepted that they couldn't beat the status quo, but that they paved the road for its downfall.
    Last edited: May 31, 2010
  12. Vermehlo_Steele

    Vermehlo_Steele Grand Arbiter II

    Yes Fused, this role isn't a good way to keep the debate flowing, I'll give this **** up.

    @Carlisle: Actually, the Democrats of the pre-Roosevelt era was the party of the South, while the Republican party was the party of the north. The turn came in the '40s and '50s when the Democrats supported segregation, the South didn't like that and so, they turned to the GOP who wasn't that interested in changing anything. During Roosevlet's reign, the blacks started to turn from the GOP, their previous party of choice, to the Dem's who had promised them a ride in the 'NewDeal'. But, for a good while, the Dem's were for the South and all they stood for, including slavery. Prior to the ideologicalization of the parties, both had a mix of left and right wingers in seemingly equal measure. I'm Australian and I know this.
    Last edited: May 31, 2010
  13. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    The South DID like segregation, actually. You have it mixed up.
  14. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    I know I'm sounding like a broken record and all, but in the end lack of reproducing just stinks of being another way of the bigots being able to hide their bigotry towards homosexual couples.

    I mean lets say that surgery was advanced to a point that a homosexual couple could produce a child. I just have the feeling that those who play the "because they can't produce" card will just pull the "unnatural" or "religious" cards from their deck.
    Last edited: May 31, 2010
  15. Carlisle

    Carlisle BAM

    GhostAnime is right, you have it mixed up. The South always supported slavery and segregation. In the 1920's we had Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover as our presidents. All were Republican, and supported small government and conservative policies. FDR would go on to become the Democratic president who supported large government intervention and more "liberal" policies. Just a few decades before this, however, Democrats were the ones supporting small government and the Republicans were proposing larger government and higher tariffs. The switch happened long before civil rights. However, this has nothing to do with the current topic on hand...


    So the House has passed a bill that would bring an eventual end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I believe the Senate Armed Services voted in favor of the proposal with a vote of 16-12. The bill is going to move on to the Senate and is expected to fully pass sometime this summer. This would be a major milestone in gayrights. It's about time our country starts moving in this direction.

  16. nemzep95

    nemzep95 Member

    I think that if two people of the same sex want to get married, then they should be able to do so. Christians claim that it's against God or whatever, when it won't affect them whatsoever. In my opinion, I think God would want homosexuals to be happy, even if it means getting married.
  17. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Ahahaha are you kidding.

    - Since at least 1975, pretty much every Republican president has increased the national debt. Pretty much every Democrat president has lowered it. Here, have a graph.
    - Who do you think caused the recent recession? And if you say "CLINTON AND/OR OBAMA HAWHAWHAW" then you are a fool.
    - You know what, George W. Bush pretty much disproves your claim just by existing.

    Wanna try again? This time be a bit more specific when you talk about how liberals ruined this country. So far, it doesn't seem you've needed our help, since you guys had been doing a thumpin' good job of doing it yourself up until 2008.

    Republicans are the major ones who are opposing gay marriage, of course we're going to call them intolerant. Actually, I'm not even sure anyone ever called Republicans intolerant. Why the hell would you try to argue against such a statement with "OH YEAH WELL LIBERALS ARE RUININ' THE COUNTRY", anyway? One, no we haven't and I'd argue that it's you guys that have been (but I'm a Canadian, what do I know), and two, why does it matter if liberals had ruined the country? That still doesn't change the fact that Republicans and the hyper-religious are the ones who are primarily opposed to gay rights.

    This point was dealt with already, so I'll leave this alone.

    Well, la-dee-da. Your relatives are happy, but what about everyone else? I know you never said you're against gay marriage, but "well my relatives are happy" is hardly a response to... well, anything.
  18. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    While you're right, it is a step in the right direction, the bill jsut removes Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It doesn't initiate any nondiscrimination policies. So basically, gays are not required to be discharged. But they still legally can be for no cause.

    You're a dreamer. People have a ****ed up view of what God wants because they think that God wrote the Bible himself.
  19. Carlisle

    Carlisle BAM

    Not to push the issue, but that graph is blatantly biased. Not to mention, out of the two Democratic presidents it shows, one raised the national debt. From 1977 to 1980, the national debt grew from $65 billion to $85 billion. Not to mention, Carter was a terrible president who almost crashed the economy. Bill Clinton, who I believe was an excellent president for the most part, happened to be in office during very good economic times. He didn't do too much overall with the economy. Also, from what I understand, Ronald Reagan balanced the budget; somebody correct me if I am wrong.
    Oh, and Obama is crashing our economy as we speak...so the "Democrat v. Republican" issue is null...both parties have shown they are incompetent.

    Fused: There has been some progress in that area. I read an article on CNN that hearsay can no longer be used regarding the issue, and that any allegations have to be scrutinized by a judge, or something to that recollect. I'll have to find the article when I have time. The Pentagon is also supposed to solve the issue regarding gay couples and health care. So at least it's all moving in the right direction.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2010
  20. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    Not all religious followers are against homosexuals or gay marriage.

    Yes it wrongs for them to condemn homosexuality, but discriminating against religious person as a whole is no better that them discriminating against homosexuals.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page