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. Maru

    Maru Iron Maiden ~

    Ahaha, homosexuals did not nothing really bad to us, I think. Religious people (and of course not all of them) did so many bad things to the society. But well, discriminating it's awfull on every way.
  2. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Well, as I'm sure you know by now (right?) I realize that not all religious people are giant gay-haters. In fact, earleir in the thread I mentioned that there were entire religions that were okay with gay people.

    I was just saying that the majority of religious people oppose homosexuality because they assume that they know 100% what it is God wants.
  3. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    See, as I've been stating, I find that the religious arguments are once more, an attempt (a poor one at that) to hide their bigotry rather than giving an honest belief.

    Things which support my comment:

    1. Judge not lest you be judged: This is one of the many beliefs that Christians and religious groups in general have. Yet many of those same religous individuals pass judgement on homosexual couples. Selective memory or exploitation of religion?

    2. Love thy neighbor: Another verse from the bible which is ignored by those who condemn homosexuals in the name of God. If a person literally has to say "You're committing a sin, and are going to Hell," it's hard to see where the love is if you know what I mean.

    The next two aren't bible verses, but show the continual double standard:
    3. Depriving one of their freedom: If God truly wanted us to be mindless puppets who followed him blindly, then he wouldn't give us free will. Is homosexuality wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But forcing someone to renounce their sexual beliefs is, however, a factual wrong.

    If homosexuality is wrong, then those who are homosexual need to come to that conclusion on their own.

    4. Pokemon: Now to explain this one, I've been browsing in and out an old closed thread on "What is Your Stance on Homosexuality?" The many reasons included why some of the posters frown on it are due to religious beliefs.

    Yet, don't many religious followers deem Pokemon (the whole franchise) to be Satanic? I'm just saying that if these posters are willing to bend the religious rules for a television show, they should be willing to suspend their beliefs for the rights of homosexuals.

    Hence my belief that religious arguments are an attempt to ease their conscience rather than a true stance on a subject.

    Anyway, religious rant over.
  4. Orcakit

    Orcakit Fire/Dark Prodigy

    Wow...the support for same-sex marriages here astounds me...I would hug you all if I knew you...=3 I really shouldn't be surprised I guess...but where I've grown up...strictly conservative you can get hit for supporting something like same-sex marriages...;-; Still don't know why we moved here...

    BTW...I'm a baptized and confirmed Lutheran...and I'm usually the one sticking up for my gay friends...probably some of the best friends a girl can have...but I can let you know...my church is amazing...no one in that church would ever say anything bad against homosexuality...and they are all highly religious people <3
  5. *rising star*

    *rising star* THE GREAT RAN ;)

    I say yes due to the fact that I'm gay, and would like to marry a guy.
  6. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    To give my stance on why I support gay marriage:
    1. I can't really see the harm in it. Sure same sexes engaging in intercourse is apparently painful, but as long as the people involved are agreeing to it as opposed to say rape (which one person lacks freedom), then I find that interference is needless.

    And to comment more on the reproductive arguement, while the couples can't produce, that hardly means that the human race will dwindle as women can get pregnant via the sperm bank. Sure it's not natural, but then neither is plastic surgery.

    2. And while I'm heterosexual, I never saw the need to conform.
  7. Grei

    Grei not the color

    I think the reason same-sex marriage is such an issue in society is because of the people running society. Those considered to be "adults" at this time would more likely have been raised to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and if not the "adults", the elders would have been.

    Nowadays, it seems like a lot of the younger people are more accepting of others. The younger generation is more liberal than the older generations, it seems.

    So I don't find it surprising that so many young people (especially on this forum) are OK with sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. I just came back from a small party that had a lesbian couple, a gay couple, and me, a bisexual, with four other heterosexuals. We were all fine with one another.

    Granted, this sort of acceptance varies with whatever area you live in, but the fact that so many younger people are accepting of homosexuals and bisexuals should say something for the future.
  8. DesertJohn

    DesertJohn Shiny Hunter

    Def the first. We are all human, We all deserve the same rights due to that.
  9. Night_Walker

    Night_Walker Well-Known Member

    They should have the same rights as everyone else, end of story.

    Marriage has become a formal institution yet when it started, under Christian traditions, there was no reference to it being something between a man and a woman. As far I'm concerned the intent of marriage is to show that you love someone so much you want to spend the rest of your life with them, and thus it doesn't matter if two people of the same sex wish to marry.
  10. Vermehlo_Steele

    Vermehlo_Steele Grand Arbiter II

    *FACEPALM* **** it! Damn not proof-reading my own post! I look like such an idiot now.

    Anyway, here's a better chart for you Carlisle.

    Chartz for all!!
    While your first point is true, one must consider that context is paramount. Reagan effectivley destroyed the USSR by forcing them into an expensive arms race. I think a bit of debt is a good price to pay for eliminating such an insidious regime. Bush Snr. had to fight a reccession and the 1st Gulf War at the same time. Bush Jnr.'s debt was by his crusading in Iraq and Afghanistan, while of his doing, it's not neccessarily indictive of poor economist skills. War is damn expensive, as Obama is learning. Obama has just engaged in some large-scale Keynesian policies while fighting one war and concluding another, so it'll be interesting to see how he works things out.

    How does Bush disprove? War? It takes more than two guerilla wars to ruin America.

    Plus, if the Democrats are so pro-gay, then why hasn't gay marriage been legalised yet, even after all the Democrat Presidencies and majorities and why is their a anti gay-marriage Dem' President right now? Intolerance isn't restricted to the Right, ya' know. Oh, and please don't generalise with statements like "That still doesn't change the fact that Republicans and the hyper-religious are the ones who are primarily opposed to gay rights." Not all righties are anti-gay rights and not all Republicans are bible-bashers.

    I believe that statists are ruinin' America with all their silly laws introduced to invade people's responsibility.

    And yes it is a proven fact, Soviet Canukistanis, otherwise known as Canadians, do indeed know nothing.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2010
  11. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Avoiding as much of the political stuff as I can, because I already look stupid enough for arguing about the politics of the U.S.:

    I know that. You act like I think all Democrats are open-minded, wondrous people who fart rainbows. I don't recall ever saying that there's no such thing as a Democrat who opposes gay marriage. All I said was that the primary opponents of gay marriage are mostly Republicans and the hyper-religious. And guess what? That's true. In 2009, people were polled on their opinions of gay unions. 6% of Republicans supported marriage, 34% supported civil unions, and 59% opposed any recognition. 1% were unsure. Compare that to Democrats - 46% supported marriage, 23% supported civil unions, and 26% opposed any recognition.

    I know that, thank you very much. I believe I said that, but in case you got the wording wrong, I am saying that Republicans and the hyper-religious (hey, notice how I distinguished between the two instead of saying they're the same thing? Yeah, that's because I know they're not) are the ones who are most often opposed to gay marriage. Nothing about "all Republicans are Bible-bashers". Not "all Republicans hate gays". I don't know where you got that from.

    I blame the schools.
  12. ShinySandshrew

    ShinySandshrew †God Follower†

    Only thousands? What are you, Fused, some kinda young earth evolutionist?

    Hmmm...why is it that they can't hold down a job? Serving in the military requires the members of each platoon, squad or whatever to be a cohesive unit. If the vast majority of people in the military are hetero then allowing a homosexual to freely serve would definitely imbalance the stability of the unit they are placed in just like...(wait for it...) a person that has any kind of anti-social tendencies. And on a side note, why do you keep saying "like heterosexuals"? How many homosexuals want to be just like heterosexuals?

    Ah, but that brings us to the question of whether God always directly intervenes when someone does something wrong. Why don't you look that one up?

    It is true that homosexuality does not have as great of an effect on others as murder but it definitely effects others, sometimes adversely. For example, a friend of mine was stalked by three gay guys at the mall. He was still a teenager and they follwed him around the mall. He had to go into a fighting stance before they backed off. What about the fact that men that have sex with men are at a higher level of risk for HIV? What about those people who give blood and pass that on to other people? Now, I know that the Red Cross doesn't accpet donations from MSMs but what about those who slip past the screening process?

    How did you get the image tags to work when the IMG code is turned off?

    Why don't you look at this article? And this article on civil unions. Tell me if you find anything saying people in a civil union can't visit their partner who is in the hospital. Would you mind citing the thing about the jobs? But on a side note, I live in a place that has an "At Will" law. That means that someone's employment can be terminated for no reason at all.

    Evolution may not be a moral code, per se, but it has definite moral implications, J.T.

    Not without the opposite gender, they can't. And why does human morality trump evolution? Fused said we were animals. Do animals have morals?
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2010
  13. Celebitwo

    Celebitwo Celebi Clone

    I support gay rights but for me that is starting to push my limits of acceptance. Im not against IVF and all that stuff but when a child, for example, has 2 biological father and 0 biological mothers, I think we are starting to mess with things we shouldnt.
    However, I highly doubt Ill join a riot to protest over it.
  14. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    Of course you make a valid and flawless point. Cause as we all know, heterosexual people have never stalked anyone.

    Seriously, not every single homosexuality under the sun are perverted or forceful.
  15. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!

    Anyone who does should probably see a doctor. I really, really hope I never see that literally.

    I was going to try to refute you on this point, but then I thought how much fun it would be to have you refute your argument for me. J.T., would you mind posting some info about your home country Canada's population density? Do it if you're not afraid!

    No, many religious followers do not. I believe it would be most accurate to describe religious anti-Pokemon ideas as a minor fringe movement. To be honest, many anti-Pokemon Christians don't go as far as to accuse Pokemon of being Satanic. Some just say they don't think it is good, they want to avoid the "controversy" around it, or that they don't want to be involved in something with evolution in it (even though the evolution in Pokemon is entirely un-Darwinian).

    Also, I'm going to go on the record as a Christian, a Fundamentalist even, who has been playing Pokemon for more than a decade. There is not anything truly Satanic about Pokemon, and if there were, I most definitely would have noticed.

    The biggest problem for the "Pokemon-is-Satanic" crowd is that they never even considered the possibility of Pokemon being what it truly is: a game about critters. They connected these critters with demons from the outset, never noticing that Pokemon eat food like animals, Pokemon hatch from eggs, and have natural habitats. I've heard some claim Pokemon battles are like summoning demons. Well, for their argument to make any sense, they'd have to point me to the nearest Satanist Summon-Off Competition. (I suppose my Fundamentalist friends would disown me for saying this, but I would actually like to see one of those if they actually existed.) In short, those accusing Pokemon of Satanism never even noticed the sci-fi world. I truly do consider it a modern example of religious people "persecuting" something scientific.

    Oh well...there goes my hope of starting this off with a short post...

    But to get to the actual issue, I believe that since Ethan mentioned that compromise is a good thing, I offer homosexuals a new compromise: Gay marriage could be perfectly legal if every homosexual, even males, were required by law to bear and give birth to at least one child. (We have the technology.) It's win-win, right?
  16. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Whoops, I meant to specify humans, but animals with a specific sex are still the youngest creatures.

    Because employers can legally fire them for being gay. ENDA seeks to end this and conservatives seek to end ENDA.

    What a coincidence! You've failed to provide any kind of evidence or probable scenario in which a homosexual would disband unit cohesion. Okay, being gay doesn't make "Open fire! Open fire!" sound like "Free clogs! Free clogs!" Second, when the **** did we give a **** what our members thought was comfortable? I doubt they find being deployed for six months at a time comfortable but guess what? Tough ****.

    On a less vulgar note, homosexuality didn't seem to be a significant factor in say, the First Gulf War, which happened a couple years befor DADT was introduced. Not to mention, 20 coutnries of NATO allow gays to serve openly, and they don't seem to be doing too terrible. Its also worth mentioning that Slovenia considers homosexuality a psychiatirc disease but allows gays to serve openly. The US does not consider it a disease but does not allow gays to serve openly.

    But if you think gays are such a threat, let me ask: have you ever heard of Thomas Dooley?

    Because all of the things I listed are things that are freely enjoyed by heterosexuals and not homosexuals when there is no reason that such simple things should not be enjoyed by both.

    Isn't it rather coutner-productive for him not to do something, anything, about it? Enlighten someone, cause a sudden event, anything? I mean, why just watch his children choose the wrong path. Sounds kind of... lazy.

    I remember doing something like that. It was like an initiation to the gay cult.[/blatant sarcasm]

    Then having consensual sex with them would only be the blame of the people who agreed to be involved. Not every single gay person out there.

    You would think it would be rather obvious that they don't give out untested blood seeing as how several STDs, unlimited to sexual orientation, don't show physical signs for quite some time, making the victim ignorant to its presence.

    As I mentioned earlier, there is no kind of standard "benefits package" for civil unions like there is marriage. The benefits included in civil unions vary greatly.

    And as I said, evolution has not destroyed the "immoral" act of homosexuality, so what does that say?

    Other animals do not perhaps the same complex morals that we have, but they do have a good grasp on right and wrong.

    Um... what? Never in the history of mammalian kind has an offspring been produced without a biological mother.

    Well, we don't have the technology to make a male imitate the biological processes of a female, if that's what you meant. Second of all, JT is right, the world population is large enough as it is, and third, forcing people to have kids, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, is a major invasion of privacy and personal choice. Or does this rule not apply to the heterosexuals who do not want kids?
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2010
  17. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    I don't know what technology you're refering to, but males who are homosexual could still contribute to the population through sperm donations while homosexual females could go to the sperm bank for those sperms.

    But even then, we have heterosexual couples who make an actual effort to refrain from having children. Condoms and vasectomies included. Yet I don't see people getting hassled for getting a vasectomy. Because once you go through the procedure, you can't undo it.

    Therefore if homosexual couples are to produce, then we need to pass an additional law stating that a heterosexual couple have to have children before legally getting a vasectomy.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2010
  18. The_Boss_Giygas

    The_Boss_Giygas I. F.E.E.L. G.O.O.D.

    I don't see what the problem with gays is, what is the problem? Anyone should have the right to what ever life style they please. Why can't gays get married, people from different races can get married, hells some religions allow adults to marry children if that's allowed why not gay couples.
  19. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Because it's still legal in some states to fire gays just for being gay.

    How so?

    Yay let's compare gays to people with antisocial tendencies because all gays are recluses.

    Because we're showing that the only major difference between gays and straight people are that gays love people of the same sex.

    Okay, so maybe He's doing something through indirect means. Like what?

    You know, when I was in junior high, I was picked on and harassed by a gay student. He hit on me in class constantly for a few months. I had to tell him off to get him to shut the hell up. But I am not stupid enough to think that that means all gay people are like that, and that because of the way one gay person acted, all gays should be denied basic rights.

    What you described is not a problem with gays; that's a problem with individual people. If a heterosexual had done that, I highly doubt you'd be preaching the evils of straight sex and arguing against straight marriage. Same as if the stalkers had been women. Same as if the stalkers had been of a different race. Why are gays so different?

    Unless you're suggesting that all gays are stalkers and rapists, in which case I have no reason to waste my breath on you.

    A risk which can be lessened by practicing safe sex, such as using condoms, lube, or if you really feel like being careful just not having anal sex. There are other ways of having sex. If you're going to argue that gays should be denied marriage for something like that, then you may as well argue that blacks should be denied marriage too, because their HIV rights are higher than gay males. But oh, that would be racist, wouldn't it?

    Also, if you're worried about HIV levels, then does that mean you're okay with lesbians? I mean, their rates are much lower than straight people and gay men in... well, damn near every STI.

    What about them? We have tests for that kind of thing, which, if I'm not mistaken, we provide when straight people give blood, but for some reason decide to deny when gay people try to donate blood (oh wait, they can't because everyone's convinced that all gays have AIDS). And again, you may as well use this argument to argue against letting black people donate blood.

    Also, what does donating blood have to do with marriage?

    You mean that kind of risk which happens with absolutely every person who donates blood?

    Add 139 after the IMG command in both the start and end tags.

    hurr I never said anything about adoption but okay. 46 states allow individual gay parents to adopt (Florida says flat-out no, other states are unclear). Only 16 state that same-sex parents can jointly petition to adopt. The majority are unclear, and 5 say outright no. See, it's those states that oppose this kind of thing that we're going for.

    Please note that I never said that gays can't adopt anywhere in the U.S. I'm pretty sure those states that allow individual gay parents to adopt are (correct me if I'm wrong here) operating under the principle that if they don't have a partner then it's fine. I love how single parents are given higher priority than two gay parents, because guess which one's probably going to have a harder time paying for the kid's needs?

    I didn't. I searched it up and found out that, apparently, Obama changed that in April. Hooray!

    April. Remember, that was less than two months ago. Before that, gays could not visit their partners in hospitals. So, yeah.

    Sure. Hell, have another.

    Which I think is an absolutely massive violation of morality and common sense, but that's for another debate.

    No, it doesn't, because it has no more to do with morality than gravity does. If you feel like ignoring my rebuttal to what you said, then feel free, but don't bother spouting the same crap over and over again because you think it's a valid point.

    I'll let you in on something, because I dunno how much you know about biology and nature. Nature isn't some happy fanciful land where everyone holds hands and makes friends. Nature is goddamn mean. Nature will kill you and your first-born son for looking at it funny. Every step you take, you've probably killed several microscopic organisms, and that's if you're inside and the microscopic organisms are lucky. A forest teeming with life is a beautiful marvel of nature, on that I'm sure we can agree, but nonetheless there are probably living things fighting for their life every second in that forest. If you're going to discount evolution for being immoral, you may as well refuse to believe in gravity, nuclear physics, and pretty much everything we know about biology and nature.

    Evolution has no more immoral implications than gravity or nuclear physics do. Complaining about evolution being immoral is the lowest form of argument against it, because it means you don't actually have any argument against it. Trying to drag it kicking and screaming into a completely different debate on which it has no bearing is somehow even worse. Kudos on accomplishing that.

    They can by either donating or receiving donated sperm, depending on their gender. Even if they couldn't and/or you don't count those examples, does it matter? And before you jump into the "it's unnatural lols" argument, stop for a second, look at your computer, and ask yourself how natural you think it is.

    And hell, marriage in itself is unnatural. I've never seen a wild animal have a big lavish marriage ceremony that wasn't orchestrated by humans. This is why the "it's unnatural" argument is so stupid - pretty much everything about our life is unnatural, why is this one so special?

    Our sense of morality is part of our evolution. When we were hunter-gatherers, our intelligence led us to realize that, hey, we work better in packs and groups. We needed the help of others to survive and get food. Over time, this developed into morality - our sense of protecting our pack for the sake of protecting ourselves. This carried with us to modern times.

    These animals do. These animals have developed a society, morals, and laws to keep the species as a whole alive and happy. Does this mean we're not animals? No, we still are, unless you want to make the argument that we're fungi or something.

    It's a rather low population density, I won't give an exact number because everyone knows your point. But I love this assumption you're making that every square foot of unused land here in Canada is perfectly fine and dandy for people to live on, build houses on, and grow crops on. See, it's not that simple...

    Yes, because you can't stop violating their rights as humans for one ****ing second, can you? If you can't deny them marriage, at least you can make 'em pop out kids for the sake of... what, exactly?

    Wasn't even a good joke, anyway.


    I... wouldn't exactly use that as an argument for gay marriage. I'm pretty sure most people frown upon that kind of thing.
  20. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    As pointed out, it is still legal in many states to fire people over their sexual orientation or identity. They do not have the same protection as gender, age, religious affiliation, etc... have.

    Replace "hetero" with "male" or "white" or "Christian" and then replace "homosexual" with "female" or "black" or "Jews".

    Kids can bully and be mean. This isn't new.

    Actually, I've linked to studies in several of these threads previously revealing that the majority of those with HIV/AIDS are black.

    What about those people who give blood and pass that on to other people? Now, I know that the Red Cross doesn't accpet donations from MSMs but what about those who slip past the screening process?

    Civil unions, as well as domestic violence laws and domestic partnership benefits from employers, have come under fire in some states that have passed anti-gay marriage amendments. Kentucky's, for example, reads "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

    Michigan passed one with similar language as well, and a prosecutor there said he won't be able to press criminal charges in domestic violence cases because those laws will only apply to married couples, not domestic partnerships or civil unions.

    Some states with anti-gay marriage amendments only have "marriage is between one man and one woman" line. But many others go much farther than that. You can read about it here and here or look at any number of entires on that topic in January and February of 2007.

    Previously, GLBT just were not allowed to serve at all. Believe it or not, DADT is a compromise, and I've heard several Republicans in the recent Indiana Senate primary advocate for going BACK to that, rather than sticking with DADT.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page