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. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    I'm pretty sure said ban was under a six-month suspension under H. W. during the war. I'll look it up.
  2. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    First I've heard about it, but I'd believe it. H.W. was a pretty good POTUS from what I've read, and has done a lot of good with his post-POTUS life.
  3. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Okay I got it - the ban under H.W. was not a federal law in the manner that DADT is today. It was truly more of a strictly military policy which is much easier to bend rather than federal law.

    And even if I did get that wrong, America has had gays in the military since the Revolution. Ever hear about Frederick Von Steuben?
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2010
  4. Vermehlo_Steele

    Vermehlo_Steele Grand Arbiter II

    I wonder where Allyson, dragoniteKnight, Drake99, Electric, MokKish, STICKTOPIA, The Mewtwo Master, Yahtzo900 and especially Dr. Ste, poizonsting, slm2, TheFightingPikachu, Yeti all are on this thread? I would love to hear what they have to say. Given that they all voted, maybe they can explain their choices.

    Or is this the convocation of trolls?
  5. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    TFP has posted an argument already (it's on page 5), but he hasn't defended or even acknowledged his poll choice - I didn't even know what he had voted for until I looked myself. Dr. Ste posted too, but all he said was that the word "should" in the last poll option was "misleading". I'm going to hope the rest are trolls, particularly the ones who voted for the fifth option.
  6. ha they don't have the guts or evidence to explain there reasoning, all they have is hate.
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2010
  7. Maneater

    Maneater New Member

    I'm all for gay rights. However the idea of marriage is silly to me, it doesn't symbolize what it used to. Nowadays people get married because it's "what people do" or they don't want to be judged by society for children outside of marriage. Today marriage is just for show for 90% of the population. Most people that spout nonsense about religion, I doubt they follow the commandments, or go to church. If two people love eachother, regardless of sexual orientation, they don't need to get married. But it shouldn't be exclusive.

    It's also annoying that America expects gay people to fight for their country, yet they can't even acknowledge that gay people exist, with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" law. Double standards are silly.
    The argument that "being gay is a choice" is invalid. Do 'straight' people choose to be 'straight'? People are what they are. The sooner that's accepted the better.
  8. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    Maneater, have you ever heard of the actual marriage benefits?
  9. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    A marriage in this context is just a government contract that opens up 1,000+ different types of legal benefits.

    Not only that, but as I've pointed out, in some states, domestic violence laws treat the couple as married even if they aren't. But in some states that have or are trying to pass anti-gay constitutional amendments, a second sentence might throw that all out the window.

    I'm glad you bought this up. Let's assume that being gay is a choice. But there are anti-discrimination laws on the books on the basis of religion, which is also a choice.
  10. John13wb

    John13wb Earthbound Hero

    Why do you all assume that if someone is against gay rights that they are a bigoted, racist, sexist, whatever you want to call it, gay-hater. They're entitled to an opinion as much as anyone else.
  11. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    You're right, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But, first, there is a difference between being against gay rights and you, who thinks gays should be punished by law. (Punished like this? Or like this?)

    Second, while you have the right to your opinion, you do not have the authority to take said opinion to discriminate a class of people just because of who they are, regardless of its origin. That is the very definition of bigot.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  12. Sapphiredragon929

    Sapphiredragon929 A r t i f i c e.

    By that logic, you can be racist because it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You can also be bigoted, sexist etc.

    Example (please note that I am not, on any level, racist) "I am entitled to think that blacks are inferior because I am entitled to such an opinion" :/ Eh? If America is about a land of opprotunity (spelling?) and prusuit of happiness, that's fine! But a life of opprotunity and prusuit of happiness that may hinder the ability for others to prusue THEIR happiness is not okay. :/ While you are protected by Free Speech to say such a thing (only applies if you're a white man with at least a small surplus of health; if a minority were to say this they'd surely get beaten dry) it doesn't make it right, or tasteful!
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  13. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    No one calls anyone racist or sexist for hating gays so I dunno where that came from. "WHAT'S THAT YOU DON'T WANT WOMEN TO VOTE, YOU'RE SUCH AN AGEIST" seriously what the hell.

    I call people who are against gays having equal rights to straight people bigoted or homophobic (or heterosexist or whatever term you want to use to avoid looking hateful), for the same reason you call people who are against black people having equal rights to white people racist:

    Because in every case I've ever seen, they are.

    My opinion is that your opinion is retarded. Don't like it? Well, I'm entitled to my opinion, so you can't criticize it. Oh, wait, things don't work that way.

    Yes, indeed, you are. You are not entitled, however, to enforce laws based on your opinion of a certain group of people.


    I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, Maneater. Are you saying that marriage is stupid in itself, but if gays want it then they should be allowed to have it, just like straight people? Or did I miss something?
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  14. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    I gave you a more specific argument, but basically the reasons provided tend to come off as a double standard. Any reasoning based off hypocrisy is a reason that needs to be reexamined.
  15. Thanks for putting words in my mouth I totally apriciate it perhaps I should do you the same favor /sarcasm
    because I obviously am getting off topic and calling you a racist/sexist because I'm such a troll /sarcasm
    And I obviously said you aren't entitled to your own opinion /sarcasm
    seriously when did I ever call you a racist/sexist person and that your not entitled to your own opinion. Did I?

    Getting on the subject, so basically your saying "I'm entitled to my own opinion so therefore I don't have to justify my claims/reasons why gays should be punished by law...DERP"
    In the nature of the debate forum I officially declare this a.....

    I am pretty sure the debate forum is for debating not stating your opinion then running. I'm sorry I can't take you seriously
  16. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    What you're probably feeling is the pressure of popular opinion.

    Congratulations, you have something in common with a gay person surrounded by a group of people who are against gay-rights.

    See what I did there?
  17. Ethan

    Ethan Banned

    There's no rule stating that you have to back up your vote in a poll. Labeling them trolls is bordering idiocy. If they were posting inflammatory comments and not backing them up it would be a different matter. Stop calling out people on the internet, por favor.

    I don't agree with loosely throwing around those labels, especially toward Christians. Discrimination based on prejudice and discrimination based on moral convictions are two different things. In this manner, I somewhat sympathize with the church. A Christian that disagrees with same-sex marriage is neither homophobic or hetero-sexist for that alone, although he or she may be. Since the modern evangelical church's stance is that homosexuality is a choice, we can't logically say that their stance is homophobic, not to say that homophobia can't come into play. In general I'm very tired of the label homophobe being used to describe anyone that doesn't 100% agree with a liberal attitude toward LGBT rights and or agenda. Yes, I did use the word agenda. Within the scope of all good intentions fall political interest groups. An example would be the NAACP and the ACLU. Yes they fight for good causes but they have other political motivations and or intentions that not everyone is behind.

    The concept of choice is important and unimportant. It's important because if it were proven to be a choice, acceptance of homosexuality would permeate very quickly. The church can't maintain the position that it's a sin, because biblically speaking we all choose to sin. Acceptance would in turn, follow with anti-gay laws and similar policies quickly being overturned and the like.

    It is not important in the sense that it gives anyone a reason to discriminate, legally or no. If it's not a choice and you discriminate then it carries the same stigma as racism. If it is a choice and you discriminate than that's persecution. So, pick your poison.
  18. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Of course.

  19. Da14u.C

    Da14u.C La mort de Narcisse

    I might be attacked for saying this but I think gay people should just create their own version of marriage.

    I am from Canada, we have same-sex marriage legalised and recognised by the government and I think that is all well and good, but the people I know who disagree with same sex marriage do not disagree because they are homophobic or something, it is because of the term "marriage".

    Marriage has traditionally been defined as union between a man and a woman, and what the LGBT community is asking for, is to redefine the term. I think it would be better for the LGBT community to create a new term for same sex unions, and have the government give it the same benefits as marriage. I think much fewer people would complain about it then.

    We see some US states, Israel and some other countries using civil partnerships, which do not come with the same benefits as marriage, however, if the LGBT community came up with something (Unionship, or Garriage hehe), it would not be fought against as much in my opinion.
  20. ShinySandshrew

    ShinySandshrew †God Follower†

    Pleasantly Surpised

    I was gonna post a really long, mind-numbing reply to some things that J.T said, but I decided to respond to a few things Ethan said. Begore I reply, Ethan, I want to say that I agree with most of what you said.

    I must say that I disagree with your statements in this paragraph. If homosexuality was a choice, then I believe laws and church positions would not have to change. If it was a choice it could then be viewed as any other negative human action, like smoking. Laws could be made against it without being discriminatory and the church could still maintain it's position because, after all, things like murder and theft are wrong, even though they are choices.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page