Should homosexuals be allowed to marry

[CSolarstorm]

Yes, they should be allowed to lawfully marry, legally and within the churches that have come to accept them.

 

[Noctourniquet]

lol @ the one-sidedness itt.

although i agree completely, i cannot think of a single valid reason against it.

for those few of you who disagree, how can you justify this? from a quick skim of this thread, only KibaLG8 is against marriage and they didn't even give a reason.

 

[Takeo]

its discrimination to allow 'straight' people to marry but not homosexuals.
who are we to judge on peoples happiness

 

[Lulu_used_SunnyDay]

Yes, they should be able to marry like everyone else. But careful, this doesn't mean they should be allowed to have kids.

 

[ChedWick]

Yes, they should be able to marry like everyone else. But careful, this doesn't mean they should be allowed to have kids.

Here we go.... Let the derail begin. /fingers for staying on topic.

 

[Dragoon952]

I've noticed a lot of religious people on this forum, so I'm interested in seeing the reaction to this.I'm not trying to be the cause of a homophobic fight, so remember you're on a debate board and not a bickering board.

I personally think yes, everybody is equal and marriage is more of a legal agreement than anything else now.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." Good rule of thumb. If the State wants to give benefits to same sex couples so be it, just don't force religious groups or individuals to agree that it is ok.

You know how the whole discussion can be erased? Get the State out of the business of marriage, period. Leave it up to individuals and, if they choose, their religious institutions. The argument is rooted in the fact that homosexuals want the same piece of the government pie that heterosexuals get. If we just eliminated silly rewards in tax breaks and the like for shacking up with someone no one would argue like this about the subject and be more apt to leave people alone.

 

[darkcharizard58]

Here we go.... Let the derail begin. /fingers for staying on topic.

Posting that is just encouraging the topic to stray from its original purpose. However i think he had a reason for posting that. The two topics are related and there are conflicting views on it.

 

[Pokémon Trainer Xande]

I AM religious, but I believe that God want us to be happy, so Homossexual marriage should be allowed. I can 't think of myself as homossexual, but, for you recognizing as homossexual, you must be courageous, as people discriminate you.

 

[Lulu_used_SunnyDay]

Here we go.... Let the derail begin. /fingers for staying on topic.

Well sorry, I just wanted to specify. Marriage means many things, not just having the right to live together and call each other they'r wife or husband.

It also means that once one of the two dies, the other part will legally inherit his or her part, instead of having all their shared belongings go back to the family, which maybe even rejected them for their homosexuality. And this is good.

But, another aspect of marriage are children, and if people simply vote "yes" for gay marriage without thinking too much about the consequences, then we'll be facing the consequence of kids growing up without a proper family.

EDIT: ^thanks Darkcharizard58 for proving my point, although I'm actually a she XDDDD

 

[ChedWick]

Well sorry, I just wanted to specify. Marriage means many things, not just having the right to live together and call each other they'r wife or husband.

It also means that once one of the two dies, the other part will legally inherit his or her part, instead of having all their shared belongings go back to the family, which maybe even rejected them for their homosexuality. And this is good.

But, another aspect of marriage are children, and if people simply vote "yes" for gay marriage without thinking too much about the consequences, then we'll be facing the consequence of kids growing up without a proper family.

I see I see, but having and raising children is not a right exclusive to marriage. The same applies to "a proper family" that notion is certainly not exclusive to married couples.

 

[darkcharizard58]

Well sorry, I just wanted to specify. Marriage means many things, not just having the right to live together and call each other they'r wife or husband.

It also means that once one of the two dies, the other part will legally inherit his or her part, instead of having all their shared belongings go back to the family, which maybe even rejected them for their homosexuality. And this is good.

But, another aspect of marriage are children, and if people simply vote "yes" for gay marriage without thinking too much about the consequences, then we'll be facing the consequence of kids growing up without a proper family.

You make a valid point. People only talk about the marriage aspect but there are other things to consider, like children, when making the argument. Now i personally dont believe that they should have kids. But thats just me.

 

[Dragoon952]

lol @ the one-sidedness itt.

although i agree completely, i cannot think of a single valid reason against it.

for those few of you who disagree, how can you justify this? from a quick skim of this thread, only KibaLG8 is against marriage and they didn't even give a reason.

The problem is inherently in semantics. As much as some would like to argue to the contrary, marriage has a definition in Western society and has for some time. Not only that, it has a whole lexicon of associated words and definitions (husband, wife, groom, bride, groomsmen, bridesmaids, etc.). It isn't simply "redefining" one single word. The whole lexicon of the institution no longer makes sense if you just change the word marriage around.

That's a lot of the hangup. People KNOW what marriage means and don't think you should change the meaning of things based upon societal whims. However, call it something else (civil unions or whatever you want) and many people have their opinions soften, because civil union carries an entirely different connotation even though it is essentially asking for the same thing.

I'm a Catholic, I don't necessarily agree with the homosexual lifestyle (although I have nothing against homosexuals in the slightest), and I don't think that homosexuals can "marry" because it doesn't fit the meaning of the word much like you can't call blue something other than blue just by adding or taking away a few words to the definitions.

However, if the government is going to dole out money and rewards simply because I'm choosing to be in a monogamous relationship with someone, there isn't a single compelling reason why homosexuals can't get the same benefits from the government. Government and legal benefits are entirely different than the institution of marriage itself.

 

[darkcharizard58]

.

EDIT: ^thanks Darkcharizard58 for proving my point, although I'm actually a she XDDDD

No problem. Sorry i called you a guy

 

[legendarypokemonmaster]

Sure, they can have rights, but it doesn't follow the definition of marriage. It's probably not any one else's business anyways. Talking about whether they should raise children might provide a more...interesting discussion.

 

[Lucas.G]

No, homosexual marrige = AIDS

Think about the people near them
You think u can tolerate it but it is not true, what if someone really close to u want to marry someone of his same sex, I dont think u can take that as easy as some said.

It is a sickness that must be stoped, not increase

 

[foodmetaphors]

For those saying a homosexual couple should not be allowed to adopt, why do you feel this way?

 

[cantab]

Darato, please don't post in unreadable colours.

The argument arises from the fact that there are two sides to marriage. There is the religious side, which is after all older. Many denominations don't want to recognise the idea of same-sex marriage, and certainly don't want to marry such individuals.

Then there is the legal side, the legal rights married couples have that cohabiting couples don't. This side is newer, and should not be influenced by religion.

The way forward I think may be to decouple the two sides. Allow marriage to be something religious bodies do, that has no basis in law. Then extend civil partnership to all couples, same or different sex, as a legal institution with no relation to religion.

Of course, it's far from trouble free. There will be those who would portray it as an attack on marriage. We must also not forget that many who are opposed to homosexual marriage are opposed to homosexuality period. They would continue to protest equal legal recognition for same and different sex couples.

Luann, many children are raised well by single parents, or by same sex couples. Many children are raised poorly by different sex couples.

 

[foodmetaphors]

No, homosexual marrige = AIDS

Think about the people near them
You think u can tolerate it but it is not true, what if someone really close to u want to marry someone of his same sex, I dont think u can take that as easy as some said.

It is a sickness that must be stoped, not increase

If anything, homosexual marriage would help prevent the spread of AIDS, IMO, because they're more likely to be monogamous.

And I've known and am friends with gay people. If they wanted to get married I'd be happy for them. And it's not a sickness. That's so ignorant.

 

[Lucas.G]

For those saying a homosexual couple should not be allowed to adopt, why do you feel this way?

Think about the children that are adopted the would like to have MOM and DAD not DAD and DAD or MOM and MOM

 

[foodmetaphors]

Darato, please don't post in unreadable colours.

The argument arises from the fact that there are two sides to marriage. There is the religious side, which is after all older. Many denominations don't want to recognise the idea of same-sex marriage, and certainly don't want to marry such individuals.

Then there is the legal side, the legal rights married couples have that cohabiting couples don't. This side is newer, and should not be influenced by religion.

The way forward I think may be to decouple the two sides. Allow marriage to be something religious bodies do, that has no basis in law. Then extend civil partnership to all couples, same or different sex, as a legal institution with no relation to religion.

Of course, it's far from trouble free. There will be those who would portray it as an attack on marriage. We must also not forget that many who are opposed to homosexual marriage are opposed to homosexuality period. They would continue to protest equal legal recognition for same and different sex couples.

It's pretty much already like this. Any couple can just go to a courthouse to get married, no Jesus required. Religious institutions already have the ability to pick and choose whom they marry. In fact, by keeping gay marriage illegal, you're infringing on the rights of those institutions that do marry gay couples.