So i was wondering on everyones views on gay marriage me and my partner had a massive debat and he thinks its something that is only allowed to be between a man or a woman though they should create a new term for it similar to cival partnership while i say who the firetruck cares it should be between two people that love each other not them + everyone else so slap on a comment down below and please none of the bullshit that ***s are going to burn in hell
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Nindo
- Start date
- Status
UchihaBrat
Active member
lol, personally i dont really care, if two guys wanna get married im not gonna stop them. although i dont particularly like seeing gay people showing their affection in public. (yes i know thats harsh, but hey, thats my opinion)
IzunaUchiha
Active member
I don't see the point in debating it honestly, its no ones right to come into a wedding and say "Hey we're the wedding police you cant get married!" Its stupid and shouldnt be allowed. People use religion as a way to back it up.
In the bible it says 2 things
1. Religion should not take part in political laws <-- summerized and americanized cuz i hate old english
2. People shouldn't judge people only god should judge people. <--- religious nuts seem to over look the finer details and go towards the more extreme because people are afraid of what they do not know
There are a few things the bible also talks about acceptance.
I feel like the teacher in an English class just told me to write an essay and I was too lazy to come up with a better topic then the top 5 used debatable essays.
Gay marriage restriction is very childish, to put it nicely. Marriage, in it's quoted words, is a union between a man and a woman. This has been like this from the beginning, and will not be changed ever. Unfortunately for the gays they will only be aloud to do this relationship ritual in very few areas, and until the state of social disgust over the gays are completely killed or outnumbered they will be hated upon by the "NO" voting button.
If I was able to amend the words to the Marriage ritual, it would be that it's a union of love between two people for the sake of eternal matrimony. This will never be the case, but this will allow many gay couples able to get married with no trouble other than people still hating them.
On the other side of the argument, this debate is completely stupid to fight for since it's about pride and not the actual title. They want to be married, not have a certificate of being partners. Technically they are not married, but they are shown to be a couple by a written certificate they can request for.
On paper, literally a pun, both a marriage certificate and a union certificate (forgot about the actual term) is the same excluding the name and process. What the gays want, regardless of *** combinations, is the ability to do the same process as a straight "normal" couple, and the ability to do it in a church.
I'm sorry, but both sides are completely selfish and childish for wanting a change of a word on a piece of paper and the ability to add more money to the bill of a wedding.
TL;DR
Conclusion: Gays want to be treated exactly like straight couples, they want the same process, they want the certificate to be the same, and both sides are completely fighting for childish/selfish reasons.
Gay marriage restriction is very childish, to put it nicely. Marriage, in it's quoted words, is a union between a man and a woman. This has been like this from the beginning, and will not be changed ever. Unfortunately for the gays they will only be aloud to do this relationship ritual in very few areas, and until the state of social disgust over the gays are completely killed or outnumbered they will be hated upon by the "NO" voting button.
If I was able to amend the words to the Marriage ritual, it would be that it's a union of love between two people for the sake of eternal matrimony. This will never be the case, but this will allow many gay couples able to get married with no trouble other than people still hating them.
On the other side of the argument, this debate is completely stupid to fight for since it's about pride and not the actual title. They want to be married, not have a certificate of being partners. Technically they are not married, but they are shown to be a couple by a written certificate they can request for.
On paper, literally a pun, both a marriage certificate and a union certificate (forgot about the actual term) is the same excluding the name and process. What the gays want, regardless of *** combinations, is the ability to do the same process as a straight "normal" couple, and the ability to do it in a church.
I'm sorry, but both sides are completely selfish and childish for wanting a change of a word on a piece of paper and the ability to add more money to the bill of a wedding.
TL;DR
Conclusion: Gays want to be treated exactly like straight couples, they want the same process, they want the certificate to be the same, and both sides are completely fighting for childish/selfish reasons.
IzunaUchiha
Active member
BlackGamabunta
Active member
Scary Yamato
Active member
Awards
Reps man. Very well said. Marraige is about love and making a commitment to each other. who cares about all that other stuff.
It is true that perhaps homosexuals do not fall into the traditional definition of marriage, which includes a man and a woman joined together to form a conventional family. Single mothers and fathers do not necessarily fit the mold either, and yet the love for their children is no less. But to call them anything less than a family would be unjust. What is important in a marriage is love and trust. Marriage is the union of souls, and that cannot be regulated by some act of Congress.
As recently as 40 years ago, interracial couples could not marry. That kind of ignorance and racism is a horrible blemish on our nation's history. Today, we shudder at such injustice and cannot imagine condoning such a law. Denying homosexuals the right to marry those they love signifies a harsh parallel to that unenlightened time of our past.
the burden of proof is on opponents to gay adoption/marriage/homosexuality in general. american society is founded on the notion of negative liberty (as posited by John Locke), which states basically that the limits of one person's freedoms is only defined by how those freedoms infringe (or not) on other peoples' freedoms. gays to not have to justify what they want or do; conservatives must give good reasons why they should not be allowed to. religion is not a suitable basis for such a reason, because religious doctrine does not direct law in america (so sayeth the separation of church and state). beyond that, there is no scientific (social, physiological, or otherwise) evidence that supports any claim that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, including gays rights to adoption and marriage. when it comes down to it, one always finds conservatives' arguments are predicated not on any logical thought process, but rather on prejudice (disgust, fear, discomfort, whatever). It always comes back to that. All of their logic is specious. they start with a prejudice, and then just search for arguments that superficially support it. that is no way to pursue truth, or a path towards a better society.
So...in reference to marriage specifically, marriage is actually not a bond under God (not necessarily anyways, and certainly not for atheists/agnostics). Rather it is a legal contract recognized by the American courts. Since the judicial process should be separate from religious doctrine, why should a religious position have any bearing on that civil process? Besides, not all religions even oppose gay marriage or homosexuality in general. When the Mormon Church tried to represent all of religion against the gay activists in Hawaii, a Buddhist sect stepped in and reminded them it has more members then them in Hawaii, and has no problem with same-*** marriage.
Finally, the notion that it is unnatural is fallacious. Roughly 1/3 of known species in the world exhibit gay/bisexual behavior, including same-*** coupling for life. Ask an animal behaviorist.
the burden of proof is on opponents to gay adoption/marriage/homosexuality in general. american society is founded on the notion of negative liberty (as posited by John Locke), which states basically that the limits of one person's freedoms is only defined by how those freedoms infringe (or not) on other peoples' freedoms. gays to not have to justify what they want or do; conservatives must give good reasons why they should not be allowed to. religion is not a suitable basis for such a reason, because religious doctrine does not direct law in america (so sayeth the separation of church and state). beyond that, there is no scientific (social, physiological, or otherwise) evidence that supports any claim that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, including gays rights to adoption and marriage. when it comes down to it, one always finds conservatives' arguments are predicated not on any logical thought process, but rather on prejudice (disgust, fear, discomfort, whatever). It always comes back to that. All of their logic is specious. they start with a prejudice, and then just search for arguments that superficially support it. that is no way to pursue truth, or a path towards a better society.
So...in reference to marriage specifically, marriage is actually not a bond under God (not necessarily anyways, and certainly not for atheists/agnostics). Rather it is a legal contract recognized by the American courts. Since the judicial process should be separate from religious doctrine, why should a religious position have any bearing on that civil process? Besides, not all religions even oppose gay marriage or homosexuality in general. When the Mormon Church tried to represent all of religion against the gay activists in Hawaii, a Buddhist sect stepped in and reminded them it has more members then them in Hawaii, and has no problem with same-*** marriage.
Finally, the notion that it is unnatural is fallacious. Roughly 1/3 of known species in the world exhibit gay/bisexual behavior, including same-*** coupling for life. Ask an animal behaviorist.
Scary Yamato
Active member
Awards
100% agreed.
The argument about not allowing gay marraige because it's sacred and blah blah blah is irrelevant in my opinion. If it was so sacred, then it wouldnt have a 50% percent divorce rate for first marriages, 67% for second and 74% for third marriages in the United states. (I know its lower in other countries)
- Status