Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Same sex marriage question

profile picture
wazawski
Posts: 756 - Karma: 159
i'm doing a short debate paper on gay marriage. I'm not really for or against same sex marriage, i just don't fully understand peoples problem with it. it seems like most gay couples just want the legal documents saying that they are married so that they can get tax deductions and have other benefits. it doesn't really seem like gay couples really care about the traditional side of getting married in a church. all these religious people don't want gays to marry cause the bible says married should be between a man and a woman. so why not just let gays marry for legal reasons and just not let them get married in a church?
Apr 20 2009 6:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
does it need to make sense? no. the fact of that matter is two men can love each other, or two women. and who are we to tell them they cant get married?

i dont care if you dont hate gays. by your logic retarded people should also not be allowed to marry, and thats idiocy as well
Apr 21 2009 10:21PM
0 0
profile picture
ho_chi_minh
Posts: 150 - Karma: 224
I didn't even mention marriage. I just said that engaging in those kinds of acts are not logical and i dont understand the motivation behind it.
Apr 21 2009 10:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
its not your job to
Apr 21 2009 10:38PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
By your logic, people who have no urge to ever have kids are also affected by mental disorders.
Apr 21 2009 10:39PM
0 0
profile picture
ty18
Posts: 116 - Karma: 9
dude why are you getting so defensive over gays, who gives a flying fuck being gay is not right and fucked up they cant reproduce so it dosn't matter. i just dont understand why you are getting so uppset.
Apr 21 2009 10:53PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429


does this really warrant this?

http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=0bad59ed42807

http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=0bad59ed42807


really?

lol i love how in Perez's mind, the crowd was booing, i heard cheers from the audience.

who the hell is this Perez guy anyway? is he related to the infamous hiltons? why is he famous?




Apr 21 2009 10:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
because its idiocy like this that fuels the homophobia that has made these peoples lives miserable.
Apr 21 2009 10:54PM
0 0
profile picture
InkShrink
Posts: 1079 - Karma: 30

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't give you the right to tell people what to do. The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong, but that doesn't mean I hate them, or I condemn them to hell. Some of the nicest people I know are homosexuals. If a man makes another man happy, then so be it, to each his own.

Telling people to stfu isn't going to solve anything.

Apr 21 2009 11:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
the bible is the biggest piece of fucking hypocrisy on the planet.


but my real point trying to force your religious morals (or lack thereof) on anyone else is wrong. so ill tell him to shut the fuck up if i want to
Apr 21 2009 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
he says it got edited out on most places. but way to pick a moronic tv personality to represent the entire gay population.
Apr 21 2009 11:10PM
0 0
profile picture
ProducerXXX
Posts: 1776 - Karma: 13
It's probably more about having the same rights as as straight couples/equal rights to minorities in America kinda thing.
Apr 21 2009 11:17PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
o i know he doesnt represent the entire gay population... he is just some idiot coming out of the idiot box (TV)

last semester i actually had an openly gay professor. he was one of the most genuine real people i have ever met, he was who he is and no one was changing him. not to mention he was a great teacher! and i personally think him and his guyfriend, mate, whatever the hell they want to call eachother.  should be granted every legal protection under the book. one thing about my professor that i really respected / appreciated is that he wasnt so over the top with his sexual preference. he was a very understanding, kind, and overal great human being. and while being gay grosses me out on a personal level, i didnt let it detract from the person i knew as Gerry.

but while i may be grossed out by what they do in their private life, i understand that straight people probably gross them out with what we do in the bedroom.

however at the same time i understand that we do live in a republic where there are some things that fall under the judistiction of states, and some under the federal government.

my 2 cents, i think a far more realistic expectation for the gay marriage debacle is that they legalize it, only under a differnt name. the definition of marriage has been one man one woman for who knows how long. and thats not going to be an easy thing to change. so i wonder if gay people couldnt be happy with a seperate term for their union? differnt, but at the same time equal.

dont hate me NS...
Apr 21 2009 11:30PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
o and for the record i have two aunts that live together..... aunt kris is my dads sister, and aunt deb is kris's roommate. and while they are not lesbians in the sexual nature, they became friends and have lived together for 20+ years.... and aunt deb is as much my aunt as kris...
Apr 21 2009 11:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
some are, some arent. but i really hate this whole definition of marriage argument. (not directed at you, you by no means started it) if some people dont want to call what gay people do marriage, than dont, but who are we to stop them from getting "married".
Apr 21 2009 11:39PM
0 0
profile picture
rhcp
Posts: 2598 - Karma: 18
Funny story:

I know a family with a 29 year old with severe downs, and he asked a 27 year old woman with severe downs to marry him at their camp over the summer.  A couple of months after the summer, she wanted to break it off with him, except neither of them were comfortable with calling one another on the telephone so she needed to have her mom call his mom to tell him that the marriage was off.

Anyways, back to the argument.
Apr 21 2009 11:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Z_rob
Posts: 3076 - Karma: 152
for your health

-steve brule
Apr 21 2009 11:54PM
0 0
profile picture
KarmaInitiative
Posts: 2028 - Karma: 174
different but equal. thats the same thing that was legal in the 1950s for civil rights. blacks and whites could have segregated schools, bathrooms, fountains as long as they were equal. We look back on that and think how ridiculous it was that we allowed that, but at the same time people are using the same logic to justify withholding another group's rights.

as for the definition, i now that this excuse is becoming cliche but its true. marage wasnt always one man & one woman. marage used to be a property exchange. Fathers used to trade their daughter for money. In the bible, many men had multiple wives.

My bigest problem with this is that it wont effect you at all unless youre gay or work at a wedding parlor. It would simply make other people happy, what's so bad about that.

i do belive that homosexuality is a neurological disorder. That doesnt make me homophobic, but there really is no purpose for it. That doesnt belive that we should deny these people this right, you wouldnt deny someone with cancer the right to get married. What about someone who is sterile, they cant procreate either, but you wouldnt say that they cant marry.
Apr 22 2009 12:05AM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,458
my personal opinion is that marriage should have nothing to do with the government. There is legal marriage and then there is religious marriage. I don't think legal marriage should exist. If a church wants to marry two dudes or two chicks go for it.
Apr 22 2009 1:36AM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
this sums up my thoughts pretty well
Apr 22 2009 1:51AM
0 0
profile picture
Powder*Whore
Posts: 482 - Karma: 116
Click for larger image
Apr 22 2009 2:23AM
0 0
profile picture
Rbamf
Posts: 792 - Karma: 15
i was in line at blockbuster the other day and these two gay guys were fondling and making out with each other. i was fucking disgusted. fucking disgusted. and now traumatized. fuck that shit.

let em get married, but NO PDA, unless it's hot lesbians.

end of paper.
Apr 22 2009 3:12AM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31
does no one else find a homo saying he needs a cocktail funny?
Apr 22 2009 4:01AM
0 0
profile picture
Aaaron.
Posts: 11817 - Karma: 903
It used to be "marriage is between one man and one woman"
go ahead and change it, because a small percentage of the population wants to.
what happens, when in 20 years another small percentage wants to change it?
If you give those rights to two men or two woman, how can you deny it to anyone.

Apr 22 2009 9:02AM
0 0
profile picture
Jasmine
Posts: 1489 - Karma: 10
Serious question for religious individuals:  In the synoptic gospels in the new testament, Jesus affirms that "Whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery" (break fundamental commandment in Mosaic Law!!).  So, divorce is morally wrong, fundamentally perverse according to Jesus, but yet it is still universally legal today.  Okay, this is called a concession to human sinfulness. I get it, but...

here is my question.  If religion (Catholic, Christian) can accept something so fundamentally perverse as divorce, then why can't it simply make the same concession with gay marriage?  Religion can fully recognize homosexuality as wrong (just like divorce), but can still permit it under the code of law as another concession to human weakness (humans have lots of weaknesses, right?).

ps I do not personally believe homosexuality is a weakness, so I apologize to anyone I've offended with this.  I just wanted to ask why the quaker pple, who do see it as a weakness, can't just view it this way and accept it into law.


Apr 22 2009 10:10AM
0 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7787 - Karma: 23,481
well, it really used to be, way back before that, marriage is a trade of property for my daughter with this other guy from across town, or marriage is a bond between me and my 20 slave wives. The definition has changed a lot to reflect the needs of the society. If marriage is changed once more in 20 years, I don't really care. If the majority wants to legalize goat fucking and call it marriage, good for them.
Apr 22 2009 10:56AM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
im all for that for straight couples too though
Apr 22 2009 12:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
havent we already addressed this? marriage has already changed, from basically slavery, to what it is now, and the world hasnt exploded yet from women marrying 57 pigs. i think we'll be ok
Apr 22 2009 12:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
well said.
Apr 22 2009 12:25PM
0 0
profile picture
pianoman
Posts: 2503 - Karma: 779
!!!!!!!!!!!
Apr 22 2009 2:15PM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31

not religious myself buti did go to catholic grade/high school. but the catholic church does notrecognize a otherwise legal divorce, meaning that if you get married and thendivorced you can't get married in a catholic church again because they believeyou are still married to you first spouse and will not recognize the second.

Apr 22 2009 6:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
yes, but you dont really see the catholic church rallying to ban divorce now do you? what makes gay marriage different.
Apr 22 2009 6:35PM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31

its the hole gay thing,like i said earlier many religions feel a since of ownership over the idea or covenantof marriage because they were doing this shit long before the US gov was aroundand so they tend to feel they have a right to lay down some of its more basicguide lines. Not saying i am with them just giving you a point of view. Personally i think they should just have the option for civil unions andnot use the word marriage.

Apr 22 2009 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
why though? why should they not get to use the word marriage?

separate but equal much?
Apr 22 2009 6:42PM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31

so that the religious zealotsdon't have so much to bitch about and the gays can get the work/tax/welfare benefits,out of the deal. My real opinion is that the gov issuing marriage licenses isalready starting to cross the line of separation of church and state and coulduse a change of name as well. Also I thinkif the majority of people in a state vote to ban it it should be banned and ifthe majority of people vote for it it should be allowed I mean isn’t that thewhole Idea of democracy to let the people decide what is legal and what is not.

Apr 22 2009 6:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
so if the majority of people in a state vote to ban blacks getting married it should be ok? because its democracy?


i dont give a shit about religious zealots bitching. racists bitch that obama is president, should we change that fact because of their ignorance and intolerance? i think not.

marriage is really no longer linked to religion, if it was, we wouldnt have atheists getting married.
Apr 22 2009 7:06PM
0 0
profile picture
mason-
Posts: 955 - Karma: 45

Anyone hear about how the gays went to court against eHarmony.com because eHarmony.com would not let you search for the same sex? and WON.

I'm fine with gays, but stuff they do like that, pisses me off. I don't go to gay websites and go to court because they dont have things that appeal to straight men.

But more on topic: It doesn't seem logical, homosexuality, at first. But when you think about these people, and who they really are, it seems like they are being treated unfairly, and maybe we do need a change. 

Where there any problems with gays say 100 years ago? or like 1000 years ago? I honestly don't know and was wondering.

Apr 22 2009 7:13PM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31

well my friend you havehit on the fundamental conflict of all modern democratic societies. Ben Franklinonce said "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinerand liberty is giving the lamb a gun" The real question is same sex marriage an inalienable right given to allpeople. If you want to argue that therights aren’t equal you will fail because there is no discrimination in thiscase.

Apr 22 2009 7:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
i agree that was dumb as shit. but its america, not the first dumb lawsuit, and certainly not the last
Apr 22 2009 7:15PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
I don't. It was an offer open to the public by eharmony that discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation: we offer these services to everyone, but not to gay people. It's not much different from a bar that hangs up a sign saying "We Don't Serve Blacks".

People miss the larger picture: anything that implies that gay people should be separate, or treated differently, marginalizes them. That is inherently discrimnatory. They're right to be sensitive about it, because a large segment of the population still views them as aberrent, morally and socially inferior and unnatural.
Apr 22 2009 7:35PM
0 0
profile picture
andrew.
Posts: 2349 - Karma: 165
im not planning on having a gay marriage any time soon, so i dont really feel it effects me.  so do whatever you want, gay marry your heart out.
Apr 22 2009 7:36PM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31

what about it impliedthey should be treated differently? No one could search for matcheswithin the same sex. I couldn’t you couldn't they couldn't, we all equallycan't, just like on a gay hook up site you can't search for the opposite sex. i am pretty sure Lesbos would get tired of people like me constantlysending them messages to hook up.

Apr 22 2009 7:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
i suppose. but at the same time, it WAS a private website, they really can do whatever they want cant they? While I am VERY for gay marriage, im not saying i want to force every church to marry them, sort of the same concept.

but i can definitely see what you mean there.
Apr 22 2009 8:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
actually wow, im retarded. your right. disregard.
Apr 22 2009 9:00PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Sort of like saying, for example, "a ban on interracial marriage is equal because no one can marry outside their own race", then. Not much comfort to the black dude and the white girl who were completely in love back in the 1940s, was it?

If you implement a policy designed to exclude a segment of the population on the basis of sexual orientation, you are marginalizing them and that is inherently discriminatory. That is what the argument about gay marriage is centered around, and that's why calling it something other than "marriage" completely misses the point. Opponents are effectively promoting a system that says, "gay people are different and abnormal. They should be in a separate category from the traditional, nuclear family unit." That attitude inherently treats gays as 2nd class citizens.

This is the new civil rights movement, these are the people who now get to be publicly cast in the role of "different, therefore, targeted". Society will get past that in time, but in the meantime there is no other group subject to anywhere NEAR the amount of bigotry as homosexuals. And bigotry is what any attempt to ostracize them is, even when accompanied by "I don't hate gays". That's great, but you're still a pretty terrible excuse for a human being.
Apr 22 2009 9:13PM
0 0
profile picture
drumbumocdp
Posts: 3228 - Karma: 1,082
you are being a hypocrite!
just because you believe in god doesn't mean you can tell people what to do.
anybody should be allowed to marry anybody. and if you dont like it, dont go to the wedding. and quit bitching
Apr 22 2009 9:14PM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31
hey now simmer down and keep the name calling at a min i think we should just do away with the title marriage and call them civil unions for all but guess what it isn’t going to happen all at once, so allowing gays to join in a civil union would merely be a step in the right direction. just go ahead and hop of you pedestal of idealism and come down to the real world. I get what you are saying and i understand your point but comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage is flawed my friend. one is discriminatory and the other not. by now i am sure you just want to call me a dumb ass terrible excuse for a human being was it. well you have two guys one white one black. the black man can marry a black women while the white man can't therefore unequal. like wise the white man can marry a white women while the black man can't therefore unequal. as for same sex marriage take two guys regardless of race. one can marry a woman and the other can marry a woman, therefore equal. like wise one can't marry a man and the other can't marry a man, therefore equal. my hole point is that this is not just a debate over whether or not gays should be allowed to marry but should anybody be allowed to marry the same sex. its not about a right that is denied to some and given to others, it is about a right that is given to no one. It is about getting a right not just for them, but for you, me, your dad, my dad everybody. So if you want to bitch about it bitch about how no one can do it and step down from your inequality soap box.
Apr 22 2009 10:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
holy fucking fail
Apr 22 2009 10:28PM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31

you going to explain that? I didn't say same sex was wrong just that it isn't the same as the denial of interracial.

Apr 22 2009 10:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
it is, its discriminatory. a man can marry a woman but cant marry a man. thats the same as saying a white woman can marry a white man, but not a black man.
Apr 22 2009 10:38PM
0 0
profile picture
stonedTEX
Posts: 256 - Karma: 31

i guess you didn't get my point. it isn’t discriminatory because NO ONE can do it. discrimination is when some people can do something that others can't. wouldn't laws that punish cocaine possession be discriminatory to coc heads by your logic? It is a fight to gain a right for EVERYONE because NO ONE has the right now.

Apr 22 2009 10:45PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)