DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Many like myself believe it is wrong and therefore it should not be sanctioned by the government which represents the people unless the majority of said people vote to sanction it.

Marriage takes roots in religion. I myself am a Catholic, so I was raised thinking that it is completely bad for a gay marriage. However, I do know that the Catholic Church will never allow it, so it really isn't a marriage and has nothing to do with me.

I read somewhere though that it doesn't classify a marriage, it just means like their bros or something, or partners.

“…it will never be okay for your religion…”

Whose religion? What religion? “Spiritual” does not necessarily mean “Christian.” There are several spiritual people in the world who believe love between two people should be accepted—regardless of gender. In the Old Testament, Leviticus prohibits homosexuality. The same book also prohibits eating shellfish—a preceding passage. Do either of you eat shrimp or crab, which is also termed “an abomination unto the Lord?”

I am obviously pro gay marriage. Right and wrong are determined by individuals' faith. A person can feel gay marriage is wrong: that's her/his prerogative. However, prohibiting gay marriage runs counter to the Fourteenth Amendment (a person's right to privacy) and prohibits our Founders' goal to create a free society and acceptance of diverse religions.

Contrary to many people's beliefs, America was not founded as a Christian nation. American was founded as a country of diversity and acceptance. At least eight presidents were either Deists, as was Benjamin Franklin, or Unitarians, all of which religions are indifferent to whether two gay people marry.

I think the most spiritual act in which a person can engage is to mind one's own business. Gay marriage hurts no one. I cannot understand a position of anti-gay marriage—especially as 50% of all heterosexual marriages in the U.S. fail. Should we therefore outlaw marriage entirely?

I'm gonna tell you what I think, since you put your opinion out there to be criticised.

I think your idea of FORCEING everybody to accept the union of Homosexuals and Lesbians as holy matrimony is just plain BS.

First of all it ain't gay . . . gay means happy and as far as I know there ain't nothing happy about the way Homosexuals and Lesbians perform their perverted sex acts upon one another.

Holy Matrimony is a religious (name your religion) agreement between a male and a female of the Human race for the purpose of mutual satisfaction and to be able to trace ones lineage. Homosexuals and Lesbians cannot procreate and therefore lineage ends there. "Marriage" for them is nothing but a useless ceremony. Most Homosexuals and Lesbians do not stay together for more than a year, and those that do most always have multiple sex partners.

That is my not so humble opinion.

This is not a 14th amendment issue because it is not keeping anyone from marriage as it is defined by society and the state. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman in societies both religious and otherwise throughout history. Until the majority of society is willing to change that definition we have every right to not recognize it. The Supreme Court has already stated:
"in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex"

The Fourteenth Amendment and judicial interpretation state: that "Its Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to recognize: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights…" There is absolutely no wording in this amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That mindset arises from Christianity, which I cherish as much as any one who seeks spiritual growth.

Where, Lori, did you get the idea that marriage was only recognized between a man and a woman throughout history? That's a fallacy: Classical Greek, Rome, the Ancient Egyptions, and many other cultures accepted gay marriage and, a practice I don't condone, incest.

Many current religions and governments are not opposed to gay marriage. You need to dig deeper into the question as to why Americans are.

***************************

Papadawg, I did not put my "opinion out there to be criticized," but rather discussed civilly. I don't force anyone to accept anything. Can we not, as caring human beings, allow the same rights to all of society? Wasn't this the same argument used in the Civil Rights movement? To term my opinion as "BS" is not constructive. Dissent and civil disagreement is a far better way to share opinions.

Seriously, what is the big deal? How does gay marriage affect YOU? A lucid and reasoned explanation would help me better understand your viewpoint, with which I disagree.

There is not extensive perversion in the heterosexual community: consider the multiplicity of pedophiles. Broad statistical studies indicate that there is far less pedophilia in the gay community than in the straight community. I will gladly provide you the statistics, if you wish. Your comment about gay sex being "perverted," is merely your opinion. There is no sexual perversion between two consenting adults. As with television, if you disagree with the content, change the channel.

I already stated that many religions are completely accepting of gay marriage. Despite my disagreement with some of Jared's statements, I greatly respect his comment that gay marriage "has nothing to do with me." The term "Holy Matrimony" is not "holy" to all: for some, marriage is a solemn vow-a promise-made to another person of fidelity and honesty, and whether one ensure her/his integrity to keep that promise. In point of fact, marriage is a civil union. For that reason, couples must get their license from a local state agency before they can marry.

Further, marriage is not merely an institution for procreation. Some may hold that belief–many more do not see marriage as a sacred rite by a contract or promise between a couple. Many heterosexual couples choose not to have children. Should they, too, be stopped from being married? Your definition of marriage is skewed by belief, to which you have every right. So what if gays can't procreate? Irrelevant.

Papadawg, your comment here is so outrageously wrong, I had to laugh: "Marriage for them is nothing but a useless ceremony. Most Homosexuals and Lesbians do not stay together for more than a year, and those that do most always have multiple sex partners." People of many different sexual orientation have many partners. Further, I would like to hear you address my gay friends who have been their partners for 40, 30, and 25 years. Are you trying to tell me that many heterosexuals don't have many partners? If so, that's a fallacious and uneducated assumption.

I am a firm believer in Free Speech. As Voltaire wrote, "I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to my death your right to it." I tend to approach issues with logic and facts rather than emotion. This topic strongly polarizes Americans. We just don't agree. It's that simple, and out discussion need not be so hateful. Always express your opinion-Free Speech is the greatest gift our Founders added to the Constitution, as well as the Separation of Church and State. As the very First Amendment, I assume this law was also the most important to them.

As Jonathan Swift, an Anglican minister and author of Gulliver's Travels, penned, “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” I don't ask you to change, but find your vehement attacks and comments bewildering as to where you acquired some of the information you provide.

Despite our different opinions, I sincerely wish the best to you both. We do not have to agree to get along: If we have another exchange on this topic, I sincerely hope we can engage in kindness to each other. Peace be with you.

Wow . . . you wrote a book while criticizing my not so humble opinion.

FYI – Anytime we put our opinions out for the general public to read, they are subjuct to the criticism of those who read it. When criticized, don't get so upset about it. I don't.

I don't care at all for homsexuals and lesbians. I have my personal reasons.

I am not attacking you personally, just your misguided opinion.

Most folks who come into contact with sexual deviants do not realize what they are dealing with. If you live in a large metropolis, I would suggest that you contact your local law enforcement agency and ask to interview their sex crimes unit commander. Be specific in your questions as to the amount of reported pedophelic contact and the estimated pedophelic contact that is not reported. If he or she is downright honest with you I guarantee that you will come away from that interview wide eyed and shocked to your bones!

Human predators are the worst kind.

Anyway . . . There is my not so humble opinion . . . again.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you and did not find that there was a due process issue in the case from which I quoted above. Any man is legally allowed to marry any woman. There are reasonable limits to marriage such as the age a person must be, how many person's one can marry and what sex a couple must be to be married. Any adult man can marry ONE adult female and visa versa. The due process applies these restrictions the same to all races and religions and is therefore constitutional.

While homosexuality was practiced throughout history there is not much evidence that same sex unions were recognized the same as marriage. It's highly contested as to whether or not Greece really recognized them and when it was practiced in other cultures it was generally not recognized on the same level as marriage. In fact homosexuality was practiced more among men and their slaves then among partners they considered equal and married. It was also often among adult males and adolescent boys as well which is not a part of history I would choose to try to emulate.

Not all civil rights are considered to be mandated by the system of majority rule, some are inviolable Constitutional rights. Discrimination clauses under the 14th amendment can be easily interpreted as applying to sexual orientation as it relates to marriage law or rather the various legal privileges we extend under marriage laws.

Lots of people who get married cannot procreate either from infertility or age (or by choice they don't have kids). Are you suggesting we consider those marriage contracts invalid?

Your "not so humble opinion" is perfectly fine. You are entitled to believe in whatever bigoted things you want. You are not entitled to restrict someone else's civil liberties in the process of doing so. These current restrictions do not compel people to get married to people not of their choosing, such as people of another race or sexual orientation. All they do is protect your precious sensibilities. They offer no protections against actual harms and damages to the greater society.

Human predators and pedophiles are a completely different subject than homosexuality. There is no correlation or causation from sexual orientation as it relates to child molestation and rape. We saw the same arguments raised during the eventual, but long running battle to overturn of miscegenation laws. Those arguments were just as ill-informed and morally repugnant then.

Quakers and Buddhists tend to be much more accepting in official doctrines (excepting the Dalai Lama).

I believe the sentiment is correct in Jared's statement. I do think the government's role in marriage laws is to prevent discrimination. I don't think that includes forcing church doctrines to change such that they must perform a marriage ceremony that they don't want to. Any marriage ceremony for that matter, including a pairing between two heterosexual partners. What that means in practice is that LGBT tolerant communities will have more churches or religious centers that will perform such rites and rituals. Those that won't, don't have to.

We have separation of church and state in part to prevent church from dictating state policies, as in this case here, but also to insulate church dogma from the politics of state. It was widely believed at the time that internal church politics were being thoroughly corrupted by interfering in state business. Now in this case I think a strong case is to be made that the church dogmas are in general, wrong and based on nonfactual determinations and even rather specious theological grounds, but they are private institutions and Constitutionally protected ones at that. We cannot just trample on them as much as it might please us to do so. That's no better than the totally religious perspective that places homosexuality as a sin to begin with. We must reason with it instead.

Give it some time also. The trend for legally recognized homosexual rights in all 50 states over the next 20 years is very promising. It's mostly just the elderly raised in a more repressed and dogmatic sexual environment holding things down.

As long as it's not hurting anyone else, why not? Who are we to tell others who to fall in love with/marry etc? If same-sex couples want to get married, that's their choice. Ok, some religious beliefs might contradict those ideas but those beliefs are clearly not those of the people getting married. So why should they be prohibited from marrying who they want to due to someone else's beliefs?

Tech. "marriage" didn't start as love between one and another…it started as a business proposition. More power, money, territory, cred. Hell, the love part never came into play until society created the "honeymoon." Ten years down the road depending on who you are that love eventually withers lol.

Like what Tom said above, establishing what is right and wrong is personal preference. If you raise your children one way, VS how someone down the street raises theirs are two different things, and whether you feel parents B are more correct than parent A, is totally on personal belief and preference. TBC.

Stella is very hardcore, I like her style and what she does as far as how she bring things to the table. But marriage just seems pushing it. Yeah…we’re entitled to the same as everyone else, but we vote majority rule on everything else, why should this be so different? We get a proposition that’s decently sensible, and we push it off because it’s not EXACTLY what wee want.

I feel like, yes an opinion is like a rear, everyone has one, but when you're opinion is brought to the table with legitimacy and facts than can be chewed on, that is when you're rear is accepted logically. TBC

PapaDawg, most of what you said was literally, pure opinion, because clearly you've never spoken to a homosexual, let alone thought about what you're truly saying about them. The "ceremony" isn't what means the most to them, it's the country acceptance, and as far as not making it but a year, I'm a lesbian, and most of my heterosexual friends are the ones who have lost relationship due to the emotional and mental tension. With procreation, we're more likely to bear the child than birth them, more heterosexual women everyday are being forced for some reason to have to give up a child, whether the reason be sever or just simply not wanting it. As everyone else says, should someone be turned away because of lack or sperm? Infertile eggs? Age?

Attraction is attraction, no matter how you flip it. Love takes us in weird places…Attraction comes first, whether male or female to male or female, the love forms later TBC

There are people in this world who are not going to get EXACTLY what they want EXACTLY how they want it, it makes more sense to compromise with one another and stay united as a country, than dividing over something a bit childish. You can't shove a religious idle down someone’s throat, just like you can't shove a gay flag down one's throat either…if you don't believe it, you don't believe, but don't shut yourself off from growing. I would say more but I'm curious to know one's thoughts.

I am a born-again Christian (thus qualify I believe as a spiritual person) I am also straight. I have studied the Bible and other spiritual texts. AND I believe with everything in me that monogamous committed homosexual relationships are not only NOT wrong but completely honoured by God.

OK Jared, firstly I was quoting Haley, and why do you have to take everything personal? Instead of having a rational discussion like a grown up, you have to insult me by telling me that women don’t want to sleep with me because of my views towards someone with an entirely different sexual prefrence. What does that even have to do with anything? I think that this site should block your pointless, childish, comments, instead of those that actually are here to discuss and debate in respect to others beliefs. Please if you disagree, state an actual arguement, I would be pleased to read it and respond accordingly, but if you don’t have to anything along those lines, then get off this site, and stop forcing your beliefs on people without stating why.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter at this point, since an administrator deleted the comments. However, you both call yourself grownups for calling homosexuals disgusting? Are you kidding me?

To me, a heterosexual person I cannot comprehend a homosexual person, and what they do to each other disgusts me. That’s my opinon and if you, Jared (I think a heterosexual) are not repulsed by these activities then I cannot comprehend you.

Why were the comments deleted?

I don't want to see any action, if that's what you mean. I don't know, I think it's all about attraction.

I've been commenting on this site since the early days and what I've realized is that the administrators don't play around. They've deleted a number of my comments. I guess they saw that girl's comment and just thought of it as a waste of space or something since she pretty-much just used the site to vent her distorted opinions that have no facts behind it.

Yes, thank you Jared, that was my meaning behind the words “disgusting”. As a heterosexual you are not attracted to that therefore it disgusts you to look at it.

Well I can understand deleting her comment, it was hateful with no real arguement, other than she hates homosexuals. But I kinda thought that my comment was tame with an explanation and real arguements. I’m sorry debateitout, for saying something controversal.

I guess we have come to an agreement for once, Pusty.

Evidently

Gay marriage is something right it will us no more fights and gays have to pay more taxes

Who cares. Let them do what they want.

But in the long run, if they are not part of your religion, and they are not having sex in the street in front of your house, and they are not selling homosexual sex to your kids why can't they get married?

They have an emotional attachment in the way a heterosexual couple does, they want to commit to eachother, they want to file taxes jointly, they want to share medical coverage. It's not hurting anyone else.

Frankly plenty of heterosexual couples get into marriages for just as wrong a reason as homosexual couples.

I understand alot of people have aversions to the idea of homosexual couples, but they have the same aversions to heterosexual sex. Not that that should be a logical point, but it's truthful at least.

This is of course up for interpretation but:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

I personally think that gay marriage is wrong. Frankly, it creeps me out. And I'm not afraid to say so. But I will not move in the political sphere for gay marriage to be outlawed. My philosophical beliefs about my country and its system of governance mean I cannot let such a law be put into effect.

So you're a libertarian who is personally disgusted by gay marriage, but you feel it would be wrong to deny anyone equal rights under the law? Congratulations! You just put aside your own personal feelings for the sake of standing on principle (in this case the principle of freedom) and you just gained a lot of respect from me

I'm not sure that's exactly Liberty's point considering his last sentence of that comment. But, if I'm wrong in my interpretation I agree as well. Congratulations.

That is indeed what I meant.

If you think marriage had nothing to do with love until recently, I think you're mistaken. Perhaps in the upper sphere of society (where everyone could read, and had money) that was true; political matches were the norm, but they still are. Love has been a part of human culture since the beginning of time, and saying people didn't love before the industrial revolution is a little…strange.

It is my personal opinion that same sex marriage should be allowed. Also i agree with SLB that marriage did infact involve little to do with love before the industrial revolution and therefore i can't really understand the argument about marriage being something "sacred" between a man and a women. Also i can't think of a single argument that justifies a person in decideding what is considered love or right for everyone in the world

I am a christian and the bible says not to, but personally, i think it should be allowed. It's their life, they choose to do it, why is it wrong? If they can live their whole life like that, i think it should be allowed.

I am a christian and the bible says not to, but personally, i think it should be allowed. It's their life, they choose to do it, why is it wrong? If they can live their whole life like that, i think it should be allowed.