Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. To me, this is obvious. They are Americans protected by the Constitution, which gives each American equal rights. Our society has built up finding a partner to spend the rest of your life with as one of the main means of finding happiness, and denying homosexuals this right denies them their pursuit of happiness. In addition to this, denying them the ability to marry and all the rights and benefits that come with marriage implies that they are second-class citizens, that they are somehow lower than the rest of Americans because of who they are. They are fine to watch on television, just as long as they don’t have equal rights. What an absolute joke.
I am so sick of the argument that homosexuality is a choice. I just spent a couple minutes searching through LexisNexis Academic and JSTORE and studies showing that homosexuality is not a choice are seemingly infinite. With humans and animals, sexual preference is often fixed at birth. Over 450 species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior (The Monitor). Man is an animal. Whether it is a gene, the hypothalamus, or any other number of things, homosexuals are who they are. If you want more proof that homosexuality is not a choice, think of it this way: Does it make someone’s life easier to “choose” homosexuality? If it’s a choice, why do so many repressed fundamentalists who a oppose gay marriage get busted engaging in homosexual activity?
The main opposition to gay marriage is religious. This really upsets me. This is America, but we are letting religious views deny a minority equal rights. What happened to separation of church and state? That is one of America’s biggest contributions to the world, and it should matter. We don’t have a state religion, we don’t force people to go to church on Sunday, and we shouldn’t deny rights based on interpretations of religious dogma. I would even argue it from a religious perspective. Did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality? No. If you want to use the Old Testament as your guide, then all Christians should be keeping Kosher and stoning people for a huge number of offenses.
What is left? Any slippery slope argument cannot work in a debate, because it is a fallacy. Even if one were to take up the fallacy and argue that gay marriage would lead to polygamy and marrying animals or whatever, they would be wrong. The logic just is not there. It is an attempt to change the subject, and it is not the point.
I’m not sure what other arguments against gay marriage there are. Gay marriage is not an attack on traditional marriage. How is it an attack? I never understood this logic, either. How does allowing gays to marry affect traditional marriage? As Jon Stewart said, “Divorce isn’t caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness.” For me, it is as simple as this: If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one. How simple is that?
In America, history does not look kindly on those that opposed civil rights. Interracial marriage was once illegal, and the people who wanted to keep it that way look absolutely ridiculous. The fight for gay rights will be remembered in the same way. People will look back and wonder how anyone could have wanted to make gay marriage illegal, how Americans could have denied fellow Americans equal rights.
Again, if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one. But don’t force your beliefs on others.
Adam Feser
37 Comments
Leave a Reply
login
Polls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...Recent Comments
- DR on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- I Wanna BE Elected. . .Alice on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- I Wanna BE Elected. . .Alice on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- Jammer on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- Jammer on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- adamfeser on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- adamfeser on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- Jammer on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- I Wanna BE Elected. . .Alice on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- Jammer on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
Most Commented Posts
- Miss me yet (117)
- Arizona's Racist Law (111)
- Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty (77)
- Tom Tancredo Wants Literacy Tests (72)
- The Apparent Trap/Hawaiian Health Care (53)
- Healthcare (48)
- Tom Coburn Has Pelosi's Back and a Point (48)
- Cash for Clunkers: What a joke! (44)
- Steele Steals Speech and Does Not "Do Policy" (39)
- Smoking Ban Thoughts and Poll (38)
Blogroll
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
I agree with you on every point. If gay folks want to get married then let them. It doesnt hurt anyone else and who are we to tell people how to live their lives.
The religious stand doesnt work either for the exact reasons you stated and that the church should have nothing to do with politics.
Ok Adam, I’m going back to the old debate. The main things we differ on here are the idea that man is an animal. If you believe your ancestors were monkeys or apes or something like that, more power to you. The thing about this that makes it so important is that believing you are an animal gives you the secular humanistic excuse that you’re programmed a certain way and you have no control over your actions. For the convenience of your argument this works well. However, this mentality is a “slippery slope” in itself as it is used very often to excuse and explain so many things. If man is an animal he can’t help being an addict, a criminal, a sex offender, and the list goes on.
The other thing here is the religion thing. I know you don’t agree with it, but there are polls that show that as many as 85% of Americans still believe in God, so the majority still rules on that point whether you like it or not. I also see nothing in the Constitution that directly concerns marriage or the definition of it, so I reject that gay marriage is a Constitutional right. I believe that the best thing to do is to put the definition of marriage on a national ballod, perhaps in 2010 or 2012 so that the issue can be settled.
I don’t get what you mean. If people are genetically predisposed to addiction (which I believe you mean, and which is also a genetic argument, not an evolutionary one, and is commonly the case) they should be careful because addiction can kill. That is in no way analogous to marrying someone you love.
It shouldn’t be on the ballot. Homosexuals are American and are afforded equal rights.
Wait a minute, you elect people based on what they believe right? And if you don’t want it on the ballad then you obviously are waiting for elected leaders to “fix” the problem, so what’s the difference? I think, for a change, we should let the people decide rather than the politicians. It is a huge issue that would change this nation in a big way, why not let the people vote whether they believe that gay marriage is a true American right? The only reason you would possibly oppose this is if you know that your side would lose the vote.
We shouldn’t have to vote for rights. The courts should rectify this wrong. Bigoted people have a bad history when it comes to rightly extending rights. Things may be getting better, but when even California overturns equal rights for homosexuals, we are a long ways away.
And I don’t agree that it would change the nation in a big way. Couples that most likely already act married could just make it official and receive the benefits that come with it, as well as the feeling of being full citizens.
It wouldn’t change the nation in a big way???? You don’t think that churches would get huge pressure to perform gay marriages if it were made legal nation-wide? You don’t think that education, especially sex and family education would change in a big way in schools across the country? Come on Adam, it would be a huge change.
You act as though homosexuality itself is illegal. It already exists. The only difference would be they would have equal rights.
Sex education has changed and should continue to change and why shouldn’t gay marriages be performed if it were legal? I don’t know why people are so scared of other people having rights that they already have. Do they feel they are superior? I don’t get it.
Homosexuality obviously isn’t illegal, that isn’t the point. The point is that marriage is between one man and one woman and should stay that way. It is worth noting that the government didn’t create marriage. Marriage is an institution created by God and ordained in the Bible. The government didn’t always have marriage services available at the court house. One has to wonder if this is why marriage isn’t specifically discussed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, perhaps the founders considered it to be the responsibilty of the church. Perhaps then the government stepping in to legalize gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state (which you have to remember is not just to protect the state, but to protect the church equally).
Whether marriage is ordained in the bible is irrelevant; there is supposedly freedom of religion in the U.S. and not everyone believes in the Bible or in religion at all. Why is it fair that one religion gets to dictate how everyone behaves? Again, does that religion believe they are superior and therefore they get to dictate how someone else behaves? And the founders believed in separation of church and state and freedom of religion and I don’t take that to mean just for Christians–I take it to mean all religions. And the government should only step in to make sure that equal rights are provided; if they were there would be no reason for them to be involved.
Skye raises a good point. Ray: If marriage is completely created by God and the church should be the ultimate overseer of what is legal and illegal when it comes to marriage, why is there no argument to outlaw marriage for atheists or agnostics? If you believe that marriage should not be legal for homosexuals because God does not agree with it, then why should it be legal for those who don’t even acknowledge the existence of God? Whether you like it or not (and i don’t mean to offend your religious beliefs if i do) marriage is just a much a legal agreement as it is a spiritual one, and there is no sense in taking away the rights to two people who are in love and wish to get married. In fact, not 50 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal because people thought it went against religion and a few people were disturbed by it just as people today feel about homosexual marriage. However, we were able to overcome this ignorant opinion and reach a level of understanding, which is exactly what we should do in regard to gay marriage.
Well put.
It depends on your idea of the history of marriage. I believe that marriage is an institution created by God. Look at Genesis, it’s Adam and Eve, man and woman. Look at the New Testament teachings on marriage. I haven’t heard where people who are against the Biblical ideas on marriage state the origin of marriage.
I realize that my opinion on the subject rests entirely on a tradition Bible based view on marriage, and that in these times even among many churches who have thrown the Bible out, my ideas are out-dated. I expect that eventually marriage will have no solid stucture, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. I’ve said before that even if we legalize gay marriage, there will be other groups that will say they don’t have equal rights in this area, so where does it stop?
Religion is separate from the legal institution of marriage. I can go to the courthouse right now. As they said, atheists can get married. Buddhists can get married. Satanists can get married. Is a marriage between two devil worshipers in the name of Satan make it more Biblical or to God’s liking because they are a man and a woman?
The slippery slope argument is ridiculous. Whatever groups you’re worrying about can already try and legalize whatever you’re talking about. And it’s an argument that has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals. Also, it’s insulting.
So. . . a father and daughter can get married? Brother and sister? Why should these be banned?
Incest is still illegal. If you want to argue in favor of those things, feel free, but that isn’t what this debate is about.
Remember Alice, that while Adam and Skye will fight for gay marriage, they will never offer their idea of what the definition of legal marriage should be. How about an open question for Adam, Dr, Skye, Alice, and anybody else who reads this:
If it were up to you to define what constitutes a legal marriage in the United States of America, what would that definition be?
My answer is that a marriage should be between one man and one woman over 18 years old who are not related to eachother.
That was an easy question, anybody else care to answer? Adam, care to finally answer?
I haven’t answered because we are talking about one specific issue. Any discussion of anything else is irrelevant and often is used to compare homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and bestiality, which is ridiculous and bigoted.
Two non-related, consenting adults.
If you read about the history of marriage across cultures it is interesting to see how it has evolved and changed (even within the Christian faith.) It is believed that in ancient Greece, Rome and China there were same-sex civil unions. Even Confucius stated that marriage was between two people of different surnames. It seems that one of the main themes of marriage across time is that it is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. Seems like a pretty good definition to me.
I don’t know, I think the “bi-sexuals” would disagree with you guys. What if a person just can’t decide, and they want a husband and a wife. They would say that you guys are bigots for saying that a person has to be gay or straight, why can’t they be free to be happy too? After all, there’s no incest or bestiality going on. And is it really considered polygamy?
Obviously I’m not in favor of this either. My point is simply that there will always be groups claiming that they don’t have equal rights in marriage, always.
No they wouldn’t. If they were to believe that they’d already be making an argument, and it’s irrelevant to this debate. I know you think you set a sweet little trap, but this whole thing is moot.
And no, there won’t be. They would already have huge support if there was such a push. We are treating an entire group of Americans like they’re below us, and it’s disgusting. Try and change the subject all you want, but we are right.
You aren’t right. Marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman. It is natural and creates family structure, which is important for a strong society. I have yet to see a gay couple conceive a child naturally.
So can infertile men and women marry each other, or is it not productive enough? I’m probably done with this because you’re never going to agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights, so what is the point?
That is a very weak question. I thought you might come back with that, but I figured surely you’d find something better to say. In that case they can obviously adopt if they want to have kids. Adoption is another point to the whole thing. Should 2 men be able to adopt a girl? Should 2 women be able to adopt a boy? Shouldn’t a girl have a mother and a boy have a father? I think kids should have the opportunity to have a mother and a father and I realize that divorce along with very pathetic and selfish attitudes in marriage has taken that away from a lot of kids, but are you comfortable in seeing more and more families that lack either a mother or a father from day one?
They’ve done research in European countries on exactly this topic. The data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents as compared to children with heterosexual parents. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics is in support of gay and lesbian parental rights. I think it is probably more important for children to have loving adults in their life.
There is also evidence in Europe that same-sex unions do not have a negative effect on traditional marriages. In fact, opposite-sex marriages have gone up and divorces down.
I think this promotes family values, which is what you say you stand for.
A boy doesn’t need a father to be raised properly. Should it be illegal for women to have children on their own?
Also, homosexuals already adopt in many places. Why is it significant to the debate about marriage? Perhaps it would be beneficial to the children if their country recognized their parents as equals.
It wasn’t a weak point, you said “I have yet to see a gay couple conceive a child naturally” like it was some great zinger. My point obviously shows the foolishness of that point in a debate about marriage.
But, like I said, it doesn’t matter how rationally we lay this out, you won’t change your mind. So I’m not even sure why I’m trying on this one.
There’s gay people out there being gay right now. Allowing them to marry isn’t going to change you life one bit. It’s only going to recognize them as full American citizens. You can pretend you oppose gay marriage for some noble reason, but there isn’t one.
Well said Adam. The only way Ray would ever change his mind is if someone he loved and cared about is gay (that he is aware of).
I would still oppose it “H”. It’s not a matter of whether you love or care about a gay person, it’s a matter of saying “look, I have no problem with you, I love you as a person, but your lifestyle is wrong and I can’t support it”. It wouldn’t matter who it was, I would not change my mind on it, just like Adam, Skye, and you “H” will likely not change your minds.
“I have no problem with you,” and “your lifestyle is wrong and I can’t support it” simply do not work together.
You realize this country already supports their lifestyle, right? As I said before, there are gay people out there being gay right now. What difference is it to your life if they are treated like other American citizens?
It does work. I don’t have a problem with you, and yet I don’t agree with your views Adam. You don’t agree with me, but would you say that you have a problem with me or that we just don’t agree?
I don’t want to see marriage lose its meaning, and a lot of other Americans feel the same way. I feel like it’s a losing fight, but not one that many of us are ready to give up on.
I don’t try and deny people their rights while pretending not to have a problem with them.
Saying you disagree with someone’s views is different than saying their lifestyle is wrong and they should not be acknowledged as equals by our country. It in no way works.
Yeah, it doesn’t lose its meaning when twenty-year-olds marry ninety-year-olds with money or when someone has nine marriages. Any person could go marry a friend of the other sex even if they’re gay. You could marry someone you hate for certain benefits.
Whatever meaning you’re looking for should come from your own marriage, not worrying about the marriages of others.
How can you say that being gay fixes itself at birth? You do have choice. You have a choice whether or not you want to be gay. You don’t come out and people teach you to be gay because that’s not how it works. And I think that you should read your bible again because your missing some points here. Genesis 2:21-24. Marriage is ordained of God between a MAN and WOMAN. this does include same sex marriages.
sorry…it’s does NOT include same sex marriages.
Just saying someone has a choice doesn’t make it so. Your provide no evidence.
This is America, and we don’t legislate religion. That dog won’t hunt.
I know this America. And if you take a good look around you, you are surrounded by Religion. Most religions who oppose gay marriage. Sustain what you say.
and what do you mean when their choices don’t make it so? you are not forced to be gay. You choose.
Sustain what I say? Seriously? You should recognize that no religion is just as protected as any religion. This would also be true of any religion that recognizes homosexuality as the natural order. This would also be true of any religion that doesn’t discriminate. The point is that the majority cannot impose its will in order to persecute the majority. Just because your religion believes homosexuality is a sin does not mean the government has to do the same. In fact, the government should not and cannot. In America, we don’t legislate interpretations of religious text. We give equal rights to all of our citizens. It may take time, as it did for various minorities and women. And it will take time for those with different sexual orientations. But you can rest assured homosexuals will get their equal rights. That’s why we have the Constitution.
I said you saying that homosexuality is a choice does not mean it is so. You just declare homosexuality is a choice and provide no evidence. It’d be like me saying unicorns mow the lawns of each red house in America. If I provide no evidence, why would I expect to be taken seriously? It’s well and good for you and your beliefs if you think it’s a choice, but that doesn’t fit with the facts.