The Possibility Of Gay Rights Should it be allowed?

[Joshua 0]

The thing with this list is that it argues from a basis of 'if Americans do it, it must be right.' Obviously this is not a good argument, since Americans are known to do some pretty dumb things. I will address each point individually based on my own logical reasoning:

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

First of all, if Americans are overly materialistic and hypocritical, is that a good argument that materialism and hypocrisy are moral? The argument of course is fallacious. Secondly, one is talking about things that are natural in nature, and things that are artificially created. Homosexuals are not artificially created. The comparisons break down when looked at more carefully.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

The writer's unspoken implication is that being gay is a hereditary trait like height, something that is based upon genetics rather than personal choice. Obviously if genetics, then no, there is no danger of infection assuming it's non-contagious like being tall and not something, rather, like having an STD. Not all physical characteristics are non-contagious. However, if it is a matter of personal choice and not genetics, then that may not be the case. Again, it's a matter of dishonest comparisons.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Actually, there have been cases where people have wed their pets. A woman a few years ago wed a snake in an Indian ceremony. There is a very famous author here in the U.S. who advocates no age limits to marriage, meaning children of all ages can be married in what we would now call child abuse. In other words, their argument breaks down in cases where signing is not necessary for marriage contracts.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Obviously the first 2 cases can be agreed upon as wrong. In fact, if one searches the annals of history, they will find it was Christians asserting their influence on society that led to both of those cases being resolved. What the writer of this list is trying to suggest is that homosexuality is another wrong in society, but in a subtle way without providing any proofs for their case.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

It is ironic they just suggested in the 4th point that original ideas about marriage were wrong in not including divorce, and they now use it to make a case against marriage. You can't have it both ways. I oppose divorce for reasons other than clear-cut adultery in the same way I oppose homosexual marriage. Just because the law allows hypocrisy in marriage because of such divorce rules, does not mean we should allow more hypocrisy in. If there's a crack in a vase, you don't make cracks all over it to make the arrangement uniform. You mend the break. If something's wrong in a matter, you don't throw in a bunch more wrongs to make it completely wrong. You fix what is wrong. I believe we shouldn't allow divorce for any reason and that such a law is clearly hypocritical as shown here. That doesn't mean we should include more wrong stuff in the definition of marriage just because some is already there, and which is there thanks to the same mindset that now seeks to include homosexual marriage. Proponents of homosexual marriage are probably using similar arguments to those used by people in favor of divorce years ago, and now it is clear how hypocritical such divorce laws are.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

In other words, they're saying there are too many kids, so somehow that proves homosexual marriage is somehow better than true marriage since it doesn't risk adding more kids to the world. I will be blunt. There is nothing wrong with kids. The reason there are so many kids is more likely because of people devaluing them in the first place. Premarital sex and the ensuing ideas about abortion and divorce have resulted in the devaluing of kids that has led to the dilemma of all these kids in orphanages. I would say homosexual marriage is just an outgrowth of that sexual promiscuity which created the problem originally. We should be taking better care of kids, and I think that will happen from stressing morality in marriage and valuing kids, and not from valuing sexual promiscuity.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Obviously, the suggestion is that homosexuality is a genetic matter rather than one of personal choice. But if of personal choice, then anyone can be gay regardless of their parenting. However, it is foreseeable that being in a gay home might further influence children to make the same personal choices as their parents.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

In other words, they're comparing the homosexual lifestyle to religious belief, in saying it should be allowed free practice. And it is. People can live homosexual lifestyles in the privacy of their homes to their heart's content. However, it is homosexual marriage that is the issue here. And to make the religion comparison, it is alright to say that where the homosexual lifestyle affects public law and the entire nation (like the definition of marriage) it should naturally be curtailed in some ways. For example, Islamic law suggests killing people for ridiculous reasons. Do we allow that to happen just because it is part of religious belief? Of course not. The rule is that 'your right to throw a punch stops where the other person's nose begins.' The definition of marriage affects the entire country, and in the same way, should be considered no longer a freedom once it potentially begins affecting the entire nation in what may be a negative way.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Just because our society allows something, does not mean what is allowed is for the best. There are many who would argue children are often adversely affected in single parent households, and that it is best for them to have both parents to support them.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

So what is this trying to say? That we can adapt to new social norms? (2nd part of 1st sentence) Of course we CAN. But what about the 1st part of the 1st sentence? Are they suggesting the foundation of our society CAN'T be changed? That part is definitely false, since our society of course can change. Obviously our society CAN adapt. We could adapt in the same way Nazi Germany adapted to Hitler's ideals. But would that be a good thing? My point is, not all change is for the best. Not all progress is good progress.
Edited January 8, 2008 by Joshua (see edit history)

[Zagete 0]

First of all, I do not believe in god (don't flame because i'll just uberly ignore you) and I am NOT gay.I do believe in freedom of ideals. Anyone can do anything as long as it doesn't affect someone else directly (and in a bad way). This should apply to everything.Being gay can be something unnatural, but there's a lot of things people deem unnatural and still do. I just don't understand your needs to control other people's life. Does it affect you if they are gay and marry? No... as easy as that.

[tricky77puzzle 0]

I myself am pro-choice for any issue. Sure, homosexuality is "unnatural" and all that, but sometimes we have that natural impulse. Not all of us do - maybe about five percent of the population. They are genetically dispositioned to do so - they can't control it.Here in Canada, homosexually married couples are legally allowed to become common-law partners, which have the same rights as formally married couples anyway.If someone in a religion doesn't want their people to be gay, then let them preach that to their people. Don't make it spill over into the legal areas, which are to be unaffected by religion.I would never marry another man myself, but I still think others should have those rights.

[iGuest 3]

Replying to kasmOh please... I watched my two male horses having sex. If that aint gay I don't know what is. And there are plenty of research showing that some animals ARE homosexual. Do some research.Totally natural.If we ban it for human, why not ban it for the animal kingdom too, right?-reply by kayt

[tricky77puzzle 0]

First of all, I do not see the point in excluding religious beliefs, and here's why:

 

Everyone is 'religious' in the sense of having strongly held beliefs about whether (or not) God exists, what eternity holds, what's of ultimate eternal value, etc. What makes one person's belief that God exists any less valid than the belief of someone who believes He doesn't exist?

 

In fact, the reason so many people appeal to the idea of a Creator or deity is because otherwise absolute morality can't really exist at all. You see, there's nothing making any one of our opinions more important than anyone else's, unless it is the absolute contradiction of logic which disqualifies one person's view (obviously saying God is both good and evil or light and darkness is logically wrong, since both views are mutually exclusive, and mutually exclusive contradictory views can not be equally true). And we can not even make ourselves an inch taller by our own efforts, let alone be the instituters of an ultimate moral law. Furthermore, we do not have the authority or righteousness to set it over our fellow human beings since we are all the same and all do wrong things.

 

Therefore, for an absolute moral code to exist to the universe, it must have been set in place by a deity. This is why when speaking of morality, people so often reference a deity, because they recognize their knowledge, power, righteousness, and authority is lacking in what is needed to know or create a universal moral code, and that the only way they can truly be right about morality is if God Himself set a universal moral code to the universe and some way or another, transmitted that knowledge to them in a sure way.

 

Furthermore, if you read the statements of Lincoln, Washington, and Adams, they all firmly believed in God and the Bible, and that belief definitely influenced how they governed as well. In fact, if religious belief does NOT penetrate to our political views, daily actions, and in short, all aspects of our life, we have a word for that - 'HYPOCRITE'. Therefore, you are asking people to be hypocrites and act apart from their most strongly held beliefs, which, I will not do.

 

With all that said, I will now address the issue... from a Christian's perspective, because that is what I am. You can not separate me from my beliefs and faith, or I would not be who I am.

 

I once believed I should leave the issue of gay marriage alone. It seemed as if homosexuals were being unfairly targeted. After all, the Bible says adultery, divorce, and premarital sex are all sexual sins as well, and are grouped together with homosexuality as the sin of fornication, or sexual sin outside God's plan of marriage between one man and one woman. And yet, people often ignore those sins but focus on homosexuality.

 

However, what a friend pointed out to me is that gay marriage gets focused on because it is not us who started focusing on homosexuals, trying to take away their freedoms. Rather, it is them who are trying to change laws that have stood for centuries. They already have the right to live however they wish in the freedom of their own homes.

 

Rather, they are trying to force us as a nation to change what we consider right and moral in the context of marriage. Have you ever heard the phrase, "your right to throw a punch stops where the other person's nose begins"? I do not like the homosexual lifestyle, but I recognize God has given them free will as to us all, and we all mess up. I can not condemn their lifestyle without being guilty, since I myself am sinful. As Jesus told the Pharisees wanting to stone the adulteress, one can not justly cast the first stone (i.e. punish a person for moral wrongdoing) without being sinless themselves.

 

Rather, I oppose gay marriage because I believe in protecting morality in our country. We are changing too much of what we consider moral, and thus our country will suffer. I believe in protecting the definition of marriage in our country based on what is moral, just as I believe in standards of decency in our public media. Our children are exposed to it, and when something is publicly available, it is everyone's business.

 

I would not dream of silencing a homosexual's voice to speak out about what they believe. God gave them free will, even as He gave it to me. However, I expect the right to speak out about my beliefs on what is right and moral, and to vote accordingly, even as homosexuals are doing. I expect to have the same rights they do, in that context.

 

I oppose gay marriage because homosexuals already have the right to live however they choose. The right they seek is to FORCE US AS A NATION TO RECOGNIZE THEIR UNIONS AS MORAL AND ACCEPTABLE, AS WELL AS FORCING US TO CHANGE OUR VIEWS ON WHAT MARRIAGE IS. For those of us who believe such a definition of marriage is not a moral one, we will naturally stand up against it.

 

With that said, I also would like to see the law allowing divorce annulled so that divorce is only allowed in clear cases of adultery. I do not believe in legislating crimes against premarital sex or adultery, since those are lifestyle choices involving free will. You see, I am trying not to intrude on the free will of others while upholding standards of decency for our country. I believe both can be done.

The only reason why we are excluding religions beliefs are because the state is sworn not to have any religion. (Well, maybe not America, but the rest of the world. America is not the world.)

 

It is true that you can't separate a (wo)man from his(her) religious beliefs, and that (s)he has the rights to uphold those beliefs. But that doesn't mean you have the right to force those beliefs on other people. As you say in one of your own arguments, "your right to throw a punch stops where the other person's nose (or any other body part) begins." By imposing your beliefs and morals on them, you're punching them in the nose.

 

Of course you can voice your opinion. However, it's the other people's right to not listen to it.

 

To see the law allowing divorce annulled except for adultery... how about abuse? I don't think most people will divorce except for those two cases anyway. It's a common-sense human psychological lesson that humans will pursue the things that they cannot have, and will leave alone the things that they do.

[kobra500 1]

 

- It is not normal. Show me in nature, any other animals have homosextual relationship. In facts in wild, two adult lions can not live in the same region. Two queen bees can not be together, they have to divide their kingdom.

 

- It is against the production of next generation.

 

- If for any reason the gay people can not act as nature expect from them, then let this not by shouting or make prades or asking equality in every items of life . Disable people can be respected but they have to know their abnormality. The blind or deaf people have not to go fight and say it is equality. The people with heart problem have not to practice hard activities. People with bone problem have not to compete in running or swimming. People with sight problem and using glasses better to them not participate in some activitites.

 

You asked my opinion and I gave it.

I know this post is old but

Show me in nature, any other animals have homosextual relationship

there are god knows how many cases of homosexuality in animals so get you facts straight, I don't know but recently there was a topic which named alot and no religion is not an excuse because times change do you really believe that these religious books proven to have been written by "straight men" are not bias at all! The bible itself was written by a select panel of people whom took various stories from well known and respected religious books and you expect they are in no way bias or homophobic!

[iGuest 3]

Replying to jlhaslipWhat I think is funny, is the person I am replying too acts as if we are insects, or animals. We are HUMENS. And we have our rights. We have the right to be who we are. And the right to love who we want. America says we're free. Are we really? look at all of the things we cant do. Legalizing gay marriage would be one more regognization that love does conquer all. Just because you arent gay. Its wrong? thats total bulls*** if you ask me. Look at it this way- what if being straight was illegal..And being gay was perfectly normal? you have to see the situation first hand. I'm only 16. And I have more common sense. You people out there that say our "So christian" and then you publicly bash them? rethink what your saying and doing. I support. Fully.-reply by lauryn

[miladinoski 1]

I'll try to not quote anyone here and just say what I think.

 

Gay people aren't different in anything else than their sexual preference. They aren't animals they are humans who chose another life style than most of the other people did. What did they do wrong to you? What have they made wrong to society so they are in some countries and by some people -- even after we entered the 21st century -- still counted as stupid, laughed at and other bad things that happen to them. Why are some people so conservative? Bikinis were being close to banned because of their 'spoiling of children' and they haven't been banned.

 

All I'm saying here that you shouldn't judge people before you meet them on a more personal level.

 

That's it.

also, don't you get that 42ndEndOfTheWorld was sarcastic... much??
Edited December 29, 2008 by miladinoski (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

9 pages and i didn't see myself before this post. Somewhat old topic, but i'll add to it regardless. The topic starter states not to include religion into the topic; however, ironically, they did so in their own post, so adherence is even more voluntary.

 

The main argument (though really the only argument i've seen or heard from them) that homosexuals argue is that they want equality of rights. The burden of proof, though, is on them to show that they have lost rights which the government sanctioned and ordained and not religion. The right they argue for has been generally the right for gay marriage (which is the only "right" i've seen them argue for). If we side step for a moment to think about it for a bit, gay marriage, obviously, excludes heterosexual marriage. Therefore "equality" here is rhetoric and misleading. Homosexuals generally want separation of state and church. I'm not sure if there have been any homosexuals out there who have ever wanted union of church and state, but it would seem (be) oxymoronic to me.

 

But what does separation of church and state have to do with homosexuals and their wants? I am alluding to the fact that separation of church and state is in contradiction of their argument for the right to marry—that is, you can't have both separation of church and state, and gay marriage. Marriage was never a government ordained right for the public, but rather a religious right given to heterosexuals alone. Homosexuals aren't trying to obtain a right they lost, they are trying to gain a right they never had. Separation of church and state does not mean the state has the right to take a religious ritual and use it as a secular ritual. That goes against separation of church and state, as marriage is non-secular^[*] in that it is the union of a man and a woman by God^[*]. (As a historical note, separation of church and state wasn't necessarily for the benefit of the government, but rather to prevent the state from shutting down church establishments. ^[*]) However, even if there was a union of church and state, it would still be futile to seek the ability for a man to marry a man and for a woman to marry a woman.

 

So what rights did homosexuals lose? None, for they still have the right to marry, just not in the way they want; that is, they still have the right to heterosexual marriage. They are merely pleading with the government to act unconstitutionally by insisting that there be a union of church and state on a level that can only appear secular but really isn't. Their actions, due to emotions, are quite contradictive to each other. You cannot bring in certain fundamentals from a religious context and expect it to fit well within a secular context by excluding anything undesirable. By stripping down marriage, you are in turn degrading marriage. Why, then, would anyone seek the right to marry? No one seeks something without value or something that has lost its value. So what is it about marriage that homosexuals are willing to argue (and fight) for?

 

Therefore, if you want marriage to keep its value, and if you want separation of church and state, then the fight for the right for gay marriage needs to come to an end. And they should stop preaching falsely about equality, for you can't lose what you never had, and they still have the right to marry the opposite gender, which makes them as equal to heterosexuals as heterosexuals to heterosexuals.

 

I rest my case.

[wonderfullygifted 0]

I'm not gay or anything, but I think gay marriage is real.I think you can be in love with the same sex, just like straight people.It's not like they have anything different, they have a brain and a soul... just their body parts are the same.I'm really open minded when it comes to these things, and I don't find homosexuality a wrong thing.Gay love is just like ANY LOVE.It's just odd for our society because of the media and everyone trying to make homosexuality into a crime or something.Well, love is love and if you don't think love can come from the same genders, well you're definitely wrong.

[mra550 0]

why not? they are still person made by God even though they do a sin because of changing their real gender well its ok :)they are only person who commit mistakes, me also commits mistake not sometimes but often, because I am not a God,Im not perfect, Im a person. So why not give rights to them if they really deserve it? They also have feelings and heart