[identity profile] ilovepretyboys.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] boy_touching
I'm in a debate class in school, and my team is debating the topic of gay marriage. I was wondering if you would just leave a comment with a "pro" or "con" answer and maybe a short comment as to why. I want to have a strong arguement as to why it should be legal and any help you can give me would be well recieved.

-Megan

Date: 2006-01-24 03:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fivepennyplease.livejournal.com
Pro- gay marriage.

Because: love is love, it surpasses gender, race, and nationality. What kind of society do we live in, if we seek to deprive others of this?

Because: as full citizens of (insert country here), same sex couples ought to be entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Because: it is just plain descrimination to deprive a person of certain rights and status due to their sexual preference.

Date: 2006-01-24 03:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] green-queen.livejournal.com
It's a question of human rights. Any country with laws against discrimination that don't allow gay marriage are essentially denying a minority equal rights. There is no reason to discriminate against people based on what gender the people they fall in love with belong to.

Date: 2006-01-24 03:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] absey26.livejournal.com
pro. as for those people that argue that the integrity of the institution of marriage must be upheld, you could remind them that marriage began as little more than slave-trading. don't forget about dowries and arranged marriages which are still prevalant in certain parts of the world. not all marriage, certainly not the first unions, is a symbol of love under god. the history of marriage is shameful to its current status in the western world. why fight to preserve it's history, when it has nothing to do with marriage as most westerners see it. if anyone values the marriages of today, they should look forward to even more changes in this ever-changing and misunderstood tradition.

Date: 2006-01-24 09:31 pm (UTC)

Date: 2006-01-24 03:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] liquid-obsidian.livejournal.com
Why it should be legal:

1. It would make gay citizens equal in the eyes of the law, or at least their relationships. Currently, we have second class citizen privileges since we are not allowed things like visiting our spouse on their deathbead, having any say in their treatment if they are incapacitated, nor do we have any estate privileges that would accompany marriage.

2. Tax priviliges are granted straight couples that are denied gay couples.

3. Validating gay relationships would create more positive models for positive relationships in the gay community and perhaps that would reduce the amount of self destructive behaviour in that community such as drug and alcohol abuse.

4. This point really sums it all up: We are not a just and free society when a group's relationships are invalidated. It is no different than when whites were not allowed to marry blacks, than when women were not allowed to vote, and when blacks could not own property. It is an injustice and it is inhuman. It denies a basic right to a minority in order to keep the class system in place. This is something that does not belong in a supposedly egalitarian society.

Date: 2006-01-24 03:24 pm (UTC)
sildil: from Harper's Bazaar photoshoot (Justin angel)
From: [personal profile] sildil
Pro, definitely. As was said more clearly above, it is a basic human right to be equal regardless of gender, race, social group, religion and anything that discriminates against someone on that basis is wrong.

And for numerous good articles with a christian perspective, pro civil partnerships/gay marriage check out this site: http://www.changingattitude.org/ ...it's UK but still very interesting and useful.

Date: 2006-01-24 03:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] another-slender.livejournal.com
pro

it's discrimination..and to me it's reminiscent to the hardcore racial discriminnation that existed in the 60s...I don't understand how people can think denying a minority any sort of right is okay!

Date: 2006-01-24 03:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/frack_/
Pro, as I believe denying gay couples the right to marriage is just another way to discriminate against them.
(deleted comment)

Date: 2006-01-24 07:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spiralstairs.livejournal.com
Seperate, but equal is never equal. The title still implies that they're second class citizens. As American citizens, we all should have the same rights.

Date: 2006-01-24 09:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ishyface.livejournal.com
We're dead set on the word "marriage" because we have a right to the language.

And, as the poster above me said, separate but equal isn't equal.

Date: 2006-01-24 03:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capturedribbons.livejournal.com
I wrote a paper on this so sorry for being long winded- to save time (I have class soon) I'm copying and pasting snipets of a rough draft I have on this computer.

"Saving" Marriage is silly. The idea of Marraige had changed quite a lot recently and its odd to try to "protect" it when its already been warped quite a lot from what it was originally. Short view of some of the changes/views of what Marriage is and has been. It'd be shocking if everyone in one soiciety had the same marraige traditions etc.

One definition for a word or idea, such as marriage, may not always be held constant. For example the idea of marrying by choice, for love, only started to become commonplace in the 18th and 19th centuries and, then, only in some cultures (Masci). Along with that, a few other cultural marriage shifts have occurred since. In Western societies women, not men, began to get child custody over 80% of the time by World War I, both spouses gained the duty of spousal support, out-of-wedlock children began to have the same rights of support as legitimate children, husbands were no longer aloud to physically punish their wives, property is no longer own specifically by the title owner, women are no longer property, and rape, within wedlock, can now be punished legally (Marriage- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.).

Moving back into the past and keeping with what would be considered the Western Civilization in general, most would agree that until recently the Judeo-Christian ethic somewhat dictated what Marriage has been viewed as (Masci). One of the things people do not realize is that the Christian emphasis on monogamy and fidelity are little more than a reaffirmation of ancient Jewish traditions and a reaction to what the church founders viewed as weak marriage laws by Rome: allowing couples to separate and giving women an unusual amount of personal freedom for the time (Masci). Ironically, considering the Christian’s reaction to other practices, many of todays’ wedding traditions date back to Ancient Rome (Masci). It is from there that marriage stayed more or less the same until the 16th-century Protestant Reformation, which rejected much of the institutionalization of religion and stressed choice (Masci). As Martin Luther wrote, marriage was “a secular and outward thing having to do with wife and children, house and home and with other matters that belong to the realm of the government, all of which have been completely subjected to reason.” (Masci). It is from that point that marriage began breaking way from its religious order and, instead, begun functioning more in the realm of state government.

The history of marriage is a tricky, almost illusive, thing as time changes and the background of a person directly influences their views and traditions on the subject. However, it was not until the 20th century that the United States public at large shifted away from the institutional view of marriage and moved to a pre psychological view, or the notion that a person marries by choice and mainly for romantic reasons (Masci). Likewise, the ability to get a divorce from that point was now relatively painless and without consequence (Marriage- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.).

Date: 2006-01-24 03:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capturedribbons.livejournal.com
Where I'm from one of the main arguments I hear is that "most people" consider homosexuality a sin.

The first argument against gay marriage is the fact that most religions consider homosexuality a sin, which is also sometimes called the ‘immoral’ argument. In the United States today there are about 224,437,959 people practicing Christianity, 38,865,604 who are nonreligious or secular, 3,995,371 Jewish practitioners, 1,558,068 practicing Islam, 1,527,019 Buddhists, and 2,671,578 people who are either Agnostic or Atheist (Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America). From that it is true that in the Koran (7:80-81, 26:165) as well as the Bible (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, I Timothy 1:9-10) have passages which have been used to condemn homosexual acts (Religion and sexual orientation- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). However, like most translated or aged texts these passages are debated and interpreted in many different ways depending on the way a person may wish to use them. Similarly, the Bible itself has been used to defend slavery, used in an attempt to dissuade interracial marriage, and many other social changes that have occurred in the past few centuries. Along with the lack of convergence on some of the text for sects of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism there are other religions that do not believe that same-gender sex acts are inherently wrong (Religion and sexual orientation- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). For example, Buddhism, the fifth largest religion in American today, doesn’t have a system or concept of sin, and so is not part of the majority in that aspect (Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America). From there it is deducible that the ‘immoral’ part of this particular argument is a matter of opinion and that all sects of major religions do not always converge on the same idea, despite possible similarities in teachings or in icons. Likewise, it is questionable whether one person or a majority of persons should be allowed to override a minority’s views, opinions, and desires despite lack of evidence past their own beliefs and religious books to support them. Adding complications to that, would also be the consideration of our current policy of separation of Church and State in the United States.

Date: 2006-01-24 03:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capturedribbons.livejournal.com
Hurt the respect for marriage
A second argument against homosexual marriage is that it would weaken the definition and respect for an institution that is already under duress in America today. With this argument, the first issue to come up are the blurring of the distinction between high and low commitment relationships and the likely outcome of same-sex marriages leading to a re-evaluation of some aspects, or privileges, of marriage over other care-giving relationships (Glenn 25). Historically marriage has been maintained for social recognition and the regulation of sexual activity, which of course, tied the offspring result in (Glenn 26). However, currently some of the benefits previously reserved for married individuals, given by privet companies or otherwise, have been, likewise, given to couples unwilling, perhaps, to assume the responsibility of marriage (Glenn 25). This, presumably, causes a blurring between a high commitment relationship, like marriage, and a presumably lower commitment relationship. Along with that, though, is the fact that most of these benefits were created in response to the Gay Rights movement, thus it could be argued that they harm the institution of marriage, as the companies had to extend benefits for both homosexual and heterosexual unmarried couples to avoid legal challenges on the grounds of sex discrimination (Glenn 25). However, had homosexual marriage been previously established, before the cohabitation benefits started, that change would have never occurred and the blurring, at least in that aspect, would have not been a result. Past the harm, or lack of harm, to marriage it is undeniable that allowing homosexual people to marry would, in fact, change one of the main definitions of marriage. However, that change would not be quite as impacting as many Americans against gay marriage would assume. In fact, the second definition of marriage according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary states, “…mar·riage… 1 b …(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.” (Definition of Marriage). Whether or not respect would be lost or the definition change would cause a detrimental affect is a matter of opinion as there are few, if any, statistical unbiased reports on what damage could occur in response. In the end, there have already been instances of harm to the ideal vision of a marriage via the blurring of but it could be argued that they occurred because of a lack of other options for the time.

Date: 2006-01-24 03:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capturedribbons.livejournal.com
Harmful to Children

Another argument against gay marriage tends to be the possible ill affect it could have on children within the ‘marriages’. So far, very few studies have been done on homosexual partners raising children (Glenn 27). In the studies that have been done the majority of the couples studied have had children as the result of a divorce, because of that the comparison must be with heterosexual couples raising children that have also experienced divorce so that the two halves of the study start out more or less even (Glenn 27). With the lack of studies with comparatively in tact parent/child relationships, where the parents, same sex or opposite sex, are together raising the child from infancy, there is no conclusive evidence about the importance of both a father and a mother for a child’s well being and development (Glenn 27). Along with that, Lawyers for the state of Vermont at one time urged to the Supreme Court to uphold the band on same-sex marriage on the grounds of preserving traditional marriage, which was essential to “legitimize” children and provide security (Jost). The court rejected the argument on the grounds that many gay couples had already adopted children or given birth through assisted reproductive techniques and so, by excluding those couples from the legal protection of marriage the state would effectively exposes these couple's children to what the State laws are designed to secure against (Jost). Another case for marriage, whether same sex or opposite sex, is from research that shows that married men and women are likely to be healthier and wealthier while the children are likely to do better in school and to have less disciplinary trouble (Masci). The current studies show children raised by same-sex parents do as well as those raised by opposite sex parents and supporters of same-sex marriage maintain that marriage is a good way of cementing couples together which in turn makes a more stable and healthy environment for children(Jost). Without studies showing families of both sorts, without divorce mixed in, it is unlikely that the idea that same-sex parenting is inferior will dissipate. In the end, having two parents of the same sex may not be ideal but it likely to be more beneficial then having only one parent or being in an otherwise undesirable family set up (Glenn 28).

Date: 2006-01-24 04:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capturedribbons.livejournal.com
It would do nothing to serve state interests

Another argument against homosexual marriage is that the relationships do nothing to serve state interests or, otherwise known as the reproduction/secular argument. In this argument those against gay marriage point out that, it is not only the homosexual community that is unable to marry. People of close family relations are unable to marry, even if sterile, and it is illegal to marry more then one person or to pass off more then one person as a spouse (Kolasinksi). Along with that, it is argued that marriage between two, unrelated, opposite sexed people is unlikely to result in a family with children which is a compelling state interest, the continuation of society and in later years money for the state, and thus it gives reason for why opposite sexed married couples are given benefits of one sort or another (Kolasinksi). However, along with this argument is undeniable that all married couples, regardless if they are sterile or childfree, get these benefits. Connecting to that the aged are, likewise, not unable to marry though they too are unable to procreate under normal means. Both of these sections in society are able to receive the benefits of marriage though their coupling, like homosexual couples, do not benefit society the way this argument is used. All three, likewise, could benefit society in this arguments’ view by means of artificial insemination or adoption if they chose but it is not required, nor often requested, of either of the two types of couples currently aloud to reap the benefits of marriage. As such, the beneficial to society argument is unstable and, in the end, disregarded by people or couples able marry or already in a committed, married, relationship and unable or without desire to benefit society.

Date: 2006-01-24 04:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capturedribbons.livejournal.com
There are other arguments, of course, but I was unable to go over them in my paper without going over the limit/words requested rather badly. Sorry for all the errors you may see in this but perhaps it will give you a start.

Date: 2006-01-24 04:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capturedribbons.livejournal.com
^^; And this wasn't short at all. I'm very sorry about that.

Date: 2006-01-24 05:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selecasharp.livejournal.com
The myth of their being "bstate interests" can also be decried by the example of (I believe) New Jersey, which after enacting the civil union-type laws and allowing gay couples to foster/adopt children, saved a ton of money (seven million comes to mind, but I'm not certain. I know it was in the millions though) by decreasing the costs of state-sponsored foster care, as they now had more people to take the children in. So it would actually save money in some respects for states. =p

Date: 2006-01-24 05:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selecasharp.livejournal.com
"bstate interests" = "NO STATE INTERESTS"

Sigh.

Date: 2006-01-24 04:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jbsgrl807.livejournal.com
I've read found this thing a lot of places. Might not be too helpful.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

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

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

04) 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.

05) 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.

06) 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.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) 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.

09) 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.

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.

Date: 2006-01-25 01:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] culdesac-fuck.livejournal.com
I am pro..and I had/have this in my userinfo. Yay.

Date: 2006-01-24 06:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] disgruntledhag.livejournal.com
Pro. Because I'm not prejudiced.

Date: 2006-01-24 06:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] roxygirl9305.livejournal.com
Pro gay marriage.

b/c- religion should not be a part of government and that is the main reason why it's not already legal

b/c- if they want to ban gay marriage then they should have to ban two different race marriages, marriages where they have kids out of wedlock b/c that is also said that it should not happen in the bible

b/c- LOVE IS LOVE and it is a free country! we live in democracy so why are they not allowed???

Date: 2006-01-24 07:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spiralstairs.livejournal.com
Pro. Heterosexual marriage never means that they'll adhere to the morals the church and government wants them to. How many couples are divorced after a few months or who marry just because the sex is great? How many cases of spousal and child absue go on in these families? If someone wants to get married because they're in love and want to raise a family, that should never be called immoral when marriage is already in such a poor state in this country.

In other news, icon love!

Date: 2006-01-24 07:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] starsprinkles.livejournal.com
Pro, for all the obvious reasons everyone else already mentioned.

Date: 2006-01-24 07:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kellygreen.livejournal.com
Pro, because above all else it's an issue of human rights. Love is love, regardless of race, gender, ability, religion, or any other aspect that could possibly differentiate two consenting adult human beings.

And also pro because I'm bisexual and damnit, if I want to marry a woman, I'm going to marry a woman! :D

Date: 2006-01-26 04:45 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Pro - for the same damn reason.


Ashe

Date: 2006-01-24 08:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gcbenjtonyluv.livejournal.com
Pro. Equality for all and it's your right, as an American to be able to choose who you marry without the state getting involved. I did a debate on gay marriage last year and in a class of kids who are against homosexuals, my friend and I won. We argued our case very well. Argue the bible scriptures where it says homosexuality is wrong but, eating shrimp is wrong as well. I played on the religion alot because I knew that the team for con was using the bible against me so, I turned it back on them and made them look like they were contadicting themselves. Hope that helps.

Date: 2006-01-24 08:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] deepwatersxx.livejournal.com
I'm pro, because love is wonderful, in any way.

Date: 2006-01-24 09:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ishyface.livejournal.com
Pro-gay marriage, because even if I don't want to get married I'll damn well lacerate any fool who says I can't.

Date: 2006-01-24 10:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fanfic-lover.livejournal.com
Pro.

What right do we have to deny other people the basic rights we value? So many people place so much emphasis on the rights they have as human beings, but yet are ready and willing to refuse others the same rights for inconsequential things.

Many of the arguements against gay marriage are the same as, or similar to, those used against interracial marriage. But using those arguments against those couples now wouldn't be acceptable. So why should it be acceptable for homosexual couples?

PRO! absolutely unabashedly pro!

Date: 2006-01-24 10:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cheezitthief.livejournal.com
because the way it works now, if one partner dies, there are a million different ways that the remaining partner can lose everything.

Re: PRO! absolutely unabashedly pro!

Date: 2006-01-24 10:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cheezitthief.livejournal.com
sorry, also, I believe in love. love between two people of the same sex is no less legitimate than love between two people of different sexes.

because love is love

Date: 2006-01-24 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spike0313.livejournal.com
28 Reasons Against Gay Marriage

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Marriage is valuable because it produces children, which is why we deny marriage rights to infertile couples and old people.

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

4. Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears' 55-hour escapade, will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed.

5. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. 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.

8. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state.

9. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter.

10. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that unmarried gay people do not.

11. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because dogs have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.

12. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy and incest. Because we don?t know what comes next, we should never change our laws.

13. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

14. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like suburban malls and tupperware parties.

15. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic the straight traditions of spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before.

16. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination or surrogacy, or adoption.

17. Civil unions are a good option because "separate but equal" institutions are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them.

18. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality.

19. If gays marry, some of straight people's tax dollars would end up going to families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it is more just to continue taking gay people's tax dollars to support straight families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.

20. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more accepting of them, because they are not part of society.



<3

but wait....there's more

Date: 2006-01-24 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spike0313.livejournal.com


21. The people's voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can't think of any other way to discuss the issue.

22. Each state should decide for itself whether gay marriage will be recognized, because there is no "full faith and credit" clause that requires states to recognize each other's institutions.

23. Gay marriage attempts to replace natural heterosexual instinct with a cultural institution. Morality demands that we subordinate institutionalized commitment to raw, unfettered, biological impulse.

24. Gay marriages could very well suffer maladies like domestic violence and substance abuse. That's why we invented the Quality Control department to pre-approve the righteousness of all marriage applicants, such as convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez who married a woman while on Death Row.

25. Those who support gay marriage aim to overthrow the dominant culture, as evidenced by their enthusiasm to participate in it.

26. The country can't afford to provide benefits for married gay couples. That's why Bush would never consider spending $150 million on programs that encourage more straight people to get married.

27. Gay couples do not deserve marriage because, if everyone on earth limited themselves to same-sex sexual behavior, humanity would soon be extinct. Based on the same concern, we also deny marriage rights to the biologically childless and to those who have borne only one child. (We are also considering denying marriage rights to those who have borne three or more children, because if everyone copied them, the world population would shoot through the roof.)

28. Marriage was created in the Bible as a bond between a man and a woman. The people who lived prior to the writing of the Bible, such as the Chinese, sat around in confusion for many years until the Mesopotamians finally came around and invented the family unit.\

<3

Date: 2006-01-24 11:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] petalsinthewind.livejournal.com
So Pro it hurts.

I wrote an article about it for the school newspaper. (http://petalsinthewind.livejournal.com/2954.html#cutid1)

Date: 2006-01-25 12:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/__oddly/
Technically, I'm pro gay marriage. I want gays to have the same rights as straight couples.

But if all they have to do is call it a 'civil union' to be able to achieve legal equality, then I say we'd be better off advertising that instead of the traditional 'marriage'. The only different would be getting religion involved. And even if it was a so-called marriage, marriages could still be conducted, with the church and the ceremony and the guests. The only different would be keeping the religious conservatives happy.

So instead, I'll say that I'm pro civil union. Whatever does it. I just want equal rights.

Date: 2006-01-25 12:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simple--man.livejournal.com
Pro: Because I want to have the right to marry him, even if we never decide to. No one should make that decision for me, I am a human being and an American citizen, and I should have every right that everyone else in this country has. Whether I decide to use it or not should be up to me.

I should not be banned from being legally bound to the man I love, simply because some ignorant members of our society don't believe that our relationship is "right". No one should be able to legislate morality.

If we want to get married, we should be able to go down to the courthouse and do so, with religion having no place whatsoever in our union. You want to call it a cilvil union, fine, but I want to be able to have it. And all the same rights as the married straight couples have.

Good luck with your debate. The more knowledge on the subject, the better our chances of seeing it happen one day. Hopefully sooner rather than later...

Date: 2006-01-25 02:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] qwijybo.livejournal.com
Pro, because unlike many people in this country, I am a rational and logical human being.

Date: 2006-01-25 02:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladymalchav.livejournal.com
Pro.

Love is between two souls. Marriage should be about love, not sex.

Date: 2006-01-25 03:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bebopbeats.livejournal.com
Pro

They say gays can't get married because it would undermine traditional values. You know what else is traditional? Dowries, getting married a virgin, your parents picking your future spouse, never seeing said spouse until your married, multiple wives, husband controlling all the wifes assets and ritual suicide if your husband dies.

I think if we can get past all this without continual cries of "breaks in traditional values* we can certainly allow one more change from what is obviously outdated and wrong.

Date: 2006-01-25 03:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] p-penelope.livejournal.com
Well, I'm pro, for the various reasons already mentioned. An argument your team could also use is a practical one: allowing gay marriage will provide a boost to the economy, as many more couples have wedddings. The average couple in the US spends $10,000-$15,000 on their wedding. The taxes alone on those expenditures would give most state economies a nice infusion of cash.

Date: 2006-01-25 04:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] savemk04.livejournal.com
pro, because who cares whos getting married to whome, as long as they love each other...

this may sound like flamebait, but hear me out

Date: 2006-01-25 10:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] faboo.livejournal.com
I'm technically "con" on this issue.

marriage, as a civil institution, is idiotic and hypocritical.

marriage is a spiritual event that occurs in the hearts and minds of people. marriage does not come garnished with a state seal, and does not confer visitation rights. marriage is a personal bond.

if there are institutions who are of the mind that there are people who cannot become "married", I say, fuck `em. let them not marry or be married to those people. your marriage is yours and no one else's.

however, for the purposes of health benefits, taxation, child custody, or property ownership, there are compelling reasons to recognize pairings (or groupings) of people as a new, joint legal entity. call this new entity a "civil union."

recognition by the state of "marriage" is tantamount to religious favortism by the state and should not be tolerated. no grouping of people should be recognized by the state as in any sort of spiritual union, including marriage.

I am against states granting marriage-hood to gay couples, but I am equally against states granting marriage-hood to straight couples.

I say this as a person who has been married for weeks and informed the state of New York this past Monday of my marriage (strictly) to ensure that they do not attempt to keep me from my wife and child.

Profile

boy_touching: (Default)
boy_touching

January 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 18th, 2025 03:29 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios