Same-sex marriage (!/?) Opinions of HS students?

Pre-College Issues High School Life
41

<p>Leonesa, that is another strong argument in favor of gay marriage. Now, it brings up a counter argument. The comparison of interracial marriage and gay marriage is not accurate, since biracial couples can still procreate. It is entirely natural for them to marry and have kids. Homosexuals cannot have children, so why should they be permitted to marry? Overlooking the fact that this point is steeped in religious assumptions (no sex out of wedlock, marriage for children), how might you respond?</p>

42

<p>Personally I don't care either way as it doesn't drastically affect my way of life. So if it was nationally legalized, not a big deal to me, same if it would go the other way. </p>

<p>However, I will give some advice to the pro gay-marriage crowd: you are all going about this the wrong way and with a strategy destined to fail. I've seen a couple comments stating that those against gay marriage are backwards southern hicks, bad/morally wrong people, morons, etc. If you think you'll win people to your side by saying if they oppose you, they're x/y/z name, then you're sadly disillusioned. Most people do not care either way, but you turn them away when you have guys like the SF mayor who blatantly disregarded the will of the people to push their own agendas. This past election showed that insulting the beliefs of those you need to convince, and thinking of yourselves as more progressive/sophisticated/etc. will not work. Go about it from a practicle standpoint: explain how it will not hurt anyone, will help the government (ie. taxes, etc.), and really would have no affect on the daily lives of the average American.</p>

43

<p>well i personally do not support gay marriage. and i'm not biased; my relative is gay and married. this is an article that i wrote for the school newspaper on behalf of the Young Republicans Club. please don't be angry =) i'm not a bigot or a moron.</p>

<p>The question of whether gay couples should be permitted to “marry” has been thrown about in religious discussions, political debates, and casual arguments nationwide. With the emergence of homosexuality incorporated into the media, the abundance of informative groups and clubs promoting tolerance, and a general increased understanding of alternate lifestyles, society has, for the most part, come a long way from previous decades in acceptance of the gay community. Yet is American society prepared to adjust its entire family legal code based on the alteration of its marriage standards?</p>

<p>The 2004 election has indicated a somewhat conservative trend in politics. Regardless of whether this trend will sustain itself, it is evident that gay marriage advocates have to work even harder in order to achieve their goals. Their primary argument is simply that if two homosexual people love each other, why shouldn’t they enjoy the benefits of heterosexual couples? Non-supporters of the gay campaign are branded heartless, cruel, and bigoted. The vast majority of Republicans who are against gay marriage are deemed by their opponents as narrow-minded, evil people who are insensitive to the desires of the whole country. However, most conservatives with a sufficient understanding of the topic will not refute the liberal argument with, “Homosexuality is wrong. Period.” The reasoning against gay marriage encompasses more than just personal or religious beliefs.</p>

<p>The right to marriage is not a right that must be granted by the state. By many state laws, one can neither marry a close blood relative such as a first cousin nor more than one person at the same time. Therefore, careful consideration is taken before allowing a couple to get married. The right to collect the spouse’s social security after he or she has passed away, the right to ask for an extra tax exemption, and the right to share health insurance with one’s spouse are some economic costs to the society. States grant marriages with the idea that children will result: marriages unlikely to result in children prove to be no benefit to the forwarding of society. </p>

<p>There are currently no laws forbidding homosexuals from having relationships. They can obtain hospital visitation and inheritance rights by writing a living will, signing a joint lease, or owning a house together.</p>

<p>So if “investing” in a marriage lacking a probable outcome of children is detrimental to society, then what would be so horrible about a gay couple adopting a child or even yielding one by artificial insemination? </p>

<p>Studies have shown that children need a male guardian and a female guardian in order to grow properly. A child needs to learn how to function in society with both males and females, as some of the most important life lessons and factors of character are found and developed in the home. This, of course, is not to say that homosexuals do not have the ability to provide for and love their children, but simply that it is impossible for them to supply the complete family experience that would exist in a household with a man and a woman.</p>

<p>Gay couples may base their demand for marriage rights on love: if this is the prime reason for wanting a mere title, how could one differentiate between other marriage cases of love, such as a person and himself, or a person and a sibling? The debate over gay marriage is certainly not a struggle for political power or personal victory. It is a question of whether or not we are, as a society, ready to bear this extra burden that yields more detriments than benefits.</p>

44

<p>Nom - Yes, homosexuals can't have kids (at least they can't conceive a child). However, marriage isn't only a right for those who can have kids. Infertile people marry. People can marry and never have sex if they really want to. I know some couples who have been married for over 20 years and who have never had children. The marriage contract has nothing to do with child bearing, except from a religious standpoint. Is that enough to counter what you said? :)</p>

<p>Hunter - I think that is an important point to make. However, I think it is unfair to say everyone is going about it the wrong way. There just happens to be a vocal group that stands out and draws negative attention to the argument. I think it is very important to avoid labels on either side.</p>

45

<p>I don't believe in it or like it, but I don't knock people that do. However, any dude that tries to put his arm around my shoulder or come on to me in any way after I have told him I don't play like that WILL get socked in his mouth.</p>

46

<p>Redbull,</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your side since I think you are part of the minority on this thread...</p>

<p>Some of your points I can understand, but others I have to debate. SO here goes:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Just because the state has the legal right to define what is considered marriage, does not mean that whatever they say is right. So from a perspective of what is just, this argument does not stand alone. Also, I don't think the marriage laws are based on the hope that marriages will create children that can help our society. I think it more was just something that was culturally accepted and obviously continued. People who can't have children are still allowed to marry. People in poverty are allowed to marry and have as many children as they want even though it will probably end up costing the state in welfare, etc. </p>

<br>


<br>

<p>What specific studies may I ask? Also, we still allow single parents to have children. Perhaps a mother and father arrangement is the ideal, but life is not ideal. Yes, it would be ideal to have financially secure parents. Yes, it would be ideal to have parents that have no physical ailments that would harm a child's stress when growing. However, life is not simple and ideal is not necessarily right or better. </p>

<p>I'd do some more debating, but I have to go serve as an election judge for my township. Three hourse in an old town hall so that two people can come in and vote...hehe</p>

47

<p>I don't agree with it, I don't like it (I do, however, have a semi-close friend who is gay), and I don't feel like arguing about it.</p>

48

<p>I do not agree with same-sex marriage & I do not support them. But I accept them, like poison.ivy said.</p>

49

<p>Leonesa, precisely. Another example would be elderly couples getting married. They will neither conceive nor adopt children. Also, marriage's "cost to society", as said by ReDbUll298, is withdrawn far sooner by edlerly couples (by passing away) than their young, and potentially gay, counterparts. The studies that ReDbUll298 refered to are bunk. No scientifically valid studies have reached the conclusion that the children of homosexual parents are any worse off than those of heterosexual parents. Even the New York Times Magazine, which I despise for its authors' overwhelmingly suburban-conservative positions, concluded in a recent article that children of homosexual parents are just as well adjusted for life as children of heterosexual parents are (if not more so due to the harassment they receive from some in their community).</p>

<p>Slightly off-topic: I would like to thank Leonesa for the service s/he is doing his/her local government. That's very respectable.</p>

50

<p>Remember Karamo on the Real World? He was gay but had a problem with interracial relationships. Strange angry black man.</p>

51

<p>he had a problem with EVERYTHING in the world, simply put. He was strange...</p>

52

<p>I think that the government should only recognize marriage as two consenting adults who want to file taxes together.</p>

<p>Religion wise- I know that my church is many many years away from performing a same sex ceremony so why should they be concerned with this issue? Man/ woman couples live together without being married as well and that is considered a sin too so why don't people protest that?</p>

53

<p>I couldn't care less what goes on in other people's bedrooms, or whether or not they are homosexual. Just one minor detail - it's not exactly a marriage. So just slap another name on there, and give them the same rights.</p>

<p>We have to acknowledge both that they deserve these rights and that such a union is fundamentally different in nature from a traditional marriage.</p>

54

<p><i>I'm in favor of respecting same-sex couples but I'l also in favor of the government taking no role in marriage whatsoever. It should be up to the individual - I believe that marraiges should have no benefits.</i>
-simfish</p>

<p>I completely agree.</p>

<p>I'm an ACLU member and to some extent a constitutional absolutist (one who thinks that Antonin Scalia is a sad joke of a self-proclaimed constitutional absolutist)</p>

55

<p>What's with the people who suggest that we should give gay couples the same rights as straight married couples but just call it something different? Whatever happened to a rose by any other name smelling as sweet? Either you agree with giving them these rights (I do) or you disagree with it.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]

What's with the people who suggest that we should give gay couples the same rights as straight married couples but just call it something different? Whatever happened to a rose by any other name smelling as sweet? Either you agree with giving them these rights (I do) or you disagree with it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with it. It hardly matters what the name is; it shouldn't be a big deal. But the fact is, homosexual couple unions are not the same as heterosexual unions. They need their rights. The government needs to stay out. However, you can't call a rose a tulip, because a tulip is already a tulip...get what I mean?</p>

57

<p>Just to keep the terms consistent, you're not quite right Zoogies. A civil union between two homosexuals is identical to a civil union between two heterosexuals. It's marriage that is at stake. Obviously, many on this thread believe that the term "marriage" should be relegated to chucrches, temples, mosques, and <your edifice="" of="" worship="" here=""> (to be replaced by either a) no benefits for anyone or b) equal benefits for all under the title "federal union"). The statement of this opinion, while 100% valid, had muddied the naming issue. Interestingly, the conservative platform has embraced this confusion, exchanging "union" and "marriage" in speeches and soundbytes in order to instill a false impression that the two are equivalent.</your></p>

<p>Again, I wasn't targeting you in particular. I was only trying to address frequent problem in conversations like this one.</p>

<p>[P.S. Please excuse my typos. KDE is eating my soul. Everything is font size 7, Courier. I can barely read my posts as I type them. Thank you for your understanding.]</p>

58

<p>"What's with the people who suggest that we should give gay couples the same rights as straight married couples but just call it something different? Whatever happened to a rose by any other name smelling as sweet? Either you agree with giving them these rights (I do) or you disagree with it."</p>

<p>I agree that changing the name isn't going to change what it is. However, since most people are ashamed to say that what they don't like about gay marriage is that it's gross, or it makes them uncomfortable, they usually drag something about marriage being between a man and a woman into it. Now, ideally, yes, let gay people get married, but realistically, it won't happen on a large scale. Not in the near future, anyway.</p>

59

<p>"I don't believe in it or like it, but I don't knock people that do. However, any dude that tries to put his arm around my shoulder or come on to me in any way after I have told him I don't play like that WILL get socked in his mouth."</p>

<p>What people don't seem to realize is that homosexuals don't automatically target you because they are the same sex as you. </p>

<p>One of my closest friends is a lesbian. Whenever I hug her, all my straight friends are like "How can you do that? Isn't she a dyke?" ***. </p>

<p>And another thing that bothers me... just because you don't AGREE with homosexuality, it doesn't necessarily mean you DISCRIMATE against it. Discrimation and disagreement are two COMPLETELY different things. </p>

<p>I watched The Real World and saw Willie express his feelings for his family. I think it's terrible how his OWN mother would tell her children that her son is going to burn in hell. It's one thing to disagree, but to literally hate.... that's another thing.</p>

60

<p>Thank you thank you thank you, poison ivy! I was talking to someone the other day and she was saying she'd feel really weird if she found out, hypothetically, that her (female) roommate was gay. Which is ridiculous! I mean, if you tell someone of the other sex that you're not interested, obviously he's not going to force himself on you—they call that rape and arrest you for it. Why would homosexuality be any different? So long as a gay or bi person knows you're completely straight, he obviously won't make a move on you unless he's crazy, enjoys rejection, or has no respect for other people's feelings (in which case he's a jerk and you'd probably hate him anyway, independent of his sexuality).</p>

<p>To RaboKarabekian: Won't happen on a large scale in the near future? I don't know about that: here in Canada, not only do the majority of provinces already allow it, but they're even proposing federal legislation that will force the rest of the provinces to allow gay marriage. And lots of couples have already gotten married in the provinces that do allow it. Call me an optimist, but I think it will happen on a large scale—and in the very near future.</p>