<p>guys, you are now hogging the thread. xD</p>
<p>stop getting so riled up. maybe it’s time to say that clearly cdrnole and cranberry have different views and keep arguing (yes, it sounds like you guys are arguing) isn’t going to change anything other than the length of the thread</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s either religions are offended and Gays get equal rights, or Gays get equal rights spelled out as civil union and religions are not offended. </p>
<p>Religions and perhaps people who believe in God in general are offended mainly because we believe that humankind is meant to be in certain ways. </p>
<p>Do you believe that men and women are <em>meant</em> to be? That it’s the foundation of the world and homosexuals, due to some medical reason, are left different from how people were meant to be? </p>
<p>Or do you believe that it so happens that the majority of men and women are heterosexual and some are homosexuals, that if the world were predominantly homosexual, it wouldn’t make a difference.</p>
<p>I believe that the world is heterosexual for a reason, and that homosexuals are unfortunately different due to some chemical imbalance. I would not want the definition of marriage to accept homosexuality because it in effect suggests that homosexuality is another way of life to live. I would rather have the world understand that heterosexuality is the way life was meant to live, and some others unfortunately are born differently, but still deserve the same rights. Civil unions do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you meant to say <em>not</em> change? Likewise, the opposite can be said.</p>
<p>So are you saying love justifies gay marriage? Then what if a man loves a goat? I do not think love justifies anything.</p>
<p>@NervousBreakdown
Sorry if you feel like we’re/I’m hogging the thread, lol. I like debating for an intellectual exercise to see if I can hold my own, rather than to actually try to convince someone else (as nice as that would be). Although I do feel like I’m done debating cdrnole because he seems to not be in this for the fun of the argument.</p>
<p>@RAlec
Ah yes, that is ideal, but I thought we decided in Brown that equal is not truly equal if it’s separate?</p>
<p>I do not believe men and women are <em>meant</em> to be, although I do believe that they are the foundation of the continuation of our race, but those are very different beliefs. So yeah, I guess I kind of go with your second option, although clearly it would make a difference in the rate of population increase. I guess what this comes down to is that you see heterosexual as both normal and ideal, whereas I think any sexuality is just as good as the next, with none being the norm. Would you not say it is demeaning to gay people to tell them that they are “unfortunately” born differently as opposed to just “born differently?”</p>
<p>Er, yeah, I meant not, thanks, haha.
Wait, could you point out where I say that love justifies gay marriage? I don’t think I said that, although I may have said that it’s a reason for it (which is very different from being the reason for it).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If civil unions are adopted, homosexuals will understand that the world is not ignorant of them and not be confused. Marriages do that too, but civil unions avoid conflict with religion and maintain the understanding that men are meant to love women, and vice versa. </p>
<p>You seem to be treating homosexuals as if they are a new race or something and deserve more rights. I treat them as if they are unfortunate (for whatever genetic or chemical reasons) gender orientations that deviate from what is meant to be, but still deserve equal rights. </p>
<p>Maybe an anology will work… though self created analogies seldom do</p>
<p>Are kids who are born disabled normal? (I say no - people were made on this earth to be walking creatures. again there is obviously some religious connotation in this belief, a sort of idealism) Should they then have the right to play basketball with kids who can run and jump? If you said that they are normal, then of course they should be able to play. If you do not agree that they are normal, then they shouldn’t be able to play.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes that appears to be our main difference. I am not religiously affiliated but I believe in a God that was a smart god and made things certain ways for various reasons. If you believe that this world is the result of a 1/zillion chances and things are the way they are just by chance, and anything goes, I understand that you see homosexuality as a normal sort of thing, a new “race” kind of. </p>
<p>Interesting question: so then should colleges treat homosexuals as URMs? If they are normal humans (they are certainly a homogenious group), then you should certainly should believe so. </p>
<p>Again I would not, just as I would not treat a kid in a wheel chair as a minority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes but the things you listed are the result of ignorance and bigotry. What we are debating has become largely philosophical (i.e Are humans meant to be heterosexual)</p>
<p>
They will also understand that they are being given a separate title because, well, what? They are not equal to or worthy of the same things as straight people? I’m not saying that that’s what civil union necessarily means, but it would be reasonable for a gay person to assume that.</p>
<p>
More rights? Equal rights. Where did I say/imply more rights?</p>
<p>
Again, unfortunate? I know plenty of gay people who are happy as they are. It’s unfortunate that they’re discriminated against, but it’s not as if being attracted to your same gender is a bad quality in itself.</p>
<p>
Well, I disagree with you about people being made to be walking creatures, but that’s not too relevant. What is relevant is yes, they should ideally be able to play. That would be nice. However, (I’m assuming we’re talking about physically disabled kids who can’t stand), they physically cannot. Instead, they should play board games and whatever else they enjoy doing for fun and can do.</p>
<p>
Well, I’m not really for affirmative action by race (I prefer by social class), so I’m also against it by sexuality.</p>
<p>Also, I want to point out that the “new race” idea is an interesting way to phrase it, but it bothers me since gay people have been around since the beginning of mankind and are in no way “new.” I get your point though, just thought I should put that out there.</p>
<p>
Right, right, I think that was before we decided the question of this debate is philosophical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It IS relevant. If you believe that we were made a certain way, then you’d probably believe that it is critical to humans. </p>
<p>Btw I meant kids in wheelchairs, so they physically could play basketball, just on wheelchairs. What is more appropriate - where both normal kids and wheelchair kids play together, or wheelchair kids play against eachother and normal kids play against eachother. Would the latter not be an example of appropriate separate but equal treatment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By more I meant same rights + the right to have the same title. Sorry, I was unclear. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this is what causes our views to be fundamentally different.</p>
<p>I believe that being attracted to the same gender is unfortunate just as people born disabled are unfortunate. It is simply not meant to be. We were meant to be walking straight creatures. Again, there is some sort of religious connotation in this idea. </p>
<p>btw I did not imply that gay people are sad, though happiness is probably lower in them just as happiness is probably lower in disabled kids</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, they would realize that they have a different title but the same rights. I think that is reasonable. They might question the separate title, but if their views are like mine, then it should be reasonable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alright then let me think of another example. Well I cant right now lol. </p>
<p>btw thanks for respecting my beliefs. actions nowadays lead to homophobiaphobia, what I like to call the fear of being accused of being homophobic. It seems that you can’t not support Gay Marriage and be a respectable person anymore.</p>
<p>Alec… how long you been gay?</p>
<p>Down with gays! They’re evil! I say we burn them all! Send them to hell!</p>
<p>^^Hi future.</p>
<p>^^ … ?</p>
<p>10char</p>
<p>Hahahahaha</p>
<p>I know this may stray off from the current debate here, but here’s what bothers me:</p>
<p>I hate when straight guys say that they hate homosexuals to death but then they admire lesbians just because they think two girls together is hot. That’s fine if you think that way but saying that you think lesbians are hot but hating homosexuals at the same time is being hypocritical.</p>
<p>When people say “gays” they men gay men and LESBIAN women. That’s the problem with our society. We’re so close-minded because of our traditional beliefs. We are so blinded by them that we sometimes can’t think clearly about subjects. Sometimes we’re so afraid to accept something that’s different. We as humans are naturally afraid of change. We as a race have to learn tolerance.</p>
<p>I personally don’t like super-religious people. I really don’t but I respect them because in this country, you have as much of a right to praise your religion as much as Gay citizens have a right to marriage, etc.</p>
<p>We are in the 21st century. Bashing the LGBT community with religious arguments does not work anymore. People nowadays are becoming more accepting these days. In fact, calling someone a “■■■■■■” or “dyke” makes you look bad nowadays. You would just be seen as an ignorant bigot. Also, how long has it been since you heard someone say “That’s so gay”? I certainly haven’t in a while. We as a race are becoming tolerant little by little but we need to put more effort into it. I’m glad that I come across more people who are accepting of gays and lesbians but we need to educate those who don’t that we need to be respectful of other people.</p>
<p>I oppose gay marriage… but, I won’t treat homosexuals with disrespect… I’ll just never support them for their decision.</p>
<p>I think most of the people who oppose gay marriage on this thread have come down to the argument that gays are not normal, and shouldn’t be given the same rights as others.</p>
<p>There’s two kinds of people who believe this. First, the people who think that homosexuality is a choice. Science will prove these people wrong some day, and suddenly having “opinions” about gays will be similar to having “opinions” about Mexicans or “opinions” about women. Till then, however, I don’t understand how anybody can believe that sexuality is a choice. Think about how strong the sex instinct is in humans - sexual attractions are pretty hard things to ignore. So why would a gay man be able to, let alone want to, ignore attractions to women if he had them? That doesn’t make sense to me. I guess people who are lucky enough to have their attractions encouraged and praised regularly, however, find it easy to take the egocentric stance that everyone must be just like them.</p>
<p>The second kind of people who believe gays aren’t normal and don’t deserve marriage are people like RAlec. This “biological but bad” viewpoint is even more baffling to me. RAlec, you say that marriage should not be afforded to gays because they are an “unfortunate mistake” by nature. (I would like to point out at this time that, if gays are really a mistake, then nature is making a lot of mistakes and is really nothing to be amazed by.) The thing is, gays CAN get married. And they do. Gay men can get married to straight women, and gay women can get married to straight men. I know plenty of marriages where this has turned out to be the case, to the huge dismay of the spouse (sad, though how you can’t notice before getting married is beyond me). Would you rather this happen? And gay men can get married to gay women - personally I hope that if gay marriage doesn’t get legalized soon, that more LGBT people will start doing this. If you really think two men or two women in love getting married will destroy marriage, I don’t see how you could be very happy with two people who don’t even love each other being conferred the title. How will not letting gays get married change anything? If you believe that gays are born that way, then obviously it won’t discourage people from becoming gay because it can’t. You think that allowing two men or two women to get married will devalue the word. This obviously stems from a superiority complex. Instead, maybe people could see their fellow human beings as equals and they wouldn’t face the problem of marriage being undermined.</p>
<p>Anyway, to anybody opposing gay marriage, I hope you realize that it is inevitable. People fighting for equality have a little more zeal and determination in them than people fighting for tradition for tradition’s sake.</p>