Gay Marriage

[Her-mee-own]

I have recently been having a lot of trouble with people arguing with me, claiming that gay marriage and indeed homosexuality in general is wrong.
I need your best arguments for gay marriage- and also views from those nerdfighters that may think that it is wrong.
Please help.

[Lissi Smith]

Ok, here's my take, coming from the US. I am also assuming that when you say people think homosexuality is 'wrong' they are coming from a moral or religious perspective.

I personally think that same sex marriage is primarily a civil rights issue, not necessarily a moral issue. I understand that people have moral problems with homosexuality, but I do not think that those people should be able to legislate the rights of others.

I don't have much for the opinion that homosexuality itself is wrong. I don't think it is, I understand where people tend to get that idea, but that viewpoint doesn't make sense to me personally. I hope this made sense and was possibly helpful.

[Gretalaurelina]

I personally don't think that there should be an 'argument' for gay marriage at all - there was never an argument to demonstrate the reasons that straight marriage is legal, so why should it be required for gay marriage? Denying couples this right simply due to their sexuality is wrong, and i don't think anyone would be able to provide me with a single valid reason (imo) why same sex couples can't be married and have the same rights and entitlements as a straight married couple. My closest friend is in a long term same-sex relationship and the fact that they can't legally be recognised as a married couple and be treated the same as other people in loving long term relationships is ridiculous - not that i'm saying everyone in a these relationships should or has to get married, but it should be an option, right?

[Runek]

In my opinion, official (not only as a religious sign of being together) marriages are generally wrong and if marriages weren't official, gay marriages wouldn't be a problem at all.

[Philosoraptor]

I can't imagine there are many anti-gay-marriage Nerdfighters.

[Kenny]

There's a few, but that's still too many.

[Andrew]

We tend to set them on fire and beat them with sticks, so there are not that many left.

:)

[Natalie mogg]

Y'know, the word "faggot" used to mean firewood. And that turned into a gay slur because people thought the fags should be burned. Does anyone really want to be using language that promotes burning people? Whether they're homophobic or homophobic-phobic, it still irks me.
I think that we should make nerdfighters feel welcome even if they are against gay marriage. Closed-mindedness on either side isn't going to help anyone. A lot of people are like NYAHNYALALALA IM NOT LISTENING to people on the other side of the debate. But I'm kind of surprised to find this kind of attitude on Nerdfighters. That is not the way to fight against suck.
I think we should change their minds them with logical reasoning (like our friend, Mr.Spock), which a lot of their arguments lack, instead of fighting closed-mindedness with closed-mindedness.
It's like, if you're trying to get into a room and someone shuts a door in your face. Instead of telling them why it's a good idea to open it, you walk away and shut another door.
Don't take this the wrong way. Dude, I'm gay. I cried when Prop. 8 passed. but I hate it when I'm trying to have a discussion with a conservative and they're just not listening to me. So I'm trying to follow the golden rule. It's possible to be absolutely passionate and steadfast in your opinions while still giving the other side respect, and actually listening to them.
*steps off soapbox*

[Natalie mogg]

sorry bout all the run-on sentences. I was excited.

[Jackie]

*highfives* What you said, plus jokes about violence aren't really funny cos violence is a problem that hurts people for real, and then you're laughing about victims' suffering. Sucks, doesn't it?

[Neiloy Mukerjee]

Because a big part of the discussion over gay marriage takes place on religious grounds, I generally find it helpful to think about marriage from two different angles: legal and religious.

As far as a religious marriage goes, the lines tend to be a bit hazy. Because it's simply a general concept with nothing else attached to it, it doesn't really come up as a question. Arguably, homosexual religious marriage already exists because the people in the relationship see themselves as being in a union of that nature.

Regarding the idea of a legal marriage, there are a few points that usually come up in the argument against.

One is the question of the morals of society - if a society as a whole sees homosexual relationships as being no different from heterosexual relationships, then there's no question, but if this is not the case, then why would the society be expected to recognize both in the same way? Essentially, if you disagree with something (in this case, homosexuality), then you logically wouldn't want to encourage your country's support of that very same thing.

Another is a question of the strings attached to a legal marriage - things like medical benefits and rights to property are closely tied with the institution of marriage, and this has grown primarily from the desire to encourage the development of a nuclear family unit, which many believe to be centered around the potential for procreation. [To demonstrate my point, ask anyone to envision a family, and many will think of parents and children. No, I'm not saying that this is a definite reason to not institute gay marriage - I just mean for it to illustrate how many people conceive of a marriage.]

Personally, I'm strongly in favor of establishing homosexual marriage as a fully-supported legal engagement, but I'm curious to see what people use to address the points above - non-nerdfighters usually just default to a response of "Well... that's stupid," without elaborating much, so I'd like to see what happens here.

[danman]

I disagree with gay marriages, and i think my opinion might interest you since it comes from secular basis.
Marriage gives advantage to the subjects from state , because a family is best for the state in terms of producing a good future generation. Gay marriages do not generally result in offspring and so they have no claim for the benefits

Furthermore , it is redundant. In terms of property, especially in the west, you can write a will that bypasses normal inheritance process, and therefore if someone wishes to give property to a person that he lives with he can.

Overall, all these efforts look to me like a certain part of the homosexual community desperately needs to attract attention and provoke the majority, no matter what their opinion is.
I have nothing against homosexuals that behave decently in public - i do not care who they live with since as far as i know homosexuality is an incurable inborn malfunction and so they are not responsible for it, therefore as far as they do not harm people it can not be wrong.

But in the same manner , me and many others do not roam streets half naked shouting we are heterosexuals, and i would expect the same kind of decency from the homosexual crowd as well

[Übereil]

"I disagree with gay marriages, and i think my opinion might interest you since it comes from secular basis.
Marriage gives advantage to the subjects from state , because a family is best for the state in terms of producing a good future generation. Gay marriages do not generally result in offspring and so they have no claim for the benefits"

...so the only point of marriage is children? Then why give the benefits to married couples instead of parents?