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.

[Charlie Watson]

While I believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are perfectly acceptable and should not be restricted, and take issue with your argument. Specifically, I disagree with the statement, "I do not think that those people should be able to legislate the rights of others." The point of government is to legislate the rights of others. Through a government, we remove a person's right to kill, rape or burgle others. Through government we take away those rights that decrease the quality of life of the citizenry.

I apologise for moving away from the topic at hand, but I think a good conclusion with a bad justification is often worse than a bad conclusion.

[QuantumTuba]

That's because those aren't RIGHTS. Natural rights theory is logically consistent, if not necessarily valid. Your rights are any actions taken which don't involve violence or intervene with the rights of others. Killing is violent aggression and clearly violates a person's sovereignty over their own body, as does rape. Burglary violates property rights.

[Übereil]

"Natural rights theory is logically consistent..."

So is this:

Donald Duck is a dog.
Dogs can't fly.
Therefore Donald Duck can't fly.

"Killing is violent aggression and clearly violates a person's sovereignty over their own body, as does rape."

Not in an anarchy. Because in an anarchy we don't have soveingty over our own bodies. Without the social contract to give us rights, we have no rights.

(My biggest issue with many natural rights arguments is that they tend to think rights just are. That they not only manifested from thin air, but also happens to be just what the person making the argument wants them to be.

Not a universal problem, and certanly nothing I'd say was a problem with Natural Rights itself. That the moon is made out of cheese might not be a valid argument for free speech but that doesn't mean we don't have free speech just because the moon isn't made out of cheese either.)

[Charlie Watson]

I find the notion of "natural rights" illogical. There is nothing natural about prohibiting rape, murder, burglary or tax evasion. Nature, if I may refer to it as an entity, does not (seem to) care about what you do. If these rights were natural, we would not need a judicial system to enforce them.

As Übereil said before me, the only rights we have are those we make for ourselves, through social contract. This is clear when one is out of the company of entities bound by such a contract. If you find yourself in the wilderness, the weather does not respect your right to shelter, the hungry animals do not respect your right to life and the crazy fellow living deep in the woods may not respect your right to not be raped.

Our rights exist only because they were/are manufactured/preserved by common consent. I would argue that if no rights are natural, we can equivalently state that all possible actions are rights. This is the context in which I was speaking earlier, when I said, "[t]he point of government is to legislate the rights of others." I can clarify this statement:

Gay marriage is not a right, as nothing is a right. We should instead speak of the permissibility and legality of gay marriage. I believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are permissible, and should be legal. The point of a government is to classify impermissible actions as illegal, and enforce these decisions, whether by punishing violations, or rewarding compliance. Thus, while I agree with Lissi Smith's conclusion, I disagree with her statement about the role of government.

[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.