HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE

Conservative groups often worry about "defending the natural family" and "the destruction of traditional marriage" or "re-defining marriage":

- There is nothing innately evil about redefining a word (language has always evolved naturally over time).
- Ironically, people voting to illegaize gay marriage are re-defining it.
- Homosexuality is no threat to heterosexual marriage as it does not require the divorce of heterosexual couples or loose them any rights.
- Up until the 1950s, marriage was defined as being between a man and a women of the same race in america (Anti-miscegenation).

In the supreme court case that stopped anti-miscegnation laws, two of their findings were that:
U.S. Supreme Court, 1967:
"The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination."

"if they (anti-marriage laws) are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&inv...

- Another example of marriage's historical re-definition is the practise of polygamy, that was common and sanctioned within the old testament, such as in Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:1517
- Even Martin Luther sanctioned it "for it does not contradict Scripture."


Some people argue that homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals because they can get married (heterosexually) too:

- This is true only in terms of the "letter of the law", and not in terms of the "spirit of the law".
- The spirit of the law is to allow a couple who love eachother to marry and therefore gain certain legal rights.
- Jesus even endorses the distinction between the two in the bible: http://www.thercg.org/questions/p162.a.html


Separation of Church and State:

- The religious aspect of marriage is seperate from the legal rights of marriage.
- Marriage has existed far longer than religion and it was only in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament (religious people re-defined marriage).
- Homosexual couples should be entitled to the 1,138 legal rights of marriage such as Hospital visitation rights and sharing property.
- Some countries, such as China, have no religion but people still get married.


Heterosexists often asign "reproductive ability" as the essential criterion for marriage, overcoming the existence of married infertile heterosexuals through self-delusional semantics:

Common Heterosexist Argument:

"infertile couples still represent that union that is responsible for all human life and thats why they are allowed marriage"

- This counts infertile heterosexual couples and fertile heterosexual couples as the same, or rather, identifies the heterosexuality as a validifying factor of marriage (BECAUSE it allows for procreation) and ignores the infertile aspect of it (which discounts the possability of reproduction).
- This is no more justified than ignoring the homosexual aspect of a homosexual couple's relationships (which is what effectively discounts their possability of reproduction).
- So the false premis is that heterosexuality always equates to reproductive ability.
- The idea that "reproductive ability" is essential to marriage is itself unjustified (as well as flawd, as shown above).

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• marriage
• traditional
• destruction
• redefine
• homosexual
• gay
• fag
• LGBT
• agenda
• poof
• queer
• sexual
• orientation
• debate
• argument
• heterosexism
• bisexual
• homophobia
• moral
• discrimination
• prejudice
• hate
• GLBT
• dyke
• lesbian
• rights
• homos
• sin
• sinful
• wrong
• bad
• ban
• illegal
• civil
• union
• religious
• partnership
• prop
• proposition

[MrAce10plays]

gay men dont really bother me a matter a fact the more gays the better!!! MEENS MORE SINGLE WOWAN FOR ME!!

[Jamieishere1]

If only all straight guys realized that ^^.

[Jamieishere1]

If only all straight guys realized that ^^.

[gulbirk]

I suport gays, i really dont see why w e heteroes should care who other people love. Its not like they are hurting anyone. On the other hand, if your going to debate homosexuality, bringing in religion is redicolous. Taking your moral standards from a 1500 year old book is the enitre definition of stupidity.

[Jamieishere1]

Thanks for the comment and support :). You might like some of the "atheist experience" video's. Think I have 1 or 2 favourated. Some of them had me crying with laughter yesterday.

[Quex01]

FAGGOT FUCK

[hglundahl]

@strikenetter: actually I was just arguing right an hour before that Roman Polanski could have been condemned to death for chosing non-vaginal sex even though the victim was female - under older and better legislations. BUT since those did not apply, I am not against the pardon he received from her.

[gulbirk]

Il check it out. 

[strikenetter]

Good luck, it only takes one conversion regarding discrimination. 1 becomes 2, 2 to 4, etc. Equal rights is worth debating for!

[Jamieishere1]

Me and him are sending eachother large PMs with arguments in atm so hopefully I will convert him to the path of righteousness soon enough ^^. He seems open minded enough to accept that he may be wrong, so we will see how it turns out.