Debateful

Do you think that gay marriage should be legalized or do you believe that a marriage should strictly be between a man and a woman? Many homosexuals and supporters of gay marriages argue that marriage is about love and that the same gender should have the right to express it.

If you think it's a good idea to legalize it, why? If not, why?

I’d say no. It was in Canada, and I think it is pointless. Civil unions and benefit exchanges have been allowed for years! Look at J Edgar Hoover! He left his estate to his boyfriend.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Look at the Romans! They had same-sex relationships, the same as today. You didn’t see them letting homosexuals get married. Why was that?

But anyway, after it was legalized in Canada, a Lesbian couple tried to get a divorce… But they couldn’t legally divorce. I read that a while back and laughed my [censored] off. It seems that even though marriage laws were changed to include same sex couples, the same didn’t apply for getting a Divorce. Legally, it was still listed legally as an action taken between a man and a woman. The courts quickly changed the law, but it was still pretty funny.

I say down with them.

Gay people are going against the laws of sciences, and it is morally wrong. It's just not in human nature to be gay.

I highly agree with you. Less homosexuals will actually benefit the earth.
The human race can live the way it was supposed to be lived, and with less people in the world the less resources will be lost.

No gay marriage should not be legalized. Marriage is for a man and a woman as stated in the bible. Its like saying should marriage between a man and a dog be legalized. Just aint gonna happen. Its not natural.

That is exactly why humans should not have homosexual relationships. God didn't create humans to be homosexual. We were supposed to find a mate with the opposite gender and reproduce. There was nothing in the bible about gay stuff.

The argument that homosexual activity is not "natural" is flawed. You can define a lot of stuff as natural or unnatural, yet our legal system does not abide by it. Murder, for example, is a very natural impulse, yet we criminalize it in almost all of its incarnations. In the same way, you cannot simply say that gay marriage should be illegal because it is unnatural--the legal system does not correlate directly with what is "natural." Furthermore, if nature is defined by what the status quo of creatures, namely animals, do, then research has shown that homosexuality is exhibited in one form or another in almost every single species.
I think we should allow gay marriage, because if you think about it, it does not infringe upon the three natural rights of others outlined by Jefferson and enlightenment thinkers--life, liberty, and property (or pursuit of happiness). And that is the establishment of this nation.

Well it just so happens that gay marriage does infringe on my happiness. If you walked down the street and saw two gay men kissing would you feel happy? Personally, I'd feel disgusted. I think the word "natural" can be interpreted in many ways but what we all mean by natural is that the design originally meant for humans. We weren't bred to become homosexuals nor were we bred to kill each other. We are suppose to work together and work as one and not be gay. You cannot compare us to animals because what is natural to us is not natural to other creatures. Humans and animals are different.

wiiaddict Wrote:Well it just so happens that gay marriage does infringe on my happiness. If you walked down the street and saw two gay men kissing would you feel happy? Personally, I'd feel disgusted. I think the word "natural" can be interpreted in many ways but what we all mean by natural is that the design originally meant for humans. We weren't bred to become homosexuals nor were we bred to kill each other. We are suppose to work together and work as one and not be gay. You cannot compare us to animals because what is natural to us is not natural to other creatures. Humans and animals are different.

You being disgusted is not enough to merit taking away the happiness of others. I could say that I'm disgusted by right-wing evangelicals, but that doesn't mean their churches should be abolished. There is, of course, a correlation between inherent disgust and definitive pain, and a point where government must intervene to stop it, and it is a very subjective area. Nevertheless, if you cannot ignore two people kissing in the streets, and it irks you to the point where you believe government must intervene, then you have low overall tolerance. I myself find homosexuality an unsightly and, yes, "unnatural" outgrowth of human behavior, but I cannot use these personal beliefs as a mantra for government policy.
And let me ask you, what is "meant" for humans then? If you base your ideas off of Darwinism and natural selection, there is indeed no place for homosexuality in a practical manner. Yet, it is seen in nature. You cannot argue on stance that humans and animals are separate in this sense because "nature" intertwines the two so strongly in the evolutionary theory. We are, in fact, animals. However, I sense some religious connotation behind the word "design." If you are basing your ideas off of religion, then they cannot be applied to our government. This is strictly written in The Constitution, that there should be separation between church and state.

I'm not basing my perspectives on religion but more on science and facts. It is fact that two oppositely charged particles are suppose to attract according to physics. I'd like to use this as a universal law for everything dealing with life. It is natural for people to be attracted to the opposite sex however it is not natural for the same sex to attract each other. I based this unnaturalness on scientific knowledge.