I don't really see any reason why gays shouldn't be given the right married. It's not a privilege to get married, it's a right. And all human beings have that right.
I mean, what could happen if gay marriage was legal? Will the Third World War break out? Will we all get cancer and die? No.

__________________
[Xbox Live ID - vicecityfan][Steam ID - iamsunny]
[Skype - alex.kesa]

__________________

That argument doesn't work both ways. The point alex is trying to make is that there is no justification for keeping gay marriage illegal, therefore it shouldn't be. Just because there isn't justification for something being legal, doesn't mean it shouldn't be as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

__________________


"What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."- The last words of General John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in the American civil war

You can't, that's why we should legalize it and move on.

__________________
[Xbox Live ID - vicecityfan][Steam ID - iamsunny]
[Skype - alex.kesa]

Just like to say it should be legal, if it makes 2 people happy then go for it as in all honesty it effects you in no way at all if they did.

__________________
Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

It's funny how in the united states people propagate this idea of corporations being people as well yet we have yet to see these "people" being placed behind bars for their criminal actions (Sup Goldman Sachs?).

Not really part of the debate but I just wanted to throw that out there... My stance on this debate is on page 18 anyway.

__________________

Props to steve-loser on the old sig.

Gay marriage goes against nature and God. So I have to say no.

If Gay marriage goes against God, there would be more reliable sources within religious texts saying so. If it goes against nature, then you should get off your computer, loose your clothes and go back to eating raw meat if you want to practise what you preach.

__________________


"What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."- The last words of General John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in the American civil war

Looks like someone didn't read the stickies. Your first point is a textbook naturalistic fallacy.

As for your second, it's debatable what the Bible actually says about gay marriage; if the Old Testament is to be followed to the letter, then do you follow kosher? Almost all Christians don't because of the New Testament. One reading says that when Jesus overturned kosher and other such taboos, the Old Testament ban on gay marriage was overturned as part of that group. Other readings say that the ban isn't actually on gay marriage, but on certain forms of prostitution, and the meaning got distorted over time and through translation. There's a few pages on that topic either earlier in this thread or another similar thread; I advise you go read them.

Now, regardless of the outcome of this debate, I'd stake good money that gay marriage will become legally recognized within the next few decades. Interracial marriage went through a similar process; in 1948, California became the first state to accept it, then more states followed. In 1965, the federal government finally resolved the issue once and for all. Throughout history, the United States has shown a consistent pattern of granting rights to minorities previously denied them.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

I have a question?
Seeing as that original post was 5 years ago...
Did ya'll get married or undecided or what has happened?

As for the topic... I am neither for it nor against it.
I believe it just depends on the people I guess.
It's just there

__________________


Road to Insane Final Boss

Inactive for 16 months, good luck getting a reply there, chief.

__________________
Epic sprite by Goatbro
Penguinguy told me what a signshur was.

But if gays are born that way it means it doesn't go against nature, right?
If you believe in all that bull the church is putting into your head: Don't they say that God has power over all and everything? That means nothing can go against the will of God, right?

__________________
[Xbox Live ID - vicecityfan][Steam ID - iamsunny]
[Skype - alex.kesa]

Not like the post is going anywhere, eh?



That's so true. lol.

Also God having power over all and everything them being born as a gay is the way they were intended to be going against nothing except the ethics that people have created for people over time. Let's face it a lot of things people believe go against nature and God are usually the mindset that people have turned to throughout the years.

Everyone deserves to find happiness and whatever that is for them is what was meant for them going not against God, but the people who use false facts.

__________________


Road to Insane Final Boss

They could still be going against god as Satan works against God, and if you follow the devil instead of repenting, you are damned etc

But that's really not here nor there, religion *shouldn't* hold any weight in politics.

The best argument against gay marriage (and still not a very good one) is that it can be seen as unnatural; as every organism's one biological purpose is to reproduce. Gay people cannot do this.

The BEST argument against gay marriage is my dirty, filthy of a baby momma turned lesbian. If she got married to the greasy woman she's with, I might commit several felonies.

There's also a decent argument about children being raised in a gay environment etc

__________________

Awesome Squall sprite courtesy of Goten! Check here if you'd like a runescape or game-themed sprite!

When I look at the State system in the US, especially in areas such as gay marriage it doesn't seem to me that it will ever be resolved at that level, unless the SC rules on it or legislation happens at national level. Otherwise the issue, much like civil rights, slavery, will go on and on. The creation of a lacking will to act on the national level in these areas is in my opinion one of the biggest weaknesses in the Constitution. Obviously this is as the founders intended but it is unfortunate it's being used for these ends.

__________________
|Items and Monster Database Staff|Villager Writer|Guide Writer|
|Legend|
Gamestar is my twin

Hidden: 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's functioning exactly the way it was meant to, as you said.

It's very debatable whether the issue should be left up to the states or the federal government.

I think almost all issues should be left to the States to decide. Whether or not the issue is perceived as 'good' holds no bearing on whether or not the Fed should be the one dealing with it. It shouldn't.

__________________

Awesome Squall sprite courtesy of Goten! Check here if you'd like a runescape or game-themed sprite!

Just out of curiosity, do you think all issues of this nature should be left to the states, including such rights that have been legislated for nationally and via SC decisions historically (gay rights, civil rights, gender rights) or do you think certain rights are necessarily legislated for at the federal level?

__________________
|Items and Monster Database Staff|Villager Writer|Guide Writer|
|Legend|
Gamestar is my twin

Hidden: 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Civil rights issues need to be decided at the federal level.

__________________

Hidden: 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You see that's my position, it's too divisive for the federal government not to get involved in legislating. The 10th amendment though in many ways was set up to prevent federal encroachment, regardless of issue. I see it as the only major flaw in the Constitution (bar maybe the 2nd amendment and allowing slavery).

I'm just interested because the founding of the US Constitution is my thesis topic area and wondered your positions.

__________________
|Items and Monster Database Staff|Villager Writer|Guide Writer|
|Legend|
Gamestar is my twin

Hidden: 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In my honest opinion, the constitution probably was intended for the states to decide issues like this. I feel the constitution is pretty outdated. For an almost 250 year old document, it holds up real well, but there was no way the founding fathers could have envisioned the future. So much of the power has shifted away from the states and to the federal government. I have no doubt that this wasn't how they intended it, but I think for the most part, it has been a natural evolution to what is necessary for our country to operate. And Im a definitely not a big-government guy.

__________________

Hidden: 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!