Gay Marriage

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

Just_Jackie
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:38 am

Gay Marriage

Postby Just_Jackie » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:33 am

For my Spanish class, I have to be involved in a debate that will also serve as an oral exam. After begging my professor, he allowed me to be on the pro side of the gay marriage issue. So, I'm posting my argument, in English and requesting any constructive feedback. Maybe I left out a point or someone knows a recent event I am not aware of etc etc...whatever we decide to use will be translated later.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separation of Church and State

A large number of those who object to gay marriage do so due to religious beliefs. While everyone’s religious beliefs should be respected, they should not be allowed to be used to promote discrimination.
It is a well known fact that America has a separation of church and state that prevents any one religious group from dictating law. It not only protects religion but it also protects from religion. If a group of peoples motivation for barring a group from doing something is their religion, then that should be taken into consideration. For example, one of the largest donors to California’s Proposition 8 was the Mormon Church.

It could also be argued that religion is a less than acceptable means for creating laws.

Some people’s religious beliefs state that women should be forced to cover their whole bodies before leaving the house. If they don’t they are stoned to death.

Some religions forbid you to speak to a mother while she’s giving birth.

There is a religion called, “Woodism” that views infamous film director Ed Wood as their savior.

Also, in American society, marriage is not only about religion. It legally links two people together when dealing with issues that are central to the life of any American. Such as inheritance, insurance, adoption, right to life, right to die and next of kin. These are clearly issues that should be separate from religion and kept as a private decision of two people and their families.

Separate But Equal/Civil Unions/Jim Crow Laws

There are ways to marry without the use of religion. It is very common. In fact, atheists can go before a state court and be married without any religious involvement at all. This is called a civil marriage. A civil marriage is defined as “a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale”. This is very similar, if not identical, to the civil union that some people want to give to homosexual couples in place of a normal marriage. I would ask, however, why create another type of union between two people instead of just protecting everyone under the one that already exists? A civil marriage allows homosexual couples all of the necessary legal rights awarded to married people and still protects religious institutions from having to be involved with things they don’t agree with.

The idea of a “civil union” also implies discrimination. The idea that homosexuals are being forced into something that gives them something “exactly like” what the majority has, while still keeping them separate reminds one of the term, “separate but equal”. The last time American had that it was called The Jim Crow Laws. These laws were thankfully ruled unconstitutional by famous court cases such as Brown v. The Board of Education. Hopefully, laws encouraging discrimination against minorities will stay in the past.


Affects on tax revenue.

According to the 2000 US Census, 600,000 households, or about 1.2 million people, listed themselves as cohabitating with a “partner” of the same sex instead of a “roommate” or “housemate”. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if those 1.2 million people would have been allowed to marry, tax revenue would have been increased by about $400 million a year from 2005 to 2010. That equals out to $2 billion dollars. That number would grow to $500 to $700 million annually after 2010 due to the expiration of the Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.

Even the source that I got this information from will tell you these numbers are a very small amount when you look at the amount of taxes brought in by the larger US population at a little over 307 million people. However, when you consider that Americas national deficit is currently $11,606,222,920717.85, it could be said that $2 billion dollars simply for insuring the civil rights of a minority seems like something to consider.

Unfortunately, homosexual marriage is banned in places such as California. But the idea of putting the rights of a minority to a vote by the majority is a flawed system at best. Imagine putting the rights of African-Americans to a vote by white people. Or the rights of women to a male vote. This would never happen, so the fact it is happening to America’s homosexual population raises a lot of questions about how far America really has come in its desire to truly become “the land of the free”. Slowly, society does come around on such civil rights isses, and I am hopeful, with a bit of education, America will not treat its homosexual minority the way it has treated its racial minority.
acountabilibuddy3
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby acountabilibuddy3 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:15 am

I agree people should be able to marry who ever they want
RULE # 1
acountabilibuddy3 is never wrong
Rule # 2
If acountabilibuddy3 is wrong see rule number one
Rule # 3
Never say pie.
click this link if you like slash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSId35cJlJs :)
JohnHorn
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby JohnHorn » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:37 am

to be honest their should be secular wedding rituals if you ask me :roll: .
if you ask me separation of church and state means the state isn't allowed to pass a religious law but that the state can not make laws involving religion.
so the state should not be able to ass a law banning gay marriage however should the state be allowed to ratify a religious ceremony?
Pip Tweek
Posts: 5101
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:15 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Pip Tweek » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:02 pm

civil marriage. A civil marriage is defined as “a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale”. This is very similar, if not identical, to the civil union that some people want to give to homosexual couples in place of a normal marriage. I would ask, however, why create another type of union between two people instead of just protecting everyone under the one that already exists? A civil marriage allows homosexual couples all of the necessary legal rights awarded to married people and still protects religious institutions from having to be involved with things they don’t agree with.


I see this as the heart of the argument. The Jim Crow laws and tax revenue arguments are relevant aspects, but they don't seem to really drive the point home the way the above paragraph does. Allow gays to have a civil marriage just like atheists are allowed and everyone should be happy and humankind can f*cking finally move on.
Kelly MacCornmac
Posts: 6142
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:05 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Kelly MacCornmac » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:58 pm

Civil marriages doesn't have all the benefits that regular marriage does though, because separate isn't equal.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding ... rriage.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Huma ... fault.aspx


I will be talking against gay marriage right now.

It's not really about the "gay" part of marriage, but marriage it self. You see, the government basically supports official couples. I think that it should not support it at all, because it's not only bounded by religion, but also it does not support unofficial couples, singles, or polygamists as well. By this I mean, don't let the government support marriage but only have it as a title. That way, churches can do whatever they like, but there would be no benefits for them or for the people in marriage. This includes Civil Union too. It would be more equal too, because everybody would have the same benefits as just one person...
Causing havoc on the BBS one post at a time

Officially supports the de-perma of GTA, Mike, Cartman, and possibly others


SPU! Join it!
Pip Tweek
Posts: 5101
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:15 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Pip Tweek » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:41 pm

Kelly MacCornmac wrote:
I will be talking against marriage right now.

You see, the government basically supports official couples. I think that it should not support it at all, because it's not only bounded by religion, but also it does not support unofficial couples, singles, or polygamists as well. By this I mean, don't let the government support marriage but only have it as a title. That way, churches can do whatever they like, but there would be no benefits for them or for the people in marriage. This includes Civil Union too. It would be more equal too, because everybody would have the same benefits as just one person...


I completely agree with this. But society will never accept this as a solution because it makes too much sense.
Just_Jackie
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:38 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Just_Jackie » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:47 pm

Kelly MacCornmac wrote:I will be talking against gay marriage right now.

It's not really about the "gay" part of marriage, but marriage it self. You see, the government basically supports official couples. I think that it should not support it at all, because it's not only bounded by religion, but also it does not support unofficial couples, singles, or polygamists as well. By this I mean, don't let the government support marriage but only have it as a title. That way, churches can do whatever they like, but there would be no benefits for them or for the people in marriage. This includes Civil Union too. It would be more equal too, because everybody would have the same benefits as just one person...


I agree with this. Because of the fact that the government supports marriage, it is a huge dominating factor in a persons life. And in some ways it takes away some choices people have.

For example, with the insurance some people receive via their jobs...you always see plans that cover you and your spouse. Well...what if I don't want to cover my spouse? My boyfriend has twice the education I have so his jobs will always be better than mine, hence will probably have better insurance. He won't need anymore. What if I want to cover....a sibling instead? I would essentially have to marry my sister. :?

I personally would rather make these decisions for myself.

Anyway, the people in my group said my info was too complicated. :( I dunno I thought it was pretty straight forward. But we cut it down into simpler sentences so it would be easier to translate, I guess.
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18981
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Big-Will » Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:32 pm

­¿Supongo que no es muy avanzada tu clase de español?

­¿Cómo presentarías tu argumento en español? ­¿Piensas que es muy dificil traducir todo lo que escribiste?
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
Just_Jackie
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:38 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Just_Jackie » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:06 am

Big-Will wrote:­¿Supongo que no es muy avanzada tu clase de español?

­¿Cómo presentarías tu argumento en español? ­¿Piensas que es muy dificil traducir todo lo que escribiste?


Supongo que era mi puesto en un traductor en línea y, a continuación fijar los errores.

Supongo "Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act" que sería difícil de traducir.
StephenAbootman
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:32 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby StephenAbootman » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:58 am

Unfortunately for the advocates of individualism, that simply won't cut it.

Individualism is a new idea that has not quite been tested yet...to do away with the institution of marriage all together is to say that humans are at their best when they are alone. That sounds like something Randy would say...then move out to the mountains to establish a hermitage.

Personally, I think that blows.
Just_Jackie
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:38 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Just_Jackie » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:42 am

StephenAbootman wrote:Unfortunately for the advocates of individualism, that simply won't cut it.

Individualism is a new idea that has not quite been tested yet...to do away with the institution of marriage all together is to say that humans are at their best when they are alone. That sounds like something Randy would say...then move out to the mountains to establish a hermitage.

Personally, I think that blows.


Well, as much as I like the idea of individualism, there is no way I would want to spend my life alone.

Besides, I thought individualism was about shaking cultural expectations of oneself based on race, gender etc and just living ones life the way you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18981
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Big-Will » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:53 am

StephenAbootman wrote:Unfortunately for the advocates of individualism, that simply won't cut it.

Individualism is a new idea that has not quite been tested yet...to do away with the institution of marriage all together is to say that humans are at their best when they are alone. That sounds like something Randy would say...then move out to the mountains to establish a hermitage.

Personally, I think that blows.

What, you want all of us to be recluses?
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
Kelly MacCornmac
Posts: 6142
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:05 am

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Kelly MacCornmac » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:50 pm

StephenAbootman wrote:Unfortunately for the advocates of individualism, that simply won't cut it.

Individualism is a new idea that has not quite been tested yet...to do away with the institution of marriage all together is to say that humans are at their best when they are alone. That sounds like something Randy would say...then move out to the mountains to establish a hermitage.

Personally, I think that blows.

To do away with marriage all together does not say that humans are best alone, but to say that the government has no business in it. Anyways, even if marriage was taken away, you can live with other people.
Causing havoc on the BBS one post at a time

Officially supports the de-perma of GTA, Mike, Cartman, and possibly others


SPU! Join it!
Erwoks
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:01 pm

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Erwoks » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:58 pm

There's really no debate; if you have a problem with certain people getting married, that's your problem. If the church has a problem with it, its their problem. Gay marriage doesn't hurt others or infringe on others' freedom, so the government has no reason to make it illegal.

What needs fixing is the term "marriage;" there should be a difference between the legal term and the religious term. The current method of getting government approval for a married status (which gives certain tax benefits to people living in the same house) requires the sanction of a religious leader, and seems like a pretty frikin' HUGE violation of the constitution's separation of church and state.
Last edited by Erwoks on Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Jay C
Posts: 4299
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:33 pm

Re: Gay Marriage

Postby Jay C » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:34 pm

Just_Jackie wrote:
Big-Will wrote:­¿Supongo que no es muy avanzada tu clase de español?

­¿Cómo presentarías tu argumento en español? ­¿Piensas que es muy dificil traducir todo lo que escribiste?


Supongo que era mi puesto en un traductor en línea y, a continuación fijar los errores.

Supongo "Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act" que sería difícil de traducir.

HEY THIS IS AN ENGLISH SPEAKING BOARD IF YOU WANT TO TALK YOUR GARBAGE WHY DONT YOU GO BACK TO AUSTRALAYSIA OR WHEREEVER YOU DAMN PUSSIES COME FROM

I can't remember who said it and I can't remember the context, yet the basic idea was that the argument against gay marriage that states that marriage is sacred should look at the abundance of "I want to marry a millionaire"/"I married a racoon"/"48 hour divorce" bullsh*t television shows there are out there. That should reevaluate how 'sacred' it is.

EDIT: It's Chris Rock and I should feel ashamed for forgetting that.
Read my horrible webcomic you fat assh*le!

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests