Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Gay marriage

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 04:58, 15 December 2008 (edit)
TonyPstunts (Talk | contribs)
(No)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 17:11, 16 December 2008 (edit)
J3wSl4y3r1337 (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 1: Line 1:
-<seo title="Debate on Same Sex Marriage" metak="same sex marriage, ban on same sex marriage, same sex marriage debate, homosexuality, gay marriage, DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, homosexual, civil marriage" metad="he gay marriage movement has been developing for well over a decade in the United States. Along with this movement, a strong counter-movement has grown. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 marked a strong federal response and rejection of gay marriage, and was supported by 68% of Americans.[1] The DOMA did two things. First, it recognized the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for all aspects of federal law. Second, it ensured that no State is obligated to accept another State’s non-traditional marriages (or civil unions) by operation of the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause (art. IV, sec. 1). Following the passage of this law, thirty-seven States passed their own constitutional amendments or statutes commonly known as “state DOMAs” that further protect traditional, heterosexual marriage. For a time, this settled the debate. The gay marriage movement, however, continued to grow in support, the American public has become increasingly accepting of the idea (polls showing support between roughly 35% and 45%), and a number of state and municipal governments began challenging the DOMA after the millenia. With this increasing government and public support of the idea of gay marriage, opponents of gay marriage intensified their campaign, and in February 2004 for example, President Bush officially supported legislation designed to constitutionally ban gay marriage. This counter-movement to constitutionally ban gay marriage both on a federal and state level has certainly increased the stakes of the debate. Accompanying the state legislative "DOMAs" banning gay marriage have been a number of challenges and decisions in state supreme courts. In July, 2006, for example, New York’s highest court voted 4-to-2 that a legislative ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the state Constitution. This added to a small list of state rulings on the issue, including those of Indiana and Arizona (both of which also upheld legislative bans) and Massachusetts (which overturned a legislative ban)." />+POO POO
- +
-{|style="font-size:100%; border:1px solid #BAC5FD; " cellpadding="0"+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""|+
-===Is gay marriage wrong and should it be illegal?===+
-|}+
- +
-'''Editing tasks you can help with''' +
-*More pro/con quotations need to be on this debate page. There are too many argument summaries. Quotations can be copied-and-pasted from argument pages (linked to from this debate page) onto the debate page.+
- +
-{| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center"+
-|__TOC__+
-|}+
-{|style="font-size:100%; padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;" cellpadding="5"+
-|-+
-|bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"|+
-===Background and Context of Debate:===+
- +
-The gay marriage movement has been developing for well over a decade in the United States. Along with this movement, a strong counter-movement has grown. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 marked a strong federal response and rejection of gay marriage, and was supported by 68% of Americans.[http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/2003/jd072903.pdf] The DOMA did two things. First, it recognized the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for all aspects of federal law. Second, it ensured that no State is obligated to accept another State’s non-traditional marriages (or civil unions) by operation of the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause (art. IV, sec. 1). Following the passage of this law, thirty-seven States passed their own constitutional amendments or statutes commonly known as “state DOMAs” that further protect traditional, heterosexual marriage. For a time, this settled the debate. The gay marriage movement, however, continued to grow in support, the American public has become increasingly accepting of the idea (polls showing support between roughly 35% and 45%), and a number of state and municipal governments began challenging the DOMA after the millenia. With this increasing government and public support of the idea of gay marriage, opponents of gay marriage intensified their campaign, and in February 2004 for example, President Bush officially supported legislation designed to constitutionally ban gay marriage. This counter-movement to constitutionally ban gay marriage both on a federal and state level has certainly increased the stakes of the debate. Accompanying the state legislative "DOMAs" banning gay marriage have been a number of challenges and decisions in state supreme courts. In July, 2006, for example, New York’s highest court voted 4-to-2 that a legislative ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the state Constitution. This added to a small list of state rulings on the issue, including those of Indiana and Arizona (both of which also upheld legislative bans) and Massachusetts (which overturned a legislative ban).[http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/opinion/14yoshino.html]+
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|}+
-{|+
-|-+
-{|style="font-size:100%; padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;" cellpadding="5"+
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
- +
-===Marriage defined: Should marriage be defined as between a man and a woman?===+
- +
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes====+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman| Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman]]'''. Marriage has always been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between a man and a woman, and has always been regarded primarily as a heterosexual institution. This has involved thousands of years of tradition. The length of this tradition has made it unnecessary to produce a clear definition defining it. But, now that this lengthy tradition of marriage is under threat, its full historical force should be leveled in now defining it as between a man and a woman. If homosexual couples want equal protection under the law, that is one thing, but to call it "marriage" is to violate the rooted tradition and meaning of marriage.+
- +
-*'''Marriage is an institution of religion that should not be state regulated.''' The state has an institution of it's own called "Civil Unions". The state should recognize civil unions between same sex couples, since they should be afforded the same rights under government as any other partnership (i.e. marriage). The idea of marriage should be defined only in the context of religious beliefs and the state should not have any power over what the church deems as appropriate or inappropriate.+
- +
-*'''Marriage between a man and a woman is the basis for creating and defining a family''' It's been this way throughout history, regardless of religion, in ALL societies from primative to developed. It is natural law. It provides the structure for procreating children and then nurturing, educating, and developing them into productive members of society. Each child needs a father and a mother in their upbringing to model both. There is ample evidence that when either are missing, poverty and dysfunction increases (however noble the efforts of the single parent).+
- +
-*'''Regarding marriage, race is a superficial attribute whereas gender is not.''' A man and a woman from different racial backgrounds can unquestionably procreate children and provide father and mother models in nurturing, educating, and developing them. Two people of the same sex simply cannot do this basic marital function. For a judge to compare racial differences to sexual differences (or orientation) shows plain ignorance of biological and historical facts, as well as judicial incompetence.+
- +
-*'''Society needs to improve the institution of marriage, not weaken it'''. Same-sex marriage would be another deterioration to marriage (after no fault divorce), denigrating it to mere illicit cohabitation. +
- +
- +
-|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE YES BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-The presented argument states that the religious institutions of America, NOT the government, should have the power to say whom is fit to be wed and whom is not. +
- +
-'''"Marriage is an institution of religion that should not be state regulated. The state has an institution of it's own called "Civil Unions". The state should recognize civil unions between same sex couples, since they should be afforded the same rights under government as any other partnership (i.e. marriage). The idea of marriage should be defined only in the context of religious beliefs and the state should not have any power over what the church deems as appropriate or inappropriate."'''+
- +
-If this is truly the case. Then why not revoke and nullify all existing and preexisting marriage licenses and have them remade and re-issued by the religious institutions of the nation? If marriage has always been governed over by religious institutions then why the necessity to obtain the permission of the government before a couple is to be married? The United States Of America was founded on separation of Church & State. In this presenters reality, most of modern American "marriages" would be, in fact, civil unions. +
- +
-"Our" ability to wed DOES NOT force those whom don't believe in homosexuality to conform to the lifestyle standards of such.+
-Simply put, "If your against gay marriage, then DON'T HAVE ONE!" +
- +
-The topic of Same Sex Marriages is not an issue of education, the protection of children, economics NOR, the definition of the word "Marriage" in the religious or spiritual forum. +
-When we talk about the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgendered Americans. We then, are speaking about HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS!+
- +
-Because "We the people.." Means US TOO!+
-===Reproduction: Is reproduction the key function of marriage, invaliding gay-marriage? ===+
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes==== +
- +
-*'''[[The institution of marriage is centered around reproduction, disqualifying homosexuals]]''' - Marriage laws are designed in recognition of a unique biological phenomenon. They do not create marriages so much as apply appropriate legal sanctions and privileges to the inherent responsibilities and needs where a man and a woman have or will likely reproduce sexually. Marriage was a means to solidifying and stabilizing families so that reproduction and child-rearing would be more succesful. This is why adoption laws are kept separate - the biological realities are different. So also it is bad jurisprudence to lump pairs of people that are not going to conceive a child together (via a mixing of their DNA) in with those who will. For those morbid people that lay awake at night wondering how they will get into an emergency room with their lovers I suggest a chat with hospital administrators to find out what you can do to ensure access, or maybe switch hospitals. But don't muddy the legal waters by confusing lovers or best friends with those who conceive together. You do realize that best friends are denied access on the same terms as gay lovers and it can be just as disappointing. +
- +
-* '''Reproduction is a key function of marriage, not only reproducing children, but reproducing parents and families.''' Throughout history, regardless of religion, ALL societies from primative to developed have established some form of marriage to reproduce new generations of people. The fabric of society is woven by marriages producing new families with new children, which are nurtured, educated, and developed by a mother and a father into productive members of that society, who then reproduce, in kind, the next generation, each gender becoming a respective mother or father. To the degree that a society or civilization can REPRODUCE good healthy families, it will prosper. This depends on reproducing, not only children, but reproducing good fathers and good mothers by developing role model fathers and role model mothers. +
-* '''Homosexual marriages could only reproduce dysfunction.'''+
- +
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No====+
-*'''[[Argument:Marriage is a ritual centered on the bond between two people and their commitment to each other|Marriage is a ritual centered on the bond between two people and their commitment to each other]]+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:The inability to have children should not prevent marriage| The inability to have children should not prevent marriage]]''' - Infertile couples are able to get married, as fertility is not a strict criteria for marriage. Therefore, the inability of homosexuals to reproduce should not inhibit homosexual marriage, lest a double-standard be applied. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument: Homosexual spouses can helpfully adopt orphaned children| Homosexual spouses can helpfully adopt orphaned children]]''' Many children in the United States, let alone the world are orphaned. Same sex spouses frequently adopt children in need of a family. This is highly socially beneficial. A child receives a family and no additional children are added into an over-populated world. And, gay marriage would increase the adoption rate, since many homosexual spouses will want to start a family just like straight spouses.+
- +
-*'''[[Argument: Some married homosexual women actually do have babies| Some married homosexual women actually do have babies]]''' In this procedure, one woman's egg is implanted into the other woman's body and then fertilize with an unknown donor's sperm. After the baby is born, instead of the father's name being used, the other spouse's names can be stated. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument: Marriage should be about love, not simply to have children| Marriage should be about love, not simply to have children]]''' Having children has nothing to do with getting married. Marriage is a commitment to love and care for your spouse, not an excuse to make babies. People should not marry simply to have children.+
- +
- +
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-===Institution of marriage: Does gay marriage threaten the institution of marriage? ===+
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes==== +
-*'''Gay Marriage takes away from the sanctity of marriage''', and who knows what kind of impact this would have on all other principles of marriage. +
- +
-*'''[[Allowing gay marriage would cause a number of other principles surrounding marriage to come under attack]]''' There are many possible ways in which gay marriage could lead to other attacks on the basic principles of marriage. It is possible that gay marriage will be seen as an opportunity by polygamists and polyamorists to attempt to obtain marriage rights. What logic could stop this if marriage is offered to homosexuals. If the traditional definition of marriage is stretched to include homosexuals, what rationale could prevent it from being stretched to include polygamy and polyamory. The same justifications for gay marriage could be put forward by polygamists and polyamorists; That there relationship is based on love and commitment. And, obviously, if marriage is extended to these groups, the traditional institution of marriage and the principles that it stands on will be damaged.+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Gay-marriage will distract the purpose of marriage from child-rearing, harming child-rearing| Gay marriage will distract the purpose of marriage from child-rearing, harming child-rearing]]''' Homosexual spouses will typically not have child-rearing as a focus, assuming the majority of them do not have or adopt children. This means that the significance of child-rearing in marriage will be further down-played in significance in societies. This will add to social problems of poor, careless parenting.+
- +
-* '''[[The definition of marriage can be traced throughout history, regardless of religion, in ALL societies from primitive to developed.]]''' The very fabric of civilization is woven in and through families, which start in marriage. For a society to lower the definition of marriage to any ceremony between consenting adults is to obliterate that societies respect for the institution and function of marriage. +
- +
-* '''All of the arguments negating this question are comparing against the dysfunctions occurring in worse case marriages.'''+
- +
- +
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No====+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Gay marriage would be no worse for the "institution of marriage" than a number of other existing harmful legal unions| Gay marriage would be no worse for the "institution of marriage" than a number of other existing harmful legal unions]]''' Many menaces to society are allowed to marry. They often become terrible, neglectful parents. Yet, this does not provide cause to deprive these individuals of the right to marry. Even if homosexuals were somehow concluded to be sub-optimal parents, this is not a valid rationale for denying them the right to merry.+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Heterosexuals have done more to weaken the institution of marriage than gays could| Heterosexuals have done more to weaken the institution of marriage than gays could]]''' Heterosexual divorce rates are very high in Western societies. To claim that marriage is some pristine institution to defend against the incursions of homosexuals is to deny it already shaky state. +
- +
-*'''[[Allowing gay marriage would reduce pressure on gays to marry straight, which often leads to divorce and the undermining of the institution of marriage]]''' Homosexuals marrying straight can cause terrible emotional and social strife. By denying marriage to homosexuals, the legitimacy of homosexual relationships is denied, and greater pressure is put on homosexuals to marry straight to meet social standards. This has consequences. Allowing gay marriage would decrease this damaging social pressure on gays to marry straight, which can lead to broken marriages, broken families, and even subsequent suicide.+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Gays strengthen the institution of marriage by showing that want to be a part of it| Gays strengthen the institution of marriage by showing that they want to be a part of it]]''' Homosexuals honor the institution of marriage by pressing so hard for it. They make it clear to society that it is something special.+
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|-+
-|WRITE "NO" CONTENT ABOVE THIS CODE AND BELOW "===NO===" colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-===Parenting: Are homosexual homes bad environments for child-rearing? ===+
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes====+
-*'''[[Argument:Homosexuals do not make good parents because they are not "differentiated" role-models| Homosexuals do not make good parents because they are not "differentiated" role-models]]''' - Children benefit from a balance of male and female, differentiated role models. The unique characteristics of men and women are important to impart on children. Same-sex marriage fundamentally undermines this balanced approach to child-rearing.+
- +
-*'''[[Each child needs a father and a mother in their upbringing to model both.]]''' There is ample evidence that when either are missing, poverty and dysfunction increases (however noble the efforts of the single parent). Homosexuals, regardless of their gender, can never adequately model either mother or father. They can never adequately define "social boundaries" because they have compromised the most basic biological boundary. +
- +
-*'''Homosexuals teach a tolerance toward dysfunctionality.''' Homosexuals inherently champion every dysfunctional cause as a so-called right, the result of which has infected all of society with tolerating dysfunction'''+
- +
-*'''Gay marriage should be compared against average marriages; not worst case ones.''' All of the arguments negating this question are compared against the dysfunctions occurring in worst case marriages.+
- +
- +
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No==== +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Homosexual parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting| Homosexual parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting]]''' Numerous studies indicate that homosexual parenting has proven equally capable as heterosexual parenting. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Children do not need distinct male and female parental role-models| Children do not need distinct male and female parental role-models]]''' What children need first is love, compassion, and care from their parents. In addition, children are highly influenced by their social environment as much as their parents, making it unreasonable to place such a high importance on the attributes that parents display. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:The quality of parenting should not be a factor in legalizing gay marriage, as it is not a legal factor in ordinary marriages| The quality of parenting should not be a factor in legalizing gay marriage, as it is not a legal factor in ordinary marriages]]''' Many characteristics of individuals would lead one to believe that there is a high probability that they will be bad parents, but this cannot cause the state to ban these individuals from becoming married parents. Neither should it for gay couples.+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Most health care organizations support gay parenting as equally capable as heterosexual parenting| Most health care organizations support gay parenting as equally capable as heterosexual parenting]]''' These organizations are the most capable of determining the capabilities of homosexuals to perform dutifully as parents. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Children always benefit from having two parents opposed to just one, regardless of whether they are straight or not| Children always benefit from having two parents opposed to just one, regardless of whether they are straight or not]]''' "Single-parent mom" is an all too frequent term. It is costly to children, primarily from the standpoint of having half the support that a child deserves. Married gay couples can provide twice the support that a single parent can provide, and this is always a good thing.+
- +
-*'''[[Argument: Heterosexual couples often "recklessly procreate"; gay adoption is deliberate| Heterosexual couples often "recklessly procreate"; gay adoption is deliberate]]''' This means that homosexuals are less likely to become accidental parents, who are much more likely to become neglectful parents.+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Gay couples are raising children now, but at a disadvantage without the benefits of marriage| Gay couples are raising children now, but at a disadvantage without the benefits of marriage]]''' Gay couples currently have the right to raise children and they are exercising that right. So, first, to claim that denying them marriage is somehow protecting children is counter to the de facto reality. Second, those homosexual couples that choose to raise children, but who are denied marriage, are denied the benefits to child-rearing that marriage offers. This is unfair to the children of homosexual couples.+
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-===Religious arguments: Is same-sex marriage wrong on religious grounds? ===+
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes====+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:The bible opposes homosexuality| The bible opposes homosexuality]]''', and thus gay marriage. The importance of the Bible in guiding Western moral codes is very high. If the Bible opposes homosexuality and gay marriage, than it should be trusted and followed. While the separation of Church and state exists, the importance of the bible to the development of national principles cannot be denied and should leave room for the moral guidance of the bible in influencing policy against gay marriage. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Religious organizations oppose homosexuality| Religious organizations oppose homosexuality]]''' Many religious bodies oppose homosexuality and, obviously then, gay marriage. Many of these organizations are the moral foundation of national constitutions and principles. While a separation of church and state should be uphold, the moral guidance of religious organizations should not be denied.+
- +
-*'''[[Argument:The legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to an attack against religious institutions| The legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to an attack against religious institutions]]''' If gay marriages are sanctioned, religious organizations that don’t allow homosexual marriages and don’t recognize gay marriage as legitimate will come under attack for their beliefs and when preaching the bible. It may even come that preaching the bible and the same religion the United States was built upon, will be unconstitutional, charged with hate crimes. +
- +
-*'''[[Position:The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage| The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage]]''' The Catholic Church is the most prominent of Christian institutions. The Vatican's opposition to gay marriage carries significant weight against the notion of gay marriage. +
- +
-*'''[[Prominent faith-based cases that marriage is between a man and a woman]]'''+
- +
-* '''[[ALL major world religions support marriage between a man and a woman.]]''' While some support multiple wives, '''NONE support homosexuals marrying'''. Religion recognizes the central importance of "creation of family" as the fabric of the human race. To the extent that mankind recognizes spiritual importance and the source of all creation, mankind must raise marriage to a Sacramental elevation. We are free to worship as we ought, and free to define just how to elevate marriage. But '''the fact that religion elevates marriage does not segregate it into a religious-only institution.''' The fact remains that throughout history, regardless of religion, ALL societies from primitive to developed have established some form of marriage to reproduce new generations of people. +
- +
- +
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No==== +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Separation of church and state principles disallow any religious doctrines being involved in the making of law| Separation of church and state principles disallow any religious doctrines being involved in the making of law]]''' Because gay marriage is principally a state legal issue, Church involvement would be entirely inappropriate. +
- +
-*Freedom of religion principles mean that anti-homosexual principles of one religion (often in Christianity) should not be forced onto those of other faiths. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Many faith groups welcome gay marriage| Many faith groups welcome gay marriage]]'''. The Pagan religion Wicca, for example, has "hand-fasting" which is equivalent to a wedding, and which does not exclude homosexuals. There are other examples of religions that accept homosexual marriage. Therefore, we need to look at everyone and not just one religion. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Civil marriages don not interfere with a Church's freedom to deny its own marriage services to gays| Civil marriages don not interfere with a Church's freedom to deny its own marriage services to gays]]''' +
- +
-*'''[[Argument:Biblical passages that are claimed by anti-gay believers to condemn homosexuality are being misinterpreted by these groups| Biblical passages that are claimed by anti-gay believers to condemn homosexuality are being misinterpreted by these groups]]''' The Bible does not actually give any mention to homosexuality as a whole, but only homosexual acts. It does condemn certain specific homosexual acts, but in a context that does not clearly indicate a condemnation of homosexuality. For example, the Sodomites were condemned to death by God before sodomy was performed. The act of sodomy in that specific, inappropriate context was condemned, but should not be misinterpreted as the cause of the ultimate condemnation of the Sodomites. +
- +
-*'''[[Argument: The United States was founded on religious freedom| The United States was founded on religious freedom]]''' Many people say that the U.S. was founded on religion. This is only partially true. The United States was actually founded on freedom of religion (or the lack thereof), and religion should not play a role in any laws made.+
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|-+
-|WRITE "NO" CONTENT ABOVE THIS CODE AND BELOW "===NO===" colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-===Economics: Would same-sex marriage be damaging economically?===+
- +
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes====+
- +
-*'''[[Gay marriage's legal benefits would strain taxpayers]]''' - While it is true that homosexuals would benefit financial by getting married and receiving the benefits of marriage, that is actually a concern in many people's eyes. The concern is simply that a change in law that allows same-sex marriage will suddenly create a major financial strain on taxpayers that fund marriage benefits. Hundreds of thousands of same-sex marriages would result from any cross-the-board legalization. Given the significance of the benefits provided to married couples, the new strains would be substantial on tax-payers. +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No====+
- +
-*'''[[Gay marriage would encourage lasting, stable commitments among homosexuals]]''' It is, to some extent, true that the homosexual culture suffers from a lack of commitment-making between partners. Marriage could certainly help strengthen commitment-making between homosexual partners, which would have many socially positive effects. And, after all, isn't this the main purposes behind the heterosexual institution of marriage? +
- +
-*'''[[Non-procreation between gays is good for an overpopulated world]]''' The inability of gays to procreate should not be seen as a problem and prohibitive factor in their getting married. Rather, this is a good thing in an over-populated world.+
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|-+
-|WRITE "NO" CONTENT ABOVE THIS CODE AND BELOW "===NO===" colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-===Alternatives: Are there adequate alternatives for homosexuals?===+
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes====+
-*'''Also known as the “love contract”''', the registration of the union of gay couples has been carried out successfully in countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Spain. This would be an avenue for gay couples to declare their union to the world. The practice in countries which implement this system is to allow registered couples to be entitled to joint insurance coverage and to allow them to file for joint tax returns as well as inheritance and tenants’ rights. On the other hand, such a proposal makes no incursions into the sanctity of the institution of marriage itself, thereby proving acceptable to the religious sections of society.+
- +
-*[[Civil unions are a more politically feasible goal than gay marriage]] +
-*[[Civil unions would be a fair compromise and middle ground]] +
-*[[Civil unions can be made available to straight couples too to avoid accusations of them being "separate but unequal"]]+
- +
-* '''[[Civil Unions would provide all the "rights" that could be somewhat justified by valid argument.]]''' Of course it would be "separate and unequal" to marriage, because IT IS ... by natural law. Of course the cultural importance of marriage would cause it to be insufficient to homosexual activists, but IF there were gay marriage, then marriage would LOOSE all its cultural importance. '''A union between homosexuals can NEVER BE more than a Civil Union.''' +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No====+
- +
-*'''[[Civil unions create a "separate and thus unequal" problem]]''' Any proposed alternative to marriage itself would be unacceptable as “registered” gay couples would still not enjoy completely equal rights as married heterosexual couples in society. This would also fuel the idea that registered gay couples enjoy an inferior status to married heterosexual couples, thereby giving rise to discrimination all over again.+
-*[[The cultural importance of "marriage" makes civil unions insufficient]]+
-*[[Civil unions are frequently unequal to marriage in benefits and rights]] +
-*[[Gay marriage would be met by fewer instances of cross-state discrimination than civil unions]] +
- +
- +
- +
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-===Homosexuality: Is homosexuality always wrong, making gay-marriage always wrong?===+
- +
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes==== +
- +
-*See [[Debate:Homosexuality]] +
- +
-|WRITE "YES" CONTENT ABOVE THIS CODE AND BELOW "===YES===" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No====+
- +
-*See [[Debate:Homosexuality]] +
- +
-|-+
-|WRITE "NO" CONTENT ABOVE THIS CODE AND BELOW "===NO===" colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-===Activist groups===+
- +
-|-+
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION ABOVE THIS CODE BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes====+
- +
-*[http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog/2003_11_30_mdblog_archive.htm Institute for Marriage and Public Policy]+
-*Abiding Truth Ministries: Defending the Family - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*American Family Association - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Americans for Truth - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Campaign for Working Families - Christian Anti-Gay Rights PAC+
-*Center for Reclaiming America - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Christian Coalition of America - Christian Anti-Gay Rights PAC+
-*Culture & Family Institute - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Exodus International - Christian "Ex-Gays" Organization+
-*Family Research Council - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Focus on the Family - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Forerunner International: Homosexuality - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*GodHatesFags.com - Radical Christian Anti-Gay Organization+
-*NoGayMarriage.com - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Repent America - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
-*Save Our Scouts - Anti-Gay Rights (Pro-BSA) Organization+
-*Traditional Values Coalition - Christian Anti-Gay Rights Organization+
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No====+
- +
-*[http://www.advocate.com/ Advocate] - Gay News Magazine+
-*[http://www.glbva.org/ American Veterans for Equal Rights] - Gay Veterans+
-*[http://www.blogactive.com/ BlogActive] - Liberal Gay Political News+
-*[http://www.dontamend.com/ Equality Campaign] - Gay Political Organization+
-*[http://www.freedomtomarry.org/ Freedom to Marry Coalition] - Pro-Gay Marriage Organization+
-*[http://www.glad.org/ Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders] - Gay Legal Organization+
-*[http://www.glaad.org/ Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)] - Gay Organization+
-*[http://www.victoryfund.org/home Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund] - Liberal Gay PAC+
-*[http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/Gay News Blog] - Gay News Site+
-*[http://www.goodasyou.org/ GoodAsYou.org] - Gay News Site+
-*[http://www.hrc.org/ Human Rights Campaign] - Gay PAC+
-*[http://www.indegayforum.org/ Independent Gay Forum] - Gay Libertarians & Conservatives+
-*[http://www.lavendergreens.org/ Lavender Green Caucus (Green Party)] - Gay Greens+
-*[http://online.logcabin.org/ Log Cabin Republicans] - Gay Republicans+
-*[http://www.marriageequality.org/meusa/ Marriage Equality USA] - Gay Organization+
-*[http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home Metropolitan Community Churches] - Gay Christians+
-*[http://www.nbjcoalition.org/ National Black Justice Coalition] - Gay African-Americans+
-*[http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer National Center for Lesbian Rights] - Gay Organization+
-*[http://www.thetaskforce.org/ National Gay & Lesbian Task Force] - Liberal Gay Organization+
-*National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association - Gay Organization+
-*Outright Libertarians - Gay Libertarians+
-*National Stonewall Democratic Federation - Gay Democrats+
-*PageOneQ - Liberal Gay News Site+
-*Parents & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG) - Pro-Gay Organization+
-*Planet Out: NewsPlanet - Gay News/Resource+
-*Rainbow World Fund - Gay Humanitarian Service Organization+
-*Republican Unity Coalition - Pro-Gay Republicans+
-*Mike Signorile - Gay Liberal Columnist+
-*Andrew Sullivan - Gay Conservative Columnist+
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
- +
-===Pro/con resources===+
- +
-|-+
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes====+
- +
-*[http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459758 "The case for gay marriage". The Economist. February 26th, 2004] +
- +
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====No====+
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-===YouTube videos pro and con===+
- +
-|-+
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
-====Yes====+
- +
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
- +
-====No====+
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|+
- +
-==References:==+
-* Experts with evidence [http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-marriage-for-same-sex-couples-be-legal debate same-sex marriage at Opposing Views]+
-==Motions:==+
-* This House would allow gay couples to marry+
-* This House would give homosexuals equal rights+
-* This House believes that discrimination can never be justified+
- +
-==In legislation, policy, and the real world:==+
- +
-==See also on Debatepedia:==+
- +
-==External links and resources:==+
-* [http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-marriage-for-same-sex-couples-be-legal Opposing Views debate on same sex marriage]+
-* [http://www.gaymarriedmen.org GayMarriedMen.Org]+
-* [http://www.rainbowguide.com RainbowGuide.Com]+
-* [http://www.pe.net/~bidstrup/marriage.htm Gay Marriage]+
-* [http://www.uninews.com/uni/text/newsltr/gaymarriage.html Californians Say No to Gay Marriages]+
-* [http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/netherlands000908.html Legal Gay Marriages in the Netherlands]+
-* [http://www.open.gov.uk/lcd/speeches/1998/nmw_.htm National Marriage Week]+
-==Books:==+
-* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674004418/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 The Trouble with Normal – Sex, Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life] : Michael Warner+
-* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231103921/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Recognizing Ourselves – Ceremonies of Lesbian and Gay Commitment] : Ellen Lewis+
-* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807079375/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Freedom, Glorious Freedom] : John Mcneill+
-* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566396832/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Queer Family Values - Rethinking Inclusion in Marriage and Private Life] : Valerie Lehr+
- +
-==Videos==+
-[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o]+
- +
- +
-|}+
-[[Category:Debatabase]]+
-[[Category:Moral]]+
-[[Category:Legislation and policy]]+
-[[Category:Homosexuality]]+
-[[Category:Individual rights]]+
-[[Category:2008 US presidential elections]]+
-[[Category:Global priorities]]+

Revision as of 17:11, 16 December 2008

POO POO

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.