we are doing a debate in my research class and we have the topic same sex marriages. i need good questions to debate about.
212629
If all the loving and nurturing and longevity of a marriage is what we are worried about, how would the fact that those who love and nurture each other are the same sex make their union different in the eyes of the State?
643220
What are some of these people talking about?  Citations to the Weekly Standard?  Now there is a reliable source, full of articles that have no references to studies or research or anything!  Must be true, right?  Perhaps marriage rates have dropped in Scandanavia because people realize that most marriages end in divorce so why bother?  Or perhaps they are just more evolved than we are (imagine that!).  Just because it is in print or on the Internet doesn't make it true.\n\nMarry your cat?  When your cat has the legal ability to consent to the marriage, then I'm happy to allow you to marry your cat.  Do people not understand what a b.s. argument that is, and how distinguishable it is from reality?  The point of gay marriage is that two consenting adults want to be recognized under the law as equal citizens.  This is why 8 year old children cannot marry, nor can anyone or anything that is incapable of CONSENT.  \n\nHomosexuality is not a hard topic.  Nor is equal rights.  There is simply no compelling reason to continue to deny the gay community this unbelievably important civil right.  Not even the bible is compelling enough--if your religion doesn't approve, your church doesn't have to perform gay marriages.  The government is separate from religion, and it must protect the rights of all, not just the many.
392350
Hopefully sooner rather than later.  I have a link that outlines the recent history of the same sex marriage legal battle in California along with a collection of relevant links at the bottom.  Hope it helps!\n\nOh, and the second link is to a same-sex marriage advocacy organization in Cali.  Hope THAT helps too!
425686
it depends on how much deep you go on the subjects if its going to be innapropiate. i mean some homosexual people dont really have a cause but others do..like if they were abused when they were infants.\n\nyou can talk about the adoption of a child in a married couple that is really a struggle.\nmaybe talk  about the reaction of their families when they tell them the truth \nanother topic could be the homofobic people in the sociery and how they degrade them,\n\ni hope this work for you, good luck\nps: dont forget to choose me as best answer...lol
515980
hmm lets see\n\norgan donation is a hot topic  in the Orthodox movement. \n\nanything doing with ethical issues with the Israeli military conduct in war.\n\ntheir is a huge fight brewing in the Conservative movement over Homosexual issues.\n\nthose are the ones off the top of my head I recommend 1 or 3
50548
This debate has clarified for me that the government shouldn't really be in the marriage business.  Let the churches perform marriages for whomever they think fit, and let the government simply record the marraiges or civil unions and grant equal rights to them all.  As for plural "marriages,"  they exist, but there is not a sizable part of the population which supports them.  That is a different debate for another day, and the issues are quite different.  In my mind, the purpose of marriage or civil union is to provide support to individuals, especially when they are raising children.  Some of the most monogamous couples I know are gay, and they are some of the best parents too.
67135
Heron, you should to get this book for your paper called "Congregations in Conflict" by Keith Hartman, it is this case by case study of how different religious groups in this one area dealt with homosexuality.  It covers lutherans, baptists, methodists, quakers, and more.  Just an excellent resource.  It is more about gay people within mainline churches however.\n\nAnd here is some more stuff from another thread.\n\nFirst, a lot of people have mentioned MCC, however there are other sects/denominations that do not think homosexuality is in conflict with Christianity. They are\n\nDignity for Catholics http://www.dignityusa.org/\nUnited Church of Christ http://www.ucc.org/\nUnitarian Universalists http://www.uua.org/\nQuakers http://www.quaker.org/\nEven the Evangelicals have a wing in the UK http://www.eflgc.org.uk/\n\nSpeaking of the UK, you NEED to check out courage, they used to be rabidly anti-gay and then completely flip flopped, very interesting stuff.\nhttp://www.courage.org.uk/\n\nThere are also many individual American Baptist, Methodist, and Lutheran Churchs that do not think homosexuality is a problem, but those can be found on a case by case basis.\n\nHere is short booklist on gay Christians\nStranger at the Gate - By Mel White (founder of SoulForce)\nWhen We Talk about God let's be Honest - By Kirby Godsey\nThe Preacher's Son - By Marc Adams\nIs the Homosexual my Neighbor? - By Scanzoni and Mollenkott\n\nThere are also some good gay and christian websites and blogs\nhttp://www.soulforce.org/\nhttp://www.gaychristians.org/\nhttp://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/...\nhttp://www.gaychristian.net/\nhttp://www.whosoever.org/\nhttp://www.gaychristianblog.com/...\nhttp://www.christiangays.com/\nhttp://www.gaychristianonline.org/...\nhttp://religion.gaynewsblog.net/...\nhttp://www.familyacceptance.com/...\nhttp://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/index.htm...\n\nThere are even gay Christian personals:\nhttp://www.gayharmony.net/
349404
Check out http://www.ClassTopic.com They have some great topics that I've used in the past. Each topic has three good sources to get you started on the research, too.
521118
Gay Marriage\nThe wall that will be dividing Mexico with the US\nshootings in school\nRacism
561300
same sex relationships dont bother me in the slightest. yes i believe they should be allowed, and yes, it should be called Marriage. I'm straight too, so i dont think this affects me on any level, but i try to look at it from a different standpoint...what if i were straight, in a world that was homosexual? what if i was the minority, wanting the right to marry someone of the opposite gender?
519013
In all seriousness, I know a lot of gay people that believe marriage is meant for man and woman, but believe they should at least have a civil union. they both contribute to each other except of course the reproductive aspect.
631533
The theory that gay marriage is wrong because it somehow threatens male-female marriage is a crock of shite.  Tradition is no reason to continue a practice.  To say that we should prohibit gays from marrying because we have not allowed it up til now and marriage has traditionally be between a man and a woman it no different that that standard answer your parents gave you when you asked why you could not eat your dessert first -- "because we say so."  Makes no sense.  It offers no logic.  Guess what else is tradition -- traditionally we don't let jews play at our golf courses.  And traditionally we don't let blacks marry whites (there were actually laws on the book in most states, so it went beyond tradition, it was the law).  Traditionally, children slept on their stomaches, until the scientists told us that the chances of SIDS skyrocketed when an infant doesn't sleep on its back.  So don't give me that tradition garbage.  We don't continue doing things just because that how it has always been done.  The american people deserve better than that -- we deserve to know how it benefits the overall society.  The bottomline is that monogomy and marital committment is a major benefit to modern society, whether it is between opposite sexes or the same sexes.
368479
Check out www.ClassTopic.com   They have some great topics that I've used in the past.  Each topic has three good sources to get you started on the research, too.
511228
Start here for more or less neutral look at the issue:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Controversy
430778
Here are some of the arguments that typically are made. (Note: I've posted the counter arguments. I cannot in good conscience leave them unanswered on this forum.):\n\n1. Marriage is largely used as the basis for raising children, and child birth is only possible with heterosexual couples.\n\nBUT: Marriage has many functions, in addition to raising children. Marriage also provides legal responsibilities and rights. Marriages between people who cannot bear children due to age or medical condition are just as valid and provide the protections available to those who can and do bear children.\n\n2. The institution of marriage has always been one-man-one-woman, and redefining it now will open it up to further revisions, including polygamy.\n\nBUT: Marriage that is entered into by consenting adults that does no harm to no one else is exactly the same, regardless of the gender of the couple. Polygamy has been shown to victimize younger boys, whose potential brides are taken up by their fathers and their uncles. The only thing gay marriage does is equalize the genders, not change marriage.\n\n3. It demeans the other gender by excluding it from the relationship.\n\nBUT: It seems to me more demeaning to have a gay man marry a straight woman, only to then later find that he has been cheating on her with other guys. No one wins in that situation.\n\nHomosexuality and heterosexuality each describe a particular capacity to love, and neither demeans either gender by embracing the other.\n\n4. Gay people aren't constitutionally able to commit to the vows of marriage.\n\nBUT: This is an argument from incredulity. I can tell you from my personal experience of living in a monogamous eleven-year relationship that ended when my partner died that gay people are equally capable of entering into marriage commitments.\n\n5. Religious objections (you can find those elsewhere) that marriage is primarily a religious institution.\n\nBUT: Marriage involves over 1000 Federal laws that govern rights and responsibilities. In order to become married, one must have a state license to do so, thereby making it a governmental function. The ceremony can take place before either a religious or governmental official. Plus, there are many churches that want to perform legal marriages but are currently prevented from doing so.\n\n6. Forcing state employees who because of religious objections, disagree with gay marriage to deal with it, thereby violating their religious freedom.\n\nBUT: The same could be said for people who are required to work on Sundays, sell meat or alcohol at a grocery store, or euthanize animals. If feelings run that strongly, they may have to get a different job. It is not the role of society to pay someone for their beliefs, but instead for the job they do.\n\nI hope this helps.
257844
who cares i try not to judge others and church is all about money.  as for same sex marriages why did the pres. ban that because he is a babling idoit i say if you love some one and want to make that decision you should be able to. i thought this was a free country
379174
Republicans realized it could be a wedge issue and capitalized on it. Interesting definitions of "marriage" given by responders above. They all sound religious. The topic, I believe is civil marriage -- marriage as recognized or performed by the state. \n\nThere are children in US institutions and foster care who need 2 parent homes. Gays should be allowed to adopt such hard-to-place children. This would probably occur defacto. Mothers giving up their babies  and agencies with young, easy to adopt children would continue to choose straight adoptive couples.