what are good debate questions about same sex marriages?
469371
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?
1003980
Its been quietly going on for some time.  The recent furor over legal same sex marriages has just put it in the public eye.  Lesbian priests, gay marriage, and western civilization hasn't fallen.
959301
In the UK we have recently started to accept civil partnerships, which I hope is the first step towards a better gay marriage law.  The difficulty is that a lot of pople think that "marriage" can only be between a man and a woman and a lot of people think that gay people don't deserve the same human rights as straight people, I hope that these views fall out of favour because there is no real difference and surely two people in a happy, commited relationship are better off than two single people that are living alone and miserable!
1090623
It depends upon the person and the country.  If the leader is able to keep his or her mind open to what is best for the majority of the people rather than "my {religious text of choice} tells me that this is wrong so we're going to make sure it's illegal," there's not a problem.\n\nSorry, I'm having major problems with President Bush's view on same sex marriage right now.
185925
If you ask me, it would be the same as straight couples marrying. Who am I to say who or what a person is? As long as someone is happy, that is all that matters. And if marrying someone of the same sex makes that person happy, then by all means, go for it.
1032625
You only gave one example of these laws us mean Christians are trying to pass, apparently to impose our beliefs on you, so I guess that is the only one I can respond to....  Gay marriage.\n\nFirst let me say that marriage historically is generally religious, and has always been between a man and a woman.  Now if you want to talk about a civil unions, then the question is raised, why is that only for couples?  Why can't a brother and sister carry the benefits (insurance, etc.) if Tom and Jerry can?  The "marriage" isn't anything but a piece of paper.\n\nBut if you want to take it there... you say that banning gay marriage is something that Christians are doing to impose their beliefs... Are you aware that the second gays are given the right to get married EVERY "alternative lifestyle" will sue for the same rights... Judging by your question you haven't thought about this to much, but have you considered the societal affects on society if polygamy is legalized?  What if I feel like having 10 wives, with 10 kids each and of course need welfare to pay for all of them (that's just the quickest simple example... but I think you can let your imagination carry you further).  What if I insist that I was born attracted to dogs and only dogs... "Who are you to say I wasn't born that way?!"  Why can't I marry a dog that I'm in love with?  If one "alternative lifestyle" gets rights, why not me? (quick side note, a woman in India married a snake this week)\n\nAnyway, this is just such a stupid discussion... But just consider the fact that anyone can claim to be naturally born and attracted to anything and demand the same rights as gays the second gay marriage is legalized, under "equal protection".
472036
abortion, death penalty, same sex marriages, evolution, or if god exists
435319
Vote for gay rights and gay marrage.... For all the straight people out there... wouldnt you be upset if you couldnt marry the one you love or wanted to spend the rest of your life with... YES I thought so... thats where this falls into play for the gay and lesbian communities who want to be married. VOTE YES FOR GAY MARRAGE AND RIGHTS. Its the year 2006 shouldnt we be ending this fight!!!
940385
A same sex union forms a part of the framework of civil unions. Marriage is a more religious name for the same thing. There are a few differences depending on where the law exists, but essentially they are the same.
127996
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.
1077767
Actually the issue is not a big deal.\n\nChurches and religious organisations are not forced to marry same sex couples.\n\nIt should simply be based on couples leaving together in order to get fair legal social benefits....\n\nThe recognition should have stayed at that ...\nIt's actually the churches that brought the issues and named it marriage per say... and so it became an issue.\n\nI am not bothered by same sex marriage at all on the contrary, I am not peaking and sneaking into my neighbors life on order to watch on which side of the bed they sleep.\n\nAs for children, Same sex parents or not, societies around the world are being challenged in many was and there is no past models that seem to be the answer for all....\n\nAll what I know is this, mistreatment of children in the name of religion, or alcoolic hetero parents or abused children or any other form of child neglect is a major societal issue. Instead of focusing on offset issues such as same sex marriages we should be more concern on the welfare of children and dignity of our elderlies and their be kind to our neighbors.
476011
According to Justice Scalia, the legal arguments used in favor of same-sex marriages apply equally to polygamous marriages. Personally, I think we could solve both arguments by getting the government completely out of the business of telling you with whom you are allowed to form relationships. Whoever came up with the idea that you had to ask the government for permission to get married? I'll tell you: Churches wanted more political power in Europe, and bigots wanted to keep blacks from marrying whites in America. Without those two "honorable" traditions, we would all still have freedom of marriage. Polygamy has a longer history in almost every culture in the world, including English and Native American, than monogamy has. If consenting adults are free to marry someone of the same gender (which is clearly contrary to almost all human tradition), then they must also be free to marry two other consenting adults of the opposite gender (which is clearly supported by most human tradition).
164641
Gay marriage ought to be legalised. Homosexuals should have the same rights that heterosexuals have. Many conseratives point to the bible in defence of illegalising same sex marriages. This country should not be ruled with the Bible in either case. The first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no official religion. Other than the bible, these conseratives have no real defence. Many state that homosexuals will destroy the institution of marriage. Stats show that 50% of HETEROSEXUAL marriages end in divorce. For years, heterosexuals have married for less than pious or romantic reasons. Many have married because they were inpregnated as teens. Many Golddiggers have married simply for monetary gain. The institution of marriage has been destroyed, by heterosexuals. Perhaps homosexuals can bring back dignity and love into marriage.
974131
people argue that marriage is a relgious thing, but government calls for a seperation for church and state.\n\nlet them be married and be happy. it is not affecting you.
1029282
I see no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.  Some people say it detracts from the marriage of straight people.  How?  If  a man and a woman have a good marriage, how does the fact that two guys across the street or two girls across town are married make their marriage any less valid?  How does preventing gays from marrying make an abusive marriage better?\n\nFrom what I see, the opponents of gay marriage mostly oppose it because it's against their religion.  If that is so, then they should come out and say that.  But they won't, because then gays could cite "Freedom of religion" arguments, and thus claim a constitutional right to marry.  Remember, "Freedom of religion" also includes "Freedom from religion".  And every conservative with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that they will lose this issue once they start fighting on that front.  \n\nIn my opinion, if the US ever does manage to pass a so-called "defense of marriage" amendment, it will soon become the 2nd time an amendment was repealed.  To me this issue looks like the civil rights debates of the 50's and 60's.  That has pretty much resolved itself - this will, too, with the same result.
364706
could definitely do it in a weekend if its not a same sex marriage. could do it pretty much in a day in several states actually. you can go to tennessee one afternoon and get married in a courthouse.
1032651
The conservative standpoint on the protection of marriage:\n\nWe do not want the government to give gay couples all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples, because this involves all the rights to adoption. Marriage is primarily about raising children together, because anybody can already live with whomever they want, and sleep with whatever they want.\n\nWe cannot allow children to be raised in same-sex households. Before you start labeling me a hatemonger, perhaps you should think of the child instead of yourself. Growing up in a divorced household is bad for obvious reasons, the child's interaction with thier mother or thier father is limited. It is always a tragedy when a child loses a mother or a father. Gay marriage effectively takes away a child's right to a mother and a father.\n\nLike it or not, children need both male and female parents, to have as positive role models, and to be so selfish as to deny a child a mother and a father is to be too immature to be a parent to begin with.\n\nBecause gay couples in most states already get all the same legal protections and tax benefits of marriage, and because they can "get married" whenever they want by a private ceremony with friends and family, they have all the same rights as married couples do.\n\nThe only issue is child adoption.\n\nYou can argue, well, having two fathers is better than no one.\n\nThat is true, but even heterosexual couples cannot adopt children unless they are married and have a stable household, and single people cannot adopt. There is no double standard here. The fact is, children grow up healthier and more well adjusted in a household with a mother and a father.\n\nFinally, homosexuality is a choice adults are free to make. But it is psychologically harmful for a child to be raised by gay couples. If you do not believe me, research it yourself. Too many children raised by same sex couples end up in therapy and way too many of them turn out sexually confused.\n\nWho cares? Any loving parent would care. Allowing a child to develop naturally in a family with a mother or a father allows them to choose for themselves which gender role they want to have later on in life. Growing up in a same sex household denies them the experience of having either a mom or a dad.\n\nMost conservatives do not care what people do with other consenting adults, nor to they "fear" or "hate" gay people. We simply do not want to introduce impressionable children to alternative lifestyles until they are really old enough to make choices for themselves, thats all. This position is based upon unselfish caring and love, not hatred or bigotry.\n\nBy the way, if I am such a hateful person, why does the majority of the gay community support me on this? Less than half of all gays support the redefinition of traditional marriage.\n\nIf you cannot reason without attacking me personally, then don't bother commenting on my response, because it shows your intolerance and prejudice towards people you disagree with, and reveals your hatred. We should be able to have a civilized discussion on these issues without labeling each other bigots.\nDon't treat me with contempt.