I'm writing a paper for school, What are the arguements for and against GAY MARRIAGE?
462290
The arguments against are usually religiously based or 'traditions' based (it's never been done, it isn't how it has been done, why should we do it now is the 'tradition' type argument).\n\nThose favoring same-sex marriage make a very important distinction. Civil marriage versus Religious marriage. With the traditions argument it almost always comes down to the imagery of a man and woman walking down the aisle of a church with a reverend, etc at the front...the bride in white and the men in tuxedos. That's the tradition (never mind that other religious groups' religious marriage ceremonies are completely different). Thus for the 'traditions' argument, it is based upon 'religious' marriage and most of the tradition arguments start going into religious arguments.\n\nThe point being distinctive here is that there is, actually, two forms of marriage.\nCivil marriage : a legal binding contract instituted and regulated by government that contains certain benefits as well as certain restrictions to those that choose to enter into this contract.\nReligious marriage : a spiritual union done in the eyes of the divine for blessings, etc. it also is a contract between the couple entering into the arrangement and their religious institution. the religious institution then provides certain benefits and restrictions within its sphere of influence.\n\nWhat the people arguing for same-sex marriage are talking about is civil marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriage in now way want to infringe upon the rights of religious institutions to regulate and maintain their religious marriage regulations, rules, etc. However, because homosexuals pay taxes, not to a religious institution but to the government, and these taxes are often what is used to help provide the benefits of marriage, and that the civil marriage also holds government/civil protections...same-sex marriage advocates are asking for civil marriage...the marriage regulated by government.\n\nYou have to pay close attention to the arguments, because both are equally valid. Certainly the government has no right to impose upon any religious institution the requirement of performing a marriage it does not condone....but the government does not regulate religious marriage...it only regulates civil marriage. And people aren't necessarily talking about changing the 'tradition' of marriage, they simply want to include more people into the civil marriage aspect. The traditions of the ceremony and the deeper meanings are regulated by religious institutions. And if we are arguing that for religious reasons same-sex marriage must be denied...then are we not violated the rights of the religious institutions that allow same-sex marriage? Again, though, the distinction being made is that what is being asked of the government is CIVIL MARRIAGE and not religious marriage. Many of the religious institutions that allow same-sex marriages already provide their members with religious marriage....the argument is about the government and whether or not people who are part of this nation and pay their taxes, that all couples...all unions between two consenting adults...be accepted in civil marriage laws. \n\nAgain, the argument is not to force religious groups to recognize anything or to do anything that violates their religion...it merely requests that the government not favor any religion and recognize all of its citizens.
667906
Gay marriages should not be allowed
1037547
I think it is a good idea. After all, you pointed out that homosexuality exists whether we like it or not and we can't really keep kids heads buried in the sand for the rest of their lives. If you are a teacher, I also feel that you can do a better job of approaching this issue with objectivity than some parents can. I would just point out that it is a choice that some consenting adults make and leave it at that.
79610
specify the debate topic please...if you have to make one up i would say either birth control/abortion rights, women's rights/feminism, the necessity of the war in iraq, or same-sex marriage/homosexiality...all of which are good topics which could create a nice debate
1142718
Many voters and politicians are being bigots.  I have listened to radio talk shows and read tons of stuff on the Internet, and I have yet to see or hear an argument for banning gay marriage that makes sense to me.  I am a Christian.  I am against persecuting others and I expect to be persecuted.  Gay people being allowed to get married is not going to affect my heterosexual marriage one bit.  It is not going to affect my childrens' world views, but thinking that HATE is OK because it's officially sanctioned by the government might.  Let the church do as it will, but the state needs to allow minorities their basic civil rights.
447902
Huge debate there... not sure where to start.\n\nPros:\n-Educates the masses about STDs.\n-Educates the masses on reproduction and general knowledge of health issues and care for ones reproductive system.\n-Takes the stress off of the parents who may feel too embarrased to discuss with thier children.\n-Offers relief to those who wonder if the changes they are experiencing are "normal".\n-Helps remove the shame western cultures have towards sexuality.\n-Demystifies controversial topics like homosexuality.\n-Give a third party the opportunity to observe behaviors in the student that may suggest sexual abuse.\n-Educates student on safety issues.\n\ncons:\n-Does not (and should not) explain moral issues.  This is the sole responsibility of the parent, not the government.\n-Does not give the parent the decision of what time is best for thier child to be exposed to sexual topics.\n-Does not (and should not) cover religious issues. Also the sole responsibility of the parent.\n-Invites curiosity in the students which might lead to experimentation.\n-Introduces students to topics that parents may not approve of, like homosexuality.\n-Depending on the maturity and psychological state of the student, could create fear or anxiety.\n\nMy personal opinion, I am pro-education on all topics.  My only request is that the schools let me know the curriculum and agenda so that I can cover the topics with my child first.  She should understand our families moral and religious views before she is introduced the topic by a stranger or government employee.
543088
I particularly like "Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe" by John Boswell and it would be neat to see his evidence online, perhaps in timeline form.  Gay marriage is a hot topic, and those of us who do history know that this whole "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" thing is total crap.  Plenty of societies have had, allowed, and encouraged same sex marriage, like Native American societies.  I would like to see more about that online.
561961
Here are several sites on both sides of the issue.\nI will let you do the rest of your homework yourself.\n\nFAVOR\nhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm\n\nhttp://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=63&ContentID=17353\n\nhttp://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/marr-rep.html\n\nAGAINST\nhttp://www.nogaymarriage.com/\n\nhttp://www.afa.net/family/
172834
All the above I have strong feelings about (except #3, Im not quite sure what you mean).\n1.  The unborn should have a right to LIFE\n2.  To have gay marriage we would have to change the definition of marriage and the law.  A bad thing for society.\n4.  I say spy all you want if it will catch the terrorists\n5.  A political circus not a good funeral.
1109745
first off, the law should allow homosexual couples to get married   \n\ni think a marraige service should be offered by the government in the case that a church refuses to marry a homosexual couple.  everyone deserves the benifits (misery) of marriage.\n\ni think the church should be more accepting because isnt that what they stand for?  love and happiness?  does it really matter in what form that happiness and love come in?\n\n and if the church wont marry them then a government sponsered program can do it for them.  thats just how i think...fair and equal.
279219
I wouldn't give a damned dime for the "traditional" view of marriage for there is NO good reason that anyone can state that justifies denial of marriages rights to human couples made up of individuals -- same sex or different sex -- who want to accept the responsibilites that come with that package.  This is the 21st century, and it's time to move on and make changes just as with other matters -- civil rights, women voting, age of voting, black and white marriages, Magellan's voyage, C. Columus's voyage, Open heart surgery, space exploration -- and on and on all the changes go due to eradication of myths, acceptance of reason and justice as how we do things now. \n\nGays can make marriage worthy to be admired.\nGays can effectively lead children into adulthood.  \nGays work jobs, own homes, and pay taxes.\nGays perform admirably in uniformed services.\n\nThis is a civil matter, not a religous one.\nThis is a matter of justice.\nThis is a matter of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.\n\nOnly people who choose stupidity, prejudice, bigotry, prideful ignorance, and hypocrisy with human existence over reason, justice, and facts of the real world in which we live would get in the way of Gay Marriages.  Opposition to Gay Marriage is nothing other than sheer insanity.
694928
I can't get into detail, but I'm in college and I just turned in my research paper, which is an argument essay. You need to do some research on your topic and acknowledge in a paragraph or page the opposing viewpoints and argue against them. I know it sucks, but get into much more depth. Don't just list the good points. Good luck and I hope that you get an A!
1099672
When hate-mongering 'christian' bigots stop campaigning against basic equal rights.  \nWhen you, and others like you, start demanding that your representatives remove all barriers to two people in love being able to marry.\nWhen New York upholds the founding principle of the separation of church and state this country was founded on.\n\nIn short, hopefully soon!  :o)
1086339
The current debate is foundational.  It touches on the issues of how the country should be governed.  Whether we should employ democratic and constitutional processes to change the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and the granting of "rights."  Second, the current campaign will not ensure that your brother or any other gay or lesbian persons will actually enjoy the privileges and benefits that current heterosexuals enjoy now as a married couple.  In short, the current campaign for gay marriages is ill-conceived and will cause more harm than good for both homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals.  You need to look beyond the hype and your emotions and become informed.  Your goals are not helped by using the incorrect political process.\n\nThere are several secular and non-religious reasons for rejecting the current process to secure "Marriage" or "Civil Unions" for gay and lesbians. I have summarized the major reasons below. For more indepth analysis, see the reference below.\n\nI.Why the Current Campaign to Establish Gay \nMarriages Is Anti-Democratic and Anti-Constitutional\n\n\nOur government was founded upon the premise that “Governments are instituted among men [and women], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The current attempt to change the scope and meaning of the US Constitution in regards to 'gay marriages' by side stepping the amendment process will--in the end--jeopardize everyone's freedom. The attempt to expand the current tradition and meaning of marriage to include same gendered individuals through either a judicial pronouncement of a single state or federal judge--or a decision by a “State” or an Appellate Court, and/or through the edicts of several local politicians--should be seen as an attack on our constitutional democracy from within. \n\nSeeking to expand the rights of a few, by the few, by trouncing on the rights of the governed, should be seen as an act similar to those which occasioned the creation of the “Declaration of Independence.”\n\nIt is our position that expanding the rights of gays and lesbians to enter into marriage should be done through the amendment process that has been used for over 200 years. Seeking to side step the ‘constitutional’ process in favor of expediency is a sign not of enlightenment, patriotism, nor constitutional fidelity, but of hubris—of pride and arrogance. Historical and constitutional integrity requires all Americans to work to defeat the present attempt to expand the U.S. Constitution by the dictates of the few whether or not an individual believes that granting “gay marriages’ is a just cause.\n\nAs stated above and worth mentioning again, it is our position here that the real issue is not whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. The real issues are (1) did the original white male voters, who approved the original articles of the Constitution, mean to include gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage and, if not, (2) did subsequent voters expand marriage to include gays and lesbians and, if not, (3) what are the proper means for expanding the institution of marriage to include gays and lesbians?\n\nAs Americans, we should all believe in the use of the “proper means for a proper end.” The proper means for expanding the rights we have under the US Constitution is to submit such changes to the American people via a proposed Constitutional Amendment. We believe that the US Constitution should only be changed with the consent of the governed as is required in our democracy.\n\nThe current campaign to enact 'gay marriages' without allowing all Americans to exercise their right to vote is counter-productive to maintaining our constitutional form of democracy, divisive to society, a waste of tax payers' dollars and a frivolous use of the time and skills of our elected and judicial officials. We believe that our elected and judicial officials
869370
Something you feel strongly about. Suggestions:\n-Abortion\n-War in Iraq\n-Gay Marriage\n-Animal Testing\n-Smoking Bans\n-Death Penalty\n-Gay Rights\n-Alternative Fuel Sources\n-Legalization of Drugs, Prostitution\n\nJust be sure not to argue anything based on taste/personal preference...any teacher that is not a complete idiot will point out that taste is not arguable, so don't waste your time writing an essay about McDonald's.
928994
So just tell her that you don't know how you feel about it.  You're not against homosexuality, but you're not sure what kind of effects it would have on society.  If the problem of your uncertainty comes from vague societal problems, then she can't really get mad at you.  She might try to convince you that gay marriage should be legalized, but I don't think there's any harm in that either.  I'd just tell her you sit on the fence.  You support gays, but you're scared of backlash.  The result is confusion.
1022053
So you would like to find a better argument than those you have listed above?  And you are going to throw a few vague statistics up here about hetrosexual divorce rate and an entertainment show called Desperate Houswives and some kid on Yahoo being a moron? as reasons why the instution of marriage is eroded and why it makes people who belive in it hypocritical? \n\nIf you come on one of these forums and place a question like this I suggest respecfully that you need to be more informed as to some of the reasons it might erode traditional marriage. Here are some actual facts and their sources that might serve to renew your faith in hetrosexual marriage.\n\nThe Percentage of Divorces in the USA as reported by the US Census Bureau for the year 2005 is  38%... .......(not 50 as you listed)\nIn the USA 14500 persons died of Aids in 2005\nIn the USA 1.4 million people are infected with aids of who 1.02 million are GAY,( the rest are infected by needle sharing and blood transfusions, hetrosexual couples are in this group)\nWorldwide, 3.3 million died of Aids in 2005 and the number is expected to increase.\nAccording to the LA times Gay couples are 50% more sexually active with more than one partner than hetrosexual couples.\nBy including Gay couples into Private Medical Insurance the cost to individual single and married couples would rise from an average or 350 / month to 840/month ( the amount that comes out of your paycheck each month would depend on how much the particular company you work for subsidized your medical Insurance (for instance right now I pay 120/mo and company pays 212))\nUS Medicare system says it would need an infusion of at least 12 billion to cover the costs of AIDS treatment of the Gay community, if an amendment to this effect did not pass medicare payments to current users would have to be reduced by 35%.\nDo you realize how much that would affect our parents and relatives who depend on Medicare for their health care?\nFor that matter, it would fall on us as children to start to cover their medical costs and with ever smaller paychecks.\n\nStill think voting for the institution of marriage is a bad thing???\n\nHere is the link to commentary on one of the main gay marriage advocates position and why it may be a bit faulty, its an interesting read. There are also some other things on this page that might interest you\n\nhttp://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.19248/article_detail.asp\n\nOh, and just for the ones who think I am one of your Bible thumpers or something, I am an East Indian, Hindu, (not Christian) and my marriage was arranged. But I am a US Citizen