Many people have been complaining that this blog is too biased and one sided. This is an opinion news blog. The views given are a demonstration of why someone can believe in something, backing it up with reason and evidence. You, the readers who come here are the main reason the blog will continue, so if it's an objective analysis of something you want, it's an objective analysis you'll get. Subject under discussion. Homosexual marriage. Homosexual is used because the word 'gay' is a rather ambiguous, indie word. Brief reasons from both sides will be given and no conclusion as to which is the better option shall be given in the post. Please note that any comments which use the words "queer" "ignorant" "intolerant" "bigoted" "haters" "homophobic" "abomination," that stupid word "offensive" or any other such language will not have their comments posted. Keep it civilised and keep it on topic.
Homosexual marriage should be legalised
Supporters of homosexual marriage profess the legalisation of homosexual marriage is to allow equal rights. Marriage, they say is something two individuals come together to celebrate. Love between two males of two females is exactly the same as the love a man and a woman share with each other.
Homosexuals point to the law, which is supposed to treat and respect everyone as equal, irrespective of their skin colour, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Allowing homosexual marriage will bridge the gap on inequality and prevent social discrimination from following through.
"You're either born a homosexual or you're born straight." Advocates insist one cannot choose their sexual orientation and being homosexual is a something natural to them, so ridding them of the right to get married is discriminating against them because they cannot change how they are born.
As many people today enjoy thinking about themselves in every way imaginable, the premise "It won't affect me at all," is also given to support homosexual marriage. The argument here is people will still be respected for having a relationship status as married but so to will homosexuals.
Homosexual marriage should not be legalised
People who do not support gay marriage cite religious reasons for not supporting homosexual marriage. Religious texts in Christianity, Islam and Hinduism talk about disapproval of gay marriage. The bible calls it an "abomination," while the Qu'ran speaks of it as "transgressing beyond bounds."
Marriage was designed for men and women. It is said that the man and woman become one once they're married. This is said to be because only a man and woman couple can have sexual intercourse which can reproduce and repopulate the planet, while homosexual couples are unable to do that.
There are people who are traditionalists who believe that the original view of marriage was between a man and a woman. Homosexuals, they say, can still live together, but under civil unions, rather than marriage.
Supporters of keeping marriage between men and women state the upbringing of the child is better in a traditional household where a child is subjected to a male and female influence. This is said to have a healthy and positive impact on children.
Four reasons people give in support of gay marriage, four reasons against. What are your thoughts? Remember to keep the debate civil. No name calling from either side.
14 comments:
My opinion is that marriage is literally what it is: The formal union of a MAN and a WOMAN. That is the definition of marriage. Therefore if a gay couple were to have their relationship legally recognised, by definition it should be called something different. I have no problem with equal rights; I'm sick of homosexuals ranting on about oppression. You don't become a proctologist and call yourself a neurologist, so why would you call your legally recognised partnership marriage? It simply isn't.
You forgot a key argument for gay marriage - separation of religion and state. This dispels any attempt for religions to assert that it is an "abomination" or a "transgression". It also counters the "traditionalists" view that marriage is between a man and a women, as those traditionalists are really conservative christians (in NZ at least - Peter Dunne to name one). In terms of populating the planet, I think the world is doing just fine. Lastly, I have not seen or heard of any evidence that children are better off living with heterosexual parents. I know you were just presenting one side of the argument, but my opinion is that there is no argument at all against the legalising of gay marriage.
Big up's to you for putting out your views, even if I don't always agree. It's always good to hear when the opposing argument is presented as strongly as possible and not discredited unduly as being bigoted, unrealistic or outright idiotic. There's a vast array of views and opinions out there and it's great to have an open discussion on a fair an open playing field, no matter how 'out there' some views sound. Keep up the blogging.
Interesting ideas put forth by both sides. With that said, I find speaking in absolutes to be a rather snobbish and chauvinistic element of intellectual discussion. To say "that is the definition of marriage" or "my opinion is that there is no argument at all against the legalising of gay marriage" is subject to smart discussion and seeing both sides. There is no absolute right solution. This is something both sides often forget and neglect when discussing the matter.
You neglected to respond to any points I raised. You only said you disagreed with my conclusion, but provided no reasons...
Blogger Jonty writes "You neglected to respond to any points I raised." Is that what an objective point of view post is supposed to do? In the post (and the comments too) I am going to remain neutral. And I'd like to have the quote where I disagreed? Disagreeing with someone stating an opinion as absolute is different from expressing an point of view from a certain point of view, which I did not.
What business it of yours if gay people want to get married? I don’t see how it has anything to do with you.
I would be interested to know where your definition of marriage came from. This is the definition that was first on google - “Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship”.
The act of marriage has been undertaken for thousands of years, but the actual word marriage didn’t exist until the 12th century. Originally it was a simple arrangement between families, and was not even considered a religious ceremony. So I don’t see why you get to pick and choose exactly what you think it should mean, when it was never specifically defined.
But that’s just my opinion…
Thanks Blogger Nicko for adding to the discussion but in future, please use the dictionary definition next time, instead of Wikipedia, a website in which it can take up to twenty four hours to correct a mistake.
A more formal definition can be found in the dictionary. Marriage- An act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
parent is defined as a gaurdian. If the right morals are installed in the child, then it has its own choices to make; wrong morals are installed in children of hetero families. Gay hate has been around for centuries but the modernised world has changed it. What are people to think of a hermaphrodite getting married?
And the bible says 'love thy neighbour'
May I suggest a more apt title of your blog may be: Marriage Equality. The debate is not about Homosexuals getting married, it is also one of lesbians, hermaphrodites, transgender, and people who do not identify with the gender that their sexual organs suggest. Because, may I add, that gender and sexuality are two different things. Namely, that gender is a human construct.
Furthermore, as for marriage between a man and a woman being more conducive to the development of a child, this has been challenged by research my the the American Psychological Association:
The American Psychological Association (APA) stated in a 2005 publication that although further research is needed "In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as
likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf
Whilst this is an opinion blog, some objective evidence to back up claims would be useful.
The anonymous poster above writes "May I suggest a more apt title of your blog may be: Marriage Equality." First of all, why are you even waffling on about the title? It's a discussion about homosexual marriage, giving arguments from both sides. You then say "the debate is not about homosexuals getting married." Of course it is; they want the right to marry, so that's why it became a subject for discussion in this blog.
If you want to have a discussion, then feel free to comment in my post "A Generation that is stupid enough to ignore every warning sign." Be the contrarian, speak against me. I'm ready to have an argument on that issue and any other issue I post. But if you actually read the post (I doubt you did considering your comment) you'll see I'm remaining neutral on the matter.
"The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to clarify that a marriage is between 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
I don't see anything here about homosexuality? So it's just homosexuals we're talking about here, not transgendered, lesbians and hermaphrodites? It's about ALL of these groups wanting the legal recognition of marriage.
As for the second part of my above post. It was in response to the claim:
"Supporters of keeping marriage between men and women state the upbringing of the child is better in a traditional household where a child is subjected to a male and female influence. This is said to have a healthy and positive impact on children. "
The evidence seems to refute this.
Perhaps in future, you may be interested in delving into greater detail, rather than making bold, but unbacked statements of position.
The Anonymous poster writes "I don't see anything here about homosexuality." The post wasn't written to discuss homosexuality was it? It was written to discuss four reasons supporting homosexual marriage and four reasons against homosexual marraige. I am not going to go into detail which you seem to crave over with a frothy mouth. If you want to find a detailed argument from either side of the spectrum, go look elsewhere on the web.
Anonymous further writes "so it's just homosexuals we're talking about here, not transgendered, lesbians and hermaphrodites." As you lack understanding about the meaning of homosexuality, it is the attraction to people of the same gender. Lesbian is a modernised word for female homosexuals.
As for your snide comment "you may be interested in delving into greater detail, rather than making bold, but unbacked statements," had you bothered to read the beginning of my article, you would know I'm not going into detail and not taking any sides in the post or the comments here on this blog; each statement has been mentioned. The goal was to get discussion going. You've been patient enough to contribute but you will have to wait for a response from another blogger who doesn't agree with you.
If an argument is what you're looking for, then go onto my post "A generation stupid enough to ignore every warning sign" and provide a rebuttal against my position. Let me say it one last time (maybe this will help you understand), I'm not going to debate the topic. I'll happily debate you in the post "A generation stupid enough to ignore every warning sign" if you want some intellectual combat.
Post a Comment