Quick and easy talking points when arguing for Marriage Equality:
Opposition: Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.
Equality: The definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of history. Biblical marriage supported polygamy where men could take on several wives and concubines. Marriage has historically been an institution where a man would be possessive over his wife and she would be subservient. Today we see marriage in the context of loving and financially sound relationships, there is no legitimate reason to hold back on allowing this option for all interested parties.
Opposition: If you open up marriage, others will demand it as well and society will tumble.
Equality: Marriage is currently available for two people and gay marriage activists only seek to continue this tradition and allow 2 people of the same-sex to have this right. This line of reasoning by the opposition is a scare tactic to suggest that this paves the way for polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia. This is far from the truth since those are illegal and not consensual. Two same-sex individuals committing to each other is vastly different.
Opposition: Why can't you just settle on a domestic partnership or civil union and leave marriage sacred?
Equality: Domestic partnerships and civil unions are inferior to the status of civil marriage. Marriage provides full benefits while civil unions lack in hundreds of benefits and rights that are afforded to heterosexual couples. Marriage is also a universal concept, if a same-sex couple is civil-unionized one place, and they move to another country that does not have civil unions, their partnership will not be recognized. Marriage is a concept that is understood internationally, and LGBT people should not be given second class citizenship.
Opposition: My religion is against same-sex marriage.
Equality: There is no reference in the bible to same-sex marriage. That being said, everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs and each and every house of worship can decide whether or not to honor same-sex relationships. Religion however is separate from government and gays and lesbians should be recognized under a contract of civil marriage.
Opposition: Two men or two women cannot procreate and create a family.
Equality: There are also infertile straight couples, and those who marry and do not want children. Providing government benefits and a ceremony to honor two people who have committed to one another has nothing to do with procreation. While it is true that gays and lesbians cannot procreate, they can choose options such as insemination, donor sperm/egg, and adoption of children.
Posts
19 comments:
All excellent talking points. This one pushes my buttons:
Opposition: Why can't you just settle on a domestic partnership or civil union and leave marriage sacred?
Might as well ask, "why can't you just settle on being a second class citizen?"
Thanks for this. Bookmarked for further reference. This will be useful in the future.
King David God's favorite person married Jonathan. And Lazarus while never married to Jesus was his boyfriend/lover. Of course straight homophobic Christians have edited most of this out while translating the Bible, but one can always find traces of this in earliest editions. For more information about what is wrong with the Bible you can always find me in MSN Groups: ChristianBiblicalErrancyDebate
As for domestic partnerships / civil unions, I find an effective response is to reference the fact that "Separate but equal" didn't work well in the past on other issues, so why is it any better now?
The opposition can kiss my butt. I think
if you're willing to make a life time
commitment to one person it shouldn't matter
if it's same sex.
As for procreating...We have enough kids in
this world that don't have a family or a home
they can call their own. So, adoption should
be legal for same sex couples.
HUGS!!!!!!
"This line of reasoning by the opposition is a scare tactic to suggest that this paves the way for polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia. This is far from the truth since those are illegal and not consensual. Two same-sex individuals committing to each other is vastly different."
While I recognize that people want to focus their efforts (or don't support non-monogamous relationships), it seems silly to list polygamy with beastiality and pedophilia. Being in multiple romantic relationships is no more illegal or non-consensual than monogamous same sex relationships and I don't understand why same sex marriage activists and polygamy/polyamory activists can't be allies. Two same sex individuals committing to each other is not all that different from 3 same sex individuals, or any other combination of people, regardless of sex or numbers.
Those were some helpful tips! I think what makes me mad more than anything is that people keep harping on those same damn points though, especially the whole slippery slope. And they're sincere about it? Amazing.
Very good, thank you!
In California, I always recommend that people go to City Hall and watch a same sex marriage take place. It's really not so scary when you see two ordinary looking people confirming a loving relationship.
I've lost all patience with people on this issue; can you IMAGINE heterosexuals sitting around waiting as we discuss THEIR worthiness to marriage?
No intelligent, educated person has yet to offer a convincing argument against the LGBTIQ community's civil right to marry the person they love. Unfortunately, this issue needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court and NOT each individual state, so myself and others will be withholding federal taxes until we get our day in court (Gay Tax Protest).
very good debate
Thanks everyone for your kind words, I am glad you all liked it.
This is excellent! I am saving it for future reference! Thank you!!
"This line of reasoning by the opposition is a scare tactic to suggest that this paves the way for polygamy, beastiality (sic), and pedophilia. This is far from the truth since those are illegal and not consensual. Two same-sex individuals committing to each other is vastly different."
I think your second response is an inadequate response to the opposition's claim - that expanding the concept of marriage to homosexuality will be a slippery slope. Here's the logic: many people think homosexuality is illicit, but marriage will legitimize gay relationships and chip away at that view. And yes, that’s clearly the goal of gay advocacy groups, but the opposition’s argument is that society will become slowly desensitized to other kinds "illicitness" such as bestiality or polygamy and thereby more accepting of it.
OK, so don't freak out but I'm going to play devil's advocate for a little bit.
Your response holds that polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia are OK to exclude from marriage because they are A) illegal and B) consensual, and thus same-sex marriages are different.
I will answer the "consensual" part first. There are many polygamous relationships where the women, as "brainwashed" as they may seem, are all VERY willing to be a part of that marriage - for example, in the Texan polygamous sect, many of the women were fine with it. The ones who were forced obviously shouldn't be married, but what about those who were willing?
Moreover, similar logic can be applied to bestiality. Many animals tend to enjoy getting laid and, as sad as it is, men and women have married for less. Similarly, groups like NAMBLA claim that a child in a pedophilic (sp?) relationship can be consenting if they have feelings of love and trust towards their older partner.
Consent is a prerequisite for a healthy marriage, but it's a very complicated thing, and consent by itself is NOT enough to distinguish a homosexual marriage from a polygamous or pedophilic one.
NEXT, the issue of legality is a BIGASS contradiction because homosexuality was and still is illegal in many places. Clearly you condone homosexuality, but not polygamy and pedophilia are also no strangers to prohibition.
And as a pre-emptive statement, to say that homosexuality SHOULD be legal while polygamy or pedophilia SHOULD not, relies on an appeal to morality and not legality, so clearly the LAW is not a legitimate basis for excluding something from marriage.
Moreover, laws change based on social attitudes, and this feeds into the opposition’s claim that the more we “get used” to sinful sh*t like gayness, then we inch closer and closer to accepting even more controversial relations.
---(Bottom line)
I think you should edit your post with a better, more developed response that directly answers the “slippery slope” argument of the opposition. It is important and you should definitely put some thought into this, since the goal is to stump those gaybashing bumpkins into total speechlessness, which implies no room for logical fallacies or laziness.
What I would say is that the slippery slope line of thought is first, a bit faulty – the logic is the same as saying “if we let black people vote, then soon even our PETS AND BABIES WILL VOTE!!”
And on a deeper level, I argue that it’s important to examine the merits of same-sex marriages as an individual, separate issue. If there truly ought to be no objection to a same-sex marriage, then we shouldn’t artificially create ones. And forty years later when somebody tries to use gay marriage to legitimize man-dog marriages, then the least we could do is expect society to be smart enough to make the right choice.
Dang I sort of just spewed for a few minutes, sorry for the wall of text :(
OK i'm sorry if this is a double post but I am not sure if my other went through '-.-
choo"What I would say is that the slippery slope line of thought is first, a bit faulty – the logic is the same as saying “if we let black people vote, then soon even our PETS AND BABIES WILL VOTE!!”"
Absolutely agree here. It makes just as much since as the "arguments" against gay marriage.
And you brought up the word sinful, which is a religious term and means absolutely nothing to me in a secular, separate state and church-nation, kthnx.
Choo - polygamy is ok with me as long as everyone is clearly consenting, beastiality and pedophilia are not. if an animal is somehow capable of consenting to someone having sex with it (you know, without clear informed consent it's called RAPE), then it'll be fine. Plenty of children that were raped and molested as kids have said that at some point, they "enjoyed" the fondling. Does that make it right? No. I can play the slippery slope crap too, which makes a lot more sense than homophobic idiots - can children and animals make good judgments behind the wheel or in a voting booth? Bottom line - animals and young children are not capable of giving clear, informed consent.
actually there is a refernce from the bible saying that same-sex marriage is wrong.
In Leviticus Chapter 18 Verse 22 it says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
actually King David did not marry a man, he only married females.
If you want more information or have any doubts, look up 1 Chronincles Chapeter 3. it will tell you everything...
The Bible is not wrong, it is perfect. It is perfect because it is the word of the lord and the word is God. It says that in John Chapter 1 Verse 1. It says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Therefore, the Bible is perfect.
Anonymous not everyone believes in the Bible, or atleast it being the word of God so it's a horrible argument to use to discuss politics. Second, Jesus himself had nothing to do with the Old Testament, and the Leviticus passage has nothing to do with marriage. The bible discusses homosexuality in the context of rape, not committed loving couples. Re-read the portion about King David with an open mind it is blatantly obvious he had a homosexual relationship.
Post a Comment