Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[Psychedelic Spartan]

Yes. Why did you put marriage in quotes?

You stole my question. I'd like an answer to this as well.

To answer you: the original poster doesn't think that gay marriage should be called marriage.

My input on the subject: I think that it should be called marriage. The definition of marriage is, according to the New Oxford English Dictionary, " the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
? a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex. " Therefore, it should be called marriage.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

Gay people should be able to marry the person they love, simple as that.

What if they love a four-year-old?

That's why I hate that argument.

Of course I mean a fellow consenting adult, there's no need to be pedantic.

I hate the word "pedantic".

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I think marriage is stupid. But it's stupider to have "proper" definitions of marriage and restrict it to only straight couples.

Gay people should be able to marry the person they love, simple as that.

What if they love a four-year-old?

That's why I hate that argument.

Of course I mean a fellow consenting adult, there's no need to be pedantic.

No, the point is you're arguing in the wrong fashion. You don't want to set an example and make a law change based on "marry who you love," or you end up with a bunch of pedos going "well, THEY got to get married, so why can't WE marry?"

But pedophilia is not consensual. And that guy is hardly writing the laws here.
There isn't much argument for marriage anyway, it's just the state's acknowledgement of the union.

Paedophilia has nothing to do with consent; it's the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Paedophilia isn't an act, it's a preference.

 

[drummond13]

Again, I am perfectly fine with man-man and woman-woman relationships, but honestly, it seems illogical to share a term that also is used to mean a completely conflicting and opposite meaning.

So if someone else has a different definition of marriage than you do then they shouldn't be allowed to get married? Even if this "semantic" argument costs them the same social and government granted rights that married people have been enjoying for years?

It's not that simple and it certainly doesn't affect YOU. You feel marriage should only be between a man and a woman? That's great. Marry the opposite gender then. I fully support your right to do so. Now why won't you support the right of other people to marry who THEY want to? Because you don't like them calling it "marriage"?

 

[micahrp]

Several people asked for rational arguments against institutionalized gay marriage.

1) "All models are wrong, some models are useful." - Albert Einstien. To create a societally recognize institution such as marriage, it has to show its usefulness. Marriage between a man and a woman has been the best model for the children produced by the unions to continue the chain. Granted this has been greatly eroded in recent times, but the model is still useful to society. What long term societal usefulness does institutionalize gay marriage bring?

2) Universalism Argument by Immanuel Kant. Any act which cannot be univeralized to the whole of society are wrong for the individual to commit. This is the golden rule rewritten to denote a responsibility to the people around you. I will start with the easy example. Can society long continue to function if every member of society kills every other member of society, if not, then it is wrong for an individual to kill. Can every member of society give up being productive and rely on someone else such as the government to sustain them, if not then it is wrong for a productive individual to stop being productive. The general argument should be applied to all activities ones life. This is not to say wrong things dont happen, but can they be promoted as good for society if they fail this test?

3) Marriage is about the children. I've never understood the argument that marriage is about love. Every example I have seen in my life has shown love is just another form of lust, a fleeting emotion that is more about vanity than the other person. Children on the other hand are you! They are your DNA. They are you reborn. They are your immortality. They are your vanity personified and that is an emotion that can be sustained for the rest of your life. This world does not belong to us, it belongs to our children who in turn must yield it to thier children.

I am not against homosexual relationships, but to support it, to elevate it to the same level as marriage and to pass along the benefits that are intended for the continuation of society need a burden of proof that it is useful to that society.

Personally I am in the disolve marriage completely group.

 

[Blunderboy]

Why is the word marriage being quoted?

 

[PromethianSpark]

Leave the term "marriage" to Man-and-Woman relationship. Since man could write and record, marriage has been used to define a Man and a Woman together.

Marriage is a human concept, a word that we apply specific meaning, and endow with legal and institutional status. All of these things are subject to change, and as our concepts we can change them as how we see fit. Changing the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples seems like a logical move for a tolerant and inclusive society, to say other wise is just bigotry and discrimination despite your token gay friends. If you seek to play a religious card as a defence, please attempt to think rationally and consider the following points.

1) Not everybody feels the way you do, or take those arguments to be some kind of prove of anything

2) Modern western democracies are suppose to be secular societies. Religion should not influence these decisions.

3) Furthermore, if God judges us on an individual basis, why do religious people need their moral values enshrined in law and social tradition. In short, how do we have moral choice when their are no options. This is counter-intuitive to most religious dogma, and yet is usually an aspect of must religious organisations.

4) Last but not least: Marriage in the eyes of God is actually a modern thing. Even in medieval, when the christian mindset predominated, Marriage where usually private things between to ppl, which had nothing to do with churchs and God. This is a historical fact, so don't try to pretend it isn't real

 

[Eamar]

The older I get the less interested I am in marriage for anyone, but since I appreciate that for some people it's a really big deal then yes, of course I think same-sex couples should be allowed to get married.

-marriage has most certainly NOT always been about one man and one woman, even in terms of Christianity. Pretty much every major player in the Old Testament is meant to have had multiple wives, for example. Kids have been married to each other for political purposes (every European royal family throughout history). And, guess what, gay marriages happened in the Roman Empire.

-religion does not own marriage. Huge numbers of people get married in non-religious ceremonies all over the world every day. And as for the ridiculous belief that some people seem to hold that marriage is a CHRISTIAN thing... just no. People of all and no faiths have been getting married "since man could write and record," not just in the relatively short period since Christianity has been a thing.

The arguments people pull out against gay marriage just plain don't work beyond the confines of a religious, and usually Christian ceremony (and even then not all denominations of Christianity are against it). Get over yourselves.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

When I die, if God turns out to not be a myth, I'm going to ask him whether he's actually enough of an arsehole to create people who are going to be disadvantaged throughout life by their own intrinsic nature, or whether some dipshit follower of His just decided to add a little more bigotry to the Bible.

 

[Elate]

Yeah sure, I mean, I don't like marriage due to it having religious connotations in my mind, but I'm all for equal rights etc. Though frankly I would like to see support for poly-marriages too.

I dislike gay culture , though , the stereotypical gay people annoy the hell out of me . The average gay person does not though . Where did this weird culture come from ?

It isn't gay culture. They're more widely refereed to as divas, and you're not the only one who dislikes them. Y'know valleygirls? They're the gay equivalent of them.

 

[PromethianSpark]

When I die, if God turns out to not be a myth, I'm going to ask him whether he's actually enough of an arsehole to create people who are going to be disadvantaged throughout life by their own intrinsic nature, or whether some dipshit follower of His just decided to add a little more bigotry to the Bible.

I have always said that If I find myself before God when I die, and he turns out to be the juedo-christian God, and says, 'you dind't believe me....you believe this...you thought this and that where ok....and you didn't do this.....but I am going to give you a chance to repent.' I would attempt to explain why I was the way I was, must notably the perspectives I gained from the pain and suffering, and joy and love that where borne out in my in my life experiences , and the complete lack of evidence for a God. If he is stubborn enough to reject that, I will say, 'fine! Send me to hell. The Devils got to be a better guy than you!'

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

Do I 'support gay marriage'? Nope.

I support civil unions with the same rights/tax breaks that married couples get. But since it's different, it gets a different name.

So I guess that means since black people are "different" to white people, they shouldn't be called people? I mean really?! You've got no problem with homosexuals having something that looks and sounds exactly like a marriage, but calling it a marriage... oh no, that's just unacceptable! What... the... hell?!

Seriously, how can opinions like that still exist? I'm willing to bet in twenty to thirty years most people are going to look back on this issue the same way we look back on slavery nowadays. It'll be just a big "what the hell were we thinking?!".

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Don't see why I wouldn't support it. I may not be gay, but I'm married. Honestly, besides my Mother and Brother, I'm the only other person married in my very immediate family; and I'm having a pretty good time with it. Probably because we don't treat it like it's anything more than it was before. Nothing really changed besides shared insurance and a tax break. Then again, I think becoming married was a pain in the ass. Wholly inexpensive but a pain paperwork wise. Then again, I would have stayed with him whether we went ahead with the marriage or not, common-law and all that jazz, so......whatever. Just let consenting, happy adults do what they like with each other, yeesh.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

yeah as much as I fucking hate marriage, weddings etc. I don't see any logical reason why the hell not.

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

Yah i do. Don't see why they shouldn't because a bunch of religious nuts in suit in parliament said so.
Also it's good to see a large vote for yes in the polls. Shows open-mindedness and that what I love about this site.

 

[Beliyal]

Support. Because why the hell wouldn't I support two people having the same rights as the rest of the population?

Go ahead and be happy; but please, and I do mean this in the most amicable way: Leave the term "marriage" to Man-and-Woman relationship. Since man could write and record, marriage has been used to define a Man and a Woman together.

So, that's one culture. You realize there are other cultures, with words for monogamy that don't sound anything like the word "marriage", right?

Soooo, if two Chinese people wed, are they not married? After all, they're Chinese, they don't use the term marriage, so they aren't married, are they? Chinese people better not call their legal arrangement a "marriage" if they come to America. It's a Christian tradition, and they deserve the term "civil union". They're not married, they're Chinese.

And if it is just a word, why is such a legal thing?

Also, this. I wanted to write something like this actually. In my language, the word "marriage" ("brak") has never been used explicitly to denote some sort of sacred union of a man and a woman that must be performed in a church. Maybe I am wrong and have just never heard of it, but we have a fair share of homophobes and no one ever says "Okay, have it, but don't call it "marriage"." It's just a word and people get married and call it marriage no matter how, where and why they do it. My parents got married in a registry office, since they are both atheist. No one ever approached them and told them ruined the sanctity of marriage and that their marriage should not be called marriage. I know it's not the same as the argument for gay marriage, but since the OP told us his beliefs are based on Christianity, I wonder what he thinks of two atheists calling their union "marriage". Not that we'll hear from him again in this topic, it seems.

You can't just take a word and say that its meaning will never change. The word "marriage" is not an exception. Also, if people like the OP really care about the meaning of a word more than they care about the equal rights for all people on the planet, they need to set their priorities straight (no pun intended).

 

[Xanthious]

My problem with the whole gay marriage argument is that it's being made to look far worse than it really is. I would challenge anyone to tell me something that married couples can do that gay couples can not. Outside of a few tax credits and a couple other financial considerations gay couples are being denied nothing. As I said before gay couples are free to set up durable medical power of attorney rights for one another and will their money and belongings to one another. They are even free to have ceremonies with friends and families to express their life long commitment to one another.

Tax credits and other financial benefits that married couples receive are given to them as encouragement for reproduction. Seeing as gay people can not reproduce with one another it seems silly to bestow those same financial considerations onto them. But that is the only thing being kept from gay couples. They are still free to do everything else married straight couples do.

The other issue I have is when this is presented as a civil rights issue. Let's be clear, marriage is not, and never has been, a right. You won't find a right to marry mentioned anywhere in The Constitution. Marriage is something that is allowed by the state and has always had limitations placed on it. Some states limit cousins from marrying while others limit people under a certain age and most limit people from marrying the same sex.

Taking the whole civil rights thing a step further, the other falsehood I see being thrown around by gay marriage proponents is this somehow an issue of equality under the law. It's not. The laws are being applied equally to everyone. Gay people are free to marry within the legally defined terms just the same as straight people are. In states where same sex marriage is not recognized a straight person is no more able to marry someone of the same sex than a gay person is.

Finally, marriage is a states' rights issue and as such it's up to the individual states to decide the boundaries for marriage for themselves. There are in fact states that do allow and recognize gay marriage. Nobody is stopping gay couples from moving to those states. However, as it stands now same sex marriage has gone to a vote in 32 states and has yet to win even once and most times losing by a pretty big margin. This should tell you that society as a whole isn't quite on board with idea just yet. However, gay people are free to work to change those laws. Furthermore, public opinion is shifting and it would seem that given time gay people will be able to marry one another more widely than they currently are.

As I said in my previous post, I don't care one way or another because it won't really effect me. However, it does annoy me to see this presented as some kind of miscarriage of justice when gay couples are free to enjoy the same things as straight couples barring a few tax credits. I just don't see how a handful of tax credits and recognition by the government is really all that big of a deal.