Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[David VanDusen]

i guess the results arent that surprising, considering what people are like on xbox live and shit like that, but the fact that 1 or more people oppose gay marriage is still rather upsetting

Well it's simple if you understand that the inherent sub context to this is that Religious outlets should be "forced" to support things against their religion. That, in every sense, would be a violation of their Constitutional Right.

That being said, as I posted above you, I believe in Civil Unions under the law of the State. Marriage is a Church matter not a Civil Right matter.

i really hate religious debates (we arent debating whether god exists but i feel that this falls under the grounds of religious debate if it continues much further), so im not going to challenge you on this, but as someone who believes in freedom and equality above all else, it deeply saddens me any time i see it denied to a group of people. the fact that im a trans lesbian probably also influences my strong stance on the issue.

in any case, i am willing to agree to disagree

It isn't really a "religious" debate. At the core, religious is a vicious creation at best.

However, under the US Constitution, there is a great complication with this whole subject matter. While I understand the desire from the Gay and Lesbian community, there is a more deep fundamental question that has to be asked and addressed. Marriage is a construct of religion and more specifically Christianity. If a couple isn't religious then why do or should they care for an acceptance of said religions views.

In reality, this should be a matter of taxes, health insurance, survivor benefits, and all the legal matters which come from the current absence of being able to marry.

I'm in full support of Gays and Lesbians getting the same legal recognition by the State and Federal Government for their decision to be in a committed relationship. However, beyond that, it is up to the Churches to dictate whether or not they accept such coupling, and it isn't the place of the government to dictate that to them.

 

[00slash00]

i guess the results arent that surprising, considering what people are like on xbox live and shit like that, but the fact that 1 or more people oppose gay marriage is still rather upsetting

Well it's simple if you understand that the inherent sub context to this is that Religious outlets should be "forced" to support things against their religion. That, in every sense, would be a violation of their Constitutional Right.

That being said, as I posted above you, I believe in Civil Unions under the law of the State. Marriage is a Church matter not a Civil Right matter.

i really hate religious debates (we arent debating whether god exists but i feel that this falls under the grounds of religious debate if it continues much further), so im not going to challenge you on this, but as someone who believes in freedom and equality above all else, it deeply saddens me any time i see it denied to a group of people. the fact that im a trans lesbian probably also influences my strong stance on the issue.

in any case, i am willing to agree to disagree

If a couple isn't religious then why do or should they care for an acceptance of said religions views.

being gay or lesbian doesnt mean you arent religious. there are plenty of gay christians

 

[David VanDusen]

i guess the results arent that surprising, considering what people are like on xbox live and shit like that, but the fact that 1 or more people oppose gay marriage is still rather upsetting

Well it's simple if you understand that the inherent sub context to this is that Religious outlets should be "forced" to support things against their religion. That, in every sense, would be a violation of their Constitutional Right.

That being said, as I posted above you, I believe in Civil Unions under the law of the State. Marriage is a Church matter not a Civil Right matter.

i really hate religious debates (we arent debating whether god exists but i feel that this falls under the grounds of religious debate if it continues much further), so im not going to challenge you on this, but as someone who believes in freedom and equality above all else, it deeply saddens me any time i see it denied to a group of people. the fact that im a trans lesbian probably also influences my strong stance on the issue.

in any case, i am willing to agree to disagree

If a couple isn't religious then why do or should they care for an acceptance of said religions views.

being gay or lesbian doesnt mean you arent religious. there are plenty of gay christians

I am well aware there are plenty of gay Christians. I never implied that there weren't.

To put this in perspective, you're complaining about a word the government chooses to use that has utterly no effect on you. I don't remember any particular religion or deity demanding that a specific English word be reserved for the use of their followers and demanded their followers stop other people from using it in a different context.

I'm not really sure what your point is/was. "Marriage" by the popular opinion in the USA is a "religious" union under "God" and by taking matter as a pursuit of "forcing" "Gay Marriage" the two meet. What I'm trying to say is that if you remove "marriage" from the discussion one makes it a Civil Right issue.

Now, people can has their personal opinion all day long. The problem is that the broad base in the US believes "marriage" to be a religious ceremony and thus leading to so much religious contention.

I mean, lets be honest, if there weren't any legal benefits of marriage, would this be an "issue." Furthermore, if it were, would we be debating it in the same light? When you remove all of the legal ties, this comes down to one sect of the populace "demanding" that another sect accept them as equals under the latters religious views. That has never truly been addressed in this country. I mean, I've yet to see the Blacks take to the street demanding that the Mormons stop teaching them to be "the cursed."

 

[Something Amyss]

Marriage is a construct of religion and more specifically Christianity.

No, it's really not. It's a social construct, not particular to Christianity, and additionally Loving v Virginia established it as a basic civil right. This should be a non-issue on all fronts.

To put this in perspective, you're complaining about a word the government chooses to use that has utterly no effect on you. I don't remember any particular religion or deity demanding that a specific English word be reserved for the use of their followers and demanded their followers stop other people from using it in a different context.

If some deity did, they probably should have pitched a fit long before homosexuals were an issue.

 

[David VanDusen]

Marriage is a construct of religion and more specifically Christianity.

No, it's really not. It's a social construct, not particular to Christianity, and additionally Loving v Virginia established it as a basic civil right. This should be a non-issue on all fronts.

To put this in perspective, you're complaining about a word the government chooses to use that has utterly no effect on you. I don't remember any particular religion or deity demanding that a specific English word be reserved for the use of their followers and demanded their followers stop other people from using it in a different context.

If some deity did, they probably should have pitched a fit long before homosexuals were an issue.

You'd have a really hard time to "prove" that marriage isn't a construct of religion. Furthermore, you'd have to explain why the process exists in every religion as a ceremony. You'd have to provide some evidence "dating" at least prior to 3,000BC supporting that marriage was not done under the rite of a deity.

You'd also have to prove that the majority of the populace in a singular area (country) believes that marriage isn't a religious matter.

Because to say that something is "a social construct" is to imply that society decides and thus that society has decided that it isn't religious which would be contrary to the populace.

I'd also like to point out that there is something of importance of note within the verdict in Loving vs Virginia....
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Yet 'marry' nor 'marriage' are in the Constitution.

 

[David VanDusen]

I'm not really sure what your point is/was. "Marriage" by the popular opinion in the USA is a "religious" union under "God" and by taking matter as a pursuit of "forcing" "Gay Marriage" the two meet. What I'm trying to say is that if you remove "marriage" from the discussion one makes it a Civil Right issue.

Popular opinion does not magically make it true. They're wrong when it comes to the marriage a government provides. Not hard. It's still a civil rights issue regardless of the use of the particular word. To say the difference between a civil rights issue and an issue that isn't is a mere word is absurd.

Now, people can has their personal opinion all day long. The problem is that the broad base in the US believes "marriage" to be a religious ceremony and thus leading to so much religious contention.

And they're wrong when it comes to what the government provides because it has no religious trappings or invocation, it just uses the same word as some religions do. Easy.

I mean, lets be honest, if there weren't any legal benefits of marriage, would this be an "issue." Furthermore, if it were, would we be debating it in the same light? When you remove all of the legal ties, this comes down to one sect of the populace "demanding" that another sect accept them as equals under the latters religious views. That has never truly been addressed in this country. I mean, I've yet to see the Blacks take to the street demanding that the Mormons stop teaching them to be "the cursed."

That's BS. Religion has nothing to do with it. What we have is a segment of the populace trying to claim a word as part of their religion instead of accepting that other people can use it too.

Oh, ok, I've been looking this with the intent of common sense. So the issue isn't that they're denied "rights" but that they are denied by the mass a single "word" that only has the meaning of "society" which said "society" dictates "against" them.

Well in that case, by the large whole, I could not possible care about this matter any less.

What is basically being argued is this....

A: "I don't believe that gay people can be married because it's against God."
B: "Well it's important that you treat me as an equal so while I could have the same legal rights, they'd call it something else. So in the meantime, I'm going to keep bitching."

My end opinion, the gay community should get "marriage" and the religious people should just come up with a new word, or the gay community should stop whining and take civil unions and the religious people should shut up, OR we should just do away with marriage and change the laws entirely.

 

[David VanDusen]

No, if you haven't noticed you're the one complaining about a word. I'm saying that it's a nonsensical concern and a diversion from the real issue.

And I highly doubt that all religious people would be satisfied with a mere word change.

I'm pointing out what most people seem to miss on this subject. All you have to do is watch Fox News for 4 seconds, listen to one asshole on the Senate floor, or ask the average American on the street. The argument presented by the opposition is "marriage" or more to the point the word, it's meaning, and it's "value" in America.

I'm not saying what is "right" or "wrong." What I am trying to say is that you could either get no where arguing what should be pointless to you and obtain equal rights or you could keep arguing something pointless and get nothing.

For as long as the fight is taken on the current ground it is, the religious factions will fight tooth and nail against the rights of "marriage." What a "word" means is up to the majority. I mean, "fuck" is considered a bad word by the masses, doesn't mean that it is. Yet, the FCC will still fine you for saying it on TV.

Listen, I get the desire they're fighting for, the desire to be equal is a great drive. However, at some point one should be at least semi rational and realize that you're out numbered.... you're never going to be "equal." Just ask black people.

 

[CODE-D]

I dont, then again I dont support marrige in general.

 

[Whateveralot]

No, I do not support this so called "gay marriage".




However, I support love, caring and marriage, be it with two men, two woman or one of either. Marriage = marriage.

 

[David VanDusen]

That's not a good reason to give in to the bigots.

First of all, it's really hard to prove someone is a bigot. On this subject "intolerant" goes both ways.

Let's take a moment to look at your call here...

Marriage....
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

***
Let's look at a VERY important thing here. "like that of a traditional marriage." Wiki comes up with a few key elements which raise eyebrows on a search but lets move on to the more important word in the phrase "traditional."

1.
of or pertaining to tradition.
2.
handed down by tradition.
3.
in accordance with tradition.

Ok, since we're focusing on words and their meanings, we've gone a head and defined some very interesting ones here. So "marriage" starts out with "man and woman" which comes from a "tradition" and thus what starts said "tradition."

Possible marriage traditions....
"One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access."
Is this what the gays and lesbians are after?
How about...
"The descriptions of the bible suggest that a wife was expected to perform certain household tasks: spinning, sewing, weaving, manufacture of clothing, fetching of water, baking of bread, and animal husbandry"
I doubt that's it either.

So all and all what they are looking for would probably be...
"a legal union"
But where does that idea come from again? Oh yeah, the US Title Code...
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ?marriage? means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ?spouse? refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. "

So in reality, we need to change the US Title Code and not focus on "marriage."

 

[The_Critic]

no and here is why, I don't think it's the governments job to define marriage. Giving the government the power to change what is traditionally a marriage, can possibly set a precedent that further down the road can be exploited for perversions in the future.

I would ere on the side of caution and just not set that precedent.

 

[Random Fella]

Okay, let me rephrase that
I just believe marriage is the coming together of two people of different gender

Ok, thats your opinion.

I have to say, though, thats not just a rephrasing... thats a completely different reason to what you previously gave. It gives the impression that you were only using the "genetic offspring" as an excuse to hide your true motive.

Id also note that the "this is the way its always been" isnt really true, either... Its generally true for western christian cultures for the past few hundred years. Plenty of other cultures have recognised gay or even transgendered couples as perfectly acceptable, and using their word for the equivalent of marriage (because of course the word "marriage" is only a few hundred years old, and only in english speaking countries)

Yes, it is my opinion, that's what I said
and indeed, it is completely different, because I really just didn't want it to sound bigoted and closed minded, which it does sound, but it isn't
As I said, this is related to the term Marriage, I would have no problem with homosexuals having the same sort of union as marriage as I previously stated, because it is true, in past it has been that way, and I completely agree with that, but to be honest, to me, the word marriage is a set lock between a man and a woman, but yes, same sex couples definitely deserve the same sort of arrangement, if you can understand the random ramblings I am trying to explain to you this in.

 

[Random Fella]

I just believe marriage is the coming together of two people who can create genetic offspring.

A few questions related to that:

- Would you support a law forcing a marriage of a man and a woman to divorce once the woman reaches menopause?
- Would support a law making so that infertile men or women are prevented from marrying?
- Should couples be forced to undergo a fertility test before marriage?
- Would you support a law to prevent married couples from adopting? (since if they adopt, they will generally produce fewer genetic offspring)

Okay, let me rephrase that
I just believe marriage is the coming together of two people of different gender
Look, marriage to me has always been between a man and woman, it has always been that way, that's why it's marriage
You don't need marriage to have the same perks as marriage, sure it's just a name, but it has meaning to some, like me
Again let me state I have no problem with the joining of two of the same sex, my argument is simply on opinion
Because honestly, this is an opinionated argument, not factual.

But it became one when you decided to attempt to use facts to debate an "opinion", and when your "opinion" is that certain people should have less rights than others, based on your personal preference.

That's exactly the same logic that's used by anyone who'd deny freedom to others, or enforce their will on others. I could use that logic to justify terrorism, rape, or any number of things.

Now, personally, the idea of gay sex kind of repulses me. The idea of commited relationships between two men, personally, disgusts me. That's my problem, and that's my thing. But that doesn't mean I get to say anything about the rights of gays, simply because of my opinion that it is something I do not like. That is absurd. As they say: If you don't want to have a gay marriage: Don't marry someone of the same gender.

No, I clearly stated that I had no opinion that same sex couples should have less rights than those of opposite
Don't try to make me look like a bigot by comparing me to those who justify terrorism and rape, that's clearly absurd and are also straight up accusations against me.
I was stating, if you had cared to read my original post, which you mustn't have to of responded in such a crass way.
I just feel the term marriage should be related to same sex couples, whereas same sex couples should have a different terming for their union, I was not saying they do not deserve to have the same kind of union, of course they do, but they should have their own version of marriage, in my opinion that is.

 

[Lucem712]

Had this argument/discussion a few days ago with my friend, love her to death but her upbringing has caused some negativity towards homosexuality.

She said she had no issues with it, only that it not be called 'marriage', I replied, 'I disagree because just like the Jim Crow laws, separate and equal is anything but.' She got a bit upset and it ended there.

OT: I support it because hey, if you don't like gay-marriage...don't get gay married! Besides, I'd rather it be legalized than someone's family be torn apart because a gay man finally realized he couldn't spend the rest of his life pretending.

 

[Phisi]

I support gay marriage but I think marriage should be removed from the legal dictionary. I just causes too much shit when legal aspects of society are controlled by a church (or believed to be controlled by the church). It would remove a lot of problems in future to just have civil unions in law and then let people call themselves whatever they want. If you only think that Christians can be married then refuse to refer to non-christian couples as married you bigoted prick.

 

[Asita]

no and here is why, I don't think it's the governments job to define marriage. Giving the government the power to change what is traditionally a marriage, can possibly set a precedent that further down the road can be exploited for perversions in the future.

I would ere on the side of caution and just not set that precedent.

To be blunt, that makes no sense in a world where the term 'marriage' can and does describe a legal union, which has been the case for centuries now. As a legal contract it very much falls under the government's jurisdiction, which is - amusingly enough - acknowledged by all sides[footnote]ESPECIALLY those against same-sex marriage, given the repeated attempts to codify the legal definition for the sake of forbidding same-sex marriage. Ironically, experience seems to dictate that this same group is most likely to claim that the government shouldn't be able to make such declarations...[/footnote]. The precident has been set ever since the government first used marriage as a condition for benefits[footnote]Fun Fact: As of right now, the United States has 1,138 statutory provisions - regarding benefits, rights and privileges - which depend on marital status[/footnote]. What you are suggesting isn't maintaining the status quo but overturning it.