Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[The_Critic]

because the argument can always be made that they are Truly in love with each other, and that they should be allowed to marry because how can the government step in and tell them their love isn't real.

We do not have sufficient evidence to suggest that animals have the communication and reasoning skills to give informed consent. The argument holds no weight.

The animal example was to the extreme, don't be a smartass.

 

[repeating integers]

It's been defined it should stay the way it is. Homosexuals may have a case to overturn or change the definition. However, it should remain as is, if now marriage gets redefined what happens in the future when someone wants to redefine it again.

Marriage between Mother and Son, Between Aunts and Nephews, between Adults and Children, lets go to the extreme and say adults and animals??? Something that seems so trivial can snowball into the most abscure fringes, and I don't think it's prudent to change what it is.

What you just illustrated is a classic example of a slippery slope fallacy by way of the appeal to fear fallacy. You have not established correlation nor did you account for the actual logic used for any given alteration. The argument you made boils down to stagnation due to irrational fear. And it is irrational fear much like a fear that 'changing voting laws to allow women to vote would lead to allowing dogs to vote' would be. One does not lead to another, and even if the examples you cited were brought up, they would by necessity rely on different criteria (and thereby different arguments) and thus can't be adequately considered a consequence. Mother and son, for instance would rely on overturning incest laws rather than anything same-sex marriage touches on. By contrast, 'adults and children' would rely on changing age of consent laws, which again is not an argument brought to the table. In the end, there is little to no relation between the topics you linked.

Word of friendly advice: If you intend to argue the point, argue based on what you percieve the pros and cons of the issue itself to be.

Who are you to judge a incestuous persons "Love". Or a pedophiles "love" of children. That is the argument they will come with, and that is the argument that will cause certain laws to change.

Laws will change, and the crazies will come out of the woodwork to see that they do.

One precedent can change history. and I personally believe the definition of marriage should not be changed because of this. I stated my opinion nothing else. I explained my opinion, chances are I won't change it.

Incestuous reproduction can have negative effects on the children produced. Children are not mentally or physically ready for such a relationship with an adult. Those are the reasons that these are not permitted.

Homosexual marriage harms... nobody. It is not permitted in some states because people think gays are icky.

The slippery slope fallacy is just that: a fallacy.

 

[BringBackBuck]

Snip -

My point is that gay people in states that do not allow same sex marriage really aren't being denied much at all beyond a few tax breaks. The vast majority of benefits that come along with marriage can easily be obtained through other means. The other thing they are denied is government recognition. However, I can't honestly see why anyone would give a toss what the government thinks of their personal life one way or the other.

Look I agree with you for the most part. Personally I don't think marriage is all that much of a big thing (but I probably only think like that because I am allowed to do it). I lived with my wife for about 8 years before we bothered to get married. As a society it also seems we all care less and less about it too, ever increasing divorce rate, having children out of wedlock no longer has the social stigma it once did.

So it just seems pointless and petty to deny other people the right to do something that we don't really even care that much about.

 

[Ekit]

I don't support gay marriage in church. But I'm all for gay marriage outside of the church.

 

[BringBackBuck]

Do we need a talk about irony? If you pay undue attention to a certain passage of a book of the bible to support your view then ignore a passage in the very NEXT chapter, and do so in a means that visibly contradicts this and proves you haven't even read the book it is humorous in an ironic sense. It's like refusing to use a corked bat in baseball because it's against the rules while on steroids.

Also, Bible is Bible, if it's written in there and you're taking it literally; you should follow every rule.

Why? The rules don't apply to gentiles, so unless you want to be Jewish, there is no reason to follow them.

Are you saying the rules in Leviticus only apply to Jews? Like the rule tattooed on this guy's arm forbidding homosexuality?

Look at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws], yes the tattoo rule doesn't apply to gentiles.

So what you are saying is: this guy is an idiot because he has tattooed a section of the bible on his arm and is picking and choosing which bits of the bible apply to him and which bits don't.

...no. Just that the tattoo rule doesn't apply to non-Jews

That link on noahide laws doesn't say anything about the leviticus chapter of the bible, and my knowledge of the bible isn't enough for much of that to make sense so I am confused:
Either:
A: Leviticus doesn't apply to non jews and both tattoos and homosexuality are fine, or:
B: Leviticus does apply to non-jews and both tattoos and homosexuality are forbidden.

Which is it?

 

[Dryk]

The animal example was to the extreme, don't be a smartass.

Oh, I give you the standard and valid response to a standard and flawed argument and I'm a smartarse?

^ This is what being a smart-arse looks like by the way

^ So is this

 

[Jeremy Meadows]

I'm against them getting a tradional "marriage". First of all, they entire ceremory is suppose to be for a straight couple. And I know many churchs would be totally agaisnt doing the ceremonies. When I've talked to many people straight and gay, they seem to want to be regonized as the same as a hetro couple meaning tax breaks and whatnot. And that I'm all for. If we could just make civil union status be the same as marriage in terms of taxs, adopting kids, etc.

That seems fair to me. That way gays get alot of the things holding gay couples down, and hetro couples can keep marriage as their own title.

 

[Squidbulb]

There is absolutely no argument (no good one anyway) against gay marriage. I'm not quite sure why this is still an issue. I'm not quite sure who decided that marriage is some exclusive club.

 

[verdant monkai]

Definitely yes

MORE BLOODY WOMEN FOR US STRAIGHT GUYS (keeping it classy)

How does this make any sense? Do unmarried gay guys kidnap womenfolk off the streets or something? Why would there be less available straight women if there were more unmarried homosexuals?

Look at it like this, the more Gay men have relationships with other gay men, the more straight women are left single. This in my mind is great because I now have a larger variety of women to choose from.
Now consider lesbians. I am told there are a smaller percentage of gay women than there are gay men. So if gay marriage is encouraged then there will be a lager variety of single straight women available.
I am aware gay people are generally just gay and there may or may not be more women available if gay marriage is introduced. I am of the opinion there will be more straight women if GM is introduced, because it will become more socially acceptable to people, so more men will be free to marry their gay partner, thus freeing up more straight women.

MORE FUCKIN WOMEN FUR US LADZ TO GET WIV (my elocution has reached new heights chums).

 

[Legion]

To be perfectly honest, I barely support "regular" marriage, as it stands. It seems completely outdated to me.

I believe that heterosexual and homosexual couples deserve equal rights as far as the law is concerned when it comes to relationships.

However, I do not like it when homosexual couples think they should be allowed to be married in a religious building as a right. I think very little of religious people who are against homosexuality, but if it is part of their religion that you cannot be homosexual, then that's that. It is not like you have to be a part of that religion.

It'd be like saying I am discriminated against by Muslims for not allowing me to be married in a Mosque when I don't believe in the Kuran. You cannot (or rather, should not) pick and choose which parts of a religion and still consider yourself part of that religion.

 

[kingpocky]

I'm against them getting a tradional "marriage". First of all, they entire ceremory is suppose to be for a straight couple. And I know many churchs would be totally agaisnt doing the ceremonies. When I've talked to many people straight and gay, they seem to want to be regonized as the same as a hetro couple meaning tax breaks and whatnot. And that I'm all for. If we could just make civil union status be the same as marriage in terms of taxs, adopting kids, etc.

That seems fair to me. That way gays get alot of the things holding gay couples down, and hetro couples can keep marriage as their own title.

I'm totally against forcing churches to allow gay marriage if it goes against their personal beliefs. Hell, there are still churches in the deep south where they won't let interracial couples marry. Plus, don't churches often only provide marriages for members of the same sect? There are a handful of Christian churches and ministers that allow gay marriage, so there should be no problem there.

 

[Frozen Fox]

I have a boyfriend we are married by law in a few states but in the state I am not married i have no fucing idea what my right are or are not. Let it be know THIS HS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES OR EVEN MONEY IN ANY FATHOMABLE WAY I know it may be hard for ignorant moutherfucks to believe bur marriage befits go beyond tax breaks.

Tell me what benefits you get via marriage that you can not legally obtain through other simple means? I'm curious.

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Here is a rather small list of things, there may be a few that relate to tax in there i have had this on hand for a while for people who would like to know. Can I get them? Yeah with hours and hours an a few red dollars extra in legal matters I can eventually get them. Do I have that kind of time or money, no but I have enough for a marriage license. thus marriage would grant me access to all of this which i can not get.

 

[Jeremy Meadows]

I'm totally against forcing churches to allow gay marriage if it goes against their personal beliefs. Hell, there are still churches in the deep south where they won't let interracial couples marry. Plus, don't churches often only provide marriages for members of the same sect? There are a handful of Christian churches and ministers that allow gay marriage, so there should be no problem there.

Some churches do marry people outside of their church. They really just do it for the money though.

 

[kingpocky]

I'm totally against forcing churches to allow gay marriage if it goes against their personal beliefs. Hell, there are still churches in the deep south where they won't let interracial couples marry. Plus, don't churches often only provide marriages for members of the same sect? There are a handful of Christian churches and ministers that allow gay marriage, so there should be no problem there.

Some churches do marry people outside of their church. They really just do it for the money though.

Right, some do. They have that option. They can also decline to allow it, as it should be. Freedom of religion and all that.


Also, for anyone saying that gay couples shouldn't get "tax breaks," do a little more research. Getting married doesn't always decrease how much you pay in taxes, sometimes it makes it go up, depending on how much you make relative to your spouse. The government has estimated that gay marriage would very slightly increase total tax revenue.

 

[Dudeman325]

Look at it like this, the more Gay men have relationships with other gay men, the more straight women are left single. This in my mind is great because I now have a larger variety of women to choose from.
Now consider lesbians. I am told there are a smaller percentage of gay women than there are gay men. So if gay marriage is encouraged then there will be a lager variety of single straight women available.
I am aware gay people are generally just gay and there may or may not be more women available if gay marriage is introduced. I am of the opinion there will be more straight women if GM is introduced, because it will become more socially acceptable to people, so more men will be free to marry their gay partner, thus freeing up more straight women.

MORE FUCKIN WOMEN FUR US LADZ TO GET WIV (my elocution has reached new heights chums).

What? A gay man is a GAY man, he isn't going to be in a relationship with a woman under normal circumstances, regardless of if he is allowed to get married. The "pool" of available women is the same, because straight women aren't going to be "taken" by a homosexual. You are still making absolutely no sense. The same applies to lesbians. They aren't going to date/marry straight men just because the law won't allow them to be with their preferred partner.

How exactly are straight women made more available with an increase in homosexual relationships? Homosexuals aren't going to be having relationships with straight women, that's essentially the very definition of the word.

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be assuming that homosexuals are choosing their sexuality, implying that they would enter straight relationships if they were not allowed to marry another homosexual, yes?

 

[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?

Argument from authority: Einstein's quote doesn't lend credence to your claim. That's the end of you being rational.

Argument from authority is when:

X holds that A is true. X is a legitimate expert on the subject. The consensus of experts agrees with X. Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
-- Wikipedia

All I did was cite my source for two logical statements and then show how to apply the logic of those statements.

And in your attempt to be scientific, you reject it: You refuse to test other models.

To test other models someone would have to come up with a hypothesis for a working homosexual societal model. History is the test for the model. The simple counter example to this argument is for you cite where it worked in the past. Right now we are the closest the human race has ever been to the possibility of it working, but only due to extreme scientific advancements such as cloning or research indicating that adults cells could be forced to sub-dividing into near sperm styles cells for fertilization of eggs.

To add insult to injury: Fuck no. I was raised by a single parent primarily. Later, I had two mums and two dads, thanks to stepfamilies. I know many people with single parents. This has no base in fact, reality, or science. A single parent can raise a child, and there's no reason to suspect that two men or two women can't raise a child: FACT.

No where in my post did I say we stop less than ideal situations from existing, I just pointed out that they cannot be endorsed and that is what everyone here wants the government to do.

If we are going to examine specific cases, was being raised by the single parent ideal? In my case no it was not. It must not have been for you either if there were step families later. My mother has admitted it was making the best of a bad situation.

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?

What? You've taken your quote mining and argument from authority to the next level. What Kant says there could be taken to mean: If the whole of society cannot marry the adult whom they choose, then it is wrong for individuals to.

No it can't be taken that way. You have left off the long continuation principle. There are whole societies that have long existed where no one was allowed to marry the person they wanted to marry. Did they even know the person they were married to? I thought the original intent of the veil was you didn't get to know whom your parents/match-maker were marrying you.

Again, Arguing from Authority. You're not being rational by quoting others, and these statements do not form logical premises, evidence, or arguments, and you're ignoring the structure of these things utterly. If everyone gay married, the human race would die out. So? Clearly we didn't want to exist, valuing love over procreation. And if you ask me, that's kind of beautiful, and romantic. Nevertheless, that's also irrational.

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.

Factually wrong. I've known married people who didn't have children. I've known people in married relationships who've been... less than considerate of the children. I myself would characterise my childhood as abusive.

That asside: Applying your "logic"<it doesn't deserve the title.
1) Then Divorce should not be legal.
2) Parents must both give proper custody.
3) Mistreatment of children is a physical impossiblity for parents to commit.
4) This still doesn't say why gay parents can't have children by IVF, or adopt (Get the poor fuckers out of the system for goodness sake) parentless children.

You've commited one major logical fallacy, which cause all the others: The unstated major premise:

You're assuming that gay parents cannot raise a child, or children. This is not only unverified, it's likely wrong. They can create the child, through IVF. That doesn't matter much, I'd like to make it clear though. I've known people with two parents of the same gender. They're fine, minus the bigoted bullying. I've only had a parent of one gender. Single parents exist, and we haven't decided that that doesn't work. Besides, parenting like that can happen in civil unions. It's of no relation to marriage. These arguments are primarily against gay parenting, and that's kind of absurd. And when considering your position on abolishing marriage, they make less sense.

I never stated they are unable to raise a child. I am pointing out these models do not meet the burden of proof that they are societally functional enough to deserve endorsement.

I'm sorry, but none of these are rational arguments. They're highly irrational. If you could form a rational argument against it, then it wouldn't be a morally acceptable thing. I personally doubt the existance of a rational argument against it. It seems unlikely to exist, and to be frank, the matter is pretty simple and trivial to analyse all aspects of, there's no reason to suspect everything we know is wrong.

The arguments are based on asking questions and showing how the proposed change would work in a closed system. The real world never conforms to ideals and no matter what the world will continue to exist, but when legislating and adjudicating our society the only rational intent is to aim for functional models.

 

[Hagi]

Of course I support gay marriage. And I mean marriage, not 'marriage'.

I'm of the opinion that calling it anything else is as homophobic as calling a marriage between black/hispanic/asian/whatever people anything else is racist.

Furthermore marriage is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I support wholeheartedly. I believe that denying gay people the right to marry is to deny them their human rights. Whilst certainly not as great an infringement as some other atrocities committed around the world it's nonetheless a great injustice.

I would go as far as to say that anyone directly opposing gay marriage is a bigot and anyone supporting calling it something else is of, at best, average intelligence if not much worse.

I fully realize that this makes me a self-righteous asshole and I'm completely fine with that. I won't force anyone to confirm to my morals but I won't pretend to think of those that don't as good people.

 

[verdant monkai]

What? A gay man is a GAY man, he isn't going to be in a relationship with a woman under normal circumstances, regardless of if he is allowed to get married. The "pool" of available women is the same, because straight women aren't going to be "taken" by a homosexual. You are still making absolutely no sense. The same applies to lesbians. They aren't going to date/marry straight men just because the law won't allow them to be with their preferred partner.

How exactly are straight women made more available with an increase in homosexual relationships? Homosexuals aren't going to be having relationships with straight women, that's essentially the very definition of the word.

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be assuming that homosexuals are choosing their sexuality, implying that they would enter straight relationships if they were not allowed to marry another homosexual, yes?

This sort of debate is not really my thing because it bares little relevance to me because I am straight.

Let me have my illusion please it may work, then again if it is as you say I don't lose anything, so I don't lose either way.

Lol your edit was the part where you try to make me out as a bad person no? I have no idea if gays choose to be gay or not. Because I am not gay and I am not stupid enough to pretend I know how being gay works when I am not gay.

As for the other bits you are putting much more thought in to this than I am prepared to, to be honest I did not put much thought into my first post it was only to make people laugh really, I am sorry it did not have the desired affect on you?

We done here?

 

[micahrp]

*Goes out and buys 74 bullets*

Glad to know the 1,000s viewpoint on gun ownership and murder.

It just further reinforces the logic arguments I posted earlier. Lack of sense of duty to refrain from acts which will prevent the continuation of society when applied universally.

 

[kingpocky]

It just further reinforces the logic arguments I posted earlier. Lack of sense of duty to refrain from acts which will prevent the continuation of society when applied universally.

How much of your own food have you grown today?