Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[Xanthious]

Gay marriage is really a non issue. Any benefits, outside of matters of finance, can already be procured through readily available means.

It seems like youre assuming we're talking only about the US.

(Im also not sure the hospital visitation can be exactly duplicated through legal arrangements. Ive heard differently from some other sources. Or is it one of the crazy "let the states handle it themselves" things?)

I am referring strictly to the US in my post. As for hospital visitation you can give anyone you choose a limited medical power of attorney. It's simply a matter of a couple signatures and a trip to the notary. If you make someone your medical proxy, regardless of the state, they won't be denied hospital visitation.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

No, it hasn't.

But while we're on the subject, marriage has traditionally allowed marrying your daughter; do you support incest?

Marriage has traditionally allowed multiple wives, and even mistresses. Do you support polygamy? Do you support "keeping" a mistress?

(There's even Biblical support for these, so "As a Christian," I assume it's the case)

No? Then stop using tradition to support your ideas of marriage.

Traditionally, marriage has been a property exchange. An arrangement often held between a man and his bride's father, with little to no input between from the woman.

I write this not to bash Christianity, but to point out the flaws in the usual "it's always been this way" argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

On the other hand, marriage is originally a religious ceremony (I think) that was done with a man and a woman.

Marriage was a civil ceremony first. In any event, we're talking civil marriage, so who cares if it's religious ORIGINALLY?

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

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?"

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

But while we're on the subject, marriage has traditionally allowed marrying your daughter; do you support incest?

I support incest. Don't besmirch the good name of incest to further your cause!

 

[tobi the good boy]

I don't support anyone having to live the rest of their lives in agony.

 

[Caffiene]

As for hospital visitation you can give anyone you choose a limited medical power of attorney. It's simply a matter of a couple signatures and a trip to the notary. If you make someone your medical proxy, regardless of the state, they won't be denied hospital visitation.

Fair enough.

Can you have multiple people with limited medical power of attorney? Or multiple medical proxies?

It does sound pretty close. Although Id still say its still doesnt sound like its exactly equal... Some people may not actually want their partner to be the medical decision maker (eg, what if they had a friend who was a well respected medical expert... or simply that the partner is kind of panicky in an emergency), but do still want the partner to have visitation access.

It sounds like "If you go to the extra effort, and make sure to organise everything very precisely, then you can have almost the same rights that other people have automatically". Thats a step in the right direction, but Id still prefer to simply have direct equality.

 

[Xanthious]

Fair enough.

Can you have multiple people with limited medical power of attorney? Or multiple medical proxies?

It does sound pretty close. Although Id still say its still doesnt sound like its exactly equal... Some people may not actually want their partner to be the medical decision maker (eg, what if they had a friend who was a well respected medical expert... or simply that the partner is kind of panicky in an emergency), but do still want the partner to have visitation access.

It sounds like "If you go to the extra effort, and make sure to organise everything very precisely, then you can have almost the same rights that other people have automatically". Thats a step in the right direction, but Id still prefer to simply have direct equality.

I'm not 100% but from what I know about power of attorney forms is that they are pretty flexible and you can put whatever stipulations in you like. I would think it would indeed be possible to have two people with durable power of attorney powers. I would think that any lawyer or paralegal could set it up so one person's power of attorney is nothing more than glorified visitation while another person makes the actual medical decisions should they need made.

 

[Caffiene]

I would think that any lawyer or paralegal could set it up so one person's power of attorney is nothing more than glorified visitation while another person makes the actual medical decisions should they need made.

Sounds good.

Although it also sounds expensive

 

[SomeBritishDude]

If gay people want to get married and be missable like the rest of us let them.

 

[RagTagBand]

If human beings insist on "Marriage" being a thing at all then it should be for everyone. Frankly It seems to me to be little more than social engineering.

But i'm sick of this "Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and has been for ages" bullshit. Is it? Because I'd like to see some ancient sources on that, hell I'd like to know where that appears in the bible because I don't remember it being in there.

I'd also like to know how you reconcile that overused political propaganda phrase with Polygamy and group marriage, both of which have existed for thousands of years but go somewhat against "A man and A woman"...*ahem*..."Definition". If you're going to be stupidly anal, and I mean that in the most eyerolling are-fucking-kidding-me way, about the "definition" of a word down to the letter then you're going to have to deal with things like Polygyny and Polyandry and how they didn't ruin "Marriage" for the past few millenia.

People like OP are not fine with Gay relationships, no matter how many times they say they are, and this is evident by their insistence that they remain second class citizens on the "Relationship" scale. They demand that Straight, monogamous people retain the "Highest" status of relationship for themselves and exclude all others from the sacred clubhouse that is marriage.

Or, to put it another way, OP is fine with gay relationships as long as straight relationships remain superior and have more privilege.

 

[Xanthious]

I would think that any lawyer or paralegal could set it up so one person's power of attorney is nothing more than glorified visitation while another person makes the actual medical decisions should they need made.

Sounds good.

Although it also sounds expensive

Eh, anymore you can get the standard forms off the internet for free. I'd imagine that unless you want to get into really fine tuning the individual forms the whole thing can be done for the cost of having the document notarized.

 

[Kennetic]

I don't morally support it but seeing as how my country's tag line is freedom, I do believe that you should have the right to at least have a civil union with whoever you want, if not marriage

 

[FluffyWelshCake]

I support gay marriage simply because there is no rational reason to go against it. And I'm now going to go through all the reason why people who are against it are giving stupid arguments.

1. Family- A lot of people have said that marriage should be about raising a family. All right, so how about we ban sterile or impotent people from marriage as well then then?

2. The Bible/ Koran says so- I accept religion, you can practice and worship whatever superstitious bullshit you like at home as long as you keep it away from others. Religion has no place in this argument because the day where societal and cultural progress is stopped because people think an imaginary sky fairy doesn't like it with the only proof of this being books written thousands of years ago by neurotic desert tribes then something has gone horribly wrong.

3. Tradition- It was rather traditional to segregate black people not to long ago in America, so let's not blow the Tradition Trumpet.

I'm sorry if my post has bored you, but I enjoy political ranting. Oh and one other thing. In Britain, where I live, the gay marriage thing is being brought up to. And a bishop came out the astoundingly ridiculous logic of the religious and said that gays shouldn't marry because "What's next? Two women and a man? Three men and a dog? When will it end?" Those weren't his exact words but his argument was to that effect.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Yes, actually. I have no problem with it, and think people should just deal with it... not that they'd ever listen to me...

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I don't think the government should have ever have had any say as to who can get married or not in the first place. This should have been a non-issue.

 

[Ariyura]

I support gay marriage. If two people want to share a union together it shouldn't be stopped because they're the same gender. If they're of age and want to bond together than more power to them.