Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[Thaluikhain]

Of course gay marriage should be allowed.

And it should not be in any way different to straight marriage. You have any difference at all, and they will not be equal, and that cannot be justified.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

If people want to get married to other people, they should be able to. People who have issues with it and use their religion as their stance, they should go back twenty-one words after the next period and read the following two words.

It's their religion so make it their problem and not the rest of the country's. It will in no way affect them and they can keep their sacred institution of marriage to themselves.

 

[Loonyyy]

I'd be interested in you giving an actual book, chapter and verse where polygamy is treated in a positive light (by God) in the Bible. I agree that a man often had many wives in the Bible, including those who were godly persons, but there is a great deal of difference the Bible commenting on traits of an individual and condoning their actions.

Since this doesn't directly relate address the original topic I'll give more of a rebuttal in spoiler tags so those who aren't interested can move on to more relevant posts.

The Bible doesn't cover up the flaws of its heroes, rather it shows humanity in its deepest sins. Like many other practices performed by the Israelites (such as idolatry), often picked up after mingling with pagan nations, the portrayal of the effects of polygamy are never in a positive light, instead the problems of such relationships are presented (domestic issues abound due to competitiveness and resentment among the women, and even todays unrest in the Middle East can be traced back to the rivalry of Abraham's two wives and their children).

You may be able to make a case that God tolerated the practice until the population of his people had sufficiently matured, before seeking to regulate the evil practice. But from what I know the norm as established by God is one man for one woman. I'm not saying that is no arguement to be made for polygamy in the Bible, but that's your case to make not mine, and from my readings I don't see a strong case for it.

Just to back up my points with specific instances:

Solomon, a king of Israel, maybe the most well known in regards to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines, is in direct contradiction to Deuteronomy 17:16-17 (the only direct command against polygamy), a verse directly aimed at the future kings of Israel "and he shall not acquire many wives to himself" (there are two other 'shall nots' in those verses which showed Solomon was also living wrongly in other areas). His having other wives caused problems with his relationship with God later on in his life, 1 Kings 11:4 "when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God".

Verses refering to marriage being one man and one woman (singular tense), Genesis 2:24; 1 Timothy 3:2,12; Ephesians 5:23

Wait, if God only forbade it later, wanting to "wean us off evil" to paraphrase a ridiculous and amoral position, how is it that in Genesis 2 we've got banning of Polygamy, yet Solomon, and to amp up the "hero" stakes, David, were polygamists, if I recall my indoctrination correctly, after Genesis 2?

My view on the topic, I'm in a similar position to the OP, if there was a similar arrangement for gay couples which gave the same legal benefits as marriage I may not be against that. But for me marriage is one man and one woman, and just because it is formed on a religious basis doesn't mean that my opinion is any less valid than anyone elses.

That's nice. What if straight people, or exclusively Christian people, were barred from a marriage, and told to make do? Clearly, the religious beliefs of the gay people involved allow Gay marriage. Your religion is yours, and theirs is theirs. They get to act according to theirs, and you to yours. They can no more outlaw, or attack heterosexuality, to play the empathy card, than you are trying to do to homosexuality. Your religious views: Are yours. Affect you. Not others.

If you're going to pull that, then you're going to have to stick to the other Old Testament law. Stoning unruly children, forcing women to marry their rapists, keeping slaves, taking slaves, stoning non-virgin brides, not mixing fabrics, not having tatoos, not eating shellfish, never lying (From the big ten), not looking at women with lust, if married. These are all equally as valid as restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

Also, as an Atheist, I can get married. It involves at no point a priest, or the church. It's not a jot of your business. So the rules defining marriage don't have anything to do with religion.

i have no problem with it. (christian here) i just think that the bible is how i as a christian should live, but if theyr'e ot a christian they can live their own way

although i would like to know, if two guys get married do they have separate bachelor parties?

You sir, are a legend of the first order.

I guess they have bachelor parties on different days, so not to run into each other? What I wonder is, who waits at the altar?

 

[kasperbbs]

Why the hell not, it's not hurting anybody. It only pisses off the religious types for various reasons and it's a good thing.

 

[iLazy]

I believe consenting adults should be able to marry one another and say they are married. This whole "marriage is between a man and a woman, so let's call it a partnership!" is insulting. Whether you like to believe it or not, calling the marriage between two men or two woman a partnership rather than marriage is making them second-class citizens.

 

[Seanfall]

: 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.
img]

hahaha....oh I love this one

"I don't have a problem with it! really!, I would just rather you didn't call it marrage!"

if you really didnt have a problem with gay marrage you wouldnt give half a fuck about arbitrary definitions of words

because launguage and the meanings of words hasnt changed AT ALL throughout human history?..am I right?

oh wait...it has

the word "marrage" changing will not cause the world to implode

Yeah I was about to say something about that comment but ya beat me to it ya ninja.

You can't say. "I'm okay if you want to spend your life with someone of the same sex. Just don't call it marriage." And still think your 'okay' with it. Obviously some little piece of you isn't okay with it.

And here's something that's been bugging me about the whole 'religious angle' Lets assume (I mean pretend) there is a god (snort chortle snort) Now this god who is not embodied in a male form cause it can be anything it wants. Has the power to create universes, worlds, live etc. etc. Do you really really think he cares if two guys are knocking boots? The answer is no. I'm really trying to keep a tight lid on my religious views (it's all batshit) and even with the stuff in () i'm holding back. But I am really sick and tired of the whole religious angle to be anti- anything. You know what that says to me? it says to me that in lieu of having the guts to voice your own opinion your instead going to hold up a book written a couple thousand years ago by religious hustlers and parrot that back.

Oh and Vault 101 none of this is directed at you.

 

[Xanthious]

I believe consenting adults should be able to marry one another and say they are married. This whole "marriage is between a man and a woman, so let's call it a partnership!" is insulting. Whether you like to believe it or not, calling the marriage between two men or two woman a partnership rather than marriage is making them second-class citizens.

And what is stopping gay couples from doing this? They are free to have a wedding ceremony and buy rings and a cake and play bad music and call themselves married. Just because the state doesn't recognize it really effects very little. Ok, so they don't get a few tax credits. Big deal. Are they getting married because they love one another and want to spend their lives together or are they getting married to pay less in taxes? Just because the government won't give them their approval should not and does not change what gay couples can and can not do.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

No, I do not. The sanctity of marriage should be preserved between a man and his dog.

 

[Woodsey]

Marriage is a legal recognition of two people's relationship. Some countries have defined it as exclusively between a man and a woman, other places haven't - that is not the age-old, argument-defining definition. And even if it were, tradition is never the rule to go by. It's traditional that we keep black slaves. Traditional that women are treated like shit. Traditional that we cut off people's hands for stealing.

Tradition is for dicks.

Likewise (and you didn't say this, but I can feel it at the edges of your post), marriage has never been a solely religious institution, not in name or function.

'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.'

Yeah, because two people who love each other having their relationship legally recognised by the state is the complete opposite of marriage.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

Because a four year old is not legally competent, and is incapable of giving legal consent.

That's the same reason that this slippery slope doesn't lead to people marrying children, animals, or objects. Marriage is between a legal contract which can only be entered into by people of the age of majority.

By your attempt at logic, why can't we have sex with children? Oh, because they can't legally give their consent.

I've seen this objection time and again, and it's ridiculous. It applies whether or not you're talking about gays marrying. Plain and simple. And while saying, "Gay people should be able to marry the person they love" may be an emotional appeal rather than a logical one, it seems to me that the entire situation is one of an emotional decision to those opposing it. I've yet to see logic convert a religious person's way of thinking, but I've definitely seen them change their tune when they use some empathy.

 

[BartyMae]

I always thought the way to make everyone (sort of) happy was to make marriage a thing without any legal ties/benefits, i.e. just something people can do if they want...and making civil unions the thing that they have to get if they want to be recognized by the government. They'd have to get a civil union even if they were married, too. That way, if churches don't want to marry a couple, they won't be taking away legal benefits/rights from anyone, (as a church should be a purely religious institution...I dislike the idea of forcing people to do something against their beliefs when there's alternatives...even if it means they're bigoted and homophobic or whatever), and the couple can simply go somewhere else while already having a civil union if they really want to have marriage ceremony.

Probably still not the greatest solution, but I'd think the most "balanced".

 

[Sougo]

With the extremely high divorce rates out there today, what the hell does it matter whos marrying who, or whos marrying what.

I don't care if you marry a lamppost. Chances are you'll be separated anyway.

Yeah, I'm saying the high divorce rates have nulled the significance of marriage.

 

[DANEgerous]

Why is there no I don't care either way option?

I know a lot of people say this and I am not trying to single out this instance so if you say this apply it to you.

If you do not care if people in a homosexual relationship call them selves married, you support gay marriage by not caring they call them self that.

In other words tow men or women say "We are married" you respond "I do not care" that is a lack of opposition and thus by default an acceptance and support to the fact they are married

You do not care, thus you let it happen, thus you approve of, thus you support gay marriage because you do not care if it happens.
You do not care, yet you oppose, yet that means you do care, thus you're a fucking liar for saying you don't care

 

[Woodsey]

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.

Irrelevant. Four-year-olds aren't adults who can give legal consent.

 

[Loonyyy]

[HEADING=2]People...[/HEADING]

people...

people...

Please stop saying "gay people should have the right to get married." Gay people can get married. However, just like heterosexual people, in many places they can't marry the same sex as themselves. You won't win anyone over by using that line because they aren't hearing "people should be allowed to marry the same sex." They're hearing "give gay people more rights," and as soon as they hear that, they shut down and the argument is over.

1.) This gives that right to Heterosexual people too. So if they really think Gays are "getting more rights", then they can't count.
2. That's like saying that black people could get married, before interacial marriage was legal. They could, but not to white people, and we did, if I recall, judge that to be immoral.
3. If they disagree, I'd simply ask them: What if the world worked the other way, and you could only marry people of the same sex? Would you not fight fot the right to marry those who you actually love?

You can argue that it's equal, but it's like saying that everyone has adequate food by giving everyone peanuts, ignoring the family with the genetic, fatal nut allergy. Sure, everyone got the same thing: But everyone didn't get the same thing to them. They didn't get the same thing, for intents, and purposes as the others, they got the same thing, for the intentions and purposes of the majority. That's still inequality.

When someone says that they should be allowed to marry or whatnot, it's usually a case of shorthand and simplification. We know what it means, and having to define all terms, counterclaims, and rhetoric, to make a simple statement would be insane. At that point, we might as well write a Bible.

With Blackjack. And hookers.

Ah, forget the Bible part.

CAPTCHA: I want control-Oddly fitting.

 

[verdant monkai]

Definitely yes

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

 

[SaetonChapelle]

I believe two people of the same sex have every right to marry. They are human beings, and should be given the same luxuries as heterosexual couples. There's no reason to deny them marriage.

As for the word, many people have stated that they can get married, just not use the term "marriage". Why? Words have changed their meaning all throughout history, and this word has changed as well.
mar·riage   [mar-ij]
noun
1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

I have two male friends who recently married. They had previously adopted a young black child (both males being white) and this one not an issue. They decided to sign the adoption papers for another child, and young white male who has some mental problems. They were told no due to the fact a homosexual couple "was unable to give the boy proper care due to their own personal decisions".

We fought that system for well over a year. On their wedding they signed the adoption papers for Arnon and they are now a large and happy family, holding up significantly better then ALL of the heterosexual couples that I know (most being separated already).

I am all for gay marriage. May they be happy and content like I want to be someday.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

 

[iLazy]

And what is stopping gay couples from doing this? They are free to have a wedding ceremony and buy rings and a cake and play bad music and call themselves married. Just because the state doesn't recognize it really effects very little. Ok, so they don't get a few tax credits. Big deal. Are they getting married because they love one another and want to spend their lives together or are they getting married to pay less in taxes? Just because the government won't give them their approval should not and does not change what gay couples can and can not do.

Well what's stopping a lot of gay couples from marrying one anther is the fact that only 8 of the 50 states in America (if I am correct) have legalized it, and only ten countries in the world have legalized it (once again, if I am correct).

But you are right, they should be allowed to do what they want to do. I just find it sad that a lot of people don't see them married, but rather a "partnership" like they're doing some sort of business. I mean, does it really make a marriage mean less just because both people are of the same gender?

Wedding music is rather terrible isn't it?

EDIT: The numbers I stated in my first paragraph are for marriage between same sex couples rather then civil unions between same sex couples. Doing some more research.

 

[Xanthious]

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.

What rights are being denied to gay couples? Don't say marriage because marriage is in no way shape or form a right. Even if it was it isn't being denied to them. What exactly are gay couples being denied that straight couples are not? As I've said multiple times now the only thing being denied to gay couples is state recognition and some tax credits that exist to encourage reproduction. Seeing as gay people can't reproduce with one another it makes no sense to give them the tax credits and I don't see how the state recognizing them as married should really amount to a hill of beans one way or another.