Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[MeChaNiZ3D]

1. We will never have equality while homosexuals are restricted from doing things that heterosexuals are not. Civil partnerships are frankly insulting, it's like saying "You almost deserve to get married, so here's the concolation prize".

2. There is no sanctity of marriage, with the amount of divorce that goes on I'm surprised people even put the two words in the same sentence. I say give homosexuals a go and see if they can't do better than heterosexuals have.

3. There is no reason (that isn't bullsh*t or religious or both) to oppose gay marriage. It doesn't mean that you support homosexuality, it doesn't mean that you want to see gay couples in the streets, it just means that you don't mind other people's private lives being better. As far as I'm concerned anyone in opposition is a prick, whether they realise it or not.

4. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Outdated BS that didn't account for changing attitudes. It used to be non-interracial as well. Funnily enough, people thought that was a stupid idea and changed it. No different here.

 

[Brixton6]

I support it, but mostly because I'm indifferent towards the whole situation. Two men or two women who I will likely never meet want to get married? Who am I to deny them that? If my religion was against gay marriage then I would impose that upon my family, not all of society. I don't understand how people can be against it when it won't affect their lives in the slightest.

 

[Mad World]

As a Christian, I do not support gay marriage.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

What? Christians are to follow the seven laws, that's it. Jews have to follow 613 laws.

My point is: According to who?

For the Jewish Talmud to say "Christians dont have to follow these laws" doesnt mean anything to a Christian.

The wiki article you linked to only seems to be saying that the Jewish belief is that Christians dont have to follow the laws. Thats not really helpful... its like a Muslim saying that Halal is for Muslims, therefore its ok for a Jewish person to eat pork.

Ask a Christian then, not me.

 

[Mournful Crow]

I don't understand why people wish to not have Gay marriage. It's not like it's up your arse... It's up ours...

There's the argument of the technical definition for marriage, which let's face it, is indeed a pain the the arse, but then again, while marriage has meant for a long time "the union between a man and a woman.", "Badonkadonk" has recently entered the english vocabulary, I believe... So has "Dat", and "Shawty", and the difference between the two spellings of the N-word, in which "-er" gets you shot, while "-a" gets something less painful... There's also the texting lingo that has taken the young American population by the crotch, but I beleive I've made my soon-to-be-inaccurate point for the day...

If people are so concerned about the definition changing, then let's stop for a minute and think: This is not "Marriage" that we want. It's "Gay Marriage". See what I did there? I took "Marriage", and added an adjective in front of it. This changes the meaning a little bit, does it not? Now, the adjective in question is the word "Gay". Now, while the word "Gay" originally meant "happy" (it still does, if only for the survival of groan-inducing puns), but as time goes on, and people die, words and definitions are altered in some form or fashion. This has happened with the word "Gay". "Gay" now (also) means "Homosexual", which means "A person who is sexually/emotionally/spiritually/etc. attracted to someone of the same gender as the person in question. Now, with the words "Gay" and "Marriage" put together, we have a bit of a different meaning with this term. "Gay Marriage" is not "Marriage". It is "Gay Marriage". "Gay Marriage" is "The union between two individuals of the same gender". Now with the argument based on the definition of marriage shattered, let's go on to the religious argument: Jesus taught everyone to love. He was the original hippie, and as an agnostic, I respect him. He can make a party last with a few jugs of water, and can do magic tricks (no offense, take a joke people). He loved everyone, and even said that the old laws weren't needed anymore. He fulfilled them, and everything's dandy. And if you really wanna get down to the bible argument, then let me ask you something. How many ham sandwiches have you had in your lifetime? How many times have you been near your wife when she's on her period (okay, so she may not let you near her, but still)? How many times have you had to sacrifice a cow to make amends for some wrongdoing against your neighbor? How many times have you had to stone a woman for cheating on someone?... I could go on, but I think I should probably shut up now, before you get tired of me talking/typing here...

 

[Shadow flame master]

I say let them get married. There's no reason that two women or two men can't get married just like a man and a woman. Also, if it's acceptable for a man and a woman to kiss all on each other in public places, then NO ONE should have a fuss about two men/women kissing on each other in public either. They're both wrong for doing that in public, so the homosexuals shouldn't be bashed excessively for doing that when the heterosexual couple was just as wrong.

 

[Dtypb Davis]

I think the key here is, ppl should be able to marry who they love, meaning it's consensual. A minor cannot consensually enter into a binding contract (marriage) with an adult.

 

[Dtypb Davis]

I think the key here is, ppl should be able to marry who they love, meaning it's consensual. A minor cannot consensually enter into a binding contract (marriage) with an adult.

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.

It does irk my more literal side when I see that kind of thing or worse, "Love is love". I mean, it's obvious they're just failing to be horribly exact, but the lack of precision can bug me a bit .__.

I think the key here is, ppl should be able to marry who they love, meaning it's consensual. A minor cannot consensually enter into a binding contract (marriage) with an adult.

 

[Iszfury]

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.

Meh. I think the problem here is that Marriage has too much of a weighted utility to safely deny it to any particular demographic. Hell, here in NC, even civil unions between men and women have been abolished, meaning the only way to care for minors to full capacity, under your house, is in a (heterosexual) marriage scenario. The viability of any successful (homosexual) child-bearing relationship is slim in that context, considering the shaky legal ramifications under the premise of the act.

And....your perspectives on love....for my sake, I disagree. I know I'm changing the topic, but I feel, from experience, that there are forms of love formerly beyond the familial and platonic. Sure, lust can be a major motivator in a relationship, but our evolutionary background is too geared towards long-term, empathetic partnerships for that theory to be remotely true. I wouldn't say sex is the ONLY contributor to love, take the elderly. The process must be plain unpleasant. I'd do it blindfolded if I had to. At that point, you can tell where emotional investment and actual intimacy proceed sexing it up...and...well, sexing it up. Although that's always nice too ._.

 

[Twilight.falls]

I support it because of my belief that all people should be free to be happy. If marriage, which is sort of a culmination of a relationship (in my eyes), makes them happy, then they should be able to get married.

It doesn't affect me, and I cannot possibly imagine how it could affect other people, so I whole-heartedly support it.

 

[Navvan]

Well after careful consideration these are my thoughts on the matter

Meow meow pickle meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow. Pickle meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow. meow meow meow meow pickle meow meow meow meow meow. meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow pickle meow meow meow meow meow. Indigo bananas dance excitedly!

That is why we shouldn't treat a segment of humans any differently simply because we don't like some completely legal aspect of their being. Pickles.

 

[Dtypb Davis]

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.

How about I just go get a marriage certificate for me and my husband and then I don't have to sign anything else and get all of the legal, financial, and social benefits? I see how that inconveniences all the non-supporters.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Also

I'mjustgonnaleavethishere

Fyi, that rule about tattoos is just for Jews. Get your facts straight.

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. I don't know what the Jewish version is but as a Christian (incidentally, facts straight? MIGHT want to check my own religion first) you are supposed to live your life as the Bible illustrates. This would be like a Christian saying "That 'turn the other cheek' part doesn't apply to Jews according to our rules, you don't need to turn the other cheek so be as unforgiving as you like".

Mini-rant, but goddamnit, if we're being serious about a joke and my fact-checking skills I'm gonna kick off.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

I don't know what the Jewish version is but as a Christian (incidentally, facts straight? MIGHT want to check my own religion first) you are supposed to live your life as the Bible illustrates. This would be like a Christian saying "That 'turn the other cheek' part doesn't apply to Jews according to our rules, you don't need to turn the other cheek so be as unforgiving as you like".

Its more like a Muslim saying that non-Muslims don't need to worry about abstaining about drinking.

 

[Bobsonnn]

i personally just cant wait for the whole stupid debate over same sex marriage to be over. i mean, society as a whole will always try and advance towards utopia in the long run, legalisation is just a case of when rather than if. in a decade or so, were going to look back on this and think 'what the fuck was wrong with us?'

in our last moments before being devoured by zombies.

 

[DANEgerous]

Let's give women the right to vote... but let's not call it voting. Voting has always been a man-only thing. It seems illogical to share a term that also is used to mean a completely conflicting and opposite meaning.

That's a really good example. I tried to think of one when I replied but couldn't.

The one in my head was "You can't use THESE water fountains, but you can have your own water fountains over there", but this one flows better.

I support Gay Marriage based on the fact it's a legal institution, was only made a religious one proper in 1600s (though from 110, various figures said it should be between man and a woman to avoid lust, which is just... superb), and that if we're following the old definition of marriage we should use the old definiton of gay. That means, "Man who sleeps with lots of women". So by my modern take, I support Gay Marriage, and if you're using the old meaning of the word, then fundamentalists do too. (In case this wasn't clear due to rambling, I'm saying that marriage as a word has changed meaning, so saying gay people can't get married because of an archaism is loopy). Pretty sure I didn't get that across well, but I support dudes marrying dudes and girls marrying girls.

Also

I'mjustgonnaleavethishere

LOL if you want to know how "Godlike" that picture is here is a quote of a Baptist pastor I sent it to. HA ha yes but this is the sad problem we have in our (the Christian) culture if I do not mention a passage they will never read it. So i somewhat jokingly posted reading for next year Gen 1:1 - Rev 21:22 IE the whole Bible which i have a reading plan for. To be honest i just want to see if people point out quotes from the Bible i have not yet taught on. I found this bot hilarious and depressing and just wanted to share it.

 

[carpathic]

I've yet to see a decent argument in its oposition

Too true sir, too true (and thank goodness).

Let's all bring a little more recognition of the things that make us the same into the world!