Poll: Do you support gay 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.

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.

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.

 

[A.A.K]

Well, I reckon it doesn't matter. I believe marriage is pointless, but it exists regardless. So long as it's around, I reckon 1 rule should be applied to every one. So if a man and woman can get married, so can a man and another man, as well as a woman and another woman. Just makes logical sense.

Religion has no place - whatsoever - in who has the right to care for who, and neither does politics or the opinions of others.

 

[Dtypb Davis]

My own opinions aside (those opinions saying "gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue in these enlightened times"), there absolutely must be a legal equivalent to heterosexual marriage, if for no other reason than tax purposes. It is unfair to say that two people who are for all intents and purposes married cannot take a single legal step to make it so.

And honestly, if gay people want to get married, what right do I have to say "no"? It's not my marriage. Go right ahead. I hope they happily ever after together.

A couple of things to point out here. First off why should a gay couple receive tax breaks for being married when the marriage tax breaks were put into effect to encourage people to have children?

Secondly, just because gay couples can't get a nice all encompassing bag o' legal benefits from the state for wedding present doesn't mean that they can't go out and get the same things through different means. For instance there are durable medical power of attorneys for visits during hospitalization. Also, there are simple wills for making sure their partners hold onto their things should they pass.

The simple truth of it is the only thing gay couples are being denied are tax benefits and government recognition. They can throw a big wedding with friends and family. They can exchange rings. They can buy a house together. They can do all the same things straight couples can do except file joint tax returns and get recognition from the government but if those things are that important to a given couple there are in fact states that do allow same sex marriage.

I've been watching your posts and I feel sorry for you because you seem to actually believe what your saying.

Fine. No gay marriage.

Now. I'm going to keep the portion of my taxes that would pay for WIC. I'm not a "breeder", so I don't need to support pregnant mothers, right? You pay for that with your tax dollars, not me. Oh, and I won't be paying Education taxes either, because I can't have/don't have children so why should I pay for your children's education? That's your job. Let's see, I'll keep my taxes that pay for government subsidized children's health care, adoption assistance, welfare, child vaccinations, etc.

Looks like I just saved my self a bundle in superfluous taxes I've been paying as a gay man. But you'll pick up the slack, right?

Keep your marriage, I'll keep my money.

SN: For someone who "doesn't care either way" you sure seem hellbent in supporting the opposition. Takes time and energy to keep protecting/defending the naysayers when you claim to be neutral. Maybe go play a game or read a book?

 

[The Youth Counselor]

I support it, because the role of government is to protect the people and provide services that can't be provided by the private sector, not impose their will on others.

 

[xdom125x]

I voted no and I do not feel bad about it.

I voted no because I happen to have had my eyes open recently to the flip side of this whole argument and realized how ignorant I had been to the common sense of the matter.

I support Civil Unions for all..... Gay "Marriage" is up to the Churches.

Marriage in the religious sense isn't what most of the people on the for gay marriage side are arguing for. They are arguing for the legal contract that heterosexual couples can get (which shares a name with but is not the same as the religious ceremony) to officialize their relationship and get the exact same legal benefits. Churches won't be forced to marry gay couples because marriage through the church isn't what gets you the the legal recognition and benefits of marriage. So churches can still be intolerant jerks and not perform gay marriages if they want to be like that.

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.

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.

How does legalizing marriage between 2 consenting adults logically lead to adults marrying children or humans marrying animals? If you are going to invoke the slippery slope, at least try to explain how those things follow from any alteration to the definition of marriage you currently subscribe to.

 

[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.

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

 

[RADIALTHRONE1]

*Goes out and buys 74 bullets*

 

[Xanthious]

I've been watching your posts and I feel sorry for you because you seem to actually believe what your saying.

Fine. No gay marriage.

Now. I'm going to keep the portion of my taxes that would pay for WIC. I'm not a "breeder", so I don't need to support pregnant mothers, right? You pay for that with your tax dollars, not me. Oh, and I won't be paying Education taxes either, because I can't have/don't have children so why should I pay for your children's education? That's your job. Let's see, I'll keep my taxes that pay for government subsidized children's health care, adoption assistance, welfare, child vaccinations, etc.

Looks like I just saved my self a bundle in superfluous taxes I've been paying as a gay man. But you'll pick up the slack, right?

Keep your marriage, I'll keep my money.

Why feel sorry for me? I've simply been pointing out the reality of the situation and that is that same sex marriage isn't all that big of an issue. It's a matter of a handful of tax breaks and government recognition.

I find it odd that gay people want to make themselves out to be some horribly persecuted class of people because of this issue but as I've pointed out numerous times that's simply not true. By and large gay couples are free to enjoy the same things as straight couples and in some states they are treated the same as straight couples.

None of this is to say I can't see where gay people are coming from on this issue. This is a matter that is close to them and lots of people talk a big game in support of same sex marriage. However, the truth of the matter is every time it's really mattered and left up to the people this issue has been universally rejected when put to a vote. If this were happening to an issue I cared about I'd be pissed too.

As for what you said above you seem to have the idea I'm against same sex marriage while the truth is I simply don't give a shit about it. What I do take issue with is how the topic is debated by proponents of same sex marriage. Ignoring facts and labeling everyone with an opposing viewpoint as some type of bigot is never going to sway public opinion in your favor. If proponents of same sex marriage really want to make progress they will start dealing with the reality of the situation and not what they think the reality of the situation should be.

 

[Jadak]

No, but only because I don't really support marriage in general.

As I see it, there are two forms of marriage.

1) Religious Whatever, in which case I really don't care, that's up to whatever each faith wants to do with itself.

2) The one that matters, government recognition/approval of marriage. This is meaningless on a personal level, and just comes down to what it means in practice. Specifically, this comes with various benefits, tax benefits, whatever, no idea what the perks are.

So how I see it, the entire idea behind the government being involved with marriage is specifically for the purpose of trying to promote a specific type of family system within a society, one that is considered ideal for whatever reasons. Back in the day, this would be the "nuclear family" thing, maybe it still is. And generally, I agree with that.

No comments on how it works out in practice, but while I have nothing against gay marriage, I see no reason why it should be actively promoted in the same way that a traditional marriage is. Whatever the choice is, if you're going to have an 'ideal' anything to promote, pick one and go with it, if you start letting anything go, you might as well not bother with the benefits, which leads me to...

Ideally, I'd rather their be no perks for anyone one way or another and leave marriage as a personal and/or religious thing with no legal or financial considerations one way or another. But as it is, my view is that government regulated marriage exists to promote a specific value system, and I'm okay with that (probably just because the chosen ideal matches my own preferences, so I'm biased, but I'm okay with that too).

But to me, I don't really care which way it goes, but the system needs to change. If it exists to promote specific values such as the "traditional family", than it needs to be made even stricter, with those values actually defined and taken into consideration for every couple so that it actually serves a purpose. But since I don't really see that happening without straying into scary police state territory, then rather, like I said above, stop regulating it all and just let people do what they want, but stop giving them incentives to do it.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I've only seen one even halfway-decent argument against it. And that was really more of an argument against marriage in general.

 

[MBergman]

I really don't see how you can argue against gay marriage from a christian standpoint. The number 1 guy of Christianity is Jesus, his number one idea was the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. As far as I know he didn't add: "Unless they're gay because in that case they can fuck off!" It just baffles me that people who claim to follow a guy who said "Love and don't judge!" are so persistent in judging people based on their sexual preference. Because it is judging, you are saying that a certain group of people should not have the same privilege as you.

Case and point: Jesus is said to love all his children, so he loves the gay ones as well, and he just wants everyone not to be cunts to each other. Is that so hard?

So you have some sort of pre-conceived notion that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as if the word "marriage" hold some sort of unchangeable and holy meaning that never should be fucked with. Well guess what!? Times change! As someone pointed out; there was a time when blacks and white weren't allowed to marry and hopefully in the not to distant future. People will look back onto the bigots, because that's what they are, opposing gay marriage and laugh. The same way we make fun of people who opposed blacks and whites to marry.

And while I'm at it, saying that gay people should be "happy with civil union" is also a great big blow in the nuts, or ovaries. "It's the same thing as marriage, just another name!" Get over yourself, if it's the same thing then why not call it marriage? Because your feelings will get hurt? Get, the fuck, over yourself!

Someone also said that we should have one word: "marriage" for straight couples and make up another one for gay marriage. Now that's just being silly, nothing else! We have this perfectly good word for two people coming together and wanting to share their life together. There's no good reason why we should need a new one!

 

[Asita]

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.

 

[The_Critic]

I voted no and I do not feel bad about it.

I voted no because I happen to have had my eyes open recently to the flip side of this whole argument and realized how ignorant I had been to the common sense of the matter.

I support Civil Unions for all..... Gay "Marriage" is up to the Churches.

Marriage in the religious sense isn't what most of the people on the for gay marriage side are arguing for. They are arguing for the legal contract that heterosexual couples can get (which shares a name with but is not the same as the religious ceremony) to officialize their relationship and get the exact same legal benefits. Churches won't be forced to marry gay couples because marriage through the church isn't what gets you the the legal recognition and benefits of marriage. So churches can still be intolerant jerks and not perform gay marriages if they want to be like that.

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.

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.

How does legalizing marriage between 2 consenting adults logically lead to adults marrying children or humans marrying animals? If you are going to invoke the slippery slope, at least try to explain how those things follow from any alteration to the definition of marriage you currently subscribe to.[/quote

I voted no and I do not feel bad about it.

I voted no because I happen to have had my eyes open recently to the flip side of this whole argument and realized how ignorant I had been to the common sense of the matter.

I support Civil Unions for all..... Gay "Marriage" is up to the Churches.

Marriage in the religious sense isn't what most of the people on the for gay marriage side are arguing for. They are arguing for the legal contract that heterosexual couples can get (which shares a name with but is not the same as the religious ceremony) to officialize their relationship and get the exact same legal benefits. Churches won't be forced to marry gay couples because marriage through the church isn't what gets you the the legal recognition and benefits of marriage. So churches can still be intolerant jerks and not perform gay marriages if they want to be like that.

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.

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.

How does legalizing marriage between 2 consenting adults logically lead to adults marrying children or humans marrying animals? If you are going to invoke the slippery slope, at least try to explain how those things follow from any alteration to the definition of marriage you currently subscribe to.

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.

What about a Father and Daughter (biologically related), both are consenting adults and both are utterly in love with each other, should they be allowed to marry? Now obviously most would say no that's incest that's wrong, it makes your stomach turn just thinking about it. But then again 40 years ago people thought the same about homosexuals.

Whether they were right or not depends on who you talk to, but is it that big of a leap to think that incestuous marriage isn't a possible outcome of redefining what is okay for marriage?

I'm sure there are people in the deep south (to borrow a stereotype) that are just waiting for the state to recognize there "Love" with their biological family.

 

[The_Critic]

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.

 

[Dryk]

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.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Technically I'm against marriage regardless of gender, but that's not not really here nor there because I'm not taking to the streets telling people they have to not get married because it doesn't conform to my moral standards.

But yeah, if you and your consenting adult partner wish to get married I don't really care.

 

[AngloDoom]

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.

So...you argument is that if we change a law now, it opens it up to further change in the future?

I don't see what's wrong with that.

If, in the future, a society gets to a point where a significant amount of people protest hard enough so they can indeed marry their family members, animals, or children, then that society is ready for the change to occur. The government has not pushed an agenda on anyone to make them feel more attracted to certain traits, people, species, or whatever. This is such a granddad logic of "oh, this wouldn't have happened in my time".

Things that scare us now are going to be the norm in the future, that's one thing I can guarantee. The term 'marriage' has been bastardised to a ridiculous degree and marriages on television, marriages as prizes for a game-show, the wide-spread acceptance of divorces, and marriages where the vows have been completed turned upside-down mean that marriage is, at least in my opinion, only a legal term.

If I can choose to go to a scabby building in a distant land, marry someone I've never met as a result of ordering her online, have a non-religious ceremony, and change the vows to suit my own agenda ("to death do us part" removed), then how exactly can you say that the legal binding of two persons in love, who happen to have the same sexual organs, in any way destroys marriage?

The term 'marriage' and what it implies differs almost with every generation, only rather than cheapening the term in this generation we're hearing people who are fighting tooth and nail for something because it genuinely means that much for them. I'd say homosexual couples are going to value marriage a lot more than heterosexual couples in the places where it is allowed.

 

[BDHimes]

I don't support any kind of marriage.