Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[Mysterious Druid]

Sure, why not. There's no real reason to oppose it.

 

[Frozen Fox]

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?

Acttuealy as a gay man I know quite a few that have had false relationships to hide who they are, a few have even got married and had kids, a few even told their fake partners up front and let them acttuealy date who ever they wanted as their relationship was just a cover. Granted they still could have done this even with gay marriage being legal but when you can start your own life with a partner the is far less reason to.

So yeah in a rather sad way he is right.

 

[micahrp]

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?

A little, my garden is not large enough for full annual sustenance, but enough to provide some extra greens seasonally.

Oh lets walk this question through my earlier logic sequence.

If no one grows food we all starve and the society ends. Therefore, the government cannot endorse "Don't grow food." On the other hand yes, we could universalize everyone grows thier own food and be an agrarian society, we just couldn't as easily specialize in other fields.

As for myself, I have chosen not to work to become efficient in food production. I believed there were enough people that had that specialization so I chose another. Each productive member of our society works to become efficient and produce results in one area. For this we receive work payment notes known as money that we use to purchase materials from the sectors we are not efficient at. As long as the members produce results that are desired this system maintains continuity.

 

[Luke3184]

Certainly. I've met and known quite a few gay people and they all seem like pretty decent guys. If gays and lesbians want their love to be recognised by the state, who are we to stop them?

Besides, don't like 50% of straight marriages end in divorce anyway? I get the feeling the gay community can probably do a lot better than that.

The figure is in the 60s in England... Off of the top of my head...

On topic, yeah I'm for it. the only thing stopping it from happening is tradition, and tradition fucking sucks.

It was traditional for women to be subservient
It was traditional for blacks to be slaves
It was traditional to go to a foreign country, murder all the indigenous population then set up tea plantations
It was traditional for religion to have a hand in ruling the country
It was traditional to have a hereditary monarch 100% in control of the country
It was traditional to have your hand removed for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children
It was traditional for it to be okay to murder anybody who thought that their imaginary friend in the sky had a different name to yours

So yeah, tradition sucks.

 

[FFHAuthor]

I support taking away the Government's right to recognize and dictate what marriage is and turn it back to an issue for the actual religious groups doing the marrying to decide. I support the government having a legal document that has to be signed to define the legal relationship between two adults, i.e. power of attorney, next of kin status, relationship for tax purposes, etc.

But 'Marriage' is a religious event, not a governmental one, and there are religious groups out there who will conduct gay marriages. If two people, m/m f/f, m/f want to be married, then fine, you need to go to your church, synagogue, mosque, whatever, and seek their approval for being marriage, go through their requirements and get married before the eyes of your perspective god. But for legal purposes you need to fill out the documentation saying this person is my power of attorney, this person automatically has control if I'm incapacitated, this is the person I file my taxes with, and so forth.

And if you merely wish to have a commitment ceremony to declare your commitment to each other, then fine, you can do that, but you still need to do the government documentation.

I might just be crazy for thinking that this is a workable solution, but Religious groups get to retain their religious rights, and homosexual couples are recognized legally the same as heterosexual couples.

 

[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?

A little, my garden is not large enough for full annual sustenance, but enough to provide some extra greens seasonally.

Oh lets walk this question through my earlier logic sequence.

If no one grows food we all starve and the society ends. Therefore, the government cannot endorse "Don't grow food." On the other hand yes, we could universalize everyone grows thier own food and be an agrarian society, we just couldn't as easily specialize in other fields.

As for myself, I have chosen not to work to become efficient in food production. I believed there were enough people that had that specialization so I chose another. Each productive member of our society works to become efficient and produce results in one area. For this we receive work payment notes known as money that we use to purchase materials from the sectors we are not efficient at. As long as the members produce results that are desired this system maintains continuity.

Exactly, it's all in how you look at it. Everyone choosing to become a doctor will result in society breaking down, as no one will be making enough food to survive. Everyone choosing to specialize in the job that is best of them will not hurt society.

Similarly, everyone choosing to be gay will result in a drastic drop in population. Everyone choosing to marry persons of whatever sex they are sexually attracted to will not significantly alter the birth rate

 

[Dtypb Davis]

Bottom line: it's degrading and humiliating that we should HAVE to ask your permission to enjoy a universal freedom that's so blatantly taken for granted and even abused. I wonder if the Jesus Freaks would be so cavalier if they had to actually petition to TAKE AWAY the freedom to marry same-sex. It's easy to argue and say "I don't wanna be involved" and "I don't care" when it's mostly banned throughout the U.S.

Don't worry, times are changing, slowly but surely. For those of you that are against it, your children or grandchildren will be more open-minded and realize that oppression in any form is ridiculous. And they'll laugh at you for your antiquated and bigoted viewpoint just like we all laugh at grandma/grandpa for their racist and misogynistic views back in their day.

Good luck fighting change!

 

[Asita]

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.

Again, appeal to fear fallacy and again, that argument is not sufficient on its own. In the case of pedophilia, for instance, the key factor is not societal judgement but the inability for a child to give informed consent and the psychological harm that such 'relationships' often produce. In the case of incest, the key bit they'd need to overturn would be incest laws, which - mind you - vary from state to state as it stands.

Now personally, I don't care if you change your opinion. At the end of the day it doesn't make much difference. What does concern me, however, is that your stated logic is lacking. Even in the above post from you you don't actually explain your distaste for the subject itself but instead your distaste for other topics.

 

[Chefodeath]

The poll really needs an "I don't care" option.

 

[micahrp]

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?

A little, my garden is not large enough for full annual sustenance, but enough to provide some extra greens seasonally.

Oh lets walk this question through my earlier logic sequence.

If no one grows food we all starve and the society ends. Therefore, the government cannot endorse "Don't grow food." On the other hand yes, we could universalize everyone grows thier own food and be an agrarian society, we just couldn't as easily specialize in other fields.

As for myself, I have chosen not to work to become efficient in food production. I believed there were enough people that had that specialization so I chose another. Each productive member of our society works to become efficient and produce results in one area. For this we receive work payment notes known as money that we use to purchase materials from the sectors we are not efficient at. As long as the members produce results that are desired this system maintains continuity.

Exactly, it's all in how you look at it. Everyone choosing to become a doctor will result in society breaking down, as no one will be making enough food to survive. Everyone choosing to specialize in the job that is best of them will not hurt society.

Similarly, everyone choosing to be gay will result in a drastic drop in population. Everyone choosing to marry persons of whatever sex they are sexually attracted to will not significantly alter the birth rate

Yes, if any of those occurred the government would have to step in to pass laws forbidding it or even up to punishing it. Denying them this is not a punishment (as much as they scream it is). This is the government not endorsing them. Marriage and the benefits that go along with it are the endorsement of that model.

There are atleast 3 distinct levels here that are not being discussed fully: Endorsement, Neutrality and Punishment. Punishment existed. As we moved out of the tiny communities into larger groups where such secrets no longer devastated the unity of the group, we have moved closer to Nuetrality. Now the push is for Endorsement and I laid out the easy way to prove the need for Endorsement. Why won't anyone showing step up and show that?

 

[Zen Toombs]

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.

I have heard one cohesive argument - basically, it says that "marriage" should be a religious thing. It then follows with reclassifying all "marriages" recognized by the government as civil unions, and giving civil unions all of the same legal and governmental benefits currently given to marriages.

In short - leave the religious ceremonies to religion, leave the civil ceremonies to the government.

Personally, while I would rather just allow gay marriage, I think the idea I describe above to be a far better idea because it doesn't step on anyone's toes. There are those who hold that "Marriage" holds a certain, specific meaning, and I understand that. While many gay couples want to be included in all of the specific implications of marriage other than the "one dude one chick" portion, it seems to me that the best way to handle this situation would be the compromise so that the law could be easier passed and with less resistance, and so that the law isn't attempted to be repealed.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

What you're proposing is in much the same vein as separate but equal. Forget about churches for the moment, religion does not own the concept or name of marriage: do you agree with gay marriage performed by the state?

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.

I have heard one cohesive argument - basically, it says that "marriage" should be a religious thing. It then follows with reclassifying all "marriages" recognized by the government as civil unions, and giving civil unions all of the same legal and governmental benefits currently given to marriages.

In short - leave the religious ceremonies to religion, leave the civil ceremonies to the government.

Religion does not own the concept or name of marriage. Marriage has existed both within religion and outside of it for a very long time. And even then, by which religion would you leave it to? Are you going to redefine the legal meaning of the word marriage in a country with total separation of church and state to satisfy the whims of the Christian church, who have no right to do so (as much as like they like to flap their dicks about and pretend so)?

I know it's not your argument, but suggesting it's a cohesive or logical one is stretching it.

 

[Jaeke]

Also

I'mjustgonnaleavethishere

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

Just a small question, because I've heard the "some of those rules are only for Jewish people" thing a lot when discussing Leviticus with Bible-thumping homophobes: How exactly do you determine which rules in Leviticus are only for Jews and which ones are for everyone? So, using the example, how do you figure Lev 19:28 is only for Jews but Lev 18:22 isn't?

I've never read the Bible and don't intend to, but nobody I've asked has ever given me an actual answer to that one.

Also an off-topic side-note addressing the picture... what kind of bellend do you have to be to get homophobic Bible passages permanently inked into your body?

Because these laws still apply under the Mosaic Law which is still used by the Jews to this day.

Basicly any modern day christian denomination is a different interpretation of the law after it was fulfilled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Most of these denominations recognize these laws but do not apply them because the law has been fulfilled.

i.e. Kosher. In my religion (Latter-Day Saint/Mormon) we follow the Word of Wisdom, which is sort of like our Kosher, though not nearly as strict, just basics like no alcohol, drugs, coffee etc.

 

[phylline]

I'm in the UK not the US, but: personally no, but I wouldn't protest against it and if it came to a referendum I wouldn't vote against it. Just because I don't believe it should happen, doesn't mean I should stop it from going through, if that makes ANY sense. (I'm gay, by the way, I'm pretty sure I'm not homophobic. My reasoning isn't anything to do with thinking that being gay is in any way wrong.)

Then again I'm also against atheists getting "married" etc. In the UK, civil partnerships are be enough in my eyes.

However, I think legislation should be in place so that individual churches should be ABLE to perform marriages between two men or two women, *if that individual church chooses to do so*. I don't think there should be legislation forcing every church to perform it.

 

[Namehere]

I figure if anyone wants to marry, provided legal mumbo jumbo is dealt with properly and what have you... GO FOR IT. You're loss. LMAO. No seriously, some people are great at pair bonding, for life even. That's cool if that's what you and that special someone wants. I find marriage as it stands mildly extreme. Oh sure, doesn't seem that way because we finally - in like the last hundred or so years - allowed for divorce, but its still a pretty extreme institution. And it does hurt SOME people like any extreme institution is likely to. But not everyone gets hurt, some people get a good life out of it and can't imagine having lived any other way, so what the hell? I smoke. People marry.

I find it offensive to my humanity that religions of all stripes seem to think the idea of marriage/pair bonding originated with them and its meaning is fixed in stone. That's patently false and offensive. Its even more offensive then suggesting my species couldn't possibly have built the pyramids. I can understand a church refusing to preside over a marriage because it isn't in 'that church's tradition.' But that should have no baring on legal definitions beyond its already over blown impact. If it does, then surely only one religions' marriages can be deemed legal, all the others aren't. That's a road that leads to very nasty happenings I'd rather avoid altogether.

 

[Lucem712]

==|:{

I disagree because marriage was never just a religious thing. If it was, atheist wouldn't be allowed to marriage, being a religious ceremony and all. It's just a civil contract of union, where a man takes possession of woman. That's why women (in many cases; up until recently) took the husband's name, because in ye olde times, she became his property.

(Also, my uncle wouldn't be allowed to remarry, since he is only divorced state and not through the church.)

And it certainly was not, until recently, monogamous. Even Roman men were polyandrous and bisexual.
Everything the church defines it as has become a recent thing. Hell, look back a few centuries and you'll find that even Christians were not monogamous.

Usually, terminology wouldn't be an issue; but you give the state/gov't and thus people the power, you'll get unfair treatment. We're only human, we'll make laws that only apply to civil unions. It's unfortunate, but you give people an inch...

(Of course, churches opposed to same sex unions could refuse to marry them on religious grounds.)

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

I'm off to my best friend's mums' wedding this summer. So yeah i'm pretty supporting on the whole gay wedding thing.

 

[Terratina.]

Snip

The list of benefits posted there seem to be the main reason for this kerfuffle, methinks.

In the UK, civil partnerships are be enough in my eyes.

However, I think legislation should be in place so that individual churches should be ABLE to perform marriages between two men or two women, *if that individual church chooses to do so*. I don't think there should be legislation forcing every church to perform it.

Exactly.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

To everyone saying that gay should be able to get the same benefits of being married, but instead call it "civil unions", I have three words for you, and am willing to debate about them. "Separate, but equal."

Captcha: cupid's arrow. Huh, that's fitting.