Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[Comando96]

As a sane Christian (like 90% of other Christians in Europe) this image sums up my opinion quite well.

IT'S A FUCKING WORD. Civilisation was built on significantly more than this pathetically small word: Marriage
Call it marriage you children.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

That may just be one of the greatest pictures I've ever seen on a forum.

 

[Rule Britannia]

I don't "Support" gay marriage but I am by no means against it. If it's not affecting me, or anybody around me I care about, I don't give a sideways fuck.

 

[MissAshley]

There's absolutely no logically sound argument to be made against same-sex civil marriage. None. At. All. Religious appeals really come down to personal hang-ups. Appeals to nature fall flat in the face of homosexual behavior existing throughout the animal kingdom. Studies indicate gay couples are just as capable of raising children as straight couples (if not more so). Economists have deduced that legalizing same-sex civil marriage would benefit the economy. And even though putting civil rights up to a public vote is irresponsible and unfair, the fact that public support continues to rise is notable.

As an empathetic being, I support same-sex relationships. And as a logical being living in a world where marital status carries legal weight and promotes social tolerance, I support the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage.

That all said, I must mention that Themis Media (The Escapist's owner) is a North Carolina entity, and North Carolina recently banned same-sex civil marriage in its state constitution despite it not even being legal anyway. Since realizing this, I've felt conflicted about visiting the site. Eventually my guilt will win out, and I'll cease partaking of Yahtzee, MovieBob, and LoadingReadyRun until North Carolina becomes more sensible and humane.

I will not suggest others do the same, but if you feel the same know that you're not alone.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Let 'em suffer the torment and vicious cycle of love as we do.

 

[Jeremy Meadows]

[quote="Woodsey" post="18.376386.14658291
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?.[/quote]

If the people vote for it, then sure. But we shouldn't have one person say it's legal and then force churchs to start going agaisnt what they belive to marry them.

 

[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

That link on noahide laws doesn't say anything about the leviticus chapter of the bible, and my knowledge of the bible isn't enough for much of that to make sense so I am confused:
Either:
A: Leviticus doesn't apply to non jews and both tattoos and homosexuality are fine, or:
B: Leviticus does apply to non-jews and both tattoos and homosexuality are forbidden.

Which is it?

Forget Leviticus, the noahide laws say that tattoos are ok but homosexuality(I think you can be a Lesbian) is not ok.

 

[Dragonclaw]

I posted this in another conversation in response to the California courts calling DOMA unconstitutional...


As a happily married straight man my marriage doesn't need "defending" by anyone other than my wife and I. Other people getting married, no matter if they are gay or straight, have ZERO impact on my marriage and there is NO justification for "I think the way they have sex is icky so they shouldn't have the rights I enjoy". or the ever popular "I wanna force MY interpretation of MY religion down YOUR throat no matter if you want it or not."

Gay people are our neighbors, our co-workers, our community servants, our customers, our family members, and most of all, our friends. Giving them the respect, and most importantly, the RIGHTS they deserve as well as simply being happy for anyone who feels comitted enough to want to marry and spend (hopefully) the rest of their lives together is the least we can do and doesn't affect ANYONE outside of that relationship any more than MY marriage is affecting you who are reading these words.

 

[tzimize]

Leave the term "marriage" to Man-and-Woman relationship.

Only onene you leave the term marriage to mean men owning as many women as he can afford. I it did always mean that at one time, thus it should always mean that. Right? No? Not right? the i do not care what it has "always" implied, fact is it no longer does.

I'm sure its been said but I'll say it too.

Depends.

I am NOT in favor of it in the Christian sense. With my limited knowledge I'm pretty sure the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read the bible back to back. It is utterly retarded for gay/lesbian people to expect to be married in the Christian sense if the religion itself is not for it.

I AM in favor of it in the legal sense. There is no reason gay/lesbian couples should not have the same legal rights etc as a regular couple. In this sense, go for it!

Also: I am not in the least Christian. I find religion on a whole to be pretty stupid, but I think its even more stupid to be of a religion and then cry because that religion is not how you want it to be.

 

[00slash00]

That being said, as I posted above you, I believe in Civil Unions under the law of the State. Marriage is a Church matter not a Civil Right matter.

i really hate religious debates (we arent debating whether god exists but i feel that this falls under the grounds of religious debate if it continues much further), so im not going to challenge you on this, but as someone who believes in freedom and equality above all else, it deeply saddens me any time i see it denied to a group of people. the fact that im a trans lesbian probably also influences my strong stance on the issue.

in any case, i am willing to agree to disagree

If a couple isn't religious then why do or should they care for an acceptance of said religions views.

being gay or lesbian doesnt mean you arent religious. there are plenty of gay christians

I am well aware there are plenty of gay Christians. I never implied that there weren't.

using "If a couple isn't religious then why do or should they care for an acceptance of said religions views." as part of your argument against gay marriage, seems like a bit of an implication

 

[fleischwolke]

I'm from a place where gays can marry, I know a gay married couple, and they are doing better than the heterosexual couples i know - so I am in support, if only to keep divorce rates down.

 

[Forgetitnow344]

Considering Perry v. Brown keeps coming down to a judge saying, "There is no basis other than religion to forbid homosexual marriage - I rule in favor of Perry," and then a shitload of appeals, it's finally going to come to an end at Supreme Court. I don't think it matters if you support it or not. There is no logical alternative to allowing them to marry.

 

[Dragonclaw]

If you let blacks and whites marry, then no argument against gays marrying is consistant without calling upon special pleading and confirmation bias.

Sadly some southern states took a poll and many of them would vote to outlaw inter-ratial marriages if they could.

 

[Asita]

If the people vote for it, then sure. But we shouldn't have one person say it's legal and then force churchs to start going agaisnt what they belive to marry them.

That's not how it works. As it stands, a given church official is not required to wed a couple if they object to the union, for any number of criteria. This is a right they hold that is invoked fairly regularly. There is little reason this would change if same-sex marriage was recognized by the state/federal government.

 

[Hobohodo]

My favourite quote on this issue is: "Saying gays should be happy with civil partnerships is like saying blacks should be happy to be able ride the bus at all".

I don't understand what people have against civil partnerships.... As a Christian myself, I don't really have a problem with it, and I agree some people can be awfully horrible to gay's, but the view of marriage being accessible to gay people, is still a view. To demeanour somebody else's view, and to make them do something against their own beliefs is pretty crappy. It's not really fair, I don't think personally.

I just think civil partnerships are much better. You can't really compare those two anyway, they are two different extremes. Is a change in the name of the service really that big of a problem?

 

[The_Critic]

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.

I believe saying I don't like the precedent it sets is giving my logic and explanation. Saying what I believe could be a snowball effect as an example of why I don't like the precedent being made is stating my argument therefore, my logic is not lacking.

 

[Olas]

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

I'm against gay marriage, I'm also against strait marriage though.

Also, I don't believe in abortion, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!