Poll: Gay Marriage

[Zorg Machine]

church and state are supposed to be separated.

the founding fathers of USA understood this but for some reason this has faded away and nowadays a president must be christian and use the words "god bless america" in every speech. this is the major reason why I think that USA is a country that needs to be drastically changed (though when anyone tries people scream out in protest)

I just realized that I am ranting so I'm gonna stop now.

 

[Doug]

It's estimated that anywhere between 30 to 60% of marriages in the U.S. will have a cheating spouse at some point in the relationship (look up Buss and Shackelford for the research).

That seems depressingly high.

 

[jad4400]

I used to belive that marrige wa for one ma nand one woman and that gays sould be given domestic partnership. However I belived that marriages legal definition was betwen one man and one woman (I dont go to church). One day I looked up marriage in the webster 2009 dictionary for its legal definition and nowhere did it mention one man and one woman, so now I pro gay marriage (plus I also found out that domestic partnership does not give gay couples all the same privilages that married couples get).

 

[dwightsteel]

It's estimated that anywhere between 30 to 60% of marriages in the U.S. will have a cheating spouse at some point in the relationship (look up Buss and Shackelford for the research).

That seems depressingly high.

I know, right? Yet people can still talk about the "sanctity of marriage" and still not giggle. What a fucking world.

 

[Golden Gryphon]

I feel like whatever I have to say will be as effective as banging my head against a brick wall but here goes anyway.

I have no doubt that no 'gay gene' exists. I do not deny the existence of genes that can be linked to homosexuality, I just think that it is impossible to point to one gene and say that one is the one that causes homosexuality. This also means that there isn't necessarily an evolutionary reason for gay people or animals to die out if the genes linked to it also serve other, useful, purposes.

To the people who claim it is a choice, I can only ask if you think it is a conscious one because if it isn't (and many people are aware of something different about themselves from a very early age without being able to put a name to it) then it makes no difference. You cannot suddenly decide to be straight.

Marriage may have originally been a religious ceremony but these days many people get married without including any references to god. I don't see any reason why two people, regardless of gender, shouldn't have the same legal rights as anyone else when they choose to spend the rest of their lives together.

 

[Deacon Cole]

People have a right to be treated like human beings.

End of discussion.

 

[dwightsteel]

Nothing wrong with it. For the first time ever, I shall add my own /thread. And it shall be fitting.

/thread.

you can't /thread your own post. That's like telling a girl that your pickup line is so witty that she's legally obligated to go home and sleep with you.

 

[yankeefan19]

My biggest argument for gay marriage is that it is just like how african americans were treated in the past, just having stuff against them because they were different. So what if the bible says they shouldn't be married. Just let people be happy.

 

[LimeJester]

Snip

Ok, these numbers are largely random, and almost certainly do not reflect the real numbers, but it shows that a 'homosexual' gene could have evolutionally value. Other factors include the possiblity of homosexual couples increasing the survival chances of the offspring of the heterosexual couple by either adopting the children in the event of death, or by aiding in community survival (more eyes on guard around a camp, men who can be trusted to guard the women in the event of attack, etc, etc, ad nausem for earlier societies)

While I am on your side and completely agree with you I must point out some of the benefits you point out are more social benefits. These benefits wouldn't be perpetuated in the gene pool by any of these actions, more individuals would survive because of these benefits, but more of these genes would not be passed to the next generation because the homosexual individuals would not have offspring. There are conceivable scenarios where the "homosexuality gene" is recessive and is transmitted through genetic carriers, but without homozygous individuals mating and passing on the gene, slowly through the generations you would see a drop off of the gene as it slowly gets replaced by more dominant genes.

Let me preface above again, as a straight male I do believe homosexuality is beyond right. It should not be a decision for anyone to decide if it's right or wrong. It's beyond that just as heterosexuality is (you never hear a debate whether straight marriage is right or wrong). That being said I do not believe homosexuality is a choice, but I don't like the idea that there is a "homosexuality gene" either. Something so simple as a switch. We are complex creatures made even more complex by the societies we interact in. Sure individuals may have genes that affect their neurochemistry that can alter their sex-drive and habits, but there also has to be some room in the calculations for nurture. Some experience effects the individual to create that behavior in them. There is no magical-genetic on off switch, thinking that is such a crude simplification of genetics. Just like a person could have genes that alter their neurochemistry to create excess adrenaline, and thus making them more aggressive, doesn't necessarily mean that person is going to be a violent offender. Nature and nurture both must play a role in development.

 

[Terramax]

While I agree that rights should be available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. I do not accept that it should be called marriage. Marriage is something set forward by the church long ago, and should be accepted as such. I dont object to "married" gay couples, just dont call it marriage.

I see your P.O.V. but since then marriage has evolved into something bigger, out of christianity, or even out of religion in general.

Most people see it not as a religious ceremony but as the ultimate sign of comitment.

 

[Aanorith]

It's just depressing that gay marriage is still an issue. Now I personally don't understand why homosexuells would want to get married in chruch to begin with considering how badly they have bin treated by christianity.

The old testament said many fun things, you could have slaves, had to stone people working on the sabbath. Fun times, why homosexuallity got to stay as a hot topic with the rest adjusting gradually as society progressed is just a mystery to me.

I'm all for it. Be it two brides dressed in white, or two strapping lads in suits walking down the aile, ill be the first one to be clapping and throwing rice.

 

[Suikun]

plus I also found out that domestic partnership does not give gay couples all the same privilages that married couples get

Probably the only reason a good amount of people really care about the subject. Otherwise, it's just useless semantics.

Snip'd

Yes, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination, and discrimination is retarded through and through. But like I said: it's stupid semantics, who the fuck cares what you call it, as long as it entitles you to the same thing?

But I see where you're going, and I know that you're probably right in that respect, because in today's day and age if you don't have fifty disclaimers on every sentence, someone's going to draw up a lawsuit and sue you for being offensive to them. It's stupid and a waste of time, but I guess political correctness is better than just learning to take a joke.

You're right about the whole ceremonial such and such with marriage, and it's true that in the past they didn't have the church involved. The problem is, nowadays, the church is, and if you try to strip them of that, they'll start a hissyfit about freedom of faith and rites.

Like I said before: give me the same rights as a straight couple and I'll let you call it "bed union" for all it matters. What you call it is just stupid semantics, it's what it entitles you to that matters, in my opinion.

 

[Skutch]

I believe in equal rights for everyone, without exception.
That said, I chose the marriage should not be a legal entity at all choice simply because I don't believe that the government should have any hand in what is purely a civil matter between two individuals, in the same way that the police won't get involved in civil disputes unless there is a potential for violence or the possibility of a crime being committed.
By extending extra privileges and legal protection to any single demographic group (such as heterosexual married couples) all you're doing is singling out and punishing everyone else for not conforming.
That doesn't sound very much like Freedom to me.

 

[Bigeyez]

plus I also found out that domestic partnership does not give gay couples all the same privilages that married couples get

Probably the only reason a good amount of people really care about the subject. Otherwise, it's just useless semantics.

Snip'd

Yes, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination, and discrimination is retarded through and through. But like I said: it's stupid semantics, who the fuck cares what you call it, as long as it entitles you to the same thing?

But I see where you're going, and I know that you're probably right in that respect, because in today's day and age if you don't have fifty disclaimers on every sentence, someone's going to draw up a lawsuit and sue you for being offensive to them. It's stupid and a waste of time, but I guess political correctness is better than just learning to take a joke.

You're right about the whole ceremonial such and such with marriage, and it's true that in the past they didn't have the church involved. The problem is, nowadays, the church is, and if you try to strip them of that, they'll start a hissyfit about freedom of faith and rites.

Like I said before: give me the same rights as a straight couple and I'll let you call it "bed union" for all it matters. What you call it is just stupid semantics, it's what it entitles you to that matters, in my opinion.

Yeah in the end it is just a difference of semantics. But that tiny difference means the world to some people. I personally think the U.S. is gonna follow Europes route and go with the civil union for now. Like I said earlier though in a hundred years I imagine it will be normal and we'll see gay marriages in churches.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Meh, they want it for the tax-breaks. But whatever, who am I to say who should "get married" anyways. Its just a piece of paper.

Only thing I feel like saying to be honest is "The Fall of Rome."

Religious and racial dichotomies coupled with economic failure, political unrest and a weakened military allowing migrating peoples forced out of Germany by invading Huns to cross the Rhine and topple the old Western Roman order?

Or do you mean the other half of Rome weakened by European invasions (called crusades) prompted by economic rivals in Italy and centuries of warfare with Mid-Eastern peoples that fell somewhere in the mid-15th century to the Ottoman Turks?

Either way, what does it have to do with gay marriage? Though it's interesting to note that for the better part of the time the Roman Empire wasn't crumbling, homosexuality was a norm. They didn't marry, but gay was in style.

But it can't really be a religious issue. I mean, not everybody goes to church or gets married in a church, people even convert, and last I heard that's a pretty bad offence against God. Do you throw yourself into their lives? No. So why do you bother gay people with marriage? And besides, it's not going to stop them being gay.

 

[Dioxide20]

Only thing I feel like saying to be honest is "The Fall of Rome."

Sigh... so true. It's unfortunate that history may repeat itself.

 

[Hctib]

Legal.

And in Canada its already legal!

 

[teisjm]

In Denmark it's up to the priest whether or not he/she wants to marry gay people. So some priests do it, and otehrs don't.

They can also be married at city hall like other people who don't wanna get married in church.

I think it's a good way, cause i honestly don't want the state to tell the church what to do, cause i think the church should be split from the state completely.

I do think bad of priests who don't wanna marry gay people even though it's their choice.

 

[Kharnac]

Legal, hands down.

I honestly, honestly, don't understand all the fuss over Gay marriage - how could anyone possibly argue that a Gay couple have less rights that a Straight couple? as far as i'm concerned, it's a morose expression of grave ignorance to think that a human being should have less rights than another based on their differences - be that race, sexuality, or anything.

 

[barryween]

As long gay people don't have sex in public (not saying they would, I'm just saying) and don't try to get me to become gay, I don't give a damn.
I know they wouldn't get me to BECOME ONE because ITS A DISSES or some stupid crap like that, but those are my three conditions with ANYTHING in life, don't go making me watch something I don't want to in public, don't do something illegal and don't try to get me to "join" or "do it" or whatever.