Poll: Gay Marriage

[Mr.Pandah]

Wow, amazing how this forum degenerated into a blame game on who or what destroyed the Roman Empire.

Gay marriage threads tend to degenerate into some form of flaming or blaming or pointlessness sooner or later. Seems to be the way with them around here, unfortunately.

Eh, same with most topics. Just gotta roll with it. Try and keep 'em on track. Not de-rail them like me right now.

Seriously though, its tough for there to be any real debate going on here, since anyone who feels strongly against gay marriage will obviously say nothing due to the adamant attitude about it around here.

 

[Jindrak]

Marriage should be a voluntary union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. Preferably, for life. In Australia, we do not have Gay marriage. Living with someone in a sexual relationship grants de facto status, which entitles to the same rights as a married couple. As they have the same rights when living in a similar circumstance, the need for marriage shouldn't be there.

I disagree with your views on marriage. I also don't know about Australia- perhaps is not a problem there. However, here in the states it's important.

These aren't so much views as the law here. Why should it be important? is there no de facto? Also, simply loving other men (or women) shouldn't entitle you to change a tradition that has been ingrained into the law of just about every country. Surely you don't value person status (which is relatively meaningless given the same rights) over the law and values of your country?

I'm sorry, I must call bullshit.

One man, one woman for the rest of their lives being "ingrained in culture" is a laughable claim. Half of marriages end in divorce. It hasn't been ingrained in anyone's culture, it's been haphazardly stapled onto it. The most common family makeup in history is NOT one man one woman, it was, throughout our world's history, one man and many women. Not that that model is "right," it was just the most common. The one man, one woman, white picket fence, .5 kids and a dog family was never a real family. It was a sitcom in the '50s.

The reason it is important to us Staties is that Civil Unions are not given the same rights as Marriages. Currently, with only a few states having exceptions, if a gay person's partner is in the emergency room, they cannot visit them. If the partner dies, they are not entitled to pensions/insurance/benefits. If they adopted or AI'd kids, the other partner has NO rights to them. They do not get the same tax breaks, they do not get the same rights as married couples. There are no de facto rights as you claim Australia has. This is why it is important to us. Right now, gays are second class citizens and when my brother cannot get married to his partner of EIGHT YEARS because my state is still too bigoted to accept them, it right pisses us off.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Marriage should be a voluntary union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. Preferably, for life. In Australia, we do not have Gay marriage. Living with someone in a sexual relationship grants de facto status, which entitles to the same rights as a married couple. As they have the same rights when living in a similar circumstance, the need for marriage shouldn't be there.

I disagree with your views on marriage. I also don't know about Australia- perhaps is not a problem there. However, here in the states it's important.

These aren't so much views as the law here. Why should it be important? is there no de facto? Also, simply loving other men (or women) shouldn't entitle you to change a tradition that has been ingrained into the law of just about every country. Surely you don't value person status (which is relatively meaningless given the same rights) over the law and values of your country?

I'm sorry, I must call bullshit.

One man, one woman for the rest of their lives being "ingrained in culture" is a laughable claim. Half of marriages end in divorce. It hasn't been ingrained in anyone's culture, it's been haphazardly stapled on the front. The most common family makeup in history is NOT one man one woman, it was, throughout our world's history, one man and many women.

The reason it is important to us Staties is that Civil Unions are not given the same rights as Marriages. Currently, with only a few states having exceptions, if a gay person's partner is in the emergency room, they cannot visit them. If the partner dies, they are not entitled to pensions/insurance/benefits. If they adopted or AI'd kids, the other partner has NO rights to them. They do not get the same tax breaks, they do not get the same rights as married couples. There are no de facto rights as you claim Australia has. This is why it is important to us. Right now, gays are second class citizens and when my brother cannot get married to his partner of EIGHT YEARS because my state is still too bigoted to accept them, it right pisses us off.

I'm sorry about your brother and his partner.

 

[Jenny Creed]

Antropologists have noted that every single culture in the history of the species have had a ceremony to announce commitment/fidelity between lovers. Whereas only most of those cultures have had tolerance issues with gays.

I'd say the tolerance bit is the one more likely to change.

*And no, the number and sex of the lovers is unspecified, as is the duration of the commitment. The nuclear family ideal, by the way, was cemented when certain commercial interests discovered that of all possible family configurations, it's the one that consumes the most.

 

[IronicBeet]

It should be left up to the states, and the states should all legalize it.

Same thing with marijuana, IMO.

It shouldn't be legalized, because then we'd to pay taxes for it, stupid.

 

[Sark]

These aren't so much views as the law here. Why should it be important? is there no de facto? Also, simply loving other men (or women) shouldn't entitle you to change a tradition that has been ingrained into the law of just about every country. Surely you don't value person status (which is relatively meaningless given the same rights) over the law and values of your country?

Laws, especially those dealing with civil rights, change with time. Need I remind you that it used to be illegal for a black person to marry a white person? The issue certainly is a civil rights issue, especially since there are many legal benefits relating to things like taxes, insurance and inheritance tied to being a married couple in the United Sates.

Why not have civil unions then? The same rights effectively, but the status is not married. Changing the definition of marriage to accomodate for a minority is going too far.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

It should be left up to the states, and the states should all legalize it.

Same thing with marijuana, IMO.

It shouldn't be legalized, because then we'd to pay taxes for it, stupid.

That's one of the reason I think it should be legal myself. Not the main one. But one.

Anyway- back on topic.

 

[Motti]

Yes it should be legal. The fact that the church doesn't agree with it and wants it illegal disgusts me and is one of the reasons why I gave god the finger and left him to his flock of sheep.

People who don't agree with gay marriage are generally religious, which should have no part in governing legal issues - in the US, anyway, as religious freedom and separation of church and state are supposedly two things the country is founded on.

Hah, supposedly. true separation of church and state occurs in say, France, where God isn't even mentioned in the government (or from what I've seen at least).

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Yes it should be legal. The fact that the church doesn't agree with it and wants it illegal disgusts me and is one of the reasons why I gave god the finger and left him to his flock of sheep.

People who don't agree with gay marriage are generally religious, which should have no part in governing legal issues - in the US, anyway, as religious freedom and separation of church and state are supposedly two things the country is founded on.

Hah, supposedly. true separation of church and state occurs in say, France, where God isn't even mentioned in the government (or from what I've seen at least).

I am no longer a Christian either, but this issue was among the least of my reasons for abandoning the faith.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

i dont understand the issue with it honestly. you love who you love simple as that

one thing i have noticed is the perception of people. straight people have relationships but gay people only have sex.

until peole accept that yes gay people can actually have loving committed relationships there will always be discrimination

I hadn't really thought about that before but you're right- that is a very important step.

 

[Jindrak]

Why not have civil unions then? The same rights effectively, but the status is not married. Changing the definition of marriage to accomodate for a minority is going too far.

Please read my post on page three I sent in regards to this. We do not currently have equal civil unions.

It should be left up to the states, and the states should all legalize it.

Same thing with marijuana, IMO.

It shouldn't be legalized, because then we'd to pay taxes for it, stupid.

Wrong thread, shoo.

I'm going to run down the arguments and my counter-arguments.

1.Q: The Bible!
1.A: First Amendment, blah blah blah, The Bible is full of inherent contradictions and unless we're making it illegal to eat shellfish, you're not allowed to quote from it.

2.Q: It's not natural!
2.A: Over five hundred species of animals have been known to have homosexual pairings, most will do it even with a female of the same species present. One of the species being Primates, you know, our ancestors. Typically the definition of unnatural is not occurring within nature and homosexual behavior occur in nature. By the transitive property, I declare homosexuality, natural.

3.Q: It will destroy our marriages.
3.A: How? No one ever explains how a section of the population getting married will harm their marriage. They just shout it and keep shouting it until I give up, usually.

4.Q: It sickens me!
4.A: PETA sickens me, can I get them outlawed?

5.Q: It will encourage children to be gay!
5.A: No, it won't. New research into the human genome is now supporting the theory that there is a biological component to homosexuality. The most likely culprit is a DNA sequence during the maturation of the fetus in the womb becoming conflicted and wiring the brain of the fetus incorrectly, forcing it to be attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite. I'm confident that within the next fifty years we will know, without a shadow of a doubt, exactly what causes homosexuality. Then we have to deal with the whack-jobs trying to fix it, but that's for another discussion.

 

[Lightnr]

I am for people choosing they're partners, and I am for freedom of whatever.
I don't understand the following:
It seems like gay people want to desecrate marriage more than just have it. For example: in many places gay marriage is perfectly OK and legal but that is not enough, they want to be able to marry in a church... And people are against that. It is perfectly reasonable to be against that. Religion is a set of moral laws and principles people live by.

I guess what I am trying to say is I have have no problem with gay people because they are gay, but I don't understand why they want everyone to be like:
"OMG I Love you because you are gay! I want to be gay too!!!" That is completely unreasonable.

For example when they show on the news: A quite church or temple gathering is in session that is not even remotely discussing gay issues but is doing regular service and a bunch of people burst in and start yelling "FASCIST! GAY RIGHTS!!! GOD LOVES EVERYONE!!" - that to me is total disregard for freedom of speech of the speaker, and isn't the way to get people on your side - in fact it is exactly how you make enemies out of people that previously were fine with you. But it seems like that's what many want - are enemies to justify some kind of cause. Weird.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Why not have civil unions then? The same rights effectively, but the status is not married. Changing the definition of marriage to accomodate for a minority is going too far.

Please read my post on page three I sent in regards to this. We do not currently have equal civil unions.

It should be left up to the states, and the states should all legalize it.

Same thing with marijuana, IMO.

It shouldn't be legalized, because then we'd to pay taxes for it, stupid.

Wrong thread, shoo.

I'm going to run down the arguments and my counter-arguments.

1.Q: The Bible!
1.A: First Amendment, blah blah blah, The Bible is full of inherent contradictions and unless we're making it illegal to eat shellfish, you're not allowed to quote from it.

2.Q: It's not natural!
2.A: Over five hundred species of animals have been known to have homosexual pairings, most will do it even with a female of the same species present. One of the species being Primates, you know, our ancestors. Typically the definition of unnatural is not occurring within nature and homosexual behavior occur in nature. By the transitive property, I declare homosexuality, natural.

3.Q: It will destroy our marriages.
3.A: How? No one ever explains how a section of the population getting married will harm their marriage. They just shout it and keep shouting it until I give up, usually.

4.Q: It sickens me!
4.A: PETA sickens me, can I get them outlawed?

5.Q: It will encourage children to be gay!
5.A: No, it won't. New research into the human genome is now supporting the theory that there is a biological component to homosexuality. The most likely culprit is a DNA sequence during the maturation of the fetus in the womb becoming conflicted and wiring the brain of the fetus incorrectly, forcing it to be attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite. I'm confident that within the next fifty years we will know, without a shadow of a doubt, exactly what causes homosexuality. Then we have to deal with the whack-jobs trying to fix it, but that's for another discussion.

Bravo sir.

*claps*

 

[Branovices]

These aren't so much views as the law here. Why should it be important? is there no de facto? Also, simply loving other men (or women) shouldn't entitle you to change a tradition that has been ingrained into the law of just about every country. Surely you don't value person status (which is relatively meaningless given the same rights) over the law and values of your country?

Laws, especially those dealing with civil rights, change with time. Need I remind you that it used to be illegal for a black person to marry a white person? The issue certainly is a civil rights issue, especially since there are many legal benefits relating to things like taxes, insurance and inheritance tied to being a married couple in the United Sates.

Why not have civil unions then? The same rights effectively, but the status is not married. Changing the definition of marriage to accomodate for a minority is going too far.

Mirriam-Webster already defines marriage as also being between two people of the same sex. That might sound like a petty argument, but really it is only as petty as yours. The definitions of words changes all the time.

There is no permanent, eternal stamp on something as flimsy as a word, much less its definition. Rather it is the feelings evoked by the word; its meaning rather than its definition, so to speak. Marriage is something people feel they deserve, to pledge their love to one another.

 

[Jindrak]

I am for people choosing they're partners, and I am for freedom of whatever.
I don't understand the following:
It seems like gay people want to desecrate marriage more than just have it. For example: in many places gay marriage is perfectly OK and legal but that is not enough, they want to be able to marry in a church... And people are against that. It is perfectly reasonable to be against that. Religion is a set of moral laws and principles people live by.

I guess what I am trying to say is I have have no problem with gay people because they are gay, but I don't understand why they want everyone to be like:
"OMG I Love you because you are gay! I want to be gay too!!!" That is completely unreasonable.

For example when they show on the news: A quite church or temple gathering is in session that is not even remotely discussing gay issues but is doing regular service and a bunch of people burst in and start yelling "FASCIST! GAY RIGHTS!!! GOD LOVES EVERYONE!!" - that to me is total disregard for freedom of speech of the speaker, and isn't the way to get people on your side - in fact it is exactly how you make enemies out of people that previously were fine with you. But it seems like that's what many want - are enemies to justify some kind of cause. Weird.

You also must understand that these people attempting to push homosexuality onto others are a minority in the homosexual community. Judging the many by those few is akin to me judging all Christians by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church (the God kills Soldiers because America likes Gays brigade).

 

[Lightnr]

To illustrate my point better:
Say I am a new breed of many people that like to take dumps outdoors. The police catch me and fine me and beat me up. I lobby and get rights and now am free to take dumps in the outdoors. However now I am not satisfied and I continue to pursue my cause. I want to be able to take dumps not just in the woods but were other people who are not like me gather, say public transport. Are people ok to be against that? Will I be "free" enough only when I am able to take a dump on the president's desk without anyone saying anything?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I am for people choosing they're partners, and I am for freedom of whatever.
I don't understand the following:
It seems like gay people want to desecrate marriage more than just have it. For example: in many places gay marriage is perfectly OK and legal but that is not enough, they want to be able to marry in a church... And people are against that. It is perfectly reasonable to be against that. Religion is a set of moral laws and principles people live by.

I guess what I am trying to say is I have have no problem with gay people because they are gay, but I don't understand why they want everyone to be like:
"OMG I Love you because you are gay! I want to be gay too!!!" That is completely unreasonable.

For example when they show on the news: A quite church or temple gathering is in session that is not even remotely discussing gay issues but is doing regular service and a bunch of people burst in and start yelling "FASCIST! GAY RIGHTS!!! GOD LOVES EVERYONE!!" - that to me is total disregard for freedom of speech of the speaker, and isn't the way to get people on your side - in fact it is exactly how you make enemies out of people that previously were fine with you. But it seems like that's what many want - are enemies to justify some kind of cause. Weird.

You also must understand that these people attempting to push homosexuality onto others are a minority in the homosexual community. Judging the many by those few is akin to me judging all Christians by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church (the God kills Soldiers because America likes Gays brigade).

I am against anyone who is insane. The Westboro Baptist Church are my least favorite people in the world, but disrupting peaceful churches is bad. If you wanna upset the WBC be my guest though.

I believe strongly that the government should marry gays- separation of church and state. However I don't feel churches should have to marry them- freedom of religion. I would marry a gay couple if I was a preacher but I'm not so that holds no weight.

 

[twistedshadows]

Yes it should be legal. The fact that the church doesn't agree with it and wants it illegal disgusts me and is one of the reasons why I gave god the finger and left him to his flock of sheep.

People who don't agree with gay marriage are generally religious, which should have no part in governing legal issues - in the US, anyway, as religious freedom and separation of church and state are supposedly two things the country is founded on.

Hah, supposedly. true separation of church and state occurs in say, France, where God isn't even mentioned in the government (or from what I've seen at least).

Yeah, I'm often upset by how often the two are linked when they shouldn't be (if people are taking the First Amendment seriously, anyway).

 

[The Noble Shade]

I believe that there should not be gay marriage. While I am one to say that it is not acceptable to sanction the law according to religion, I am also one to say that the integrity of things should be preserved. I have nothing against homosexuals, but marriage is a religious practice, and it should be between a man and a woman. If it were between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) than it is not really marriage.
But homosexuals DO have a right to be together, and to raise families, and have all the rights and protections that a marriage brings, which is why I support civil union laws.