Poll: Gay Marriage

[2012 Wont Happen]

I would like to hear your stances and your points supporting your stances.

I am personally for It's legalization for the following reasons:

I believe Church and State should be separated.

I agree with everything else except what I quoted here.

Marriage has NOTHING to do with church. People have non Christian weddings all the time. People get married by justices with no bible in sight.

I'm atheist so I take offence to you implying that marriage is tied to the church somehow. the right to be married isn't "god given" anyone can get married.

Also, the government issues marriage licences in America. Not the church.

As for the topic I think homosexuals should be able to get married.

I know- it's NOT religious anymore. That's why gays shouldn't be excluded.

I'm not exactly an atheist. I think there might be some higher power- but not like the Abrahamic religions tell it. So, I'm with you on marriage and love not being religion.

 

[Thaius]

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?

The difference is this.

Gays do not have sex in the public eye (well, I guess sometimes they do- but those are arrested as they should be for public fornication).

Taking a crap in public disturbs actually effects others (indecent exposer, unsanitary, smells bad).

Actually, as I illustrated in my previous post, it will affect others. Not in the same way, of course, but that's why it's an analogy: it's not the same, it's simply similar in application and concept.

 

[Sark]

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?

The difference is this.

Gays do not have sex in the public eye (well, I guess sometimes they do- but those are arrested as they should be for public fornication).

Taking a crap in public disturbs actually effects others (indecent exposer, unsanitary, smells bad).

Actually, as I illustrated in my previous post, it will affect others. Not in the same way, of course, but that's why it's an analogy: it's not the same, it's simply similar in application and concept.

The challenge of personal freedom versus public morals and standards.

Many people have issues with homosexual public displays of affection. It can be especially difficult explaining to young children the possibilities of alternate sexualities. So yes, people can find it disturbing, although it is not on the same level as taking a public poop.

 

[Lightnr]

Just like fashion... some follow trends some create them...

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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?

The difference is this.

Gays do not have sex in the public eye (well, I guess sometimes they do- but those are arrested as they should be for public fornication).

Taking a crap in public disturbs actually effects others (indecent exposer, unsanitary, smells bad).

Actually, as I illustrated in my previous post, it will affect others. Not in the same way, of course, but that's why it's an analogy: it's not the same, it's simply similar in application and concept.

How would it effect others. I fail to see that illustrated in the post that I quoted. I may have missed another post in which you laid out your argument- but I didn't see it either way.

 

[Sweep117]

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.

I agree with all your arguments except the first. It's pretty clear that if you ever read the Bible, you didn't read much. In the Old Testament(Not "Amendment"), a lot of things are banned. I mean a lot. The Old Testament is, for the lack of a better word, revised in the New Testament. For example, it's perfectly fine for me to eat shellfish but it's still wrong for me to kill. In the New Testament, homosexual acts are deemed sinful.

That being said, I, a born again Christian, think that gay marriage should be legalized. Sure, I believe it to be wrong for one person to marry another person of the same gender but as long as I'm not being made to marry a guy, do what you want. I believe it's wrong to get drunk but I'm not for the illegalization of alcohol.

The only concern I have is something they were considering here in Canada. Making it unlawful for a pastor/priest to refuse to marry a gay couple if it went against his/her beliefs. You can't compromise one person's beliefs to support another's.

 

[TankCopter]

I would say that if someone is gay and wants to get married, why shouldn't they? It's not like they want the right just to annoy those devout Christians who hate the idea, and really, nobody's asking them to approve of it. That said, it doesn't hurt them, it doesn't even affect them. If they refuse someone else a simple social freedom, how can they expect us to give them everything they ask for?

 

[Jindrak]

The difference is this.

Gays do not have sex in the public eye (well, I guess sometimes they do- but those are arrested as they should be for public fornication).

Taking a crap in public disturbs actually effects others (indecent exposer, unsanitary, smells bad).

Many people have issues with homosexual public displays of affection. It can be especially difficult explaining to young children the possibilities of alternate sexualities. So yes, people can find it disturbing, although it is not on the same level as taking a public poop.

The "OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument is among my most hated arguments. Children are not going to have their fragile mind destroyed if they are explained to what homosexuality is. All available studies have shown kids growing up with gays are no more likely to be gay than any other person and people who know about gays won't "turn" gay. It will, however, lead to people who are gay not having to hide themselves from the world. If they can accept themselves, everyone will be happier.

 

[Lightnr]

Don't care about gay people or their problems

if they can't get married.............who cares its not like they have a blood line legacy

lol...
wonder if vampires can be gay... probably are... with all the sucking and all..... Not saying cunnilingus isn't chill though.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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?

The difference is this.

Gays do not have sex in the public eye (well, I guess sometimes they do- but those are arrested as they should be for public fornication).

Taking a crap in public disturbs actually effects others (indecent exposer, unsanitary, smells bad).

Actually, as I illustrated in my previous post, it will affect others. Not in the same way, of course, but that's why it's an analogy: it's not the same, it's simply similar in application and concept.

The challenge of personal freedom versus public morals and standards.

Many people have issues with homosexual public displays of affection. It can be especially difficult explaining to young children the possibilities of alternate sexualities. So yes, people can find it disturbing, although it is not on the same level as taking a public poop.

I can sympathize with people who don't like to see public display of affection. I don't mind it but I know lots of people who do.

I don't, however, see why there is a difference between homosexual and heterosexual public display. Either all kissing and making out should be banned in public, or none of it. I vote none but that's just one man's opinion.

 

[Ninja_X]

I would like to hear your stances and your points supporting your stances.

I am personally for It's legalization for the following reasons:

I believe Church and State should be separated.

I agree with everything else except what I quoted here.

Marriage has NOTHING to do with church. People have non Christian weddings all the time. People get married by justices with no bible in sight.

I'm atheist so I take offence to you implying that marriage is tied to the church somehow. the right to be married isn't "god given" anyone can get married.

Also, the government issues marriage licences in America. Not the church.

As for the topic I think homosexuals should be able to get married.

I know- it's NOT religious anymore. That's why gays shouldn't be excluded.

I'm not exactly an atheist. I think there might be some higher power- but not like the Abrahamic religions tell it. So, I'm with you on marriage and love not being religion.

Thank you.

And you are right. The government should recognize gay marriage.

But if a priest doesn't want to perform gay marriages because it clashes with his religious beliefs that is his right.

Same as not forcing doctors to preform abortions because it goes against what they believe.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I would like to hear your stances and your points supporting your stances.

I am personally for It's legalization for the following reasons:

I believe Church and State should be separated.

I agree with everything else except what I quoted here.

Marriage has NOTHING to do with church. People have non Christian weddings all the time. People get married by justices with no bible in sight.

I'm atheist so I take offence to you implying that marriage is tied to the church somehow. the right to be married isn't "god given" anyone can get married.

Also, the government issues marriage licences in America. Not the church.

As for the topic I think homosexuals should be able to get married.

I know- it's NOT religious anymore. That's why gays shouldn't be excluded.

I'm not exactly an atheist. I think there might be some higher power- but not like the Abrahamic religions tell it. So, I'm with you on marriage and love not being religion.

Thank you.

And you are right. The government should recognize gay marriage.

But if a priest doesn't want to perform gay marriages because it clashes with his religious beliefs that is his right.

Same as not forcing doctors to preform abortions.

Yeah. Let the gays have their freedom and let the Christians have their convictions. Everyone will be happier for it.

 

[Jindrak]

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.

I agree with all your arguments except the first. It's pretty clear that if you ever read the Bible, you didn't read much. In the Old Testament(Not "Amendment"), a lot of things are banned. I mean a lot. The Old Testament is, for the lack of a better word, revised in the New Testament. For example, it's perfectly fine for me to eat shellfish but it's still wrong for me to kill. In the New Testament, homosexual acts are deemed sinful.

That being said, I, a born again Christian, think that gay marriage should be legalized. Sure, I believe it to be wrong for one person to marry another person of the same gender but as long as I'm not being made to marry a guy, do what you want. I believe it's wrong to get drunk but I'm not for the illegalization of alcohol.

The only concern I have is something they were considering here in Canada. Making it unlawful for a pastor/priest to refuse to marry a gay couple if it went against his/her beliefs. You can't compromise one person's beliefs to support another's.

I realize that Leviticus is a bad book to quote, as everything you can possibly do is met with death as a punishment, it just illustrates my point best and is a backup to the First Amendment argument. Really I believe that's all that should be required, we don't make laws based on Koran, so we shouldn't make them based on the Bible.

 

[Thaius]

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?

The difference is this.

Gays do not have sex in the public eye (well, I guess sometimes they do- but those are arrested as they should be for public fornication).

Taking a crap in public disturbs actually effects others (indecent exposer, unsanitary, smells bad).

Actually, as I illustrated in my previous post, it will affect others. Not in the same way, of course, but that's why it's an analogy: it's not the same, it's simply similar in application and concept.

How would it effect others. I fail to see that illustrated in the post that I quoted. I may have missed another post in which you laid out your argument- but I didn't see it either way.

Check out what I wrote earlier. Societal acceptance of anything affects others. Look at evolution: regardless of your stance on whether or not it is true, it has unquestionably become something that is forced on people, in that it and it alone is required to learn in school and you are ridiculed and persecuted if you do not believe it. This is how these things always turn out.

 

[Shapsters]

To be honest, this thread will go no-where new and will give you the same insight as all of the other threads about this. People on the Escapist are all fine with gay marriage, yes gays should be allowed to marry, no the country has no right to tell them they can't and yes religion does get in the way as silly as it may be.

 

[Marv21]

I personally believe that marriage shouldn't even be in the jurisdiction of the government. I think that marriage is a unalienable right, that man, woman, he-shes, pre op, post off should all share.

 

[MajoraPersona]

Getting married is for people who can have babies.

Seriously. What's the point of staying together for the kids if there are no kids?

Marriage is two or more people gathering resources and being treated as one entity within society. Love should not be the driving force behind it. If two people want to live together, I don't understand where there's an issue.

Ah, so you're in favor of banning impotent people from getting married, good to know.

[sarcasm]You forgot my endorsements of rape and child prostitution.[/sarcasm]

I dislike marriage, or rather its role in society, for personal reasons. Those who insist on gay marriage tend to make use of the issue in traditional marriage that I disagree with.

As a whole, my policy is to not care about other people at all, and to die cold and alone of multiple organ failure as a result of regular substance abuse.

Also, as Mr. Garrison said (after his second sex change), the only real difference between men and women is the ability to have a baby. If not for South Park, how would we ever learn anything of value?

 

[Jindrak]

To be honest, this thread will go no-where new and will give you the same insight as all of the other threads about this. People on the Escapist are all fine with gay marriage, yes gays should be allowed to marry, no the country has no right to tell them they can't and yes religion does get in the way as silly as it may be.

But yelling at people over the internet helps me hone my "shouting stuff at people and claiming it is a debate" skill.

 

[Ninja_X]

The only concern I have is something they were considering here in Canada. Making it unlawful for a pastor/priest to refuse to marry a gay couple if it went against his/her beliefs. You can't compromise one person's beliefs to support another's.

[/quote]

Exactly, respect everyone. Is that so hard?