Poll: Gay Marriage

Recommended Videos

Mozared

New member
Mar 26, 2009
1,607
0
0
"Marriage Should Not Be a Legal Entity At All"

Really, I couldn't care less about two people marrying. If that's their way to express their love, then they should do it. Who the hell am I to judge whether they should be allowed to do so or not? As long as they don't bug me with it, I really can't be worried about it. I'm not really sure whether I'd want to 'marry' the love of my life, because it doesn't mean too much to me. If it means a lot to others, then so be it.
 

Jerious1154

New member
Aug 18, 2008
547
0
0
avykins said:
I am strongly against gay marriage. Like it or not. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Always has been, always will be. You want a separation of church and state? Fine. Then you get civil unions. That is the religiously separated version. Stop whining and having all these protests over something you do not deserve.

Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. End of story.

Now, do I think civil unions should have all the legal rights and responsibilities of a real marriage? Sure. But they do not deserve the title of marriage. Nor should the church have to recognise them as such and any professional should be able to refuse them non critical service if it goes against their beliefs such as the case of the doctor who refused to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. They offered them the name of doctors who would but just did not want to do it themselves and almost lost their licence over that bullshit.

To quote this one pic I came across. "Equal Rights: Gays have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they choose. Just like everyone else."
What if a reform minded religious institution wants to be able to marry gays? I know that my synagogue would marry same-sex couples, and Jews can be even more polarized against gay marriage then Christians can, since we only follow the Old Testament. The only thing stopping my synagogue from marrying gays is the government telling them that they are not allowed to.
 

Blood_Lined

New member
Mar 31, 2009
442
0
0
Constitutionally and religiously I disagree with gay marriage, if a homo-sexual wishes to be together with another homo-sexual, sign up for domestic partnership.
 

Bigeyez

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,135
0
0
avykins said:
Bigeyez said:
Actually you are confusing the term religious with christian. Many cultures thought of it as a religious ceremony far before there even was a christ. Even when it was just a social contract they would still ask for the gods blessing. However even back then marriage was always between a man and a woman. If you want to get to its true origin then marriage was originally just a form of slavery. You get this woman for this price. No matter how you look at it though it is always between a man and a woman.

Also I have no church. No religion. I merely support them because they are the lesser evil in this argument. They have phrased their argument far better than the homosexual side has.

Also you mention going to the courthouse and getting married in front of a judge. I already said I do not give a rats ass about civil unions. However they do not deserve the term marriage and the more they fight for it, the more they whine about it, the more I hope they never get it as they are just trying to force their bullshit down every ones throat instead of accepting the compromise of the civil union and creating their own term for it.

Just as a side note. Before Prop 8 I could not give a rats ass about gays or their rights at all. As long as they shut up and not shove it in my face then I could not care less what they want. However after hearing about prop 8 I checked out some of the commercials for it. Funny thing is each sides ads made me want to vote for the opposing side. Then I came across a particular series of ads. Number 1 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T7ux8M4Go] & Number 2 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU4udzEbcdQ].
Those pretty much settled my opinion on the matter. That blatant use of propaganda and name calling just proved that the "No" side was even worse than the Yes side.
Then you get people like chriscrocker who just seem to be deliberately sabotaging their own side.
No I'm simply using Chrstianity as the example here. Seeing as that seems to be the basis of religious reasons against it. Marriage throughout history has NOT always had religious signifigance. It differed frm culture to culture. Some involved the goverment, some were indeed religious, and like I said some involved no one except for the two people in question.

Marriage is something that, like I said, has been with us since the very first civilizations on our planet formed. And yes they were in fact gay marriages in olden times. They even happened, while few in number, in the Roman Empire just before the rise of the Roman Catholic church.

And no marriage didn't originate as a form of slavery. The earliest reports of laws based on marriage were in Mesepotamia and marriage there was very much the same as it is today a union with two people because of property, etc, etc. And even then we're not sure if thats really where marriages originated. Thats simply the earliest recorded form of marriage we know of.

What you talked about did indeed exist but was not the origins of marriage.

And again what we're really argueing about here is the semantics of the word marriage. You definitely don't come across as an unreasonable person and your partly right. Sure Civil Unions should be fine. But to some people the word Marriage attached to their piece of paper means a world of difference.
 

Sinvel

New member
Aug 5, 2008
78
0
0
Let me put up an explanation given by my cultural anthropology professor during class last month. He was leading a discussion on this and this is a condensed version of what happened so bear with me....

One day in class He pointed to one of my African American classmates and said, really loudly, "I AM BLACK!!"
The student was like, 'fine, whatever'. The professor (who is very Caucasian) said that he
'walks' like him, and 'talks' like him (he starts strutting around, and talking in some slurred accent -- everybody laughs). He says that he 'listens to the same music' as black people do (I like rap music!!), and he also 'dresses' like black people (he pulls out a Rastafarian hat from behind his desk and puts it on). After the laughter dies down, the AA student says real black people don't do those things. The professor then goes, "I don't care, I'm BLACK!!" and struts around some more. In fact, the professor actually pulls out a piece of paper and says, "I want you to sign this, to declare me black by you -- a black person." The AA student goes "wha?"
"I want you to legally declare me black! We're in the USA right? This is a free country right? I can be anything I want to be!" and slams the paper in front of him.
The AA student laughs, "No professor. You are NOT BLACK!! I know that we're in a free country, yes you can say anything you want, but you can never be black."
"Why not?" the professors mocks.
"You do not fully understand our culture or history, you have never experienced what I have living in America being black, so you will fully never understand what it means to be black. I know this is a free country, but just because you call yourself black, doesn't make it so."
"Yes it does, if you sign this paper, I can be LEGALLY black! Recognized by the government!" the professor points to the paper.
"Sir, you can call yourself whatever you want. It's a free country and you can do whatever makes you happy. But if I sign this paper and formally accept you into our culture, it will lessen my culture. It lessen what it means to be black in this country and everything that we have accomplished. If declare you black by signing this paper, then I will be betraying my identity, my history and my culture." (condensed discussion)
The professor stops and yells, "BINGO!!"

The professor went on to say that this can be applied to ANY label or condition or identification in this country. Married, black, white, chinese, hispanic, etc, anything. The core reason that there are people who are against gay marriages is that it takes away from the culture of marriage. It lessens the cultural significance of marriage, and it takes away from identity of marriage. Many people don't think that by allowing gay marriages that it doesn't hurt anyone, but it does. It hurts the institution of marriage, and for people who support it, see gay marriages as a threat their culture, and will fight to protect it. Or at least by voting in what they believe in when given the opportunity. We're certainly not stopping any gay couples from being together, being joined in a ceremony, living together, and doing whatever they need to do to be happy. But if they need others to vote and sign a paper declaring them "married", it get complicated as it impacts others, since the traditional culture and institution of marriage dictates that it is between a man and woman. It's also a partial explanation why mainly younger generations support gay marriages (not married yet, still playing the field) and the older populations are fighting it (married already, some for many years).

That discussion really opened my eyes on this topic, and even though I don't go to church, I have to agree with that argument. I'm sure I'll get alot of flak and/or flames from this stance (flaming flak?) but that's how I see it. By no means I am foolish enough to say that this position is right or even correct, and if I was gay, I'd probably be fighting for my rights too. That being said, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that gay people will eventually win the right to be married.
 

miso2002

New member
Apr 15, 2009
34
0
0
Mr.Pandah said:
Branovices said:
Mr.Pandah said:
Only thing I feel like saying to be honest is "The Fall of Rome."
I'm tired of this, Rome didn't fall because of homosexuality. If anything Rome's fall actually had more to do with its adopting Christianity*. A pacifist religion is hardly the best choice for a militarist state... though today we seem to have worked through that by ignoring the pacifist part.

*According to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon
Oh, you're tired of it? I'm sorry. I didn't realize. Did I credit it the entire Fall of Rome to gays? No. No, I did not. Besides, Christianity is hardly pacifist. Just because we focus on the whole Jesus part, doesn't mean there aren't chapters of war in our book.

Sum of its parts. Thats what lead to the downfall, being gay was one of them.

Gibbons was not a great historian. He was considered the first modern historian but that doesn't mean the most accurate. I don't quote aristotle when trying to talk about animal classification because knowledge grows with time. Also historians aren't unbiased it is not a hard science so whatever a person writes doesn't mean it's true. If you ever read Kant, he had this piece where he showed that human logic is faulty via using common arguements such as proving the world is infinitely vs. finite. I once was given a list in a class to prioritize a list of famous people as heroes. On a dare I put mother theresa at the bottom and Michael Jackson on top because he was the king of dance and people said it made sense. (Total bullshit)
 

miso2002

New member
Apr 15, 2009
34
0
0
miso2002 said:
Mr.Pandah said:
Branovices said:
Mr.Pandah said:
Only thing I feel like saying to be honest is "The Fall of Rome."
I'm tired of this, Rome didn't fall because of homosexuality. If anything Rome's fall actually had more to do with its adopting Christianity*. A pacifist religion is hardly the best choice for a militarist state... though today we seem to have worked through that by ignoring the pacifist part.

*According to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon
Oh, you're tired of it? I'm sorry. I didn't realize. Did I credit it the entire Fall of Rome to gays? No. No, I did not. Besides, Christianity is hardly pacifist. Just because we focus on the whole Jesus part, doesn't mean there aren't chapters of war in our book.

Sum of its parts. Thats what lead to the downfall, being gay was one of them.

Gibbons was not a great historian. He was considered the first modern historian but that doesn't mean the most accurate. I don't quote aristotle when trying to talk about animal classification because knowledge grows with time. Also historians aren't unbiased it is not a hard science so whatever a person writes doesn't mean it's true. If you ever read Kant, he had this piece where he showed that human logic is faulty via using common arguements such as proving the world is infinitely vs. finite. I once was given a list in a class to prioritize a list of famous people as heroes. On a dare I put mother theresa at the bottom and Michael Jackson on top because he was the king of dance and people said it made sense. (Total bullshit)
Way to bring up a long forgotten post, tool-wad!
 

Ninja_X

New member
Aug 9, 2009
616
0
0
Bigeyez said:
avykins said:
Bigeyez said:
Actually you are confusing the term religious with christian. Many cultures thought of it as a religious ceremony far before there even was a christ. Even when it was just a social contract they would still ask for the gods blessing. However even back then marriage was always between a man and a woman. If you want to get to its true origin then marriage was originally just a form of slavery. You get this woman for this price. No matter how you look at it though it is always between a man and a woman.

Also I have no church. No religion. I merely support them because they are the lesser evil in this argument. They have phrased their argument far better than the homosexual side has.

Also you mention going to the courthouse and getting married in front of a judge. I already said I do not give a rats ass about civil unions. However they do not deserve the term marriage and the more they fight for it, the more they whine about it, the more I hope they never get it as they are just trying to force their bullshit down every ones throat instead of accepting the compromise of the civil union and creating their own term for it.

Just as a side note. Before Prop 8 I could not give a rats ass about gays or their rights at all. As long as they shut up and not shove it in my face then I could not care less what they want. However after hearing about prop 8 I checked out some of the commercials for it. Funny thing is each sides ads made me want to vote for the opposing side. Then I came across a particular series of ads. Number 1 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T7ux8M4Go] & Number 2 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU4udzEbcdQ].
Those pretty much settled my opinion on the matter. That blatant use of propaganda and name calling just proved that the "No" side was even worse than the Yes side.
Then you get people like chriscrocker who just seem to be deliberately sabotaging their own side.
No I'm simply using Chrstianity as the example here. Seeing as that seems to be the basis of religious reasons against it. Marriage throughout history has NOT always had religious signifigance. It differed frm culture to culture. Some involved the goverment, some were indeed religious, and like I said some involved no one except for the two people in question.

Marriage is something that, like I said, has been with us since the very first civilizations on our planet formed. And yes they were in fact gay marriages in olden times. They even happened, while few in number, in the Roman Empire just before the rise of the Roman Catholic church.

And no marriage didn't originate as a form of slavery. The earliest reports of laws based on marriage were in Mesepotamia and marriage there was very much the same as it is today a union with two people because of property, etc, etc. And even then we're not sure if thats really where marriages originated. Thats simply the earliest recorded form of marriage we know of.

What you talked about did indeed exist but was not the origins of marriage.

And again what we're really argueing about here is the semantics of the word marriage. You definitely don't come across as an unreasonable person and your partly right. Sure Civil Unions should be fine. But to some people the word Marriage attached to their piece of paper means a world of difference.
Exactly people, marriage is NOT a religious issue. It is a legal one.

Its not even a Christian issue really. Many different countries and faiths have a form of marriage. There are Buddhist weddings, there are Hindu weddings, there are Shinto weddings and there are non religious weddings that took place as far back as ancient Greece.

Anyone, regardless of faith can get married. So saying gay marriage lessens the culture of wedding is bullshit. Gay wedding only contradict certain faiths and no one is forcing clergymen of any religion to perform them.

The right to get married belongs to everyone. It is only restricted in SOME faiths.
 

2012 Wont Happen

New member
Aug 12, 2009
4,286
0
0
2012 Wont Happen said:
2012 Wont Happen said:
I believe that in a free country the majority should not be able to vote down the rights of a minority. That's how the oppression of racial minorities and women happened.
Interesting. Because I believe that in a free country, the will of the people is sacrosanct and inviolable. I would much rather be oppressed by the majority than by a small group of people who think they know what's best for me.
Noones trying to tell you what's best for YOU. They're trying to supply equal rights for everyone.
Except voters, apparently.
What part of "inviolable" do you not understand?
Why should the majority be able to vote to discriminate against people who do NOTHING to effect them who were BORN with what they're being discriminated against for. That's what caused slavery.
 

Deadpoolsbrain

New member
Jun 12, 2009
397
0
0
Mr.Pandah said:
Branovices said:
Mr.Pandah said:
Only thing I feel like saying to be honest is "The Fall of Rome."
I'm tired of this, Rome didn't fall because of homosexuality. If anything Rome's fall actually had more to do with its adopting Christianity*. A pacifist religion is hardly the best choice for a militarist state... though today we seem to have worked through that by ignoring the pacifist part.

*According to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon
Oh, you're tired of it? I'm sorry. I didn't realize. Did I credit it the entire Fall of Rome to gays? No. No, I did not. Besides, Christianity is hardly pacifist. Just because we focus on the whole Jesus part, doesn't mean there aren't chapters of war in our book.

Sum of its parts. Thats what lead to the downfall, being gay was one of them.
Yea lets just ignore all the barbarian enemies they made...
Empires rise and fall such is history.
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Lord Thodin said:
Trist66 said:
Lord Thodin said:
Trist66 said:
There is a joke to be made out of this, with the topic being about gays...

Anyway, if you're gay just keep it to yourself and don't be a flamer, and I say go ahead. Don't purposfully change your voice into a lisp, and don't dress like a girl.

But then again, who am I to judge?
I always wondered if gay guys KNOW they are doing it, or if it just kinda comes with being gay.
No, they definitely know (some, anyway). My music teacher has a very girly high pitched voice when talking, and a deep opra voice when singing. He's about as gay as they come.
Hmm thats what i thought, but if they know they do it, then why? Why cast a negative stereotype onto yourself ya know?
if you really want to know why some people act that way, go find a gay guy like that and ask him. it'll probably be a lot harder to find one than you think.
 

lonny2x4x5

New member
Feb 4, 2009
40
0
0
In short no, in long nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 

Shaoken

New member
May 15, 2009
336
0
0
I say the right of belief ends when it starts to affect people who don't share your believes. Ergo; Gay Marriage should be allowed, and in every place it has been legalised the sky has not fallen, divorce rates have plummetted and people are *gasp* actually happy!

So all the people against it can just shut up now. People said the exact same things 50 years ago against interacial marriage that they are about Gay Marriage now (ie destroying the sanctity of marriage and what-not.) Decades before that Black People couldn't even marry other black people because only Whites could marry (although that had more to do with racists who didn't consider anyone whose skin pigmintation was a shade other then white as not being human).
 

King of the N00bs

New member
Aug 12, 2009
425
0
0
I don,t think it should be even INVOLVED with politics. I think that seperation of church and state is something to be maintained. There are a lot of things that religion doesn,t favor. But nowadays you don,t see Catholic Americans killing Protestant Americans or vice versa. So why not co-exist like those two groups? (They were mere examples and nothing else.I do not mean to imply anything insulting about either group.)
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
JWAN said:
As far as I go I say that marriage via judge, captain, drive-thru are all not legit marriages. Marriage was started by the church and because of the separation between the church and state it cant me mucked with.
avykins said:
I am strongly against gay marriage. Like it or not. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Always has been, always will be. You want a separation of church and state? Fine. Then you get civil unions. That is the religiously separated version. Stop whining and having all these protests over something you do not deserve.

Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. End of story.
So at the very least, we can all agree that the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA>Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional then, right?

avykins said:
Now, do I think civil unions should have all the legal rights and responsibilities of a real marriage? Sure. But they do not deserve the title of marriage. Nor should the church have to recognise them as such and any professional should be able to refuse them non critical service if it goes against their beliefs such as the case of the doctor who refused to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. They offered them the name of doctors who would but just did not want to do it themselves and almost lost their licence over that bullshit.
you're completely right about churches, but doctors are a different matter. letting doctors make moral judgments for patients is a dangerous thing. if you're not willing to treat all of your patients to the best of your ability, then you're in the wrong line of work.
 

bob-2000

New member
Jun 28, 2009
986
0
0
legal, hands down. Gay people should have the same rights that everyone else does regardless of their sexual preference.