Poll: Proposition 8: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry in a fashion legally recognized by the state?
- Thread starter JohnJacobJingle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Normally, I'm open to debate on a matter. Save when the matter involves infringing someone else's liberties. In essence, arguing gays should not be permitted to marry is rather like arguing that I should not be able to have milk in my coffee. I do not tolerate it. I do not tolerate any infringements of the rights of me, myself, and those I care about, and since a very close and old friend of mine recently came out of the closet, that means that I do not tolerate the suggestion homosexuals should not be permitted to marry.Furburt said:
Hope that's clear old fellow.
EDIT:
Firstly, TripleG, Capitalism is the finest economic system around, and to say otherwise you'd damn well better find some facts that back you up. Secondly, explain precisely how Gay Mariage is 'a step too far'. And explain to me how and why lesbians might 'love each other until their asses fall off', please. In fact, please, explain most of your statement.
ah, well then. that's remarkably consistent of you. that's also a much more reasonable argument than "well maybe they'll legalize bestiality next."Triple G said:
though it does raise the question of how to go about legislating that every married couple must have children. would adopted children count?
I hate the institution of marriage as well, it just complicates everything even with the lower taxes, BUT people should do whatever makes them happy.Souplex said:
Why is the poll so formally stated, I wish people would get over gay marriage, if they are happy with each other they should be able to get married, it doesn't really matter, here we are whining about something so minuscule that gets attention, we have alot better things to worry about than should we let a man and a man or woman and woman be happy together and have a government accept this.JohnJacobJingle said:Specifically, what unions should the government endorse with the title of marriage, and how should said unions be treated? Should the government try to enforce or endorse these unions? Should the government get involved at all?
My person feelings are that if you want to have a state that does not have a religious or cultural agenda, then you should get out of the business of marriage entirely, since it means such different things to such different cultural/ethnic groups, and trying to accommodate such differing values will be very difficult without having to create in effect separate justice systems for those groups...e.g. I know of some ethnicities where a form of kidnapping is considered perfectly legal by the community at large, and others where spousal abuse and even rape is tolerated by the head of the household.
Thoughts? Trying to get the opinion of a community whose views have so far been rather diverse and thoughtful...and hopefully, this will correct that.
Also, if you are going to use evidence, please include a name or some kind of link so other people can see it...ty!
What I'm trying to say is this: SHUT UP! let it happen if you don't like it don't do it, nobody is being physically or mentally hurt(rare exceptions) by letting them call eaach other husband or wife.
I mean that they can get married. What they're parading on about isn't marriage, because the legal contract calls for two adults of opposite gender. I have no problems with homosexual marriage, but I do have issue with single-sex marriage.MaxTheReaper said:
And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.
Basically every study ever done on the subject has concluded that legalizing gay marriage would generate MILLIONS in tax income for state governments.Edzor said:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/EconImpactCAMarriage.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14047416/Economic-Impact-of-Allowing-SameSex-Marriage-in-Vermont
I had the same question, and yes, it is clear ^o^Rolling Thunder said:
I agree with you completely. Why is someone a lesser being simply because the church says says so? Yes, this is all because of the church. Before the church branched its influence out to the rest of civilized word, greece, japan, china, india etc... It was fully accepted.
As a matter of fact, in greece, homosexuality was considered more of a bond than heterosexuality. As in japan, with the code of bushido, it promoted 'brotherly love' at the exclusion of women.
In china and india homosexuality was considered perfectly normal.
Though often ignored or suppressed by European explorers and colonialists, homosexual expression in native Africa was also present and took a variety of forms.
In native american culture, it was actually embraced. A common form of same-sex sexuality centered around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-Spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life was with the ordinary tribe members of the same sex.
Among many Middle Eastern Muslim cultures egalitarian or age-structured homosexual practices were, and remain, widespread and thinly veiled. Though, same-sex intercourse now carries the death penalty In some more conservative areas. Though there is quite a difference in legality and real-world enforcement.
In many societies of Melanesia, especially in Papua New Guinea, same-sex relationships were an integral part of the culture until the middle of the last century
In china and india homosexuality was considered perfectly normal.
Though often ignored or suppressed by European explorers and colonialists, homosexual expression in native Africa was also present and took a variety of forms.
In native american culture, it was actually embraced. A common form of same-sex sexuality centered around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-Spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life was with the ordinary tribe members of the same sex.
Among many Middle Eastern Muslim cultures egalitarian or age-structured homosexual practices were, and remain, widespread and thinly veiled. Though, same-sex intercourse now carries the death penalty In some more conservative areas. Though there is quite a difference in legality and real-world enforcement.
In many societies of Melanesia, especially in Papua New Guinea, same-sex relationships were an integral part of the culture until the middle of the last century
So why is it so wrong?
I'd honestly make marriage between a man and woman. You won't hear me crying or see me protesting if someone else makes homosexual marriages legal, but I'll stick to my personal beliefs if the decision is mine. I'm not a homophobe at all, have nothing personal against homosexuals, but I was raised in a Baptist church (not a Westboro-Baptist, something a little more sane), I have chosen my beliefs, and I'll stick to them.
No one needs to worry about my opinion on this, anyways; I don't ever plan on entering the realm of politics, so I won't be making that into law.
No one needs to worry about my opinion on this, anyways; I don't ever plan on entering the realm of politics, so I won't be making that into law.
The poll confuses me...
I think two people should be allowed marriage regardless of gender and sexual preference.
I think two people should be allowed marriage regardless of gender and sexual preference.