Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[Jaeke]

Definitely yes

MORE BLOODY WOMEN FOR US STRAIGHT GUYS (keeping it classy)

Thank you sir for being the first out of +200 posts to get the clue!

Here's your complementary Classy Mustache!

Spoiler

 

[Lunar Templar]

I've yet to see a decent argument in its opposition

that's cause one doesn't exist :3

 

[Vault101]

Yeah I was about to say something about that comment but ya beat me to it ya ninja.

You can't say. "I'm okay if you want to spend your life with someone of the same sex. Just don't call it marriage." And still think your 'okay' with it. Obviously some little piece of you isn't okay with it.

And here's something that's been bugging me about the whole 'religious angle' Lets assume (I mean pretend) there is a god (snort chortle snort) Now this god who is not embodied in a male form cause it can be anything it wants. Has the power to create universes, worlds, live etc. etc. Do you really really think he cares if two guys are knocking boots? The answer is no. I'm really trying to keep a tight lid on my religious views (it's all batshit) and even with the stuff in () i'm holding back. But I am really sick and tired of the whole religious angle to be anti- anything. You know what that says to me? it says to me that in lieu of having the guts to voice your own opinion your instead going to hold up a book written a couple thousand years ago by religious hustlers and parrot that back.

??...well I say! I have never been [i/]quite[/i] so offended! YOU sir! are-

[quote/] Oh and Vault 101 none of this is directed at you.[/quote]

oh.....

but yeah, when you put it like that it doesnt actulaly make you think...god which as we can gather is an infanitly powerful entity...really cares about whos shagging who and when?..:/

unless he's kind of an ass

 

[verdant monkai]

Definitely yes

MORE BLOODY WOMEN FOR US STRAIGHT GUYS (keeping it classy)

Thank you sir for being the first out of +200 posts to get the clue!

Here's your complementary Classy Mustache!

Spoiler

Right click, save as. Thank you very much sir, a thousand blessing on you, I shall forever treasure it.

 

[Loonyyy]

Several people asked for rational arguments against institutionalized gay marriage.

1) "All models are wrong, some models are useful." - Albert Einstien. To create a societally recognize institution such as marriage, it has to show its usefulness. Marriage between a man and a woman has been the best model for the children produced by the unions to continue the chain. Granted this has been greatly eroded in recent times, but the model is still useful to society. What long term societal usefulness does institutionalize gay marriage bring?

Argument from authority: Einstein's quote doesn't lend credence to your claim. That's the end of you being rational. And in your attempt to be scientific, you reject it: You refuse to test other models.
To add insult to injury: Fuck no. I was raised by a single parent primarily. Later, I had two mums and two dads, thanks to stepfamilies. I know many people with single parents. This has no base in fact, reality, or science. A single parent can raise a child, and there's no reason to suspect that two men or two women can't raise a child: FACT.

2) Universalism Argument by Immanuel Kant. Any act which cannot be univeralized to the whole of society are wrong for the individual to commit. This is the golden rule rewritten to denote a responsibility to the people around you. I will start with the easy example. Can society long continue to function if every member of society kills every other member of society, if not, then it is wrong for an individual to kill. Can every member of society give up being productive and rely on someone else such as the government to sustain them, if not then it is wrong for a productive individual to stop being productive. The general argument should be applied to all activities ones life. This is not to say wrong things dont happen, but can they be promoted as good for society if they fail this test?

What? You've taken your quote mining and argument from authority to the next level. What Kant says there could be taken to mean: If the whole of society cannot marry the adult whom they choose, then it is wrong for individuals to.
Again, Arguing from Authority. You're not being rational by quoting others, and these statements do not form logical premises, evidence, or arguments, and you're ignoring the structure of these things utterly. If everyone gay married, the human race would die out. So? Clearly we didn't want to exist, valuing love over procreation. And if you ask me, that's kind of beautiful, and romantic. Nevertheless, that's also irrational.

3) Marriage is about the children. I've never understood the argument that marriage is about love. Every example I have seen in my life has shown love is just another form of lust, a fleeting emotion that is more about vanity than the other person. Children on the other hand are you! They are your DNA. They are you reborn. They are your immortality. They are your vanity personified and that is an emotion that can be sustained for the rest of your life. This world does not belong to us, it belongs to our children who in turn must yield it to thier children.

I am not against homosexual relationships, but to support it, to elevate it to the same level as marriage and to pass along the benefits that are intended for the continuation of society need a burden of proof that it is useful to that society.

Personally I am in the disolve marriage completely group.

Factually wrong. I've known married people who didn't have children. I've known people in married relationships who've been... less than considerate of the children. I myself would characterise my childhood as abusive.

That asside: Applying your "logic"<it doesn't deserve the title.
1) Then Divorce should not be legal.
2) Parents must both give proper custody.
3) Mistreatment of children is a physical impossiblity for parents to commit.
4) This still doesn't say why gay parents can't have children by IVF, or adopt (Get the poor fuckers out of the system for goodness sake) parentless children.

You've commited one major logical fallacy, which cause all the others: The unstated major premise:

You're assuming that gay parents cannot raise a child, or children. This is not only unverified, it's likely wrong. They can create the child, through IVF. That doesn't matter much, I'd like to make it clear though. I've known people with two parents of the same gender. They're fine, minus the bigoted bullying. I've only had a parent of one gender. Single parents exist, and we haven't decided that that doesn't work. Besides, parenting like that can happen in civil unions. It's of no relation to marriage. These arguments are primarily against gay parenting, and that's kind of absurd. And when considering your position on abolishing marriage, they make less sense.

I'm sorry, but none of these are rational arguments. They're highly irrational. If you could form a rational argument against it, then it wouldn't be a morally acceptable thing. I personally doubt the existance of a rational argument against it. It seems unlikely to exist, and to be frank, the matter is pretty simple and trivial to analyse all aspects of, there's no reason to suspect everything we know is wrong.

 

[Burst6]

What rights are being denied to gay couples? Don't say marriage because marriage is in no way shape or form a right. Even if it was it isn't being denied to them. What exactly are gay couples being denied that straight couples are not? As I've said multiple times now the only thing being denied to gay couples is state recognition and some tax credits that exist to encourage reproduction. Seeing as gay people can't reproduce with one another it makes no sense to give them the tax credits and I don't see how the state recognizing them as married should really amount to a hill of beans one way or another.

Marriage IS a right. In the US it's part of the 14th amendment and the precedent was set in 1967 when the amendment was used to strike down a law banning interracial marriage.

And why should gay couples be denied these tax credits? Because they can't reproduce is not a good answer. Sterile couples are given these tax credits too and homosexual couples can always just go into fostering or reproduce through sperm donation or other means.

 

[z121231211]

Can I really say I support it when all I've really done was agree with the concept but never did anything to help it along?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.

...

Wait....

Seriously though, yes. I do support equal rights for LGBT people. As a student of the constitution, I believe that the Equal Protection Clause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause] of the Constitution protects this.

 

[Xanthious]

Marriage IS a right. In the US it's part of the 14th amendment and the precedent was set in 1967 when the amendment was used to strike down a law banning interracial marriage.

And why should gay couples be denied these tax credits? Because they can't reproduce is not a good answer. Sterile couples are given these tax credits too and homosexual couples can always just go into fostering or reproduce through sperm donation or other means.

No that right you speak of as defined by the 14th Amendment is equal protection under the law, not marriage, and gay people do in fact have that. Gay people are treated just the same under the law as straight people. They are free to get married within the confines of the law. There is nothing at all stopping someone gay from getting married within the confines of the law other than personal choice. A man, regardless whether he is straight or gay has the same ability to marry within the confines of the law as defined by the state.

As for the tax credits, well in some states they are indeed afforded those tax credits. At the end of the day marriage is a states' rights issue. If the people of a given state want to allow same sex marriage they can. So far it's been voted down in all of the 32 states that have put it to a vote.

Seriously though, yes. I do support equal rights for LGBT people. As a student of the constitution, I believe that the Equal Protection Clause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause] of the Constitution protects this.

The Equal Protection Clause, as I pointed out above, only says that people need to have all laws applied to them equally. When it comes to marriage gay and straight people are both allowed to marry under the exact same confines of the law thus they are both being treated equally under the law. In a state where same sex marriage isn't recognized by the government a man, regardless of whether he is straight or gay, would not have his marriage to another man recognized by the state.

 

[AmosMoses]

I have no respect for marriage as an institution at all.

I don't even understand why is its any business of the government who or what you marry. That is surely down to the church which is supposed to be, y'know, separate from the state.

 

[Vetinarii]

Several people asked for rational arguments against institutionalized gay marriage.

1) "All models are wrong, some models are useful." - Albert Einstien. To create a societally recognize institution such as marriage, it has to show its usefulness. Marriage between a man and a woman has been the best model for the children produced by the unions to continue the chain. Granted this has been greatly eroded in recent times, but the model is still useful to society. What long term societal usefulness does institutionalize gay marriage bring?

Argument from authority: Einstein's quote doesn't lend credence to your claim. That's the end of you being rational. And in your attempt to be scientific, you reject it: You refuse to test other models.
To add insult to injury: Fuck no. I was raised by a single parent primarily. Later, I had two mums and two dads, thanks to stepfamilies. I know many people with single parents. This has no base in fact, reality, or science. A single parent can raise a child, and there's no reason to suspect that two men or two women can't raise a child: FACT.

But single parents can't produce a child. So your argument is pointless. You don't need models, models are pointless. If you love someone, you love someone. Marriage is irrelevant (that's pointing out heterosexual marriages are pointless too).

2) Universalism Argument by Immanuel Kant. Any act which cannot be univeralized to the whole of society are wrong for the individual to commit. This is the golden rule rewritten to denote a responsibility to the people around you. I will start with the easy example. Can society long continue to function if every member of society kills every other member of society, if not, then it is wrong for an individual to kill. Can every member of society give up being productive and rely on someone else such as the government to sustain them, if not then it is wrong for a productive individual to stop being productive. The general argument should be applied to all activities ones life. This is not to say wrong things dont happen, but can they be promoted as good for society if they fail this test?

What? You've taken your quote mining and argument from authority to the next level. What Kant says there could be taken to mean: If the whole of society cannot marry the adult whom they choose, then it is wrong for individuals to.
Again, Arguing from Authority. You're not being rational by quoting others, and these statements do not form logical premises, evidence, or arguments, and you're ignoring the structure of these things utterly. If everyone gay married, the human race would die out. So? Clearly we didn't want to exist, valuing love over procreation. And if you ask me, that's kind of beautiful, and romantic. Nevertheless, that's also irrational.

Once again you miss his point. His point is if the act deliberately hinders society as a whole it should be banned. As homosexual marriages do not provide offspring they should be banned from existing (the argument you should have stated is that these people will not aid the production of children even without marriage the argument is irrelevant).

3) Marriage is about the children. I've never understood the argument that marriage is about love. Every example I have seen in my life has shown love is just another form of lust, a fleeting emotion that is more about vanity than the other person. Children on the other hand are you! They are your DNA. They are you reborn. They are your immortality. They are your vanity personified and that is an emotion that can be sustained for the rest of your life. This world does not belong to us, it belongs to our children who in turn must yield it to thier children.

I am not against homosexual relationships, but to support it, to elevate it to the same level as marriage and to pass along the benefits that are intended for the continuation of society need a burden of proof that it is useful to that society.

Personally I am in the disolve marriage completely group.

Factually wrong. I've known married people who didn't have children.

I'll just cut to here because the rest is either already covered or actually correct. This is only because the law allows it. It doesn't mean this person agrees with how the law is regarding it (in fact this person clearly states they disagree with that).

 

[Stripes]

I dont think marriage matters, however some people do and I think there are legal benefits to being married (or you are at least treated differently in law as a married couple) therefore people of different or the same sexuality can get married in my book. It should only be between two people obviously. No religious organisation should be forced to marry a couple when the teachings of said religion would oppose the religion but I think we are all agreed on that anyway.

 

[DiZtAnT]

I don't support "Gay Marriage" as the term itself segregates the two individuals and places them in a different light as compared to "Marriage"

Im all for two members of the same sex getting married though, I honestly could not care less who gets married or why.

In short I guess im trying to say that I support "Marriage" regardless of who's doing it, but "Gay Marriage" is a needless term. IMO

 

[Strain42]

Once upon a time, the term marriage referred to a man being legally married to his property.

So I say if a man could be legally married to five acres and some cows, why not let two people of the same sex get married?

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I don't support marriage, period. People shouldn't be able to tie their legal rights and finances to another person like that. It's screwed up. If we didn't call it marriage and instead made it a written out formal business contract, no one would sign it. It's that ridiculous. We shouldn't offer tax incentives and benefits to people who do get married either. It's simply not fair to single people. I have nothing against monogamy, but state sanctioned monogamy is disgusting - gay or straight. Keep Uncle Sam's leering old man gaze out of our bedrooms.

 

[Gennadios]

Technically I don't support any kind of state sponsored pairing programs. But since they're already there, I'm all for diluting them as much as possible. So yeah, I'll support just about any kind of marriage.

Except for Man & Bacon, that's just taking it too far.

 

[Lectori Salutem]

Well, that poll was quite predictable.
I am also fairly convinced that nearly everybody who voted 'no' did so because they don't support marriage at all.

Personally I think this shouldn't be a question at all, so yes, I do support gay marriage.

 

[Burst6]

No that right you speak of as defined by the 14th Amendment is equal protection under the law, not marriage, and gay people do in fact have that. Gay people are treated just the same under the law as straight people. They are free to get married within the confines of the law. There is nothing at all stopping someone gay from getting married within the confines of the law other than personal choice. A man, regardless whether he is straight or gay has the same ability to marry within the confines of the law as defined by the state.

As for the tax credits, well in some states they are indeed afforded those tax credits. At the end of the day marriage is a states' rights issue. If the people of a given state want to allow same sex marriage they can. So far it's been voted down in all of the 32 states that have put it to a vote.

A massive part of this argument in general is that homosexuality is not a choice. If this is true (which is probably is), that means that heterosexuals are given the right to marry someone of opposite gender and of someone they're biologically predisposed to liking, but homosexuals are not given that second right.


And yes i know that they've been voted out in the states. That's what people are trying to change.