Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Is this an implication that adoption does not exist?
Adoption is fine and all but the reason for the tax breaks is to encourage reproduction. That is something same sex couple are simply incapable of without quite a bit of help (ie Invetro Fertilization etc)

No reason it should be through different means.
That's as well as may be but my point that they can have the vast majority of things that straight couples enjoy any less true.

No reason to deny them those things. Also doesn't make it right just because some states do allow it.
But this is the great thing about states' rights. If you happen to live in a state that doesn't allow something you personally support (ie same sex marriage, medical marijuana) you are free to move to a state that is more in line with your own beliefs. On the flip side you can also work to get the laws in your state changed.

Your last two arguments work pretty well against interracial marriage. It's funny how much the sentiment seems to overlap. Only change between those supporting bigotry is their particular flavor of bigotry.
Here's the thing. Interracial marriage is protected through the 14th Amendment. You can not make laws based around a persons race. This was slapped down about a half a century ago. Where as same sex marriage simply isn't a case of unequal protection under the law because gay people have the same ability to marry within the confines of the law as straight people have. The marriage laws apply to everyone the same.
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Here's the long and short of it. Same sex marriage is a grossly inflated issue. At the end of the day, at least in the US, at worst the only things being truly denied to a gay couple are tax breaks and government recognition, and that's depending on the state. However, if proponents of same sex marriage want to make a real headway then they are going to need to crawl down off the cross and stop acting like gays are some horribly persecuted class of people. That is simply not the case.

Personally I don't give a shit one way or another. If there was a vote in my state tomorrow I couldn't be bothered to get off my ass and go do anything about it one way or another. What I do believe is that it is a states' rights issue for one. Secondly I believe that this is not a case of unequal protection under the law. Outside of those two small things, that bug me about the way the issue is discussed as opposed to the issue it self, I have no real feelings one way or another. If people want to vote in same sex marriage, great. Either way it doesn't effect me one iota.
 

Belaam

New member
Nov 27, 2009
617
0
0
Jaeke said:
Since man could write and record, marriage has been used to define a Man and a Woman together.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read (today).

Let's think about ancient written languages.

Egyptian Hieroglyphs - Ancient Egyptians practiced polygamy and sold brides without their permission.

Chinese Pictographs - China was polygamous until quite recently; enough so that U.S. immigration policy had to specify that Chinese immigrants could only bring one wife (leading to a lot of suddenly destitute/homelss second wives left behind).

Hebrew Alphabet - The Jewish tradition states that the twelve tribes of Israel came about as the offspring of one man, his two wives, and two slaves that he impregnated.

NONE of those are one man and one woman. It would be far more accurate to state that "Since man could write and record, marriage has been used to define a man and as many women as he could buy."

Of course, all of that is a moot point. We don't live in a Bronze Age society, and hopefully, we don't have Bronze Age morals.

On a more practical note: the internet, and gaming sites in particular, skew to younger demographics. Younger demographics are FAR more likely to accepting of gay lifestyles. Not withstanding 12 year old CoD players. ;p I'm unsurprised by the results of your poll. Likewise, younger people with internet access are far more likely to be atheists.
 

MCrewdson001

New member
Jul 4, 2011
139
0
0
In the end gay marriage doesn't harm anybody and only brings happiness so i see no reason for it to be banned
 

bauke67

New member
Apr 8, 2011
300
0
0
I seriously do not see why not. Why would anyone care if gay people get married?
People could bring up a religion-related argument, but then I haven't seen any crusades undertaken recently either.
 

Dethenger

New member
Jul 27, 2011
775
0
0
UbiquitousCube said:
I feel as one of the less than 50 people who voted no, I feel I should explain the reasoning behind my answer. Like the original poster I consider myself to be a christian. Unlike the original poster however, I as an individual do have a problem with homosexuality in general, and thus gay marriage, BECAUSE I'm a christian. My argument here is for those who consider themselves to be christian but still like assume that it is "OK". If everyone else would please just label me as religiously biased and move on to another post, that would be great. Arguments which lack common ground are pointless and I would like to avoid them if possible.
First of all the issue of my support for gay marriage comes not from my issue with the institution of marriage, but by the homosexual connotation behind it. As a christian, I see homosexuality as wrong because the the bible specifically calls it an abomination. Males should not feel the same passion towards one another as they would feel towards a woman because it is unnatural. The issue with homosexuality is that it is not natural. Man and woman were designed, by God, to be together. Now do I hate homosexuals and want to burn them alive because of how they are? No. I disagree with the way homosexuals think just as much as many people reading this disagree with the way I as a Christian think. So seeing as I disagree with homosexuality in general, how can I agree with allowing them to be married?
Now homosexuality happens and there isn't much I can do about it but comment about it on the side. Now the issue of gay marriage on the other hand is a tad bit different. Marriage is still a state based institution, therefore it can do whatever it feels like. However what it is supposed to represent to us Christians is the eternal joining of a man and a woman for their happiness and that of their descendants. I think that it takes a man and a woman to properly raise a child. Can one or the other raise one? Yes. Can homosexuals do it? Yes. However, in these cases something that the child needs is missing. I believe that gay marriage goes against that which marriage stands for in the first place, i.e. raising and educating children, thus it should not be allowed.
Alright chums, let's do this. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNJRfSZBU&feature=player_detailpage#t=84s]

First of all the issue of my support for gay marriage comes not from my issue with the institution of marriage, but by the homosexual connotation behind it. As a christian, I see homosexuality as wrong because the the bible specifically calls it an abomination.
You keep using that word. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]

The way we use and define words changes over time, usually very drastically. Everyone knows, for example, that before "homosexual," gay used to mean giddy, or happy. Abomination changed similarly. We today regard an "abomination" as something terrible, detestable, something to be loathed and abhorred. However, this guy [http://www.blurtit.com/q858604.html] claims that it once meant "against custom/ tradition/ societal norms." Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_%28Bible%29#cite_note-0], it states that "Linguistically in this case, it may be closer in meaning to the Polynesian term taboo or tapu," which would mean what our anonymous source above claimed.
See, Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." However, it does so in the same way (indeed, in the same time and context) it calls eating shellfish an "abomination;" they are (were) unclean. It's no offence to God that people ate shellfish, they were just told not to because it wasn't healthy. Same with gay sex. Neither is still necessarily the case. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCWdCKPtnYE&feature=player_detailpage#t=29s]

Males should not feel the same passion towards one another as they would feel towards a woman because it is unnatural. The issue with homosexuality is that it is not natural. Man and woman were designed, by God, to be together.
The word natural is completely meaningless. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IIkiUxebrAw#t=20s]

I don't usually use this argument, but considering, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior] whenever people say that homosexuality is "unnatural," all I think is this. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGMmqvWavDM&feature=player_detailpage#t=24s]

The number of animals with homosexual tendencies is huge. Just look at it for Christ's sake. But here's the thing, and why I don't usually use this argument: We can look at a huge selection of animals that have homosexuality and say, "Look, it's happening in nature!", and that's fine. But it creates a disconnect between us and nature that ought not to be there. We don't need to look at other animals, we just need to point at ourselves and say, "homosexuality happens in us, we are part of nature, therefore homosexuality is natural."
Also, if God created man and, as you say, designed man and woman to be together, then he must also have created homosexuality, in which case, to deny them their attributes is a sleight against He who put them there: God.
Unless you're one of the people who thinks that homosexuality is a choice. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=g23GiivXC78#t=110s]

Now do I hate homosexuals and want to burn them alive because of how they are? No. I disagree with the way homosexuals think just as much as many people reading this disagree with the way I as a Christian think. So seeing as I disagree with homosexuality in general, how can I agree with allowing them to be married?
Silly ***** you're opinions don't matter to me. Don't you know where the fuck you are?[footnote]Reference, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b83TrW1Ktgk] not insult.[/footnote]

This, my friend, is America, and above all else, America is founded on one sole principle: Your right to throw punches ends at my nose. That is to say, you can do and think whatever you want, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.
Saying you can't agree with allowing homosexuals to marry because of what you as a Christian think is flawed logic: It's not up to you to let them get married. It's none of your business, and you should treat it as such. Let me ask you something, if this was a dominantly Muslim nation, and yet you were still a Christian, would you appreciate it if the government forced you to participate in Ramadan? Starting July 20th this year, you would have to fast for a month every hour the sun was up because of the rules of somebody else's religion.
Your duty as a Christian is to follow the rules of Christ. Fine. Don't have gay sex, don't get tattoos, don't eat shellfish, don't whatever. But your duty as an American-- or, more precisely and importantly, as a decent human being-- is to ensure that everyone has their rights, and to fight anyone who would oppress another. After all, we don't want those kind of people in control. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Rbh1LNQxgkk#t=36s]
 

TheYellowCellPhone

New member
Sep 26, 2009
8,617
0
0
I'm against gay marriage?

hold up, here comes the reassuring content to that negative starter

?because it should not exist as a word?

almost there

?it should just be a marriage. You don't call something interracial marriage or intercultural marriage, it's just marriage. I think the same should be said of gay marriage?

that was the twist, in case you couldn't tell.

?so in a way, I support it.
 

sabercrusader

New member
Jul 18, 2009
451
0
0
I see absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. Being a Christian and straight myself, I openly support it. My opinion is, you don't like it? Fine, that's cool, but telling someone else they can't do something just because you don't like it is incredibly arrogant. How would you like it if someone told you that you weren't allowed to marry the love of your life because they didn't agree with it? I guarantee you wouldn't like it.

Note, with my use of the word "you", it implies that I was directing this towards someone, this is not true. Just my way of stating my opinion.
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Ok as for your issues. First, insurance is a matter of the private market. However, there are in fact companies that allow gay people to insure their partners as if they were in fact married. Second, gay people are allowed to adopt. I don't know about the ease or what not but I know that they aren't prohibited from it because they are gay.

Beyond all that though you really need to stop drawing the line between the plight of gays and the plight of blacks. The are so far apart that they should never be brought up in the same breath. Despite what some would like to believe gay people have not had to deal with one percent of one percent of what black people have went through in this country. It's a prime example of what I meant when I said that proponents of same sex marriage need to crawl down off the cross if they want people to take their issue seriously.

On a related note labeling everyone who opposes or is indifferent to the issue a bigot isn't going to get you anywhere either. Someone isn't automatically a bigot simply because they support traditional marriage. Beyond that these hyperbolic attacks aren't going to win you any points with people who may be on the fence in regards to the issue.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
the question should be "why would you be against gay marriage?"

in fact, it should just be "marriage", they are getting married just as i do, therefore i see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed the same rights i am just because they were born that way, which isn't even wrong or anything, it's just slightly different.

i'm not saying to get out your torches and pitchforks in supporting gay marriage, but why would you possibly be against it?
 

Easton Dark

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,366
0
0
Helmholtz Watson said:
Easton Dark said:
The other 2 against it were white chicks that said it's because the bible says so. That was their only reason. *shrug*
What does their race have to do with anything?
You could ask what their gender had to do with anything as well. I don't know, I just put what I remember of them.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
Well it's just like you said OP:
Jaeke said:
If people truly believe that they find companionship with another person of the same gender, fine. People close to me in my life are gay and I am perfectly fine with it.

Go ahead and be happy.
Can't really put it better myself. Except for the people who are close to me part, as I don't really know anyone who is gay. At least not openly. :p
 

WitherVoice

New member
Sep 17, 2008
191
0
0
It's been said so many times it doesn't need to be repeated, but I will anyway: your vaunted traditional meaning of the word "marriage" has yet to remain anything resembling static for half a century; it's about as traditional as my friends and myself having our "traditional" New Year dinner and board game party, an ancient ritual that we invented two years ago because it seemed like a good way to redefine the traditional concept of "New Year's Eve Party". Then you go back a bit, and realize that romanticizing the business transaction of selling a daughter and redefining her into a "wife"... if you are even lucky enough to be of European ethnicity... is a bit tasteless, too.

I think I saw someone else say this, too, but marriage should be removed from legal status completely. Make it a "partnership" or a "union". It's a public concern, to an extent, as it defines inheritance issues and responsibilities to one another that society may have to intervene in and enforce. "Marriage" is being redefined daily, by each and every couple who "get married"... it means something different to each and every couple, and indeed person, and those different interpretations serve only to divide, not to bring people together. Meanwhile, entering a semi-standardized contract of family unit founding will mean exactly what the contract says. Then you can run to your quaint church or other institutionalized superstition and have your "wedding" or whatever rite of passage you damn well please, and it means nothing except a party and fancy costumes. You can even have the party without the legal contract, and it may mean whatever you want it to mean, but it will not have legal protection, and other people can do it, too, in whatever way they see fit. Men can marry women, men, coat racks and tiger sharks, as can women, and they can have their fancy party, but they can't get that specific contract, because it requires two adults to be the respective parties of the agreement.
 

Caffiene

New member
Jul 21, 2010
283
0
0
Helmholtz Watson said:
ReservoirAngel said:
How exactly do you determine which rules in Leviticus are only for Jews and which ones are for everyone? So, using the example, how do you figure Lev 19:28 is only for Jews but Lev 18:22 isn't?

I've never read the Bible and don't intend to, but nobody I've asked has ever given me an actual answer to that one.

Also an off-topic side-note addressing the picture... what kind of bellend do you have to be to get homophobic Bible passages permanently inked into your body?
It is actually very easy, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws] is what you need to know.
That wiki doesnt seem to actually answer the question, to me.

It is written only from the perspective of the Jewish view of the bible. That certainly can be used to say from a Jewish perspective "these rules apply to me",. But from a non-jewish point of view (eg a christian PoV), what the Jewish faith teaches is not relevant. As far as I can tell from that wiki entry, the Talmud and Torah teach that these rules are important to the jewish faith, but that doesnt mean they arent important to the christian faith.

Can you elaborate? Why do the existance of Noahide laws mean that christians dont have to follow leviticus?
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,503
0
0
Caffiene said:
Helmholtz Watson said:
ReservoirAngel said:
How exactly do you determine which rules in Leviticus are only for Jews and which ones are for everyone? So, using the example, how do you figure Lev 19:28 is only for Jews but Lev 18:22 isn't?

I've never read the Bible and don't intend to, but nobody I've asked has ever given me an actual answer to that one.

Also an off-topic side-note addressing the picture... what kind of bellend do you have to be to get homophobic Bible passages permanently inked into your body?
It is actually very easy, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws] is what you need to know.
That wiki doesnt seem to actually answer the question, to me.

It is written only from the perspective of the Jewish view of the bible. That certainly can be used to say from a Jewish perspective "these rules apply to me",. But from a non-jewish point of view (eg a christian PoV), what the Jewish faith teaches is not relevant. As far as I can tell from that wiki entry, the Talmud and Torah teach that these rules are important to the jewish faith, but that doesnt mean they arent important to the christian faith.
What? Christians are to follow the seven laws, that's it. Jews have to follow 613 laws.

ReservoirAngel said:
Can you elaborate? Why do the existance of Noahide laws mean that christians dont have to follow leviticus?
Because Christians are not the chosen people, they don't have to follow 613 Mitzvot (laws).
 

Caffiene

New member
Jul 21, 2010
283
0
0
Helmholtz Watson said:
What? Christians are to follow the seven laws, that's it. Jews have to follow 613 laws.
My point is: According to who?

For the Jewish Talmud to say "Christians dont have to follow these laws" doesnt mean anything to a Christian.

The wiki article you linked to only seems to be saying that the Jewish belief is that Christians dont have to follow the laws. Thats not really helpful... its like a Muslim saying that Halal is for Muslims, therefore its ok for a Jewish person to eat pork.