Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

The Lugz

New member
Apr 23, 2011
1,371
0
0
personally i don't see why gays ( and presumably lesbians, or anything in-between.. labels, psh. ) would care much about what the church thinks of their coupling as they are already being blasphemous and their souls are going to hell, blah blah ect ( bible stuff )

basically, i don't see why they want a church that tells them they're being wrong to then bless them in matrimony

surely if they cared what the church thought at all they'd just go for a straight coupling even if it's not what they want?

i, personally do not give a crap what god, the church or anyone else thinks of me
i, personally don't even see the point of marriage and wouldn't want to get married because it's a ritual that has no meaning in the 21st century
seriously, a guy married a computer program
what does this tell you?

i'm wondering why it matters at all as an issue
just let people marry whoever and whatever they want, so we get over the whole marriage issue and evolve beyond it.
 

royohz

Official punching bag!
Jul 23, 2009
330
0
0
Xanthious said:
The laws (in most states) says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, a man and a ham sandwich, or a man and a his pet goldfish. People are never going to able to marry without restriction. If you want to push the limits to universally allow same sex marriage then where do you draw the line from there? What do you say to the guy who wants to marry his pet gerbil?

It just won't.
That's the worst argument I've ever heard. Ever.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
13,817
4,715
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
I am in support of gay marriage because it harms absolutely nothing except the backwards views of bigots who pick and choose rules they want to enforce out of a two-millenia-old book.

CaptainMarvelous said:
Also


I'mjustgonnaleavethishere
Not only that, it also forbids wearing clothing made of two different kinds of material (19:19). How's that cotton-poly blend shirt doin' for ya there, guy? OH RIGHT YOU HAVE TO DIE FOR THAT

Hope you didn't work a Sunday shift either (Exodus 35:2). GET THE NOOSE

I'm pretty sure this is why Jesus came along, looked at all this crap and said "lolno, you guys are doin' it wrong, lemme educate ya". But hey, what did Christ know about being Christian?
 

BlueKite1675

New member
Jun 2, 2011
5
0
0
I know I don't care either way, but I do think they haven't worked hard enough to earn that right because everyone else who got equal rights over the course 50-100 years.
 
Oct 12, 2011
561
0
0
The Lugz said:
personally i don't see why gays ( and presumably lesbians, or anything in-between.. labels, psh. ) would care much about what the church thinks of their coupling as they are already being blasphemous and their souls are going to hell, blah blah ect ( bible stuff )

basically, i don't see why they want a church that tells them they're being wrong to then bless them in matrimony

surely if they cared what the church thought at all they'd just go for a straight coupling even if it's not what they want?

i, personally do not give a crap what god, the church or anyone else thinks of me
i, personally don't even see the point of marriage and wouldn't want to get married because it's a ritual that has no meaning in the 21st century
seriously, a guy married a computer program
what does this tell you?

i'm wondering why it matters at all as an issue
just let people marry whoever and whatever they want, so we get over the whole marriage issue and evolve beyond it.
I think the problem is that a lot of folks do not want to admit there are 2 types of marriage. There's religious marriage, a recognition of a union by the religious organization and the community it represents; and a legal marriage. which is a definition of legal status under the law.

The former is up to the church and no government has any real ability or right to force that religion to conduct the ceremony. However, the legal status of marriage was created to determine the rights of the individuals involved if there was a divorce, what happens to the property if there is a divorce or one of the partners dies, what legally happens to dependents in case of divorce or death, who gets medical benefits from insurance claims in case of injury or death, who has power of attorney in case of injury or death, etc., etc., etc.

Unfortunately, a fairly large number of folks see the 2 different types of marriage as the same thing and inseparable.
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
royohz said:
Xanthious said:
The laws (in most states) says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, a man and a ham sandwich, or a man and a his pet goldfish. People are never going to able to marry without restriction. If you want to push the limits to universally allow same sex marriage then where do you draw the line from there? What do you say to the guy who wants to marry his pet gerbil?

It just won't.
That's the worst argument I've ever heard. Ever.
That's as well as may be. However, in a much more realistic scenario what do you say to first or second cousins, or maybe a brother and sister that want to marry? Much like two same sex individuals they are just two people in love minding their own business. Do they deserve to marry as they like or do you think they shouldn't be allowed to tie the knot.

My point is proponents of same sex marriage don't want marriage without boundaries but rather they want to be the ones deciding what those boundaries should be. Sadly, that's not how things work. There is framework in place to accomplish what they want legally through the individual states. Hell if the public opinion of gay marriage is as popular as they claim it is it shouldn't be hard at all to get it through the courts and into law. However, that's not how they want to go about it. They would rather falsely argue it as a 14th Amendment issue as opposed to what it really is, a states' rights issue.
 

GartarkMusik

New member
Jan 24, 2011
442
0
0
To be honest, I find the idea of gay marriage incredibly fascinating from a evolutionary point of view. The base goal of evolution is survival, and eventually reproduction. However, a homosexual couple cannot reproduce naturally. It's fascinating to me that we as humans have evolved to the point where people can engage in same-sex relationships and we as a species will not decline. So I guess you can say I support it, seeing as the gay people that I do know are very pleasant people, and they just want to be officially recognized as lovers. There aren't a whole lot of logical reasons to say no, after all.
 

Lionsfan

I miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,842
0
0
RabbidKuriboh said:
where's the option for simply not giving a shit?
Just move your mouse up to the tab, find the little X, and close the tab.

OT: I guess so. I don't really think you can claim the sanctity of marriage would be damaged, not as long as divorce still exists, so why not let gays get married?
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
Again, me is confused. Why is it that people think allowing gay marriage would confuse people to such an extent that we'd start to see marriage certificates issued between John Q. Public and his dog Rover? Is heterosexual marriage the only barrier keeping us from utter and complete moronic stupidity? Isn't it already abundantly clear that zoophiles would *never*, under any circumstances, be granted marriage rights?

Heck, plenty of gays and lesbians would be the first to step up and draw the line there - because that's just physically wrong. Two men and two women can comprehend the act. They can initiate foreplay, they can love and nurture and protect or cherish equally.

An animal won't say "Thank you sir, may I have another?" if you shoved a human cock down its anus or other such hole. It's likely to be terrified as all Hell, more than anything, and scarred for life. That's *if* it can even have some vague inkling of what's happening.

So telling me that we need to draw the line at gay marriage because an otherwise complete and total form of social chaos would erupt is absolutely, patently ridiculous. I believe Humanity as a whole is intelligent enough to realize that fucking second cousins or marrying your own father both account as some of the most stupid moves ever conceivable, in terms of how the gene pool works. Of course, we'll have regrettable exceptions. The thing is, we already have instances of severe and illegal in-breeding *even* with laws in place against it. Loosening these laws to allow for same-sex unions wouldn't change anything.

So no, Xanthious. I don't think the issue is as cut-and-dry as you seem to believe it is.
 

Robert Ewing

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,977
0
0
Of course I support gay marriage.

Not supporting gay marriage in my mind is for those that don't fully understand why gay people exist, or how they are the same as us. they are often hate-spreaders. Or it is literally just the dried up, dead husk of a commandant, that the dying ancient mysticism of religion left behind, as humanity left it's warm embrace, on it's path to enlightenment through a more... real mediums.

I mean god, before the advent of the big religions we know today, homosexuality was common place. Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, Aksmuai, Nubian. All great empires and cultured societies, very, VERY advanced for like... 3000bc that did truly great things, and essentially created what we call civilization. And all of them, allowed sexuality to flow freely as it came, because there was no imaginary space zombie in the sky telling them to only sleep with women, or else you'll be set on fire forever. Sure they had gods, but not in the sense that we know gods today. Ancient gods were assholes, unkind and unforgiving and were often warred upon, and subsequently killed. Ancient gods were always at the mercy of human belief, and humanity was always at the mercy of their wrath. It's a nice way to run things. POLYTHEISM, HELL YEAH ;D

The point is, homosexuality is natural. Humans can be gay. Animals can be gay. Hell, even bacteria can be fucking gay. It's not something the divine one would slap us away from even if he did exist.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
tzimize said:
But personally I draw a blurry line at adoption. Adoption is a right that has an effect on people other than yourself. As long as we/I dont know how two same-gendered parents affect a child, I am hesitantly skeptical to gay adoption.

Do I think gays cannot love children as a hetero does? Of course not. But there are factors that the parents cannot control, but that still affect the children. Adoption should be 100% for the benefit of the child, not the benefit of some person who believes he is entitled to be a parent.

I do not know how having same gendered parents affect the psyche and upbringing of a child, and as long as I dont know, I am hesitantly skeptical to gay adoption.
I'm pretty sure if we allow children to grow up in single parent homes, in the foster system, in the midst of divorces, with a single parent who goes through lots of boyfriends or girlfriends, and tumultuous on/off relationships I don't think it's too much of a stretch to let a couple of guys or a couple of ladies raise a child.

And what's the worse that is going to happen, anyway? The kid turns out gay, too? Didn't you just admit being gay isn't inherently a bad thing? Because we know ALL straight couples are SO GOOD at ALWAYS turning out straight children.
 

team star pug

Senior Member
Sep 29, 2009
684
0
21
I've heard a news story of a woman marrying herself, and another of a woman marrying a building. If thats legal, its a F#CKING DISGRACE that gay marriage still isn't in some places.
 

mooncalf

<Insert Avatar Here>
Jul 3, 2008
1,164
0
0
I fully support an equivilancy for same-sex couples wishing to be wed together and to enjoy the legal protections of such. I think to call these consumations "marriages" and to use those ceremonies is a slap in the face mockery of those religions which do not recognise them. Those believers have a right to their exclusive thinking, however backwards, pigheaded and essentially evil. Best I think is to side-step them entirely and declare an arbitrary non-partisanship of live-and-let-live at the government level.

*EDIT* Thankyou to Bara No Hime for a most gentle disabusement. Call it what you like!
 

Sightless Wisdom

Resident Cynic
Jul 24, 2009
2,552
0
0
I'm glad the poll is currently at ~1500:100 in favour of supporting gay marriage. There's really no logical reason to deny someone the same rights granted to those around them based upon their sexuality. Of course, the bigger problem we have is that marriage has anything to do with rights and legal benefits, because it should be entirely separate or non-existent.
 

everythingbeeps

New member
Sep 30, 2011
946
0
0
Without question I support it. I wont' even acknowledge any "argument" against it. To me, there's no logical argument that can be made against it. It all boils down to "my man-made religion tells me it's wrong" or "but but tradition". Don't care.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
2,967
700
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
mooncalf said:
I fully support an equivilancy for same-sex couples wishing to be wed together and to enjoy the legal protections of such. I think to call these consumations "marriages" and to use those ceremonies is a slap in the face mockery of those religions which do not recognise them. Those believers have a right to their exclusive thinking, however backwards, pigheaded and essentially evil. Best I think is to side-step them entirely and declare an arbitrary non-partisanship of live-and-let-live at the government level.
By that logic isn't it a slap in the face for any two people to marry if they are either explicitly or implicitly opposed to a given religion? Is calling an interfaith union 'marriage' a slap in the face to abrahamic faiths considering that such a thing has historically been considered 'sexual immorality' by Judaism and thereby forbidden by the noahite laws? And at the end of the day, doesn't that train of thought boil down to 'using the term to acknowledge unions a given faith doesn't endorse is insulting to that faith'? Mind you, if that is the case then the train of thought is long since invalidated as we haven't enforced that concept for centuries, if not millenia now, and that's ignoring the fact that modern marriage doesn't require religious overtones or sponsorship (which is its own can of worms with regards to the aforementioned 'slap in the face' logic).