Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
I pointed out how your 'logic' for how it is equally applies also applies to interracial marriages. Clearly your logic is bunk. Btw, when you have the guts to do it feel free to actually address the part where I show that your logic applies to those as well instead of running from it again and not addressing it specifically.
You're simply comparing apples and oranges trying to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage. As I said before at the time interracial marriage was banned marriage was defined or at the very least accepted as being between a man and a woman. The laws banning interracial marriage were discriminating based on race as black men couldn't marry white women and the other way around. As a result the law defining marriage wasn't be applied to everyone equally which made it a 14th Amendment issue.

With gay marriage you simply don't have that scenario that you did with interracial marriage. I know you want to have that scenario and maybe even think you have that scenario but you don't because gay men can marry any woman they like regardless if she's black, white, or purple with silver stripes. Hell they can even marry her is she's gay. The laws is being applied equally to everyone. Just because one group doesn't like how the law doesn't mean they are being treated unfairly by the law.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Easton Dark said:
CardinalPiggles said:
I voted no, because whilst I don't object to gay marriage, I don't consider myself someone who supports it either.
Wait, then why not just not vote?
All I did was answer the question that was asked...

'Do you support gay marriage' No. But I felt as though it needed explanation.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Xanthious said:
You see back in the 60s marriage was still legally defined as a union between a man and a woman. Under the legal definition of marriage people were being discriminated against based on race. Hence it's a textbook 14th Amendment issue and as such the laws banning interracial marriage were declared unconstitutional. Fast forward to modern day and the legal definition is still between a man and a woman in most states. Anyone is free to marry within the legal boundaries. There is simply no discrimination to be found anywhere.
'

That's inconsistent logic given the argument you introduced it on. Let's break it down, shall we?

Same-sex argument as presented by you:
Premise 1: Courts have held that forbidding marriage to a group is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
Premise 2: A given person is forbidden from wedding a consenting adult of the same sex
Premise 3: A given person is not forbidden from wedding a consenting adult of the opposite sex.
Argument 1: Premise 3 ensures that the potential for marriage exists for any given person.
Argument 2: So long as the potential for marriage exists as legally defined, there is no violation of the equal protection clause.
Conclusion: As any homosexual is still permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex, premise 1 is rendered irrelevant.
Interracial argument as presented by you
Premise 1: Courts have held that forbidding marriage to a group is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
Premise 2: A given person is forbidden from wedding a consenting adult of a different race
Argument 1: Premise 2 unfairly discriminates based on race.
Conclusion: Interracial couples being forbidden to marry limits their marriage options, thereby qualifying for premise 1's violation of the equal protection clause.

Interracial argument as it should have read, given your same-sex argument
Premise 1: Courts have held that forbidding marriage to a group is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
Premise 2: A given person is forbidden by law from wedding a consenting adult of a different race
Premise 3: A given person is not forbidden from wedding a consenting adult of the same race
Argument 1: So long as marriage options - as legally defined - exist, there is no violation of the equal protection clause.
Conclusion: As any person is still permitted to marry a legally valid candidate, premise 1 is rendered irrelevant.
If I might be so bold, what's falling flat in your argument is that you're looking at it from a modern perception without accounting for cultural and historical bias. You point out that as marriage is legally defined today same-sex couples do not qualify for marriage and then say that forbidding marriage between interracial couples is unlawful...which is certainly true...at this point in history. This was not the case at the past date you refer to. You're applying modern standards to an era that didn't share those in a form of hindsight bias. See, back when Loving v. Virginia occured, interracial marriage was not considered a valid marriage (and indeed, the attempt was considered a criminal violation of the law) which had been the case since before the founding of the United States. Indeed, the Supreme Court had even upheld the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws in cases such as Pace v. Alabama. Care to hear the reasoning? To paraphrase: 'The law isn't discriminatory because it applies equally to both blacks and whites. It is illegal for a black person to marry a white person, but it is equally illegal for a white person to marry a black person". Sound at all familiar? If not, try adding an addendum to it that reads along the lines of "it is, however, perfectly legal for a white person to marry a white person, and for a black person to marry a black person".
 

KefkaCultist

New member
Jun 8, 2010
2,120
0
0
Well, I'd be a very out of place gay person if I didn't support gay rights, so I vote yes by default. XD
 

SilentVirus

New member
Jul 23, 2009
355
0
0
Gays shouldn't marry because it will violate the "sanctity" of marriage.

"Sanctity"...Let's see what the definition for that is, shall we?

sanc·ti·ty [sangk-ti-tee]
noun, plural sanc·ti·ties.
1. holiness, saintliness, or godliness.
2. sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple.
3. a sacred thing.

This argument is invalid (and unconstitutional).
 

Freezyflea

New member
Aug 23, 2010
5
0
0
Whether the matter is a state's rights issue or not there is still no rational reason for establishing a distinction between the legal union of one pair of consenting adults, and another. None, whatsoever. Bringing up incest or bestiality is a best a straw-man argument, and wholly unrelated to the topic at had. Whether or not the notion is popular among the majority or not, is also unimportant. To deny the legitimacy of a couple's union cannot be done without the admission of some bias or the other. In this case it springs most commonly from religion. The separation of church and state should instantly render that argument invalid. To hold some separate legal designation for homosexual couples inescapably holds that such relationships are by their very nature different. To provide less benefits for them would suggest at best that the relationship of those who are in them is of inferior value, and at worst would insinuate something quite derogatory to the participants themselves.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
Yeah, sure, I support it. If they want to get married, let them. It makes them happy, it doesn't affect me, so why not let them get married?

There are only three reasons why anyone would oppose gay marriage:

1) If they find gays "icky" - which in that case, they're like schoolkids and they have no other reason. Yeah, you might find gay people "icky", but so what? Leave them alone if you don't like them. And part of leaving them alone is letting them get married if they want. Them being married doesn't affect you

2) God says it's not right - well, let him sort it out, hm? If you say this god doesn't like it, and he's all powerful, then why don't you let him stop it? If there is a god (and I don't know if there is or isn't) I doubt two dudes or two gals getting married is going to hurt him. God, if he exists, supposedly created the universe. You don't need to defend him. If he exists, he's perfectly capable of defending himself, and believe it or not, you don't need to fight for him. He's supposedly invincible. Why would you fight for him? He doesn't need fighting for. If god hates it, then that is a conflict between the gays and god, and frankly, you don't need to get involved

3) It'll make my kids gay! - No. It won't. I have had gay friends. I have been around gay people. I am not gay. I didn't need to be taught to hate gays to not be gay - I never could be gay. Sexual orientation is something that is mostly biological. Gay people had something slightly funny happen in their brain when they were developing in the womb and they feel sexual attraction for people of the same gender - it's a neurological phenomenon. You know how I know this? Animals can be gay! And animals don't have culture! Go do research on this topic - there are gay monkeys. Gay deer. Gay lemurs. They exist. And it had nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with culture, since lemurs don't have culture.

Neural development is startlingly complex to anyone who has ever studied it. The process of brain development is very tricky, and brain "systems" governing complex behaviors like sexual attraction (and believe me, these behaviors are, on a computational and neurological level, VERY complex - just try programming a computer to be attracted to women) are also very complex. In my opinion, when gay people were developing in the womb, something went slightly awry - a neuron here, a synapse there, something went right instead of left, up instead of down, sideways instead of forward, and they were born with an unusual attraction to people of the same gender.

Gay people have existed since the species has existed. Even in cultures which harshly, HARSHLY punish gay people or any expression of gay culture, gays exist, and have maintained a stable population of around 1~3% of the population. Gays never grow above that number (and no, the "10% of people are gay" stat is a myth. It's closer to 1 to 3%). Being gay offers no political, economic, cultural or reproductive benefit. In societies like Iran, you'd have to be INSANE to "choose" to be gay, given the punishment you face if you are. But gay people exist in Iran - despite what Ahmadinejad says - and they are persecuted. G

Gay people are born that way - I'm not saying it is necessarily genetic (although I believe it might be), but I am saying it is neurological and brain-based, not culturally based. They are gay, and that's who they are. So you don't have to worry about gay marriage turning little jimmy gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), because little jimmy is either already gay or will never be gay, and nothing you can do as a parent will or could change that.

There's no logical reason to oppose gay marriage, unless you hate them viscerally for some reason, which in that case, I pity you for feeling such hatred against those who have done nothing to you. Hatred is a poisonous emotion that hurts the one who is feeling it, just as much as the one it is directed against. It must be sad to be so full of hate, day in day out.

Let em get married. It'll make them happy, and I go nothing against those who want to be happy.
 

darthzew

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,813
0
0
Let me answer this quickly: Yes.

Now, for my long answer, which is a bit more complicated, but bears explaining. I am a Christian. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I believe that homosexuals getting married is a defilement of marriage. You ask me for (almost) any of the Christian answers and I'll probably give them to you.

However, I think gay marriage should legal. This is not an issue of my personal morality, or whatnot, it is a legal issue. I believe that true marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Nothing else. Nowhere is the government in that picture. If the government is inserting itself into marriage, then that's my problem.

If I had it my way, all marriage would be left to the church. If a church decides that two men or two women can get married, then that should be totally fine. I know of churches that allow that. I disagree with them, but that's not the point. The point is, if a church believes in homosexuality, the government should not be the one to stop them.

The government should not have the power to tell me who I can and cannot marry. I believe that, legally, gay marriage is fine. Morally, I believe it's wrong. There is a huge difference here. I believe everyone deserves the same rights.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
i think gay couples should have all the rights of a married couple but i dont think it should be call marrage. this is mostly because the term marrage is a religous word and as most if not all religons are aganst gay couples it makes little sense to use a religous word.
 

Freezyflea

New member
Aug 23, 2010
5
0
0
ecoho said:
i think gay couples should have all the rights of a married couple but i dont think it should be call marrage. this is mostly because the term marriage is a religous word and as most if not all religons are aganst gay couples it makes little sense to use a religous word.
It isn't a religious word.Getting married isn't about faith, it is about signifying a couples union to one another, before the community. It is about stating to the world at large: "We belong to one another." It's not about how their genitals fit together, it's about commitment. How is the bond between two of the same gender so different, that it should need another classification?
 

Hawkeye21

New member
Oct 25, 2011
249
0
0
darthzew said:
I believe that true marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.
That must make things very awkward in bed.

Voted yes, because why the hell not? There is no logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Sure, "they can't reproduce naturally!", but they can still adopt children and take care of them just fine. World needs that, I think.
 

UsefulPlayer 1

New member
Feb 22, 2008
1,776
0
0
If I support Civil Unions, the kind that affords gay couples all the same rights, would that make me against gay marriage?
 

karcentric

New member
Dec 28, 2011
1,384
0
0
I'm no against gay marriage, if they want to be happy together... good for them. So long as I don't have to be bombarded with news about it.
 

Fuhrlock

New member
Apr 1, 2012
111
0
0
It amazes me how people instantly associate marriage with religion. Marriage is performed by the state, sure a religious figure can marry 2 people but only because the state grants them the power to do so. Religion doesn't have the right to decide what constitutes a marriage only the state does and any progressive government know that excluding people from something due to their sexual orientation is simply morally unjustifiable.

Furthermore I can't see why any people would logically opose gay marriage when it doesn't affect them in the slightest but because they have been told it is evil and they can't spend 2 seconds to logically question why. Still good to know that only around 6.7% of people who voted in this poll I find morally repugnant.