Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[estoria-etnia]

I support it because I don't see what the big deal about it not being legal is all about and I believe in equal rights for all. Then again, it's been legal in my country for about seven years now, so...

 

[Syntax Man]

There are close to 1000 benefits people who are married receive, as much as religious fucknuts like to claim marriage to be a religious rite of some description, the fact of the matter is that most first world governments have created a special class of people classified as "married" and now some countries, like the USA are denying those rights to same sex couples because of the religious right.

Isn't this one of those things in that constitution thing that gun nuts love so fucking much?

 

[tycho0042]

I don't support it but not for the reason one would assume. I personally am against marriage as a whole. IMHO it's a waste of time and resources. If you really care about the person you're with what would some horrendously outdated ritual change?
As far as same gender issues go, I really don't care. it's not involving me after all

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Pop quiz:

If same-sex marriages is such a "new" thing, then why was it explicitly banned by the church in 4th century Rome?

Around those times, churches recognized same-sex marriages, and even pedophilic marriages, sometimes both in one!
So your churches were okay with it up until they decided to start banning it around the 4th century, completely out of the blue.

 

[MortisLegio]

I find it "funny" how people are saying everyone should accept gay marriage but when someone expresses an opinion against it people jump all over them about it; Usually being incredibly insulting. I can tolerate peoples opinions about most things, but when people act like someone else is below them because of opinion and continue to preach "equal rights" all I see is a hypocrite.

OT: I don't support gay marriage. I have no problem with people who disagree with my beliefs but I ask that you accept that I disagree. If someone wants to share their opinion with me that is fine, but don't call me a bigot, or an idiot for having a different opinion.

 

[Kriptonite]

Really, does it matter who gets married to who? Seriously, marriage is a joke now, in America anyway. Two people that hate each other can get married over two people that love each other? That seems to make marriage pointless to me. It's everyone, or no one.

 

[runic knight]

Why is this even an issue? honestly? Condemn gays in the name of your bigoted and self-projected ideal of god, but get the hell out of the way of equality. It is a legal contract so all people should be able to make use of it equaly. This does not mean a gay man marrying a woman either, as that is like saying we are all equal in the ability to eat the same food without ability to choice.

There is no justification for denying someone the ability to marry the one they love, if they are both consenting adults. Hell, let them get drunk and do a 24 hour fling for all I care. But do not talk to me about anything religious based (as the constitution itself prevents that sort of bullshit being a direct influence on law), nor about how this is somehow just. You are denying a portion of the population the right to a legal contract solely because of sexual orientation. That is bigotry, period. Lie to yourself, offer crappy ass rationalization, but at the end of the day you are imposing your ideals of what a marriage is onto which adults can or can not choose to make this contract that expresses how they feel about each other. And that is just bigotry. No better then denying them that right based on religion, race or ancestry.

 

[mooncalf]

Um...

You're under an incorrect impression. Marriage is not a religious ceremony - it is secular.

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

 

[PatrickXD]

I have no issues with gay guys/gals getting their marriage on.
I have a small issue with them wanting Christian weddings, because that's kinda shitting all over someone's religion.
That's not to say that if the guy in charge of a church approves that they shouldn't go through with it, it's just it seems a bit disrespectful to expect gay Christian weddings to just be a thing that people do.

 

[runic knight]

I find it "funny" how people are saying everyone should accept gay marriage but when someone expresses an opinion against it people jump all over them about it; Usually being incredibly insulting. I can tolerate peoples opinions about most things, but when people act like someone else is below them because of opinion and continue to preach "equal rights" all I see is a hypocrite.

OT: I don't support gay marriage. I have no problem with people who disagree with my beliefs but I ask that you accept that I disagree. If someone wants to share their opinion with me that is fine, but don't call me a bigot, or an idiot for having a different opinion.

I disagree. If the justification for jumping down your throat is because you support something against equal rights, then they are still supporting equal rights. It isn't that you have an opinion of disagreement, it is that your opinion is what is preventing people from having the rights. Honestly, I could turn what you said here into any sort of idea. No interracial marriage, no inter-religious marriages, what ever you like.

I can respect you disagree that it is a valid marriage in relation to personal religious belief or whatever, but when you deny them the legal rights based on that opinion, then you ARE ripe and ready to be chewed out over it as much as any racist KKK member who wishes blacks would lose their rights. Now if they did have the right to marry and you just disagreed, that is all well and dandy. But as it is, you aren't saying "I disagree with it but accept the equality of the matter" you are saying you don't want the equality of the matter. Sorry, but that means you get chewed out for it. Also, being this is an open forum and all, perhaps the reason people jump all over you is because you are posting your ideas or saying them where other people can hear them? You have no right to proselytize, so if you say something, people might say something back. And when you sound like a bigot, people do tend to get a little vocal. Just the way it goes I am afraid.

 

[runic knight]

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.

This is how it should be. No one has to be gung-ho for gay marriage. Hell, you can condemn it in your mind all you like. But you have to be willing to give them the same legal rights. I wish more people were like this fellow, then the country could concentrate on issues of actual damn importance then trying to deny people the same rights as other people.

 

[Akytalusia]

i can't vote, so i'll post instead.

i do support the idea of lifting restrictions on gay people's option to marry.
i don't support marriage; this include both gay and straight marriage.

i can't vote because i feel the meaning behind my vote would be misrepresented.

 

[Tomeran]

As I said in a different identical poll, homosexuality has existed in human civilisation since we started being modern human beings! Its as natural as anything else, and its not like we're the only ones going at it.
A lot of people have a mentality of "natural" being means of procreation, and of course "old family values". Its being mired in this old thinking that perhaps drowns out one of the more admirble human traits: Our lust for progression and improving ourselves.
This is 2012 for pete's sake, the fact that we're still having votes and major resistance to gay marriage is just sad.
I hope I can sit in 50 years and say "Damn, people sure were silly back in the days." Just like we're sitting today and look at the obvious racial segregation and lack of womens rights of the 50ies.

As for religion: It should be added that not all christians interpret the bible as anti-gay, and belive it or not, there are some christians out there that just want to worship god and not be hyper-intolerant extremists in the process. Its the religious extremists that shout out a lot and gets the attention(and that pretty much goes for all religions). Fact remains that Jesus never said a darned word that homosexuality was bad, but hey I suppose some people just knew him and his ideas better then he did.

In the end, I have hope. Human society has progressed further in the past 100 years then we have in the past 10.000 years, both technologicly and morally. Not that we dont still have a ton of problems, but if the trend continues, maybe human society actually ends up decent enough in another century.


....assuming we dont destroy the planet until then.

 

[micahrp]

Argument from authority is when:

X holds that A is true. X is a legitimate expert on the subject. The consensus of experts agrees with X. Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
-- Wikipedia

All I did was cite my source for two logical statements and then show how to apply the logic of those statements.

I do know what the argument from Authority is. I'm using the more commonly used logical fallacy of it, the Appeal to False Authority. There's several different Appeals to Authority possible, I should have been more clear, my apologies. This is generally the definitions I subscribe to: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authority

And yes, using Einstein's statement about models is actually not a logical principle. He's not an authority on defining logic, and his statement is unverifiable, and, for some cases, potentially factually incorrect. It's an assumption. And that it comes from Einstein does not make it logical. If your premise is true, which I contest it isn't, it still does not make gay marriage wrong, as it has not been tested. One cannot verify the usefulness of a model without testing. And there was never any verification of the model in use now, and that model is inconsistent, and still results in gay parenting, which makes all of this rather speculative, rather than factual.

Find a conceptual model that is 100% accurate and complete and I will agree it is not logical principle and the statement is verifiable for all humans. The simplest way to verify it is to acknowledge that we are electro-chemical sensory input beings. Our brains do not directly observe the world around us. The brain build models using incomplete input data. These models will all have less than 100% accuracy, especially since there is a time delay between the input source and the change to the model. We the use those models to direct our bodies to interact with the world. Everything we "know" is models built from above or new joining of models from above. And all those models are incomplete, even the conceptual ones. This is usually outlined on day one of Physics 101, that all models we have are currently using are just our best models, if something better come along that is a better predictor of future results we will change to that new model. We are given a model of how to perform addition but does that model work for all numbering systems? A computer science student will tell you no, the simple right to left summing and carry over of digits can't be applied to all numbering systems, but the model is useful. We have models of how gravity and magnetism can be generated and what the effects on surroundings will be, but the models lack how those are generated by the internals of the particles. Ask for the alphabet and may get A to Z, that is incomplete but useful. Every test we take is really a test for the accuracy of your brains model of the subject matter and getting a 100% on a test does not mean your model is 100% complete, just that it complete covered the tested questions. Drug use is the rejection of your brains model of reality in favor of a temporary distortion by changing your sensory input or brain functions. We deny plenty of societal priviledges on the basis of unsatisfactory models. A drivers test is a test of your model of how to operate an automobile according to set conventions your locality has created. No one's model is 100% complete (even cops whose job is know all these laws give out wrong tickets), but you pass based on a satisfactory percentage of model accuracy. We deny some people even the ability to test if they lack the the ability to even build a functional enough real world model, such as the blind. A blind person has a model of the world in their brain, but does this model get updated from other sense inputs fast enough to react to our current driving conventions? If it did then we would allow them to drive, but it doesn't therefore their model is not usefull enough.

Addressing only the original statement, is there anything about that statement still not seen as a logical principle?

May I also ask if you see a difference between a humble citation where I admit I did not originate this thought, but I am extremely capable of showing its application versus a form of appeal to authority where I would be saying I don't know how to apply this thought, but a famous person said it so you should trust them.

To test other models someone would have to come up with a hypothesis for a working homosexual societal model. History is the test for the model. The simple counter example to this argument is for you cite where it worked in the past. Right now we are the closest the human race has ever been to the possibility of it working, but only due to extreme scientific advancements such as cloning or research indicating that adults cells could be forced to sub-dividing into near sperm styles cells for fertilization of eggs.

We don't need a homosexual societal model. We're not proposing that. We're talking about gays having the right to marry, in which you brought up childrearing. I contest that it is not about childbirth, or childrearing, but even if it were, we have not tested any hypothesis scientifically, or even formed them.

History is not the test for the model. We did not form a hypothesis and test it, and we have no controls or comparisons. This is not how we do science. This is saying that what we have seems to work, so we'll keep it, which is an Appeal to Tradition, or Argument from Antiquity. It's not science, and it's a poor example of Post hoc reasoning. There have been many things that seemed to work. Slavery, the lack of inter-racial marriages, Newtonian physics. But they aren't accepted simply because they've traditionally worked at some point. We aren't trying to predict the behaviour of subatomic particles with Newtonian mechanics because it doesn't work. Now, whether or not the thing works or not, it's age, and any track record of success do not preclude variance. Were this the case, finding alternate treatments (By which I mean science based, not "Alternative", ie, CAM) for disease would not be done, as we already have a history of success. Science occurs by testing, retesting, and by a rigorous process of blinding and controlling. We can't say: "That seemed to work" and be done.

This thread has proposing the hypothesis that the people on this site will reflect an uncited US poll that midrange percentage in favor of homosexual marriage. Most respondants hypothesize that homosexual marriage will have positive societal input. How can you say there is no hypothesis just because the people did not directly state their ideas were a hypothesis. As for there being no history of this, no control groups and no comparisons, how did so many separate isolated social groups around the world end up with such similar social models of marriage if they didn't see failure of other systems. That is how humans write laws, we perceive failure examples and legislate with an aim towards sucesses.

Now, whether homosexuals can reproduce or not is not really important to it anyway. Gays could still marry before that without any societal repurcussions, and whether they wished for children or not would be their issue, to be solved with science, or by their own choice on how to do so naturally, and not one which needs to be overcome to justify their marriage.

No where in my post did I say we stop less than ideal situations from existing, I just pointed out that they cannot be endorsed and that is what everyone here wants the government to do.

If we are going to examine specific cases, was being raised by the single parent ideal? In my case no it was not. It must not have been for you either if there were step families later. My mother has admitted it was making the best of a bad situation.

Indeed. But what I mean is that it is not valid to say that the model is one man, one woman, when it is not, one man, one woman, and it is invariably more complex, and the "Test" of history is even less interpretable. It's a terrible way to conduct a trial. Now, I'd hypothesis that if a single parent of single gender (Presumably, although they could change during their parenthood, however, I'd assume this is in the minority), is acceptable, then two parents of the same gender would likely be acceptable. There's no way to know if it wouldn't be acceptable if we don't try it out. Which, yes, could be seen as a potentially unethical thing to do, from a medical ethics point of view, but as we don't have any mechanism for harm, or even a reasonable suspicion for one, I doubt that there'd be any ethical board which would deny such an experiment (And that we're talking about experimenting to decide something when others had it granted with no though is really ridiculous, and is part of what I mean by the inequality: We analyse them, but not ourselves), were it to be proposed. This is however, a speculatory comment.

No it can't be taken that way. You have left off the long continuation principle. There are whole societies that have long existed where no one was allowed to marry the person they wanted to marry. Did they even know the person they were married to? I thought the original intent of the veil was you didn't get to know whom your parents/match-maker were marrying you.

Again, none of these were tested, or proposed scientifically either, and in todays society, people ARE allowed to marry the person they want to marry. I'm talking about this. We can try to talk about other societies, were people can't marry who they want to, and I'd say that they should be allowed to marry who they like, or, that marriage is a pointless societal contract.

Those other societies are not what I'm talking about, as clearly, they are talking about a different situation. And yes, I do believe it can be taken that way, but, if we are to take it that marriage is not a benefit to society when homosexuals do it, it would be, by necessity, in abscence of any reason to doubt single gender, or multiple persons of the same gender parenting, no benefit for straight people to marry. Which would be fine, but you stated it as an argument against gay marriage, with no mention of this.

It may be that the veil was designed to prevent viewing, and whatnot. Personally, I've always found weddings as a topic kind of boring, so I've never had much of a reading background on it. Although, I've always considered arranged marriages as wrong.

I never stated they are unable to raise a child. I am pointing out these models do not meet the burden of proof that they are societally functional enough to deserve endorsement.

None of the other models met a burden of proof either. We can't choose one irrational model and ignore all other models. That would be both irrational and immoral.

And, your burden of proof seems to be that they can continue as a society. I do not see this as a requirement. If they cannot reproduce, or if they can't create more of themselves, I see as of supreme irrelevance to the act of marriage. If we define societally functional as in, don't cause harm to other members of society, I guess we'd have to know if Gay people hurt others by being in relationships (They don't), which leaves the question of, does it cause any harm to any children they raise, should we consider their parenting. Again, I think such a presumption of incompetence is insulting, but we'd have to test it. Of course, there is no mechanism for harm, and no reason to suspect it.
This is one of the key differences between science based enquiry and evidence based enquiry, and in societal and medical cases, it is almost always more prudent to utilise a science based, and not exclusively evidence based model.

The arguments are based on asking questions and showing how the proposed change would work in a closed system. The real world never conforms to ideals and no matter what the world will continue to exist, but when legislating and adjudicating our society the only rational intent is to aim for functional models.

Functional models aren't of a closed system though. That's wrong. A functional model would have to represent society as a whole. We're not talking about establishing a gay only society and seeing what happens, we're talking about allowing gays to marry in this society.
And as we have no science based reasons to expect any harm above what we already allow (Single parenting may be less than adequate, gay parenting may have a similar issue, ie, one gender of parent), there is no reason that the model would be any different than what already exists. Fundamentally, we're talking about different things, and your attempt at constructing a model are not including what I am discussing. I am discussing allowing gays to marry in our society. If that means their families can't continue, that is their problem, and one which science is close to solving, but more importantly, it's something that they have to decide is of consequence, not us.

(I think this is the second reply to your post, since I've already replied to the other one, which was much more friendly)

If we propose that we must model the effect of gay parenting, we must model the other. We cannot allow either to continue whilst we test, ethically. So, we come to an impasse if we want to test any models. We've no reason to suspect any model apart from the current situation would apply, so we'd be making an assumption and an unverified hypothesis to decide that it is, and the only way to test that hypothesis, again, would be to wait. A hypothetical objection to a situation with no known or definite issues is not worth crediting.

I know I'm harsh in my statements, I'm a poor communicator. My point is, we can't treat them differently on inherent suspicion and caution simply because we think something might be up with no cause. We have no cause. We can guess at problems, but those are the assumptions and hypothesis, and upon them[/] rests the burden of proof. Meanwhile, whether gays can create a family line, or have a family, or anything else, is still not a reason for gays not to marry. This is what I meant by the Unstated Major Premise. Gays could marry and have no children, adopted or created, and none of your arguments would apply. And Gay parenting happens without Gay Marriage, so it's already happening, models be damned. The real issue is giving paper legitimacy to something which already exists.

You keep dismissing my premise because of the real world existance of failure examples which is the same as saying we can't legislate against murder because people do commit murder and sometimes it is justified. We use closed systems to prove models don't work all the time. It's how we showed Ponzi scheme couldn't work because they violate the closed system of a limited numerable human population.
I am saying we can't endorse gay marriage at a societal level because they are not a productive model to be learned by future generations. Relationships are modelled and learned and most times the learner only has the chance to up close learn from a very limited set of models which can contain negative examples that the learner is not able to distinguish as a model not to follow. Therefore we need to openly discourage negative examples and openly encourage and give benefits to and show long term results of the positive examples.

My personal opinion of no marriage for anyone comes from wanting to mess up the modelling system as much as possible so we hurry up and die off as a species, so maybe I should be encouraging the homosexual marriage model, but I am trying to view this from legislative criteria standpoint. Legislation is for the societal benefit of all and the judicial system to give individual dispensations to the law on a case by case basis. It is unfortunate that those systems have been corrupted and those two groups seem intent on doing the others job.

 

[Xannidel]

I support gay marriage because their lifestyle is no different then a heterosexual couples life style. They are people just like anyone else and who are we to judge them by who they want to be with?
As long as gay men do not hit on me then I am all for them getting married with who they want to be with.
Just my 2 cents, it just might not be as in depth as other posts.

 

[Blunderman]

My personal opinion of no marriage for anyone comes from wanting to mess up the modelling system as much as possible so we hurry up and die off as a species ...

So, you're not content with merely taking your own life and escaping from this supposedly undesirable reality, you have to drag everyone else down with you? You end up dead either way, so what's the point? Do you hate the rest of us that much?

Nevertheless, I'm rather confident that you don't actually mean what you say. Lots of people spew this kind of crap around but it's an adolescence thing. You get over it.

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.

Whilst I applaud your practical acceptance, I have to ask: If you're not going to impose your hatred on others, why hate in the first place? What do you have to gain from hating your fellow human beings; judging them because they're not like you?

And yes, judging others negatively based on an arbitrary and baseless standard is nothing short of hate.

 

[darthzew]

Snip

Disapproval and hatred are entirely different.

To make this a little clearer, lying is a sin, but I don't hate everyone who lies. It's just the same with homosexuality. Sure, they're doing wrong, but that doesn't mean I hate them.

 

[willsham45]

I have nothing for or against it. I feel the arguments against are stupid and those who are for it are not unreasonable.
Although I think it is strange how the biggest against argument is because some dead guys decreed it bad, in a country where politics is not meant to conform or side with religions.