Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[Arakasi]

Snip

And on the point of self-harm... I have no desire to be rude or crass, but there's plenty of research to indicate that anal sex can be harmful. It carries a higher likelihood of disease, for instance. Further, that point of self-harm extends to my beliefs. Basically, I believe they'll spend eternity in hell. That's pretty harmful from where I stand.

That's only really a worry if you aren't careful and protected, same as any other sex.

But do look into that quote I showed you in my original post, if God created homosexuals, and knew they wouldn't able to stop their homosexuality to join Christianity, didn't he force them to not be able to?

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

...But also a hetero sexual couple going at it annoys me too . Get a fucking room .

This can not be said enough.

I agree. on a different topic, every time i see your avatar, I wonder why someone has an ass for a profile picture, before i realize what it is.


gay folk need to be able to be tied down too. otherwise, they'll keep traveling and spreading their fabulousness and softball addiction to the children. and then where with we be, with all these good-looking and well-exercised children? healthy! and then we won't be heavy enough to keep North America from being flung into space by earth's rotation!

GAY MARRIAGE WILL KEEP US FROM BEING KILLED IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE!

 

[Something Amyss]

You'd have a really hard time to "prove" that marriage isn't a construct of religion.

You're the one that made the claim that it's a Christian concept. Can you prove its establishment specific to Christianity?

Furthermore, you'd have to explain why the process exists in every religion as a ceremony.

Why would I need to do that? Its presence in every religion (not accurate, but let's assume it's true for a moment) does not mean that religion created it. That's like saying "All Alabamans are US citizens, so all US citizens are Alabamans."

You'd have to provide some evidence "dating" at least prior to 3,000BC supporting that marriage was not done under the rite of a deity.

Yeah, if only anthropology was all over this or something.

You'd also have to prove that the majority of the populace in a singular area (country) believes that marriage isn't a religious matter.

No, I wouldn't.

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Yet 'marry' nor 'marriage' are in the Constitution.

Yeah, neither is the right to privacy. Do you not understand how the Constitution and the US Supreme Court work?

And I highly doubt that all religious people would be satisfied with a mere word change.

In fact, I can state for a certainty they won't. When Vermont first instated Civil Unions, which overtly STATED that marriage was between one man and one woman, people shit themselves over gays getting Civil Unions. This was not limited to Vermonters, either. We got hate from across the freaking nation because...ummm...Because ponies.

People who think this is about the word are deluding themselves. Civil Unions are still under attack, even though they are a state institution and don't even share the same word.

 

[Blunderman]

In the last part of your quote, you asked if anything to back up my beliefs and you said that the Bible has been disproven. Yes, I do and no it hasn't. That's as far as I'm going in that line of thinking. It is not the point of the thread. I've derailed it enough as it is.

Skeptic's Annotated Bible, as well as any of dozens of documentaries covering the historical inaccuracies and plagiarisms that the bible contains.

I have neither the time nor the desire to indulge you further. I have a lot of editing work to get done today and internet message boards are frankly at the bottom of my to do list. After this post, I'm bowing out of the discussion. The last word will be yours.

The ultimate point of your posts, I gathered, was that judging others is wrong. You take issue with the fact that I judge others. Fine. I say this now: I have a right to judge anyone I please. It is not a right given to me by the Bible, it is simply a natural right. You also have the right to judge others and I've seen very clearly that you exercise this right very liberally. You claim that judging others is wrong, yet you have done the very same thing to myself and others on this thread.

You have no more rights than I do. Homosexuals have no more rights than I do. We all have the same natural rights as human beings and I will fight for those rights.

I believe you are the one asking me to indulge you. Consider why you chose to write three parting paragraphs, levying accusations and ad hominem attacks against me with the promise that I'll have no way to respond to them, instead of merely saying "I'm not interested in further discussion."

Anything else I'd say would be wasted breath. I'm here to challenge and to be challenged, and I don't talk to people if I don't expect them to respond.

 

[Xanthious]

awesome, 93% for yes. why isn't this shit legal?

Don't let that number fool ya. This is a site full of mostly younger people and younger people largely tend to be liberal in their thinking. Running this same poll on a site like Fox News would produce almost the same numbers but reversed. The truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.

As for why it's not legal, that's because gay marriage has been universally voted down, typically by a large margin, in every single state that put it to a vote.

 

[Jaeke]

If that's how you understand that statement then you seriously took it the wrong way. I wasn't implying homosexuality was wrong,

Yes I may have over extrapolated a bit. But this passage seems to imply homosexuality is "against nature" and I thought that was leaving it open to ridicule:

For someone who chooses the scientific over religion (not you particularily, just generally) they could agree that it is illogical to think that nature would purposefully design itself to not be able to reproduce, which is one of the (if not THE) driving goals of life.

I was implying that using the products nature itself in the form of other species as a strong point to support anger against homophobia (while it isn't a terrible cause) is just wrong and stupid.

Why? Homophobes use the nature argument all the time without knowing what it means. Why not refute a stupid argument with a statement that shows how ridiculous it is?

Take it like so:

A:"Homosexuality is unnatural."
B: "Then why is it found in nature?"
A: "Well cannibalism is also found in nature, that doesn't make it right in all human societies."
B: "So you're saying that human society is different from nature?"
A: "Well yes."
B: "So we can agree that arguing about "nature" and the "natural order" goes nowhere then right?"

No it's unnatural because animals (or anything else in nature) don't conciously make this decision. Any time you see an animal that is homoerotic its because they think they are either last of their species and must do this or are fulfilling their primal urges. If you put a male animal in a cage with another female and another male... %100 of the time it's going to reproduce with the female, because that is what they do... reproduce.

 

[Lyri]

I support gay marriage, I don't support gay marriage in a church.

The church to me is no different than a mosque or a synagogue where, it's a religious building and not a social venue.
You cannot hire it for your own personal wedding if it goes against the beliefs of others.

If people are going to respect one another then the respect should go both ways, for the record I am not a Christian.

 

[Epicspoon]

there really should be an "I don't care" option.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

No it's unnatural because animals (or anything else in nature) don't conciously make this decision. Any time you see an animal that is homoerotic its because they think they are either last of their species and must do this or are fulfilling their primal urges.

If you put a male animal in a cage with another female and another male... %100 of the time it's going to reproduce with the female, because that is what they do... reproduce.

I can't say much other than that the facts disagree with you.

But it's moving away from the point we started on. "Unnaturalness" is not an argument, when people use it they claims that homosexuality being "unnatural" equates it to being "wrong."

there really should be an "I don't care" option.

I don't care/marriage sucks option.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

By the by, there are 1,138 federal rights being denied to same-sex couples due to the inability for them to marry.
This PDF mentions a few.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
So I think this blows your "they're not being denied any rights" argument out of the water. This is, in fact, a 14th Amendment issue, despite your vehement insistence that it isn't.

I'll just make this clear, this is going to be my last post to you, as I've seen you do nothing but repeat yourself over and over again after each "argument" you've thrown out has been countered successfully, whilst you willfully ignore them and continue to parrot on.

EDIT: Captcha "atomic bomb", oh my.

 

[Suijen]

Let's be honest now, the concept of marriage has changed quite a bit since the old days. Before marriage was a marriage of families. Now most marriages in the world are based on love. I suppose the only one thing that has remained static was that marriage was always been between a man and a woman.

I know some people argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman (with the biological purpose of mating), but that would require that we deny the rights of marriage to DINKs and those who are incapable of reproducing.

From research that I've read (ie, a skim through wikipedia), families are more psychological than biological. It kind of explains why some people could love their pets like family members, and why families can accept adopted children as part of their broods. I don't see why two gay men-when let's face it, there's usually a masculine and feminine homosexual pair-can't form the same roles of mother and father with adopted kids.

 

[Savryc]

I do, there's no logical reason I've ever seen that says they shouldn't.

 

[Spy_Guy]

Church State

I don't want the church to shove their opinions on abortion and euthanasia into the legislation.
I don't want the state to shove their opinions on marriage into the church.

Then again, if the bible is fine with it, why not?
Is there a passage that goes "And god said gays shalt not enter into marriage" or similar?

Captcha: "hands down"

 

[Stu35]

Church State

I don't want the church to shove their opinions on abortion and euthanasia into the legislation.
I don't want the state to shove their opinions on marriage into the church.

I agree.

However, I would argue that marriage doesn't belong to the church.

Religious ceremonies do - I would say it's wrong to make marriage something that gay couples can have in a church that doesn't want them, however that's generally not the idea (What kind of dickheads would go out of their way to get married in a church that doesn't want them anyway?).

To me, the legal implications of marriage as they stand now, are not something that should be denied Gay couples. The religious implications, well that's for each religious organisation to decide for itself.

 

[Spy_Guy]

Spoiler: Snip

Church State

I don't want the church to shove their opinions on abortion and euthanasia into the legislation.
I don't want the state to shove their opinions on marriage into the church.

I agree.

However, I would argue that marriage doesn't belong to the church.

Religious ceremonies do - I would say it's wrong to make marriage something that gay couples can have in a church that doesn't want them, however that's generally not the idea (What kind of dickheads would go out of their way to get married in a church that doesn't want them anyway?).

To me, the legal implications of marriage as they stand now, are not something that should be denied Gay couples. The religious implications, well that's for each religious organisation to decide for itself.

Isn't there such a thing as partnership which offers the same legal status as a marriage (with regards to inheritance, etc.), but which is completely non-religious?
I know we have that in Sweden... so...

Isn't this law specifically aimed at marriage in the traditional religious sense?

 

[itsthesheppy]

Anyone who thinks that legalizing gay marriage would involve forcing churches to perform those marriages hasn't been paying enough attention, or is clearly a space alien pretending to be human and just didn't do their homework.

 

[Schadrach]

Church State

I don't want the church to shove their opinions on abortion and euthanasia into the legislation.
I don't want the state to shove their opinions on marriage into the church.

Then again, if the bible is fine with it, why not?
Is there a passage that goes "And god said gays shalt not enter into marriage" or similar?

Captcha: "hands down"

You just explained why I'm against gay marriage (please continue reading this, and not take the first part without the context of the rest). Or rather, why I'm against marriage as it currently exists in the first place.

It is both a legal arrangement and a religious concept, and thus it innately breaks, as you put it, "Church State".

The answer is civil unions. No, not just for gays, for *everyone*. Replace the legal concept of "marriage" with that of the civil union (letting them keep their word is just being nice to make it easier to swallow).

All legal rights and responsibilities currently associated with "marriage" are now associated with "civil unions." Whatever religious ceremony your and your source(s) of spiritual advisement want to perform, that's up to you, and the government is not going to tell your church/temple/mosque/synagogue/grotto/coven/whatever what rituals to perform or who to perform them for.

The state stays the fuck out of marriage, and religions stay the fuck out of civil unions. Problem solved. The gay folks have identical legal rights, any given church can call them "not really married" and refuse to marry them all they want, any other given church can feel free to do the opposite, everyone is happy.

Church State as far and as hard as possible.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Yes... anyone who says no is a prick, and needs to deal with their life before they worry about how someone else lives theirs.

Perhaps be a little nicer, you just insulted 142 people.

 

[Freezyflea]

Sadly that's not how it works here in the stats, as it's been stated civil unions not only pprovide less rights than a standard marriage license, but are also unavailable in places.