Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[loc978]

Go ahead and be happy; but please, and I do mean this in the most amicable way: Leave the term "marriage" to Man-and-Woman relationship. Since man could write and record, marriage has been used to define a Man and a Woman together.

...it used to define a man's ownership of a woman, really.

Folks can define marriage however they want, and refuse to recognize others' marriages if they want... but when the government gives special rights to people who are married, any two people who decide to be married to one another should be able to do so. Either special rights for all co-dependent people, or no special rights at all (which would really be my preference, but that's not gonna happen).
So yes, as long as marriage grants tax breaks and power of attorney, I'm for gay marriage being recognized by the government as a legitimate union.

But again, the government shouldn't recognize any form of marriage. It should just be a religious institution defined within individual religions as their faithful see fit.

 

[Kingjackl]

Certainly. I've met and known quite a few gay people and they all seem like pretty decent guys. If gays and lesbians want their love to be recognised by the state, who are we to stop them?

Besides, don't like 50% of straight marriages end in divorce anyway? I get the feeling the gay community can probably do a lot better than that.

 

[Unsilenced]

Unless you're selling your daughters to gain political and economic advantages, you've already changed the definition of marriage.

Deal with it.

 

[evilneko]

Yes. Why did you put marriage in quotes?

 

[Geeky Anomaly]

To quote a famous stand-up comic....

"Yes, they should be allowed to get married...gay people have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us!"

 

[toughguyjoe]

Yes. Why did you put marriage in quotes?

You stole my question. I'd like an answer to this as well.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

I don't personally like the convention of marriage itself and would never get married myself, but, being gay and otherwise tolerant, I do support the right to gay marriage. It would be somewhat bizarre if I did not.

 

[Samantha Burt]

Since man could write and record, marriage has been used to define a Man and a Woman together.

I'm pretty sure you're lying. There's polygamous marriage for one. Furthermore, the term itself is obviously not that old.

Anyway, that's a silly appeal to tradition. It's illogical to do so on the basis of age and it asks for a special privilege for the word 'marriage' that exists for no other word. All words change. Why should your desires, with heavy religious overtones, be special?

Again, I am perfectly fine with man-man and woman-woman relationships, but honestly, it seems illogical to share a term that also is used to mean a completely conflicting and opposite meaning.

Completely conflicting and opposite meaning? No, it isn't conflicting or opposite in meaning. That's BS. Opposite? Newsflash: a man-man relationship does not mean they stay apart from each other and hate each other.

Good to see you bringing logic to the table again, Mortai. What he's stated is a fairly obvious falsehood.

"Since man could write and record"? You mean like in, say, the Bible? In which Solomon had 700 wives? And 300 concubines.

EDIT: Changed because dumb-ass counterpoint :\

 

[Sexy Devil]

If the religious didn't want their thing "tainted" then they shouldn't have made it a state institution with benefits and shit. But now it's a state/general cultural thing and there's no reason that gays shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Though personally I find marriage a bit pointless and feel it should have stayed a religious thing.

 

[Samantha Burt]

Thanks! ^__^

I really don't know how he could say that with any kind of seriousness. The counterexample is so bloody obvious -__-

Don't think slavery works as a great example though since he's for allowing gay relationships, he just wants another word for some really bad reasons.

Good point, I redact the slavery comment.

Captcha: Turkey Sandwich... I'm hungry now

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I support it because I support people being able to do whatever the hell they want as long as it isn't bad for other people. I don't really think not being able to marry is that bad but denying them the right to do it is just stupid.

Also all the reasons I have seen for not doing it are kinda pointless. For example in the OP
s example. The meaning of a word can change, Gay didn't mean homosexual until pretty recently.

 

[DoPo]

Good to see you bringing logic to the table again, Mortai. What he's stated is a fairly obvious falsehood.

"Since man could write and record"? You mean like in, say, the Bible? In which Solomon had 700 wives? And 300 concubines? Oh, and slaves, most likely. I mean, slavery was the norm for a long time. Let's not change it, right?

"Since man could write and record" - I just noticed that. So, is that since the ancient Sumerians or something? If memory serves right, that would be around 5000-4000 BC. Did the Sumerians even have marriage?

[small]"And thous shalt not mayy of the same sex, thou only can marry people of the opposite sex. This is how it is now and so shall be etched in stone for eternity. Let the future generations know. Also, we spoke with our Mayan buddies - you guys are fucked, lol"
-actual translrion[/small]​

 

[chadachada123]

Marriage also used to be defined in the US as being not interracial.

But then we grew the fuck up and allowed blacks to marry whites.

There's no reason that the same cannot extend to gays, considering they are legal adults, and if it is recognized by a government, it needs to not discriminate based on gender.

As far as what churches/others do in their own time, that has nothing to do with this conversation, as atheists can marry all of the time without church involvement, and there are churches that already will marry gays.


Fun fact: I can legally marry people within my state as a Minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sadly, my state forbids gay marriages. Were it legal, though, I would be able to.

Edit: I actually don't think that marriage should exist at all as a *legal* institution, but if it does exist, it *HAS* to not discriminate based on gender. Period. That simple.

 

[Vault101]

: Leave the term "marriage" to Man-and-Woman relationship. Since man could write and record, marriage has been used to define a Man and a Woman together.
img]

hahaha....oh I love this one

"I don't have a problem with it! really!, I would just rather you didn't call it marrage!"

if you really didnt have a problem with gay marrage you wouldnt give half a fuck about arbitrary definitions of words

because launguage and the meanings of words hasnt changed AT ALL throughout human history?..am I right?

oh wait...it has

the word "marrage" changing will not cause the world to implode

 

[Blobpie]

Everyone has a right to be happy

 

[malestrithe]

A marriage has been nothing more than a contract between two parties.

Being married in this country is a legal contract between two people. The contract has to be in front of a judge and not a priest. The church did not get involved with it until the 50s when they realize they could get money from it.

It has to be called marriage because of its binding legal status in this country. Civil unions do not afford the same protections that marriage does.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Questionable quotations around the word "Marriage" (That LLR vid was like 4 days ago, let it go.)

Gay people should be able to do what ever they want. The operative word there being "people"

Damn near all my friends are lesbians so I'd be an asshole if I didn't think they should be able to get married.

Personally I don't see the appeal of marriage in general, but I see even less point in disallowing certain people from having it.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Everyone has a right to be happy

So you're saying no one should be allowed to get married.
Ba-dum Tish.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Yes. I support equal rights for everyone. You can be bothered by gay people all you want but that doesn't mean they get to be treated like second class citizens.