Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

[Bleedingskye]

I just don't see how it could hurt anyone for someone to marry, well, anything really. Even if a person doesn't get married to whatever they choose, they're still gunna be with that thing. As for gay marriage, men are still going to be in a serious relationship with another man, I don't see how going through with a ceremony is going to change anything.

I should be able to marry my guitar, cause I f-ing love it. I'm still going to play with it even if we can't have that spectacular moment where we exchange vows with riffs.

 

[luclin92]

yes i support gay marriage, since why shouldn't they have the same right to have a piece of paper that gives you some extra rights.

 

[Aidinthel]

Wow, fifteen pages. I suppose it's too much to hope that none of those pages are entirely composed of flaming?

In any case, yes I support gay marriage. I don't see much reason for anyone not to, besides reactionary religious sentiment.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

If people truly believe that they find companionship with another person of the same gender, fine. People close to me in my life are gay and I am perfectly fine with it.

Go ahead and be happy.

Most people under 25 feel positively about gay marriage. That 40/60 number is going to change a LOT when the Baby Boomers finally drop dead.

However, if you find yourself needing to argue between now and then, here's a fun point for you.

According the the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment (and later civil-rights amendments), any attempt to prevent gay marriage is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that making laws that prevent a group of citizens from participating in normal activities is not constitutional.

What could be more normal than marriage? Thus, any law that says a group of individuals (homosexuals) can't get married is blatantly unconstitutional.

The reason most people don't get this is that they think of "gay marriage" as different from "normal marriage" - as if it needs new laws to support it. It doesn't. Marriage is marriage, it doesn't matter what two people are involved. According to the previously mentioned amendments, not allowing a minority a social convention that the majority can do, is clearly unconstitutional.

Anyway, enjoy a new and highly effective argument for your pro gay marriage discussions.

Note: If you want links, I already provided them in another recent gay marriage thread and don't feel like looking them up again. Just Google the Constitution and read it if you want proof of what I'm saying.

 

[Rainboq]

I support gay marriage because everything is dust in the wind.

Why am I not surpirsed by this being posted by someone with a Vriska avatar?

OT: Why not? If you love someone, feel free.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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.

Um...

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

Some people make it both, but historically marriage was the under the power of the King (or local nobles) not the church. You needed the king's representative to approve your marriage, not the priest.

For that matter, take it back further - the Greeks had marriage. The Greeks also included some of the first (recorded) atheists. During the time of Aristotle, for instance, atheism was fairly common in Greece. They still had marriages. Secular marriages.

Even now, a priest does NOT have the power to marry anyone. Only the Courts do. That's why, when you get married, you go get the marriage license with the government first. The ceremony afterwards is just for show - and possibly to do the final signing of the document (but your priest better be registered with the government as an approved witness - or whatever the official term is).

Trust me, I am well aware of how this works. I was married the day before my wedding, legally, when I went in and signed my marriage license in the courthouse. I had my pagan church wedding the next day, and that's when rings went on and candles got lit and hands got fasted - that's when I felt married - but that has nothing to do with the laws.

So it isn't a slap in the face to any religion to call gay marriage what it is - marriage. Because religion has NEVER been in control of marriage. The Christian Church likes to pretend it is, but that's because in the middle ages the Catholic church liked to pretend it was in charge of everything.

 

[springheeljack]

Gay marriage is great I support it

 

[Xanthious]

snip.

Allow me to repeat why gay marriage is not a 14th Amendment issue. Gay people aren't being prohibited from marrying. They are simply being prohibited from marrying people of the same sex (as are straight people by the way) and that is only in states that ban same sex marriages. There is no argument to be had arguing gay marriage as a 14th Amendment issue.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I voted no, because whilst I don't object to gay marriage, I don't consider myself someone who supports it either.

 

[BytByte]

These threads are the best ones to earn badges. Also, duh, equality should be equal.

 

[Epona]

If homosexuals want to subject themselves to marriage, so be it. I will be interesting to see how the family court biases play out when there are two women.

 

[Aprilgold]

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.

Thats a way to look at it. Of course you just have to remember that Evolution isn't exactly 100% accurate or better for said species all the time.

I heard a theory once that it was more to do with animals who showed Homosexual tendencies that they were made in a sense, to protect the family's or friends babies as a sort of warrior-mother while being attracted to the same sex to not add more problems.

But going back to my original point, Evolution is not 100% accurately for the better of a species, as it may hic-up somewhere along the way, with such things like Green-Eyes and smaller thumbs.

---------------------------------------------

All the arguements against it are straw-men in the sense, you can pull at the straw all day but its all just his opinions he is trying to shape into facts. But it would be very odd for me to be against gay marriage when I am a homosexual male, wouldn't it?

 

[Easton Dark]

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?

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Only insofar as the idea that gay couples deserve to be equal, since I don't really support the concept of marriage in general.

 

[DANEgerous]

It kind of pisses me off that 100+ people here do not want me to marry a man to the poit it makes me more want to marry a man.

I just found that a hilarious observation

 

[Xanthious]

snip.

Allow me to repeat why gay marriage is not a 14th Amendment issue. Gay people aren't being prohibited from marrying. They are simply being prohibited from marrying people of the same sex (as are straight people by the way) and that is only in states that ban same sex marriages. There is no argument to be had arguing gay marriage as a 14th Amendment issue.

People of different races weren't prohibited from marrying. They were simply prohibited from marrying people of a different race(same for all races). By your logic it therefore had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

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.

As much as the gay marriage crowd desperately wants this to be a 14th Amendment issue it's not. Don't get me wrong I get why they want it to be an Equal Protection issue as it pretty much lets them do an end around on where the real area of gay marriage falls and that is states' rights.

You'd think with gay marriage being as accepted as they claim they'd jump at the opportunity to take the matter to the people and get these laws changed. Unfortunately that simply hasn't happened as gay marriage gets shot down by the citizens of a given state every time it gets put to a vote. However, if public opinion really is changing they have the means to change the laws. Sadly, those laws won't be changed as a result of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Xanthious]

-snip-

If your argument that the law discriminates against gays and therefor it's a 14th Amendment issue I can tell you you're flat out wrong. I can't marry my first cousin. Am I being discriminated against? Of course I am but that doesn't make it wrong. Laws discriminate all the time. Hell you could argue that's their purpose. They discriminate against smokers, murderers, rapists, and none of those groups have a solitary 14th Amendment claim among them. The only thing the 14th Amendment says is that the laws need to be applied equally to everyone. In the case of marriage the law is in fact being applied equally to everyone, even when it says same sex couples can't marry.