Page 1 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Do you support gay marriage?
Yes, I support gay marriage. 77%  77%  [ 86 ]
No, I don't believe in gay marriage. 12%  12%  [ 13 ]
I'm not sure. 3%  3%  [ 3 ]
I don't support marriage PERIOD. 8%  8%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 111

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

25 Nov 2008, 3:45 pm

Ragtime wrote:
I support neither the Flying Spaghetti Monster nor homosexual marriage.
Both are non-entities incapable of being. (At least, I hope the FSM can't exist! 8O )


FSM is a hypothetical creature used to show the idiocy of the 'you cant prove god does not exist so therefore he does' argument, Gay marriage is easily enacted by the creation of a new law, your statement is nonsensical

I support gay marriage because I see no reason not to. Marriage does not have to have a religious base. All it does is formalise the relationship and give each member of the marriage legal rights.

Whats the problem with that


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

25 Nov 2008, 4:02 pm

It's about the civil rights.

It's about the ability to be considered next of kin, to get the tax breaks, to be able to see your SO if they're in the hospital emergency room.

It's about affording gay couples the same legal rights hetero couples receive by default.

I voted I'm against all Marriage.

I've given up arguing with the bible thumpers about the sacrament of marriage.

Fine, it's a sacrament, then the government has no right subsidizing it through tax breaks, it's the establishment of a state religion.

Especially since there are religions that do recognize gay marriage, universal unitarians and wiccans, but yet those unions do not receive the same benefits.

If we give tax breaks based on the sacrament of one church, and not another, then we are discriminating.

What's next, mailing 13 year olds $1000 on their first communion?



flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

25 Nov 2008, 4:05 pm

Fnord wrote:
greenblue wrote:
... in reality they are not allowed to marry those who they are attracted to...

Should attraction then be the sole consideration for marriage? Keep in mind that some people are attracted to farm animals, electrical devices, inflatable manequins, and fresh fruits and vegetables.

greenblue wrote:
... I believe the definition of marriage from a religious point of view is so much better than this.

Which religion has the final and correct definition of what constitutes a marriage? For that matter, which religions define marriage as anything other than establishing an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman for the purpose (whether expressed or implied) of providing both genders in a committed parental role?


Universal Unitarians and Wiccan's perform gay marriage ceremonies.

I'm sorry Fnord, I really disagree with you on this one.

It's a religious imperative to "be fruitful and multiply," it's no business of the government if you choose to reproduce or not.



flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

25 Nov 2008, 4:11 pm

Ragtime wrote:
I support neither the Flying Spaghetti Monster nor homosexual marriage.
Both are non-entities incapable of being. (At least, I hope the FSM can't exist! 8O )

Let me ask, just for the sake of the exercise: Who would support homosexual marriage, but wouldn't support polygamy?
And more importantly, why?


I *would* support Polygamous Marriage.

Love is not a commodity we hold a limited supply of. The more we share, the more we have to share.

Jealousy is a vestigal emotion no longer required in modern society. Just because most people *are* jealous, doesn't mean those of us that can handle multiple partners honestly should be prevented from doing so.

A family is an economic unit, it's a group with unconditional love, and it can be an environment for raising children in. Logically, Polyamory is a more stable environment in which to raise children as there are more adults to share the responsibility of raising children and earning income.



flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

25 Nov 2008, 4:30 pm

Ragtime wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
Second, until the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia in 1969, interracial marriage was illegal in seventeen states, using exactly the same reasoning as is being used today to oppose homosexual marriage. (In this case, the Biblical verses being cited were usually from Genesis, with the claim that blacks were "the children of Ham", with their dark skin supposedly the mark of Ham's shame.)


How is that "exactly the same reasoning"? :?

There's nothing in the Bible against interracial marriage between any of the races, let alone anything that singled out blacks regarding who they could and couldn't marry. Inter-religious marriage was what was prohibited in the Old Testament. (In the New Testament, however, Paul says it's fine for an unbeliever to remain married to a recent Christian convert if the unbeliever so chooses.) So, the fact that courts have used the so-called "curse of Ham" (which was, in fact, the curse of Ham's son, Canaan -- Gen 9:25) as an excuse to prevent blacks and whites from marrying goes beyond stretching the imagination to fit their designs. The Biblical text simply says nothing of the sort -- anywhere.

Whereas, the practice of homosexuality is prohibited by name in the Bible, in two ways: 1. gay sex itself, and 2. ANY sex outside of marriage, i.e. "sexual immorality", a phrase which is used 19 times in the New Testament alone. But race is part of one's identity more than being straight or gay is, thusly: Although homosexuality is felt from within by those born with an attraction to the same sex, its practice can be voluntarily curtailed and even stopped by the practicer's personal decision to do so. Indeed, don't we all abstain from sex at various times in our lives, if only due to the unavailability of sex opportunities which meet our standards? But being black or white can neither be curtailed nor stopped by choice. (A silly thought to imagine, indeed! The jury's still out on Michael. No one knows what exactly he did to himself.)

Although I don't personally clearly see any direct evil pouring forth into society from gay sex and its circumstances (although arguments can be made that it is destructive), I have a hard time dismissing such Bible passages as: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).
It doesn't exactly say they'll go to Hell, but I think the implication is clear. (I don't believe in a "purgatory.")
But remember, Jesus' forgiveness covers ALL of the above sins. So, the passage is clearly talking about the ongoingly-rebellious-against-God, not the guy or girl who feels an "irresistible" attraction the their own gender which they would like to give up to obey God. (God must be the most important thing in our lives -- Ex 20:3.)

Again, remember that ANY sex outside of marriage is, quite clearly, a Biblical sin. So, would establishing "gay marriage" reduce the sin in God's eyes? Yes, if "gay marriage" is not itself a contradiction in terms. Because, remember, God instituted marriage between man and woman. Even as Christ described marriage, He didn't say, "For this reason, Party 1 will leave his father and mother and be united to Party 2, and the two will become one flesh." No, He said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" (Mark 10:8-9).

So, the conclusion of the matter is that there never was any Biblical mandate for blacks and whites not to marry.
The interpretation toward that design was an intellectually awkward stretch at the very best.
But homosexuality is clearly and specifically banned in the Old Testament, as well as in the New. So, there is no Biblical comparison between ethnic intermarriage and same-sex marriage.


We have a seperate thread about the validity of the supposed listing of homosexuality as a sin in the bible, so I won't argue that with you here.

However, the two cases do present a valid parallel. In both cases the bible is wrongly being used to call something a sin with the purpose of preventing it.

Also, this is a secular nation, which was established upon the sentiment that all men are created equal, and are deserving of the same rights and liberties in the eyes of the law. We fought a civil war to establish that this was indeed the case.

Slavery never would have been abolished if it was left to a vote.

Integration never would have happened if it had been left to a vote.

Civil liberties are a guarantee in this country, they are not up to a democratic vote. The fact that gay marriage is being left up to a popular vote is discrimination and a violation of 10% of the populations rights.

Finally - Sexuality is not a choice. The only choice is whether you are miserable trying to be something your not to make everyone else be happy, or just being yourself. Do you really believe 10% of the population would willing place themselves in the minority if it were a "choice"?



flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

25 Nov 2008, 4:32 pm

Chaotica wrote:
I don't support. It's just unacceptable for me.


But, why does it matter to you if someone else is happy in a gay relationship?

In what way does that infringe upon your rights?



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Nov 2008, 3:24 am

flutter wrote:
Chaotica wrote:
I don't support. It's just unacceptable for me.


But, why does it matter to you if someone else is happy in a gay relationship?

In what way does that infringe upon your rights?


Homophobia, like racism, defies logic. Its generally caused by ingrained ignorance


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Chaotica
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 714
Location: Hyperborea, buried under the ice and snow

26 Nov 2008, 5:35 am

flutter wrote:
Chaotica wrote:
I don't support. It's just unacceptable for me.


But, why does it matter to you if someone else is happy in a gay relationship?

In what way does that infringe upon your rights?

'cause it's my opinion.


_________________
in case i do not feel like showin' up...


Chaotica
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 714
Location: Hyperborea, buried under the ice and snow

26 Nov 2008, 5:47 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
flutter wrote:
Chaotica wrote:
I don't support. It's just unacceptable for me.


But, why does it matter to you if someone else is happy in a gay relationship?

In what way does that infringe upon your rights?


Homophobia, like racism, defies logic. Its generally caused by ingrained ignorance

I can see no connection to logic. Am I supposed to defend myself now? :lol: your attitude to me is really strange! Why don't you just deal with it and leave me alone at last? really, it's your issue about my opinions! :lol: no one has stuck to my opinion that much before, if gay people want to get married they are free to do it and no opinion will make them change their decision if they really want to get married and love each other! but the question is "Do you support gay marriage?" and I say "No". have I explained it to you a 10th time again? I don't understand that ado about it. If you have your opinion am I supposed to argue again and again?


_________________
in case i do not feel like showin' up...


flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

26 Nov 2008, 10:25 am

Chaotica wrote:
flutter wrote:
Chaotica wrote:
I don't support. It's just unacceptable for me.


But, why does it matter to you if someone else is happy in a gay relationship?

In what way does that infringe upon your rights?

'cause it's my opinion.


Right, but if you were asked to vote on it in an election, would you allow your personal opinion stay your hand and not allow you to defend someone else's right to be happy?



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

26 Nov 2008, 11:00 am

flutter wrote:
someone else's right to be happy?

People, really, have no right to be happy or, more to the point to be made happy.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Chaotica
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 714
Location: Hyperborea, buried under the ice and snow

26 Nov 2008, 12:51 pm

flutter wrote:
Chaotica wrote:
flutter wrote:
Chaotica wrote:
I don't support. It's just unacceptable for me.


But, why does it matter to you if someone else is happy in a gay relationship?

In what way does that infringe upon your rights?

'cause it's my opinion.


Right, but if you were asked to vote on it in an election, would you allow your personal opinion stay your hand and not allow you to defend someone else's right to be happy?

I don't understand... am I forcing anyone to agree with me? am I forcing anyone to be happy/unhappy/sympathetic/indifferent?.. explain what do you mean?
Sincerely, I don't care if people get married to become happy. I just know that true love needs no official papers confirming it. I doubt that love will become stronger if people get that official paper. If people love each other they are happy. If they don't then no marriage will make them happy and loving. And I'm straight, so what's the next question?


_________________
in case i do not feel like showin' up...


flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

26 Nov 2008, 1:14 pm

Chaotica wrote:
flutter wrote:
Chaotica wrote:
flutter wrote:
Chaotica wrote:
I don't support. It's just unacceptable for me.


But, why does it matter to you if someone else is happy in a gay relationship?

In what way does that infringe upon your rights?

'cause it's my opinion.


Right, but if you were asked to vote on it in an election, would you allow your personal opinion stay your hand and not allow you to defend someone else's right to be happy?

I don't understand... am I forcing anyone to agree with me? am I forcing anyone to be happy/unhappy/sympathetic/indifferent?.. explain what do you mean?
Sincerely, I don't care if people get married to become happy. I just know that true love needs no official papers confirming it. I doubt that love will become stronger if people get that official paper. If people love each other they are happy. If they don't then no marriage will make them happy and loving. And I'm straight, so what's the next question?


It's not about the validity of the relationship or the love, it's the corresponding civil rights afforded a heterosexual marriage that may or may not be afforded a homosexual civil union, depending upon the state.

The right to be next of kin, to be present in the emergency room, to inherit, to receive the same financial benefits of marriage, to have the right to adopt.

The question isn't whether you personally believe in gay marriage, the question is do you believe gay couples deserve these civil rights that straight couples receive automatically?

A No vote is a vote to discriminate against this group and not provide them the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

This isn't a question of religious belief, this is a question of whether or not you believe everyone deserves the same rights and freedoms.

And, your opinion matters because you are representative of those folks in california who voted to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Because every mind turned can have a domino effect of acceptance and understanding.

Because if I influence you today, you in turn influence someone else tomorrow.



flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

26 Nov 2008, 1:20 pm

twoshots wrote:
flutter wrote:
someone else's right to be happy?

People, really, have no right to be happy or, more to the point to be made happy.


While the Declaration of Independence is not codified into law, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are part of the foundation of this nation.

Erecting artificial roadblocks to other people's Pursuit of Happiness is contrary to the basic tenets of this nation. LBJ knew this when he forced integration on the South. Abraham Lincoln knew this when he made the Gettysburg Address.

It's not about making people happy, it's about removing barriers to their happiness by recognizing their equality.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

26 Nov 2008, 1:24 pm

flutter wrote:
twoshots wrote:
flutter wrote:
someone else's right to be happy?

People, really, have no right to be happy or, more to the point to be made happy.


While the Declaration of Independence is not codified into law, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are part of the foundation of this nation.

Pursuit. That is really just a subset of freedom in my opinion.

Quote:
Erecting artificial roadblocks to other people's Pursuit of Happiness is contrary to the basic tenets of this nation. LBJ knew this when he forced integration on the South. Abraham Lincoln knew this when he made the Gettysburg Address.

It's not about making people happy, it's about removing barriers to their happiness by recognizing their equality.

Well, the problem with marriage is that it is a glorified legal contract. Instead of giving gay couples more, I think we should give every other couple less.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


flutter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

26 Nov 2008, 1:46 pm

twoshots wrote:
flutter wrote:
twoshots wrote:
flutter wrote:
someone else's right to be happy?

People, really, have no right to be happy or, more to the point to be made happy.


While the Declaration of Independence is not codified into law, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are part of the foundation of this nation.

Pursuit. That is really just a subset of freedom in my opinion.

Quote:
Erecting artificial roadblocks to other people's Pursuit of Happiness is contrary to the basic tenets of this nation. LBJ knew this when he forced integration on the South. Abraham Lincoln knew this when he made the Gettysburg Address.

It's not about making people happy, it's about removing barriers to their happiness by recognizing their equality.

Well, the problem with marriage is that it is a glorified legal contract. Instead of giving gay couples more, I think we should give every other couple less.


I would agree, as long as all relationships were granted the same rights.

Marriage *is* a codified legal contract in the secular sense, and it's a violation of civil rights to discriminate against one group.

Separate but equal has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional (Brown V. The Board of Education).

So either we only legally recognize civil unions and transfer all the rights previously afforded marriage to the same, or remove this artificial and discriminatory abridgement of civil rights.