Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Should Same-Sex Marriage be Nationally Legalized?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I support it

    31 83.78%
  • No, I don't support it

    2 5.41%
  • Other (no clue what this would be)

    4 10.81%
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 164
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,731
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    In re: to civil unions Vs marriage, I have heard the argument was that forming a seperate but equal dynamic by the nature of the effort alone makes it unequal ,or "less than"in the same way that the segregated souths efforts were denounced by those who had to live by them.
    Yeah this is an argument...but what BMD and others are suggesting is that the government gives civil unions for all couples gay straight or bi. Thus it is not separate but equal.

    In my opinion the religious right can have the word marriage and marry it if they love it so much. I know this isn't popular with my gay friends, but I still think it's reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Yeah this is an argument...but what BMD and others are suggesting is that the government gives civil unions for all couples gay straight or bi. Thus it is not separate but equal.

    In my opinion the religious right can have the word marriage and marry it if they love it so much. I know this isn't popular with my gay friends, but I still think it's reasonable.
    I support a sort of "re-branding" of the term of marriage for legal purposes. Call it something else on paper, but the rights and everything else associated with marriage still apply.

    I just find it weird why the focus for these religious types are NOT on the current almost 60% divorce rate for straight married couples, but instead denying the possibility of gay people getting married(which ironically would help this rate go down)...and help the "sanctity of marriage" argument anyway.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,220
    vCash
    1500
    The entire subject is just a slice of the greater question. The greater question is should gays be second class citizens, denied the same rights and responsibilities of heterosexuals? This is not a question of affirmative action as much as equality.

    In order to have an anti marriage for gays position, one really has to take a position that gays, by virtue of being gay, are beneath you.

    Needless to say, to me, this is an indefensible position.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    7,719
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    well, as I understand the argument in some states, the civil unions laws provide ALL the same benefits of legality that are available to married couples, so then the question was why cant the LGBT crowd be happy with that?

    Ultimately it was an attempt at a seperate but equal kinda thing...also, Im pretty sure the idea of "marriage" as we interpret it is founded in Bilblical reference.
    although ancient cultures had union ceremonies, we are talking specifically about marriage(hence the civil union not being "good" enough)
    so, you cant seperate religion from the idea of "marriage".
    Just as you cant be a Godparent without being catholic.
    so If i were HAVING to present an argument for the other side of the debate, i would focus on thoase two points.
    Civil Unions are for all intents and purposes in many states the same as marriage, and marriage itself is based in religious doctrine and as such you muyst follow the guidlines of that doctrine.
    You cant be a boy scout just by putting on one of their Unis.
    BTW, stop asking us to do your homework for you(lol).
    Except that it is possible to get married outside of a religious institution and without the use of a religious figure now. And while marriage might have a basis in religion, licenses are now offered by states which, given the separation of church and state, seemingly makes it an nonreligious document.

    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    This is a tough one to argue... If you have to the best arguments I have heard (though I don't agree) is that the purpose of marriage is not to declare love for one another, but is actually a contract for the creation of children. Gay couples cannot create children. This is the only one I have seen that is even remotely plausible. If you use Kant's categorical imperative gay marriage would fall apart at the universalisation question. ( I think if I am remembering my Kant properly... It's been a long time since freshmen year)

    Everything else stems out of "tradition" or "definition" which is in fact silly as the "tradition" and "definition" of marriage has changed countless times. You would have to go to someone else.
    Well that's just terrible. So if someone is barren and can't have children and they get married, can their marriage be dissolved due to breach in the child rearing contract?

    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    I'm fine with gay unions. I personally don't care either way if you call it unions or marriages as long as it's the same thing. Of course I like to take it a step further and say oh the religious coined the term marriage, then call people like myself who didn't get married in a church or by a minister or priest a union as well, and i'm ok with that.

    I don't really like the wording of the poll though.
    I bet gay people care though. If civil unions are the exact same thing as marriages, why not just let them get married? As stephkyle said, that's essentially separate but equal. And, unlike in biblical times, getting married now means that you have a marriage license which is contract offered by the government. There is a separation of church and state, so if a person chooses to get married without the use of a priest, rabbi, or other religious figure, they should be able to still be considered married. Atheists likely aren't going to want a religious figure marrying them, so no atheist would then be able to get married, which would be religious discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johann View Post
    PS, I don't think it's nice to have an option: No, I'm an *******

    It makes you seem as if you're a bigot on opinions. Like, only your opinion really matters.
    People can say no, for their own reasons. If you can't accept that, then you don't need anyone's help.
    I think calling someone an ******* for attempting to stop people who love each other from getting married is fair. The main arguments for not legalizing gay marriage are ones of personal religious beliefs which have no business even being brought up in a political discussion. There is no official religion of the United States, so it baffles me how people can think applying Christian ideals to the issue of gay marriage is at all relevant or meaningful to everyone. I view people trying to force their own ideals on a person as much worse than me simply calling them out for what they are. If someone can given me one valid argument, that has nothing to do with religion or personal preference, I will stop calling people against gay marriage *******s. Until then, that's the best word to define them as.

  5. 11-26-2012, 11:38 AM
    Reason
    Trolling

  6. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,731
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GA16Angels View Post
    Well that's just terrible. So if someone is barren and can't have children and they get married, can their marriage be dissolved due to breach in the child rearing contract?



    I bet gay people care though. If civil unions are the exact same thing as marriages, why not just let them get married? As stephkyle said, that's essentially separate but equal. And, unlike in biblical times, getting married now means that you have a marriage license which is contract offered by the government. There is a separation of church and state, so if a person chooses to get married without the use of a priest, rabbi, or other religious figure, they should be able to still be considered married. Atheists likely aren't going to want a religious figure marrying them, so no atheist would then be able to get married, which would be religious discrimination.
    Yeah it is. But it's the only logic based argument anyone uses..

    If the government gets out of the marriage game all together though it would not be separate but equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  7. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Deutschland
    Posts
    15,947
    vCash
    1500
    Marriage is generally a religious thing. (holy matrimony)
    Many religions have negative relations with gay rights.
    All the government can do is just give the same benefits as non gay marriage or a nOn religious wedding

    And by the way, those pants, they belong to my dad.And they're not really pants,
    they're Lederhosen



  8. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,046
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Yeah this is an argument...but what BMD and others are suggesting is that the government gives civil unions for all couples gay straight or bi. Thus it is not separate but equal.

    In my opinion the religious right can have the word marriage and marry it if they love it so much. I know this isn't popular with my gay friends, but I still think it's reasonable.
    Yea I mean in the eyes of the law they will be the same thing to me, complete tax advantages etc. Or better yet just get rid of the marriage benefits of taxation. Never understood why i got a tax break when I got married to start with. Should have had it all along.


    Come to psd where admitted dupes who do nothing but troll the gd and fs forum are free. But man don't you dare mention trolling on someone's wall.

  9. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,220
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Johann View Post
    Marriage is generally a religious thing. (holy matrimony)
    Many religions have negative relations with gay rights.
    All the government can do is just give the same benefits as non gay marriage or a nOn religious wedding
    While there is a religious marriage, the license you get from the government is for the secular marriage, with the rights that the government gives. No one is proposing any control over religious marriage, it is only the secular marriage.

    This entire discussion is not about being for or against gay marriage, as much as it is being about denying equal treatment under the law for all citizens.

    The simplicity of this discussion can be pointed out by another marriage related process, divorce. Many religions have specific rules about divorce and granting divorce. Assuming you are a member of a religion that has a divorce procedure, you still have to go to civil court for civil divorce. If you belong to a religion that does not recognize divorce, you may still find yourself in civil court, getting a civil divorce, and being married in the eyes of your religion. Either way, religion is irrelevant to this discussion. It is about civil marriage, and the rights and responsibilities that are granted and/or recognized by the government, which means all of us from all choices of religion or, no religion.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  10. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,946
    vCash
    1500
    I hate gays, but I don't care if they get married. the gov needs to stay out of people's lives and pocket book.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  11. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,731
    vCash
    1500
    Funny, called for, but poor forum etiquette. So I deleted it.
    Last edited by flips333; 11-26-2012 at 04:52 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  12. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Johann View Post
    Marriage is generally a religious thing. (holy matrimony)
    Many religions have negative relations with gay rights.
    All the government can do is just give the same benefits as non gay marriage or a nOn religious wedding
    A long time ago, in certain societies, this may have been true. It no longer is. I, as an atheist, can go marry another atheist, outside of a church, without a minister leading the ceremony, and my marriage is just as valid as Billy Graham's.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  13. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    I hate gays, but I don't care if they get married. the gov needs to stay out of people's lives and pocket book.
    Bunch of gays kick your dog or something?
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  14. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arvada, Colorado
    Posts
    17,785
    vCash
    500
    Look, I believe the government should not interfere with our lives. Big government=the devil. Don't tell me what to do! Oh yeah, homosexuals should not be allowed to be married!

  15. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudvayneowns91 View Post
    Look, I believe the government should not interfere with our lives. Big government=the devil. Don't tell me what to do! Oh yeah, homosexuals should not be allowed to be married!
    How many people do you think won't get your sarcasm?
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  16. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,465
    vCash
    1500
    I just want to know who said it was fine to redefine marriage the first time. It use to be a contract between a man and the woman whose father he bribed to own here. Being back real traditional marriage!
    Member of the Owlluminati!

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •