What do you think about legalising same-sex marriage?
I think it's an important step forward
69% (69)
69% (69)
No, because I don't think marriage should matter to them
1% (1)
1% (1)
I don't think marriage should matter to them, but if it's that important to them then why not
8% (8)
8% (8)
I've no problem with same-sex couples, but marriage is between a man and a woman
9% (9)
9% (9)
I'm ethically opposed to the idea
3% (3)
3% (3)
I HAVE NO STRONG FEELINGS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
3% (3)
3% (3)
other (comment)
6% (6)
6% (6)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: So. Same-sex marriage?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Before some smug prick shows me that fucking "oh look, this thread again" image, causing me to throw down my "oh look, this response again" image, let me clarify that I need these results of school, but I'm only allowed to use studies and polls I've performed myself.
So have at thee!

"I have no problem with same-sex couples, but..." is the 21st century's "I'm not racist, but..."

I'll be quite thankful when this is all over in June, and all we have left are the die hards muttering about "activist judges".

I'm one of those who believes marriage is between a man and a woman so in order to give everyone more rights I say we should get rid of marriage and just have civil unions for gays, straights, and everyone not covered in those two words.

captcha: you good?
yeah I think I solved the whole problem there so I'm good

It is morally and ethically indefensible for straight couples to enjoy a legal privilege gay couples cannot. Nothing about heterosexual marriage is so desirable that it deserves to be incentivized at the expense of other lawful citizens in an analogous relationship.

Aris Khandr:
"I have no problem with same-sex couples, but..." is the 21st century's "I'm not racist, but..."

I'll be quite thankful when this is all over in June, and all we have left are the die hards muttering about "activist judges".

What? Why? Is something happening in June this year?

itchcrotch:

Aris Khandr:
"I have no problem with same-sex couples, but..." is the 21st century's "I'm not racist, but..."

I'll be quite thankful when this is all over in June, and all we have left are the die hards muttering about "activist judges".

What? Why? Is something happening in June this year?

The Supreme Court rules on DOMA and California's Proposition 8, and will most likely overturn both. Arguments will be this month, and the ruling is expected in June. Looking at how pathetic the defense is, I'm not entirely sure it will even take that long.

My state is currently in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage. It's passed the Senate and the House Committee and the governor has stated on numerous occasions that he would sign it into law if it reached his desk. All that's left is to get by the full House vote. If so, tenth in the Union, female dogs! :D

If you couldn't tell by that paragraph, I support same-sex marriage. I see no reason why two consenting adults who love each other should be denied the right of marriage.

Aris Khandr:

itchcrotch:

Aris Khandr:
"I have no problem with same-sex couples, but..." is the 21st century's "I'm not racist, but..."

I'll be quite thankful when this is all over in June, and all we have left are the die hards muttering about "activist judges".

What? Why? Is something happening in June this year?

The Supreme Court rules on DOMA and California's Proposition 8, and will most likely overturn both. Arguments will be this month, and the ruling is expected in June. Looking at how pathetic the defense is, I'm not entirely sure it will even take that long.

Back up. What are these bills? What do they mean? Who's who and who's winning?

itchcrotch:

Aris Khandr:

itchcrotch:

What? Why? Is something happening in June this year?

The Supreme Court rules on DOMA and California's Proposition 8, and will most likely overturn both. Arguments will be this month, and the ruling is expected in June. Looking at how pathetic the defense is, I'm not entirely sure it will even take that long.

Back up. What are these bills? What do they mean? Who's who and who's winning?

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed by Bill Clinton and it defines what marriage is. Proposition 8 was California's ban on gay marriage. Funny that those get all the attention and my state gets none despite our Amendment 1 (the people of my state voted 60-40 to ban gay marriage and civil unions).

Four gay marriage threads on the first page of R&P. Achievement unlocked!

Aris Khandr:
"I have no problem with same-sex couples, but..." is the 21st century's "I'm not racist, but..."

Wait, did "I'm not racist, but..." go out of fashion?

Xan Krieger:

itchcrotch:

Aris Khandr:

The Supreme Court rules on DOMA and California's Proposition 8, and will most likely overturn both. Arguments will be this month, and the ruling is expected in June. Looking at how pathetic the defense is, I'm not entirely sure it will even take that long.

Back up. What are these bills? What do they mean? Who's who and who's winning?

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed by Bill Clinton and it defines what marriage is. Proposition 8 was California's ban on gay marriage. Funny that those get all the attention and my state gets none despite our Amendment 1 (the people of my state voted 60-40 to ban gay marriage and civil unions).

Which state would that be?
And what's your take on all this?

boots:

Aris Khandr:
"I have no problem with same-sex couples, but..." is the 21st century's "I'm not racist, but..."

Wait, did "I'm not racist, but..." go out of fashion?

To a degree. Now everyone knows that anything starting with "I'm not racist, but..." is going to be racist, so it doesn't even work as a defense anymore. Not that it ever really worked, but most people have stopped pretending it did. Thus the move to "I'm not a homophobe, but..."

On behalf of humanity, this is basic human rights. Love is love. It does not give a flying fuck about gender.
Trust in that:)

itchcrotch:

Xan Krieger:

itchcrotch:

Back up. What are these bills? What do they mean? Who's who and who's winning?

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed by Bill Clinton and it defines what marriage is. Proposition 8 was California's ban on gay marriage. Funny that those get all the attention and my state gets none despite our Amendment 1 (the people of my state voted 60-40 to ban gay marriage and civil unions).

Which state would that be?
And what's your take on all this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1
Same state the escapist is based in and yet I still don't have a way to get to the damn expo. As for me, I voted against the amendment on the grounds that I believe in civil unions for everyone.

Voted other.

In matter of laws, every civil union should have the rights regardless of if it's man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, or anything else. This is a matter of right v. left, it's a matter of right v. wrong.

In matter of social acceptance, this is something that can not be done through legislation. The old woman down the street isn't going to suddenly start thinking your same sex relationship is any less of an abomination simply because the license the state issues says the word 'marriage' on it.

Personally, I don't think it's the government's job to define what 'marriage' should be. As a solution retroactively drop 'marriage' from all previous licenses, and now everyone be called a 'civil-union', or a non-religiously charged title. While that being my preferred solution, owing to my belief that it'll never be done, I have no objection to same sex couples being granted marriage licenses. If some one wants to legally and financially shackle themselves to someone else, they should have every right to do so. Including the polygamous.

I Have no strong feelings one way or the other. Gay marriage has never seemed like a big deal to me.

THIS, ALL OF THIS:

madwarper:
Voted other.

In matter of laws, every civil union should have the rights regardless of if it's man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, or anything else. This is a matter of right v. left, it's a matter of right v. wrong.

In matter of social acceptance, this is something that can not be done through legislation. The old woman down the street isn't going to suddenly start thinking your same sex relationship is any less of an abomination simply because the license the state issues says the word 'marriage' on it.

Personally, I don't think it's the government's job to define what 'marriage' should be. As a solution retroactively drop 'marriage' from all previous licenses, and now everyone be called a 'civil-union', or a non-religiously charged title. While that being my preferred solution, owing to my belief that it'll never be done, I have no objection to same sex couples being granted marriage licenses. If some one wants to legally and financially shackle themselves to someone else, they should have every right to do so. Including the polygamous.

Well said, I made my comment before reading all the other's and I'm very proud to know that I'm not the only one who basically thinks this whole thing is silly over the use of a WORD!

I voted 'other' for this reason:

I think the word marriage should be removed and 'civil union' should be applied to all persons regardless of gender/sexuality.

If the church wants their sacrament to remain intact then remove it from the law books and let people join in a civil union at the court house and get married in the church. Nothing would change, but it would reduce any argument from both sides because everyone could be happy; the gays get to marry (for ease of language), straight people can't use strawmen and attempt to smear the line of church and state, and the church gets to persecute who they see fit without trouble, just like they want to.

While I understand the sentiment of "just separate religious marriage from civil union", I don't really see why you would do that, other than to try and satisfy the religious fringe. Marriage isn't specific to religion, even less so to any one particular religion. As a heterosexual Atheist, I can get married. Just make it religious marriage and civil/legal marriage, with the former being the legally irrelevant ceremony and the latter being the legally relevant institution (applied to hetero- and homosexuals equally). Churches can still deny church ceremonies, but it has no effect on marriage availability. I don't really think there's any need to give marriage up to the religious.

Skeleon:
While I understand the sentiment of "just separate religious marriage from civil union", I don't really see why you would do that, other than to try and satisfy the religious fringe. Marriage isn't specific to religion, even less so to any one particular religion. As a heterosexual Atheist, I can get married. Just make it religious marriage and civil/legal marriage, with the former being the legally irrelevant ceremony and the latter being the legally relevant institution (applied to hetero- and homosexuals equally). Churches can still deny church ceremonies, but it has no effect on marriage availability. I don't really think there's any need to give marriage up to the religious.

I understand why you say this, and I share your lack of dogmatic belief (atheist also) but 'marriage' shouldn't be the term used because it had meaning and significance well before the US existed. What myself and Biscuit were basically saying (assuming we have the same narrow vision like he described) is that if you divorce the term from law and require any persons who wish to join in a mutual partnership (they don't even have to be gay/straight; two individuals that live in the same house and share a life together, hetereosexually, could be recognized by a civil union) should have the rights to do so - There are both pros and cons, benefits and limitations, for entering into a committed relationship and I think the persons involved should be able to make that decision without having to fight for a term that don't necessarily want.

Separating the beliefs of the church from the realities of life I think is paramount, and attempting to re-write the definition of a very established piece of language just creates more details for both sides to argue. By requiring all those who want the benefits of being married to do the same thing the system is equal without infringement.

l0ckd0wn:
but 'marriage' shouldn't be the term used because it had meaning and significance well before the US existed.

"Marriage" is a word with Latin roots. Latin meaning ancient Rome, i.e. not Christian. Therefore, the Christians have no exclusive claim to the word. Further, the word marriage has been in use for hundreds of years to describe the unions of atheists as well as pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and every other non-Abrahamic religion out there, so they're a bit late to the party to start claiming "it is our word" now. So, exactly, on what grounds can we reasonably be excluded from marriage?

Aris Khandr:

l0ckd0wn:
but 'marriage' shouldn't be the term used because it had meaning and significance well before the US existed.

"Marriage" is a word with Latin roots. Latin meaning ancient Rome, i.e. not Christian. Therefore, the Christians have no exclusive claim to the word. Further, the word marriage has been in use for hundreds of years to describe the unions of atheists as well as pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and every other non-Abrahamic religion out there, so they're a bit late to the party to start claiming "it is our word" now. So, exactly, on what grounds can we reasonably be excluded from marriage?

That is my point; no one religion can lay claim, but all have some recognition of 'marriage,' not 'civil union.' By removing the word entirely there is not even an inch of room to argue against it based upon the religious standpoint and an infringement upon the beliefs of the faithful.

Whereas I am of the opinion that the religious have no grounds to stand on, so their opinions on the matter can be shoved directly up their collective bums. There's no reason to play nice with their feelings as they try to segregate us. 10 years ago, I'd probably have been happy for a civil union and been done with it. But they've insulted us, scratched and clawed and fought to deny us what should be a basic human right. So no, I don't want to remove the word and spare their feelings. I want it to bloody hurt.

l0ckd0wn:
*snip*

Well, my opinion is largely based on the simple fact that marriage has long been a governmental issue here in Germany and religious marriage was an additional ceremony with no legal standing on its own (and while I think this setup makes a ton of sense, we still haven't actually added gay marriage despite it, go figure). So talk about "established piece of language", eh? Plus, Atheists today in the USA get married, too, so however established some people might think it is there, it clearly isn't that well established.
Now, you might argue that - historically - things have been different in the USA, but then again the USA was supposed to be a secular country. I'd consider creating a civil/legal marriage fixing an error.
Not only "no one religion" but "religion in general" doesn't have sole claim to the word marriage.

Aris Khandr:
Whereas I am of the opinion that the religious have no grounds to stand on, so their opinions on the matter can be shoved directly up their collective bums. There's no reason to play nice with their feelings as they try to segregate us. 10 years ago, I'd probably have been happy for a civil union and been done with it. But they've insulted us, scratched and clawed and fought to deny us what should be a basic human right. So no, I don't want to remove the word and spare their feelings. I want it to bloody hurt.

This made me laugh, not at the content, but at the fact you're right and make me feel like I'm giving in to them!

Skeleon:

l0ckd0wn:
*snip*

Well, my opinion is largely based on the simple fact that marriage has long been a governmental issue here in Germany and religious marriage was an additional ceremony with no legal standing on its own (and while I think this setup makes a ton of sense, we still haven't actually added gay marriage despite it, go figure). So talk about "established piece of language", eh? Plus, Atheists today in the USA get married, too, so however established some people might think it is there, it clearly isn't that well established.
Now, you might argue that - historically - things have been different in the USA, but then again the USA was supposed to be a secular country. I'd consider creating a civil/legal marriage fixing an error.
Not only "no one religion" but "religion in general" doesn't have sole claim to the word marriage.

I agree it would be "fixing a mistake" and that has some merit to stand on it's own, however I feel that taking the entire argument away from the religious gives new found power to those that don't want religion in their lives; there is no longer any true overlap.

And by established I'm talking about the act of marriage as a societal piece that has existed for thousands of years, devoid any particular religion or belief structure - It's this solitary word I want to give back to them to basically say what Aris wanted to, "Take marriage and shove it up your collective arses." If they get their word back and have the equal treatment of all to the single and separate act of getting a civil union, again, there isn't a shred of collective opinion that can say it's impeding into their lives. In the US, this is a problem with the overwhelming number of Christian fundamentalist that use this very reasoning, and politicians listen to them.

I voted other, since it already is legal (and has been for over 10 years) in this country. I understand it's still a hot-topic in the US but there wasn't even a discussion about it when it was an issue over here.

Obviously I believe it should be legal everywhere. But that'll take a while still I'm afraid.

Aris Khandr:
"I have no problem with same-sex couples, but..." is the 21st century's "I'm not racist, but..."

I thought "I'm not racist, but..." was still the 21st century "I'm not racist, but...", it just has some competition in that new upstart "Whatever sick shit they do in their own bedrooms is fine, but I don't want them shoving it in my children's faces to try and convert them to a life of sin".

Denial is a lucrative market, and there's plenty of phrases battling it out for dominance.

l0ckd0wn:
It's this solitary word I want to give back to them to basically say what Aris wanted to, "Take marriage and shove it up your collective arses." If they get their word back and have the equal treatment of all to the single and separate act of getting a civil union, again, there isn't a shred of collective opinion that can say it's impeding into their lives.

No, I don't buy it. Just recently our center-right politicians here in Germany voted against equal taxation on civil unions (yeah, we lack proper gay marriage as yet) in comparison to marriages, and the same bullshit arguments were used (along the lines of the "family unit" being necessary for society and because apparently civil unions can't be proper family units they don't deserve the same benefits). There's nothing to indicate that giving up the term will satisfy these people and actually allow for true, equal treatment. And even if it did? I don't agree with basically giving in to ransom demands of that sort. Times have changed, as have our societies, and it's time our laws reflect that.

I think I had an attack of idiocy and clicked "I'm ethically opposed to the idea," by accident. I meant to click "I think it's an important step forward." My bad.

As others have said, there are only a few reasons to oppose gay marriage, and only one of them is even remotely ethically defensible ("I think marriage is a special religious thing because derp," in case you were wondering).

I think the religious folks who are opposed to gay marriage would have much more of a point if they were in favour of banning atheist marriage too. They always claim "I have no problems with gays, but marriage is a religious institution and homosexuality goes against my religion". Well, how come atheists are getting married? How come thieves and murderers are getting married? Aren't those things against the bible as well?

I still haven't really heard a logically sound argument against it. I'm entirely in favour of gay marriage. Marriage is a legal problem and it is about equality before the law.

FavouriteDream:
How come thieves and murderers are getting married? Aren't those things against the bible as well?

Good thing you didn't mention rapists here, considering some of the old rules in the Bible.

Torn between 'other' and 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. Before anyone nitpicks at what I'm about to say, this is all in a general sense. When I claim that having children is beneficial to society, for example, pointing to someone who never did a day's work in his life and then went on a murder spree that claimed the lives of 35 people isn't helping. 'kay? 'kay.

Anyway, the rights and benefits that come with being married are meant to be an incentive to have (and raise) a family. Having children is beneficial to society in a number of ways. Many countries have welfare and other such programs to help those with children (or at least more than those without) because they're so important. It's not impossible for homosexual couples to have kids or raise a family (I'll come back to this point later), but it's not something that they're affiliated with. Note; the fact that many heterosexual couples may not be capable of having/do not want a family is rather irrelevant. It is not a reward for having them, it's an incentive to make the option more attractive/sustainable/affordable. There are other benefits for actually going ahead and having children in addition to that.

There's also a financial aspect. Married couples benefit from substantial tax breaks, among other financial benefits. I strongly encourage everyone to take a good, long look at this. There are 1,138 benefits and responsibilities that come with legal marriage. It is a big deal, financially. Part of the reason that our debt is so high is because the US has had historically low taxes for some time now, for both within itself and compared to other countries (There are two links there).
Hate to say it, but we probably can't afford gay marriage at the moment. Sort of deep in a world-wide recession here. That, or raise taxes. And any American knows how well a Politician claiming that we need to raise taxes goes over with the public (Hint: They get thrown out of office immediately)

Are there some rights that I feel can be safely extended to homosexual couples, like the right to attorney or visitation? Sure. But financial incentives? Maybe on a case by case basis, if the couple in question adopts (I think it's illegal for most homosexaual couples to adopt in most/all states though. Not 100% on that) or has a child via artificial insemination or proxy. But full marriage rights/privileges? I don't think it's sustainable at this point in time.

And there better not be any 'Some people shouldn't suffer/have reduced rights based on availability/resources/whatever else' arguments. Because then you'd be a hypocrite.

Awful lot of "them"s in that poll. Did it not occur to you that a fair number of people seeing your poll are, ourselves, queer?

Kopikatsu:
Anyway, the rights and benefits that come with being married are meant to be an incentive to have (and raise) a family. Having children is beneficial to society in a number of ways. Many countries have welfare and other such programs to help those with children (or at least more than those without) because they're so important.

This argument fails on several levels, some of which you even mention.

More and more children are born out of wedlock, both in stable unmarried relationships and to single parents.
More and more people get married for tax benefits without ever planning to have children; lots of career people in long-term relationships, both working full-time and zero interest in family founding.
Subsidizing marriage does in no way guarantee children are born.
More and more homosexuals adopt children, have children of their own from earlier relationships or use IVF and similar to have children of their own.

The incentive-argument fails because subsidizing marriage is so impractical and weak in terms of output of societal benefit.

If this were actually what it's about, you'd argue to remove marriage benefits and increase benefits aimed directly towards subsidizing children, like I often do.

Skeleon:

If this were actually what it's about, you'd argue to remove marriage benefits and increase benefits aimed directly towards subsidizing children, like I often do.

The reason I didn't even suggest that is because it's unrealistic. Can you imagine the outrage if the government even thinks about thinking about removing marriage benefits? Can you? It would be worse than suggesting that taxes should go up 0.5%.

Plus, I'm very against people having sex at all until they're in a very stable relationship with a stable income and own property (Perhaps excepting long-term rentals) as it is.

Kopikatsu:
The reason I didn't even suggest that is because it's unrealistic. Can you imagine the outrage if the government even thinks about thinking about removing marriage benefits? Can you? It would be worse than suggesting that taxes should go up 0.5%.

Right, well then in that case you need to expand them to remain just[1]. And that's what the pro-gay marriage groups are fighting for. Because the old model of "heterosexual marriage --> children" isn't generally applicable anymore.

[1] Although that still leaves single parents out in the rain, so there's always room for improvement.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked