View Poll Results: Would you vote to legalize same gender marriages?

Voters
142. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I would vote to make gay marriage legal

    99 69.72%
  • No, I would vote against making gay marriage legal

    37 26.06%
  • I am undecided and wouldn't vote

    6 4.23%
Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 473

Thread: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,778

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    When did marrying who you love become a special privilege? It would seem like equality under the law to me.
    When did I say what you just said?

    I would say that most of those who vote against gay marriage are ignorant bigots, and none of them understand the basics of morality or logic.
    And that would be your opinion. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #22
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    When did I say what you just said?
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Do you think that's true? I think that the vast majority of those voting against gay marriage would be religious folks who, not homophobic, just take their belief in religion, literally; those who are set in their ways and do not understand that this would not affect them; or those who believe that there should not be special privileges for any people who are married. I don't think that homophobes make up the vast majority, that's why I like my statement, better. Do you have evidence that shows me incorrect? Again, I am open to this being possible.
    I know you weren't necessarily citing it as your own opinion, but it is what I was referring to.


    And that would be your opinion. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
    1. Marriage is not a purely religious institution, but a legal one. As such, it falls under the equal protection clauses of the US and most State Constitutions. While I personally don't care what the law says, the legal basis for gay marriage is well-established by the analogous legal battle over anti-miscegenation, culminating in Loving v. Virginia which struck down laws against interracial marriage despite overwhelming public opinion against the decision. Some would argue that anti-miscegenation was based upon race, but it discriminated against both Blacks and Whites as a White man could not marry a Black woman if he wanted to. In reality, it was discriminatory against a specific sexual orientation, much like laws against gay marriage.

    2. Logically, the equal protection clauses are critical. Equal justice under the law is a critical component of the law if the public is going to maintain any respect for it, and for the law to make society function more optimally by minimizing the creation of its own injustices. The law may never be perfect, but so long as it strives to treat people equally it will maximize fairness, justice, and a better society.

    3. It is a ridiculous idea that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to marry gays. The Mormons weren't required to marry Black people after Loving v. Virginia, any church will still be able to marry or not marry whoever they want.

    4. It is ridiculous that traditional marriage components argue from tradition, which is a fallacy.

    5. It is furthermore ridiculous that they argue it will undermine the sanctity of marriage, as marriage is a legal contract that can only be "sanctified" by those involved in it. Sanctified marriage never existed, institutionally, as people were forced to marry for economic reasons before, people sometimes marry for sex alone today, people of other faiths have usually had some form of marriage (not always monogamous or heterosexual, either), and at least half of marriages end before either die. There is no inherent sanctity in marriage, it must be created in every marriage. Otherwise, marriage is just a civil contract, and that's all it needs to be as far as the law is concerned.

    6. It is also ridiculous that they try to make marriage about children, because not all marriages, even between religious people, involve children.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-03-09 at 03:32 AM.

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,778

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    I know you weren't necessarily citing it as your own opinion, but it is what I was referring to.
    You're correct. It wasn't my opinion. It was my supposition of the opinion of those who would oppose gay marriage.

    1. Marriage is not a purely religious institution, but a legal one. As such, it falls under the equal protection clauses of the US and most State Constitutions. While I personally don't care what the law says, the legal basis for gay marriage is well-established by the analogous legal battle over anti-miscegenation, culminating in Loving v. Virginia which struck down laws against interracial marriage despite overwhelming public opinion against the decision. Some would argue that anti-miscegenation was based upon race, but it discriminated against both Blacks and Whites as a White man could not marry a Black woman if he wanted to. In reality, it was discriminatory against a specific sexual orientation, much like laws against gay marriage.
    Marriage may not be a religious institution, but it's origins are based on religion. This is an argument that those opposed make.

    And Loving v. Virginia does not apply, here. Jerry has argued this, successfully, many times. The equal protection argument is a failed argument because you can't get around the "gay men can still marry women, and gay women can still marry men" argument, unless you go with marrying for love...which is not covered by legal tenets. Under today's laws, when using the equal protection argument, the gay marriage argument is a failure.

    I will let Jerry handle this portion, further. He's better at this section than I.

    2. Logically, the equal protection clauses are critical. Equal justice under the law is a critical component of the law if the public is going to maintain any respect for it, and for the law to make society function more optimally by minimizing the creation of its own injustices. The law may never be perfect, but so long as it strives to treat people equally it will maximize fairness, justice, and a better society.
    See above. Loser of an argument for the reasons I cited. Jerry will have a field day with this.

    3. It is a ridiculous idea that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to marry gays. The Mormons weren't required to marry Black people after Loving v. Virginia, any church will still be able to marry or not marry whoever they want.
    This I agree with, as it is a different argument. This is more of a church vs. state argument. The state can choose to marry whoever it wants. And the church can choose to recognize, not recognize, or marry whoever it wants. And these need to be totally separate entities.

    4. It is ridiculous that traditional marriage components argue from tradition, which is a fallacy.
    I agree with this.

    5. It is furthermore ridiculous that they argue it will undermine the sanctity of marriage, as marriage is a legal contract that can only be "sanctified" by those involved in it. Sanctified marriage never existed, institutionally, as people were forced to marry for economic reasons before, people sometimes marry for sex alone today, people of other faiths have usually had some form of marriage (not always monogamous or heterosexual, either), and at least half of marriages end before either die. There is no inherent sanctity in marriage, it must be created in every marriage. Otherwise, marriage is just a civil contract, and that's all it needs to be as far as the law is concerned.
    I agree with this, also, which is why I argue from the position of a two-tiered approach. Everyone has a governmental civil union. Churches issue "marriages".

    6. It is also ridiculous that they try to make marriage about children, because not all marriages, even between religious people, involve children.
    The winning argument in the gay marriage debate is to make it about rearing children and the positives that family creates, economically, socially, and healthwise. This is where data and evidence rule the day.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #24
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post

    Marriage may not be a religious institution, but it's origins are based on religion. This is an argument that those opposed make.
    Yet using that as an argument against gay marriage is still an appeal to tradition, which is fallacy.

    And Loving v. Virginia does not apply, here. Jerry has argued this, successfully, many times. The equal protection argument is a failed argument because you can't get around the "gay men can still marry women, and gay women can still marry men" argument, unless you go with marrying for love...which is not covered by legal tenets. Under today's laws, when using the equal protection argument, the gay marriage argument is a failure.
    Well I'm not sure what you mean by "successful" because that's a rather pathetic yet common argument. Under anti-miscegenation laws, one could have made the exact same argument by stating that, "Whites and Blacks have the same rights. Both must marry within their race."

    Suppose the majority decided that people must marry somebody who has a different hair color than them. Yeah, everybody has the "same right" to marry under this restriction but this restriction will carry different meanings for different people. If the person happens to like somebody with a different hair color, it means nothing to them. If the person feels they are "only attracted" to blondes and they are themselves blonde, then they are not being treated equally under the law. They can't marry the person they want to.

    Even if you assume sexual orientation is a choice, it's no more of a choice than religious orientation. The point is it's unreasonable to ask somebody to change something so central to who they are in order to enjoy their rights. The only exception would be if they were actually harming a 3rd party, as I mentioned in the examples above.

    There are more legit reasons for telling somebody they can't marry. For example if one party is incompetent to enter into contracts. We disallow siblings from marrying primarily because they would pass on horrendous genetic defects to their offspring. But arbitrarily limiting people's right to marry who they want is causing unnecessary suffering.

    I agree with this, also, which is why I argue from the position of a two-tiered approach. Everyone has a governmental civil union. Churches issue "marriages".
    That would be okay with me. As long as they're treated the same under the law. I'm not okay with the separate but equal conditions others have suggested on other forums.


    The winning argument in the gay marriage debate is to make it about rearing children and the positives that family creates, economically, socially, and healthwise. This is where data and evidence rule the day.
    That argument fails because that's not what marriage does unless the people involved in it work for it. It has nothing to do with other marriages. Not all hetero marriages are about rearing children, and we need not require them to do so. So unless we require hetero marriages to be about children, which would be deplorable, it is unfair to demand the same of homosexuals.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-03-09 at 04:24 AM.

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,778

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Yet using that as an argument against gay marriage is still an appeal to tradition, which is fallacy.
    I'm not arguing the position. All I'm saying is how those opposed would argue it. I agree with you.

    Well I'm not sure what you mean by "successful" because that's a rather pathetic yet common argument. Under anti-miscegenation laws, one could have made the exact same argument by stating that, "Whites and Blacks have the same rights. Both must marry within their race."
    Yes, but under anti-discrimination laws, this argument would fail. A white man not being allowed to marry a black woman is discriminatory under the law, because it prevents something that is legal, with the exception of race. A white man not being allowed to marry a black MAN is not discriminatory under the law. At this time, when it comes to marriage laws, sexual orientation is not recognized as discriminatory. In order to change the law, you have to have cause. The discrimination argument doesn't cut it because gay folks can already marry...just not someone of the same sex. This is why the family argument will win because there is plenty of research to support it. One cannot argue the discrimination position with any valid research. A gay man can still marry a woman will always stop the argument dead in the water.

    Suppose the majority decided that people must marry somebody who has a different hair color than them. Yeah, everybody has the "same right" to marry under this restriction but this restriction will carry different meanings for different people. If the person happens to like somebody with a different hair color, it means nothing to them. If the person feels they are "only attracted" to blondes and they are themselves blonde, then they are not being treated equally under the law. They can't marry the person they want to.
    You cannot legislated "love" or "want to". It is not logical. Currently, a man can marry a women, regardless of sexual orientation. Going with the "love" argument, is a loser argument. What if someone "loves" their dog? I've done this debate many, many times. The discrimination is a failed argument. Far too many potholes.

    Even if you assume sexual orientation is a choice, it's no more of a choice than religious orientation. The point is it's unreasonable to ask somebody to change something so central to who they are in order to enjoy their rights. The only exception would be if they were actually harming a 3rd party, as I mentioned in the examples above.
    I do not assume sexual orientation is a choice. Nor do I hold that not legalizing gay marriage is right. But it's not about what is right; it's about what can be proven and what is a winning argument. Discrimination is a loser argument. I am pro-GM, and I've already shredded your position on this. An anti-GM person will do better.

    There are more legit reasons for telling somebody they can't marry. For example if one party is incompetent to enter into contracts. We disallow siblings from marrying primarily because they would pass on horrendous genetic defects to their offspring. But arbitrarily limiting people's right to marry who they want is causing unnecessary suffering.
    "Love" cannot be legislated. Gays can still marry...no one is telling them they cannot. They have the same rights as anyone else.



    That would be okay with me. As long as they're treated the same under the law. I'm not okay with the separate but equal conditions others have suggested on other forums.
    Separate but equal wasn't. It was stupid 120 years ago and it's stupid now. They must be treated the same under the law.

    That argument fails because that's not what marriage does unless the people involved in it work for it. It has nothing to do with other marriages. Not all hetero marriages are about rearing children, and we need not require them to do so. So unless we require hetero marriages to be about children, which would be deplorable, it is unfair to demand the same of homosexuals.
    The argument is the winning argument in this debate, You did not read the entire thing. It is not only about children, though that would be a cornerstone. Married couples live longer, are healthier, do more to support the government, do better economically, are more stable, socially, etc... The position is not only about children. It's about creating a more solid society. The government has an interest in all of this, and that is how to win this argument. Find what the government has an interest in and exploit it. There is nothing to be gained from the discrimination argument alone and there are far to many solid refutations. The family/society/benefit of the government is the winning argument.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #26
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Yes, but under anti-discrimination laws, this argument would fail. A white man not being allowed to marry a black woman is discriminatory under the law, because it prevents something that is legal, with the exception of race.
    Well citing the law to support the law is a bit circular, and one reason I distrust the law, but let me correct something. Whatever conservative lawyers might say (most lawyers are nothing but charismatic idiots anyway, as evidenced by Congress), anti-miscegenation laws logically had no more to do with race than anti-SSM laws have anything to do with gender. The relevant issue in both cases is really sexual preference.

    A white man not being allowed to marry a black MAN is not discriminatory under the law. At this time, when it comes to marriage laws, sexual orientation is not recognized as discriminatory.
    That's incorrect. The California Supreme Court cited many decisions to support their contention that sexual orientation is a suspect criteria for discrimination. Though again, I care more about who is being harmed. Gay marriage harms nobody.

    In order to change the law, you have to have cause.
    No, the Constitution is written in such a way that limits what sorts of laws can stand up in court. In order to challenge a law, people have to be wronged in some way. Being denied the legal ability to marry who you want who also wants to marry you is being wronged. In some cases, this is secondary to some other interest. But in the case of gay marriage, the only party with any real stake in the matter are the gays who want to get married. Nobody is being wronged by the gay marriage in a way that counters the interests of the gay couples.

    The discrimination argument doesn't cut it because gay folks can already marry...just not someone of the same sex.
    I already explained why that doesn't make sense. Denying a group of people the right to marry at all was not what anti-miscegenation laws were about, or anti-SSM marriage laws are about. Blacks could get married, they just couldn't marry Whites. Whites could get married, they just couldn't marry Blacks. Everybody could get married, but they're SOL if they happen to like the wrong person. Putting arbitrary restrictions on rights robs those rights of any meaning. Suppose somebody told you that you can marry, but you have to marry a specific kind of person regardless of whether you like them or not. Would you be able to meaningfully exercise your right to marry? Of course not.

    You cannot legislated "love" or "want to". It is not logical. Currently, a man can marry a women, regardless of sexual orientation. Going with the "love" argument, is a loser argument. What if someone "loves" their dog? I've done this debate many, many times. The discrimination is a failed argument. Far too many potholes.
    "want to" is consent. Informed consent is CENTRAL to contracts.

    The dog argument is not comparable, because a dog is mentally incapable of comprehending a marriage contract. And without comprehending a contract, meaningful consent cannot be given. Adult lesbians, however, obviously can consent to contracts.
    I do not assume sexual orientation is a choice. Nor do I hold that not legalizing gay marriage is right. But it's not about what is right; it's about what can be proven and what is a winning argument. Discrimination is a loser argument. I am pro-GM, and I've already shredded your position on this. An anti-GM person will do better.
    You didn't even come close to shredding it.

    "Love" cannot be legislated. Gays can still marry...no one is telling them they cannot. They have the same rights as anyone else.
    Love is only one possible motive. It's presence isn't necessary, I was just hoping that those against gay marriage would learn to have empathy for other people.

    The argument is the winning argument in this debate, You did not read the entire thing. It is not only about children, though that would be a cornerstone. Married couples live longer, are healthier, do more to support the government, do better economically, are more stable, socially, etc... The position is not only about children. It's about creating a more solid society. The government has an interest in all of this, and that is how to win this argument. Find what the government has an interest in and exploit it. There is nothing to be gained from the discrimination argument alone and there are far to many solid refutations. The family/society/benefit of the government is the winning argument.
    The government isn't set up to look after it's own interests, but that of the people. Since nobody has a tangible stake against gay marriage, there is no basis to deny gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is not only to benefit society. We don't subject marriages to a test to check to see if it would benefit society. The relevant criteria is that both people consent to the contract, and provided that contract doesn't harm anybody there is no basis to deny it.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-03-09 at 05:22 AM.

  7. #27
    Professor
    OxymoronP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heart in Brooklyn, body South of Dixie
    Last Seen
    08-23-10 @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,175

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    I would vote no, if it was a bill to expand rights of Civil Unions then by all means yes. Marriage is a cultural/religious term, it shouldnt be changed to please a minority, but I dont see why We cannot offer basically the same rights under a different name.


    THE GREATEST FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM TO OPPRESS OTHERS

  8. #28
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by OxymoronP View Post
    I would vote no, if it was a bill to expand rights of Civil Unions then by all means yes. Marriage is a cultural/religious term, it shouldnt be changed to please a minority, but I dont see why We cannot offer basically the same rights under a different name.
    Appeal to majority is a fallacy for a reason. The majority has no tangible stake in this matter.



    Whatever it once was, marriage has become a legal term. If you abolished marriage from legal terminology and had civil unions between any who consent, as far as the law is concerned, that would be okay.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-03-09 at 05:29 AM.

  9. #29
    Professor
    OxymoronP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heart in Brooklyn, body South of Dixie
    Last Seen
    08-23-10 @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,175

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Appeal to majority is a fallacy for a reason. The majority has no tangible stake in this matter.
    Why is it a fallacy? What do you mean the majority has no tangible stake in the matter? There is nothing in the definition of marriage stopping interracial marriage. There is something about Same Gender marriage. Since most Americans are Religious marriage is and will remain between a man and a women. Again Civil Unions should be available with the same benefits.
    Last edited by OxymoronP; 07-03-09 at 05:31 AM.


    THE GREATEST FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM TO OPPRESS OTHERS

  10. #30
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by OxymoronP View Post
    Why is it a fallacy? What do you mean the majority has no tangible stake in the matter?
    I thought the graph was a good illustration but here:

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority]Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    And I've been trying to figure the 2nd question out myself. Perhaps you can explain what the majority will lose when gays can get married?

Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •