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 30 of 48 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 473

Thread: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

  1. #291
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I disagree that a piece of paper is beneficial for families. It is, to me, an outright lie.

    Loving, caring, responsible people are beneficial for families. No piece of paper required.
    Marriage is and always has been more than a piece of paper. The paper is but a token, as are the rings man and wife place on each other's hands. Marriage is what these outward signs betoken, and what they betoken is of extraordinary significance.

  2. #292
    User smartaleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Central Florida
    Last Seen
    08-31-09 @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    79

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Equal justice under the law. Either we believe in equality or we don't. As long s Gay's are not equal under the law then it leaves the door open to speculate on who is equal and who isn't.

    I can't believe that Americans cannot understand this simple premise. We can't say all are equall except this group or that group. If we are not all equal as Americans it leaves the door open for all of us to be discriminated against.

  3. #293
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,338
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Consider it practice. Consider it an opportunity to work through the particulars of an issue, so that when the day comes for a same sex marriage law or initiative in Michigan, you will be armed with potent arguments to support a cause you believe in.

    A cause which, I might add, needs potent arguments, as the ones advanced thus far in Michigan have failed to persuade:

    Michigan Court Rules Against Same-Sex Benefits - May 8, 2008 - The New York Sun

    Michigan Messenger Same-sex marriage advocates call for 2012 equality push
    Technically, the marriage I am interested in seeing would be in Georgia, but point taken.

    By the way, this has been an enjoyable discussion tonight. Thanks guys and gal. Good night though.

  4. #294
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,738

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Technically, the marriage I am interested in seeing would be in Georgia, but point taken.

    By the way, this has been an enjoyable discussion tonight. Thanks guys and gal. Good night though.
    Usually, when we don't have fools running around saying "gays are sick" or "it isn't natural" or the like, this is a very good discussion. We've been doing this nightly for about 3 days, now. Very enjoyable. Good night all.
    "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"

  5. #295
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,311

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Usually, when we don't have fools running around saying "gays are sick" or "it isn't natural" or the like, this is a very good discussion.
    So, let me get this straight, a person who holds the belief that Homosexuality is not natural is probably a fool?
    I see Courtesy, I see.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  6. #296
    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 Jerry View Post
    Hold on, have to Google "anti-miscegenation" to find out wtf you're talking about.....oh, you're talking about interracial marriage. It simply doesn't apply because interracial marriage shares nothing in common with gay-marriage.
    Seriously? Did you even read my posts? Broadly, both had to do with denying a certain group of people (in both cases, people who are attracted to who they are not supposed to be attracted to), the right to marry the kind of person they want to marry. Both were popularly justified by some nebulous threat to children and/or society, and appeals to tradition.

    Why? That's not something I believe. Besides, you would first need to prove that there is a heterosexual-purity equivalent to the racial purity stance supporting anti-interracial marriage first.
    The equivalent is the imaginary threat to children and society. In the case of interracial marriage, it was them producing so-called mud-blood babies who would not be able to function in either Black or White society. In the case of homosexual marriage, there is the idea that marriage is about children and will confuse the young about what marriage is for. Both were seen as a threat to traditional conservative values.

    And in any case, anti-miscegenation had about as much to do with race as anti-SSM has to do with gender. Both are more incidental to the actual mode of oppression against sexual variance/deviance.

    She asked, I answered, so you have no point.
    The point is that democratic/legislative processes cannot be relied upon to ensure minority rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Gays can marry gays, though....I mean, yeah sure the other gay has to be of the opposit sex, but they also have to be of age and unrelated...etc..so, so what?

    They have nothing in common. Create gay-marriage if you wish, but it's not a civil rights issue.
    As I stated before, saying that gay people can just marry the opposite sex is not a meaningful choice because being gay is a part of who they are. It's like having a law that you have to marry outside of your religion, or having a law stating you have to marry somebody totally unlike the kind of person you like/want. Sure, everybody could still get married under such laws, but they can't get married to the kind of person they want to, so they are effectively denied meaningful access to marriage.

    I do not agree. Anti-discrimination laws had precedence with other laws. This is how they were able to enact them. And using the law to support other laws is standard in legal and legislative practices in the US.
    Your faith in the law is disturbing, but a rational reading of the law is on the side of SSM advocates anyway.

    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.
    Not in the context of marriage, as far as I know, but if that is true, please link to the case. And I agree. Gay marriage harms no one.
    In contexts including but not limited to gay marriage. When they struck down prop 22, they reiterated it. State's top court strikes down marriage ban

    Though I should be clear that the level of suspect classification is state-specific. California, Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont all use sexual orientation as intermediate scrutiny:

    The Supreme Court has additionally recognized national origin and religion as suspect classes and correspondingly analyzes any statutes discriminating against these classes under strict scrutiny. [2]
    Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Quasi-suspect class, with its intermediate scrutiny, is typically reserved for government sponsored discrimination on the basis of sex or legitimacy.
    Rational basis scrutiny is applied to all other discriminatory statutes. Rational basis scrutiny covers all other discriminatory criteria—e.g., disability, political preference, political affiliation, or sexual orientation (in every state in the United States except for California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa).
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification]Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Here is Iowa’s Supreme Court citing the Connecticut case:

    In summarizing the rationale supporting heightened scrutiny of legislation
    classifying on the basis of sexual orientation, it would be difficult to improve
    upon the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut:
    Gay persons have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long
    history of purposeful and invidious discrimination that
    continues to manifest itself in society. The characteristic that
    defines the members of this group—attraction to persons of the
    same sex—bears no logical relationship to their ability to
    perform in society, either in familial relations or otherwise as
    productive citizens. Because sexual orientation is such an
    essential component of personhood, even if there is some
    possibility that a person’s sexual preference can be altered, it
    would be wholly unacceptable for the state to require anyone to
    do so. Gay persons also represent a distinct minority of the
    population. It is true, of course, that gay persons recently have
    made significant advances in obtaining equal treatment under
    the law. Nonetheless, we conclude that, as a minority group that
    continues to suffer the enduring effects of centuries of legally
    sanctioned discrimination, laws singling them out for disparate
    treatment are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure
    49
    that those laws are not the product of such historical prejudice
    and stereotyping.
    Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 432.
    http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdf

    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.
    Again, your argument lacks merit, standing, and support. Laws were on the books that allowed men to marry women. Discrimination was easily identified when a black MAN wanted to marry a white WOMAN or vise versa.
    I suggest you fully read the Iowa case to show that, even in terms of legality, there is a case for SSM. Though relying upon the law for determining what is right is extremely dubious.

    If people were to rely on the law in the colonial days, then Blacks in the South were considered property and marrying them would have made no more sense than marrying your dog. The assertion of the humanity of Blacks came from the federal branch, not the legislative and certainly not the populace of the South.

    Plenty of precedence and old law just needed to be modified. Here, discrimination applied, as the concept of marriage was already established as man-woman.
    The man-woman requirement was never even articulated until the law few decades. And here we have plenty of precedence anyway, given that we have an equal protection clause.

    What we are talking about is NEW law, that needs a different kind of support. Discrimination doesn't cut it. Gays are not being prevented from marrying.
    Blacks weren't being prevented from marrying under anti-miscegenation either. And actually, gay people did start getting married in these liberal areas until laws were passed against it.

    And of course I would be allowed to marry and marry meaningfully.
    If the category of people you want to marry is excluded from your choices, then you cannot have a meaningful marriage in terms of it being a relationship you want.

    Quote:
    "want to" is consent. Informed consent is CENTRAL to contracts.
    I want to kill someone, so I have a contract with someone to do that for me. There is no legality that supports this, just as there is no legality that supports man-man marriage, nor woman-woman marriage.
    Please be serious. You already acknowledge that gay marriage harms nobody, so don't start with murder-for-hire comparisons. A contract between two people is their business. When a 3rd party is killed, it become's the government's business.

    In order to enact this, a different angle must be used. Showing how gay marriage benefits the government, society, AND the couple and any family they may choose to have bypasses all of the pot holes that those for GM keep encountering.
    That's ridiculous. Infertile people don't have to show that their marriage will benefit society in some way outside of providing a stable environment for kids. Judicially, gays are not being treated the same, so no legislative intervention is appropriate nor required.

    Incidentally, though, it would benefit society. If marriage promotes stability in relationships, then it will cause less transmission of STDs among the gay and bisexual, and due to bisexuals the heterosexual populace. It is also more efficient for people to cohabitate under one household. While this would be a great case for polygamy, it applies to expanding the definition of marriage as well if we assume marriage encourages cohabitation, which it does even if it merely promotes relationship stability.

    But to say that benefit to society beyond treating a minority unfairly is a prerequisite for a law, even if you were to insist a legislative angle, is totally baseless. Gays are harmed by being denied the right to meaningfully marry. Why wouldn't that be enough?
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-06-09 at 08:42 AM.

  7. #297
    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?

    Your issue here is that you are looking at this from a moral/emotional standpoint. I am pro-GM. However, winning this position will NOT be on moral/emotional grounds. It will be on legal grounds. The discrimination position has far to many holes. The government/society/couple/family benefit argument, in as far as enacting new law can win and win easily.
    Everything must be approached from a moral standpoint, which is based upon logic, not emotion. This should include the law, which is quite obviously illogical most of the time when it relies upon its own traditions to make policy. To treat somebody unequally under the law without gain to society is extremely counterproductive to the well-being of society.
    You didn't even come close to shredding it.
    Of course I did. Easily.
    At this point, I'm not even sure you comprehended it.

    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.
    That's the point I've been trying to make with you. They won't. Which is precisely why you cannot argue from this position. This is why the discrimination argument and "marrying because I want to" argument will not work. Anti-GM folks, most of them at least, could care less about caring about the feelings of gays. The way around this is the government/society/couple/family benefit argument.
    I know some Christians are heartless Christbots (or Paul/Mosesbots, quite frankly), but I know some of them are also capable of empathy.

    If you insist on arguing from a legal standpoint, it is still quite simple. Heterosexuals DO marry based upon love, lust, wealth, or whatever criteria they want. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether society benefits from their union. Homosexuals should be treated the same way. It's that simple.

    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.
    Of course the government is set up to look after it's own interests. This may not be direct, mostly, but it is certainly indirect in nearly all things. The government is not going to do something that harms it...that would make no sense, since harming the government harms the people.
    Where do you get that from? The fact that bureaucracies begin to function for the sake of their own self-preservation is a FLAW, not their purpose.

    Do you seriously believe that what is good for the government is good for the people? If so, I'm not sure how you can be reasoned with. Do you remember Nazi Germany? Was what was good for the Nazi's good for Germany? No, obviously not.

    It's an extreme example, but is morality subordinate to the laws of Nazi Germany if you live in Germany? Of course not. The law does not determine what is right and wrong.

    And marriage benefits society. There is plenty of research that supports that. This is why proving that gay marriage benefits society (of which there is plenty of research that supports this) will win this issue. Easily.
    Marriage is an individual right, its benefit to society is incidental.

    More from Iowa SC:



    We are firmly convinced the exclusion
    of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not
    substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature
    has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely
    important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.
    There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this
    determination.

    We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.
    Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa
    Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise
    would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people
    must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive
    justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal
    protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2
    denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by
    the Iowa Constitution.
    It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or
    lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and
    lesbian people as a class.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-06-09 at 08:38 AM.

  8. #298
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Marriage is and always has been more than a piece of paper. The paper is but a token, as are the rings man and wife place on each other's hands. Marriage is what these outward signs betoken, and what they betoken is of extraordinary significance.
    Those things of extraordinary significance are obtained without the piece of paper. The government involvement is not necessary for the relationship to be a good relationship and have significance in both lives. So, since the two things (the legal document and the good relationship) are completely separate and not dependent on one another in any way, shape, or form, one must conclude that the legal document is just a piece of paper and the relationship is significant and good because the individuals taking part in it wish it to be.

  9. #299
    Sage
    Arcana XV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,394

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    I don't think the "it's for the children" argument will win many hearts out there. I can totally see where you all are coming from with that and it's a good solid argument. However, the majority of people who oppose gay marriage that I've come across do so because the idea of same-sex relationships repulses them on an instinctual level. They see it as abnormal, unnatural, sinful and disgusting. The idea that these people they look upon with such scorn are actually raising children is even more shocking to them. I've even heard the argument that the best thing for these children would be to take them away from this "damaging" environment. Solid as the argument may be, I highly doubt it will sway any significant number of gay-marriage opponents.
    "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

  10. #300
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Those things of extraordinary significance are obtained without the piece of paper.
    Strange as it may seem, no they are not. There is a qualitative difference between an unmarried but loving couple and a married but loving couple. Both can be profound and meaningful relationships, but they are different. I can attest to this from direct personal experience on both sides of that equation.

    Perversely enough, the same sex marriage debate itself is the proof that lays this canard to rest, for if it were as you claim, same sex couples would not feel compelled to pursue a quest for a right to marry.

    I want to take a moment to reiterate an important point here: "different" is not universally "better". Not every loving couple requires the sacrament of marriage to fulfill the potential of their relationship. Each individual, within their particular relationships, must decide whether the sacrament of marriage will or will not enhance their relationships. That is not in question here.

    However, society in general does take a more positive view of married couples as opposed to unmarried couples, and the empirical data is quite clear that the sacrament of marriage positively correlates to stronger, healthier relationships, as well as healthier individuals. As healthy relationships, leading to healthy families, are the foundation of a healthy society, if government is going to regulate marriage--which it will for at least the foreseeable future--having such regulation be guided by a principle of facilitating strong relationships and strong families across the broad swath of society is prudent and proper.

Page 30 of 48 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •