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 47 of 48 FirstFirst ... 3745464748 LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 473

Thread: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

  1. #461
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,614

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Raising children is the only interest the government has in marriage.

    No children, no government interest.

    The legal buffs of marriage are meant to assist those raising children, so taking those buffs when you do not have children is an abuse of liberty.
    That's laughable. Social stability is the only interest the government has in marriage, that's what married people tend to bring to the table. Children are often a by-product of marriage, they are not the main focus by a long shot.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  2. #462
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    That's laughable. Social stability is the only interest the government has in marriage, that's what married people tend to bring to the table. Children are often a by-product of marriage, they are not the main focus by a long shot.
    See this is exactly the sort of argument we're not taking seriously.

  3. #463
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,116

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    Of course there is. I'll reiterate: Gays, like everyone else should have the basic right (and do in all other facets of life) to enter into voluntary, peaceful contracts.

    -NC
    I agree

    Which is why I support civil unions for everyone.

    Elimination of marriage as a legal contract, leaving it solely a religious one.

    Which, in my mind, will likely eliminate the whole issue in the secular political arena.

    Religious political arena is a whole other story.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #464
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    122

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    ...etc, etc. ad-nausium.

    Marriage is a sociological organism vital to the survival of Man (Skinner, Troxil, Loving), not a mere contract like every other.
    Altering my posts into a constant stream of one word is not an 'argument'. Additionally, you have not disputed, nor can you while remaining attached to reality, that marriage is a contract. The 'sociological organism' aspect is secondary when we are considering legalization. This is a legal issue because a contract is a legal documents. Opponents of same-sex marriage frequently ignore the legal aspect of the debate because there is no legal argument against extending this contractual right to gays.

    We're talking about a hypothetical legislator voting to change the law that would affect contracts...And you don't want this to be a legal issue? Unreasonable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Hey anyone who wants to enter this type of "contract" to serve the purpose this "contract" is all about is welcome to it, imo. Show me a significant demographic of brothers and sisters adopting children out of the system and I'll even support incest.

    But you have to serve the purpose, otherwise you have no business messing with it.
    There is no part of the contract that binds the couple into making children. To assert so is to ignore reality. An impotent man marrying a woman whose tubes have been tied are just as 'married' as a man and a woman who have 8 children.

    Impotent man + Woman w/tied tubes: Children as Man + Man : Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark
    I agree

    Which is why I support civil unions for everyone.

    Elimination of marriage as a legal contract, leaving it solely a religious one.

    Which, in my mind, will likely eliminate the whole issue in the secular political arena.

    Religious political arena is a whole other story.
    I would have no problem with this solution either.

    -NC
    Last edited by NortheastCynic; 07-21-09 at 04:47 PM.

  5. #465
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Washington D-Sig
    Last Seen
    06-30-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I never said marriage was only about raising children.

    I said that was the government's interest in marriage.
    Whereupon I replied that no, raising children is not the government's only interest in marriage. There is also the recognition of marriage as an institution that sustains the idea that marriage helps constitute (or domesticate) adults as good citizens. In addition, the argument can be made rather successfully that at this point in its history, Western culture is concerned primarily with the happiness of individual adults, not the needs of children or the needs of the society. There are many who now ask not what the role of government is in marriage, but if there should be one at all. If so, the question ought to be whether the state has an interest in the continuation of the marriage. If it does, then it's my belief that the state should be doing everything in its power to ensure the continuation and inclusion of those autonomous, rational individuals who seek it, rather than their dissolution or exclusion based on something like the willingness to rear children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You want to get married? Fine, go buy some rings from WallMart and have a service. No one's stopping anyone from having a ceremony and living together. What you do in your bedroom is your personal business.

    But if you're not raising children, there's no reason to give you a marriage license, so don't even ask for one.
    On the contrary, there is every reason to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples as long as there is legal benefit to the institution. It doesn't matter whether you are raising children or not. Marriage is certainly a malleable institution. There is zero reason for it to suddenly be set in stone for the benefit of those who seek the exclusion same-sex couples based on all current criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    If gays as a population show that the typical gay relationship is about the family and raising children, then Conservatives like myself will sign off on it and turn the other way to all the gay couples who are not raising children just as we do for all the hetero couples who are not raising children.

    Though imo those childless hetero couples have no business getting married either, and if the government were to step in and remove the marriage license of childless couples, I wouldn't oppose that.
    While I think it is commendable that you as a conservative are willing to 'sign off on it' if such criteria is met, there are those who will oppose such a thing simply because of their backwards views on homosexuality. Imho, I think most conservatives currently tend to fall into the latter category, but that's simply my own speculation. I think this will change as time goes on (hopefully) as homosexuality and same-sex couples become more and more accepted.
    Last edited by Singularity; 07-21-09 at 05:52 PM.

  6. #466
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    Altering my posts into a constant stream of one word is not an 'argument'. Additionally, you have not disputed, nor can you while remaining attached to reality, that marriage is a contract. The 'sociological organism' aspect is secondary when we are considering legalization. This is a legal issue because a contract is a legal documents. Opponents of same-sex marriage frequently ignore the legal aspect of the debate because there is no legal argument against extending this contractual right to gays.
    Yeah exapt I referred to 3 SCOTUS rulings

    The sociological institution is primary, taking all priority over legality in every incident, in every way. The law is secondary because the law is meant to reflect society, not society the law.

    Legally gay-marriage is like woman's right to vote was: the right does not exist. Women took their issue all the way to SCOTUS who ruled that the constitution did not give them the right to vote. Hence the need for an amendment to create that right.

    There never was any right to marry someone of the same gender. No one has this federal right today. No one. In this way the pro-gm case is weaker than woman's suffrage.

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    We're talking about a hypothetical legislator voting to change the law that would affect contracts...And you don't want this to be a legal issue? Unreasonable.
    Gay-marriage was never and is not a civil rights issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    There is no part of the contract that binds the couple into making children. To assert so is to ignore reality. An impotent man marrying a woman whose tubes have been tied are just as 'married' as a man and a woman who have 8 children.
    It makes sense that you would think that because you begin with the error of dismissing the sociological institution of marriage over law. The law is a tool, not the whole institution itself. There is much more to marriage which pre-exists and survives law.

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    Impotent man + Woman w/tied tubes: Children as Man + Man : Children.
    That's not English.

  7. #467
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Whereupon I replied that no, raising children is not the government's only interest in marriage. There is also the recognition of marriage as an institution that sustains the idea that marriage helps constitute (or domesticate) adults as good citizens. In addition, the argument can be made rather successfully that at this point in its history, Western culture is concerned primarily with the happiness of individual adults, not the needs of children or the needs of the society. There are many who now ask not what the role of government is in marriage, but if there should be one at all. If so, the question ought to be whether the state has an interest in the continuation of the marriage. If it does, then it's my belief that the state should be doing everything in its power to ensure the continuation and inclusion of those autonomous, rational individuals who seek it, rather than their dissolution or exclusion based on something like the willingness to rear children.
    Ahh well there you go then: I oppose gay-marriage because it expands a legal institution which shouldn't exist at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    On the contrary, there is every reason to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples as long as there is legal benefit to the institution. It doesn't matter whether you are raising children or not. Marriage is certainly a malleable institution. There is zero reason for it to suddenly be set in stone for the benefit of those who seek the exclusion same-sex couples based on all current criteria.
    Since the raising of children is the government's interest in marriage, there is no reason to give the legal buffs to any couple who hasn't had, doesn't have, and/or never intend on having children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    While I think it is commendable that you as a conservative are willing to 'sign off on it' if such criteria is met, there are those who will oppose such a thing simply because of their backwards views on homosexuality. Imho, I think most conservatives currently tend to fall into the latter category, but that's simply my own speculation. I think this will change as time goes on (hopefully) as homosexuality and same-sex couples become more and more accepted.
    The reason you mostly hear from our kooks is because most of us are busy minding our own business and tending to our own lives to care about protests and activism.

  8. #468
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    122

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The sociological institution is primary, taking all priority over legality in every incident, in every way. The law is secondary because the law is meant to reflect society, not society the law.

    Legally gay-marriage is like woman's right to vote was: the right does not exist. Women took their issue all the way to SCOTUS who ruled that the constitution did not give them the right to vote. Hence the need for an amendment to create that right.

    There never was any right to marry someone of the same gender. No one has this federal right today. No one. In this way the pro-gm case is weaker than woman's suffrage.
    One could argue that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause would extend the right to marriage to any consenting adults that would like to partake in it. I, however, haven't made that argument, I've specifically said that I believe that marriage should be a right enjoyed by gay couples. I've not said that it is their right. By passing legislation 'giving' them that right, we create a positivist right based upon the belief that there should be equal access to the privileges and immunities afforded to married couples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Gay-marriage was never and is not a civil rights issue.
    This is a non-sequitur, I've never called it a civil rights issues. Civil rights pertain to rights from government oppression. Gays are not being 'repressed' by not being allowed to marry each other, they're being denied a legal right that they should be entitled to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    It makes sense that you would think that because you begin with the error of dismissing the sociological institution of marriage over law. The law is a tool, not the whole institution itself. There is much more to marriage which pre-exists and survives law.
    It's not so much a 'thought' as a statement of fact. A couple with no children and no plans to have children signs the enters into the same agreement as a couple who are ready to have twins. So, in reality, the government's stance on marriage is no where near as absolute as your statement, and I'm paraphrasing, that without children, the gov't has no interest in marriage. That is simply not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    That's not English.
    It's an analogy, that is how they are written.

    Within the context of child-bearing capability (which is the government's reason for interest in marriage, according to you):A man and a woman incapable of having children are to marriage what two men are to marriage.

    Whether or not you think that the government should only be interested in the child-creation aspect of marriage is irrelevant as our government, in reality, shows 'interest' in the marriage of individuals incapable of creating children. It is inconsistent, therefore, to prevent gay couples from marrying, as the government's interest in marriage is very clearly not limited to its child-creation function.

    Essentially: Society has no interest in preventing gays from marrying. It gains nothing from doing so.

    -NC
    Last edited by NortheastCynic; 07-22-09 at 12:52 AM.

  9. #469
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    One could argue that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause would extend the right to marriage to any consenting adults that would like to partake in it. I, however, haven't made that argument, I've specifically said that I believe that marriage should be a right enjoyed by gay couples. I've not said that it is their right. By passing legislation 'giving' them that right, we create a positivist right based upon the belief that there should be equal access to the privileges and immunities afforded to married couples.
    Well there ya go, I don't believe everyone should have access to those legal buffs, but only those who are going to serve the purpose for those buffs existing in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    This is a non-sequitur, I've never called it a civil rights issues. Civil rights pertain to rights from government oppression. Gays are not being 'repressed' by not being allowed to marry each other, they're being denied a legal right that they should be entitled to.
    Only couples who have children are entitled.

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    It's not so much a 'thought' as a statement of fact. A couple with no children and no plans to have children signs the enters into the same agreement as a couple who are ready to have twins. So, in reality, the government's stance on marriage is no where near as absolute as your statement, and I'm paraphrasing, that without children, the gov't has no interest in marriage. That is simply not true.
    You people keep quoting these exceptions which prove the rule as thought they back your argument, when in fact the only support mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    It's an analogy, that is how they are written.
    I see analogies written here every day. Whatever you wrote was illegible.

    Quote Originally Posted by NortheastCynic View Post
    Within the context of child-bearing capability (which is the government's reason for interest in marriage, according to you):A man and a woman incapable of having children are to marriage what two men are to marriage.

    Whether or not you think that the government should only be interested in the child-creation aspect of marriage is irrelevant as our government, in reality, shows 'interest' in the marriage of individuals incapable of creating children. It is inconsistent, therefore, to prevent gay couples from marrying, as the government's interest in marriage is very clearly not limited to its child-creation function.

    Essentially: Society has no interest in preventing gays from marrying. It gains nothing from doing so.
    You are by far not the first person to say that this week, so I'll tell you just as I have too every other person who also thought this was an original argument bearing some level of merit: Childless couples have always been benign exceptions which prove the rule. If we need to now ban those exceptions to prevent gays from exploiting them, then fine, let's ban them.


    ***
    I can see that you're a person who puts thought into your posts. Please continue to do so. So far I'm not seeing any new information in your posts that I haven't already come across in my 3 years on DP, but I'm sure that in time you could become a real player here.
    Last edited by Jerry; 07-22-09 at 01:22 AM.

  10. #470
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Washington D-Sig
    Last Seen
    06-30-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Ahh well there you go then: I oppose gay-marriage because it expands a legal institution which shouldn't exist at all.
    That's your opinion. My opinion is in support of gay marriage. My debate focuses on your belief that the government's only interest in promoting marriage is for the benefit of raising children, which isn't the case. There are a number of other reasons government is interested in marriage, and very compelling arguments for inclusion based upon those reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Since the raising of children is the government's interest in marriage, there is no reason to give the legal buffs to any couple who hasn't had, doesn't have, and/or never intend on having children.
    But it's not the only interest, and yes, there is every reason to give any rational, autonomous couple who seeks legal recognition of their marriage contract for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Page 47 of 48 FirstFirst ... 3745464748 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
  •