Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

galenrox said:

Those who oppose gay marriage have no tangible stake in it? So people who are married aren't substantively impacted by what the institution they are taking part in is?

Click to expand...

Actually no. When celebrities have frivilous marriages, or people marry for sinful reasons, that does not, in fact, undermine other individual marriages in any real way. If your neighbor and his wife are swingers, that does not invalidate or undermine your marriage. Why? Because marriage is a contract between individuals. For whatever reason, they take exception with gays. hmm...

So if I join the ACLU, and all of a sudden there's a huge movement to turn the ACLU into the KKK, I shouldn't have a right to say "Listen, I joined the ACLU, I don't want it to become the KKK" because I'm not tangibly impacted?

Click to expand...

That's a weird comparison. The solution would be to leave the ACLU. You can speak out against it, but you would have no legal or logical basis for preventing them from turning into the KKK if that's what the rest of the organization wanted.

Granted, I don't think there is merit to the position that marriage would be devalued as an institution if it were expanded to include gay couples. I also don't think there's any merit to supporting farm subsidies, or voting for Democrats, but since we have a first amendment, I don't get to make those decisions for anyone else. And I for damn sure don't support using the government to push people towards believing something they don't believe, which is the only reason one could possibly support gay marriage over the elimination of marriage as a governmental institution.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the 1st amendment. Basically, the first amendment allows people to peaceably: assemble with who they want, write what they want, say what they want, ask the government for redress, and practice their religion how they want. Allowing people to legally get married is not the same as requiring that other people believe gay marriage is "okay" anymore than allowing people to get married only for sex or money means that everybody else in society must think it is "okay" to get married only for sex or money. You would have a point if there were a legal basis to require churches to marry gay people, but there's not. Just like always, they can exclude people from their sacraments on whatever basis they want.

The relevant amendment to this is the 14th, which demands that the government treat people equally under the law, as marriage has become a legal contract.

It's idiotic to make that comparison. Horses cannot consent to a contract. Gay adults can.
I said it was absurd - the same as homosexual marriage is......maybe that state should stay out of marriages....but the marriage is a contract between a man and a woman; the homosexuals have no right to change this...
One can see the opened can of worms....sodomy, AIDS,HIV, and, idiotic or not, a man marrying his horse,a decadent society..
Is that what you want ??
Gay ? my foot..
how can this be "gay", I say its sick.....sure, its the popular fad now, but I believe in standards not "popular things or fads"..
Just allow the homosexuals their "civil unions", but never a marriage....a true marriage.

galenrox said:

I've come across this argument before, and it's always amused me because it's so obviously self-defeating. You see, at the crux of this argument is the suggestion that marriage doesn't matter. In saying it doesn't matter if people get married and divorced willy-nilly, or that it doesn't matter if people get married and then practice polyamorous relations, you are saying the institution is already meaningless. And if that's what you believe, that's fine, but then you can't argue that gay marriage is important as you've already granted that marriage is a meaningless institution.

Click to expand...

Your assessment is incorrect. Most of us that feel the way you describe recognize that other people see meaning in their legal marriage documents. *I* don't see any meaning in gays or heteros or whites or blacks or whomever getting married. I think the government should be out of the marriage thing altogether.

However, they currently are not out of the marriage thing. As such, I think that people should be allowed to enter into said legal contracts equally. I do not argue that gay marriage is 'meaningful'. I argue that equality is.

And, if some people do feel that their relationships are somehow undermined based on someone elses relationship and whether or not those someones signed a piece of paper, then they must not have had much of one to begin with, IMO. Which is, to say, quite sad. Obviously people are free to feel what they want about their own relationships, but how they feel about them is a personal problem, not the governments.

LiveUninhibited said:

Actually no. When celebrities have frivilous marriages, or people marry for sinful reasons, that does not, in fact, undermine other individual marriages in any real way. If your neighbor and his wife are swingers, that does not invalidate or undermine your marriage. Why? Because marriage is a contract between individuals. For whatever reason, they take exception with gays. hmm...

Click to expand...

Do those celebrities oppose gay-marriage, though? Do they?

LiveUninhibited said:

Only to people who obsess over sodomy.

Click to expand...

There are 10 million threads about sodomites around here and I'm the one obsessing? LOL ok guy. I think it's hilarious how you liberals get butthurt(pun intended) whenever someone calls this what it is. You are crusaders for the legitimization of sodomy.

G.I. Joe said:

There are 10 million threads about sodomites around here and I'm the one obsessing? LOL ok guy. I think it's hilarious how you liberals get butthurt(pun intended) whenever someone calls this what it is. You are crusaders for the legitimization of sodomy.

Click to expand...

Where are there threads on sodomy?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Where are there threads on sodomy?

Click to expand...

Stop trying to deny that's what is at the heart of this issue. If you have a thread about gay marriage, you have a thread about sodomy. That is the difference in gay marriage and normal marriage, right?(the male version at least) If it wasnt about legitimizing the act of sodomy amongst grown men, then it wouldn't even be a thread. Funny how you libs get so uncomortable and angry when someone describes what it is you advocate.

G.I. Joe said:

Stop trying to deny that's what is at the heart of this issue. If you have a thread about gay marriage, you have a thread about sodomy. That is the difference in gay marriage and normal marriage, right?(the male version at least) If it wasnt about legitimizing the act of sodomy amongst grown men, then it wouldn't even be a thread. Funny how you libs get so uncomortable and angry when someone describes what it is you advocate.

Click to expand...

Funny how you conservatives have no clue in regards to separating behavior from orientation on this topic. Good now that we've gotten the idiotic partisan hackery...that you throw out at every post out of the way, do you want to discuss the topic, rationally, or do you want to continue to post irrelevant partisan hackery?

And here is a basic understanding for you. One who is homosexual may or may not engage in homosexual behavior. Just like one who is heterosexual may or may not engage in heterosexual behavior. Also, since what I imagine you consider sodomy is practiced by heterosexuals, at times, also, the behavior itself is irrelevant to this discussion. So, your point is negated.

Anything else?

What makes a gay man gay is the fact that he prefers to engage in sodomy with other men. To say that people who participate in this lifestyle deserve to be legally married is to say that this lifestyle is legitimate and respectable. End of story. So while there may be other factors involved, this is a fact that cannot be refuted.

G.I. Joe said:

What makes a gay man gay is the fact that he prefers to engage in sodomy with other men. To say that people who participate in this lifestyle deserve to be legally married is to say that this lifestyle is legitimate and respectable. End of story. So while there may be other factors involved, this is a fact that cannot be refuted.

Click to expand...

Of course the fact can be refuted, and refuted rather easily. The only basis that you have for your comments of "legitimate and respectable" are your opinion...which is pretty meaningless if we are discussing facts.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Of course the fact can be refuted, and refuted rather easily. The only basis that you have for your comments of "legitimate and respectable" are your opinion...which is pretty meaningless if we are discussing facts.

Click to expand...

You really don't see where you went wrong there? You are right that I do not view it as legitimate or respectable, however that is incidental in this case. Passing a law allowing gay marriage inherently legitimizes a relationship involving sodomy amongst men. Period.

Now, while being legal does not necessarily make something respectABLE, it does mean it must be respectED, at least to the effect that a gay couple's marriage must be seen as legitimate(there's that L word again).

G.I. Joe said:

You really don't see where you went wrong there? You are right that I do not view it as legitimate or respectable, however that is incidental in this case. Passing a law allowing gay marriage inherently legitimizes a relationship involving sodomy amongst men. Period.

Click to expand...

YOU don't see where you went wrong. You are legitimizing a relationship. The sexual act is irrelevant to this.

Now, while being legal does not necessarily make something respectABLE, it does mean it must be respectED, at least to the effect that a gay couple's marriage must be seen as legitimate(there's that L word again).

Click to expand...

Correct.

CaptainCourtesy said:

YOU don't see where you went wrong. You are legitimizing a relationship. The sexual act is irrelevant to this.



Correct.

Click to expand...

OK man, since it is all about a gay relationship, rather than sodomy, what is that differentiates a gay couple from a straight one? To say that the sexual aspect is irrelevant is somewhat mindboggling. In a sense, it's the only relevant part of the discussion. If it weren't for the fact that a gay relationship involves men sodomizing each other, there would be no controversy.

G.I. Joe said:

OK man, since it is all about a gay relationship, rather than sodomy, what is that differentiates a gay couple from a straight one? To say that the sexual aspect is irrelevant is somewhat mindboggling. In a sense, it's the only relevant part of the discussion. If it weren't for the fact that a gay relationship involves men sodomizing each other, there would be no controversy.

Click to expand...

In the respect of how the relationship operates and how the partners deal with each other, there is no difference in a gay relationship vs. a straight relationship. If you are going to use sexual activity to determine legitimacy, then any straight couple that engages in anal sex cannot be legitimate. And any gay couple that does not engage in anal sex (female-female certainly, and male-male if the choose) would be legitimate. See how your position falls apart? Sexual activity is irrelevant Sexual orientation is the issue.

CaptainCourtesy said:

In the respect of how the relationship operates and how the partners deal with each other, there is no difference in a gay relationship vs. a straight relationship. If you are going to use sexual activity to determine legitimacy, then any straight couple that engages in anal sex cannot be legitimate. And any gay couple that does not engage in anal sex (female-female certainly, and male-male if the choose) would be legitimate. See how your position falls apart? Sexual activity is irrelevant Sexual orientation is the issue.

Click to expand...

You can try to double-talk this until it everything is murky if you like. The fact of the matter is that at the heart of all this, the majority of Americans view homosexuality as a morally repugnant thing. Regardless of how you spin it, the sexual act itself has everything to do with why this is so controversial. I mean, you couldn't even defeat Prop 8 in the most liberal state in the union for christ's sake. Americans do not want to bestow the right of something as sacred as marriage to grown men who sodomize each other on a regular basis. Thats just the cold, hard truth.

G.I. Joe said:

You can try to double-talk this until it everything is murky if you like. The fact of the matter is that at the heart of all this, the majority of Americans view homosexuality as a morally repugnant thing. Regardless of how you spin it, the sexual act itself has everything to do with why this is so controversial. I mean, you couldn't even defeat Prop 8 in the most liberal state in the union for christ's sake. Americans do not want to bestow the right of something as sacred as marriage to grown men who sodomize each other on a regular basis. Thats just the cold, hard truth.

Click to expand...

And you can use morality and opinion to spin this all YOU want. That does not alter the fact that neither of those concepts provide facts at all and are irrelevant to the argument. Fact is, I could care less what anyone thinks is repugnant. They don't like it, they shouldn't do it. Folks who use the sexual act to make their decision on this are missing the point and using their moral compass to determine the rights of others...and are basing it on an inaccurate premise. One's sexual orientation is not limited to ONE TYPE OF SEX ACT. Folks who view it that way are short-sighted and using opinion in place of facts. It's poor decision-making skills. And it affects others, not them.

CaptainCourtesy said:

And you can use morality and opinion to spin this all YOU want. That does not alter the fact that neither of those concepts provide facts at all and are irrelevant to the argument. Fact is, I could care less what anyone thinks is repugnant. They don't like it, they shouldn't do it. Folks who use the sexual act to make their decision on this are missing the point and using their moral compass to determine the rights of others...and are basing it on an inaccurate premise. One's sexual orientation is not limited to ONE TYPE OF SEX ACT. Folks who view it that way are short-sighted and using opinion in place of facts. It's poor decision-making skills. And it affects others, not them.

Click to expand...

Well, since you put it that way............See, I didn't realize that gay dudes could do things besides sodomy. That's a relief.

G.I. Joe said:

You can try to double-talk this until it everything is murky if you like. The fact of the matter is that at the heart of all this, the majority of Americans view homosexuality as a morally repugnant thing. Regardless of how you spin it, the sexual act itself has everything to do with why this is so controversial. I mean, you couldn't even defeat Prop 8 in the most liberal state in the union for christ's sake. Americans do not want to bestow the right of something as sacred as marriage to grown men who sodomize each other on a regular basis. Thats just the cold, hard truth.

Click to expand...

That's slightly hilarious, because I see Americans who want that same thing. So you wrongly assume that "Americans do not want ...this and that" but the cold hard truth is that there are many that want it.

There was a time when a majority of Americans viewed interracial marriage (hell, even rights for minority races) as a morally repugnant thing. I'm not assuming this, this is actually part of our country's history. Those who favored that ideology gave similar reasons, saying that it went against religion sometimes or even basic morals of the nation.

It is true that the majority of Americans are still stuck in the 1950s when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights, but man, its just a matter of time before that majority becomes the minority. Just like the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, its gonna happen sooner or later.

G.I. Joe said:

Well, since you put it that way............See, I didn't realize that gay dudes could do things besides sodomy. That's a relief.

Click to expand...

Amazing the things you can learn.

G.I. Joe said:

OK man, since it is all about a gay relationship, rather than sodomy, what is that differentiates a gay couple from a straight one? To say that the sexual aspect is irrelevant is somewhat mindboggling. In a sense, it's the only relevant part of the discussion. If it weren't for the fact that a gay relationship involves men sodomizing each other, there would be no controversy.

Click to expand...

Wait I have a question. Are you saying that if it had nothing to do with sex, it would be okay? If that's the case then according to your rules, gay marriage should already be legal. I say this because it highly possible to have a marriage without sex or sexual attraction but with other forms of attraction. I have once heard of a couple who got married and never had sex, and its likely in homosexual relationships/ marriages too. Why not legalize then according to those rules?

G.I. Joe said:

You can try to double-talk this until it everything is murky if you like. The fact of the matter is that at the heart of all this, the majority of Americans view homosexuality as a morally repugnant thing. Regardless of how you spin it, the sexual act itself has everything to do with why this is so controversial. I mean, you couldn't even defeat Prop 8 in the most liberal state in the union for christ's sake. Americans do not want to bestow the right of something as sacred as marriage to grown men who sodomize each other on a regular basis. Thats just the cold, hard truth.

Click to expand...

What about women who lick each other? What's your reasoning behind that one? :lol:

What about men who have anal sex with their female partners? Should they be allowed to get married?

Are we going to base the eligibility of marriage licenses on our sexual positions now? I can see it now when you apply for a license they ask, "In what positions do you and your lover have sexual intercourse?", "In what orifices do you allow your partner to stick his dick?", "Do you ever use handcuffs or blindfolds?" If you answer wrong, you can't get married!

Cilogy said:

Wait I have a question. Are you saying that if it had nothing to do with sex, it would be okay? If that's the case then according to your rules, gay marriage should already be legal. I say this because it highly possible to have a marriage without sex or sexual attraction but with other forms of attraction. I have once heard of a couple who got married and never had sex, and its likely in homosexual relationships/ marriages too. Why not legalize then according to those rules?

Click to expand...

That's a grand thought. However, here in the real world, most marriages involve sex.

Also, you say that many Americans want gay marriage. That is true. However, they are the minority.

How long are you guys gonna try to make an analogy between this and the color of someone's skin? There is no debate of whether or not someone can help what race thy're born to. There is much debate, however, on whether or not someone is born gay. Show me proof that there is a gay gene. That analogy is ridiculous. The funniest part of that is blacks overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8. You would think will all the glaring parallels that you seem to find between this and the civil rights struggle that they would identify with the plight of the gay community. Welp, it's not looking that way.

G.I. Joe said:

That's a grand thought. However, here in the real world, most marriages involve sex.

Also, you say that many Americans want gay marriage. That is true. However, they are the minority.

Click to expand...

Ok so, that's exactly what I said.

How long are you guys gonna try to make an analogy between this and the color of someone's skin? There is no debate of whether or not someone can help what race thy're born to.

Click to expand...

No one is making this about race. I provided my analogy as an example of a similar movement. Interracial marriage used to be morally wrong and illegal (I think) and the Civil Rights Movement mostly changed that along with other rights. Now, there will be another Sexual Movement in the future, there is no doubt about it. I was just saying that its a matter of time before that movement comes about and noting the similarities between the two movements. This is not about race, please read my post carefully before assuming the wrong thing.

There is much debate, however, on whether or not someone is born gay. Show me proof that there is a gay gene. That analogy is ridiculous. The funniest part of that is blacks overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8. You would think will all the glaring parallels that you seem to find between this and the civil rights struggle that they would identify with the plight of the gay community. Help, it's not looking that way.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for people to identify, I provided an example to show YOU that they are similar movements.

Cilogy said:

Ok so, that's exactly what I said.



No one is making this about race. I provided my analogy as an example of a similar movement. Interracial marriage used to be morally wrong and illegal (I think) and the Civil Rights Movement mostly changed that along with other rights. Now, there will be another Sexual Movement in the future, there is no doubt about it. I was just saying that its a matter of time before that movement comes about and noting the similarities between the two movements. This is not about race, please read my post carefully before assuming the wrong thing.



I'm not looking for people to identify, I provided an example to show YOU that they are similar movements.

Click to expand...

Why did you change the word "welp" to "help" in my post? That's weird........

G.I. Joe said:

Why did you change the word "welp" to "help" in my post? That's weird........

Click to expand...

Yeah, that IS weird.