View Poll Results: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Voters
232. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    95 40.95%
  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    137 59.05%
Page 11 of 85 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 847

Thread: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  1. #101
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,951

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Yeah, free religious expression is so dumb...like that 4 y/o in Texas boy who was suspended for having long hair...he should just cut it.=
    Its not a religious thing. RELIGIOUSLY people may enter into polygamous marriages. Just like RELIGIOUSLY even if same sex marriage is allowed a church can DENY a marriage under their church.

    So, sorry for your strawman, but it doesn't work here. Unless you're saying that marriage UNDER THE LAW has something to do with Religion?

    I've never seen the government have a problem with over-complicated laws before...take the tax code or Obama'care, for example.
    Perhaps, but just because some don't mind screwing with the law doesn't change the fact that over complicating the law for little to no actual gain is with little to no actual compelling reason is not in the governments interest.

    The government's interest in marriage is the raising of children

    No children, no government interest, no rational reason to put the government in your bedroom.
    Incorrect, as illustrated above. If that was the interest then infertile people would be as SOL as gay people. If that was the interest then people who have no desire to have kids would be as SOL as gay people. If that was the case people with a vacectomy or tubes tied would be as SOL as gay people. None of this is the case, because that's not the singular reason the government has an interest in marriage and bestowing upon them benefits.

    Sorry, but reality destroys you're argument.

    ....free religious expression not FTW?
    Religion has nothing to do with marriage under the LAW, or are you arguing that the LAW should be dealing with RELIGION? Free religious expression would only be stifled if polygamy, as a private religious ceremony and pact, was illegal. Religion has no baring on whether LEGALLy it should be recognized and given beneits under the law, because the law should give precedent to NO religion. So no religious expression is being stifled.

    That kinda sounded like a personal attack
    Kind of sounds like I'm commenting regarding your commentary specifically to this thread. You think its a personal attack, reported it and have another mod come take a look at this thread and see who, if anyone, is throwing personal attacks or baiting/trolling.

  2. #102
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    The current definition of marriage has been in place for over a thousand years in one form or another.
    Right, but that form has changed multiple times. At one time, marriages were not appropriate between members of different "estates" or classes. At one time, marriages were not allowed between members of different races. This is just another such change.

    And the 14th amendment's equal protection requirements demand that change.

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Its not a religious thing. RELIGIOUSLY people may enter into polygamous marriages. Just like RELIGIOUSLY even if same sex marriage is allowed a church can DENY a marriage under their church.
    Ahh well there you go, gays can marry in churches. No need to include the law, gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, or any of that. Gays can go have a religious ceremony and *poof* they're married.

    Looks like gays won years ago. Congratulations gay community, you're equal now.
    Last edited by Jerry; 01-14-10 at 04:19 PM.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    Right, but that form has changed multiple times. At one time, marriages were not appropriate between members of different "estates" or classes. At one time, marriages were not allowed between members of different races. This is just another such change.

    And the 14th amendment's equal protection requirements demand that change.
    The marriage license itself was born out of this. Initially, the marriage license wasn't used in America. The founders did not have to ask government's permission to be married. But after the Civil War when we freed the slaves, people worried about the "tradition" of marriage being between same race. Sound familiar? White folk didn't need a license to marry each other. Black folk didn't need a license to marry each other. White folk needed a license to marry black folk (or any other inter-racial combination). It was used as a way to express tyranny against the individual because they wanted to "preserve the tradition of marriage" i.e. they were personally sickened by interracial marriage. In time the SCOTYS ruled that you couldn't use the marriage license in this way and instead of being done away with; it was expanded over everyone.

    This sounding familiar, because we're basically hearing the same damned arguments. We have to protect the "tradition" of marriage for some reason. Don't know why, but some people can't stand certain groups from exercising the same rights they enjoy. And the marriage license is being used today exactly the same as it was intended to, to actively prohibit certain folk from getting married.

    It's kinda sad that for as far as humans have gone in our short time on this planet; there are those committed to living in ignorance and actively trying to hold the rest of us back. It's time to quit throwing poo and evolve.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #105
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Ahh well there you go, gays can marry in churches. No need to include the law, gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, or any of that. Gays can go have a religious ceremony and *poof* they're married.

    Looks like gays won years ago. Congratulations gay community, you're equal now.
    Flushed out of the pocket, he throws the ball out of bounds, incomplete.

  6. #106
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,951

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    The current definition of marriage has been in place for over a thousand years in one form or another.
    Thats a very loose interpritation of it.

    For example less than 300 years ago in this country marriage was defined as between a man and woman of the same color.

    Every state and different time periods have had a differing definition based on the age one could be married.

    Different places and times have different definitions based on WHO you could marry (in regards to family).

    Sure, its been in place for thousands of years in one form or another, with continual change. 2 people isn't too much more of a change than a 12 year old with a 20 year old, or a brother and sister, or a black woman with a white woman. It'd still "one form or another" be the same based on the indication of what you mean by "one form or another" based on the changes to it over the time period you listed.

    I'm still waiting for a good reason to apply that definition to gay couples...
    Well one, legal precedent under the civil rights acts that "Seperate But Equal" is unconstitutional and thus having a SEPERATE legal term for people that gives them EQUAL rights based on a 14th amendment criteria such as sex is arguably also unconstitutional.

    Two, its increased beuracratic red tape to have the exact same thing placed in the law with the only difference being "between two people" instead of man and woman and a different name. Its redunant and just makes for a more complicated, convoluted, and beuracratic legal code.

    Marriage under the law is already defined - that's REASON enough.
    No, its not. "Just becasue it is" is not a reason, its a statement. You'd be correct if historically it never changed...but it has. You'd be correct if other definitinos in our law don't change....but they do. "Its already defined" is not a reason. The very point of AMENDING a piece of law is to CHANGE its definition/meaning.

    This is like saying why did we bother adding amendments to the constitution. The constitution was already defined. We should've created a new law that gives everything the constitution gives plus gives this other stuff, because I mean, the constitution is already defined and that's reason enough not to amend it.

    Referendums in States which want to apply gay marriages to that same definition have largely rejected the use of "marriage" but rather another term.
    Which is done primarily for political reasons as it makes it more likely to pass.

    What benefit does changing the definition make to non gay people?
    Why does this even matter. Why does there need to be a benefit (outside of the ones I alreayd stated above). Since win does a law change mean it must be a "benefit" to everyone in some way shape or form? Should the civil rights movement not have happened because somoene asked "What benefit does changing the rights of black people make to racist people?"

    So until a majority of this country is gay, I would say the traditional definition will stay intact for the most part.
    So seperate but equal is okay with you as long as people that are seperate are in the minority and that its the way its "always been" for you.

    You don't have ANY other reason why you feel that marriage should be defined only as between a man and woman?

    Why is accepting the word "marriage" as only between a man/woman so alien? Up until about 20 years ago there was no alternative. Change for change's sake or just want to stick it to the "man"?
    Nope, change for the sake of equality, logic, and the principles of this country's law.

    I don't care if you change your mind or not. I'm not foolish enough to think that people extremely passionate about an issue on a message board is magically going to change their mind. I just want a straight answer out of you why you feel that the definition should be between a man and a woman, because "it always has been" is worthless becasue other portions of marriage have changed over the years and it is not a reason but merely a statement.

    Why should the LEGAL definition of marriage not change if we end up allowing gay men and women to enter into a relationship under the law?

    Also, you realize that gay men and women can already enter under marriage under the religious and colloquial definitions of it already, right? Any religious institution could CHOOSE to marry two men or two women if they so choose, under the eyes of their god if they wish. To make it illegal for two people to refer to themselves as married, not claiming it under the law but simply using the term, would be a violation of the 1st amendment if they were married under their religion.

  7. #107
    Student Antagony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern England
    Last Seen
    09-13-11 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    278

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    I really don't understand why so many people say they don't object to the principle of same-sex couples receiving marital benefits but do not want them to be allowed to use the term "marriage." It makes absolutely no sense to me. "Marry" is an English word which has also been adopted by technicians and engineers, to denote joining separate parts into one. I don't hear anyone objecting to their use of the term. Seriously, it's just a word. If religions want a distinction perhaps they should choose a new word for the ceremonies they perform. After all, as Kal'Stang has already pointed out, the term was well established for the union of people centuries before religions started poking their noses in, late in the sixteenth century.
    -Ant

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
    -Voltaire

  8. #108
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,951

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Ahh well there you go, gays can marry in churches. No need to include the law, gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, or any of that. Gays can go have a religious ceremony and *poof* they're married.

    Looks like gays won years ago. Congratulations gay community, you're equal now.
    Ah, and once again in this thread you put forth a pathetic attempt to use sarcasm to prove your point and once again you do a laughably poor job at is not to mention, once again, and illogical and factually inaccurate one. Try this Jerry, make an argument, give reasons to support it, maybe your posts in this thread wonít be so laughably terrible and devoid of anything of use.

    There are two different terms.

    The LEGAL term Marriage

    The PRIVATE term Marriage

    The government has no interest, and indeed is constitutionally barred, from caring about the Private term of Marriage when it comes the religious ceremony and act. If a church wants to forbid a man and woman from being married they can go right ahead. Hell, if they believe their religion thinks that only those between the ages of 20 and 25 who are of opposite sexes, within 2Ē in height to each other, and have blonde or brown hair and thatís all theyíre marry then the government has no real say in it. So yes, gay people theoretically can get married under a church that CHOOSES to allow them to in the private sense of the word. No one is arguing they canít do that or the government needs to do something about that.

    However, you see, GOVERNMENT uses the term marriage as part of the law. And GOVERNMENT can not have a state sponsored religion meaning its use of marriage in and of itself cannot be tied to any religion nor qualified based on any particular religion. Additionally, since marriage as a legal term is part of the law that marriage IS the responsibility of the government to look over and be sure that its being equitable and constitutional. Separate but equal, UNDER THE LAW, has long been established as something that should not be happening with things protected under the 14th amendment in this country. Having two laws, that do the exact same thing, but are called different and are based on the sex of the individuals is essentially separate but equal. Not allowing it at all, based on sex, is discriminatory.

    Now Iím sure you knew this already and were just playing ignorant about this information and how the law works so that you could make your pathetic attempt at a sarcastic point that fell flat on its face. However, for those that didnít realize it and were ignorant of separation of church and state and the fact that private marriage and marriage under the law is different, hopefully that enlightened them.

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Antagony View Post
    . "Marry" is an English word which has also been adopted by technicians and engineers, to denote joining separate parts into one..
    and folks we now know what has destroyed the sanctity of traditional marriage

  10. #110
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Antagony View Post
    I really don't understand why so many people say they don't object to the principle of same-sex couples receiving marital benefits but do not want them to be allowed to use the term "marriage." It makes absolutely no sense to me. "Marry" is an English word which has also been adopted by technicians and engineers, to denote joining separate parts into one. I don't hear anyone objecting to their use of the term. Seriously, it's just a word. If religions want a distinction perhaps they should choose a new word for the ceremonies they perform. After all, as Kal'Stang has already pointed out, the term was well established for the union of people centuries before religions started poking their noses in, late in the sixteenth century.
    But when engineers use the word, it's not "icky."

Page 11 of 85 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161 ... 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
  •