View Poll Results: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Voters
430. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    186 43.26%
  • Yes, explain

    244 56.74%
Page 114 of 192 FirstFirst ... 1464104112113114115116124164 ... LastLast
Results 1,131 to 1,140 of 1915

Thread: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  1. #1131
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Just to clear up a misperception that many posters seem to have, a civil union is not the same thing as a marriage.

    This article gives a pretty good overview of why it isn't, and contains some other helpful links:

    Difference Between Civil Union and Marriage - Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage
    The premise that some are using is to make civil unions the same as marriage. It's mentioned several times in this thread.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #1132
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Marriage in relation to the government is a legal construct. If the law says that two men or two women can get married, then by definition it is calling a tail a tail. What a church or individuals call it is irrelevant, since what matters, and what we are conserned with is what it is in legal terms.
    Thousands of years of history in hundreds of different cultures disagree.


    Many marriages have nothing to do with children. Further, gay marriage is very much about families. Allowing gay marriage is a benefit to raising families.
    As an institution, historically marriage has been about families, and the production and rearing of children. Gay couple-dom does not inherently produce children by its very nature, so it does not fit the defintion. A given hetero couple might not have children, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority can and do. Gay couples CANNOT have children by themselves. I'm talking about "as a subset of couples", not as individual examples. Subset A typically can and commonly does produce children; Subset B is incapable of producing children in and of themselves. This excludes Subset B from the historical function of marriage and family.



    Except it is needed and reasonable. Equal access to people who have no reason to be denied that access is not unreasonable.
    Equal access can be had by Civil Unions. Bear in mind that you can get a lot more popular support for this cause by calling it Civil Union, whereas insisting on redefining the term "marriage" will increase opposition.



    Because either a civil union is just another name for marriage, and therefore adds unnecessary complexity to the laws, or civil unions have different rights, in which case it is still excluding a group from those rights for no good reason. If a civil union and marriage are the same thing, then call them both the same thing. If different, then we have the same problem we have now.
    Let's say you were given these two choices...
    A. Civil Unions with all the same benefits.
    B. No civil unions OR gay marriage for the foreseeable future.

    Which would you choose? If the choice is left to the general population, that may well be the choice you have.

    If you can have the same benefits, why insist on calling it "marriage" when so many people have a problem with that, but would accept civil unions?

    I have to wonder if it is specifically because the word "marriage" would provide leverage to socially legitimize gay coupledom in a way that Civil Unions would not.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #1133
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Thousands of years of history in hundreds of different cultures disagree.
    Really? We have not even been a country that long, and it's our laws we are talking about. Further, appeal to tradition is an especially weak argument.



    As an institution, historically marriage has been about families, and the production and rearing of children. Gay couple-dom does not inherently produce children by its very nature, so it does not fit the defintion. A given hetero couple might not have children, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority can and do. Gay couples CANNOT have children by themselves. I'm talking about "as a subset of couples", not as individual examples. Subset A typically can and commonly does produce children; Subset B is incapable of producing children in and of themselves. This excludes Subset B from the historical function of marriage and family.
    But there is no law saying that children must be an outcome of marriage. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, the ability to create children within the marriage is irrelevant. The number of gay people with children may surprise you, it is quite high. Further, adopting and fostering are both very much about families. If you want to argue from a family standpoint, arguing against gay marriage is hypocritical.

    Equal access can be had by Civil Unions. Bear in mind that you can get a lot more popular support for this cause by calling it Civil Union, whereas insisting on redefining the term "marriage" will increase opposition.
    You can, but it is stupid to do it so. If it is the same thing, then the only reason to get upset about using the term marriage is personal bias. You do not want to share the term with people doing the exact same thing.


    Let's say you were given these two choices...
    A. Civil Unions with all the same benefits.
    B. No civil unions OR gay marriage for the foreseeable future.

    Which would you choose? If the choice is left to the general population, that may well be the choice you have.
    Those are not the only possible choices, nor even the only likely ones.

    If you can have the same benefits, why insist on calling it "marriage" when so many people have a problem with that, but would accept civil unions?

    I have to wonder if it is specifically because the word "marriage" would provide leverage to socially legitimize gay coupledom in a way that Civil Unions would not.
    Because we should not tailor laws to the personal emotional reactions of people. If marriage and civil unions are the same thing before the law, then there is no logical reason to have separate categories for both.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #1134
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Appeal to tradition doesn't matter. Nothing will change with regards to opposite sex marriages. That tradition will be unscathed.

    Marriage is not solely about having kids or having sex. Gay people getting married is no worse than sterile people or the elderly getting married. That makes this line of argument irrelevant.

    The government can't tell people they must procreate or even have sex in a marriage. The government's role is to grant rights and ensure protections. The government shouldn't be giving them a special classification as it shows bias.

    By granting the rights, the government has legitimized it. You guys keep saying that it shouldn't be legitimized. This means that you want a second-class status for gay marriage.

    Now if this is not the case, you would support the government calling all marriages "civil unions".
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  5. #1135
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Really? We have not even been a country that long, and it's our laws we are talking about. Further, appeal to tradition is an especially weak argument.
    An institution that has been thus established for millenia across hundreds of cultures in a certain general format, and endured in that general format for all that time, is irrelevant. Gotcha.





    But there is no law saying that children must be an outcome of marriage. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, the ability to create children within the marriage is irrelevant. The number of gay people with children may surprise you, it is quite high. Further, adopting and fostering are both very much about families. If you want to argue from a family standpoint, arguing against gay marriage is hypocritical.
    Gay couples do not produce children without the intervention of an outside person. Again, I'm not talking about what this couple or that couple might do, I'm talking about as a "class" of coupledom. Hetero couples can and usually do produce children. Gay couples are inherently unable to do so without assistance from outside the marriage. To me this makes it two entirely different things.



    You can, but it is stupid to do it so. If it is the same thing, then the only reason to get upset about using the term marriage is personal bias. You do not want to share the term with people doing the exact same thing.

    Those are not the only possible choices, nor even the only likely ones.

    Because we should not tailor laws to the personal emotional reactions of people. If marriage and civil unions are the same thing before the law, then there is no logical reason to have separate categories for both
    .



    Maybe I should just cut to the chase here.

    I haven't read the whole thread, I don't know if Blackdog has covered this, but let's get it out in the open.

    The reason why most theologically-conservative Christians oppose calling same-sex unions marriage is because we are forbidden to do so by our religious beliefs.

    Specifically, the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is a sin. Yes, in the New Testement also.

    Also, the Bible teaches that marriage was originally instituted by God, and that it is a holy institution.

    In our beliefs, Gay = Sin and Marriage = Holy. We can't call something Holy Sin, that doesn't work.

    In fact we are specifically warned not to. "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil." If we agree to let a holy institution be used to legitimize something we believe is sin, we are ourselves committing a sin.

    You're asking us to call what we consider sin by a term we consider holy, when we are specifically forbidden to do so. This is one of the most basic and core reasons why so many Christians cannot accept the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuality.

    The only way to convince us otherwise is to persuade us that the Bible doesn't mean what it plainly says. Lotsa luck with that.

    No, asking us to seperate our religious convictions from our political position won't work in most cases either. This is matter of personal spiritual conscience and something we have to live with when we try to go to sleep at night.

    Some of us have, with no small amount of personal internal struggle, managed to convince ourselves that we could accept "Civil Unions" as a compromise position, since it does not apply the same word (marriage) used for holy matrimony. Do you understand that even that is difficult for many of us? Do you understand that we're trying to find a way to compromise with you in a manner that still allows us to live with our conscience?

    When you want to insist on calling it marriage, and insist that we ought to support it, what you're insisting on is that we violate our conscience and our religious convictions for the sake of giving you that word.

    Perhaps, in ten or twenty or forty years, you'll get to use the word "marriage" legally nationwide. If so, those like me and Blackdog will have to deal with the fact that our society and government has done something we disapprove of... not like that's anything new.

    But to ask us to support it, is to ask us to violate our own conscience and religious convictions. Do you realize what a big deal that is to people like us? You're asking us to do something that we believe God has specifically forbidden us to do.

    If you attain your goal of redefining marriage, we'll have to live with the outcome... but you'll have to attain it without our support. We are not allowed to support you.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #1136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    An institution that has been thus established for millenia across hundreds of cultures in a certain general format, and endured in that general format for all that time, is irrelevant. Gotcha.
    "Millenia".

    / snort.


    Right.

  7. #1137
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    The government isn't creating a Holy institution. Never has. In fact, only the two parties involved can make it a Holy institution.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  8. #1138
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    The government isn't creating a Holy institution. Never has. In fact, only the two parties involved can make it a Holy institution.
    I think you missed my point.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #1139
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    An institution that has been thus established for millenia across hundreds of cultures in a certain general format, and endured in that general format for all that time, is irrelevant. Gotcha.
    You know better than this Goshin. The legal institution that is marriage in the United States is not millennia old. That is the topic of conversation. Yes, it was adapted from traditions, but the key word is "adapted". Further, it has evolved since the country has been founded. You made it a point to ignore that appeal to tradition is a weak argument, but it is important in this argument. Every advance society has made has been by changing tradition. If tradition is so important, then at least be consistent, not pick and choose what traditions you like, and call those important because they are traditional, and ignore those you don't like, because tradition is not important in those cases.

    Gay couples do not produce children without the intervention of an outside person. Again, I'm not talking about what this couple or that couple might do, I'm talking about as a "class" of coupledom. Hetero couples can and usually do produce children. Gay couples are inherently unable to do so without assistance from outside the marriage. To me this makes it two entirely different things.
    About 1/3 of lesbian couples have under 18 children in the household. About 1/4 of gay male couples likewise. It is believed those numbers are rising. The fact that two gay people of the same sex cannot generate children is a red herring.



    Maybe I should just cut to the chase here.

    I haven't read the whole thread, I don't know if Blackdog has covered this, but let's get it out in the open.

    The reason why most theologically-conservative Christians oppose calling same-sex unions marriage is because we are forbidden to do so by our religious beliefs.

    Specifically, the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is a sin. Yes, in the New Testement also.

    Also, the Bible teaches that marriage was originally instituted by God, and that it is a holy institution.

    In our beliefs, Gay = Sin and Marriage = Holy. We can't call something Holy Sin, that doesn't work.

    In fact we are specifically warned not to. "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil." If we agree to let a holy institution be used to legitimize something we believe is sin, we are ourselves committing a sin.

    You're asking us to call what we consider sin by a term we consider holy, when we are specifically forbidden to do so. This is one of the most basic and core reasons why so many Christians cannot accept the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuality.

    The only way to convince us otherwise is to persuade us that the Bible doesn't mean what it plainly says. Lotsa luck with that.

    No, asking us to seperate our religious convictions from our political position won't work in most cases either. This is matter of personal spiritual conscience and something we have to live with when we try to go to sleep at night.

    Some of us have, with no small amount of personal internal struggle, managed to convince ourselves that we could accept "Civil Unions" as a compromise position, since it does not apply the same word (marriage) used for holy matrimony. Do you understand that even that is difficult for many of us? Do you understand that we're trying to find a way to compromise with you in a manner that still allows us to live with our conscience?

    When you want to insist on calling it marriage, and insist that we ought to support it, what you're insisting on is that we violate our conscience and our religious convictions for the sake of giving you that word.

    Perhaps, in ten or twenty or forty years, you'll get to use the word "marriage" legally nationwide. If so, those like me and Blackdog will have to deal with the fact that our society and government has done something we disapprove of... not like that's anything new.

    But to ask us to support it, is to ask us to violate our own conscience and religious convictions. Do you realize what a big deal that is to people like us? You're asking us to do something that we believe God has specifically forbidden us to do.

    If you attain your goal of redefining marriage, we'll have to live with the outcome... but you'll have to attain it without our support. We are not allowed to support you.
    Let me cut to the chase. What your book of beliefs says is entirely irrelevant to the laws of this country. The beliefs you want to pick out of it and say are important does not matter to what the law should be, nor are the parts you want to ignore. You are free to believe whatever you want. I will not stand in your way, and I will not try and legislate what you should believe. I just wish you religious folks would show the rest of us the same courtesy.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #1140
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I think you missed my point.
    Actually, I think you missed his. Your church can recognize or not any marriage as it chooses. The government is not legislating what you believe, or what marriage is or is not in terms of your beliefs. We are talking about laws, which are not holy.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •