Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?

[Wolfentoad]

Pro, obviously.

[asexual trans victimologist]

But why the distinction?

If anything, I think the equality in everything but name is even more insulting.  It's like, "Hey, you've proven you meet the minimum threshhold for there to be a societal interest in giving you equal rights to heterosexual couples...but we're going to make sure you'e discriminated against anyway."

It's not meant to be discriminatory.  It's giving them equal rights without redefining a religious term.

It's not currently a religious term in this context.

[General White]

Pro.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Pro, obviously.

Gay?

[Cryptic]

Pro Gay Marriage

[Michaelf7777777]

Pro gay marriage and indeed believe that any number of consenting adults should be allowed to be entered into a civil marriage with no restrictions beyond being an adult and all parties consenting to all other parties being part of the civil marriage. I also strongly believe that religious institutions should have the choice as to what kinds of marriages are allowed to take place in their churches.

[DC Al Fine]

Government should not be playing dictionary on this matter. If it was my church, no.

[dialectical fetishist]

There are a lot of things that have gone wrong with how we treat marriage in this country, but letting gays marry I think is the least of them. I would be more comfortable with it if gay marriage supporters were half as concerned about the institution of marriage itself as they were about using the issue as a tool to route out "bigots" and feel superior about themselves. Not all are that way of course, but if often seems like it. It just seems like so many liberals care so much about gay marriage on one hand, but simultaneous talk out of the other side of their mouth about how marriage is an archaic institution that should be done away with and about how progressive they are for opposing this anachronistic holdover. You can't have it both ways.

oh man just stop no

as for my own views, i think marriage should be privatized. don't see why people can't draw up their own contracts rather than getting the state involved constantly, in what's an artificial institution to begin with. so yeah, that'd mean i'm pro-gay marriage and pro-polygamy.

[dialectical fetishist]

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage.  I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman.  For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue.  Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."

so you believe it was wrong to change marriage so you can't sell your daughter for livestock? come on man.

[Banjo Broski]

there is no way i would ever ever ever ever support gay marriage

[Odysseus]

I believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterozexual couples, but don't redefine marriage.  For me, it's a language issue, not an equality one.  Of course they should have equal benefits, but call it a "civil union".

If you think marriage is a religious institution, and that it can only be between males and females, good for you. The government has no business telling you that your opinion is wrong, nor does it have any opinion telling me and everyone else in the country that your opinion on marriage is correct to the point where it should be law. This "marriage as a religious institution" stuff should stay in churches - where it belongs.

If you are a member of a religion who thinks that marriage is only between one man and one woman, then believe that. Allowing gays to get married would not change anything, because no church would be required to marry them. They can get a secular ceremony if they want.

The big point here is this: If, according to your religion, marriage is between just a male and a female, then your church can freely refuse to perform religious marriage ceremonies between same sex partners. The two guys, or two girls, can just go somewhere else and get a non-religious ceremony, or a ceremony from a religion that allows them to get married. If this is TRULY an issue of religious definition, then the issue can stay in the church, and religious leaders can debate if they want to accept same sex marriage among their denomination. The government can recognize same sex marriage, but this doesn't mean your religion has to. If you don't want to recognize my marriage, then come up and tell me on the street and we'll have a good laugh about the whole thing.

[Banjo Broski]

How can you support gay marriage? what are you a socialist leftist who wants to destroy the white race.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Gay marriage hasn't very much to do with the white race, which doesn't really exist as a coherent entity outside our heads anyway.

[Banjo Broski]

Nathan you make no sense.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Nathan you make no sense.

Is there anything in particular that you're having trouble with? I can break this down with you if you'd like.

[Banjo Broski]

Nathan im okey buddy

[shua]

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage.  I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman.  For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue.  Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."

Then don't allow civil marriage in general and make marriage solely religious. Either everyone is allowed to get a civil marriage or no one is.

Why? Is civil marriage only valuable as an institution insofar as it can be used to signify nondiscrimination?   Is civil marriage not valuable in itself?   Maybe you can see why traditionalists see this sort of thinking as a threat to the institution of marriage itself.

I support gay marriage, but it is precisely because I believe marriage is a valuable institution and want more people to have the opportunity to enter into it. If you don't believe that, what's the point?