Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 23, 2014, 08:25:40 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Print
Poll
Question: Are you pro or anti gay marriage?
Pro Gay Marriage   -112 (81.8%)
Anti Gay Marriage   -25 (18.2%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 137

Author Topic: Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?  (Read 6280 times)
SJoyce of Harrenhal
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8832
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2012, 09:04:31 am »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Equating gay marriage with incest. What a wonderful position.
Logged

The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14419


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2012, 09:04:46 am »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Nah, support for sibling incest and polygamous marriage falls under "Defense of Traditional Marriage."  They're as traditional as it gets.

EDIT:  just finished reading a book about 18th-19th century Hawaii.  Pretty hilarious to watch the islanders defend their idea of traditional marriage (sibling incest) against the wave of Christian missionaries.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 09:07:32 am by The Mikado »Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4431
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2012, 09:13:37 am »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Equating gay marriage with incest. What a wonderful position.

Don't avoid answering the question. We can't speak of "marriage equality" if heterosexual and homosexual couples can marry but other people are excluded from the right to enter a civil union/get married. It's not logical.

For the record, Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School, put forward a similar argument. It's a significant legal question which should not be discarded by attacks on people who make such comparisons.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 09:32:02 am by Mideast Governor ZuWo »Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2543


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2012, 10:10:50 am »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14419


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2012, 10:12:40 am »
Ignore

As a serious answer, polygamy leads to dicey questions regarding custody rights in divorce, inheritance, and all those other things.
Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4431
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2012, 10:15:26 am »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21830


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2012, 11:51:44 am »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

Bit of gymnastics there if you ask me. Man loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. Man loves man or woman loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. That is marriage equality by definition is it not? I've just filled out my registration forms for my civil parternship; it tells me precisely who I'm allowed to have the partnership with and who I can't. At present we allow people with heterosexual attractions under certain circumstances to marry each other. What is unequal is that people with homosexual attractions cannot because their attraction is to the same sex. Changing that = marriage equality. What has has incest or polygamy got to do with it?
Logged

ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4431
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2012, 12:00:41 pm »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

Bit of gymnastics there if you ask me. Man loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. Man loves man or woman loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. That is marriage equality by definition is it not? I've just filled out my registration forms for my civil parternship; it tells me precisely who I'm allowed to have the partnership with and who I can't. At present we allow people with heterosexual attractions under certain circumstances to marry each other. What is unequal is that people with homosexual attractions cannot because their attraction is to the same sex. Changing that = marriage equality. What has has incest or polygamy got to do with it?

The answer to your question is very simple: Despite the fact that incestuous and polygamous relationships have a long history - just like same-sex relationships - people who engage in these kinds of relationships still can't marry the people of their choice and are hardly ever mentioned even by proponents of gay marriage. This is a case of inequal treatment which does not change even if we introduce gay marriage across the board. I repeat: There is no "marriage equality" unless this changes and all forms or marriage are made legal, that's why the term "marriage equality" exclusively used in the context of same-sex relationships is odd.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11247
Ireland, Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2012, 12:25:12 pm »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Nah, support for sibling incest and polygamous marriage falls under "Defense of Traditional Marriage."  They're as traditional as it gets.

EDIT:  just finished reading a book about 18th-19th century Hawaii.  Pretty hilarious to watch the islanders defend their idea of traditional marriage (sibling incest) against the wave of Christian missionaries.

That was all you needed to say....

Anyway, my position is that I'm not hugely in favour of marriage, like the military and so recently I've become very disappointed in the gays.
Logged



Quote
Keith R Laws ‏@Keith_Laws  Feb 4
As I have noted before 'paradigm shift' is an anagram of 'grasp dim faith'

Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6907
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2012, 01:01:35 pm »
Ignore

I take offense to those who are against it.
Logged

Rhodie
Full Member
***
Posts: 245
South Africa


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2012, 02:21:39 pm »
Ignore

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.
Logged

Economic score: +6.19
Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5033
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: 0.35


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2012, 02:25:09 pm »
Ignore

I take offense to those who are against it.

lol
Logged

Being a Libertarian is like having a fever, either you sweat it out or you die from it.
Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6907
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2012, 03:34:09 pm »
Ignore

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?
Logged

Yelnoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6551
United States
View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2012, 04:01:48 pm »
Ignore

I take offense to those who are against it.

lol

I'm reminded of a white man in the south of the 60s laughing away the notion that blacks might be equal.

Perhaps you think Holmes is "uppity"?


EDIT, Context:

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/
Yeah, I was scrolling and attributed the "lol" to Rhodie.  Sorry Supersonic.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 07:11:25 pm by Yelnoc »Logged

Goodbye
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21830


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2012, 04:05:19 pm »
Ignore

I take offense to those who are against it.

lol

I'm reminded of a white man in the south Rhodesia of the 60s laughing away the notion that blacks might be equal.

Perhaps you think Holmes is "uppity"?

Corrected.
Logged

Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6907
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2012, 04:46:57 pm »
Ignore

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21830


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2012, 04:50:43 pm »
Ignore

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/
Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11274
Russian Federation


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2012, 07:55:20 pm »
Ignore

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?
So do you take it personally, or do you just resent them because they are keeping you from getting married? 
Logged

nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8770


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2012, 09:26:46 pm »
Ignore

Pro-gay marriage, of course.

While there may be some legitimacy in comparing legalize gay marriages to incestuous marriages, polygamy is not at all analogous. Simply involving more than 2 people does make bureaucratic difficulty, if nothing else. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is like saying that a whites-only restaurant with a capacity limit of 40 people, if required to serve blacks, would also be required to hold more than 40 people.
Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

Senator Cynic
Dr. Cynic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11553
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2012, 09:41:40 pm »
Ignore

Pro gay marriage and those who deny it will happen in our lifetimes are kidding themselves. It will be nationally legal for homosexuals to marry before we die. Get out of the way, opponents, the train's coming and you don't want it to run your ass over.
Logged

Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6907
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2012, 11:18:50 pm »
Ignore

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?
So do you take it personally, or do you just resent them because they are keeping you from getting married? 

It's both, but they're both rather tied together. Although I'm able to get married where I live, my boyfriend's home state wouldn't recognize it, and the US federal government wouldn't either.
Logged

IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18787
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2012, 11:44:41 pm »
Ignore

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Sadly I'm just a good, old fashioned, straight laced conservative. I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial, and thus I don't think its in our power, or that it is our right to change that.

It's clearly within our power to change it - we people of today write the laws of today. It's also clearly within our right to change it - we people of today do not have to be bound by the practices of our ancestors. A tradition is good or bad on its merits, not on the basis that it is a tradition.
Logged

The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14419


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2012, 11:58:25 pm »
Ignore

Pro gay marriage and those who deny it will happen in our lifetimes are kidding themselves. It will be nationally legal for homosexuals to marry before we die.

Someone's optimistic about his longevity.
Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9352
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 9.35, S: -9.13

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2012, 02:31:46 am »
Ignore

Where's the oxymoron option?

Both sides are idiots on this issue. Liberal civil rights advocates ought to be questioning why couples with a marital license from the state should receive special treatment in the first place, while conservative traditionalists ought to be questioning why the state is serving the role of Merriam-Webster on the subject in the first place.
Logged


House endorsements: Walter (AZ-9), Loudermilk (GA-11), Blum (IA-1), Dietzel (LA-6), Poliquin (ME-2), Emmer (MN-6), Mills (MN-8), Brat (VA-7), Didier (WA-4), Mooney (WV-2)
АverroŽs Nix
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9811
United States


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2012, 08:23:25 am »
Ignore

I believe that the state should sanction marriage between any number of consenting adults, regardless of their characteristics.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines