Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?

[Yelnoc]

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.

[Free Palestine]

My response to the "oh well pretty soon people can marry donkeys/their sister" fallacy is: so what?

[Supersonic]

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.

No problemo.

[asexual trans victimologist]

My response to the "oh well pretty soon people can marry donkeys/their sister" fallacy is: so what?

You would not make a good standard-bearer for the cause.

[Free Palestine]

My response to the "oh well pretty soon people can marry donkeys/their sister" fallacy is: so what?

You would not make a good standard-bearer for the cause.

Indeed I won't.

Same with abortion.

[memphis]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

[memphis]

I've lived through the divorce of my parents, and I don't know if there's a much worse non-abusive thing you can do to a child.

Coming from the personal experience of my parents' ugly relationship, I can tell you there is something far worse for children than divorce. Living in a home where two parents are constantly at each others throats, spitting venom day after day, is toxic. I can still remember that blissful April day in 1993 when my dad moved to his own little house about a mile away. Close enough that I could walk between homes, but far enough apart to ensure some peace for all parties. All became right in the world. It is without a doubt one of the best moments of my childhood.

[Rhodie]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

Bad apple who's traditionally held to have written at least a couple books of the Bible, including the part known for its sage advice on managing one's life.

[Rhodie]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

Bad apple who's traditionally held to have written at least a couple books of the Bible, including the part known for its sage advice on managing one's life.

That may be, but he certainly didn't pursue proper standards by marrying 700 women.

[memphis]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

Bad apple who's traditionally held to have written at least a couple books of the Bible, including the part known for its sage advice on managing one's life.

That may be, but he certainly didn't pursue proper standards by marrying 700 women.

He's far from a unique case. Polygamy was rife throughout the Bible. And it wasn't held up as a model of immorality that God would strike you down for. It just was the way things were. Marriage has changed immeasurably since the days when a raped women was forced to marry her rapist because nobody else would then want her and she obviously couldn't take care of herself. Your point that marriage has never changed is 100% false.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

Bad apple who's traditionally held to have written at least a couple books of the Bible, including the part known for its sage advice on managing one's life.

That may be, but he certainly didn't pursue proper standards by marrying 700 women.

Well no, I agree with you, but it was an understanding of marriage that existed at the time (although wasn't exactly encouraged), which is all anyone's trying to demonstrate by bringing him up.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Pro (normal).

[The Mikado]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

Bad apple who's traditionally held to have written at least a couple books of the Bible, including the part known for its sage advice on managing one's life.

That may be, but he certainly didn't pursue proper standards by marrying 700 women.

He's far from a unique case. Polygamy was rife throughout the Bible. And it wasn't held up as a model of immorality that God would strike you down for.

...

Solomon's 700 wives thing was portrayed ferociously negatively.  He bankrupted the kingdom buying stuff for them, they got him to build temples for their false gods, and, well, Deuteronomy's rule put it best:

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

God ends up punishing him by stripping away half of the Kingdom under the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam, beginning a long feud between Rehoboam and his line-of-David descendants in Judah and the splitters in Israel.  You could say that the entire collapse of the golden age of the Biblical United Monarchy was due to Solomon having too many wives at once.

[Talleyrand]

Marriage is one of the most fundamental institutions in society, and allowing same sex couples to take part in it not only strengthens marriage itself but also strengthens families.

This summarizes my view quite nicely.

[Harry]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

[Supersonic]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

Wrong.

Wrong.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

Forum needs a like button.

[Redalgo]

. . . 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 . . .

I was initially going to drop a generically pro-gay marriage post in this thread but reckoned this statement was very thoughtful. Perhaps it would be for the best if anyone could be partnered with whomever they want provided there is mutual consent and the relationship(s) in question don't involve a criminal degree of abuse or exploitation. Marriage is not an aspect of our culture in any serious need of stringent regulation or active measures promoting its preservation by the state, and I imagine having "small government" on most marriage-related issues would not be harmful.

[For Oklahoma]

I'm pro gay marriage.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

[Free Palestine]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

Which is dumb.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

So about your rationale for scientific/natural law opposition...

[asexual trans victimologist]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

There's no scientific basis for opposition, and 'natural law' is a religious concept.

[Free Palestine]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

There's no scientific basis for opposition, and 'natural law' is a religious concept.

Well, there is a scientific basis.  But it's stupid.

From what I understand, the argument is that since same-sex relationships don't produce offspring, they shouldn't be treated the same as opposite-sex relationships.  Because of course, all that matters is producing more little soldiers for the state.