Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?

[memphis]

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."

Historically, marriage was between a man and as many women as he could collect. Are you now pro polygamy? Because that's the historical tradition. And the Biblical one as well.

[Secretary Polnut]

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."

Historically, marriage was between a man and as many women as he could collect. Are you now pro polygamy? Because that's the historical tradition. And the Biblical one as well.

This revisionism is sad... but predictable.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

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."

Historically, marriage was between a man and as many women as he could collect. Are you now pro polygamy? Because that's the historical tradition. And the Biblical one as well.

Whether he's pro-polygamy is actually irrelevant, since he would probably refer to such relationships as "marriages" even if he opposes them. The law typically refers to such unions as marriages even while it criminalizes them. Therefore the term is clearly a matter of language rather then legal/moral acceptance.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Conservatives should really stop using the Bible as a moral shield for anything and everything.

[DC Al Fine]

Wouldn't support my pastor performing homosexual marriages...

That said, why are we making the government play dictionary in the first place?

[Pacific Justice IBDD]

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic

[Grad Students are the Worst]

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic

Why are you anti-gay marriage?  It doesn't really matter if you're homophobic or not -- that doesn't preclude your position from being wrong.

[Northeast Representative Goldwater]

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic

So do you support Civil Unions?

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic

...

I'm going to say this again: If you oppose gay marriage, then you oppose gay couples having the same rights as straight ones. That's homophobia, pure and simple.

[danny]

Pro, and it is one of the easiest issues to decide for me.

[Emperor SJoyce]

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic

I'm going to say this again: If you oppose gay marriage, then you oppose gay couples having the same rights as straight ones. That's homophobia, pure and simple.

Not necessarily. I oppose gay marriage but I also oppose straight marriage, so gay couples would have the same rights as straight ones and yet there would be no (state-recognized) gay marriage.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic

I'm going to say this again: If you oppose gay marriage, then you oppose gay couples having the same rights as straight ones. That's homophobia, pure and simple.

Not necessarily. I oppose gay marriage but I also oppose straight marriage, so gay couples would have the same rights as straight ones and yet there would be no (state-recognized) gay marriage.

Yes, that's a very popular opinion around here and you're not the only one who has it, but it's not politically viable and not how your vote would translate in an actual referendum on gay marriage.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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".

[afleitch]

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".

Then it isn't equal. 'Seperate but equal' isn't genuine equality. I do find it out how defensive people get over marriage. 1 in 3 marriages in the western world ends in divorce; it's THE most annulled legal contract people can enter into. Not only that, people can enter into it twice, three, four, five times in their lives. People can get married for money, for a passport, for an inheritance, for fame or for a magazine spread. People get married under coercion, or under force.

As an exclusive plaything for straight couples on the whole it's been cheapened. Individual marriages though make it all worthwhile. The idea that the marriage of two men or two women is going to threaten or 'redefine' marriage is absurd. It get's 'redefined' every day the moment someone enters into it for a dishonest reason or runs away from it for no reason at all.

How is Kim Kardashians 72 day marriage more 'worthy' because she was a woman and the other person was a man than say Michael Stark and Michael Leshner who married in Canada in 2003 after 22 years together?

[Χahar]

Obviously it's unreasonable to define a civil contract based on the religious beliefs of some people.

[Pacific Justice IBDD]

1.yes i support civil unions
2.im in favor of gay adoption rights and hospital visitation rights

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

Pro but only because I'm genre savy.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

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".

Does calling your relationship "marriage" count as a benefit?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

1.yes i support civil unions
2.im in favor of gay adoption rights and hospital visitation rights

We get that you're against gay marriage, but why?  Why do you folks think there's a compelling enough reason to deny gay folks the access to a word of considerable personal importance -- at the governmental level, at that?

I'm sorry to be pushy, but this is an issue where the opposing arguments just seem so obviously awful to me.  It's one of the only issues.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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".

Then it isn't equal. 'Seperate but equal' isn't genuine equality. I do find it out how defensive people get over marriage. 1 in 3 marriages in the western world ends in divorce; it's THE most annulled legal contract people can enter into. Not only that, people can enter into it twice, three, four, five times in their lives. People can get married for money, for a passport, for an inheritance, for fame or for a magazine spread. People get married under coercion, or under force.

As an exclusive plaything for straight couples on the whole it's been cheapened. Individual marriages though make it all worthwhile. The idea that the marriage of two men or two women is going to threaten or 'redefine' marriage is absurd. It get's 'redefined' every day the moment someone enters into it for a dishonest reason or runs away from it for no reason at all.

How is Kim Kardashians 72 day marriage more 'worthy' because she was a woman and the other person was a man than say Michael Stark and Michael Leshner who married in Canada in 2003 after 22 years together?

It's equal in everything except name.

[I left.]

But why the distinction?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

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."

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[I left.]

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.

The state is not religious, and marriage is not exclusively a religious term. Churches may define it as they wish , of course.

Do you have any secular argument against total equality?

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

Marriage is not a religious term. No Communist state, no matter how militantly Atheist or Totalitarian, no matter what other traditional social structures they sought to uproot, ever attempted to abolish marriage.