Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 20, 2014, 03:47:27 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 6241 times)
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14554


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -3.83


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: September 27, 2012, 09:51:02 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
Fmr. President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13057
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: September 27, 2012, 11:34:06 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 526


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: September 29, 2012, 05:35:00 am »
Ignore

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.

Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8140
United States


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: September 30, 2012, 08:28:10 am »
Ignore

Conservatives should really stop using the Bible as a moral shield for anything and everything.
Logged
DC Al Fine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6966
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: October 03, 2012, 07:46:05 pm »
Ignore

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

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

Economic: 3.1
Social: 2.78

Quote from: Don Colacho
The Gospels and the Communist Manifesto are on the wane; the world’s future lies in the power of Coca-Cola and pornography.
IBDD W#461
1236
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1696
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #105 on: October 03, 2012, 09:56:39 pm »
Ignore

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic
Logged

Great ambition is the passion of a great character. Those endowed with it may perform very good or very bad acts. All depends on the principles which direct them.-Napoleon Bonaparte

Ones reputation is like a shadow, it is gigantic when it precedes you, and a pigmy in proportion when it follows.- Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord


The world isnt always black and white
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29663
United States
View Profile
« Reply #106 on: October 03, 2012, 09:59:42 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

n/c
Senator Goldwater
Republitarian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8296
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: -3.83

View Profile
« Reply #107 on: October 03, 2012, 11:33:42 pm »
Ignore

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic

So do you support Civil Unions?
Logged

Senator Alfred F. Jones
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8502
United States


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: October 04, 2012, 08:16:44 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged



There is a lot of humor to be mined from this as the mind of LBJ in the body of an 18 month old baby girl is quite hilarious.

Alfred is the Atlasian equivalent of a malevolent deity.

danny
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1072
Israel


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: October 04, 2012, 02:43:47 pm »
Ignore

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

SJoyce of Harrenhal
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8835
United States


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: October 04, 2012, 03:02:12 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29663
United States
View Profile
« Reply #111 on: October 05, 2012, 03:16:01 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

n/c
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8633
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: October 05, 2012, 07:21:00 am »
Ignore

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".
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
Second Chance: A Michigan Timeline
Can Joe Schwarz beat DeVos and Granholm to win the Michigan governor's mansion in 2006?
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21818


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #113 on: October 05, 2012, 07:41:00 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged

Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38821
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: October 05, 2012, 09:08:49 am »
Ignore

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

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
IBDD W#461
1236
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1696
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #115 on: October 05, 2012, 09:25:24 am »
Ignore

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

Great ambition is the passion of a great character. Those endowed with it may perform very good or very bad acts. All depends on the principles which direct them.-Napoleon Bonaparte

Ones reputation is like a shadow, it is gigantic when it precedes you, and a pigmy in proportion when it follows.- Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord


The world isnt always black and white
The Alleged Worst
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5853
United States


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: October 05, 2012, 10:20:36 am »
Ignore

Pro but only because I'm genre savy.
Logged

Convincing BRTD to drop the Sneakers O'Toole BS is like convincing Sneakers O'Toole to take his sneakers off.

(I realize I'm probably just further encouraging him by saying that, and for this I apologize.)
Senator Alfred F. Jones
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8502
United States


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: October 05, 2012, 10:47:54 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged



There is a lot of humor to be mined from this as the mind of LBJ in the body of an 18 month old baby girl is quite hilarious.

Alfred is the Atlasian equivalent of a malevolent deity.

Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29663
United States
View Profile
« Reply #118 on: October 05, 2012, 11:58:26 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 02:11:13 am by Grad Students are the Worst »Logged

n/c
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8633
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #119 on: October 06, 2012, 06:41:28 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
Second Chance: A Michigan Timeline
Can Joe Schwarz beat DeVos and Granholm to win the Michigan governor's mansion in 2006?
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: October 06, 2012, 07:12:56 pm »
Ignore

But why the distinction?
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29663
United States
View Profile
« Reply #121 on: October 07, 2012, 01:10:27 am »
Ignore

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."
Logged

n/c
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8633
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #122 on: October 07, 2012, 07:30:00 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
Second Chance: A Michigan Timeline
Can Joe Schwarz beat DeVos and Granholm to win the Michigan governor's mansion in 2006?
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: October 07, 2012, 07:33:55 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6299
United States


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: October 07, 2012, 06:52:16 pm »
Ignore

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.
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