Gay Marriage Legalization Poll

[bedstuy]

Support.

Civil Unions yes, Marriage no. Though, I will say that if the SCOTUS rules in favor of it, I will be in the "its settled law, I don't like it, but let's just move on" camp, rather than the "Fight to reverse it for all of eternity!" camp, simply because I don't care about the issue enough to fight it beyond the  'lgbt-favorable SCOTUS ruling' point.

I'm still disappointed that you stopped replying to the thread where people were challenging your argument on this.  What did you not find our arguments a convincing rebuttal of your argument?

I think I can explain it. 

There are three reasons to support civil unions. 

1.  You're a politician from 2005.

2.  You're a moderate hero who always chooses the middle position because being moderate is itself a virtue and inherently safe.  It's sort of a way to put yourself beyond criticism by anyone, you can always say to anyone, right or left, "hey, I'm moderate, at least I'm not as bad as the crazies on the other side."

3.  You don't buy into the arguments against SSM, but you want the law to express your contempt for gay people.  The very idea of gay people is disgusting to you and you hate the idea that they're in any way equal to you. 

[Alcon]

His argument was that marriage only exists to incentivize the best possible situation for child-rearing.  There are so many fatal problems with that argument, though.  After several people did a detailed, patient explanation of them, it's frustrating to see him arguing the same position like that conversation never happened.

It's a totally unreasonable position, so I'm disappointed to see it argued as somehow "moderate."

[bedstuy]

His argument was that marriage only exists to incentivize the best possible situation for child-rearing.  There are so many fatal problems with that argument, though.  After several people did a detailed, patient explanation of them, it's frustrating to see him arguing the same position like that conversation never happened.

It's a totally unreasonable position, so I'm disappointed to see it argued as somehow "moderate."

Yeah, it's not moderate, it's just between two other positions.  Like, someone could claim to be moderate in Nazi Germany because they were a rabid Jew hater who supported the Nuremberg laws, but not the final solution.  It's nonsense. 

[LeBron]

Support (gay, not a Wulfric). 

[JerryArkansas]

Support (gay). 

[RosettaStoned]

I support the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and group marriages.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In theory, yes. It would be a lot easier to support if we could count on courts that interpret the 1st amendment anywhere near as expansively as they do the commerce clause.  At this point I don't know if gay marriage and religious freedom are compatible. In this context, civil unions with full rights and benefits doesn't sound so absurd, but that's hardly a decent solution either. So I don't know. Modern liberalism and religious pluralism have come to be fundamentally at odds, so that's where we are.

[bedstuy]

In theory, yes. It would be a lot easier to support if we could count on courts that interpret the 1st amendment anywhere near as expansively as they do the commerce clause.  At this point I don't know if gay marriage and religious freedom are compatible. In this context, civil unions with full rights and benefits doesn't sound so absurd, but that's hardly a decent solution either. So I don't know. Modern liberalism and religious pluralism have come to be fundamentally at odds, so that's where we are.

What is the religious freedom concern exactly?  Do you have the same problem with interracial marriage?

[politicallefty]

Strongly support. I view those that oppose gay marriage in the same light that I view those who oppose interracial marriage. In terms of governmental recognition, I firmly believe opposition to be nothing more than bigotry and hatred. There is no legitimate justification to deny so many rights and protections to gay couples on account of their sexual orientation.