Atlas Poll: Do You Support SSM?

[NeverAgain]

I wanted to see what Atlas thinks about SSM now after a couple months after the SCOTUS ruling.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yes (sane).

[Cassius]

No (insane)

[DavidB.]

What does "let churches decide on it" even mean? This is about civil marriage, right? I am all for SSM but obviously don't support imposing that decision on non-public institutions such as churches.

[Phony Moderate]

Retain marriage as it is but support civil unions. If states want to pass same-sex marriage, let them.

[This account no longer in use.]

Yes, because I don't think that some groups of people should receive less rights than others for their genetics.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Yes

[Torie]

No. Partner Dan keeps bring the God damned subject up now!

[TDAS04]

Obviously. 

[DC Al Fine]

What does "let churches decide on it" even mean? This is about civil marriage, right? I am all for SSM but obviously don't support imposing that decision on non-public institutions such as churches.

Yes that's an unusual phrasing since it implies that they are going to force Father O'Leary to do a gay wedding or something. Other than maybe 1-2 hardliners (TNF maybe?) no one on here wants that.

[Cassius]

What does "let churches decide on it" even mean? This is about civil marriage, right? I am all for SSM but obviously don't support imposing that decision on non-public institutions such as churches.

Yes that's an unusual phrasing since it implies that they are going to force Father O'Leary to do a gay wedding or something. Other than maybe 1-2 hardliners (TNF maybe?) no one on here wants that.

Yet...

[Figueira]

Yes (not a bigot). Obviously churches can decide on it, but I didn't vote for that because it's presented as a moderate hero option when it's really just common sense.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

It is kinda funny that non-heterosexuals want to have their version of marriages and normal couples more and more often decides to live together like some hippies, without solemnizing marriage.  

[Mr. Reactionary]

What does "let churches decide on it" even mean? This is about civil marriage, right? I am all for SSM but obviously don't support imposing that decision on non-public institutions such as churches.

[Torie]

It is kinda funny that ... [Torie deletion]... want to have their version of marriages and normal couples more and more often decides to live together like some hippies, without solemnizing marriage.  

Gays don't appreciate being referred to in that way. It's really not very polite. I am going to let it go, but I wanted to share with you my point of view on this. Thanks.

[RINO Tom]

It is kinda funny that ... [Torie deletion]... want to have their version of marriages and normal couples more and more often decides to live together like some hippies, without solemnizing marriage.  

Gays don't appreciate being referred to in that way. It's really not very polite. I am going to let it go, but I wanted to share with you my point of view on this. Thanks.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem like he'd care. :/

Anyway, yes I support it.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

I think that term is well-fitting but after Torie suggestion I edited the post, so no worries - no one will be offended.

[Alcon]

I think that term is well-fitting but after Torie suggestion I edited the post, so no worries - no one will be offended.

You know, when you say "I think that term is well-fitting," it's pretty obvious you're trying to be passive-aggressive, not actually trying to avoid offense.

Yes, I support same-sex marriage.  I'm not sure that I can think of many political issues where one side of the argument is as intellectually bankrupt as this one.

For instance, despite your weasel-wording here, kataak, are you actually willing to assert that there's an association between declining respect for marriage and same-sex marriage?  The decline in marriage rates predated same-sex marriage as a viable political issue.  States that passed same-sex marriage actually had (last time I ran the numbers) lower increases in divorce rates than those that didn't.  I see no particular causal relationship between same-sex marriage and increasing divorce rates.  I think your claim is that same-sex marriage is a product of people subscribing less to traditional norms, like increased divorce.  Maybe, but how does that mean that same-sex marriage will increase divorce, and where is the evidence for that claim?  And how does this not argue against changing any traditional norm ever?  Don't be weasely about it: unless your argument is that we should never change any long-standing cultural practice ever, for fear of causing social instability, what is your argument?

Feel free to jump in here too, Cassius.  I've seen you post against this issue at least five times without ever articulating why you're against it.

[Torie]

I think that term is well-fitting but after Torie suggestion I edited the post, so no worries - no one will be offended.

You know, when you say "I think that term is well-fitting," it's pretty obvious you're trying to be passive-aggressive, not actually trying to avoid offense.

Yes, I support same-sex marriage.  I'm not sure that I can think of many political issues where one side of the argument is as intellectually bankrupt as this one.

For instance, despite your weasel-wording here, kataak, are you actually willing to assert that there's an association between declining respect for marriage and same-sex marriage?  The decline in marriage rates predated same-sex marriage as a viable political issue.  States that passed same-sex marriage actually had (last time I ran the numbers) lower increases in divorce rates than those that didn't.  I see no particular causal relationship between same-sex marriage and increasing divorce rates.  Don't be weasely about it: unless your argument is that we should never change any long-standing cultural practice ever, for fear of causing social instability, what is your argument?

Feel free to jump in here too, Cassius.  I've seen you post against this issue at least five times without ever articulating why you're against it.

I gave you my little reason for not supporting SSM.

[DavidB.]

Retain marriage as it is but support civil unions. If states want to pass same-sex marriage, let them.

What do you mean by "as it is"? SSM is legalized both in the US and in the UK (bar Northern Ireland)...

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

I decided to change it not because someone changed my mind but because someone, in this case Torie, nicely and partially not directly pointed that using that word in the forum might be perceived as not nice. He is also moderator so he basically could just edit my post without any note so I guess in that situation what I done was only appropriate thing to do : )

As for the rest it wasn't really any argument or attempt to take part in the discussion, I just find it funny that one group usually considered as "liberal degenerates" are willing to fight to get access to such institution (although I am against civil marriages) like marriage while people who should be in the same vision of the world should be "bastion of Tradition" etc. etc. are more and more moving to the more "degenerated" forms of relations. Sorry for my sense of humor.

But I am of course against "same-sex marriages" and as for the the most important argument is: "Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized."

[Torie]

Well, that is that then. SSM is against God's law. End of discussion.

[DavidB.]

A good argument to oppose same-sex marriage in one's church, I suppose, but since Atlasians' countries are no theocracies this does not really warrant governments treating homosexual couples differently.

[Alcon]

I decided to change it not because someone changed my mind but because someone, in this case Torie, nicely and partially not directly pointed that using that word in the forum might be perceived as not nice. He is also moderator so he basically could just edit my post without any note so I guess in that situation what I done was only appropriate thing to do : )

Yes, I'm aware, and again, the fact that you called it "fitting" was basically a backdoor way of reaffirming that you meant exactly what you said.  Politely editing out the word seems like a pretty hollow gesture, even if it wasn't passive-aggressive.  If you actually were concerned about your opinion impacting others', you wouldn't have reiterated it.

Not that I think it's bad to offend others with your opinion -- but I think you were being a little knowingly smarmy there.

As for the rest it wasn't really any argument or attempt to take part in the discussion, I just find it funny that one group usually considered as "liberal degenerates" are willing to fight to get access to such institution (although I am against civil marriages) like marriage while people who should be in the same vision of the world should be "bastion of Tradition" etc. etc. are more and more moving to the more "degenerated" forms of relations. Sorry for my sense of humor.

Ah, got you.  Yeah, there is some irony there.

But I am of course against "same-sex marriages" and as for the the most important argument is: "Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized."

And you think your theological beliefs should, even in absence of a compelling policy argument (because the arguments suck, dude), dictate governmental policy?  Do you want governmental policy to be a no-holds-barred fight to impose one's personal theological views on the entirety of society?

[RFayette]

No and I think it's a sign of our society sticking up its finger to God, saying "We don't like your sovereignty!  We don't like your rules!  We want to be autonomous creatures."  Such will never end well, and the judgment of God will rain down upon the West for this, along with many other sins associated with "modernity."  But I think of same-sex marriage as just the latest in a litany of such occurrences and is more of a signal rather than the sole problem in and of itself.

As far as "theocracy" is concerned, I don't believe America should be a theocracy, but I do wish we could return to the more biblical worldview that our leaders and majority of citizens once held.  When the activist judges legalized abortion in 1973 and kicked prayer and God's word out of public schools in 1961 (in addition to the concurrent sexual revolution, feminist movement, and liberalization of divorce laws during this time period) everything seemed to have gone downhill from there.