Atlas Poll: Do You Support SSM?

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

I wrote before that I am not fan of civil marriages. As I am Catholic and I consider marriage only as sacramental one I think all I wrote is enough argument for me. (and it is never too late for the whole society to become Catholic *wink*)
Also I don't really want to continue this discussion, just wanted to answer Grad Students are the Worst just to not be rude as he wrote long post and I wanted to clarify the misunderstanding. Usually discussions between opponents and proponents of SSM ends up with nothing, I've never met anyone who would change his mind in the Internet discussion about such issues, also I don't really want to persuade anyone and I guess no one will be able to persuade me to change my oppinion. 

Typical Internet discussion about SSM:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I guess that I will finish there and risk being "smashed by trillions of arguments in the Internet discussion and not answering on them".

[afleitch]

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.

What is it specifically about gay people that now makes you dislike them? I know in your rush to adhere to a religious interpretation you read about somewhere you're happy to throw people under a bus but I'd be intrigued to know why?

[Hydera]

Surprised its only 20% since opposition to SSM is quite vocal on the forums.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Yes, civil marriage between two consenting adults is a universal human right.  

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...

lol, churches are akin to private membership clubs under U.S. civil law and are not legally compelled to marry anyone, whether it be a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple that fails the pastor's marriage counseling (as my pastor does for any and all couples that come to him).

Religious institutions are not legally compelled to perform interfaith marriages or even interracial marriages. Our court system recognizes this broadly under the 10th Amendment and the State Actor clause.

Take your paranoia back to 2009 where it belongs.

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.

Please, please stop going down this path.

[TDAS04]

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.

Your ideal society is a terrible theocracy.  Your only basis for opposing SSM is your faith:  God says it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, and therefore, it is wrong.  No questions asked.  Never mind there is no other reason be believe that SSM is bad.  Never mind the tangible proof that it is the prohibition of SSM that results in harm to members of society.  Societies with the oppressive policies you advocate make the lives of gays and lesbians hell on earth (to which you'll probably reply, 'wait 'till they get to real hell!').  Adult policy makers who promote bigoted policies play a large role in the anti-gay bullying of youth, and thus, a high rate of suicide.

Why should youngsters struggling with their sexuality have to grow up knowing that they they're hated, that they're "sinners", that who they are is an "abomination"?  Why should gays live in a society that persecutes them and drives them to suicide because of your particular religious beliefs?

Anyway, I don't need to get too angry, since your viewpoint has lost out in the US.  Thank God the Supreme Court has sided with the American Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, and not with what you consider the "truth."

[Cassius]

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.

Well, you know, personally, I never really saw the need for the introduction of gay marriage - I felt the status quo was perfectly sufficient and that the introduction of gay marriage, and the debate surrounding that, was just another opportunity for all the usual suspects on the left-wing and anti-religious side of the spectrum to come crawling out of the woodwork and using the issue as a club with which to bludgeon, well, I guess religion, but more specifically Christianity. Basically gay marriage rocked the boat far more than I felt was warranted. Also the epic failure of the Churches to resist gay marriage has further highlighted their lamentable weakness in today's society, which doesn't exactly augur well for their future.

To cut a long story short, I felt the status quo was perfectly equitable, and I didn't like the people who were particularly... vociferous, in their support for gay marriage. But, that debate's in the past now and there's not much point trying to reverse it.

[Rockefeller GOP]

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.

Thank God for liberal Protestants.

[Torie]

Perhaps against my better judgment, let me interject here and posit a question. Suppose you think something is God's law, Biblical law, or whatever. When it comes to enacting secular laws based on that, is there any need at all, to document that passing through "God's law" into secular statutes is actually beneficial to society based on actual data? And by beneficial, I mean beneficial to human society while here on earth, as opposed to what will get them into heaven. Or does that matter not at all?

The religious tenet group, and the folks who think the sacred belongs in church, and not in the public square, go round and round on this, with never any closure at all it seems. Thus my question. Because other than the issue as to what the ticket to heaven might or might not be for those of faith, if there is no need to have any data based evidence that what "God wants," also happens to be in a particular instance, good for human society documented by actual evidence, then the discussion really is at an end. The actual evidence, and the data, become wholly irrelevant, for those on the faith based side. And at that point, there really is nothing to discuss, other than perhaps whether someone has God's law right or not, and for those not Biblically inclined, like myself, the inclination is to then to want to immediately run out of the room, and shut the door.

If there is some burden of proof to adduce actual evidence and data, then why bring up the Bible at all,  becomes the question to me. It seems itself irrelevant. Sure, if you want, use the Bible to suggest what fruitful lines of study might be (good luck with that but whatever), because it was written by wise men perhaps, but one still needs to get down into the data trenches.

The amazing thing about gays, is that the less hostile the secular laws are in harassing them, the happier and more productive they seem to be, as assets to society. Fancy that. Who knew?

[TDAS04]

Also, by the way, what God do you refer to when you say "Thank God"?  Because it sure doesn't seem like the God of the Bible....

You probably won't believe me, but I do believe in the God of the Bible (though obviously not the same as you interpretation), and that is the Trinitarian God.  I am a liberal Protestant, and I've come to accept what a Lutheran (ELCA) pastor I know believes on theological questions.

Jesus clearly taught that we are to love others and not reject them, and that includes people who are different from us, even though that may seem to contradict many prior passages in the Bible that may appear to sanction the killing of gays, adulterers, others.  Also, a big part of my faith to fight for all who are persecuted, whether they are victims of racism or homophobia.   Yes, I believe that the God of the Bible wants all people, including gays, to be treated fairly in society.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a theological discussion, at least not on this board.  If you want to discuss religious issues, feel free to PM me.  Such a discussion could be civil, because I still respect you enough.  I don't think you're a "horrible person", even though I find what you say quite objectionable.

Perhaps against my better judgment, let me interject here and posit a question. Suppose you think something is God's law, Biblical law, or whatever. When it comes to enacting secular laws based on that, is there any need at all, to document that passing through "God's law" into secular statutes is actually beneficial to society based on actual data? And by beneficial, I mean beneficial to human society while here on earth, as opposed to what will get them into heaven. Or does that matter not at all?

The religious tenet group, and the folks who think the sacred belongs in church, and not in the public square, go round and round on this, with never any closure at all it seems. Thus my question. Because other than the issue as to what the ticket to heaven might or might not be for those of faith, if there is no need to have any data based evidence that what "God wants," also happens to be in a particular instance, good for human society documented by actual evidence, then the discussion really is at an end. The actual evidence, and the data, become wholly irrelevant, for those on the faith based side. And at that point, there really is nothing to discuss, other than perhaps whether someone has God's law right or not, and for those not Biblically inclined, like myself, the inclination is then to want to immediately run out of the room, and shut the door.

Fair point.  People are convinced that their religion is correct, and trying to counter that won't convince them.  There are people whose faith drives them to do far worse things than ban SSM, and they're convinced they're right.  I'm convinced God doesn't object to SSM, but I suppose I can't exactly prove that either in a factual sense.

It is still important that people who hold beliefs that would result in oppression don't achieve their aims in society, but it won't work to try to change their minds. 

[afleitch]

You seem to believe that being "gay" is immutable or unchangeable - I agree that certain desires are innate or inborn, but how that behavior manifests itself, in sexual activity, is absolutely controllable.

What has sexual activity got to do with this? I mean this in all seriousness. If you agree that certain desires are innate, then they have been placed there before they were born? So it's god's will that they have that inclination. An inclination is a persons urge to act, think or feel. If a person finds contentment through bonding with another person of the same sex in a mutual relationship with them, then what does whether or not they have sexual activity got to do with anything? Is your measure of worth of an opposite sex relationship based on their sexual activity primarily rather than what they provide each other emotionally? Why are you so carnal?

[This account no longer in use.]

In a perfect world, churches would authorize marriages, governments would authorize civil unions for adult couples. But there is not much mainstream support for that yet.

[pho]

Yes, because only recognizing straight marriages is discriminatory and it is impractical for the government to stop recognizing marriages altogether.

[Alcon]

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.

Are you actually going to tell me that you think arguments for same-sex marriage are based in secret antagonism toward God (which requires, in some cases, a secret belief in God), as opposed to sincerely-held, rationally-constructed opinions?  You're actually telling me you think I secretly believe in God, and I'm constructing this argument only because I hate God?

Putting aside how ridiculous that is, why does this stop you from defeating the arguments on merits?  Even if everyone who held a belief did so because of malicious intent -- which I doubt you really believe -- the argument still exists independently on its own merits.  If you can't argue against it on merit, how can you reject it?

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.

How is that, in any way, substantively different than a theocracy?

I wrote before that I am not fan of civil marriages. As I am Catholic and I consider marriage only as sacramental one I think all I wrote is enough argument for me. (and it is never too late for the whole society to become Catholic *wink*)
Also I don't really want to continue this discussion, just wanted to answer Grad Students are the Worst just to not be rude as he wrote long post and I wanted to clarify the misunderstanding. Usually discussions between opponents and proponents of SSM ends up with nothing, I've never met anyone who would change his mind in the Internet discussion about such issues, also I don't really want to persuade anyone and I guess no one will be able to persuade me to change my oppinion.  

Typical Internet discussion about SSM:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I guess that I will finish there and risk being "smashed by trillions of arguments in the Internet discussion and not answering on them".

Our conversation is nothing like that, so why are you terminating it?

You didn't answer me at all.  I don't see any answer to my question about whether you're willing to superimpose your theological views and personal preferences on marriage on others, and why you think that's acceptable.  You basically told me "no one changes their opinion on this topic, so I'm not going to bother discussing this further."  First of all, that's obviously untrue -- plenty of people have changed their opinions on this topic, many recently, and I've personally changed several people's opinions.

Second, it wouldn't matter if it's true.  It's unreasonable, crappy behavior that you shouldn't engage in, no matter how common it is.  If your opinion doesn't make as much sense as another one -- if you can't provide a more compelling argument than your opponents -- you should change your opinion.  Period.  Even if you were the only person in the world who does this, everyone else's failure to be reasonable wouldn't justify your failure to be reasonable.  The fact that other people are even more loudly unreasonable doesn't mean your non-engagement is reasonable.  You are doing the same behavior as the people you're mocking, just with more veneer of intellectual honesty.

I've changed my opinions when presented with more compelling arguments before, so stop pretending like this is some logical impossibility.  You know it isn't.

[DavidB.]

Well, you know, personally, I never really saw the need for the introduction of gay marriage - I felt the status quo was perfectly sufficient and that the introduction of gay marriage, and the debate surrounding that, was just another opportunity for all the usual suspects on the left-wing and anti-religious side of the spectrum to come crawling out of the woodwork and using the issue as a club with which to bludgeon, well, I guess religion, but more specifically Christianity.

You know, I very much agree with this. If there's anything annoying in politics in 2016, it's the anti-religious brigade that finds it problematic to have any references to religion in any official document, et cetera. In the Netherlands, politicians often say they want religion to "stay behind the front door", which, in my opinion, is a horribly intolerant view.

However, I still feel your argument is intellectually dishonest because it is not related to the merits of this specific policy initiative. Let me just say that I normally do not side with the "it is 2016 / progress because progress" argumentum ad novitatem crowd. I just think it isn't the government's right to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples. SSM isn't good "because it's 2016" and it's also not bad because "tradition" -- it is good because governments should not discriminate. All the nonsense that surrounds the debate regarding SSM does not change the policy's merit.

[Alcon]

^

Sorry, Cassius, I missed your point, but I fully agree with DavidB.  I'm not religious, and I agree that there are a lot of folks on the left who use it as a cultural bludgeon -- people can be politically tribal.  But there are distasteful people who oppose same-sex marriage because they genuinely do not like gay people and want them to feel inferior.  Both sides of this debate have their tribal jerks.  Even if only one side did, I don't think that's really relevant to which public policy is more reasonable.  If we never supported positions that are supported by some people who are knee-jerk idiots, we wouldn't take any political positions ever .

I'm also agreed with David on the other point.  It's not "perfectly equitable," any more than the ban on interracial marriage was "perfectly equitable."  It's the arbitrary exclusion of people who sincerely love each other and want commitment and stability, without a compelling public policy reason for the exclusion.  It's not reasonable nor right.

[Figueira]

RFayette, how exactly do you know what God wants?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

In a perfect world, churches would authorize marriages, governments would authorize civil unions for adult couples. But there is not much mainstream support for that yet.

...? I don't think you understand how marriage works right now. Marriage ceremonies are performed by churches. Marriage licenses are also issued by the government. Unless you're one of those "don't call it marriage" people? Becauase that's just dumb semantics.

[DavidB.]

In a perfect world, churches would authorize marriages, governments would authorize civil unions for adult couples. But there is not much mainstream support for that yet.

...? I don't think you understand how marriage works right now. Marriage ceremonies are performed by churches. Marriage licenses are also issued by the government. Unless you're one of those "don't call it marriage" people? Becauase that's just dumb semantics.

He means that civil marriage should be abolished. That isn't such a strange view.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I was going to voice ironic support against it based on Torie's political correctness that so many of them seem to advocate, but this thread is such a disaster, I can't even bring myself to do that 8 hours later. My heavens...


Humans of New York is probably the last place I go for political opinions, but yesterday brought a really good one. A gays evolving view on Christianity:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mike Thick]

Yes. I honestly don't care, as long as it's two humans of legal contract age.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

In a perfect world, churches would authorize marriages, governments would authorize civil unions for adult couples. But there is not much mainstream support for that yet.

...? I don't think you understand how marriage works right now. Marriage ceremonies are performed by churches. Marriage licenses are also issued by the government. Unless you're one of those "don't call it marriage" people? Becauase that's just dumb semantics.

He means that civil marriage should be abolished. That isn't such a strange view.

Ah, but he said the government should authorize civil unions.

So two paths I'm seeing here are: 1.) this is simply changing to word "marriage" to "union", and if the benefits are equal, it's the stupid semantics game, and this will go nowhere in the U.S.,

or 2.) if the benefits are not equal, it will then be stripping a group of rights already granted, which is a.) unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment AFAIK, and b.) not going anywhere

[RFayette]

RFayette, how exactly do you know what God wants?

God makes himself pretty clear in scripture on this issue.  And as an aside, people often try to pit Jesus against the Old Testament or Paul, but the fact is that the God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament.  When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah or sent down the flood from which only Noah & his family survived, Jesus was there at the right hand of the father in 100% approval.  Similarly, every word of the New Testament writers were written under the counsel of the Holy Spirit and thus can be considered Jesus's words with respect to doctrine.

As far as Alcon's points, I'll just say a couple things:
1.  You seem to be implying that the USA in the 1950's (when public schools taught the Bible, America was mostly Protestant, and Biblical values predominated) was a theocracy.  I simply would like a much greater Biblical influence (especially Calvinist) in our government, but that doesn't necessarily make it a theocracy at all.  1950's (and even more so earlier on) USA was still a constitutional republic, but there wasn't the same shunning of religion from the public square back then that there is now.  
2. I believe that atheism in general is a result of rebellion against God and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-19 ), so while a person.  I have no doubt that the devil is behind much of what we call "rational arguments" when it comes to transforming society away from Biblical values....just as the devil can quote scripture to deceive (Matthew 4:1-11), he can also use logic to pursue his anti-God agenda, and do so through his spiritual children (unbelievers, see James 4:4 & 1 John 3:8 ).  The atheist may sincerely believe he is arguing in good faith, but that doesn't change the fact that his arguments are doing the bidding of the devil.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Since I've been following politics all the way back to 4th grade, I've never been able to take a strong stance on this issue.  I've had gay friends and family who don't support SSM.  Their view is that they'd feel straight getting married.  They've created a culture of their own and are offended by straight people who go to gay events to show support because it's for gays not straights.  On the other hand everyone should have equal rights.  It's a very difficult decision.  If you follow the point of a marriage which is for a man and woman to raise a family then SSM doesn't make anymore sense than a square wheel.  Not everyone defines marriage this way though. This issue should be left up to the states as is ideal for most issues. I'm voting present.

[DavidB.]

I've had gay friends and family who don't support SSM.  Their view is that they'd feel straight getting married.

I assume they also want to ban food they themselves don't like.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It seems that soccons and berniebros alike have wildly inaccurate views on what America was like in the 50's.