Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:36:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6
Poll
Question: Are you pro or anti gay marriage?
#1
Pro Gay Marriage
 
#2
Anti Gay Marriage
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 136

Author Topic: Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?  (Read 16916 times)
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2012, 09:04:31 AM »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Equating gay marriage with incest. What a wonderful position.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2012, 09:04:46 AM »
« Edited: August 11, 2012, 09:07:32 AM by The Mikado »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Nah, support for sibling incest and polygamous marriage falls under "Defense of Traditional Marriage."  They're as traditional as it gets.

EDIT:  just finished reading a book about 18th-19th century Hawaii.  Pretty hilarious to watch the islanders defend their idea of traditional marriage (sibling incest) against the wave of Christian missionaries.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2012, 09:13:37 AM »
« Edited: August 11, 2012, 09:32:02 AM by Mideast Governor ZuWo »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Equating gay marriage with incest. What a wonderful position.

Don't avoid answering the question. We can't speak of "marriage equality" if heterosexual and homosexual couples can marry but other people are excluded from the right to enter a civil union/get married. It's not logical.

For the record, Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School, put forward a similar argument. It's a significant legal question which should not be discarded by attacks on people who make such comparisons.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2012, 10:10:50 AM »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2012, 10:12:40 AM »

As a serious answer, polygamy leads to dicey questions regarding custody rights in divorce, inheritance, and all those other things.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2012, 10:15:26 AM »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2012, 11:51:44 AM »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

Bit of gymnastics there if you ask me. Man loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. Man loves man or woman loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. That is marriage equality by definition is it not? I've just filled out my registration forms for my civil parternship; it tells me precisely who I'm allowed to have the partnership with and who I can't. At present we allow people with heterosexual attractions under certain circumstances to marry each other. What is unequal is that people with homosexual attractions cannot because their attraction is to the same sex. Changing that = marriage equality. What has has incest or polygamy got to do with it?
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2012, 12:00:41 PM »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

Bit of gymnastics there if you ask me. Man loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. Man loves man or woman loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. That is marriage equality by definition is it not? I've just filled out my registration forms for my civil parternship; it tells me precisely who I'm allowed to have the partnership with and who I can't. At present we allow people with heterosexual attractions under certain circumstances to marry each other. What is unequal is that people with homosexual attractions cannot because their attraction is to the same sex. Changing that = marriage equality. What has has incest or polygamy got to do with it?

The answer to your question is very simple: Despite the fact that incestuous and polygamous relationships have a long history - just like same-sex relationships - people who engage in these kinds of relationships still can't marry the people of their choice and are hardly ever mentioned even by proponents of gay marriage. This is a case of inequal treatment which does not change even if we introduce gay marriage across the board. I repeat: There is no "marriage equality" unless this changes and all forms or marriage are made legal, that's why the term "marriage equality" exclusively used in the context of same-sex relationships is odd.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2012, 12:25:12 PM »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Nah, support for sibling incest and polygamous marriage falls under "Defense of Traditional Marriage."  They're as traditional as it gets.

EDIT:  just finished reading a book about 18th-19th century Hawaii.  Pretty hilarious to watch the islanders defend their idea of traditional marriage (sibling incest) against the wave of Christian missionaries.

That was all you needed to say....

Anyway, my position is that I'm not hugely in favour of marriage, like the military and so recently I've become very disappointed in the gays.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2012, 01:01:35 PM »

I take offense to those who are against it.
Logged
Rhodie
Rookie
**
Posts: 245
South Africa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2012, 02:21:39 PM »

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2012, 02:25:09 PM »

I take offense to those who are against it.

lol
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2012, 03:34:09 PM »

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,146
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2012, 04:01:48 PM »
« Edited: August 12, 2012, 07:11:25 PM by Yelnoc »


I'm reminded of a white man in the south of the 60s laughing away the notion that blacks might be equal.

Perhaps you think Holmes is "uppity"?


EDIT, Context:

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/
Yeah, I was scrolling and attributed the "lol" to Rhodie.  Sorry Supersonic.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2012, 04:05:19 PM »


I'm reminded of a white man in the south Rhodesia of the 60s laughing away the notion that blacks might be equal.

Perhaps you think Holmes is "uppity"?

Corrected.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2012, 04:46:57 PM »

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2012, 04:50:43 PM »

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2012, 07:55:20 PM »

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?
So do you take it personally, or do you just resent them because they are keeping you from getting married? 
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2012, 09:26:46 PM »

Pro-gay marriage, of course.

While there may be some legitimacy in comparing legalize gay marriages to incestuous marriages, polygamy is not at all analogous. Simply involving more than 2 people does make bureaucratic difficulty, if nothing else. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is like saying that a whites-only restaurant with a capacity limit of 40 people, if required to serve blacks, would also be required to hold more than 40 people.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2012, 09:41:40 PM »

Pro gay marriage and those who deny it will happen in our lifetimes are kidding themselves. It will be nationally legal for homosexuals to marry before we die. Get out of the way, opponents, the train's coming and you don't want it to run your ass over.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2012, 11:18:50 PM »

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?
So do you take it personally, or do you just resent them because they are keeping you from getting married? 

It's both, but they're both rather tied together. Although I'm able to get married where I live, my boyfriend's home state wouldn't recognize it, and the US federal government wouldn't either.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2012, 11:44:41 PM »

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Sadly I'm just a good, old fashioned, straight laced conservative. I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial, and thus I don't think its in our power, or that it is our right to change that.

It's clearly within our power to change it - we people of today write the laws of today. It's also clearly within our right to change it - we people of today do not have to be bound by the practices of our ancestors. A tradition is good or bad on its merits, not on the basis that it is a tradition.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2012, 11:58:25 PM »

Pro gay marriage and those who deny it will happen in our lifetimes are kidding themselves. It will be nationally legal for homosexuals to marry before we die.

Someone's optimistic about his longevity.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2012, 02:31:46 AM »

Where's the oxymoron option?

Both sides are idiots on this issue. Liberal civil rights advocates ought to be questioning why couples with a marital license from the state should receive special treatment in the first place, while conservative traditionalists ought to be questioning why the state is serving the role of Merriam-Webster on the subject in the first place.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,146
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2012, 07:10:25 PM »

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/
Yeah, I was scrolling and attributed the "lol" to Rhodie.  Sorry Supersonic.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 14 queries.