Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:15:47 PM
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 16923 times)
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: September 27, 2012, 11:34:06 PM »

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
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: September 29, 2012, 05:35:00 AM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: September 30, 2012, 08:28:10 AM »

Conservatives should really stop using the Bible as a moral shield for anything and everything.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: October 03, 2012, 07:46:05 PM »

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

That said, why are we making the government play dictionary in the first place?
Logged
Incipimus iterum
1236
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: October 03, 2012, 09:56:39 PM »

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: October 03, 2012, 09:59:42 PM »


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
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,063
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: October 03, 2012, 11:33:42 PM »


So do you support Civil Unions?
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: October 04, 2012, 08:16:44 AM »


...

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
danny
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,768
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: October 04, 2012, 02:43:47 PM »

Pro, and it is one of the easiest issues to decide for me.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: October 04, 2012, 03:02:12 PM »


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
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: October 05, 2012, 03:16:01 AM »


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
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: October 05, 2012, 07:21:00 AM »

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
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: October 05, 2012, 07:41:00 AM »

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
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: October 05, 2012, 09:08:49 AM »

Obviously it's unreasonable to define a civil contract based on the religious beliefs of some people.
Logged
Incipimus iterum
1236
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: October 05, 2012, 09:25:24 AM »

1.yes i support civil unions
2.im in favor of gay adoption rights and hospital visitation rights
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: October 05, 2012, 10:20:36 AM »

Pro but only because I'm genre savy.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: October 05, 2012, 10:47:54 AM »

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
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: October 05, 2012, 11:58:26 PM »
« Edited: October 06, 2012, 02:11:13 AM by Grad Students are the Worst »

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.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: October 06, 2012, 06:41:28 PM »

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
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: October 06, 2012, 07:12:56 PM »

But why the distinction?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: October 07, 2012, 01:10:27 AM »


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
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: October 07, 2012, 07:30:00 AM »


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
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: October 07, 2012, 07:33:55 AM »


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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: October 07, 2012, 06:52:16 PM »


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
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: October 07, 2012, 11:30:42 PM »


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.

It's not currently a religious term in this context.
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 0.064 seconds with 14 queries.