User Tag List

View Poll Results: Gay marriage rights

Voters
170. You may not vote on this poll
  • Should be given

    158 92.94%
  • Should not be given

    9 5.29%
  • Could tolerate gay couples, but can't tolerate gay marriages

    9 5.29%
  • Can't tolerate gay marriages or couples

    3 1.76%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 2101112131422 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 591

  1. #111
    You're fired. Lol. Antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Gays have this right. Noibody prevent him to create their own church and own institutions wich consider their couples as marriage. Or to build a casino in Las Vegas where the winner can marry with a person of the same sex, and wear a white dress.
    There are a number of legal benefits they are missing out on. And there lies the problem of not having 'equal rights'.
    Excuse me, but does this smell like chloroform to you?

    Always reserve the right to become smarter at a future point in time, for only a fool limits themselves to all they knew in the past. -Alex

  2. #112
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Why "must" marriage encompass one man and one woman? And before you use breeding as an excuse, there are more than enough infertile couples and couples who don't want children, who are allowed to and do marry.
    Indeed, marriage is not union only between two peoples, but between two family and to force each member of the family and the couple to recognize the couple's children as natural children. Gays can't have natural children, so gay marriage is a non-sense. Sterile heterosexual still can marry because their setrility is implicit and that nothing force them to tell their sterility loudly. While men in a same sex marriage are explicitly men. A man can marry with a menopausal woman for the same reason.

    It's not the job of the state to promote discrimination and violate human rights.
    Where's the discrimination? And gays are as free than heterosexual, despite LGBT bother us with their fucking whining.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  3. #113
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Please. It's obvious we've been discussing the legal privileges that come with marriage, not whether someone can get married in their church and have it recognized by the church.
    I said it, and I repeat, I'm in favor of legal advantage in civil union.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  4. #114
    You're fired. Lol. Antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    I said it, and I repeat, I'm in favor of legal advantage in civil union.
    Why not just let them get married?
    Excuse me, but does this smell like chloroform to you?

    Always reserve the right to become smarter at a future point in time, for only a fool limits themselves to all they knew in the past. -Alex

  5. #115
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antimony View Post
    That is extremely interesting. Do transsexuals not pose as much of a problem as those who are for gay marriage? Or are there just more for gay marriage, pushing the state? How many states actually recognize a gender change?
    The vast majority of states now do recognize gender change on some level, and it's become far easier (with procedures actually being established, even dedicated state forms) to change gender on license and/or birth certificate. Even the State Department will change gender flags on a passport if a licensed doctor writes a letter in the proper format validating that such a transition has occurred.

    Passports and driver's licenses can typically be changed as long as a hormonal transition has occurred and been medically verified; bottom surgery is not required for these documents. Birth certificates can typically only be changed when someone has had genital surgery. Most states seal the old birth certificate and change the gender on the public one; for all intents and purposes to anyone else, the person is legally their birth gender, but the states still have record of the originally prescribed gender, sealed.

    Getting back to the marriage issue: The gender used for marriage is typically taken from the birth certificate. So most states even if they prohibit same-sex marriage will still marry a post-op transsexual (with their new gender) to a person of the current OTHER gender. However, there are a few states (I think Ohio, Texas, and Tennessee) who have not allowed transsexuals to change their birth certificate gender, hence they cannot marry someone of their now-current opposite gender. They could only legally marry someone who has the same anatomy they do. Fun fun fun. So they look gay, but the state says they're straight.

    My personal impression is that people who are against same-sex marriage have less issue with two people being married who STILL RESEMBLE a het relationship. As long as there's a man and a woman involved, and they follow the typical patterns of social gender roles, in practical daily life people don't really care. There's a live and let live approach in that context. However, the hardliners, with only an abstract (rather than tangible) connection to the people involved, will still try to prohibit those kind of marriages as well as oppose the changing of legal documentation for transsexuals.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #116
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    I said it, and I repeat, I'm in favor of legal advantage in civil union.
    I think that's fair if there is no such thing as "legal marriage" and both opposite-gender and same-gender couples are granted civil unions with the same rights.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #117
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Indeed, marriage is not union only between two peoples, but between two family and to force each member of the family and the couple to recognize the couple's children as natural children. Gays can't have natural children, so gay marriage is a non-sense. Sterile heterosexual still can marry because their setrility is implicit and that nothing force them to tell their sterility loudly. While men in a same sex marriage are explicitly men. A man can marry with a menopausal woman for the same reason.
    This doesn't explain anything, is irrational and steeped in belief, rather than looking at the topic in an objective fashion. Either marriage includes willing and wanting breeders or it encompasses all consenting human adults. Restating your beliefs isn't a valid argument. Btw, where did your beliefs come from?
    Where's the discrimination? And gays are as free than heterosexual, despite LGBT bother us with their fucking whining.
    The discrimination is not having the same laws for all people. This is the definition of legal discrimination.

  8. #118
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think that's fair if there is no such thing as "legal marriage" and both opposite-gender and same-gender couples are granted civil unions with the same rights.
    This would also be nondiscriminatory since it provides equal rights to everyone, regardless of their irrelevant sexual preferences.

  9. #119
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eternaltriangle View Post
    Its not just for promoting procreation. If you wanted to do that, you would just subsidize childbirth directly. The problem with just subsidizing childbirth is that it is better for babies to be raised in two-parent homes. The objective is procreation AND marriage jointly. Most of the other purposes of marriage (eg. hospital visitation rights, inheritance) can be accomplished through contracts.

    Wrong metric. The choice before the government is: which groups to subsidize?Dollar for dollar, you are going to get more babies subsidizing those groups with a higher % likelihood of having kids. The raw amount of wasted subsidies for gay couples is only lower because they represent a very small percentage of the population. By that logic it would make sense to subsidize male Puerto Rican widows because - even though almost none would have babies, the amount of wasted subsidies would be small (because there are few widows).
    Again, though, the assumption is that marriage is somehow instrumental to the state; that it is a means to the end of producing optimum child-rearing outcomes. It is not self-evident that this is the case, and even if it was, (1) the means would not justify the end IF the means included discrimination against gays, and (2) gay couples are also capable of producing the desired outcome anyway, even if in fewer numbers. The point about subsidizing male Puerto Rican widows would only hold if it were the case that the state uses marriage as a means and must therefore strategize how best to allocate its resources to achieve a particular end (though I get your point that, taken alone, my previous argument that the state wastes more money on infertile couples than gay couples, therefore gay couples should be allowed to marry is not sound. I merely meant it as an illustration that the principle of the procreation-marriage tie is, on its face, inconsistent.)

    Quote Originally Posted by eternaltriangle View Post
    Again, the goal is not just procreation, but procreation in a family setting. Infertility is administratively impossible to measure, and something of an uncertain thing anyway. What is more, by your numbers, it is not a significant problem for straight married couples. With 2 million infertile/59 million married couples = 3.3% of the population.
    I don't think this matters if the distinction between straight and gay couples is being made strictly on the grounds of biological ability to procreate (I'm assuming that the "family setting" bit is common to both straight and gay couples, so I don't mention it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by eternaltriangle View Post
    This is untrue. A number of states have ruled that same-sex partners are legally bound to pay child support.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/05/...child-support/
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4811333

    What is more, you presume that the only way to prevent gay parents from not paying child support is to legalize gay marriage. As the rulings in New York and California illustrate, that is not necessary.
    True, but I don't think those rulings in the cases that you linked were fair precisely because there was no legal marital contract binding the parent to the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by eternaltriangle View Post
    The core weakness of the procreation argument to me is the smallness of "subsidy". Even if people buy the premise of the argument, its not clear that they will care.
    Yeah, like I mentioned before, its "smallness," as you say, makes the entire argument smack of post-hoc rationalization for a previously (and irrationally) embedded cultural belief about the wrongness of gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by eternaltriangle View Post
    The slippery slope argument is a terrible one. Pedophilia and bestiality are not comparable to gay marriage because they involve issues of consent. Minors can't consent legally, while animals can't biologically, so its an entirely different kettle of fish.

    Plural marriage is closer, but then the argument requires somebody to believe that plural marriage is wrong. I can't think of any legitimate arguments why it is, assuming it takes place between consenting adults. People typically associate plural marriages with female oppression (thinking about renegade mormon communities or muslims), but there is no reason it has to be. What is more, as renegade mormon communities show - de facto plural relationships happen anyway. Legalizing polygamy would give all members in such relationship legal recourse with which to defend their rights.
    Agreed, it is a terrible argument. I still think it's more intractable, though, than the procreation/subsidy argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    Honestly... Sometimes I feel a bit like Don Quixote.
    Holding on to chivalry is something utterly lost to you lot.
    No matter what I say or do, you will not change your ways.
    Until media starts talking you into becoming conservatives...
    The people affected by Mob Mentality™ (yes, you) will be... "Liberal" until someone tells you what to do through suggestion over time.
    This thing is like a sine wave, and we'll probably be somewhere else entirely in thirty years or so.
    I think this is because a lot, even a majority of people, lack an inner compass.
    Or rather the combination of strong feeling and morals imprinted and learned through experience and feeling.
    They (you) do not see things for how they truly are, but are told what is what by your peers.
    Right now, among young people, this crap is not wrong...
    But there used to be a death sentence attached to it. While that is harsh, indeed, I am one of those who thinks, feels and knows, with my whole heart, that this is wrong.
    It is a twisted and sick thing that should be confined to the shadows and not see the light of day, like many other nasty sexual orientations (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia etc.).

    Now, this does not mean that I hate any or all gay people. I pity the poor bastards that they weren't born right in the head, or were made such by their environment.
    Not sure it can even be "cured", since that doesn't seem to help with any other sexual orientation, either. So I guess it must exist, but it does not mean that it is good.
    Many other unhealthy variations of behavior exist, as well. Some of them are punished while others have been commercialized and forced upon people by liberal media and immoral politicians.

    No, screw this. I hate thinking about it, because I feel like i'm trying to fight the tide with a willow switch. Or windmills...


    I voted: "Should not be given" and "Could tolerate gay couples(in secret, unofficially), but can't tolerate gay marriages(since it is neither normal or could ever be equal to the holy sanctity of marriage)".
    I don't care if this counts as "flaming"; you, sir, are a complete moron.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  10. #120
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antimony View Post
    Why not just let them get married?
    Because marriage is not only about unify two people, but to unify two family and recognise the couple's children as natural children. Gays can't have natural children, so gay marriage is a non-sense. Plus, if we allow two men to be married, why not allow three men? The argument "it's a discrimination to not allow..." is endless. I don't mind if three men and two men live in the same house, fuck together and adopt children, but at the same time, a society need some landmark, and one of thoses landmark is that we can't call such type of union as marriage.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

Similar Threads

  1. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Climbs to New High
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 10:43 PM
  2. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  3. Same-Sex Marriage
    By metaphours in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 07:52 AM
  4. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
    By ez78705 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO