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 234561454 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 591

  1. #31
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady X View Post
    someone posted something funny on facebook about how stupid it is that it's even called "gay" marriage....because it's not like they get in their gay car and go gay park to go to a gay lunch...etc etc...marriage is marriage and the mere fact there has to be a distinction between the gay and non gay variety of marriage makes me feel like i'm living with a bunch of fucking cave people.
    +1

  2. #32
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Luna: The whole reason there's a big fuss in the first place is that many feel marriage was something invented by religion, so they cannot be distinguished. While this may or may not be the case, marriage now-a-days has evolved past religion. If no benefits came other than people knowing you're married under God, I don't know if gays would do anything more than start their own churches and seek protection. As it stands, the state has to recognize the marriage, the tax payers are treated differently, and the slew of other things that happen based on marriage is what blurs the lines so much.
    Well, judging by the poll, this is mainly talking about the issue of rights, which is why I think it's important to talk about this as this thing called "marriage" as the law calls it (whether or not they should look for a new word for it or not). Because part of the opposing opinion seems to say that gay marriage is simply impossible because the union isn't validated by a higher power and society at large, and social/spiritual marriage is defined by this validation. But that has nothing to say of this legal concept that is perhaps erroneously called "marriage."

    The second part of this is usually about the Federal/State issue (which seems to be very tangled, so I won't pretend I have it all sorted out enough to comment on specifics). So perhaps rather than asking whether the rights should be given, we should instead ask whether or not there should be anything in the law forbidding the granting of these rights in the first place.

  3. #33
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont believe its within the gift of government to change the fundamental character of enduring social insititutions which have organically evolved or emerged to serve society.
    So I take it you're against democracy and individual rights? Because, after all, because of the Enlightenment and science and even a touch of Romanticism, the governments of France, the United States, and eventually other countries became more focused on the rights of the individual and the rights of the people...and in a similar vein, because of modern sociology and science, we've discovered that homosexuality occurs naturally in varying aspects of the animal kingdom and is in many cases present at birth (due to genes or hormonal conditions in the womb) so it's in alignment with democracy and the Enlightenment that the government would help to establish these new social constructs.

    You can't just pick and choose what suits you and doesn't suit you. If you're against the government allowing gay marriage, perhaps you're also a fan of going back to kingdoms, duchies, and serfdom.

  4. #34
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    No. If society changes, it changes, and the state have not to encourage it to change and not to prevent that change either. It has nothing to do.
    I'm sure civil rights activists totally agree with you on this one. But I'll still say that, once upon a time, women weren't allowed to vote in the US. If it weren't for that little ol'e amendment, we'd still not have the right, whether we all thought women should vote or not. It is the laws that need changing in order for people to be allowed to do things like this.

    Debatable. It's above all a liberal movement, tons of homo sexual don't give a damn about marriage and don't think gay marriage should be given.
    Common sense tells me if there's more debate and organization about it than ever before, it means the demand is going up for it. You don't hear many laws on TV about goats being marriage-material. I'm not an expert though, and I don't have any statistics to prove me right, so yes, it is debatable in that context.

    The mindset could move from diverse to christian oriented again, and I don't think you would agree to change the law according to that mindset in this case. The mindset of society does'nt matter, if the mindset of society had really changed, gay marriage would have risen spontaneously without the help of the state. But it did'nt happen.
    Would I personally agree? No. But not because I wouldn't support christian-based law. The law has evolved to include the protection and equality of minorities of many groups--and I think changing that would be a step backwards for society as a whole.

    So what? If you don't share the convctions of the club, you are not member of the club, that's all. It's not an affect to your freedom and nobody prevent you to create your own club.
    Anyone who thinks their 'group' is safe from those laws and mentalities are ducks in water. There are still people who believe white privilage doesn't damage white people, just minorities. It's a grave mistake to make. Anything that takes away the rights of a minority group affects the majority group, no doubt about that. Just because it hasn't happened yet, or to a particular person, doesn't mean the consequences aren't there.

    The revendication for gay marriage is essentially a whim of rich.
    The rich could afford to live as couples without the benefits of the laws at their side. It is the regular, working-class people that are affected most. It is the difference between money for your spouse while you're overseas in the military. It's the difference between taxes and tax break benefits. You can't just "give gays tax breaks". "Couples" break up and get together every second of every day. People would ALL have a "spouse" come tax season if marriage wasn't the qualifying term. It's the difference between covering your loved one under your insurance policies, giving them rights in hospitals and court rooms, and giving them the things you want to give them when you pass on.

    There's a lot that the "marriage" term comes with. It's not a light issue that rich people teeter around on while sipping tea and giggling at monkeys in silly suits.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  5. #35
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    I have completely lost my tolerance for both gay marriages and for gay people in general because of these done-to-death threads.

  6. #36
    @.~*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 Lark View Post
    That wasnt what I was meaning.
    I didn't even quote your post and wasn't even responding to you, so I'm not sure why you are clarifying yourself to me.

    Just clarifying because reading your post it could have appeared that what I meant was that conditions were too backward to permit something which would be possible.

    That's not what I meant.

    What I meant, although I've said it plenty of times before when the "why cant everyone stop being meanies tendency" posts about their magical expectations of government is that what's expected is impossible.

    The government may as well decree that gravity only applies on certain days of the week, its not going to change when gravity objectively applies.
    Legislation is not magic, and people need to have realistic expectations. Thanks for clarifying that. Maybe it would good to clarify why you believe that why gay marriage being valid is equivalent to the reality of gravity, since that's quite the stretch. In the last ten years, even freaking Nebraska (a very conservative state) has had opposition to gay marriage drop from 70% to 52%. Give it another ten years.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ü View Post
    I have completely lost my tolerance for both gay marriages and for gay people in general because of these done-to-death threads.
    So now you're basically going to choose what you believe based on a kneejerk emotional reaction to someone else's expression of belief? Apparently you never believed in gay marriage and accepted gay people to start with, then. I've been tired of the topic for some time but it doesn't change what I believe regardless of how annoying I find some people.

    @Lady X so far captured a lot of it for me... it's marriage, whether it's straight or gay. Gay people don't have gay families, don't go on gay vacations, don't work gay jobs, don't drive gay cars, and don't live in gay houses. Non-substantial labels are so stultifying.
    "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. #37
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    As I said, gays are ever allowed to marry if it is that they want.

    It's not the mission of the state to marry gay couples, end of the question.
    I'm a bit confused. The state marries biomale-biofemale couples. So you're saying same sex couples can be married in the eyes of society but not the state?

    Why not?

    Riva's question was talking about legal state-sanctioned marriage.

    Men and women can also get 'fake married' in a ceremony but until the state validates it, it's not considered 'real'. Why would same sex couples feel satisfied with a 'non real' marriage?

    There are many legal rights and benefits of marriage including the right to see your spouse when they are in the hospital, tax breaks, and inheritance rights.

    Many companies in the US offer 'domestic partner benefits' regardless of whether this person is your married spouse or live-in boyfriend/girlfriend but there have been some high profile lawsuits/cases showing how NOTHING synthetic that companies and states have tried to come up with in lieu of outright marriage is as cohesive, legally binding, and basically guaranteed at protecting the rights of "gay unions" as good old fashion state sanctioned marriage.
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    Governments shouldn't entitle rights to one group of people while restraining those same rights from another group of people based of rigid discrimination that originated from a religious idealogy (especially a set of rights that grant people social and economic benefits); that's both an unfair an impratical use of what the government is suppose to do: ensure the rights and liberties of individuals. So yes, the gay marraige rights should be given via the government, that's it's essentially duty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Gay marriages are ever allowed. It's simply not the mission of the state to marry gay couples. Just let them create their church or something and let them be married that way if it's what they like.
    Um, no, gay marraige isn't 'ever allowed', in most states it's not legal nor officially recognized by the government. Nor can gays just create their own marraige institutions and marry legally, otherwise they would have done so ages ago. The whole reason for why the rights should be given via the government is because currently they don't exist.

    I'm favorable to tax relief for gay couple on the other side.
    Why?

  9. #39
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ü View Post
    I have completely lost my tolerance for both gay marriages and for gay people in general because of these done-to-death threads.
    That's a mature way to make an ethical decision.

  10. #40
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    Governments shouldn't entitle rights to one group of people while restraining those same rights from another group of people based of rigid discrimination that originated from a religious idealogy (especially a set of rights that grant people social and economic benefits); that's both an unfair an impratical use of what the government is suppose to do: ensure the rights and liberties of individuals. So yes, the gay marraige rights should be given via the government, that's it's essentially duty.



    Um, no, gay marraige isn't 'ever allowed', in most states it's not legal nor officially recognized by the government. Nor can gays just create their own marraige institutions and marry legally, otherwise they would have done so ages ago. The whole reason for why the rights should be given via the government is because currently they don't exist.



    Why?
    He's rabidly anarchist. The trick here is that he doesn't believe the government should be doing anything.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

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