User Tag List

View Poll Results: Gay Marriage - Yes or no?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    67 93.06%
  • No

    7 9.72%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 245

  1. #41
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I've never really understood why people want to be married in churches that they don't actively worship in/have fellowship with. I don't think churches should be forced to perform any ceremonies by law, the very idea makes my teeth hurt. At the same time, I know that many churches considered it anathema to marry an interracial couple, and I'm not sure how the law has responded to that (if at all).
    Well the tricky bit is that the one who performs the union plays an important role and part of that role is actually determining if the union is suitable - otherwise there is no point to having a third party recognize the union. They're there for a reason.

    However, some may take this too far, so it's also important to be able to go elsewhere for a second opinion as it were and not be restricted from doing so by the state. Otherwise you may as well just send a form through the mail... or go stand in line as if you're applying for food stamps or something.

  2. #42
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Like metalmommy, I was raised Christian. I still consider myself Christian and am attending a church that is considered fundamentalist by people who do not call themselves Fundamentalist. The pastor knows my views on gay marriage, etc but he kind of has to put up with me because I'm his sister.

    I'd like to see marriage taken out of the hands of the state and left in the hands of the church. Churches that want to preform gay ceremonies and recognize gay marriages can. Churches that don't want to don't have to.

    I think the state should offer civil unions for secular purposes. Gender shouldn't matter since it's a secular, voluntary legal agreement. It should offer the same protections and responsibilities as marriage does now. I don't even care how many people are in the union. I mean, you would probably have to limit it for practical purposes, but otherwise, who cares?

    We also ought to adress legal rights/responsibilities for those who cohabit without getting married, IMO. People should be able to opt out voluntarily formally and legally. But not *after* the shit hits the fan.

    Since I don't think anything that sensible is likely to happen, I am in favor of gay marriage.
    and you just voiced my views there!

    also, on another note, once went to a Unitarian gay wedding in college... we were all told to bring zima it was a total blast! an odd combination of church, political statement, love and FUN! last I knew they're still together 9 years later as well...
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  3. #43
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I've never really understood why people want to be married in churches that they don't actively worship in/have fellowship with. I don't think churches should be forced to perform any ceremonies by law, the very idea makes my teeth hurt. At the same time, I know that many churches considered it anathema to marry an interracial couple, and I'm not sure how the law has responded to that (if at all).
    In the US, church being forced to marry anyone is a total non-issue. Even for heterosexual marriage, churches (like the Catholic church) have their own criteria for who they will marry and recognize as married or divorced.

    Complications ensue when religious organizations take government funds (such as when they run charity programs that take federal funds): then they have to follow appropriate hiring and non-discrimination laws. Still, those laws cover their behavior as employers or government service providers, not churches. Additionally, religious organizations that use public spaces to offer various kinds of services may also have to comply with the appropriate laws. Again, they are not singled out as churches, but merely have to comply with the laws that any group offering services there would have to follow. There are also various laws covering those who offer public accommodations that may come into effect (laws that govern hotels, restaurants, transportation services, etc).

    The government in the US is not forcing any church to marry gay people or recognize them as married... just as it doesn't force the Catholic church to marry particular straight couples or recognize other straight couples as divorced. In the US churches are also free to racially discriminate when it comes to marriage, and even as employers may discriminate if the employee performs a religious function.

    There is, of course, the mostly separate issue of those who don't attend church wanting a church wedding, and how congregations respond to that wish.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The deeply tyrannical behavour you're attributing to heterosexuals is actually what is feeding the attempt to change the nature of marriage.
    Yes......How is that ironic?

  5. #45
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Also @Lark

    The argument that gay people deal with rejection and therefore we shouldn't encourage being gay I think doesn't make sense. I know gay people whose orientation was received well by family and friends. I don't think the anecdotal evidence yields much.

  6. #46
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    ...Will it neutralise that zeitgheist or provide the sort of validation or inclusion within a homogenous understanding of equality which superficially appears to be the demand? I doubt it. Will that zeitgheist move on and manifest itself in some other way, perhaps manadatory schooling of young children in homoseuxal lifestyles or habits? I'm sure it will. Would that even be a problem if it happened? Yes it would because historically and presently homosexuals are a minority and there is no evidence to suggest that is changing so all it will achieve is that many more people will share the confusion, distress and unhappy state which was once the preserve of "closetted homosexuals" but they will be heterosexuals aswell homosexuals. The position of society at large will then be more miserable than it was in the first instance and the position of homosexuals liable to be even more miserable if a backlash occurs blaming them all for it.
    What do you mean by "mandatory schooling of young children in homosexual lifestyles or habits"? Do you mean as included as part of sex education? What are you envisioning and where does your certainty come from on that topic?

    It was not long ago, actually the generation of my mother, which was schooled in such concepts as:
    Quote Originally Posted by goodhousekeeping
    Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.

    Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through at work.

    Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.

    A good wife always knows her place.
    Marriage has a long tradition of facilitating sexual immorality based on the dehumanization of one gender, but of a kind that was acceptable in society. We like to propose that this reasoning is all in the past, but a cursory survey of the race and gender of those in positions of highest power in society clarifies that society is still based on a strong sense of hierarchy. When viewing the larger tradition of marriage, it is hardly possible to make it less moral, less psychologically healthy, when considering all of its manifestations.

    What the legalization of gay marriage does is to redefine marriage as a partnership between equals. Regardless of a person's belief about gender equality or the immorality of equality, pairing two men or two women defines that marriage has the capacity to be a union between equals. It is true that this is fundamentally different than the long held tradition of marriage and will change underlying assumptions on a deep level. It is no wonder it is such a controversy.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  7. #47
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Well, i think the psychological dysfunctionality a few are crediting with being gay is actually a result a form of PTSD and/or the typical anxieties and complexes that occur when someone has been abused, abandoned by loved ones, or treated as less than human.

    There's a range of response to such scenarios since personality types differ (as well as degrees of personal resilience), but if you examine the behaviors you're complaining about, they show up in people of any preference where such scenarios have persisted.

    I mean, 100 years ago or more Oscar Wilde died as a result of being imprisoned for being gay (basically). 70 years ago the gays in this country were considered communists and enemies of the state. 60 years ago it was considered a dirty little secret, and love and a lifelong commitment was an impossibility, and you'd also lose your income, so people felt like their only options were quickies in underground bars (way for society to promote promiscuity by granting it as the only option besides celibacy), and even in the US today there's still a huge stigma attached to it -- slurs against their character and their psychological health, attacks against their moral credibility, physical assaults, social bullying.

    And this isn't just a US problem, it's a multi-cultural problem; in Uganda for example, they were considering executing gays as policy, and now it's just "life in prison." Well, that's an ego-booster. (As a side note, I've seen flashes of news clips that a few prominent US evangelicals contributed directly over there to the kind of thinking that leads to this social response.)

    My impression is that the first wave or two of feminists had some similar negative behaviors, but they were the ground soldiers in a cultural foot war; what would we expect? It doesn't mean that those behaviors are just typical of all females.

    This ain't rocket science; if family and friends and culture do continually tell a group of people they are no good regardless of their character, what do we expect? Dysfunctionality and acting out is a natural documented response to those stimuli in individuals. If gays have seemed hypersensitive and/or expressed unfavorable behaviors within their subculture, I can certainly understand why. I see the same behavior in those who are persecuted because of race, or gender, or religion. And for those who have been fortunate enough to be accepted by family and friends, remarkably, I see little of those behaviors, they're all pretty stable... just gay.

    Go figure.
    "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

  8. #48
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,932

    Default

    Thread: tl;dr

    Multiple choice poll:

    Gay marriage: As long as no one is being harmed (morally doesn't count), people should be allowed to do whatever they want to.

  9. #49
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    As I've mentioned before, this is a difficult issue for me as a socially libertarian Constitutional conservative.....my position is essentially that I want gay marriage to be legal, but not by judicial fiat based on expansive interpretations of particular segments of the Constitution which may subsequently be applied to a wide range of issues. On a somewhat related note, I don't want a judicial opinion that could logically be applied to plural marriages as well as gay marriages.

    I guess that puts me on the 'no' category by default (barring some legal jujitsu I cannot conceive of right now), but I don't think I'll be participating in the poll....there's just too much room for misinterpretation (its an extremely emotionally charged issue for large numbers of people, and while I don't shy away from recieving animosity for positions I actually hold, I find it particularly annoying to be hated-or for that matter, liked-on the basis of mistaken assumptions by people who judge others on the basis of singular issues).

  10. #50
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Will it neutralise that zeitgheist or provide the sort of validation or inclusion within a homogenous understanding of equality which superficially appears to be the demand? I doubt it. Will that zeitgheist move on and manifest itself in some other way, perhaps manadatory schooling of young children in blue-eyed people's lifestyles or habits? I'm sure it will. Would that even be a problem if it happened? Yes it would because historically and presently blue-eyed people are a minority and there is no evidence to suggest that is changing so all it will achieve is that many more people will share the confusion, distress and unhappy state which was once the preserve of "closetted blue-eyed people" but they will be brown-eyed as well as blue-eyed. The position of society at large will then be more miserable than it was in the first instance and the position of blue-eyed people liable to be even more miserable if a backlash occurs blaming them all for it.
    What a bitch it must be to be born with blue eyes.

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Marriage. Yes or no.
    By highlander in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 12:19 PM
  2. Gay Marriage. Yes or no.
    By highlander in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 12:19 PM
  3. Preschool, Yes or No?
    By Tigerlily in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 12:18 AM
  4. Homeschooling: yes or no?
    By Oberon in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 06:01 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