Gay marriage: where do you stand?

[Mark of Zorro]

Where do you stand on government sanctioned and registered gay marriage, and all the legal rights that come with it? (wording is to reflect the fact that two people can get married in a ceremony, but the government may or may not recognize it).

Parting with my usual third option, I only ask yes or no in the poll because that is all a voting ballot would give you.

So where do you stand and why?

I am for, because I cannot find a single decent reason to be against the freedom of two people wanting to marry. And so, I don't need a single specific reason to be for it, because general liberty is quite enough.

 

[Alecksander]

I support it because two human beings that are in love and want to signify their love through marriage should be able to do so. Simple and to the point. To tell someone they can't do so just personally feels wrong to me.

 

[Gee337]

Unfortunately, I am one of those people who can't really accept most phenomena they don't understand or can't comprehend. Since I can't comprehend the whole "being gay" thing, I can't help but feel that it's completely unnatural and no matter how hard anyone would try, I would probably not understand the reasons behind anyone being gay. However, I do realize that doing harm to them simply because I seem to be too narrow-minded will absolutely not benefit me in any way. I don't think I've ever met anyone openly gay before, actually. Why would I want to influence the lives of people I don't even know? Why would I want to tell strangers that their way of living is wrong, if it doesn't affect me? Unless someone wants to forcefully "convert" me, I won't do anything to them either. Some people being gay doesn't affect me at all, so I tolerate it, as I have no reason not to.
Live and let live... If they want to live like that, well, whatever, fine by me.
I would have chosen the third option if there was one. Instead I voted for gay marriage. There are gay couples, and not allowing them to marry won't make them change their minds, just make life harder for them.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

So the two people who voted against give no reasons?

At the least the one who voted for but did not post can say one of the three who did post said what he or she wanted to say already.

Seems kind of typical to me though. Can't explain it, can't defend it, but have a strong opinion anyhow. Seems to me to be why there are lot of victimless "crimes".

 

[TheBandit]

Sorry I posted for, then had to go before I could write "I posted for because"

I posted "for" mainly because I can't see any reason at all for "against" Although if you had a post that said for or against marriage, I would vote against it. Because I can't see any point in marriage at all.

So if we have to have this ridiculous marriage business then why not allow it for everyone. I just wish my government would stop spending huge amounts of time and money discussing a non-subject

 

[GaijinGolfer]

Im for it. Love is love no matter if its a gay or straight couple and gay couples should have the legal rights that married straight couples do.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Sorry I posted for, then had to go before I could write "I posted for because"

No sweat. I would like to think the two nay sayers were just busy, like you, but somehow, I don't feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I just wish they would have the courage to admit their reasons, and then have the further courage to open their minds and to listen and to let go of whatever self-serving fantasies they cling to, because truly, there can't be any other reason for their no vote.

Whatever clever excuses they make, how ever they try to attach their opinion to logic and fairness or even just the benefit of society, I personally guarantee there is some little personal demon they have within themselves corrupting their thought.

So if we have to have this ridiculous marriage business then why not allow it for everyone. I just wish my government would stop spending huge amounts of time and money discussing a non-subject

On both points, well said.

 

[Hezam]

I voted against for 2 reasons :
1- Marriage purpose is to make new lives, and to increase the offspring of the married creatures [ Humans, Animals.. ] so it loses it's meaning when two of the same sex make love relationship.
2- Gay marriage is threatening the future of humans by decreasing the number of birth, And according to some reports the gay/lesbian people are increasing rapidly in the world, in Gay marriage 1+1= 0 but in normal marriage it creates new lives and it keeps human sex in this planet.

This is why i voted against gay marriage, I came up with strong reasons not just religion or feelings.

Thank you.

 

[Half-n-Half]

2- Gay marriage is threatening the future of humans by decreasing the number of birth, And according to some reports the gay/lesbian people are increasing rapidly in the world, in Gay marriage 1+1= 0 but in normal marriage it creates new lives and it keeps human sex in this planet.

So you're saying that if we didn't allow gay marriage then all the gay people would suddenly become straight and have children? How does gay marriage threaten marriages between straight couples?

 

[GaijinGolfer]

I voted against for 2 reasons :
1- Marriage purpose is to make new lives, and to increase the offspring of the married creatures [ Humans, Animals.. ] so it loses it's meaning when two of the same sex make love relationship.
2- Gay marriage is threatening the future of humans by decreasing the number of birth, And according to some reports the gay/lesbian people are increasing rapidly in the world, in Gay marriage 1+1= 0 but in normal marriage it creates new lives and it keeps human sex in this planet.

This is why i voted against gay marriage, I came up with strong reasons not just religion or feelings.

Thank you.

Considering that human population is still on the rise and in at risk of exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity eventually, Id say thats a pretty weak argument.
Also, you say that the purpose of marriage is to create new lives. Ummm....what??? Perhaps you are confusing the word, "sex" with the word marriage.

 

[Alecksander]

Gay marriage is threatening the future of humans by decreasing the number of birth, And according to some reports the gay/lesbian people are increasing rapidly in the world, in Gay marriage 1+1= 0 but in normal marriage it creates new lives and it keeps human sex in this planet.

I won't bash you for your reasons, you're entitled to believe what you'd like. But I have to disagree with you. Gay marriage isn't decreasing anything. People who aren't married most often have children, multiple children. And there are plenty of the world's children who are orphaned or given up for adoption because their parent's can't care for them. In turn, gay couples adopt them and give them loving homes and families. Not all but quite a few. So really, they are actually doing the world a favor by taking in some of these children... and there are a large number of them (about 20 million in India alone according to their government).

 

[BrianLewis]

I am against it simply because the term usually refers to a Christian marriage, in a church of God. Since God is against it, that would be hypocrisy or blasphemy, depending on your stance with religion.

If, however, they are ringing a bell, having a crystal ceremony, having a toast, or bowing to a stick that looks like genitalia, then go for it. People like me won't consider them 'really married,' however they won't know the difference, they won't consider it any different, and they will get what they want.

Legally married is a different issue, and I'm not sure that is what this thread is about.

What baffles me is why people want to forge their own path, yet copy another culture that is diametrically apposed to that path. I guess too many fairy tales.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I voted against for 2 reasons :

Thank you for speaking up. I hope you won't be upset with my analysis but:

1- Marriage purpose is to make new lives, and to increase the offspring of the married creatures [ Humans, Animals.. ] so it loses it's meaning when two of the same sex make love relationship.

Marriage does not have only one singular purpose. There is also companionship, and having that companionship protected by law so that you cannot be discriminated against or denied things like participation in a last will and testament or ownership of property or tax breaks. There is also social stability to consider and so many people against gay marriage cite that one while wearing two faces on gay marriage. Would society not be more stable for gays forming permanent bonds than flowing like water? Would it not be better for there to be legal intervention in the event of bad break-ups, all assisted by legally registered marriages?

Besides, why does marriage have to have only one purpose? And where does your purpose leave sterile people? They can't get married?

Marriage is what we make it. I admit that even in my opinion, the prime purpose of marriage is to create and raise children in a stable environment. But that is far from the only purpose.

2- Gay marriage is threatening the future of humans by decreasing the number of birth, And according to some reports the gay/lesbian people are increasing rapidly in the world, in Gay marriage 1+1= 0 but in normal marriage it creates new lives and it keeps human sex in this planet.

You may call this reason as not religious, but it is so unscientific as to explain why you so embrace religion. There are six billion people on the planet. Our future is not threatened by a drop in the birthrate. Our future is threatened by a birth rate that is OUT OF CONTROL.

Not that I am even entertaining for one second your fallacious belief that the birth rate will drop in any noticeable measure by allowing gay marriage. It won't. There simply are not enough gays in the world to offset the fact that some straight couples will have three or more kids.

This is why i voted against gay marriage, I came up with strong reasons not just religion or feelings.

Sorry, but your reasons are anything but strong. Something is seriously clouding your judgment, and yeah, I think its religion. Not even necessarily your religion itself, but rather your interpretation of it.

 

[nahadef]

@BrianLewis What are you talking about? People in cultures all around the world get married in non-Christian ways. In no way at all is marriage a Christian-based institution. It's an institution in Christian culture, but that is not what gay marriage is about, on the whole.

Personally, I was married in Japan at the city office. Not a drop of religion involved. It is a real marriage, even without Jesus.

I voted for. Most humans who believe in freedom would do the same. "Separate but equal" doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Legally married is a different issue, and I'm not sure that is what this thread is about.

When in doubt, try reading the OP. To wit:

Where do you stand on government sanctioned and registered gay marriage, and all the legal rights that come with it?

Yeah, I think I was speaking of legal marriage there.

What baffles me is why people want to forge their own path, yet copy another culture that is diametrically apposed to that path. I guess too many fairy tales.

Could you be more specific? Because it sounds to me like you are saying that since your culture eats food, then anyone opposed to your culture should eat dirt and rocks or they are just copying.

Dude, 99 percent of all cultures on the planet have marriage. Its not a unique Christian idea.

 

[BrianLewis]

Personally, I was married in Japan

And there is your answer. Different culture, and different legal standards. I'm from the US and since the nation is generally considered Christian as a whole, voters decide not to allow it based on those ethical standards.

Could you be more specific?

I'm wondering why so many gays want a wedding at a chapel, with some sort of minister.

Dude, 99 percent of all cultures on the planet have marriage. Its not a unique Christian idea.

It seems that you have the US in mind when bringing this up.

 

[Half-n-Half]

It's the church's prerogative to deny a ceremonial wedding in their church. Legally, however, denying gay marriage is ridiculous.

 

[BrianLewis]

Legally, however, denying gay marriage is ridiculous.

Why? Is law not derived from cultural values?

 

[Half-n-Half]

The cultural values used to be such that African Americans were substandard citizens, and women couldn't vote. Does that make the laws any less ridiculous?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I'm from the US and since the nation is generally considered Christian as a whole, voters decide not to allow it based on those ethical standards.

So you support tyranny of the majority?

I'm wondering why so many gays want a wedding at a chapel, with some sort of minister.

Because they are Christian? You may say they can't be because their thoughts on marriage don't mesh with yours. But guess what? Despite all disagreements they are as Christian as any Protestant or Catholic despite the massive differences between those two groups.

It seems that you have the US in mind when bringing this up.

Mostly yes, but justice knows no borders.

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:26 ----------

The cultural values used to be such that African Americans were substandard citizens, and women couldn't vote. Does that make the laws any less ridiculous?

Oh God. Now I am concerned that some dipstick is going to accuse you of equating gays with Blacks, gays with women and women with Blacks. I hope we can be spared such nuttery.

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------

Why? Is law not derived from cultural values?

Partly yes. But it is expected to evolve away from cultural values and toward justice. You want to stop that evolution or turn it back.

Incidentally, my first marriage was in a courthouse and we were married by a judge (female). Later we had a wedding in a church of Lutherans nice enough to have us, but it was not for God. It was for friends and family.

It was an inter-racial marriage, another thing the law used to be stupid and unjust enough to ban. Laws can and do get erased for the better. Freedom that harms no one is a good thing.

 

[BrianLewis]

There was nothing biblical about slavery or oppressing women, politicians did that on their own, and they were right to correct the matter.

I suppose that 'tyranny of the majority' means because everyone can't do what they want? You could make that same statement about drug use, yet we have a system in place that opposes that to some degree.

I am not sure I am qualified to judge whether someone is a christian or not based on if they choose to break the own laws of their own faith. That's their business.

 

[Half-n-Half]

There was nothing biblical about slavery or oppressing women, politicians did that on their own, and they were right to correct the matter.

So by "cultural values" you really meant "religious values."

 

[nahadef]

And there is your answer. Different culture, and different legal standards. I'm from the US and since the nation is generally considered Christian as a whole, voters decide not to allow it based on those ethical standards.

America is a secular nation, and not a theocracy. To imply otherwise is to say that all the Jewish people, Muslims, atheists etc who get married in America have Christian marriages. That is simply not the case.

Marriage in America is a legal institution that religions are free to perform it. But the religion comes second. Legislating ones religion is a form of persecution. Isn't America against that? Isn't that part of the importance of freedom of religion? Or do you think it's just freedom of Christianity?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

There was nothing biblical about slavery or oppressing women, politicians did that on their own, and they were right to correct the matter.

I thought the OT sanctioned both?

I suppose that 'tyranny of the majority' means because everyone can't do what they want?

Oh hell no! It means that victimless crimes should not be crimes, just because a majority do not like them. Mind though, you are in the minority both in this thread and America.

You could make that same statement about drug use, yet we have a system in place that opposes that to some degree.

There. Now you seem to be coming to an understanding. I oppose the current laws on drug use the same as I do the current laws on the age of sexual consent, and for exactly those reasons, among others. These laws need to be changed to allow options, rather than just say "No!" like some control freak father and we are the kids.

Is it not strange that we are free to bungee jump or parachute for fun despite all the risks? But we cannot smoke marijuana in our own homes? Huh? What!?

But we digress...

I am not sure I am qualified to judge whether someone is a christian or not based on if they choose to break the own laws of their own faith. That's their business.

So do you want to change your vote then?

 

[BrianLewis]

This forum is heavily liberal, that in no way proves that your argument is supported by a nation.

So do you want to change your vote then?

Should I take this quote out of context too? I was clearly talking about 'Christian' gays marrying in chapels.

I thought the OT sanctioned both?

I have no way of knowing what's in your head, and whether it's true of false.

So by "cultural values" you really meant "religious values."

Is religion not a corner stone of culture?

Marriage in America is a legal institution that religions are free to perform it. But the religion comes second. Legislating ones religion is a form of persecution. Isn't America against that? Isn't that part of the importance of freedom of religion?

Yet, the US has a marriage tax and gives tax breaks to already married couples. Your simply using that statement for your own needs, or did you protest when local governments told kids they can't pray at school?

How can I not bring up beastiality then? It's a biblical law that is currently enforced in the US, should we legalize this as well? Even if serious diseases evolve from this practice, they can always wear a condom right? There wouldn't be that many people that would jeopardize their community by not doing so right?

I think it's strange that liberals consider their own group to be 'evolving' or 'progressing.' The entire mindset of humanity is not evolving to all think alike. If you know anything at all about history, you would know that factions with their own mindsets always exist and they are always vying for political power. You are a faction, and you are attempting to gain the majority. Your mindset is not the evolution of humanity.