gay marriage
gay marriage: yes? or no?
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The only ways gays will ever have an effect on straight people is through shows like queer eye for the straight guy or things like drive-by redecorating.lol i cant wait to +rep u lol
but i dont see a problem wit gays getting marryed..
they can do w/e they want...
i dont really care...
0
To address a somewhat ubiquitous argument against legal gay marriage:
Some claim that banning gay marriage isn't discrimination because gays have the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
So my observation is: one could make the same argument for interracial marriage bans, which have been declared unconstitutional. It's completely analogous. Seems like an inconsistency in legal logic to me. One could point the 1964 Civil Rights act, which deals with race, but not sexual orientation, as a reason why interracial marriage, but not gay marriage, should be legal. But then one is forced to ask: does it follow that we do approve of discrimination based on sexual orientation?
I guess the way I see it in relation to the political environment of my own country is this: the U.S. was founded on strong ideals of individual liberty, and if you're not harming yourself, others, or society, then the government has no reason to deny you a certain freedom. No one has convincingly explained to me how gay marriage harms me, the people being married or society, beyond dubious logical fallacies.
Ultimately, I think it's just a matter of time. Evidence points to the younger generations being progressively more accepting of gay marriage, and they will be the future voters.
Some claim that banning gay marriage isn't discrimination because gays have the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
So my observation is: one could make the same argument for interracial marriage bans, which have been declared unconstitutional. It's completely analogous. Seems like an inconsistency in legal logic to me. One could point the 1964 Civil Rights act, which deals with race, but not sexual orientation, as a reason why interracial marriage, but not gay marriage, should be legal. But then one is forced to ask: does it follow that we do approve of discrimination based on sexual orientation?
I guess the way I see it in relation to the political environment of my own country is this: the U.S. was founded on strong ideals of individual liberty, and if you're not harming yourself, others, or society, then the government has no reason to deny you a certain freedom. No one has convincingly explained to me how gay marriage harms me, the people being married or society, beyond dubious logical fallacies.
Ultimately, I think it's just a matter of time. Evidence points to the younger generations being progressively more accepting of gay marriage, and they will be the future voters.
0
biglw17 wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The only ways gays will ever have an effect on straight people is through shows like queer eye for the straight guy or things like drive-by redecorating.lol i cant wait to +rep u lol
but i dont see a problem wit gays getting marryed..
they can do w/e they want...
i dont really care...
You'll be two you owe me good sir.
I'm in agreement with Whitelion. Each passing generation is becoming less religious and the primary opposition to gay marriage is the religious crowd. Coupled with the open minded nature of each new generation. It's only a matter of time.
0
I'm Not about to tell another man what to do with his penis cause that definitely falls under "his business"
0
@GourmetPrince: I respond with this:
Apparently, you don't read, and you're making wrong arguments and at the same time labeling me with names that have no basis, trolling or not. What I got pissed off at was the fact that you can call someone gay or a woman when a) you don't know me, b) saying that I act a certain way makes me "gay" or "woman" when you're misinterpreting me, and most of all c) you're not only dissing me, you're also dissing real gays and women by making such a careless statement because you're basically saying that gays and women act a certain manner when in reality they don't. It's like you're saying Asians think they're smarter than anyone else, but we all know that that's totally wrong and totally racist at the same time. Your comment, "The way you're acting now, you're either a woman, or gay," carries that ignorance and racist connotation.
@Captain_Falcon: haha, that picture's cute.
g-money wrote...
edit: And after reading other's comments which hold water, yes, I believe gays can marry in the sense of obtaining the legal status and receiving the legal benefits. It grates against my romantic ideals, but rationally and legally it makes sense. And the only real reason to marry someone is to receive the legal benefits that comes from marriage; people divorce all the time, and marriage since then has lost quite a bit of meaning.Apparently, you don't read, and you're making wrong arguments and at the same time labeling me with names that have no basis, trolling or not. What I got pissed off at was the fact that you can call someone gay or a woman when a) you don't know me, b) saying that I act a certain way makes me "gay" or "woman" when you're misinterpreting me, and most of all c) you're not only dissing me, you're also dissing real gays and women by making such a careless statement because you're basically saying that gays and women act a certain manner when in reality they don't. It's like you're saying Asians think they're smarter than anyone else, but we all know that that's totally wrong and totally racist at the same time. Your comment, "The way you're acting now, you're either a woman, or gay," carries that ignorance and racist connotation.
@Captain_Falcon: haha, that picture's cute.
0
Just a quick note, about the whole "what people do in the bedroom doesn't affect anyone else," that really has nothing to do with gay marriage. It might be related if gay sex was banned (well, it kind of is, but police don't arrest gay people on the street). You'll hear the opponents of gay marriage say that gay people can still have sex all they want; they just can't get married.
Anyways, I don't quite understand the whole point of marriage anyway. Two people promise to love one another and be with one another forever - if you're with someone for five years, even if you're not married, you two have practically made that same sort of promise, unless one of you said bluntly, "This will be over in a few years." I've never seen a couple that was together a long time and didn't hope that they could be together forever. So why is getting married important? The legal bonuses you get from being married aren't even exclusive, because if you've been living together for a long enough amount of time, you're considered to be a common-law married couple, right? And you get the same sorts of benefits a married couple would get. Well, I'm not certain about all the details, but it seems to me that marriage isn't a very big thing.
That said, why not let gay people get married? If marriage isn't that important, then why keep some people from getting married?
Anyways, I don't quite understand the whole point of marriage anyway. Two people promise to love one another and be with one another forever - if you're with someone for five years, even if you're not married, you two have practically made that same sort of promise, unless one of you said bluntly, "This will be over in a few years." I've never seen a couple that was together a long time and didn't hope that they could be together forever. So why is getting married important? The legal bonuses you get from being married aren't even exclusive, because if you've been living together for a long enough amount of time, you're considered to be a common-law married couple, right? And you get the same sorts of benefits a married couple would get. Well, I'm not certain about all the details, but it seems to me that marriage isn't a very big thing.
That said, why not let gay people get married? If marriage isn't that important, then why keep some people from getting married?
0
WhiteLion wrote...
To address a somewhat ubiquitous argument against legal gay marriage:Ultimately, I think it's just a matter of time. Evidence points to the younger generations being progressively more accepting of gay marriage, and they will be the future voters.
Yep if you look at polling data from prop 8. You'll notice that one of the largest groups against gay marriage was old people...so just wait awhile until they die off and younger more open voter will pass laws allowing gay marriage.
0
why does it seem the when its a same sex marriage their actually happy, it seems that all of the hetero people i know who are married are unhappy their either together out of convince or end up splitting up within a year
0
nekroskoma wrote...
why does it seem the when its a same sex marriage their actually happy, it seems that all of the hetero people i know who are married are unhappy their either together out of convince or end up splitting up within a yearIt's possible that if gay marriage was completely legal, there would be just as many gay divorces as straight divorces.
0
i didnt vote in here because it comes with restrictions. they should be able to get married, but it should not have any economical consequences, i.e. married tax cuts (which supposedly should be an incentive for married folks to breed, which they wont)
0
discordia wrote...
i didnt vote in here because it comes with restrictions. they should be able to get married, but it should not have any economical consequences, i.e. married tax cuts (which supposedly should be an incentive for married folks to breed, which they wont)Why no economical bonuses? Those bonuses aren't there so people will have kids, so they should be given to gay couples as well.
0
Callonia wrote...
"my friend said being gay is a virus" what the hell is ur friend, 2 year old? or is that giving him way too much credit O_oI'm straight and I support gay marriage.
It's none of our business to tell them they're not allowed to even marry at all! Who are you, mini hitlers in makings?
And yes, godwin'd but drives the point home.
How would you like if the situation was reversed. Lets say, today, but, gays and lesbains is the majority of the populace, and humans can reproduce asexually. Straight people is now in the minority, and they outlaw your right to marry? On silly grounds because its oh so immoral? =P
Love is love. As long both parties consent, I won't be gay ever, period. Unless i consent to dating a guy then i'm gay. I'm 21, i have yet to find a guy or girl I really like, but, if I do , then well, shit, thats love.
But my sexual preference is girls. and sooo.... yep.
Can't think of anything else, wanna food, me hungry.
my friend is sadly my 15, and he said it was a virus. *nods head*
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The simplest way to put it is there is no reason beyond religious conviction to deny them the opportunity."Being gay is unnatural". Watch any group of animals and you'll see gay behavior (i.e. a male fucking another male).
"Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children." And a household with a single parent is? At least with a gay couple even though they may be missing a balanced set of role models at least they have two incomes in the household to attend to the child's needs. Gay men tend to be better educated and have higher paying jobs than their heterosexual counterparts.
"Gay relationships are immoral." Says who? The bible? The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791). Any attempt to use a religious text as a base of law (or government action) is a violation of the separation of church and state.
"Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences". A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. A classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers. A form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for years. Why haven't they "slid" yet?
Honestly, unless you want use religion as law then you break the law by doing that. There is no reason against gay marriage.
dude that was very well thought out...yeah it IS in fact against american law to combine religion and law, so waht us americans are doing trying to not let gays get married is violating our own rules we set years ago. so i think u just won the case penguin. hats off to ya bud, *takes hat off*.
0
nzephier wrote...
the name says it all, how do u all here in the fakku community feel about gay marriage? my friend said being gay is a virus, and i was raised around gay people and i love women. so yeah who else thinks what about this subject? (i personally dont think it is worth mentioning, cuz i think they should get married, but hey)well after looking over the comments left about this subject, i have started an arguement, and everyone who posted seemed for gay marriage. well i personally feel that there is no reason to deny them, so why say they cant? i think u can go ahead and say it is not right all u want, but why deny them marriage if they want it? i think marriage should be taken away from everyone for a year, already married couples will no longer be married, so then they can see what it is like to be denied. then after we can ALL see what life without marriage is like. who is going to miss it? who is going to care? no one thats who, because strait couples are still gonna be together, just because in legal terms they arent, who says they arent in real life? this is why i said the subject is stupid, cuz marriage is not appreciated by anyone, so if gays want to experience marriage, why say no? people who are married go through hell, and make tv shows about how strait marriage is tough. so whats the point of trying to defend something that no one wants in the first place? -.- P.S i dont think i need to marry my girlfriend to proove to her i love her, as long as i want her, and stick around forever, and love her the way i did when we met.
0
I don't really have a problem with agreeing to gay marriage, so here's my thought:
Leave them be. Even though it's inappropriate and sometimes gross to see them kiss and do other stuff in public. But if they're lovey-dovey and all that, why not just let them be? If they ever have a problem with the path they just chose, then that's their problem, not ours.
Technically, it isn't even supposed to be our problem if they marry or not. Although seeing your future son go gay is really disturbing, you really can't do anything if they're happy that ways. You can't just force people to change their way of thinking and feeling for the same sex.
Leave them be. Even though it's inappropriate and sometimes gross to see them kiss and do other stuff in public. But if they're lovey-dovey and all that, why not just let them be? If they ever have a problem with the path they just chose, then that's their problem, not ours.
Technically, it isn't even supposed to be our problem if they marry or not. Although seeing your future son go gay is really disturbing, you really can't do anything if they're happy that ways. You can't just force people to change their way of thinking and feeling for the same sex.
0
Well I'm just replying since I voted so here goes.
I don't wanna go into deep conversation about this but I voted NO for gay marriage. Though I would like to express some concerns for the poll as you all know you have 2 kinds of marriage 1 being the one that is recognised by the state and the other being the religious type. I have no problem having them be a married couple or let them have the right to be able to share their belongings and having all the rights heterosexual couples have. I just wanna bring another question to this topic since it's kind of related to it since it usually is an argument taken into account when dealing with this issue. Should gay people be allowed to adopt children? Also as I was reading through the thread I realised the tone of everybody's post was getting more and more aggressive. So keep in mind to keep your posts respectful if you guys wanna have some "Serious Discussion" as the forum states :D.
I don't wanna go into deep conversation about this but I voted NO for gay marriage. Though I would like to express some concerns for the poll as you all know you have 2 kinds of marriage 1 being the one that is recognised by the state and the other being the religious type. I have no problem having them be a married couple or let them have the right to be able to share their belongings and having all the rights heterosexual couples have. I just wanna bring another question to this topic since it's kind of related to it since it usually is an argument taken into account when dealing with this issue. Should gay people be allowed to adopt children? Also as I was reading through the thread I realised the tone of everybody's post was getting more and more aggressive. So keep in mind to keep your posts respectful if you guys wanna have some "Serious Discussion" as the forum states :D.
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
Why no economical bonuses? Those bonuses aren't there so people will have kids, so they should be given to gay couples as well.tis true, and i never said that, i said they are an incentive, not a reason. either way, then what is the reason married couples should receive tax cuts in the first place?
then again, i also feel that those economic boni should not be given to childless couples either
0
discordia wrote...
ShaggyJebus wrote...
Why no economical bonuses? Those bonuses aren't there so people will have kids, so they should be given to gay couples as well.tis true, and i never said that, i said they are an incentive, not a reason. either way, then what is the reason married couples should receive tax cuts in the first place?
then again, i also feel that those economic boni should not be given to childless couples either
I'm not certain why tax cuts are given to married couples, but I've never heard anything connecting the tax cuts to having children. It's coming out of left field.
I think married couples get tax cuts to show that it's not just two people dating, but a union that makes decisions together. It's a household wherein the two members share their wealth with one another.
0
my economics teacher used to say this was the case (here, in switzerland), making young, married, no children the strongest consumer group. and i think he mentioned sth about this being in revision right now.
either way, i disagree, why should they get tax benefits just because of a personal union? after all they can both contribute, so its only fair if both have to pay.
either way, i disagree, why should they get tax benefits just because of a personal union? after all they can both contribute, so its only fair if both have to pay.
0
discordia wrote...
my economics teacher used to say this was the case (here, in switzerland), making young, married, no children the strongest consumer group. and i think he mentioned sth about this being in revision right now.either way, i disagree, why should they get tax benefits just because of a personal union? after all they can both contribute, so its only fair if both have to pay.
Maybe things are different in Switzerland and the US, and this is all moot, but I can kind of understand getting tax cuts. It promotes families, even if the families don't include children, and families are good because there is the possibility that they will have a child and a couple being married instead of just shacking up for years is preferred, for whatever reason.
Anyways, I did some very simple searching, and it seems that sometimes, married couples pay more in taxes. And it's not like getting married will make you not have to pay taxes or decrease the amount you pay by half or anything.