Same sex marriage..

[Palkia]

I think that it's only fair that gay marriage can exist as it is basically equal rights. Plus, it's not going to affect anybody negatively. Can people just accept people for being different and move on?

 

[Star-Lord]

Also, this may be objective but I see majority (well, the most vocal appears is what appears as the majority) of sexually different groups that aren't heterosexuals do not have equality on their agenda, more some form of revenge at previous generations or those that do not give them approval. Admittedly we do not yet have widespread discrimination against heterosexuals by gays but I can see the ideology brewing. It is just as bad as white supremacy, attention seeking, trying to force what you do in the bedroom onto others.

Dude we get that you're irrationally paranoid about the whole "flipping the role of opressor" thing (It will never happen) but you need to stop posting about it nobody is taking you seriously.

 

[Sopheria]

Most of the people against gay marriage (well, over here anyway) seem to be making the argument that children should have a male and female guardian and therefore no marriage for gay people. Which is ridiculous for a variety of reasons.

That's the best non-religious argument that I've heard, but it's still an epic fail for one big reason: even if you grant them that it's better for children to be raised by parents of opposite sexes, gays can raise children already: regardless of if they're married or not. So given that they're going to raise children anyways, isn't it better for the child that their parents be allowed to get married?

 

[Dter ic]

At least in Britain it's finally legalized so that same sex couples have the same equal rights as heterosexual marriages receive. I've thought for a long time that gays shouldn't be treated differently because of sexual orientation. I believe that the state should take a neutral stance when it comes to these sorts of social issues and just accept and acknowledge people for who they are, although reaching that goal is a long one for some states ;v

 

[Sir Codin]

There is no legitimate reason for continuing to ban gay marriage. None whatsoever. Religious reasons fail automatically on the grounds that they're religious. And preventing gay adoptions is ludicrous on the grounds that I've yet to see a convincing study that shows they can't fulfill parental roles. I've also yet to see or talk to a gay person that wants a paradigm shift in power instead of just plain equality (feminists are a different story). The concept of protecting the sanctity of marriage also falls flat on its face given divorce rates (although I think they're dropping as well).

It's also not just a title. Since human beings are irrational, marriage therefore is considered highly important and therefore comes with property rights, legitimacy of children and family name, visitation rights in hospitals/prisons/etc, and a slew of other privileges and rights given to couples upon completion of rites.

There really isn't any legitimate reason to deny loving gay/lesbian couples the right to marry.

And as much as you might think otherwise, you being a class-A feces-eating, bigoted douchebag isn't a legitimate reason.

 

[Oryx]

It's also not just a title. Since human beings are irrational, marriage therefore is considered highly important and therefore comes with property rights, legitimacy of children and family name, visitation rights in hospitals/prisons/etc, and a slew of other privileges and rights given to couples upon completion of rites.

I completely agree with your premise (minus the aside about feminism), but I just want to clarify something a tad here - the benefits on married couples are not because of irrational emphasis on marriage. They began as incentives to get people to marry and raise children together, and remain often as easy ways to determine who's "family" and who's not, from a legal perspective. I can't say for certain that none of it is based in an emphasis on family without reason, but at least the vast majority has plenty of rational thought behind it.

 

[Dakotah]

I completely agree with your premise (minus the aside about feminism), but I just want to clarify something a tad here - the benefits on married couples are not because of irrational emphasis on marriage. They began as incentives to get people to marry and raise children together, and remain often as easy ways to determine who's "family" and who's not, from a legal perspective. I can't say for certain that none of it is based in an emphasis on family without reason, but at least the vast majority has plenty of rational thought behind it.

Marriage has never, ever, been about ensuring that a child grows up with its parents. Marriage, since its inception, was about property rights and ensuring the legitimacy of any offspring that are born. At no time was there made any incentive to procreate, or requirement to do so. This is why all the arguments against gay marriage that refer to children as the reason to restrict marriage to opposite couples has utterly failed.

Again, anyone thinking that marriage is about procreation doesn't know their history very well. I suggest some remedial reading to anyone that does.

Here are some brief points to consider:

https://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

 

[Universe]

I currently live in Texas. If you live in the United States, you already know, and I don't have to tell you that it's banned in this state. Texas is one of those judgmental, highly Catholic and Christian states. They're pretty known for it in America, actually. It's also (for some reason) banned in my home state of Colorado. Which is funny considering smoking pot is legal, but somehow gay marriage is still considered bannable. Eh whatever.

As for my personal views, ever since I was little I thought it was stupid to think less of people who want to be with their own sex; having been a kid who thought people of my same sex were cute. I do not agree with those who say it's against the bible, God doesn't like homosexuals blah blah blah. It's all bull to me actually. This is the same argument I had toward abortion : It's their life, their body, their mind. They should be allowed to do whatever they want with it.

If two people of the same sex wanna suffer alongside the rest of those who are married, then they should be allowed to. :P

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I would like to add that I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all.

 

[Dakotah]

I would like to add that I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all.

Why do you think not? Governments have been involved in marriage long before religion has.

 

[Foamy96]

I think everyone is allowed to get married, doesnt even matter who to (or what to) same sex marriage should of been allowed many years ago

 

[twocows]

I would like to add that I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all.

Maybe not marriage, but at least the current legal concept of it.

 

[Sir Codin]

I would like to add that I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all.

Who would be responsible for it then?

If government doesn't handle it, religion will and they certainly shouldn't.

Who then? I get where you're coming from, but who?

 

[Monophobia]

I'm completely ashamed of the U.S. because of the fact that it's still not legal in my country's entirety. There's no reason to debate it anymore - homosexuals are not going anywhere. They act as if we're suddenly gonna disappear one day, so they don't have to give us marriage rights.

I live in Ohio, which is not really swayed to either side, but there are generally many lesbians and gay males here (from experience in my school and general area in Cincinnati). I'm sure we're going to legalize it here soon.

Anyway, there's too many reasons for it to continue denying it. Religious reasons are down the drain (because not everyone is religious), sanctity of marriage doesn't make sense (divorce rates are still up there), the whole "it's unnatural" thing is disproved by studies in animal species (and the fact that there are infertile women who marry), and everything considered, it's simply not fair.

 

[Hyper-Houndoom]

Just because I don't swing that way, it doesn't mean that I can't accept the concept of same-sex marriage with open arms. The only thing that's still in the way for the most part is religion, but dig this for a minute: as far as I'm concerned God is a very good reason to be all for it. If God loves all of us and wants us to love one another as so many religions claim, it doesn't make sense to me to write off one of the very few things that bring people together. For me, its just that simple...

 

[Eevee3]

I definitely think that it should just be legal everywhere already. It's like allowing black people the same rights as white people. Why is it an issue to begin with...? It's not hurting anyone.

Many people STILL have issues with it and that it's because they think it's "wrong" only because the bible tells them so. Then good, don't marry someone with the same sex as you. Why do you care if other people do it? Is it hurting you? It's their life, not yours.

 

[Tyheamma]

I think it's incredibly sad that same sex marriage is not widely accepted. I don't understand how anyone can have an issue with it. How is a a marriage between two males or two females so different from a heterosexual marriage? Other than the obvious, same sex couples can't reproduce. But marriage doesn't necessarily equal children anyway. What right does anyone have to stop people from declaring their love for each other?

The 'no' part of my original position comes from the fact that I have some fundamental disagreements with certain individuals who are supportive of gay marriage. I simply cannot support them or their ideas, so if you want a black and white,yes or no answer I would rather say no than lump myself in with portions of LGBT advocates that I strongly disagree with. And as I said before I'm certainly not going to say yes to something if it has nothing to do with me.

This is a very self-centred view of the world, I know. .

I'm sorry PervertedPikachu, I don't understand your argument. Just because you don't like someone that is gay/supports gay marriage doesn't mean you have to hate the whole community. :/ I've had some horrible encounters with a gay man, who is incredibly rude to me for no apparent reason, but it doesn't mean I hate all homosexuals and I wouldn't want him to get married.

And what's with the 'I'm not gay, so I don't care' attitude? Just because you're not something, doesn't mean you can't support it. Minorities need people to support them, so they can have a bigger voice. I'm not an animal (well, not entirely!) but I still do my bit for animal rights.

 

[Dakotah]

I've been doing some reflection on this subject and to clarify my position: I don't support gay marriage. As a straight person I have no vested interest in this matter. As a matter of principle if it doesn't affect me at all why should I have the power to decide on an outcome for other people? Let the concerned parties decide for themselves. If it was possible I would change my voting position to "abstain" and I feel that's a perfectly acceptable position for any straight person to take without being branded as homophobic (admittedly some of my views ARE homophobic but I'm attempting to defend a principle that is greater than myself).

The 'no' part of my original position comes from the fact that I have some fundamental disagreements with certain individuals who are supportive of gay marriage. I simply cannot support them or their ideas, so if you want a black and white,yes or no answer I would rather say no than lump myself in with portions of LGBT advocates that I strongly disagree with. And as I said before I'm certainly not going to say yes to something if it has nothing to do with me.

This is a very self-centred view of the world, I know.

I also agree with twocows that the construct of marriage in itself is a debatable point and in my opinion relationships deserve very little recognition, certainly not to the extent that marriage gets.

To summarize, you are saying that you believe it is alright to condemn an entire community for the actions of a few.

 

[Oryx]

I've been doing some reflection on this subject and to clarify my position: I don't support gay marriage. As a straight person I have no vested interest in this matter. As a matter of principle if it doesn't affect me at all why should I have the power to decide on an outcome for other people? Let the concerned parties decide for themselves. If it was possible I would change my voting position to "abstain" and I feel that's a perfectly acceptable position for any straight person to take without being branded as homophobic (admittedly some of my views ARE homophobic but I'm attempting to defend a principle that is greater than myself).

You have a vested interest in justice and equality as a human being. In a vacuum, choosing not to take a stand either way makes logical sense; however, in reality this only supports the status quo. When the status quo marginalizes a group of people, then supporting the status quo by abstaining causes you to marginalize that group. Even if you have nothing against them, even if you just feel that it's not your place to decide.

The feeling of "It's not my place to decide" is admirable; however, the logical conclusion of that is to listen to the minority group, find out what is just, and support that.

 

[Trev]

First of all, gay marriage should be legal. Let's hit the dead horse one more time with that.

I personally think it's ridiculous that gay marriage is still illegal in some states, and that they have the right to do that. The thing that really bugs me about this whole situation is that a big part of it is "the Bible says it's wrong". I learned that separation of church and state was established so that this kind of stuff didn't happen, yet it's legitimately happening right now. That makes absolutely no sense.

My outlook for this whole dilemma is that it'll change. Once we get the next few generations into leadership positions and all the close-minded idiots get fired/pass on, this stuff will be legal. It'll be just like women's suffrage and slavery, and some day we'll all look back and think, "How could we do that? That was so wrong."