Should same sex marriages be legal?

[AgentXen]

.

Part 2 of my Survey for my school project.
Your opinon is valuable.

 

[Yuri]

You might want to edit the poll so that you can't select more than one choice...

I vote yes. It would be discrimination if they were illegal.

EDIT: To edit a poll, there should be an "Edit Poll" button to the right of the poll itself... I'm not sure, I never did it

Oh well, since it is public, you can see if someone voted for more than one and disregard the vote

 

[andrew_e1]

i say no... whats next? gay couples adopting kids and raising them as a gay person?

imagine the life of that kid...OHH theres the kid with 2 daddys!!!!

 

[gh0st]

no in the religious sense
yes in the legal

 

[Yuri]

i say no... whats next? gay couples adopting kids and raising them as a gay person?

imagine the life of that kid...OHH theres the kid with 2 daddys!!!!

That... already happens... but the kids aren't neccesarily homosexual themselves...

Why would a homosexual person want to "raise their kid as a gay?" Is this an epidemic? Are they trying to take over the world?

Did I miss something?

:angel:

 

[f|uke]

i say no... whats next? gay couples adopting kids and raising them as a gay person?

Gay couples raise kids all the time (as one is a biological parent). It does not effect the child's sexual orentation.

I vote yes. Freedom and the pursuit of happiness. That is what this country is supposed to be about. And why not? It does not affect straight marriages in any way.

 

[AgentXen]

i say no... whats next? gay couples adopting kids and raising them as a gay person?

imagine the life of that kid...OHH theres the kid with 2 daddys!!!!

Or two mommies :E :naughty:

 

[Neutrino]

Yes, it should be legal. Banning gay marriage is a form of religious intolerance and a law that would do so goes against the first amendment and the concept of seperation of church and state.

I respect that some religions don't support gay marriage and that's fine by me. No religious organization should be forced to accept it. However, other religions do support gay marriage so by banning it you are interferring with that religion. Thus it is religious interference and intolerance.

Another way to look at it is that the only way to justify such a ban is through religous reasons. The government cannot use the beliefs and practices of one religion to suppress the beliefs and practices of another. That is wrong.

Furthermore, it does not affect or harm anyone else and therefore should be no one's concern. People don't question and examine the sex lives of hetrosexuals and they have no reason to do the same for homosexuals. It's there business and thier business alone.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Civil unions yes, gay marriage no.

 

[AgentXen]

Hope you guys dont mind, but i will be useing some of your quotes for my Presentation, as i will do for my last survey. Most of what you guys say is gold!
-Please only vote for one.

 

[ShadowFox]

Civil unions yes, gay marriage no.

I'm shocked.

Quite frankly, I don't really believe in it either. That said, I also don't believe in a constitutional amendment banning it. The constitution was made to protect people from government, not take people's rights away.

 

[f|uke]

Banning gay marriage is a form of religious intollerance

Truth.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I dunno why the poll allows for multiple answers, but anywho:

The answer to this is a fairly obvious "yes."

The only reason to ban the marriages would be a religious reason, and having religion influence law is directly equivalent to legalising discrimination.

To even the most hardcore christian, it should be a bad idea. Why?

Well, think of it this way: What if there were, say, a jewish majority were voted into the US government (instead of the current christian majority) sometime in the far-off future after gay marriage were banned?

Using the gay ban as a guideline and precedent, they could outlaw non-kosher foods withiout much trouble. Goodbye, pork.

You wouldn't want pork outlawed, right? People have eaten pork for years, and are no better or worse than people who don't. No-one is hurt when I have a potroast for dinner, so why ban it?

Us pork-eaters would want to be allowed to have the same rights as the majority of people. We definitely wouldn't want people who only eat kosher food to be allowed tax breaks that we can't have. Why, that would be preferential treatment for the jewish! That would discriminate against every non-kosher religion in the world, as well as atheists, agnostics, and every other minority belief.

Hell, what if there were a vegetarian majority? No meat-based products at all, and it would discriminate against damn near everyone.

If that sounds far-fetched, just replace Jewish with christian and Non-kosher foods with gay marriage, and you've got next year, if Bush gets his way.

 

[seinfeldrules]

That said, I also don't believe in a constitutional amendment banning it.

Agreed.

 

[Matthias]

I really can't see any argument against same sex marriage (other than on relegeous grounds, but then it's unfair to people who aren't religeous as there are legal benefits to marriage).

i say no... whats next? gay couples adopting kids and raising them as a gay person?

imagine the life of that kid...OHH theres the kid with 2 daddys!!!!

I'm quite shocked by this bigoted response, do you really think that people who are award of the extend of intollerance and homophobia in todays society would really try to raise their children as homosexuals?

 

[outpost]

I personly do not care eigher way because it doesn't affect me or anyone I know personaly.

 

[NetWarriorDan]

Yes, it should be legal. Banning gay marriage is a form of religious intolerance and a law that would do so goes against the first amendment and the concept of seperation of church and state.

I respect that some religions don't support gay marriage and that's fine by me. No religious organization should be forced to accept it. However, other religions do support gay marriage so by banning it you are interferring with that religion. Thus it is religious interference and intolerance.

Another way to look at it is that the only way to justify such a ban is through religous reasons. The government cannot use the beliefs and practices of one religion to suppress the beliefs and practices of another. That is wrong.

Furthermore, it does not affect or harm anyone else and therefore should be no one's concern. People don't question and examine the sex lives of hetrosexuals and they have no reason to do the same for homosexuals. It's there business and thier business alone.

Stop reading my mind and posting it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Civil unions yes, gay marriage no.

Well, using my wacky pork example as a base, the "civil union" argument would work like this:

People who eat pork, and people who don't eat pork are entirely equal in every way.

Except people who eat pork aren't allowed to refer to food as "food", but rather as "shit".

Don't want to be called a poo-eater? Too bad. You got the equality you wanted. The only discrimination's in the name, because we really don't want you to be like us, even if it's only on the most petty levels.

Last time I checked, "marriage" wasn't a trademark. Christianity doesn't own the name.

Edit: Yes, once again Neutrino has pointed out exactly why the entire concept is horrible much better than I could. Yay?

 

[ShadowFox]

Does it surprise you though that a christian nation votes in that direction?

Not to mention some folks (I am not saying I agree with them) believe the gays want marriage rights just so they can get the monetary benefits. Of course, I don't see what problem they have with homosexuals getting this money. Just another face of greed and prejudice I suppose.

 

[Viperidae]

The whole anti gay marriage thing is a totally male thing. Notice how there isn't nearly as much anti-lesbian sentiment as there is anti-gay sentiment? Try to figure out why .

Yes, it should be legal. They aren't impeding/forcing someone else's free will, they aren't harming anybody/anything, so what's wrong?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Make a new word for it. Again, it is very sentimental to the majority of citizens in this country. Its like making a new name for skateboarding. It was based on surfing, but doesnt happen on the water.

 

[CyberSh33p]

Yep. They should have all the same legal benefits and rights as straight couples, don't care if they make a new word for it or not. whatever helps em sleep at night.

 

[Matthias]

Marriage represents the union of between two people and as such pre-dates modern religeon.

The whole anti gay marriage thing is a totally male thing. Notice how there isn't nearly as much anti-lesbian sentiment as there is anti-gay sentiment? Try to figure out why .

Yes, it should be legal. They aren't impeding/forcing someone else's free will, they aren't harming anybody/anything, so what's wrong?

I totally agree. It is qurious how homophobia seems to be a predominantly male affliction. Perhaps it's the testosterone...

Whatever the reason there is no excuse.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Marriage means a bond between two people and as such pre-dates modern religeon.

Man and a woman.

 

[Letters]

Hell yes, it should be legal.


My state passed a constitutional amendment banning it... ****ers...

 

[Asus]

People will have their opinions no matter what the influence, religion or not. You should not filter their opinion based on that.

I don't agree with being gay, I don't believe gay's should be allowed to marry.
If they must form a partnership I won't stop them but it will not be under marriage. Marriage is husband and wife, man and woman, sry.

Why am I aganst what gay's believe and same sex marriages? Because it is immoral in my opinion. There is a moral standard and it needs to be upheld. Over the years it has been slipping.

I don't have an issue with the person who is gay but rather his ways. By the way, one of my roomates in college was gay.

My views of course.

 

[ShadowFox]

Man and a woman.

You do know there was the concept of marriage before the concept of Christianity and Judiasm ever existed?

Of course, I don't know how many studies you will find on the prevelance of homosexuality in prehistoric times.

 

[Asus]

Well if you believe in God then man and woman as marriage was thought of before...man and woman.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Does it surprise you though that a christian nation votes in that direction?

It does surprise me that a nation with a christian majority and that preaches freedom and liberty as its cheif values would stoop to religious exclusionism and outright discrimination purely because they are the majority and therefore they can get away with it.

As I pointed out, christians everywhere would be seriously pissed if another religion had the majority and did this to them.

So much for the "golden rule" of doing unto others as you would have them do to you, eh?

Not to mention some folks (I am not saying I agree with them) believe the gays want marriage rights just so they can get the monetary benefits. Of course, I don't see what problem they have with homosexuals getting this money. Just another face of greed and prejudice I suppose.

Yeah another problem there. The question is basically the same as "why should the government treat people equally? I demand that they continue to treat me better than others, as they have for the last 200 years." Some people have simply gotten used to the preferential treatment. Crybabies.

 

[seinfeldrules]

You do know there was the concept of marriage before the concept of Christianity and Judiasm ever existed?

Well every dictionary I've ever looked in defines it as a union between a man and a woman.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well every dictionary I've ever looked in defines it as a union between a man and a woman.

Good for the dictionary. Now, three guesses what religion had the biggest part in writing it.

Words change, and so do thier definitions. The first dictionary written insulted scotsmen, but that's gone.

I repeat, there is no trademark on the word 'marriage.'

 

[ShadowFox]

Well every dictionary I've ever looked in defines it as a union between a man and a woman.

Have you ever heard the saying that history is written by the victors.

 

[Matthias]

Man and a woman.

I used the phrase bond between two people quite intentionally. There are accounts of homosexuality throughout ancient history (island of lesbos anyone?) it certainly is nothing new. The christians didn't invent marriage, almost every society managed to evolve a similar custom independantly. No institution has to right to delare what form of marriage is legal, especially when those privlaged indeviduals whom the state sees fit to wed are then given further benefits.

 

[Neutrino]

I don't agree with being gay, I don't believe gay's should be allowed to marry.
If they must form a partnership I won't stop them but it will not be under marriage. Marriage is husband and wife, man and woman, sry.

That is one religoin's beliefs. I can respect that, but it does not hold for all religions. As I said before, it would be wrong to use one religions beliefs to influence the practices of another religion.

Mecha's point is quite applicable. Jewish people can't force their beleifs and practices on Christians, Christians can't force their beliefs and practices on Jews, and thus no religion should be able to force their beliefs and practices on gays and their religion.

Another point to consider is that the christian church does not control the concept of marriage. I'm an atheist, yet I can get married in any state of this country. Banning me from getting married would be absolutely no different than banning gays from getting married. Both actions would be wrong and unconstitutional.


NetWarriorDan, sorry I'll try to stop that. :E

Well if you believe in God then man and woman as marriage was thought of before...man and woman.

No, actually that's not correct. If you believe in God and the mainstream christian interpretation of the Bible then marriage is between a man and a woman. Note the "and". A person can believe in God and still not agree with that statement.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I repeat, there is no trademark on the word 'marriage.'

Then I guess there is no trademark on anyword. 'Guess' now means 'answer'. Light means dark. Etc. etc.

Have you ever heard the saying that history is written by the victors.

Kinda interesting after reading the Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons, and Daughter of God. Very good books.

 

[Neutrino]

Well every dictionary I've ever looked in defines it as a union between a man and a woman.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=15&y=14

Marriage

n.

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

 

[<RJMC>]

I vote yes
cuz gays are humans too

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Then I guess there is no trademark on anyword. 'Guess' now means 'answer'. Light means dark. Etc. etc.

If your religion belived that, and used those terms those ways, I wouldn't stop you.

But, since no-one does, I can tell you to shut up.

It would be discrimination to stop you speaking how you want, just like saying that I don't want my church to be lessened by having the same name as your church, so I'm forcing you to call your church a crap-house.


Edit: Neutrino has officially "pwned" a certain someone. :O

Can you say civil union and marriage are mutually and interchangeably synonymous? I sure can!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well the dictionary contradicted itself then. To most people marriage means the union between a man and a woman. Again, light isnt dark- true isnt false.

 

[seinfeldrules]

If your religion belived that, and used those terms those ways, I wouldn't stop you.

But, since no-one does, I can tell you to shut up.

It would be discrimination to stop you speaking how you want, just like saying that I don't want my church to be lessened by having the same name as your church, so I'm forcing you to call your church a crap-house.

No, what I proposed would be insane. Society would collapse without a solid grasp on wording and such.