Poll: Gay marriage

[Quiet]

I am interested to see what people's views are on gay marriage. I still cant believe this is a contentious issue in the modern era that we live in, but the country I live in still hasnt legalised it, rather we have same sex unions instead. Personally I see marriage as a cultural instituition, not as a symbol of love and committment, so the concept of marriage means little to me. But i understand that most people in society do see marriage as the ultimate and most respected bond that two people can engage in. This bond is revered by culture and seen as a way to legitamise a relationship.

I speak to many people about this issue. Soemthing interesting ive noticed is that there are many people that think gay people should be able to get married but would not vote to support it. Other people believe that gay people should not get married but would not actually vote against it. There seems to be a incongruence in beliefs and voting behaviour. Of course, there is also people that would vote congruentlty

What is your opinion.
How would you vote?
Does anyone have a legimate reason why they dont support gay marriage?
What is the alternative that you would offer?

 

[barbad0s]

Soemthing interesting ive noticed is that there are many people that think gay people should be able to get married but would not vote to support it. Other people believe that gay people should not get married but would not actually vote against it. There seems to be a incongruence in beliefs and voting behaviour.

Whoa huh?

Where'd you find this out?

 

[Quiet]

Whoa huh?

Where'd you find this out?

Simply by taking to many different people, both politically inclined and not politically inclined.

 

[unpersons]

I support gay marriage and I would vote for it.

/lesbian

 

[Flavus Aquila]

If gay marriage is allowed, what would you call the union of a man & woman?


Society needs a distinct category for dealing with normal marriage, because it is the singularly largest demographic situation in which children are born and raised. It involves issues of maternity leave, income support, insurance, schooling, etc, etc.

I think there should be a definite, distinct category for male/female unions which beget and raise children.
So: What should this category of relationship be called, now that the word 'Marriage' has become void of significant communicative meaning?

 

[Rferraris]

By not recognizing same sex couples, you are practicing segregation. The US has deep wounds in racial segregation, prejudice, and hate. We have hardly made any effort to apologize for what we have done, and now we are already decimating another people. But then it's a slippery slope and its not necessarily right to say gay marriage should be okay because we once put black people at the back of the bus. It is a separate issue and deserves its own conversation.

I don't see other marriage as a threat to mine. Not sure why I would. What does what other people do have to do with me. Next I'll prohibit interracial marriage. Some sick thinking like god doesn't want white people sleeping with non whites so we will not recognize those marriages. Or people from other countries can't marry Americans.

Or are all those okay, but two girls can't fall in love. Sorry, I just don't understand the prejudice.

I would vote to get government out of our lives and stop it from telling us what we are allowed to do with our own bodies. The only time government should get involved is when I start taking chances with your life and I fail to see how gay marriage poses some sort of risk. So I would vote for it. And I would support it. I know my wife does too.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?osbpgx

 

[unpersons]

If gay marriage is allowed, what would you call the union of a man & woman?


Society needs a distinct category for dealing with normal marriage, because it is the singularly largest demographic situation in which children are born and raised. It involves issues of maternity leave, income support, insurance, schooling, etc, etc.

I think there should be a definite, distinct category for male/female unions which beget and raise children.
So: What should this category of relationship be called, now that the word 'Marriage' has become void of significant communicative meaning?

How about we call both straight and non-straight marriages as being marriage. Further, "normal", used in the way you did ("normal marriage"), is a weasel word implying that non-straight marriage is not normal.

Gay couples have need for maternity leave, income support, insurance, schooling, etc, etc. (Granted the male-male couples needn't maternity leave, unless one happens to be a female to male transsexual, but you have to consider that also.)

 

[3blackrings]

I'm sad and frusterated for gay people in this respect. Live and let live.

 

[3blackrings]

Society needs a distinct category for dealing with normal marriage, because it is the singularly largest demographic situation in which children are born and raised. It involves issues of maternity leave, income support, insurance, schooling, etc, etc.

Are you sure society doesn't want/need to put a label on it? And define society? I'm part of it, I think. At least I'm part of it when society likes what I say.

 

[Peppermint]

I'd vote for it. Why not? The only complaints are see are from traditionalists who cannot cope with the idea of rewriting customs and laws, or who (extremely irrationally) feel that homosexuality is a mind virus that will infect the young and gay marriage will win over hetero-marriage in terms of quantity of marriages being made and that it will ruin the traditional family. This is a position so mind numbingly dumb, it not even worth addressing.

 

[3blackrings]

The only complaints are see are from traditionalist who cannot cope with the idea of rewriting customs and laws,

True. Conservatives mostly. And conservatives, by definition, resist change. They suck. The lessons of the past are there. History shows what happens. And most people think History is a waste of time. I'm thinking most people are a waste of time.

 

[Rferraris]

I'd vote for it. Why not? The only complaints are see are from traditionalists who cannot cope with the idea of rewriting customs and laws, or who (extremely irrationally) feel that homosexuality is a mind virus that will infect the young and gay marriage will win over hetero-marriage in terms of quantity of marriages being made and that it will ruin the traditional family. This is a position so mind numbingly dumb, it not even worth addressing.

You hit key points. Traditional marriage isn't at risk. Let's just call it marriage. And for me in the US I just don't want government in my marriage.




---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?viqf4g

 

[Flavus Aquila]

My point is, if we begin calling every legally binding relationship marriage, what term will we have to coin to name men and women legally bound?



I think replies don't need to have accusations, or insults attached because I don't agree with a certain world-view.

 

[Rferraris]

My point is, if we begin calling every legally binding relationship marriage, what term will we have to coin to name men and women legally bound?



I think replies don't need to have accusations, or insults attached because I don't agree with a certain world-view.

I think that's what a couple have addressed. Why should it be different. Why isn't just marriage good enough. Why do you need to separate it. As soon as you do, you are saying you are married, but you are not the same, not as good, different, less than. Why would you want to do that to people. Do you think they don't have feelings? Do you think they don't genuinely care for each other. Can you imagine if you couldn't marry your wife. Because the government stopped you. Can you imagine wearing a scarlet letter. Because you are how you are.

I don't subscribe to the kids arguement.
I come from a divourced family. And sadly close to most peope I know come from divorced families. I remember there was a time when people pitied kids from divourced families because of the stigma attached. Everyone seems to have gotten over that. The novelty will be short lived and the kids will grow up with a new definition of marriage and won't blink twice when mr and mr Hobbs kiss each other goodbye.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?pja1zz

 

[unpersons]

My point is, if we begin calling every legally binding relationship marriage, what term will we have to coin to name men and women legally bound?

We're not calling every legally binding relationship marriage, we're calling marriage marriage. Two people, male-male, female-female, male-female, together as a couple, legally bound in... marriage. Why divide it? If, for instance, civil unions are supposed to be the same thing as marriage, why not do away with that term and just say marriage?

Marriage used to be a man being arranged to marry a woman for the land or stuff she owned or her family owned. Marriage used to be one man and however many women he wanted or was owed. Marriage used to be 'here's a goat, give me the woman.' Marriage has changed so much over the ages, what we now refer to as marriage would not have been so when the concept was originated or even as few as 200 years ago.

 

[manatee]

Soemthing interesting ive noticed is that there are many people that think gay people should be able to get married but would not vote to support it. Other people believe that gay people should not get married but would not actually vote against it. There seems to be a incongruence in beliefs and voting behaviour.

What reasons do they give for this?

My point is, if we begin calling every legally binding relationship marriage, what term will we have to coin to name men and women legally bound?

I don't think adding the modifier het. (or something to that effect) before marriage if needed would be particularly hard...?
Really, in what way can this possibly be a compelling point

And for me in the US I just don't want government in my marriage.

Then why would you vote for legalizing gay marriage?

This, by the way, is the reason why I'm alone in "support but vote against", since that seemed to best reflect the wish to de-legalize marriage entirely.

 

[Rferraris]

Then why would you vote for legalizing gay marriage?

This, by the way, is the reason why I'm alone in "support but vote against", since that seemed to best reflect the wish to de-legalize marriage entirely.

I'm confused. I just wrote a long thing why I would vote for gay marriage. I thought I explained it well.


Well it's too late. Government is already involved. And I'm not in support of getting rid of marriage all together, or de-legalizing it. Why would
I want to do that. I love my wife with all I am and am happy to have made a commitment other than just verbally saying I'll be there.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?loebf0

 

[Flavus Aquila]

We're not calling every legally binding relationship marriage, we're calling marriage marriage. Two people, male-male, female-female, male-female, together as a couple, legally bound in... marriage. Why divide it? If, for instance, civil unions are supposed to be the same thing as marriage, why not do away with that term and just say marriage?

Marriage used to be a man being arranged to marry a woman for the land or stuff she owned or her family owned. Marriage used to be one man and however many women he wanted or was owed. Marriage used to be 'here's a goat, give me the woman.' Marriage has changed so much over the ages, what we now refer to as marriage would not have been so when the concept was originated or even as few as 200 years ago.

Why divide it?

No matter how important "marriage" may be to individual gay/lesbian couples - these unions are not actually important to the running of the state (any state - if you're American, you'll have to think outside your boarders). Minority groups and all the various infinite subdivisions within them are a matter of politics, not administration.

However, for a state/country the vast, overwhelming majority (for practical purposes, you can say all) the children born in the state will be born in marriage, or marriage-like households (current definition - man and woman). Any demographic that large requires special policies/legal/financial considerations: basically policy works in respect of male/female marriage in two broad categories: the married; and the rest.

To redefine the category of marriage to include mostly non-child bearing couples - and in some places human-animal "marriages" makes it near impossible to administer legislation which basically only exists for the benefit of most children born in a state. Why should a couple of gay men living committed to each other get the same tax, legal, etc treatment as a family with three children? At its root, I suspect the whole gay marriage thing, like almost every political movement, originated as a money-grab.

 

[Rferraris]

...

To redefine the category of marriage to include mostly non-child bearing couples - and in some places human-animal "marriages" makes it near impossible to administer legislation which basically only exists for the benefit of most children born in a state. Why should a couple of gay men living committed to each other get the same tax, legal, etc treatment as a family with three children? At its root, I suspect the whole gay marriage thing, like almost every political movement, originated as a money-grab.

Wow, sorry. I didn't even consider that.
I am speaking about the US. I am sort of stupid regarding how it may be different other places. ( typical American) but I assumed the basis of tgis conversation had to do with those persecuted and repressed for no valuable reason.

As far as legislation, I would expect the same challenges exist here. The US.
But it seems certain tax advantages or the such would be afforded by the kids in the household and that doesn't depend on whom it is that habitates that household. Does it?

A money-grab.
I think the gay marriage thing started because there are same sex people that are in love as any two heterosexual people might be and they feel they should have equality. No?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?2r0ume

 

[unpersons]

To redefine the category of marriage to include mostly non-child bearing couples - and in some places human-animal "marriages" makes it near impossible to administer legislation which basically only exists for the benefit of most children born in a state. Why should a couple of gay men living committed to each other get the same tax, legal, etc treatment as a family with three children? At its root, I suspect the whole gay marriage thing, like almost every political movement, originated as a money-grab.

So gay people are like animal fuckers? Since when has marriage been about children? Isn't it about love and wanting to be together forever and making the bonds official? Do you know that here in my country, gay people cannot see each other if dying in the hospital because they are not considered family? For that matter, if we're using your example, why should a couple where one or both parties are sterile get the same tax, legal, etc treatment as a family with three children? What about straight couples who don't intend to have children? Should they be not allowed to get married?

Gay marriage originated as gay people wanting to get married. I'm gay, I don't want money. Shit, my girlfriend isn't rich, she makes $900 a month from social security (unable to work due to medical issues, legit), I'm broke aside from music royalties that come once a month (barely over $900 after taxes), we're straight up in love. We will likely want to get married at some point.

Why?

I would want her to be able to see me on my deathbed, and she would want me to. We would want the same rights as any other married couple. And even though we're both sterile (yes! both of us!), we might want to have children in whatever capacity available to us! We want respect and equality. That is what we seek. Fuck the money. We want the same breaks as a married straight couple with no kids. The ones who have kids can have whatever breaks the government want to give them, but WE want the right to at least start a family together.

THAT'S what gay marriage is about!