Forums / Discussion / General

Just a "Yes" or "No" would suffice, I guess, but elaboration on your opinions would be appreciated, of course.

So, yeah, what do you guys think?

I don't see how there's anything wrong with this, therefore I'm fine with it, not supporting, as it doesn't relate to me at all, but people should be allowed to marry if they want to, no matter what their sexuality, it seems like a pointless barrier dumped in the way if it is illegalised.

Yes. Religious matters are of a personal discretion.

No, because [insert Poe's Law statement here].

People can do whatever they damn well please as long as it doesn't inflict on other people
Just because a book of middle eastern fairy tales said something doesn't make it the absolute truth

I think it should be allowed. I personally believe that homosexuality is genetic, and if that's the case then their views can't be changed no matter what. To not let them have their way by marrying the sex that they are attracted to would be a violation of the Pursuit of Happiness. Gay marriage is not a bad thing, but unfortunately I have relatives that are of Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church, and they are all homophobic. [sigh]

Low blow, Pyro. Low blow. Most of my life is dictated by those fairy tales.
 
Anyway, for the US, legal marriage isn't a matter of religious beliefs (or at least I don't think it should be.) So I don't see on what legal basis should prevent same sex couples from getting married. It just seems like out-and-out discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Now the question is "Do I support you marriage?" Similar to the Chic-fil-A, I see problems in principle in making a church marry gay couples. Just like preventing people from legally marrying based upon religious values, it is not right to force churches to marry based upon legal statutes.

Churches can believe pretty much whatever they want, despite what you think/know is right or wrong until they begin to infringe upon others' liberties. So if a church wants to prevent a legal marriage by force or by legal avenues, then the church should be prevented from doing so.
 
As it applies to me, if you asked me to vote for an amendment to marriage so that is applies specifically to a man and a woman, then I would not vote for it. If you asked me to vote for a similar amendment that makes it explicit that any two, legal humans can get married, then I would vote for it.

---

By the way, nice trips on the thread, Trollkeeper.

I agree with Verbose. Religious institutions of any sort, not just churches, shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriage. Because honestly, why would I want to get married to the man I live by a bigot who's only doing it because he's forced to. And it's not like I'd be a member of such a congregation anyways. So why does it matter? There will always be SOMEONE willing to perform a gay marriage.

Yes, I do support gay marriage.

I don't see anything wrong with it. I certainly understand why some people are against it. But I personally don't have anything against gay marriage.

If you believe in the separation of church and state, you have to support Gay marriage.
Some Churches will not allow gays to become married under the church's jurisdiction. Well, whatever. That's their choice, and even if I don't respect that they're allowed to. But there's no reason that a state shouldn't allow for gays to be married.
Legally, marriage is just a merging of individual estates. It's supposed to make taxation easier, streamline inheritance, and allow for people to live together without confusion. If gays can't be married in religious ceremony in most churchs, fine. But what is the idea behind prevent their economic union under the law?
The answer is that religious ideas are, secularism be damned, being used in place of the law in states that ban gay marriage. There is literally no reason but religion and bigotry. Since there's no legal reason at all to discriminate against gays, it can't be rationally defended. But then again nobody said it was rational.

---

But that's law tier. Not opinion tier.

Personally, I have nothing against gays getting married. I have nothing against gays adopting. I don't think it hurts people and it's none of my business. Why on Earth would you hate someone for their sexual orientation? How does it hurt you? Unless they sexually harass you (note: regardless of other people's orientation, somebody can harass you at any given time) it doesn't negatively impact you at all.

---

tl;dr Not supporting gay marriage just means you're an anti-democratic bigot.

Politically, yes. We can't deny people rights under the law just because of differences of opinion.

I support it entirely. There's a lot of debate going on in the UK over this right now, since our Conservative Prime Minister is making a big push to get it legalised, despite not mentioning it in his party manifesto before the last election. It doesn't help that half of his party is firmly against it. Annoyingly, they're using it as an excuse to criticise him, saying he's only doing it to get good publicity. Because of that, there's a chance it won't be entirely legalised here, and it's all because a bunch of idiotic politicians are making it an issue of politics rather than an issue of rights and equality. The churches haven't been helping matters either. Originally it was going to be legalised completely, but the government received so many objections from religious institutions that they recently updated their plans to make it legal everywhere except the Church of England. I don't mind if the Church of England wants to forbid it (though it would make them look like complete bigots), but it doesn't seem right for special exceptions to be written into law exclusively for them.

I'm yet to hear any convincing arguments against gay marriage. I usually just hear things like "It's going to redefine marriage for straight people". I really don't understand how, since nothing will be changing for them. It's not like straight marriages are going to be invalidated just because gay people are allowed the same liberties. I watched a televised debate about it yesterday, and they kept ranting on about how it's "a union between a man and a woman", as if they'd somehow write the definition into the fabric of the universe if they just repeated it enough times. As far as I can tell, they're just trying to impose their religious values onto the population at large, and that's something I'm strongly opposed to. They kept quoting the Bible as a way of justifying their views, which really doesn't help their case when you find what it actually has to say on the matter.

@OP

Yes, you wont find many people here who have a good reason not to.

---

@Topic

I still feel that this whole debacle would have been made easier if we just came up two different forms of marriage: religious marriage and non-religious marriage. So both parties can have their cake and eat it

The civil union bill was supposed to be that but it still wasn't enough for some reason

I just wish the church realized that when two people want to live together, it doesn't have to involve God. And I wish the gay community realized that marriage is a big freaking deal to religions and you cant just pull it out from underneath them. I believe there wouldn't have been a huge debate about this if it were not for that.

I think there is too much potential lost though not letting gays get married or adopt. So yes, I strongly believe they should be allowed to do so.

It's in their genes so telling a gay man to get married to a woman is like telling a Dog to get married to a Cat.

yes what bad can come from gay marriage anyways

BSoD wrote:

The civil union bill was supposed to be that but it still wasn’t enough for some reason

---

Civil partnerships vary from country to country, so I can't speak for everyone here, but I know that in the UK they grant pretty much all of the same legal rights as marriage. The problem with them is that they perpetuate the idea that same-sex relationships are fundamentally different to opposite-sex relationships, and that they aren't deserving of the same recognition. It's really just a matter of acceptance and equality.

---

And I wish the gay community realized that marriage is a big freaking deal to religions and you cant just pull it out from underneath them.

---

I don't see what the gay community is doing wrong here. Why can't the church maintain their own internal definitions of marriage without imposing them on everyone else? In accepting gay marriage, a government is redefining marriage as a legal term, not as a religious idea. It's not like anyone is being forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies, so nothing is really changing for them.

Yes,I see nothing wrong in gay marriages.

I hate all marriage.

Yes, because, while I may be a devote Catholic, I like schadenfreude and, with gay marriage legal, I can laugh at more people going insane from marital suffering.

Yes, I support gay marriage. Although, I'm going to keep my opinions to myself, as I'm pretty biased on the subject.

Yes, I support it. It really doesn't affect me one bit, so why should I care.

@pyro
I got to say I don't appreciate that comment. I as well as many users here are catholic.

against gay marriage?

THEN DON'T MARRY THEM

I'm not going to downvote you, as I respect others opinions (Even if this affects me). Could you elaborate a bit more?

@Algernon

I don’t see what the gay community is doing wrong here. Why can’t the church maintain their own internal definitions of marriage without imposing them on everyone else? In accepting gay marriage, a government is redefining marriage as a legal term, not as a religious idea. It’s not like anyone is being forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies, so nothing is really changing for them.

It's a cultural minefield, is what I am trying to say.

For the better part of the last several centuries marriage and religion have been deeply tied to each other. They won't pry apart easily, even though that is what we have essentially been trying to do for the last several years.

From the perspective of religion, marriage has been "its thing" for some time and it always went by religions rules. So when the gay community; a non-religious affiliate came in and asked for a change in those rules for their own inclusion, the religious community saw it as an aggressive trespass on "their turf" rather than a stand for equality, thus igniting the shitstorm we all know today. That's what I want the gay community to understand: This is not a simple matter for churches to relent over. You've got decades of ingrained culture to beat back.

While you are asking why the church can't maintain their own definition of marriage and not impose it on others…well here's the tricky thing: the church is also asking why the gay community can't maintain their own definition of marriage and not demand other groups they have no affiliation with to bend to their demands

See the weird deadlock on agreement we have here?

We both know that the simplest and most ideal scenario is to split marriage and religion apart but the masses still think this is a matter of tug and war over the same thing.

>unnatural
>about 1500 species of animals exhibit homosexual behaviour
>mfw

I do believe gays should be allowed marriage. Sure, it wouldn't be that way if the Church was combined with the State here in America, but seeing as it hasn't been for quite some time, they should be given the option to marry.

Oh, and homosexual marriage shouldn't anger theists. I am one as well, and I'm happy to see people marry who they wish, whether it be a man or woman of their choice. Playing the Religion card in this argument is a dick move that hasn't had validation for a very long period of time.

I'm a lesbian, but my GF and I are both confused as to why more gays/lesbians can't just simply join union.

Seriously, can someone list me the differences?

We both kinda think that marriage is kinda over rated.

But, yeah, I support it.

I kinda agree, actually. I'd be fine with a union.

But I think the problem is that marriage has a lot of caché and social value. You're right in thinking that unions are almost identical, but saying "My partner" doesn't sound quite the same as "My Husband". There are no Union Receptions or Partner Showers, after all…

There can still be stag nights though. Hmm…this gives me an idea…

From what I understand, it's a matter of principle more than privileges/rights.

There isn't a legal reason to make any differentiation between gay or straight marriage. So giving it another name sorta makes it seem like one is better than the other at worst (and one is more legitimate than the other at best.) So even if the privileges are the same, it's insulting to not be considered in the same number as any other human.
 
Think of it as "separate but equal." There's a slight difference in that "separate but equal" was rarely "equal" for minorities, but the sentiment behind the concept was the same: "You…stay over there. Away from us."

Racial minorities didn't like it. I figure gays/bisexuals don't either.

Does that idea involve some teal stag?

---

I support gay marriage btw. My country thankfully is a lot easier about these things.

Two thumbs up to the posters in this thread for staying as civil as civil arguments about same-sex marriage go. I’m sure everybody is aware of how spiteful these types of arguments can get. I’m confident that if this same question were to be asked on /b/, the discussion would quickly devolve into a flame war. In fact, it’s slightly unfair to /b/’s community to suggest that their board is the only place where that could happen--I mean, we’ve already seen enough political debates, haven’t we?

Seriously, though, I don’t think of this question as being as simple as a “Yes” or “No” thing, and I know plenty of people who don’t feel that it’s as uncomplicated as “Pro” and “Anti.” I don’t consider it to be that way either.

First and foremost, to answer the OP’s question, I do support the mass legalization of same-sex marriage and adoption. My Christian upbringing does little to alter my opinion (I’m currently heavily agnostic, and I’d love to describe that, but that’s something for another thread), but it does however help me to understand the opinions of others. I’ve always had a problem with the argument “if a person is Christian, they must not support same-sex marriage.” Though I will not deny that most members of my family indeed do not support same-sex marriage, few actually oppose it or dislike the idea. Just as important is the fact that a few, myself included, do support the idea.

I try to look at things as objectively as I can, and it can be hard sometimes. I offer no apologies if my viewpoints are tinted with subjectivity, because the same can be said for absolutely everyone. My point is that I can actually see both sides of the argument quite well.

I believe in civil unions, which I view as basically being marriages without the word “marriage.”

For one thing, same-sex marriage doesn’t harm any individuals or society in general in and of itself. People panicked over societal decline have historically done more damage than societal decline has, which I personally find to be the slightest bit poignant, no? I’m not quick to throw the word “bigot” at somebody, but I don’t like to hear that argument from people. On this note, homosexuality is becoming, for the most part, a generally accepted lifestyle, at least in the United States. People often don’t take into account that we have plenty of evidence supporting biological causation, which annoys the fire out of me. It makes it a whole lot harder to take the arguments of people against same-sex marriage seriously. I’m certainly no biologist, but I know enough about scientific method to say that homosexuality being a biological thing sort of makes sense. [fatalism] If your sexual orientation is homosexual, I believe that that is what you were biologically destined and fated to be, and there isn’t much way to change that. [/fatalism] So, yeah, it makes a lot of sense to me that if it’s a biological thing, it should be something that’s accepted in society. And it is (it sits well with a good amount of people).

Italicizing for emphasis: Denying same-sex marriage is minority discrimination, is it not? I haven’t yet heard a good explanation of how the portion of our population that is homosexual is not a group, and further yet, a minority group. So I believe that denying this minority a fundamental right is minority discrimination. From how I choose to look at it, it is as simple as that.

On the topic of adoption, same-sex couples cannot procreate. A same-sex marriage can fuel the exact same desire for children that a heterosexual marriage can. Adoption or surrogating is the obvious alternative here. Consider all of the children in need of a loving home. I highly doubt that they would care about the sexual orientation their adoptive parental figures; more likely, they would just be grateful that they would be getting a home. This is the main reason that I support adoption for same-sex couples.

The argument that children developed under same-sex parents do not turn out ideal is both based on utterly inconclusive evidence, and just seems petty. So I tend to filter it out of my mind when people say that, because even I, somebody who tries to take everybody’s arguments into account, just can’t really respond well when that point is brought to light.

This might very well sound daft, but I think that the only thing that should really matter in a marriage is affection. If one person is devoted to another person, to me, that’s all that makes it important. Other things like fiscal and social benefits are not priorities as long as the relationship between the two partners is stable.

On the topic of monetary issues, will somebody explain how, in today’s economic environment, the same financial benefits do not apply to same-sex couples in the exact same manner that they do to heterosexual couples? Because honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever once heard a half-decent argument for that point anywhere. Seriously, I pose that as a topic of conversation for the thread. What is the difference?

Most religions consider homosexuality to be a sin. To be blunt, that’s alright, I suppose. A few members of my own family consider it offensive when it is suggested that homosexuality is acceptable and should be encouraged. I don’t maintain a set of values like that, so what can I say?

I also frequently hear the argument that same-sex marriage would weaken the definition of and respect for the institution of marriage, and that it would weaken our country’s traditional family values. In my opinion, when phrased and delivered correctly, arguments for these points can actually be quite good. However, I view neither as being compulsory for our nation’s citizens, and as a country, I sort of wish that we could downplay these things a little bit more. I find that when we get into technicalities about these types of things, that’s when arguments get heated, and often the merit of the points in these arguments go south.

Same-sex marriage could confuse children about gender roles and expectation of society. I won’t deny this at all, but I think I addressed the second point earlier in my post, right? So, uh, yeah. As for gender roles, I don’t think that overly zealous people against same-sex relationships should condescend upon children growing up with same-sex parents, which happens so often. Ugh. I don’t think that defaming or discouraging homosexuality for children is the answer to this problem, but there are too many potential answers for me to make a case for each of them. I think instead, I’ll just say that I think gender confusion is an issue that could be avoided easily (enough) without defaming any lifestyle choices, correct? I think it’s possible to educate without any major level of subjectively, though it’s quite hard.

Also, I get irritated when people say that same-sex marriage creates a slippery slope to the entire idea of marriage being destroyed. I think that we have a firm enough definition of marriage as it stands to avoid that. People aren’t going to start marrying gerbils next just because they could. They can’t.

I know that for a lot of gay couples, it really is just a matter of wanting to get married. There's been an example in the British news recently where the first gay couple to have kids through a surrogate in the UK are wanting to be married by the Church of England, and they're a bit pissed off that there's is the only church in which it'll still be illegal.

For me though, I'm not really bothered about getting married. Your post sums up my views on the matter perfectly. It's about being seen as equals in the eyes of the state and the population at large. While legalising gay marriage won't achieve those things entirely, it's a pretty significant step.

I do support gay marriage in city/town halls here in France and it's big news since there have been many demonstrations in favor of or against gay marriage in my country lately.

I support it because:

>MFW I'm half gross and weird, and unnatural, and gross, and weird, and gross

Mfw I can't tell if this is a joke or a legit opinion.

Well, let's just say I am against banning same sex marriages. I also believe religion has no place in government and the government should not decide what marriage is. Rather than legalizing gay marriage, I'd prefer them to simply define marriage as between two people. The religious institutions can decide whether to approve/disapprove these marriages…and if they don't, well…new ones can form to support them.

But seriously though. I don't see myself getting married with someone in the future because I show little to no interest to it. I will say however that I don't see why people must involve religion and politics into someone's personal life. Especially something as sensitive as his sexual orientation.

So in a weird way of saying this, I genuinely don't care about marriage but it would be a real dick move to not allow two people of the same sex to get married because you put your thoughts and beliefs over there's.

I'm in favor of basic human equality. Nothing more, nothing less. If that includes being able to marry whomever you want, so be it.

Recent studies theorize that homosexuality isn't completely genetic, but not a choice either

The "it's a choice" argument is paper thin anyway, but the video is interesting so you should give it a watch.

Long story short, I am for gay marriage. Although, being in a family of people who are against (but not hateful about) gay marriage I understand ones reason for being against it. I think it is almost completely a matter of not understanding or being around other openly gay people. Think about it, everybody has a fear of the unknown. It's in our instincts. Homosexuality is something very strange and foreign to a lot of people in the US. It doesn't help that a lot of those same people have grown up their whole lives being told that it was wrong. If you grew up being told that picking flowers was wrong and everyone around you didn't pick flowers you would honestly think that picking flowers was morally wrong. I strongly believe that the best way of showing our country that there is nothing wrong with marrying a member of the same sex is being open about our sexuality and showing everyone how normal it actually is compared to relationships between a man and women. What I'm saying is, be peaceful and prove to everyone why you're lifestyle is just as normal and healthy as any other.

Also, to those saying that all conservatives and religious nuts are against gay marriage: My father is one of the most conservative people you will ever meet, and he is very religious as well (Christian) but I have never in my entire life heard him say he is against gay marriage. If anything, he thinks the law should not be concerned about gay marriage. Conservatives believe in small government, so them saying laws about gay marriage should be enforced goes very against what they stand for politically.

I'd have to disagree with you on that. I have some very close friends who are gay, and I don't feel like it's foreign or unknown. I simply cannot choose to advocate a lifestyle that I don't believe to be edifying, and came to that conclusion after a lot of independent thought. The idea that it's just because I've been told so for so long honestly feels like an insult to my free thought and intelligence. I choose to not advocate it spiritually just as much as I choose to advocate it politically and see people who do as my equals regardless. I understand that it's hard for others to accept religious reasoning behind these choices, and I don't expect anyone here or anywhere else to just accept it as fact. But questioning my beliefs on the issue, as well as plenty of intelligent independent people's beliefs by writing it all off as ignorance is a bit offensive to me.

I guess God gave all those sinful giraffes the choice too.

@Brawler

I get what you are saying and I can agree, though I have to say that Crimsons point of view is not entirely unreasonable.

Having gay friends and getting to know gays personally does seem to influence a lot of people where their stance is. Perhaps it didn't for you, but for others I think it does.

Every time I met someone that opposed gay marriage, I asked them the same question: "Do you have any gay friends". So far, 100% of the responses has been 'no'. None of the people I met who disagreed with it, knew, understood or ever talked to gays on any level.

Meanwhile almost everyone I know who does support it, including myself, do have gay friends they meet on a regular basis.

So statistically speaking, I believe there is a connection between stance taken and personal contact/understanding of the gay community

It would definitely make sense that it would be more of a choice than in genes. As a heterosexual male, I suppose I wouldn't know, but I'd imagine it essentially comes down to the traits one might look for. I like women, but I wouldn't dare pursue a relationship with a good deal of them, because they just aren't particularly interesting to me (but my standards aren't ridiculous or anything, right?) Perhaps a man wasn't "born" gay, but he prefers masculine traits in his partners, and as such tends to gravitate towards men. There's probably some genes involved to make them "more likely" to be willing to pursue men, but that's my theory. Any homosexuals are welcome to tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about, because I don't. I'm espousing crap theories on the Internet, which is pretty much par the course for my life.

I'm very much for, and two years in a deeply conservative, deeply fundamentalist town in the Confederate States of America American South failed to present any arguments against it. Procreation isn't really an issue: there's been homosexuality pretty much as long as there's been humanity and we've gotten along well enough, what with seven trillion of us floating around. I can understand some religious dissent, but personally I prefer for people to keep their religion out of other people's lives (not that I'm anti-religion, but I'm pretty open in my interpretation of a higher power).

Yes, gay marriage and benefits need to be federally legalized. I swear, the U.S. Supreme Court better pull their heads out of their asses and make the right call.

Exudes Affluence wrote:

It would definitely make sense that it would be more of a choice than in genes.

---

It really isn't a choice. If it were, anyone could simply flick the gay switch in their own head just to try being gay for a day. I don't know of anyone who's managed to make themselves gay by their own conscious actions. Despite that, it's also pretty likely that it isn't entirely genetic.

I heard an idea that may go some way to explain why it might be partially genetic. Some studies found that in families with gay men in them, the women tended to have more kids or be more promiscuous (notice I said tended, it's certainly not true in all cases). It's possible that the tendency to be more attracted to men can be spread by these women, and since they reproduce more than average they counterbalance the lack of children produced due to the gay men. It certainly goes some way to explain how something like homosexuality could survive in the gene pool. I'm not sure if that idea is generally accepted amongst people who study this sort of thing, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable. I'm also not sure if there's an equivalent explanation to account for lesbianism.

It's probably most likely that homosexuality is partially genetic and partially due to the environment you're brought up in, but not due to choice. I mean, who would choose it anyway? It's not like it provides any significant benefits.

(The Wikipedia page on this topic is pretty good)

---

I don't know who negged the entire thread except for the only people here who seem to disagree with homosexuality, but it's kind of pathetic. Considering this thread exists for the purpose of discussing gay marriage, it would make a lot more sense to actually post something explaining your views than to neg everyone who thinks differently.

@Brawler: You missed my point that this view on gay marriage tends to happen to people who have never knowingly interacted with gays or had gay friends. And I never said this was about ignorance, I said this was about lack of understanding. Ignorance is the last word I would use here because it is insulting and makes it sound like I have no faith in them changing their minds when I actually do have faith in them. I've never done any statistics or studies about this, I am just going from personal experience. I personally don't think there is any "right" or "wrong" in this issue, I think it's all a matter of perspective. People who are in a different position than me might think otherwise but that's the way I see it. I don't think either sides should be throwing insults at the other.

Lol the karma bombers are here again.
Remember to tip the karma bombers.
(Fixed rations for people who had negatives without cause)