Anonymous Poll: Should homosexuals be allowed to get married?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by troutman

When our children take this poll in 20 years, "yes" will be closer to 100%.

I doubt that.

I think back to all the plays of Shakespeare, and the reason they still work today is because the themes of discrimination, hatred, prejudice and intolerance carry forwards from one generation to the next. Humans have made far more progress technically than progress in terms of advancing as a species.

Just last week I was watching the very first few episodes of "All in the Family" and the 4th episode of the series had Archie facing his homophobia. And my thought was.... this show was on when I was a little kid and we are STILL having to stand up and fight for what should be obvious.

[transplant99]

I would say yes as far as I care, but I am also quite aware that, rightly or wrongly, there is a large faction of the population that want the TERM marriage to stay between men and women only. If there were to be say a 3rd option of allowing them to wed but calling it a civil union, meaning its the exact same thing as marriage if not in name, then that would be my vote.

Doing it one way or the other only will perpetuate the continued polarization on the subject and not allow for many people to just move forward. That helps no one in my opinion, and even gay people will continue to fight for something they could already have...again though the term may not be what they desire.

This is not based on my "feelings" alone either. I live in a town with the largest % of gay people in the US not named San Francisco. As such i have a very large number of friends and acquaintances who live that lifestyle, many whom I care very deeply for and have had this very conversation with. I would venture a guess to say that somewhere around 80% of them would agree with what i am saying, while the more militant would be completely opposed.

[Flabbibulin]

Man, I HATE bigots! The only thing I hate more than bigots is cancer... and Mexicans!

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I would say yes as far as I care, but I am also quite aware that, rightly or wrongly, there is a large faction of the population that want the TERM marriage to stay between men and women only. If there were to be say a 3rd option of allowing them to wed but calling it a civil union, meaning its the exact same thing as marriage if not in name, then that would be my vote.

Sounds like this:


Both classes of people can get the same quality and amount of water for the same price, right? It's basically the same thing.... they're equal. Seems fair.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I would say yes as far as I care, but I am also quite aware that, rightly or wrongly, there is a large faction of the population that want the TERM marriage to stay between men and women only. If there were to be say a 3rd option of allowing them to wed but calling it a civil union, meaning its the exact same thing as marriage if not in name, then that would be my vote.

Doing it one way or the other only will perpetuate the continued polarization on the subject and not allow for many people to just move forward. That helps no one in my opinion, and even gay people will continue to fight for something they could already have...again though the term may not be what they desire.

This is not based on my "feelings" alone either. I live in a town with the largest % of gay people in the US not named San Francisco. As such i have a very large number of friends and acquaintances who live that lifestyle, many whom I care very deeply for and have had this very conversation with. I would venture a guess to say that somewhere around 80% of them would agree with what i am saying, while the more militant would be completely opposed.

I've always been a fan of the "No to marriage, but let's just call it a Civil Union" side.

I mean it makes perfect sense. They can be Equal, but still seperate.

Yup, "Seperate but equal" now that's a philosophy I can get behind.

[Sly]

I think p***y and f** are the #1 verbal insults whenever I'm online playing MW2... pretty sad.

[The Yen Man]

I stand by my opinion. If the government is involved in any way, then yes they should be allowed to be married.

It seems like the people against it are up in arms because the term "marriage" is used instead of something like "civil union". In that case, change everything to civil union, and let the religious people have their word back. At the end of the day, if that's the only reason to be against it, then it's just petty semantics IMO.

But like I've said all along. I have a nagging suspicion that people against gay "marriage" are only hiding behind this semantics argument as a way to oppose gay marriage without sounding discriminatory.

[transplant99]

AS I said...I voted YES. Not sure what part of that you all missed.

I am merely relaying what my friends themselves have told me. Most could give a rats ass what it is called as long as they can do it, get the same benefits, and be left alone because of it.

And its not "same but seperate", its same thing with a different name. It is not segregation of not being allowed to "drink from the same fountain", they are not being discriminated against as far as being allowed to go where everyone else goes, and to compare it that way is preposterous.

Its a freaking WORD...Married or Unioned. Yes it would be a bit of a compromise by one side as far as what to call it, but really is THAT a big deal?

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Let me preface with this: 2 years ago I had 2 brothers who I thought (more or less) were straight. Now I have 1 gay brother and 1 gay sister, so I think I have a unique perspective on this topic.

It is a total nature vs nurture argument.

I think you can have tenancies of varying levels from birth that are aggravated or suppressed by events that happen in your (probably early) life. So in this respect, you are born with in because by the time you have a chance to make the choice the choice has already been made for you by your experiences.

Studies have shown that the person you had your first crush on will determine what characteristics you like in a woman(or man). I suspect that the crush helps form the association with that feeling and their appearance, in a Pavlov's dog kinda way. I think this same type of thing applies to your sexuality.

Events, big or small, happen in our lives that change who we are. To deny that they have a hand in shaping our sexuality would be naive.

My wife looks NOTHING like my kindergarten teacher...

BTW I say yes of course, government snctioning of marriage is so arbitrary anyway, why not extend it to people asking for the right. Although I am against polyamourous marriage because I think there is a logical distinction between discrimination between pair bonds of different stripes and discrimination between pair bonds and multi-partner arrangements.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

if a gay man wants to marry a gay women, why the hell should I care?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by transplant99

AS I said...I voted YES. Not sure what part of that you all missed.

I am merely relaying what my friends themselves have told me. Most could give a rats ass what it is called as long as they can do it, get the same benefits, and be left alone because of it.

And its not "same but seperate", its same thing with a different name. It is not segregation of not being allowed to "drink from the same fountain", they are not being discriminated against as far as being allowed to go where everyone else goes, and to compare it that way is preposterous.

Its a freaking WORD...Married or Unioned. Yes it would be a bit of a compromise by one side as far as what to call it, but really is THAT a big deal?

Exactly... marriage is just a word - so what's the big deal with letting gays get married?

A very vocal minority's religious convictions? OK - well if that's the case and people feel strongly enough that this word needs to be protected from 'the gay' then the government shouldn't marry anyone. As far as the government is concerned, gay or straight, it only recognizes civil unions and that's all that exists in it's eyes - whatever religious ceremonies and other terms you want to tack on to it is not the government's business.

No more of this 'separate but equal' stuff. Just equal.

[The Yen Man]

What I don't understand is, the word "marry" has expanded to have multiple meanings, and not just a union between a man and a woman. I don't see religious people getting all worked up about the term "marry" being applied to inanimate objects, so why do they have a problem with it now? All of a sudden, they're up in arms because they think the term is sacred?

As per dictionary.com:

mar·ry

1    /ˈmæri/ Show Spelled [mar-ee] Show IPA verb, -ried, -ry·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to take in marriage: Susan married Ed.

2. to perform the marriage ceremonies for (two people); join in wedlock: The minister married Susan and Ed.

3. to give in marriage; arrange the marriage of (often fol. by off ): Her father wants to marry her to his friend's son. They want to marry off all their children before selling their big home.

4. to unite intimately: Common economic interests marry the two countries.

5. to take as an intimate life partner by a formal exchange of promises in the manner of a traditional marriage ceremony.

6. to combine, connect, or join so as to make more efficient, attractive, or profitable: The latest cameras marry automatic and manual features. A recent merger marries two of the nation's largest corporations.

7. Nautical . a. to lay together (the unlaid strands of two ropes) to be spliced.

b. to seize (two ropes) together end to end for use as a single line.

c. to seize (parallel ropes) together at intervals.



8. to cause (food, liquor, etc.) to blend with other ingredients: to marry malt whiskey with grain whiskey.


–verb (used without object) 9. to wed.

10. (of two or more foods, wines, etc.) to combine suitably or agreeably; blend: This wine and the strong cheese just don't marry.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I doubt that.

I think back to all the plays of Shakespeare, and the reason they still work today is because the themes of discrimination, hatred, prejudice and intolerance carry forwards from one generation to the next. Humans have made far more progress technically than progress in terms of advancing as a species.

Just last week I was watching the very first few episodes of "All in the Family" and the 4th episode of the series had Archie facing his homophobia. And my thought was.... this show was on when I was a little kid and we are STILL having to stand up and fight for what should be obvious.

20 years ago I imagine support for gay marriage was less than 50%. Support for inter-racial marriage must be close to 100% now. I don't think our children will care about this, and religious literalism is on the decline.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its a freaking WORD...Married or Unioned. Yes it would be a bit of a compromise by one side as far as what to call it, but really is THAT a big deal?

Well clearly it is if you're suggesting that they should not be entitled do it.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think ultimately it will become a many factored reason as to why this happens.

Well it is nature...its one big experiment...which means it's perfectly natural to be that way...which some argue it isn't - you have man and women on each end of the scale and sometimes you get a person who shares traits from each end and would be somewhere in the middle....There is certainly an evolutionary reason for it as well. Make sense to me and others, but not to some..human nature i guess.

Also i agree with the "your environment" factor as well. Only because I "think" i have observed it in my life with people I know.

I voted yes, because I believe in equality for all.

[Flabbibulin]

I can understand the people that are vehemently against, or in support of gay marraige. What I don understand are the people that say marraige is just a word. If its just a word, and not a life long committment, then why are we arguing about it? I dont argue or have an opinion about the word "express", or the word "instantly" because they are just words.

The "its just a word" crowd may help explain why marraiges are ended 50% of the time.

[Azure]

Sure.

I honestly don't care.

The only reason I support it is because I don't give a crap what other people do. As long as it doesn't effect me.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by J pold

Well clearly it is if you're suggesting that they should not be entitled do it.

Holy crap....do you not READ what is written? I said YES they should be allowed.

The only thing I am saying is that to get over the whole damn debate about it....just compromise.

I dont care what they call anything for anyone as long as everyone ends up being TREATED equally. Compromise...if it doesnt happen this things perpetuates for ever.

Im married...if you want to call me something else to make it so everyone gets the same treatment...go nuts.

I just dont think that fighting tooth and nail and alienating a bunch of people is way to go when all that is being talked about here is a damn WORD, and how some want it defined. Its a waste of time, money and resources IMO.

put it this way...maybe no one should be allowed to get married, and everyone can only get "civil unioned"...would that satisfy everyone?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Well it's politically correct to say "sure, why not".

But tell me why gays need to be married, for the benefits, and tax breaks?

Heteros get married because it's traditional and chances are they will have children that will inherit the family genetics and coincidentally the family name, something inherently important for generations... millennia.

With the increasingly growing tax burden on society, why extend the tax breaks and benefits designed to help families with the financial drain of raising a family, to gays?

Personally I voted no because I don't see a justifiable need that would outweigh the costs to society.

Gay marriage will take billions and billions out of the public and private pension funds, insurance companies and tax coffers. That money will have to be replaced by higher taxes, contributions and premiums... but hey, it's politically correct.

I already replied to this to make fun of you, but the more I think about it, the more ######ed I realize this argument is.

By your logic then, we should repeal the right to marry from the following groups.
1) Men and women who are infertile
2) Men and women who have no intention of having children
3) Men and women who are over, say 40, as they probably won't have children anyway

I mean, if the reason you're against gays getting married is simply because you think your taxes will go up, then logically you MUST be against the groups I listed getting married.

This to me just reeks of stretching to find a "legitimate" reason, so that you can be on the anti side, without just saying "I don't like gays, and don't want them to get married".

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

I can understand the people that are vehemently against, or in support of gay marraige. What I don understand are the people that say marraige is just a word. If its just a word, and not a life long committment, then why are we arguing about it? I dont argue or have an opinion about the word "express", or the word "instantly" because they are just words.

The "its just a word" crowd may help explain why marraiges are ended 50% of the time.

LOL!!

Yes i took a vow to the word marriage...not my wife.