Same sex marriage yay or nay?

[Garr]

TOTALLY yay here. I told my friend, that if they legalize this throughout the country, we could get married with a prenup contract and start flipping houses as a "couple" and get upwards of 250k in profit each, federal tax free (once every 2 years though). There is definitely money to be made if they legalize this.

[Stinger]

Garr, seriously; the best thing about legalizing gay marriage is that you wouldn't need to come up with excuses for sharing your man-love with the world!

Yay, obviously.

[Garr]

I used to be against it. I was for the civil union thing. My base of reasoning was if you redefined something so ancient and traditional as marriage, then what would prevent people from changing it again down the road. Because if you are for Same sex marriage, then you have to be for marrying more than one person, or marrying relatives, or marrying pets. I'm sure that would probably lead to a big mess somehow.  But, i see there is money to be had from it so I'm all for it

[stas]

I'll be the bad one and say nay.

[Zeradul]

The government needs to stay out of the bedroom, and personal relationships.  Other than a tax break for having children (dependents) there really shouldn't be any advantage or disadvantage to being married.

I still don't understand why people are against this.  "Protecting the sanctity of marriage"  What does that even mean?  It seems to me that is just a fancy way of saying they're homophobic, as if two men or two women who love each other can't be equal in their commitment to each other like a Heterosexual couple can.

[Stinger]

I used to be against it. I was for the civil union thing. My base of reasoning was if you redefined something so ancient and traditional as marriage, then what would prevent people from changing it again down the road. Because if you are for Same sex marriage, then you have to be for marrying more than one person, or marrying relatives, or marrying pets. I'm sure that would probably lead to a big mess somehow.

See, that's probably the most common used cop-out on this topic. "Next thing you know, people will be marrying trees, and sheep!" The big problem with that argument is that you compare a homosexual relationship with something that actual deserves the phrase "perverse."

Marriage is, and always has been, about two people forming a partnership together, to function as one unit and to live out their lives working for their common success. The only difference between that and gay marriage is that the two people would now be allowed to have the same genitals.

The divorce rate in America right now is roughly 1 in 2. I personally know a dozen people who have divorced AT LEAST 3 times a piece. The numbers on how many married people commit adultery are damn near impossible to get correct (since some people do manage not to get caught), but the stats come out to somewhere between 20-30% of married women cheat, and 30-50% of men cheat.

So basically, I'm with Zera that "the sanctity of marriage" is a bullshit term used by people who either have their Normal Rockwell blinders on about what marriage actually is and has been, or used by the homophobic who don't have the balls to say "Two guys kissing makes me want to vomit, and that's why it should be illegal!"

A man marrying another man isn't the same as a man marrying a child, or a dog, or three different people at a time. It's just not. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant to the reality of the situation.

The double-standards here really are hilarious. Find me a man in America who would look at two gorgeous women going down on each other and see anything other than a beautiful act, and I'll show you a homosexual.

[vege^]

nay.

i'll stay out of the actual topic, but i happen to think that money is the reason why this country's values have gone downhill. it's actually pretty sad. (i say this bc of what Garr posted, btw)

[Ruckus]

yay !!!!


How dare I , as a citizen, stop two other citizens from having equal recognition of their happiness under the law.

                             Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS !!

Now pass the bong damn it.

[Ruckus]

nay.

i'll stay out of the actual topic, but i happen to think that money is the reason why this country's values have gone downhill. it's actually pretty sad. (i say this bc of what Garr posted, btw)

I know you want to stay out of the topic Veg but how is two people joined in marriage, whether opposite or same, defunct of moral value ?  Is marriage not a devotion of love between two people?   Love, in my book, is a paramount moral value.

[stas]

I just have this one question.  What if we get away with marriages all together and instead have civil unions across the board for everyone. Would that be acceptable to the supporters of gay marriage?

[Stinger]

Actually stas, I would be fine with that. But I got engaged in my late teens, and after that went to shit I became very comfortable with the idea of marriage being off the table for me period, so I doubt I'm the target audience.

Honestly, I view the whole thing as an extension of "separation of church and state." I honestly don't think something that the church is involved with should have any legal bearing at all. But it does, so as long as a coupling that's (usually) done in a church carries any legal status whatsoever, I'm one of a great many people who demand that those rights and privileges bestowed on some American's be bestowed upon all Americans that want them.

Here's a great little thought experiment to show just how extremely stupid being anti gay-marriage is: I'm an atheist, but I can get married. Real easy, no problem. Hundreds of churches would marry me, knowing that I was an atheist. That's fine. But a gay christian? Someone who believe that churches AREN'T morally devoid tax evaders? They're not good enough for marriage.

Oh, we'll wed the heretics, but that queer who never misses a Sunday mass? Fuck him.

Rucky; May not be wise to ask for deeper explanations. I vaguely remember that the other side tried to dispute this "logically" last time, and the best that they came up with described gay people who wanted to get married as a scourge on the American tax payer, and as threats to the children of the future because it may raise them to enjoy things other than watching football. Turning this stuff into a debate may be funny for a few minutes, but it's hardly productive.

[Stinger]

P.S.: In my earlier post I said:

...or used by the homophobic who don't have the balls to say "Two guys kissing makes me want to vomit, and that's why it should be illegal!"

That wasn't me joking, that's the truth. I really want one person, it'd be great if it was one person here, who disapproves of gay marriage to just come out and say that. Not some bullshit about family values that never existed, not some line about morality that implies that all gays are bad people, and not some weak-ass political justification.

I would genuinely respect someone more for saying "I don't want gays to be able to marry because two men together disgusts me" than I do anyone who reaches the same final determination for any other reason. At least that's honest.

Please, someone who doesn't want gay marriage, please just say that you think that other American's don't deserve the same rights that you have because you find them disgusting. Don't try to hide it, be proud. It would be refreshing.

[stas]

So Stinger, as long as every couple is treated equally in every possible way by the state, why does it matter what their union is called? Why can't heterosexuals call it marriage and homosexuals call it a civil union (or any other name)? That seems fair. No?
  

[Stinger]

Nope, not fair at all. Not even a little. When's the last time you heard the phrase "separate but equal?"

Unless you're also suggesting that it's OK for white people and black people to use identical yet far-apart drinking fountains, your argument isn't one. Every American is legally allowed to do something, or no American is. That's constitutional. Banning gay marriage? That's just retarded.

[stas]

Why is it not fair? I'm talking about identical equal rights for any kind of couple legally (constitutionally) enforced. What more could there be? All Americans will have identical legal rights.

Btw, we are talking about a hypothetical situation here, so there is no need to imply what i might or might not be suggesting. That is the fasted way to run any discussion. Lets just stay on the topic.

edit: typo

[Stinger]

Stas, buddy, I was not implying that you were for Jim Crow laws. Sorry if you took it that way.

What I'm saying is that what your hypothetical suggests has already been deemed constitutionally wrong, via the Jim Crow laws. Your hypothetical isn't constitutionally acceptable. It's "separate but equal." That's not just a comparison, that is what you're suggesting. It's illegal.

And even if it wasn't, it would paint the "anti gay marriage" side as being even more petty than they are now. What's the point of calling it two different things if the meat of the thing is identical? It's just to placate the egos of the "morally just" out there, so that they can say that their way is better than what the fags get. It's still bigoted, hurtful, and wrong.

And illegal, because the last time someone suggested "separate but equal" as a fair compromise, it was used against a group of people that were far harder to demonize.

Seriously. This is a civil rights issue. That's an apples to apples comparison. To ban gay marriage isn't just wrong, it's "black people are worth less than white people" wrong. You can see exactly how this is going to end by reading US history books, or by doing a wiki search for Jim Crow.

This isn't going to end well for the people who hate fags. The only question is how long it's going to take.

[stas]

What's the point of calling it two different things if the meat of the thing is identical?

Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? If the meat of the thing is identical, why does it matter what you call it? You already agreed that as long as everyone is treated the same, it does not matter what the thing is called. Why do supporters of gay marriage insist on calling it a marriage? Why does it matter? I would understand the argument if there were any concrete benefits associated with having a title/status of being married, but in this hypothetical we assume there aren't any. So again, why does the word matter?

It seems to me that there is more to the idea/word of marriage than the argument of equality.

[Stinger]

"Hey gay people, you're different from us, so you can't have something we can have! No matter what you do, you're wicked, and you'll never be accepted as normal! Even if we let you have the same thing we have, you wouldn't be allowed to use that word, because we made it illegal, because we hate you that much!"

Do you really not see how a rational person would describe that stance as ridiculously venomous, petty and wrong? Really? I don't believe you.

And what does this hypothetical, which you're amazingly ignoring has been deemed as constitutionally illegal bigotry by the supreme court when applied to black people, have to do with what's really happening?

Stop hiding behind the word "hypothetical," man, you even admit that this isn't what's happening. Speak your mind or don't. Either take some pride in your stance and state it, or stick to and stop at "nay," and don't try to rebut me when I point out that you're arguing it morally acceptable to treat gays the way racist white people used to treat black people after they'd been freed from slavery.

Your "idea" or marriage is the same idea that gay people have. They want to fall in love and move in together, and start a family, and feel the same feelings that you and I experience with the person they love.

It's the same fucking idea, man. To say that their idea of marriage is different from yours only shows how little you really understand about their ideas.

What you personally feel about two men having sex is completely irrelevant to this conversation. I don't care if you don't like gay people. Couldn't care less. Honestly, neither do gay people.

I care, and they care, about people like you going into a booth and deciding shit about their life for them.

Anyone who votes against gay marriage is a hateful, spiteful bigot who is committing a fucking hate crime. It's as simple as that.

[Garr]

A man marrying another man isn't the same as a man marrying a child, or a dog, or three different people at a time. It's just not. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant to the reality of the situation.

The double-standards here really are hilarious. Find me a man in America who would look at two gorgeous women going down on each other and see anything other than a beautiful act, and I'll show you a homosexual.

Whoa wait a second. Why is it not the same thing? Polygamy is just a group marriage. So we would not be able to marry more than one other person? That doesn't sound fair if people of the same sex can marry each other and men can't marry more than one woman or a woman can't marry more than one man.
A dog is a loyal companion to a lot of people. More loyal than most other people. Why would you deny someone who is mostly alone in this world, marriage to the one living creature left to them?

[dusty]

The way you started this topic off was really tacky and I have a hard time believing you are actually for gay marriage. I honestly believe that you are trolling.

Also, yay.

[Stinger]

Garr, that you compare all gay people to polygamists and beastiality pervs says more about you than it does gay people. Seriously, that's just unrepentant bigotry. So you're quite sure that two men in a committed and loving 30+ year relationship have more in common with someone who fucks a dog than they do with a heterosexual married couple?

Well, I'm afraid I have to congratulate you; I can't refute what you just said. It's just too asinine.

[dusty]

I'm actually talking to Garr, because I agree with you completely.

[Stinger]

Aye, I figured that out the second I hit post and retracted. Excuse my knee-jerkedness, I've had a long morning.

[Garr]

Marriage isn't always about love. And when I meant other forms of marriage I don't always mean sex. And I am not trolling either.

I don't get it. Same sex marriage is OK. Marrying more than one person is perverted and unrepetant bigotry. Marrying your beloved pet is beastality (even if you're not having sex with that animal).

[Garr]

The way you started this topic off was really tacky and I have a hard time believing you are actually for gay marriage. I honestly believe that you are trolling.

Also, yay.

I am for same-sex marriage. That does not necessarily mean homosexual marriage.

And wtf was wrong with my topic?

[Ruckus]

I bet there's quite a few on this forum that would marry at least one of their WOW characters   

[Stinger]

Marriage isn't always about love. And when I meant other forms of marriage I don't always mean sex. And I am not trolling either.

I don't get it. Same sex marriage is OK. Marrying more than one person is perverted and unrepetant bigotry. Marrying your beloved pet is beastality (even if you're not having sex with that animal).

We both agree that you don't get it, but if I believed you sincere before this, I don't now.

I dunno, you are doing a great job of letting me see the other side of the argument. If someone were to put me in a booth right now and ask me if I thought people who compare homosexuality to polygamy and beastiality should be allowed to get married, this morning I might just vote "No." On one hand, I still don't believe people have the right to legislate the lives of others... But on the other hand, you've made it impossible for me to ignore the fact that "those people" simply couldn't be trusted to raise children together without seriously fucking them up. Yay eugenics!

This really made me miss the "Gay marriage is a bane on the American taxpayer!" argument. That may have been a stupid argument, but it held water more than "What? No, really! I don't see the difference between gay people and old-school Mormon dog fuckers!" I'm shocked you didn't put the two together! Why not argue for the efficacy of marrying multiple mutts?

Without a serious opposition, I'm done. This "slippery slope" bullshit stopped being funny a decade ago when too many stupid people started believing it.

[wargasm]

Why is it that it seems most people in support of gay marriage have an almost pathological disdain for polygamy?

I say no to gay marriage. It'll end up leading to gay divorce, and that'll be too bitchy.

[Stinger]

Actually, I was a practicing polyamorist for about 5 years, and have no problem with the concept of other people wanting multiple partners. It's the batshit crazy god-talk that accompanies most actual polygamy that concerns me.

And even if you're all for Mormon Holdem played with vagina, it's still not a like comparison to two boring-ass regular "Joe the Plumber" type homosexuals who just want to live together and work on their pipes in peace.

[wargasm]

two boring-ass regular "Joe the Plumber" type homosexuals who just want to live together and work on their pipes in peace.

I can't help but think that relatively small segment of the gay population really has no interest in marriage.