Poll: Gay marriage

Gay marriage opinions/voting preference

  • I support gay marriage and I would vote for it

    Votes: 63 82.9%
  • I support gay marriage but I would vote against it

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • I dont support gay marriage but I would still vote for it

    Votes: 4 5.3%
  • Im against gay marriage and I would vote against it

    Votes: 8 10.5%

  • Total voters
    76
You should have had one that said: "Apathetic"
 
The delusion is strong with this one.

Yep.

Anyways, he's already showed his hand-- the second he started throwing out generalizations he pretty much proved your point. I was actually vaguely interested in what he had to say until that whole 'obsessive need for approval' thing sort of proved you right.

There are a lot of gay people in the world, @Flavus... they don't all have the same personality.
 
What reasons do they give for this?

Many different reasons. Please note that these are just opinions different people have given me, I do not identify or agree with any of them and often the reasons dont seem rational. This is what has been said:

Vote against
Im happy for gay people to get married but I dont want it happening where I live
I support gay marriage but I wouldnt vote for it because then more people will become gay
I support gay marriage but I woudnt vote for it because I dont like the idea of gay people having kids
Im support gay marriage but Im not enrolled to vote anyway
Im happy for gay people to get married but I wouldnt vote for it because it doesnt matter.
I wouldnt vote to suppot it because I dont believe in marraige
Im happy for gay people to get married but I wouldnt vote for it because then they'll ask for even more

Ones Ive heard from people involved in politicans-
I support gay people getting married but this country is not ready for it
I support gay people getting married but I cant vote for it because I'll lose my conservative constituents

and

Vote for:
I dont like gay marriage but I would vote for it because it doesnt really effect me
I dont support gay marriage but I would vote for it because the government has no right to intefere in our business
I dont like gay marriage but i would vote for it because religion has no place in government
and the weirdest one- I dont think gay people should get married but I would vote for it because weddings are great for the economy.

and from a politcian-
I dont like the idea but I would vote for it because Ive recieved a lot of emails from the community about it
 
Interesting topic.

I have heard the argument that gay marriage should be accepted as a response to the crumbling institution of straight or true marriage; i.e., because homosexuals should be given the chance to "show" heterosexuals how to do marriage - not that homosexual marriage should be considered "correct" or "natural":

"We must repent of how Christian husbands have neglected to sacrifice biblically for their wives and children. Homosexual unions are a caricature of what a marriage should be—but perhaps we ought to be asking why, since God is the cartoonist, He has decided to draw these caricatures in the midst of this society." (Life and Death of Homo Pervertens)

Even on this basis alone, I would vote for candidates who support lawful homosexual marriage.

I do not disagree, however, that homosexuality is possibly a neurosis. I do not disagree, even, that it is possibly incorrect and against nature - just as I do not disagree that divorce is incorrect and against nature.

But if we are a free people, who will not be directly harmed by the same sex marriages, accommodation is in order.
 
Last edited:
Never mind that, who wants to deal with the moralizing outrage of the conservatives? It's just so much simpler to do the upkeep of status quo.

In their defense, I do not believe that all conservatives are outraged, as such. Many are simply clear-headed and believe that one's version of morality should be imposed to some extent, lest we become a nation without any moral sanctions. And some simply do not wish to redefine the term and idea of "marriage" to include same-sex unions.

I can at least understand this concern.

I do believe also that some conservatives are outraged and show it in very excessive ways, to the harm of their own family members, even. Same with liberals, in regard to their own views on these kinds of gender-related issues. Some are not ideological but reactionary and narrow and unwilling to tolerate even what they would logically believe to be healthy forms of gender behavior, because they are too suspicious and too quick to associate various behaviors as homosexual - when in fact, it is not.
 
@Apone and [MENTION=3791]knight in battle[/MENTION]

I was being sarcastic. Although I was making the point that the people in power care what people think about their actions, because it translates into votes.
 
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?

I'm for it, but I still see the point to this last part. Right now, married partners receive benefits from their legal status as "married". Should gay people be allowed to receive those same benefits when they find their partners? Of course (and I live in a state where the word "gay" is still synonymous with "devil worship"). If something needs to change though, it's the terminology we use to define marriage.

I've known a whollllle lot of gay people and none of hem seem to have a problem referring to one another as their "partner". I really never hear them use the terms "husband" or "wife". So if the traditional term for marriage implies a "husband and wife" then perhaps just using a different word for it would settle this debate; allow them the same benefits any two people would receive who were married to one another, but don't force them into specific gender roles.
 
I see so majority determines what's right and wrong. That idea seems to run counter to the history of any civil rights movement. You aren't personally makig any compelling arguements, just emotionally raging out.
And what? Civil rights apply only to racial categories?
 
And what? Civil rights apply only to racial categories?

I think what he meant to imply is that being in the majority doesn't mean that they can't be viewed as being similar to the KKK yelling for 'Gay Power' rather than 'White Power'. It's not what they are saying, but how they are saying it. I think they are being a bit unfair towards [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION].
 
I think what he meant to imply is that being in the majority doesn't mean that they can't be viewed as being similar to the KKK yelling for 'Gay Power' rather than 'White Power'. It's not what they are saying, but how they are saying it. I think they are being a bit unfair towards @Flavus Aquila .

Majority and minority are rather arbitrary terms. While "gay power" may seem like a "majority", so is the heterosexual culture. The "majority" of people are heterosexual, are they not?
 
Majority and minority are rather arbitrary terms. While "gay power" may seem like a "majority", so is the heterosexual culture. The "majority" of people are heterosexual, are they not?

Sure, we can say either side are or are not representative of the majority view at different points in time. That's not the point I think he was trying to make. The point was that being in the majority doesn't automatically invalidate the opposition. So yelling at [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] and trying to shame him doesn't make a valid argument, even if it ends up being the accepted/majority/winning viewpoint.

Edit: Also, emotional pleas can be a compelling argument as an appeal to 'pathos' without being valid. Which is why they can win an argument, but I believe [MENTION=731]uberrogo[/MENTION] is simply pointing that out. It's an emotional, pathetic plea without appealing to reason.
 
Last edited:
Sure, we can say either side are or are not representative of the majority view at different points in time. That's not the point I think he was trying to make. The point was that being in the majority doesn't automatically invalidate the opposition. So yelling at @Flavus Aquila and trying to shame him doesn't make a valid argument, even if it ends up being the accepted/majority/winning viewpoint.

Edit: Also, emotional pleas can be a compelling argument as an appeal to 'pathos' without being valid. Which is why they can win an argument, but I believe @uberrogo is simply pointing that out. It's an emotional, pathetic plea without appealing to reason.

I agree that the majority opinion is not automatically correct. I also agree that cordiality should rule; this is not honored by all, however.
 
If the US does change its definition of marriage, I hope marriage will be taken seriously by those entering into that institution.

Hahaha, because people take it seriously now? It is FAR from a sacred institution.

One man and one woman can tie the knot in a fit of drunken stupor (and regret it later), simply because one of them has a dick, and the other has tits; however, two people who love each other deeply and have been together for years are forbidden from doing so just because they both have dicks.

It's a bit ridiculous. Marriage is what a person makes of it, and is entered into for many reasons. It doesn't matter what the word meant at some point, because it exists as each person individually defines it. If they use marriage as something to gain monetary assistance in raising their children, so be it. If they use it for any of the other 1,138 federal benefits and privileges it offers (and consequently denies to gay people), then so be it. If they use it because they love each other and want to express that love through marriage (even though I don't think this is necessary, it is to some, and that's all that matters), then so be it.

I do not understand how this is an issue, and why it is not legal already throughout the US. It should not be a question. There are countless people around the world, and within our borders, dying and suffering to a horrific, disturbing degree, and people are still getting their knickers in a twist over gay marriage. Good lord, where are our priorities?
 
I have no authority to disallow people's personal choices regarding marriage. I don't think anyone else has that authority either.
 
Back
Top