Same-Sex Marriage

Into statistics? Curious what everyone else thinks? Then start a poll here.

What is your stance on same-sex marriage?

I support same-sex marriage.
45
75%
I am against same-sex marriage but support civil unions.
4
7%
I oppose both same-sex marriage & civil unions, but I support some rights for same-sex couples (e.g., hospital visitation).
1
2%
I oppose any official recognition of same-sex couples, but I oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
2
3%
I support a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman and banning recognition of same-sex couples.
6
10%
I support a constitutional amendment to once again make homosexual acts illegal and banning same-sex marriage.
2
3%
 
Total votes : 60

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby Mr. Sluagh » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:11 pm

Shadrach wrote:i dont care if two guys or two gals want to get hitched, as long as they dont affect my paycheck or come to my house and tell me what to do.

i do have a question, does it stop at gay marrage?

do plural relationships get the spotlight next?


Maybe, but that's another debate to be had. The issues are very different. There's a much greater potential for abuse, for one; what's stopping all the guys in my fraternity from marrying each other for tax purposes? Then again, what exactly would be wrong with that? It's apples and oranges.
"The salvation you have hoped for these past two thousand years is here. You are being told that in this paragraph. And it is true."
--L. Ron Hubbard, quoted in the Eris-damned spam the Church of Scientology keeps sending me.
User avatar
Mr. Sluagh
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby Penguin » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:58 pm

Mr. Sluagh wrote:Maybe, but that's another debate to be had. The issues are very different. There's a much greater potential for abuse, for one; what's stopping all the guys in my fraternity from marrying each other for tax purposes? Then again, what exactly would be wrong with that? It's apples and oranges.

Probably about as much as stopped me from marrying a female friend for tax purposes: absolutely nothing, other than my preference not to, plus the indirect cost of becoming part of a legal relationship of dubious benefit with another person that would create entanglements and complications for me for the rest of my life.

As for plural marriages, the biggest issue I see is that an agreement between two people will affect the rights and benefits of a third party. Say person A marries person B, then person B marries person C. What happens if person C declares bankruptcy? What's a joint asset between person B and person C, and what's a joint asset between person A and person B? If anything that person B owns can be seized to pay person C's debts, this will certainly affect person A.

What if person B is incapacitated and person A and person C can't agree on what course of treatment to follow; who wins?


However, if issues like these can be resolved, I don't personally have a problem with polygamous marriages between consenting adults. It's not for me, but I don't see why I should stand in the way of others.
User avatar
Penguin
resident
resident
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Toronto-ish, Canada
Affiliation: Atheist/Humanist

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby NH Baritone » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:23 am

The following video on YouTube is an excellent refutation of the oft-used anti-gay slur that we are child molesters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY

The false assertion has been used to prevent gay folks from becoming parents, and thus as an attack on the gay population's efforts to gain marriage rights.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby crazylegsmurphy » Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:53 pm

Sigh...I wish I was an attractive gay man like that guy....

Anyway...I have always thought it was utter absurdity that anyone would simple assume that being gay makes one more likely to abuse children. What a totally made up idea for no reason other than to demonize gay people. The fact is that gay people are just as likely / unlikely to abuse kids as any heterosexual man or woman.

People who think things like this are dumb....
www.theplaceboeffect.ca - free science / skeptic based webcomic.
User avatar
crazylegsmurphy
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:28 am
Affiliation: Church of Chewbacca

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby humanguy » Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:11 pm

I've never seen anything in my life that would convince me that there's anything the least bit wrong with same-sex marriage so I say, "Why not?"
Most of us, just about all of us, have the capacity to be rock and rolled by a feeling of pure ecstatic raw joy. You do, don't you? We should respect each other for that.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3878
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Lumpen Post-Industrial District
Affiliation: Human

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby mitchellmckain » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:33 pm

NH Baritone wrote:The false assertion has been used to prevent gay folks from becoming parents, and thus as an attack on the gay population's efforts to gain marriage rights.

Yeah I think it would have been interesting to include the adoption issue in the above choices.

I favor the purely semantic compromise of reserving the original meaning of the word marriage while supporting the equal rights to same sex couples in terms of all rights with substance including those regarding adoption - at least in regards to federal policy. I would not however support sanctions against private adoption agencies with policies to support the special interests. My concern is simply to put the interests of those whose lives are effected first, especially the children, without the interference of some unilateral political policy. When dealing with human lives flexibility is crucial.
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby NH Baritone » Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:01 pm

mitchellmckain wrote:
NH Baritone wrote:The false assertion has been used to prevent gay folks from becoming parents, and thus as an attack on the gay population's efforts to gain marriage rights.

Yeah I think it would have been interesting to include the adoption issue in the above choices.

I favor the purely semantic compromise of reserving the original meaning of the word marriage while supporting the equal rights to same sex couples in terms of all rights with substance including those regarding adoption - at least in regards to federal policy. I would not however support sanctions against private adoption agencies with policies to support the special interests. My concern is simply to put the interests of those whose lives are effected first, especially the children, without the interference of some unilateral political policy. When dealing with human lives flexibility is crucial.


"Semantic compromise"? Can you explain to me how this is any different from accommodation of bigotry?

How is your relationship with your wife any different or more special or more a "marriage" than my relationship with my partner? Do you really think that you love or loved your wife more than I loved my partner?

Allow me to quote myself from an earlier post when it was suggested that marriage be reserved for the church-based ceremonies:
The problem is that it (reserving the word "marriage") requires a rethink/reworking of the terms "marriage" & "married" by everyone in the country.

What do you put in the blank for marital status?

Are atheist couples (not married in a church) robbed of the opportunity to call themselves "married"?

What about oversees? When you enter Germany, Japan, or Jamaica, how do you indicate marital status?

What do you put in it's place when even the term "marital status" itself must be sacrificed?

You are asking every element of society to accommodate a minority. Even I, an outspoken member of that minority, think such far-reaching accommodation is ridiculous. However, when you allow same-sex couples to enter into marriage, no one else has to think about any element of how the institution effects them.

Consider the nation's history with religious objections: Any church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or coven can refuse marriage to any couple, and they've been allowed to do so ever since the birth of the Union. They retain that right when the country allows same-sex couples to "marry." To use the inter-racial marriage metaphor, any church may consider a Filipino's marriage to a Euro-descendant invalid. The church can boot such a couple out of the service and put signs reading "no half-breeds" on their church lawns, but but that doesn't mean that the state should kowtow to that prejudice. In fact, the state does not have to even acknowledge that such prejudice exists (until leads to other secular discriminations). The religious objections for same-sex marriage should be managed the same way. The state has no business enforcing a religion's prejudice.

And when expressing your fears about whether gay folks can be good parents, consider this from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
"For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.

Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child's mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship.

Since evidence indicates that no harm befalls children who are raised in households headed by a gay couple, it appears that your statement essentially states, "When dealing with outmoded bigoted ideas, flexibility and accommodation is crucial." And I honestly don't think that's what you want to put forth.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby mitchellmckain » Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:44 am

NH Baritone wrote:"Semantic compromise"? Can you explain to me how this is any different from accommodation of bigotry?


This is no more bigotry than the refusal to call creationism science. Creationism simply does not satisfy the definition of science and a same sex union does not satisfy the definition of marriage. How is this effort to change the definition of marriage any differernt that the Creationist effort to change the definition of science?
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby crazylegsmurphy » Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:08 am

same sex union does not satisfy the definition of marriage.


This is one of the rare times I'll agree with you. Same sex marriage does not satisfy the narrow minded, exclusive, non-scientific, fabricated, definition of Christian marriage. Wouldn't it be cool if there was some kind of separation of church and state law where religious beliefs didn't interfere with the right for all people to be treated equal?

Definition of marriage....pfffft, what a crock! Half the straight marriages out there don't satisfy the definition of marriage, what a totally lame double standard.
www.theplaceboeffect.ca - free science / skeptic based webcomic.
User avatar
crazylegsmurphy
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:28 am
Affiliation: Church of Chewbacca

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby mitchellmckain » Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:02 pm

crazylegsmurphy wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:This is no more bigotry than the refusal to call creationism science. Creationism simply does not satisfy the definition of science and a same sex union does not satisfy the definition of marriage. How is this effort to change the definition of marriage any differernt that the Creationist effort to change the definition of science?


This is one of the rare times I'll agree with you. Same sex marriage does not satisfy the narrow minded, exclusive, non-scientific, fabricated, definition of Christian marriage.

Baloney. This has NOTHING to do with Christianity. This has to do with the HISTORICAL definition of marriage which has NEVER been applied to homosexual relationships even when homosexuality was the norm in the culture. In such cultures marriage was much more definatively about procreation than love.


crazylegsmurphy wrote:Wouldn't it be cool if there was some kind of separation of church and state law where religious beliefs didn't interfere with the right for all people to be treated equal?

You mean like wouldn't it be cool if people could call whatever they do anything they like and so creationists are right when they make movies like "Expelled" claiming that its bigotry that universities don't want to hire creationists for positions in their biology departments? Perhaps you think it would be cool if teams could come to a a football game start playing according to the rules of baseball and say it bigotry if you don't let them. Perhaps you think it would be cool if boys could not be prohibited from girls locker rooms because they can shout that this interfres with their being treated "equal"?

I say no.

What WOULD be cool is if homosexual relation could for the very FIRST time in history could be given some kind of social status and recognition as part of the diversity of which human families consist. And I think it SHOULD quite naturally open up to the possibilites of more broader definitions according to what people believe in and experiment with. But that is not going to happen when people approach it with the same arrogant self-righteous attitude as the anti-abortionists who refuse any compromise on the basis that anyone who disagrees with them in any way is completely immoral. I do NOT believe in that sort of approach to social disputes. That is the approach of those who insist on imposing their own personal philosophy and morality on other people. I very much believe in compromise to accomodate diversity and I certainly oppose high handed attempts at social engineering by means of redefining the words of our language.


crazylegsmurphy wrote:Half the straight marriages out there don't satisfy the definition of marriage, what a totally lame double standard.

What do you mean? You mean that since some people do not follow rules and definition that rules and definitions should be abandoned? That is when I say, "what a crock!"
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby humanguy » Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:17 pm

It seems to me that people are overlooking the fact that many law-abiding and productive gay American citizens want to be able to marry their partners just like straight Americans can, and I see no compelling reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Most of us, just about all of us, have the capacity to be rock and rolled by a feeling of pure ecstatic raw joy. You do, don't you? We should respect each other for that.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3878
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Lumpen Post-Industrial District
Affiliation: Human

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby spongebob » Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:36 pm

The biggest battle nowadays seems to be about the word "marriage". I'm at a loss. I've suggested that same sex unions carry all the same rights and privileges as marriage, but just have a different name. But many homosexuals don't like that solution, as it carries some degree of second-class citizenship. That is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure that in today's society most states would support same-sex unions with all the rights of marriage, just with a different name. Many already do. So we are at an impasse that won't likely be resolved for a very long time, much like the abortion debate. And when both sides refuse to accept compromises, then any solution is assured to only satisfy one side and not the other. With a compromise, at least both sides get some of what they desire. But our federal government seems to adequately represent the American public these days; no one seems to have an appetite for compromise any more.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby NH Baritone » Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:41 pm

spongebob wrote:The biggest battle nowadays seems to be about the word "marriage". I'm at a loss. I've suggested that same sex unions carry all the same rights and privileges as marriage, but just have a different name. But many homosexuals don't like that solution, as it carries some degree of second-class citizenship. That is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure that in today's society most states would support same-sex unions with all the rights of marriage, just with a different name. Many already do. So we are at an impasse that won't likely be resolved for a very long time, much like the abortion debate. And when both sides refuse to accept compromises, then any solution is assured to only satisfy one side and not the other. With a compromise, at least both sides get some of what they desire. But our federal government seems to adequately represent the American public these days; no one seems to have an appetite for compromise any more.

Are you recommending gay folks accept civil unions while everyone else gets married? In what circumstance is separate ever equal? Forgive me, Sponge, but this sounds like cry of someone who wants the whole thing just to go away. If it's not marriage, then it will not be treated as marriage. Just read the stories of how New Jersey's civil unions were treated ... when they were supposed to have all the rights of marriage.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby spongebob » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:52 am

I certainly don't want to suggest that there's an easy street here, not to show any disrespect for this struggle. I read the article and there are several valid points, but I view those as the minutia of the deal. Right now, with several states in gridlock over the same-sex marriage issue, this minutia has little chance of being resolved in the short run. Progressive states will likely continue to chip away at it until it is satisfactory in their state, but not the conservative states. They'll hold out until they are forced to change their status. And a federal mandate to approve same-sex marriage still seems very unlikely in the near term. However, a federal same-sex union law might be more palatable. With all 50 states covered by such a law, the likelihood of the minutia being worked out would, I think, be much greater. Not overnight, mind you, and not with absolutes, but we're talking the law and politics here. Few things are ever perfect.

And yes, I am someone who wants this to "go away", but for the right reasons. I would love to see the day when a gay couple could have a clear legal path to be joined and recognized in all 50 states. That simply won't happen at a Federal Supreme Court level at this point in time. The votes aren't there. I can tell you for sure that it's the best way to excite the conservative base. You think Sarah Palin and Tea Party folks are active now, just you wait... And even with a federal mandate to allow same-sex marriages, I think discrimination would continue in subtle forms for decades to come, as was seen with civil rights. So there's no panacea here.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby NH Baritone » Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:33 pm

spongebob wrote:I certainly don't want to suggest that there's an easy street here, not to show any disrespect for this struggle. I read the article and there are several valid points, but I view those as the minutia of the deal. Right now, with several states in gridlock over the same-sex marriage issue, this minutia has little chance of being resolved in the short run. Progressive states will likely continue to chip away at it until it is satisfactory in their state, but not the conservative states. They'll hold out until they are forced to change their status. And a federal mandate to approve same-sex marriage still seems very unlikely in the near term. However, a federal same-sex union law might be more palatable. With all 50 states covered by such a law, the likelihood of the minutia being worked out would, I think, be much greater. Not overnight, mind you, and not with absolutes, but we're talking the law and politics here. Few things are ever perfect.

And yes, I am someone who wants this to "go away", but for the right reasons. I would love to see the day when a gay couple could have a clear legal path to be joined and recognized in all 50 states. That simply won't happen at a Federal Supreme Court level at this point in time. The votes aren't there. I can tell you for sure that it's the best way to excite the conservative base. You think Sarah Palin and Tea Party folks are active now, just you wait... And even with a federal mandate to allow same-sex marriages, I think discrimination would continue in subtle forms for decades to come, as was seen with civil rights. So there's no panacea here.

Interesting. Would refer to New Hampshire (motto: "Live Free or Die") as a progressive state? How about Iowa? Yet now same-sex marriage is legal in both of them.

And believe me, I'm aware of the blow-back from conservatives, to wit: N.H. Rep Apologizes for Anal Sex Talk.

But the blow-back will also come from the left whenever full marriage rights are withheld. As soon as New Hampshire enacted civil unions, the push for same-sex marriage began. The same occurred in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. The codification of unfair treatment under the guise of "compromise" will not encourage the issue to go away, but instead promote its continued presence in the public forums for years to come.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

PreviousNext

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest