410 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

Using "your" incorrectly 3 times in one sentence is ruining your argument more than saying "gay marriage should be as legal as marrying inanimate objects."

No, it isn't.

Feel free to address people's grammar tangentially, but not as the sole content of your post as if that were a legitimate way to refute an argument.

[Kaddict]

It was tangential. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but is it not offensive to homosexuals to have their marriages compared to marrying cars? Legitimate question on my part.

[masxed]

It was tangential. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but is it not offensive to homosexuals to have their marriages compared to marrying cars? Legitimate question on my part.

I think they meant marrying a car as an example of something a larger amount of people would be opposed to than gay marriage not as a comparison. At least that is how it appears. Personally I have no reason at all to be opposed to gay marriage, but I find marriage unnecessary in the first place. If two people love each other why would they need to be in an official legal binding? When they could just... well love each other. If they require the status of marriage to be happy they probably are in a fake-ass relationship in my opinion. 

[jrr]

Yes, everyone is equal

[kadoating]

Lol, what my neighbour do at his own house is all about him. I don't need to know anything about it.

 

Of course I support it. Seriously I can't understand why people say no to this.

[supergirl1987]

Yup. To each their own =) Love is a beautiful thing!

[pietro]

People who think homosexuality is a disease..... close-minded much?

A lot of responses in this thread genuinely frighten me. That people still exist who genuinely believe that homosexuality requires or has some sort of "cure" (implying it's a disease or abnormality to begin with, because why would you cure something healthy?) is really horrifying.

 

In response to the topic at hand, yes of course I believe it should be legal and sanctioned, and I'm glad to see it more and more being legalized in my lifetime. I'm not a religious person so I'm not sure if I personally would ever have a traditional wedding, in a church, but from a legal standpoint I can't imagine NOT wanting to get married someday if I meet the right person.

[Cass]

Sorry to revive an old thread, but Uncle George shared this article from Queerty:

 

http://www.queerty.c..._pid=2&ts_pid=5

 

An interesting take on Christians & homosexuality, composed by a devout gay Christian. Worth a read, even if you aren't gay or Christian. It's always good to have an understanding of these matters

[Kaddict]

To maybe liven up this debate I would like to use a few comments from this page. Since the debate section pretty much doesn't contain debates anymore.

 

First: is marriage an innate human right? No, to love is. Argue.

Comparing outlawing gay marriage to outlawing the color yellow is incorrect. No one here (to my understanding) is arguing against the right of gay people to love each other, have intimate relations etc. They are saying that the definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. There are non-marriage equivalents for this. A more apt comparison would be to say that some people want Pluto to be a color, when it is in fact not a color, thus shouldn't be referred to as such. Pluto may still exist as it always has, but it just cannot be a color (or even a planet for that matter, poor Pluto). Argue.

[Savasana]

To maybe liven up this debate I would like to use a few comments from this page. Since the debate section pretty much doesn't contain debates anymore.

 

First: is marriage an innate human right? No, to love is. Argue.

Comparing outlawing gay marriage to outlawing the color yellow is incorrect. No one here (to my understanding) is arguing against the right of gay people to love each other, have intimate relations etc. They are saying that the definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. There are non-marriage equivalents for this. A more apt comparison would be to say that some people want Pluto to be a color, when it is in fact not a color, thus shouldn't be referred to as such. Pluto may still exist as it always has, but it just cannot be a color (or even a planet for that matter, poor Pluto). Argue.

 

Bolding is mine. 

 

Just because something has "always" been something, does not mean it should continue to be so. Marriage was "always" the exchange of property, and women were the property. While this is the still the case in some places, it's not in many more.

 

Should marriage have "always" stayed as the subjugation and ownership of women? No. 

 

So just because it has, thus far, "always" been between one man and many women, one woman and many men, one man and one woman, does not mean it just always continue in this fashion. The institution of marriage has changed many times over the course of  human history. The acceptance of this kind of marriage would be just another link in the long line of "acceptable" marriages.

[Kaddict]

Bolding is mine. 

 

Just because something has "always" been something, does not mean it should continue to be so. Marriage was "always" the exchange of property, and women were the property. While this is the still the case in some places, it's not in many more.

 

Should marriage have "always" stayed as the subjugation and ownership of women? No. 

 

So just because it has, thus far, "always" been between one man and many women, one woman and many men, one man and one woman, does not mean it just always continue in this fashion. The institution of marriage has changed many times over the course of  human history. The acceptance of this kind of marriage would be just another link in the long line of "acceptable" marriages.

I bolded yours. Marriage insinuated the exchange of property in many cultures for much of time, but that was not the definition of marriage, that was a culture's view on the place of a woman, not marriage. 

[Savasana]

I bolded yours. Marriage insinuated the exchange of property in many cultures for much of time, but that was not the definition of marriage, that was a culture's view on the place of a woman, not marriage. 

 

Definitions are irrelevant. It is how the systems works within a society. The definition may contradict how it is being actively used by cultures, but the actual distribution of marriage and marriage policy has changed. 

 

Let's not forget, definitions change all the time as well. 

 

The word "Person" has equally changed over time. It used to mean all humans, then all white male humans (in the U.S.) then all male humans. It wasn't until Southern Pacific Rail Road that it came to mean non-humans (corporations). 

 

Definitions are also constantly added. How many definitions do we create a year? 

 

They are amended as well. 

 

So if neither definitions nor use of the system are constant unchanging things, why must they remain in their current iteration? 

 

Further, even if they were constant unchanging things, why is that a reason they must remain so? 

[pancakemachine]

I was raised that marriage is between a man in a women and it should not be any different...now lets see who keeps reading I actually changed that attitude around 9th grade when one of my close friends came out tbh a could care less anymore whether you homosexual, heterosexual, or whatever if you want to get married go for it. just because it goes against someones religion shouldn't make it illegal either thats like saying we should not eat beef because many different religions believe the cow is sacred.

[CapSkylark]

I fully support marriage of homosexuals.  You want to marry someone of the same gender? Go ahead. You want to marry a car? Go ahead. You want to marry more than one person? Go ahead.

As long as you are not hurting anyone. Who cares?

[GetJinxed]

Fine by me. I don't really care about gay marriage but i support it. I mean there's no reason to hate it so much. If they're happy together why can't they marry? No reason not to

[Arnau]

I support any marriage by two consenting adults.

[ohyoufancy]

 

 

This poll would have been more interesting 5-10 years ago

 

Agreed haha

 

 

 

 

I think people should be able to love whoever they want to love.

I don't consider myself "gay" but I do find women beautiful.

Like, I can be attracted to a man or to a female.

But mostly just date men.

[Limeh]

I definitely support it. I have 1 lesbian aunt and 1 gay uncle so I've been around it all my life. I don't see anything different between gay and straight it's all person preference and you love who you love.

[Rauul]

i support it ! im gay and wanna get married someday, i strongly believe gays and lesbian has the same right than everyone, we are all HUMANS

[Foxi]

I have a gay cousin. And I definitely would want to support him if he decides to marry; that's his own decision. It's his life. 

[crazybus]

Aww, it's so nice to see that the majority posts are positive. I saw the number of replies and got worried.

 

I can't even believe this it's still an issue people are heavily against in 2015. Like who cares!

[Leon13]

For a second I was worried that I was gonna be really disappointed, but instead I'm quite happy. I am a huge huge supporter of gay rights (marriage). All people are created equal in my book. You live your life I'll live mine so to speak.

[AmbidextrousParadox]

I'm gay.

 

Even though I don't want to get married like, EVER, I do support gay marriage. I don't see how is this a bad thing and I really don't get people who are totally against it.

[Bear]

ya I support anyones goals to become happy (especially with their loved one <3) 

[NeoVix]

Of course. Having said that, I also don't understand why gay people would WANT to get married given its primarily a religious thing and most (if not all) religions condemn homosexuality.

 

But I guess it should always be an option., no reason for it not to be