2013 Poll Gay Marriage

[Thinman]

I know there has been previous polls and a lot of discussions on gay marriage. I'm doing a new poll to see where everyone stands on the issue now. This is a public poll. Please feel free to vote and discuss.

[germanyt]

Voted yes.

[Birdy69]

Marriage by the government is only about assets and finances. The government is unable to bestow some kind of divine contract like some religious people think.

So yeah, I see no reason to ban gay marriage whatsoever.

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

I don't support it.

Inb4 somebody says "this is 2013, we should be beyond such bigotry," implying that their view is obviously better, more sensible and more fair, and also implying that society is progressing in a 100% positive direction at all times

[Indivdude]

I don't support it.

Inb4 somebody says "this is 2013, we should be beyond such bigotry," implying that their view is obviously better, more sensible and more fair, and also implying that society is progressing in a 100% positive direction at all times

[GreatOldOne]

I think the government should not recognize ANY marriages. Leave that for the churches. Legal rights and financial stuff should be handled through civil unions for everyone.

[Brosynthesis]

Yes.

You're a pussy if you're intimidated by homosexual men getting married.
If you're gay then you're gay, if you're straight then you're straight. Let them marry, it won't take from you.

100% srs I think the society should just drop this hate/fear bs toward gay people, it makes us seem weak as if their sexuality impacts us that greatly.

Unless you're against marriage in general. Then there's no problem with that.

[2813308004]

I think the government should not recognize ANY marriages. Leave that for the churches. Legal rights and financial stuff should be handled through civil unions for everyone.

yeah, this

[KiwiBro2]

Yes to civil unions no to marriage. If its two consenting adults then its non of my busness what they want to do. So civil union is fine by me. But I think its wrong to redefine the meaning of marriage.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, to change its meaning destroys the whole thing.

Yes.
You're a pussy if you're intimidated by homosexual men getting married.
If you're gay then you're gay, if you're straight then you're straight. Let them marry, it won't take from you.

100% srs I think the society should just drop this hate/fear bs toward gay people, it makes us seem weak as if their sexuality impacts us that greatly.

Unless you're against marriage in general. Then there's no problem with that.

Its not hate or fear bro, it just rustle some peoples jimmies, like myself, that they can redefine the meaning of marriage. They need to come up with there own name for a union and not bully their way into the heterosexuality one. 100% dead srs. Ok maybe it is a little fear, but fear of the destruction feminism is causing to the worlds society and morals.

[SigmundFreud]

I don't support it.

Inb4 somebody says "this is 2013, we should be beyond such bigotry," implying that their view is obviously better, more sensible and more fair, and also implying that society is progressing in a 100% positive direction at all times

You bigot we are in 2013 now. Every year the general population becomes more sensible and more fair, and society has been progressing in a 101% positive direction at all times.



jk I voted no. But if homos wanna get together and do the dirty I'm not gonna say anything.

[alphaZ85]

I really could care less... what they do does not affect my life and most important of all it ain't even my business.

[No7]

I really could care less... what they do does not affect my life and most important of all it ain't even my business.

if you really could care less you are implying that you are at a current level of caring that could be lowered - ie. you care about the issue somewhat.

the expression you are looking for is "i couldn't care less."

[Phil9]

No surprise people overwhelmingly support it here since it's a forum full of 20 and 30-somethings. The elderly are still a major roadblock but it's pretty inevitable gay marriage will be in the majority of states within the next 10-15 years.

[A-GAME]

I support. Ontop888 and lasher have been waiting a long time for their love to be made legal.

[dakensta]

I'm gonna need a clearer definition of OP's use of the terms "support", and "marriage" before I can commit myself to vote.

[wsuwarrior]

Im anti marriage and dont think anyone should get tax benefits for being married, having children, etc. and I see no reason that gay people cant get married. Obviously we cant just force churches to perform the marriages if they dont want to, but they should be able to get a state recognized marriage.

To disallow gay marriage is discrimination plain and simple.

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

Im anti marriage and dont think anyone should get tax benefits for being married, having children, etc. and I see no reason that gay people cant get married. Obviously we cant just force churches to perform the marriages if they dont want to, but they should be able to get a state recognized marriage.

To disallow gay marriage is discrimination plain and simple.

[BornRich]

Yes.

[bobnance]

Marriage by the government is only about assets and finances. The government is unable to bestow some kind of divine contract like some religious people think.

So yeah, I see no reason to ban gay marriage whatsoever.

Honestly this.

Only reason to get married IMO, are the extra household income and tax advantages

[Streetbull]

Since marriage is a civil privilege (like a driver's license or a liquor license), then I see no reason to oppose it if the voters of a state decide to vote in favor. A marriage license is a civil privilege.

Two caveats: (1) it must be voted in, not imposed. (2) it must be recognised that there is no such thing as a 'right' to get married. No such 'right' exists for anyone, hetero or homo. Marriage is a CIVIL right (privilege).

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Voted yes.

It should be noted that gay marriages existed in ancient times and that marriage was first and foremost a SOCIAL contract, not a religious one. The earliest written records of marriage treat it along these lines. As times have passed and the religious have interfered more and more with every aspect of our lives, from who we have sex with to who we form contracts with, we have been rewarded with a blistering divorce rate and a culture so deprived of natural sexuality that people have become obsessed with it.

[Streetbull]

Im anti marriage and dont think anyone should get tax benefits for being married, having children, etc. and I see no reason that gay people cant get married. Obviously we cant just force churches to perform the marriages if they dont want to, but they should be able to get a state recognized marriage.

To disallow gay marriage is discrimination plain and simple.

I beiieve you are mixing public discrimination with private discrimination. It only becomes public discrimination when a law is passed that violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution of the United States. If a state passes a law that prevents or excludes someone for no legal reason (black, latino, white, gay, whatever) then it is public discrimination. Is there a law on the books that says marriages is between one man and one woman? (Is that the D of Marriage Act?) If so, then that law is discriminatory.

Private discrimination is (or should be) perfectly legal, such as choosing who your friends are and so forth.

[cavymeister]

Does 'don't care' mean I support it, or not?

[admles]

Yes. In the words of Chris Rock "Gay people have a right to be as miserable as everybody else"

I think the government should not recognize ANY marriages. Leave that for the churches. Legal rights and financial stuff should be handled through civil unions for everyone.

That's actually quite an interesting point of view, I never looked at it that way before.

[Fiyero]

Yes to civil unions no to marriage. If its two consenting adults then its non of my busness what they want to do. So civil union is fine by me. But I think its wrong to redefine the meaning of marriage.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, to change its meaning destroys the whole thing.

We've already redefined marriage numerous times. Dictionaries have already changed its meaning. Who said it's a man and woman? The Bible? Marriage is an English word. It wasn't called that in the original Biblical scriptures. Countless English words have completely altered meaning. This whole clinging to the definition of a word thing is completely stupid.

[Fiyero]

Since marriage is a civil privilege (like a driver's license or a liquor license), then I see no reason to oppose it if the voters of a state decide to vote in favor. A marriage license is a civil privilege.

Two caveats: (1) it must be voted in, not imposed. (2) it must be recognised that there is no such thing as a 'right' to get married. No such 'right' exists for anyone, hetero or homo. Marriage is a CIVIL right (privilege).

The Supreme Court says you're wrong. Not sure why people continue to spread this lie that marriage is not a right, when our law says otherwise.

[lasher]

Would vote yes, with the caveat that religious organizations should be under no compulsion to sanction gay marriages. If a gay couple can find a Church willing to marry them, then go for it, but it must be consensual between the church and the couple.

[Streetbull]

The Supreme Court says you're wrong. Not sure why people continue to spread this lie that marriage is not a right, when our law says otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between actual rights and civil 'rights' (privileges)?

Are you born with the right to get married? You are born with rights.

No wonder this country is goatfckked.

[bailey1106]

I don't support it.

Inb4 somebody says "this is 2013, we should be beyond such bigotry," implying that their view is obviously better, more sensible and more fair, and also implying that society is progressing in a 100% positive direction at all times

I wont call you a bigot, but your position is wrong for the sole fact that you are telling people how to live their lives based on your own views. If someone does not hold your views, you should not project them on those people. They should be able to live their life any way they want.

If gays marry, no one is afffected except gay people. Not you or me or anyone else. The same holds true if gay marriage was illegal, no one would be affected except gays, differemce being that that would restrict the capacity in which they could live their lives based on what other people dictate.

[Phil9]

Do you understand the difference between actual rights and civil 'rights' (privileges)?

Are you born with the right to get married? You are born with rights.

No wonder this country is goatfckked.

The same arguments used against interracial marriage are now used against gay marriage. Funny how that works...