Gay Marriage Poll
 

CNN Poll asks: Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between
a man and a woman?

Click on this site. You'll see a window near the bottom-right to VOTE....


http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLIT...age/index.html

I personally believe that gays must be allowed to marry. There are so many advantages to marriage in our society: insurance, tax benifits, etc. What do you think?

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman? Yes.

But why Jimmy4? Why should a man/woman couple have more rights (all people are created equal right?) than a man/man couple or a woman/woman couple with the same love that the first couple shares?

I'm not entitled to my own opinion? I have to back up all of my morals and beliefs or else they're automatically labeled wrong?

You can have any opinion you want, but if you dont have a REASON for having that opinion that just makes you look stupid.

I do think gay people should be entitled to the rights that come with marriage if they want to enter into a marriage-type relationship. However the uber-conservative of the workd get all riled up about this "defiling" marriage, so I think there should be some other name for it. Sure, most churches wouldn't recognize it, just make it strictly a legal thing.

Kak: he doesn't have to have a reason, YOU do, since he does not plan on changing anything, and those who want to legalize gay marriage ARE trying to change something.

that's like saying, "is marriage marriage?" yes, as of now, it is. Now i'm not saying that I don't believe gays have the right to marry (i'll plead the 5th on that one for now) but he doesn't have to have a reason, because as of now, that's what marriage is. the burden of reason is on those who would like to extend marriage rights. Now obviously there are many reasons why it might be prudent to do so, why not outline those instead of attacking jimmy?

With all laws the line is drawn somewhere. Sure, all people are created equal, but there's alot you can do that will modify your rights.

If they love each other all they want, but they shouldn't have the right to adopt or marry.

A gay marriage does not emphasize the proper morals, in my opinion.

As for not having the right to adopt, any child of a gay marriage will, in a majority of cases, be put through hell in their youth because of it. So on top of having poor morals shoved into their head at home, they leave home into a hostile environment. Not the way to raise a child.

I agree wario. They deserve rights just as much as anyone else, and we can do it without "defiling marrage". So maybe marrage can still be defined as a union between a man and a woman for the anti-gay christians, but if they are going to do that then they need to come up with something else for everyone else so they can have the legal rights they deserve.

Hang on, why do they "deserve" the rights of marriage?

What is immoral about being homosexual? Because of the Bible, or you going to actually state some facts here? And you are assuming far too much. Just because a couple is gay doesnt mean its going to be a hostile enviroment. There are PLENTY of hostile straight couples to go around, but they havent banned straight marrage yet have they?

Heh, and as for not having to have a reason, that is a cop out for people that cant logically defend their positions.

Why do you deserve the right to be married to a woman?

I'm not talking about hostile couples, I'm talking about the environment around them.

They also probably haven't banned straight marriage because it's been in practice for a few thousand years. If it works, stick with it.

Sounds like you can't logically defend your position :P

You still havent even answered the main questions.

1) Why is being gay immoral?

2) What makes someone special that they deserve marrage while another person doesnt?

(Just to be clear, I am not gay, and I am married to a woman. I just think everyone deserves the same rights reguardless of what race they are, what gender they are, and who they fall in love with)

EDIT: You still havent even tried to defend yours, heh.

1) Because it's against the morals I have, making it immoral?

2) Why is it in some states you have to be 18 to have consenting sex. Aren't people under 18 equal enough to have the right to have consentual sex?

Hell, I'm with you in most respects, race and gender shouldn't have a factor in someone's rights.

Marriage rights are the rights that, by law, a man and a woman share because of marriage.

I realize a lot of gay people are actually good people and everything. It's the ones that are in gay pride parades, the ones that yell "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" bullshit that cause the problems I'm highlighting.

Sadly, there are some nice people caught in the cross fire that should have the rights, but one can't go through every gay couple and go "you can" "you can't". If that were proved legal for some insane reason, I'd be all for gay marriage because then the good people wouldn't be caught in the crossfire, sadly however, that won't happen, so they good people suffer while I, and many others, fight against gay marriage because the prototype we have in our minds of a gay person is of that person in the gay pride parade.

Anyway, Im at work and I have to get to work so I dont have time to sit all day and wait for you to come up with a reason to discriminate agaisnt gays (which is just as bad as discriminating agaisnt any group (racial, religious, ect)). Slavery was in practice for thousands of years, do you tolerate that? I think not. In closing, a quote:

"What is needed most by modern society is tolerance. Not only between straights and gays, but between men, women, whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, atheists, and everybody. How can you logically discriminate against someone simply because he is Jewish, or black, or gay? It doesn't make sense."

- Andrew Coile

EDIT: Quick response before I head out:

People under 18 are minors because they arent old enough to make mature decisions (or so says the law anyway). Comparing minors to gays is illogical. So you hate gays that march? What about the black marches for black rights, do you hate blacks too?

And you arent reading my question: What MAKES it immoral. No shit its agaisnt your morals, but WHY? (clear yet?) And dont say "just because" anymore, thats a cop out because you probably cant define your morals in any real way because you were raised that way without questioning anything the church/your parents fed to you.

What about heterosexuals? You think that they're all good people?

It's the same thing for homos and heteros, there are good people and bad people.

If you think that most of the homosexuals are like those in the gay pride parades, then you're wrong. In my opinion, most of the people against gay marriages are just ignorant.

I'm with Jimmy on the immorality and such. Of course that's not to say I hate anyone, won't be friends with them, etc. I really don't care either way if they can get married though.

to say that gays should be allowed to marry is imposing your morals on somebody that doesnt want them imposed upon.

if you are against gay marriage, then dont marry somebody of your own sex. let others do whatever their morals dictate or whatever they wanna do.

in the cnn poll, pro-gay marriage is leading 51 to 49 percent.

<b>if you are against gay marriage, then dont marry somebody of your own sex. let others do whatever their morals dictate or whatever they wanna do.</b>

Hmmm, actually, I don't agree with this rationale, although I do support gay marriage. Marriage is a social institution, with legal incentives behind it. In other words, the USA sees social advantage to encouraging marriage, and encourages that with legal and (some) financial incentives.

Personally, I think people who say that they would support gay marriage if it wasn't for the "immorality" of the gays are missing the point. Marriage would, I think, help stabilize gay relationships. Generally I think a gay marriage would be more stable and supportive than just living together or dating, just like it works in the hetero world.

So, I support gay marriage, but I think it's the kind of thing that should be the will of the majority. I would also support this issue being explicitly delegated to the states by Congress, so people on a state-by-state basis can decide, much like the age-of-consent laws work state-by-state.

Moral issues aside, there just isn't enough love in this world of ours. Why would anyone deny another the right to love and be loved? I would rather we encourage more love then more hatred.

Gay couples being legally married is just another way to increase committed love. As we all know, when married one thinks twice before walking away -- there is more of a commitment to work things out. This would help the world to see the reality of gay couples -- just that couples! Very few gay friends of mine are the stereotypical "we're here, we're queer, get use to it people." They are loving human beings with a desire to help better society, grow spiritually, and have a family.

I love my penguin and it loves me, why can't we be married?

I am for gay marriage. I believe that it is a right that every person should have, to marry anyone he or she wants, regardless of gender. The only rebutle i hear against this, is christian/religious rhetoric, and that, doesnt matter, as the government should not be led by religious prinipals, rather, what is fair and equal for all citizens.

Doesn't anybody see a contradiction with the way marriage is currently being handled?

Given:
- Separation of Church and State
- Marriage as a religious convention
- Married couples getting government benefits

Therefore:
- Either marriage cannot be a religious convention, and therefore should be just as appropriate for two men or two women.
or
- The separation of church and state renders marriage unconstitutional, and nobody gets married, period.

I think the answer is ridiculously simple. Let people get married to whoever the hell they want.

I can't believe that this is even an issue.

Anybody should be able to get married, if they love each other enough to do it. No matter if it's male/female, male/male, or female/female.

It astounds me that people actually get angry over gays getting married. Like it's any of their business anyway. They should worry about their own problems first, which they obviously have a lot of if they are so close-minded that they have to puch their dumb ideals on people who have nothing to do with them.

/rant off

I've heard arguments similar to this over and over. I'm not going to argue with this point whether or not I agree. I just want to know, why a penguin? Whenever people use this argument they say goat or dog or cow or other farm-type animals. Never heard someone mention a penguin. You're so wierd. :p

Me and my penguin are equally invalid candidates for Marriage as the man and a man, equally unnatural, equally nonfunctional, so why can't we TOO be married?

Yeah, yeah, I know the point you're trying to make. I'm just wondering why you chose a penguin to make your point instead of the more popular choices like goat or cow that others use to make the same point.

I'm not for gay marrigages but if they finally do have the right to get married, then let them suffer when they get divorced!!

By the way, who would get the women's share of a household if two men were married? :)

Glad

The more feminine one.

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, thats a covenant between a man/woman/ and God... They should be allowed to get civil unions.

Marriage may have originated as a religious practice, however that argument has lost much of its validity today. Now it is, for most people, a purely social practice. Nearly every "developed" religion around the world practices marriage AS WELL AS many athiests and non-religious types.

Also, HarmlessRabbit, the problem with letting the masses decided an issue is that the masses are often WRONG. In a society all too often the group thought reationale takes over and people become unable to make a rational decision on their own: Nazi Germany, Slavery, lynch mobs etc.

BTW, I am all for equality on this issue... Anyone should be able to marry

Hey, it is the new law of the land up here in Canada...and my church supports it too.

Equal rights for all.

<b>Also, HarmlessRabbit, the problem with letting the masses decided an issue is that the masses are often WRONG. In a society all too often the group thought reationale takes over and people become unable to make a rational decision on their own: Nazi Germany, Slavery, lynch mobs etc.</b>

"the masses are often WRONG" is an interesting attitude. I've heard Ashcroft say as much in justification of the PATRIOT act and the new VICTORY act. If the masses are wrong, who decides what is right?

Allowing gay civil marriage is really a financial and symbolic issue more than anything. Pulling the Nazi card is pretty unfounded here. Homosexuals are perfectly free in this country to choose a religion that allows them a religious union, to exchange rings, and to call themselves married to their friends. What we are really talking about here is access to partner benefits (something many large companies already offer), access to government benefits (like higher taxes, woo!), and the comfort that the US government supports their relationship.

As I said, I believe the issue is best decided state-by-state because, in my opinion, it's not that big of a deal. I support gay marriage, but I think the public should decide.

I think I agree with almost all of this...

let me reread to be sure.

-b

nope...spoke to soon. I don't support "everyone" getting the bennies at work just because they work there. Especially the federal government, heck any government.

I don't support domestic parnters, getting bennies, or room mates, or college buddy's....etc. Spouses and children for me thanks.

-bear

Damn so close too...well put anyway, hr...:)

Gays are already "allowed" to marry. There is absolutely no reason for marriage to be defined at ALL by the government.

You are correct, but my argument was directed towards those who use use religion as a basis for denying gay couples the same privileges as straight couples. :)

Seretogis, unfortunately the government MUST define marriage, because otherwise, whose to say I can't be married to my computer, just to receive tax benefits? As long as benefits are provided, some sort of guideline must be imposed - it should state that marriage is a union between two, and no more than two, consenting human beings who live under the same roof. That is good enough for me.

I am amused by the barnyard defense. I would say that to marry a (insert your animal of choice here) would be invalidated by the fact that said animal does not have the ability to freely express its will in a manner understood by humans regarding such a choice (in other words, just because your dog humps your leg...).

Mojo_PeiPei, my problem with that belief is that the rights currently accorded to a gay or lesbian couple by a civil union are few in comparison to the many that are granted to a heterosexual couple by a marriage. If a man and a woman meet in a bar and get married the next day, they instantly receive more rights than a gay or lesbian couple would receive in 30 years.