Jump to content
turtletech

Opinions on gay Marriage?

Do you support Gay marriage?  

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think it should be legal?

    • Yes
      84
    • No
      50
    • Civil Unions, not marriage.
      9


Recommended Posts

You know, you guys think we should have more tolerance, (we do) but you have no tolerance for us, our beliefs, or the Bible.

 

I don't think that is quite true. Your beliefs should not be dictating government law, which is where you are catching the most flak. I don't think the majority of Americans care if believe the Bible and worship God, but it's your belief that your religious beliefs must be force across all people (believing gay marriage is a sin, and such should not be allowed in America for example)

 

It would be like if Muslims forced a law through that required all females in the US to cover themselves from head to toe.

 

It's your inability or unwillingness to separate your religion from government that is pissing a lot of us off, and bringing the lack of tolerance. You need to understand that voting for gay marriage in the US doesn't force your religion to change it's view. By voting for gay marriage in the US, it wouldn't force your church to officiate gay weddings, nor recognize them.

 

Separation of church and state. This is where you are failing, and why you are catching flak.

 

There is also the point of "Love one's neighbor as thy self." yet you deny your neighbor certain rights, in this case gay marriage. It is not your job or position as a Christian to judge or force rules upon others. Gay marriage may very well be a sin (Im not saying that it is), but that is no concern of yours. Whether gay marriage is a sin and a gay person will go to Hell is between that person and God.

 

Voting for gay marriage doesn't mean you have to support it. It just means you are letting your neighbor have the same rights as you and live their life they way they see fit, not the way you see fit.

Edited by airborne101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<Snip>

 

Well said.

 

TacticalAK47, I'm not telling you that your religious beliefs are wrong. My question for you (which I have asked you multiple times and is still unanswered) is the same as I said in this post: "Why do you want to control the legal definition of marriage, when nobody wants to control your religious definition of marriage? Why don't you want to let people do what makes them happy, when it comes at no additional cost to you or anyone else?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that a woman can raise a son, and a father can raise a daughter. It happens all the time. It's just an example that it sometimes "works better". (By the way, yes I made a typo, but I edited it.) I'm not sexist either. There was nothing I did to have you accuse me of being that. (Not a good reason anyway.)

I tried a couple of times to come up with a polite and informative means of telling you why the opinion you expressed about genders and their role in raising children is both sexist and incorrect. But I failed.

 

Instead, let me simply provide you with a warning. Unless you want to get reamed out in ways that the people in this thread haven't even come close to doing, never express that particular tidbit to a militant feminist.

 

You know, you guys think we should have more tolerance, (we do) but you have no tolerance for us, our beliefs, or the Bible.

There are people in the world who have zilch tolerance for Christianity and/or religion in general and wish to see it eliminated or at least marginalized. Some have compelling arguments and reasons for this stance, others are just fools with a grudge. To my knowledge however, none of them are posting in this thread. I may have missed something though, feel free to point out anyone that stated or implied you weren't free to follow your beliefs as you see fit.

 

All we are asking is that you extend that same consideration to others. All individuals in this country have the right to live their lives as they choose, regardless of the religious beliefs they or their neighbors hold to, subject only to laws that have a compelling secular basis behind them. That is among the most important founding principles of this nation.

 

Furthermore, being a good citizen means standing up for the rights of all other Americans, even if that means defending the right of others to do something you personally disagree with. So long as you don't cross the line into harassment, you are perfectly free to convince them they are doing something fundamentally wrong, but you cannot use legal means to force them into that behavior, or allow others to do the same.

 

Take the Westboro Baptist Church for instance. They are a strong example of why many individuals think Christianity/religion is a bad thing to have around. I myself loathe this particular group due to the actions they have taken and wish to see them disbanded, preferably in a humiliating fashion. In spite of this however, I will actively fight against any attempt to prevent them from following their beliefs. Even as I push for laws that would help protect the people they victimize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been getting slammed since the 8th page when I (Without any intention of starting a 3 page firestorm) posted my opinion. I don't get why nobody understands that I don't hate gay people. I hope that it becomes legal everywhere. I don't support their beliefs, but everybody deserves to be happy. I am not trying to put my religion on anybody. Even without my religion in the picture, I still don't think it's right. My church doesn't slam them or say that they're going to hell. We just don't think that it's right.

Edited by TacticalAK47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's your inability or unwillingness to separate your religion from government that is pissing a lot of us off, and bringing the lack of tolerance. You need to understand that voting for gay marriage in the US doesn't force your religion to change it's view.

 

Something that comes to mind that proves this point.

 

There was, in the very early 1900's, a lot of Jewish people in New York, and a lot of crime in New York as well. Not just legal crime, but religious crime. What the Jews of that time period did (this may go on to this day, I don't know) is they set up personal agreements between families in their area to abide by a certain set of rules, AND to mete out punishment for breaking them where needed. A rabbinical court was created that was legally permitted to dole out the appropriate Torah-prescribed punishments by the terms of the legal contract that had been written up between these families. Despite the government being indifferent to their belief system, they managed to appropriately follow their beliefs, punishments and all. As a result, they were one of the few peoples of New York that never quite lost their cultural identity -- and now, some parts of New York City are associated permanently with kosher delis and synagogues.

 

The awesome part? If you were a Muslim in the Jewish neighborhood, they couldn't touch you for breaking rules of theirs that didn't exist in the Quran.

 

As an aside, the Muslims of New York attempted something similar (neighborhood agreements that allowed for Sharia law courts among their own people) but were stopped. I'm fuzzy on the details, but IIRC, they had an issue in their neighborhoods with drug pushers. They did something about it, the pushers lied about what went down, and the Muslim families were put in jail.

 

Now, I want to play Devil's Advocate. The object here is to treat this as an abstract problem. If you bring up real-world facts or personal beliefs, you lose. See the problem below.

 

Someone, I forget who, said that asking for equal rights in the case of gay marriage is not asking for anything new to be built -- just an exception to be crossed out.

 

This is incorrect.

 

Our government's systems for holding information on people are ancient dinosaurs. They barely would even work if not for the database being simple. Gay marriage would complicate it OR risk offense. Why? Because marriage licenses are entered in the system under the MAN'S name, with a DB link to the WOMAN'S name. Who's the man in your relationship, ladies? Think long and hard about this one, because it's permanently on the record.

 

So you give them the right to not have to deal with these questions, that other people don't have to deal with.

 

Or you wipe the database clean of all marriage records, and that is going to cause issues.

 

Is it still right to legalize gay marriage? At the expense of everyone else's marriages -- literally?

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a bisexual transwoman and I stole the premise of this problem from a website I last read two years ago and no longer remember the name of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our government's systems for holding information on people are ancient dinosaurs. They barely would even work if not for the database being simple. Gay marriage would complicate it OR risk offense. Why? Because marriage licenses are entered in the system under the MAN'S name, with a DB link to the WOMAN'S name. Who's the man in your relationship, ladies? Think long and hard about this one, because it's permanently on the record.

Or option C

 

Pay some random script kiddie $500 to adapt a better database system from the literally hundreds of successful models that already exist. Frankly, for the amount of time and effort needed, that much money is probably overkill. Given that this is the US government, which likes to do things in the least efficient manner possible, they'll probably involve far more people working for far longer and given unrealistic stretch goals to boot, it will cost more and take more time. But it should still cost peanuts compared to their usual budget regardless.

 

I don't know about you, but I tend to discount digital paperwork issues as a legitimate obstacle to human rights. Especially not in a case like this when the needed update should already have been done decades ago simply for the sake of not wasting time and money struggling with it.

Edited by Daishain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you wipe the database clean of all marriage records, and that is going to cause issues.

 

Is it still right to legalize gay marriage? At the expense of everyone else's marriages -- literally?

This sounds a lot like the argument made in my state that if gay marriage was legalized, all marriages would be annulled, though current marriages could re-apply with the new system. The catch would be that all future marriages would be granted using a quota system in order to not discriminate against one class or the other. Basically an argument similar to reason #2 in my previous post.

 

The quota system would be based on percentages within the population. So that means if it was determined that 10% of the population is gay (just as an example, the real percentage is lower) 90 marriage licenses would be issued for straight couples while 10 would be issued for gay couples. Beyond that, new marriage licenses of each type would not be issued any farther until both types were depleted. So inevitably one type or the other would end up short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This sounds a lot like the argument made in my state that if gay marriage was legalized, all marriages would be annulled, though current marriages could re-apply with the new system. The catch would be that all future marriages would be granted using a quota system in order to not discriminate against one class or the other. Basically an argument similar to reason #2 in my previous post.

 

The quota system would be based on percentages within the population. So that means if it was determined that 10% of the population is gay (just as an example, the real percentage is lower) 90 marriage licenses would be issued for straight couples while 10 would be issued for gay couples. Beyond that, new marriage licenses of each type would not be issued any farther until both types were depleted. So inevitably one type or the other would end up short.

What possible advantage would there be to doing this? It sounds like an excellent way to make a buttload of unnecessary work for those involved in marriage licences while pissing off pretty much every single citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been getting slammed since the 8th page when I (Without any intention of starting a 3 page firestorm) posted my opinion. I don't get why nobody understands that I don't hate gay people.

 

I don't think you're reading anyone's posts if that's your perception of what people think of you.

 

I am not trying to put my religion on anybody. Even without my religion in the picture, I still don't think it's right.

 

Why do you think that?

 

 

Our government's systems for holding information on people are ancient dinosaurs. They barely would even work if not for the database being simple. Gay marriage would complicate it OR risk offense. Why? Because marriage licenses are entered in the system under the MAN'S name, with a DB link to the WOMAN'S name. Who's the man in your relationship, ladies? Think long and hard about this one, because it's permanently on the record.

 

This doesn't make any sense at all. What kind of "DB link" is it? The only kind I can think of that could potentially be a problem would be a foreign key constraint, but that wouldn't make any sense for single people. It would also suggest that they're keeping male and female records in separate tables, which makes no sense. And even if they were using foreign keys (which would be dumb to the point where it's downright harmful in this context), you could fairly easily do a dump of the database and rebuild it without that constraint, and then go and re-add marriages however they decide to implement it.

 

But really, nobody would use a name for this sort of thing. Names are terrible database keys; a primary key for a table must be unique - think about just how many "John Smith"s are in the US. If anything, the key (which is what you would "link" on) would be a social security number, and guess what: that's gender free. So really, there is no technical problem. And even if there were- you would not have to sacrifice any of the current marriage records in order to implement this.

 

To put it simply: I think this is a BS excuse someone came up with, and it propagates because most people don't understand how databases work.

 

Is it still right to legalize gay marriage? At the expense of everyone else's marriages -- literally?

 

Terrible question- even for playing devil's advocate, as explained above.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What possible advantage would there be to doing this? It sounds like an excellent way to make a buttload of unnecessary work for those involved in marriage licences while pissing off pretty much every single citizen.

The advantage was that the law would not pass, it was a political argument (and a false one at that). I just pointed it out because I noticed the similarity, and the poster mentioned that he had read it online but could not remember the source.

 

Claimed to be a poison pill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill#Politics or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_amendment) that was attached to the bill in committee, and "hidden in the fine print of the law". But in reality there was no such text. There were faulty claims and arguments like this made on both sides in the political debate leading up to the election, I remember it being one of the most hotly debated propositions ever brought before the people in election. But when researched none of them were actually in the text of the law.

 

A political argument does not have to be true in order for it to be effective, especially the ones used in the days just before the election. The same way an airsoft tactic can make use of deception or things that are not really there and still be an effective tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is a terrible argument. It's also literally the best non-religious argument I have ever heard, which says a lot about the arguments people are putting forward (even the place I read it originally figured out a perfectly workable solution in moments). Write a Perl script to convert the current DBs to the new format, make the new format be based entirely on symbolic links in a "Marriage" entry -- solved. That's precisely one of innumerable solutions that would fix it at low cost, with little effort, and no fall-out.

 

The premise is false, regardless. From what my government clerical buddies have said, the format is actually decent and extensible -- whoever wrote the DB layout was a forward thinker. That certainly throws that out the window.

 

So what was the point? I'm used to these sort of discussions being populated by hatemongers and/or straight people who would rather be offended on the behalf of gay people than actually figure out the issues surrounding gay rights -- and figure out how to fix those. This was a honeypot. The single argument against it was well thought-out and showed knowledge of the subject matter. The rest of the comments about it pointed out how absurdly common this horrible argument actually is (as well as going into why it's a bad one). So I caught nothing in this honeypot that I intended to, and that makes me willing to actually participate in the discussion.

 

--Cassy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this topic is a ticking time bomb before this becomes a big issue. How about we leave the poll, and people who have a negative opinion then they keep it to themselves so nobody gets offended and it also stops multi-posting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this topic is a ticking time bomb before this becomes a big issue. How about we leave the poll, and people who have a negative opinion then they keep it to themselves so nobody gets offended and it also stops multi-posting...

That is what we as a forum Staff thought for the longest time. Political and religious posts were not allowed for quite a long time. Recently (the last year or two), we have allowed both under the agreement that they remain civil. And so far, it has. Sure, there can be some heated points, but overall it's been pretty tame and people have conducted themselves well.

 

Is there the potential for this to explode? Certainly. But after 11 pages, I think the members of the forum have shown that they are mature enough to handle such a complex/polarizing topic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what we as a forum Staff thought for the longest time. Political and religious posts were not allowed for quite a long time. Recently (the last year or two), we have allowed both under the agreement that they remain civil. And so far, it has. Sure, there can be some heated points, but overall it's been pretty tame and people have conducted themselves well.

 

Is there the potential for this to explode? Certainly. But after 11 pages, I think the members of the forum have shown that they are mature enough to handle such a complex/polarizing topic.

 

Agreed, we all have our opinions, and we should just accept that. (Even though mine isn't liked much) Stay civil, and have a civil debate. I don't see why not. Just don't explode like some people have... That gets warning points. I remember FlamingPotato... that was all out fury for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

QUOTE (Hellion_Blade &lt;AT&gt; Apr 2 2013, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that the majority of the country seems to support gay marriage,

 

I'll admit here I did not read the rest of the thread. BUT since you put this up as a fact that "the majority of the country seems to support gay marriage", can you tell me which states have put it to a ballot, and it passed? Because I know of more than one time it was put to a vote and did not, enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maine, Maryland, Washington. All chosen by voters, oh the times they are a changin'.

 

One day this topic will be renamed to "Oppinions on marriage"

 

Wait, I'm not sure what your guys' "opinions" are. I don't really want to argue, I'm just curious. I personally am not for it, but nobody start a firestorm please. (Many of us will remember the last time that happened. The admins had to say something about it and one or two people got warning points. I don't want to go there again.)I have my opinions and beliefs, and so do you.

Edited by TacticalAK47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wait, I'm not sure what your guys' "opinions" are. I don't really want to argue, I'm just curious. I personally am not for it, but nobody start a firestorm please. (Many of us will remember the last time that happened. The admins had to say something about it and one or two people got warning points. I don't want to go there again.)I have my opinions and beliefs, and so do you.

 

I don't see why you're always getting so defensive about this. If you've actually got a problem with, or don't like gay-marriage more than you seem to, speak out. It's why this thread was started. You gotta' be true to yourself, man.

 

I'm pretty sure that nobody is gonna get warning point if they don't break the rules. That being said, just make sure your post isn't an infraction of ASF's rules, and you'll be fine.

Edited by Jeebus Christmas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I don't know if I want to go into the argument again. I don't support gay marriage. It bugs me that the very image of marriage is changing and that many states are trying to make it legal. God didn't put two men or two women in the Garden of Eden. If he did that, then what? None of us would be having this discussion. Now I understand that maybe you aren't Christian and I won't try to force my beliefs on you, but that's what I believe. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I don't hate homosexuals, I just don't support their ways. Most of us here probably have friends with very different opinions/beliefs than us, but that doesn't mean that we hate them or shame them right? Maybe it's just me. And no, I'm not any better than them. We're all human. I don't expect any of you to like what I believe, I just hope that you can accept it and not make me look like a horrible person.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you know that whole "Separation of church and state" thing that means marriage is a government issue and from a law perspective, marriage plays no role at all in deciding.

 

TacticalAK47 I don't hate or shame you for your beliefs, I don't even care that you think what you think. The only thing that I care about (as an overall generalization to this topic) is that many variations of Christian Churches (and some other religions) are finally agreeing on this topic and saying that being gay is not a problem. You can think whatever you want, It doesn't concern me if one person does not share the exact same thoughts as me, because there are way more than just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. My final contribution to this thread: You've heard my argument already so there's no point in saying the same thing over again. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I'll accept and respect yours, and I'll ask you to do the same for mine. I don't hate anybody because of race, religion, or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern now, is where will the line be drawn?

 

Animals? Inanimate objects (Marry your gun!) ? Children?

Depends on how far it needs to be taken.

 

If there are 45,000,000+ people that want to marry "something" else you have to hear it out.

 

Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern now, is where will the line be drawn?

 

Animals? Inanimate objects (Marry your gun!) ? Children?

Nothing you've mentioned could legally give consent, so that would obviously never be an issue. At worst it opens up an argument in favour of polygamy if all the involved parties are consenting. Don't normally see the religious extremists going after the Mormons so I imagine that will be a more sane debate. Edited by Disco_Dante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to polygamous marriage, I don't really see an issue IF everyone involved gives consent and no one involed is related. I'm in no way saying Id want to be a part of it but hey. To each their own.

 

Regardless this is a big win for the LGBT community and another step forward for society. Imagine in 20 years when someone from this generation has to explain to their kids that same sex marriage wasn't always legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...