Gay marriage/adoption

Do you believe in aliens?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 62.2%
  • Yes, but not in religious buildings (church, mosque, synagogue)

    Votes: 16 17.8%
  • No

    Votes: 18 20.0%

  • Total voters
    90

SkullCandy

She Bangs The Drums
is a Contributor Alumnus
"The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

"The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife"

Here are the two definitions that I came across, the first being from dictionary.com and the other from the Oxford English Dictionary. I agree with jc104 that changing the English language isn't the best thing to do. However, it's important to remember that language is constantly changing. Things that mean something now, meant something different years ago (look at the word (BAN ME PLEASE), it has had about five different meanings). It may be possible to add new definitions to words, instead of altogether changing them.
 
Pulling a word from a dictionary and saying that we can't change the definition is absurd. The reason it has that definition is because so many of our governments define marriage in that way. If you looked up "voting rights" in the dictionary in the 1800s, it would probably say something about white males. Obviously phrases are not in the dictionary, but you get the point.
 
i wasn't going to make a serious post in this thread, but since nobody else has said it:

i'm okay with forcing churches to honour any kind of marriage.

they are funded by public money, making them public institutions. you don't get to enforce your own religious nonsense in a public institution.

if you want a private church where you get to make the rules, pay your taxes. if you're paying what you owe, i don't care who you declare to be married or not married.
 
I think that Gay people should absolutely be able to Adopt, no questions asked.

In Straight families with Homophobic views, children are most likely going to be brought up with a distinct dislike of gays. People brought up in any family with a strong mindset are going to be somewhat pushed towards that viewpoint. From my own experience, which I'll admit is a rather sheltered one, the people who've grown up in liberal families who insist on allowing children to build their own opinions and just offering guidance tend to be more well-rounded, open minded people. There are exceptions but the rule is mostly adhered to. People who've grown up in christian families, who've gone to church, who've been told that the bible is good, and the people who reject Jesus are going to hell, are very much inclined to believe that. Having been shown faith, few people reject it and look elsewhere. Fair enough.

As Rambling as that got, my point is that in a free thinking house hold, children will be brought up to make their own decisions, and make sensible, well thought out ones, as long as they're supplied with a reasonable moral compass. None of the gay people I've ever met are closed minded. Living in a predominantly straight society, Gay people are no strangers to closed minded people who reject them and judge them without ever getting to know them or even consider their viewpoint. Having often met the harsh, intolerant tongues of the homophobes. Gay people are probably the least likely to force their children to be one thing or another. Knowing someone who grew up in a christian family, having been told all their life that being gay is a sin, why would that person then go on and tell their children, that they must be gay, being straight is wrong.

In short. Gay people, in my experience are the most likely to be liberal and open minded so those who say that Gays will convert innocent Children are spouting bullshit from unintelligent holes in their faces.

Also, Growing up with just a Mother, I don't feel any worse off for only having a female figure. I have a friend who grew up with just a dad, He feels the same. We would have liked another parent at times while growing up, but with maturity and hindsight, we both came to the conclusion that having 1 parent was better than having 2 parents who were in unhappy, loveless, sometimes abusive relationships. If 2 Gay people want to adopt. If they will offer that child the same love that a man and a woman would, who's to say that they will do a worse job. Hopefully in the future, Homosexuality will become as acceptable as Black people being allowed seats on buses, or Women being allowed jobs in which case bullying in schools will reduce.

I think that it is unlawful to say that a same sex couple is less able to care for a child than a heterosexual couple.
 
taking into account the separation of church and state (which has sadly totally failed). Unfortunately, it seems that enough people are fanatically religious, it doesn't really matter what the constitution says.
This is where you and many people are incorrect. The constitution's "separation of church and state" isn't to remove religion's influence from government, it is to remove the government's influence on religion. In essence, it is the right to religion, nothing more.

I realize that this argument is tangential, but I feel it should be clarified that there is no Constitutional basis for the government having to be free of religious motives.
Of the things discussed here, the only idea that directly violates the Constitution is that of forcing religious institutions to accept/allow/perform homosexual marriages.
 
I find it ludicrous that in the freest country in the world, in 2012, the rights of an individual are determined by non-dangerous conditions which are set on a person at birth. Really, think about it.

Should the government honestly decide what a person can and cannot do based on something uncontrollable that causes no harm to other human beings?

The idea of gay marriage being illegal is nonsense, in my opinion.
 

Bad Ass

Custom Title
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis the 2nd Grand Slam Winneris a Past SPL Championis a Three-Time Past WCoP Champion
i wasn't going to make a serious post in this thread, but since nobody else has said it:

i'm okay with forcing churches to honour any kind of marriage.

they are funded by public money, making them public institutions. you don't get to enforce your own religious nonsense in a public institution.

if you want a private church where you get to make the rules, pay your taxes. if you're paying what you owe, i don't care who you declare to be married or not married.
i like this point and completely support the fact that churches should pay taxes. just because of the type of your organization does not mean that it is exempt from laws.

furthermore, i see absolutely no reason that gay marriage should not be legal. the only reason that it's not is because of churches and their large impact on things. which is why we have separation of church and state, but we see how THAT works with some things.
 

SkullCandy

She Bangs The Drums
is a Contributor Alumnus
Not to get off topic but...Religions can't really pay taxes. A lot of (see: all) the money they make is donated by people and if they had to pay taxes people would be less likely to give money knowing that less would be going to good causes. Also religions are not for profit and therefore shouldn't be taxed (you don't see charities getting taxed).

There are many reasons why gay marriage is illegal in certain countries. The most prevalent one is religion but there are a lot of other factors. Some, as many have mentioned before, are against it because it redefines the current definition of what marriage is. Secondly, some people are against homosexuality in general (for biological or hypocritical reasons etc) and therefore are against validating something they are so strongly opposed to.

Countries such as Spain, Portugal and Argentina are known for being predominantly Catholic but they all allow gay marriage. Mexico City and even some Brazilian states permit gay marriage whereas supposedly multi-cultural countries such as the UK do not.
 

jc104

Humblest person ever
is a Top Contributor Alumnus
Justin8649 said:
Pulling a word from a dictionary and saying that we can't change the definition is absurd. The reason it has that definition is because so many of our governments define marriage in that way. If you looked up "voting rights" in the dictionary in the 1800s, it would probably say something about white males. Obviously phrases are not in the dictionary, but you get the point.
I'd say you're probably right. You are allowed to define marriage however you want. The question is whether it is right to change the word, given that we already have the legally identical civil partnership. It boils down to whether the majority of people actually consider this to be an accurate description. To make a very exaggerated example, if you believed in equality between the sexes would you agree to calling women men? My guess is probably not; the term is not accurate. In this case, I'm not entirely sure if it is or not, but there's probably enough leeway that we can call it marriage.

To make it absolutely clear, I believe that a gay equivalent of marriage, or gay marriage itself, must be legal. The equivalent must actually be equivalent too, which is easier said than done, so perhaps simply to legalise gay marriage is the best course of action.

So yes, I'd say I support gay marriage.

Now, for the constitution issue. Yes, I must admit that I don't really know the constitution that well (I have no reason to, really), but the phrase "separation of church and state" means, well, the separation of the church and the state. It doesn't mean that one is allowed to affect the other but not the other way round. Separation forbids interaction of any kind. It is possible that "separation of church and state" is not an accurate term for what is laid out in the US constitution. This is what the constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Which sounds to me like a statement that congress should not be subject to religious thinking of one kind over any other. Admittedly, it's probably not that relevant in this case, so apologies for going off topic.
 
Marriage predates religious practice, so I don't see why religion gets a monopoly over an inherently legal relationship.

Adoption needs to be more widely permitted anyway (esp. in Australia - it's easier to adopt a kid by flying to the US for two years, adopting one there, and then emigrating back to Australia than it is to adopt in Australia).

Religious institutions should not be tax-exempt on the basis of their religiousness (though any charitable projects they perform should be tax exempt just as any secular charitable project would be). Assuming you fixed that injustice, I don't mind whether Churches perform the religious marriage ceremony or not. That's up to the individual priest or couple.
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
The reason I included the second is because for many gay people, who are passionately religious, it means a lot to be allowed to get married in a religious edifice. I'm not suggesting that the government should force religious institutions to allow this to continue because, frankly, things get seriously fucked up when church and state mix.

Sorry if the poll seems a bit confusing. The poll is meant just for people to express their opinions on the matter in general without posting, whereas the thread allows people to get more nuanced with their answers.
if you're a gay person who's upset that a christian won't marry you then maybe you should take a closer look at the bible???

edit: @jc104, there's a lot of debate over whether that means "congress should say 'stfu' if religion wants to influence them" or "congress shouldn't make a law establishing a state religion" as it could be construed either way, but i personally hold with (i want to say Washington) who said that our Constitution could only work "for a morally upright and religious people" (might be paraphrasing, memory's not perfect)

edit2 @ UD: idk about you, but most churches are funded by tithes and offerings from their members, not public funds. Charitable donations to churches is a tax break, but public funding is a very different beast
 

Eraddd

One Pixel
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
i wasn't going to make a serious post in this thread, but since nobody else has said it:

i'm okay with forcing churches to honour any kind of marriage.

they are funded by public money, making them public institutions. you don't get to enforce your own religious nonsense in a public institution.

if you want a private church where you get to make the rules, pay your taxes. if you're paying what you owe, i don't care who you declare to be married or not married.
I don't see the point in forcing churches to honour any kind of marriage. Marriage supersedes religion in America (or should, for non-Christians/Muslims/any other religion), and thus, why would any gay couple need to go through the church for a ceremony, when a government-sanctioned ceremony will suffice? Furthermore, why would any gay couple want to even go through an institution to obtain a marriage license that is against their lifestyle? Ideally, yes, since churches are publicly funded (or for those that are), they should "honour" gay marriage in their institution and wed gay couples, but realistically, it doesn't serve to accomplish anything except to antagonize others.

Unless of course, when you're saying "honour" you're saying "acknowledge of marriage, without actually performing the ceremony," then I agree.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I've always had difficulty with the gay marriage issue, and even now it seems I'm having trouble giving a straight answer-- and this has nothing to do with religion (or at least any established religion).

I'd also mention I'm not homophobic-- I have no issue with seeing the gay men have relations in public, and some of my best friends are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. I've also dated a bisexual girl, and been kissed/hit-on by gay men without feeling anything at all (except for a lack of attraction, so the same reaction I'd have to a plain/uninteresting female).

My issues have more to do with my view of marriage itself, and not homosexuality.

To me as well, marriage isn't between a man and a woman... It's between the couple on one side and the community/society on the other.

It's the agreement of the couple to build a family-- the building block of society; to raise children and, as a building block of society, to perpetuate/continue that society and its culture. It's the promise of the couple to join the society as "full adults" (where the idea of marriage as a coming-of-age ceremony) by agreeing to obey society by building a family that is at the root of it.

In a general sense, it doesn't make sense for homosexuals to marry, because a homosexual relationship unarguably does not do any of the things above. That is, it clearly breaks tradition (at least in the US), breaks society instead of joins it (look at all the conflict surrounding it), and finally... can't produce children.

That being said, hetereosexual couples in this day and age are little better, because people view marriage as a part of romance, rather than as the family building. Well that's not strictly true, as everyone clearly sees the connection between marriage and family in culture. That said, too many people are more concerned with finding true love and being passionate with their partner rather than the true objective-- building a good place for your children to grow up. The 50% divorce rate is flat out embarrassing, because you know that it's not all about broken homes with terrible parents or civil abuse-- you know that a lot of that 50% just comes down to selfish parents. Any of my arguments based on the sanctity of a traditional household and family building get shat on by the selfish actions of unworthy heterosexual couples. Of course that's also unfair for me to say, and still a good portion (if not a majority) of people grow up in good families with parents who are dedicated to each other, and more importantly to their children (as was my household).

I'll say it again, and again, and again: Whether you're gay or straight, marriage isn't something you do out of selfishness or your own sense of entitlement. Marriage is only meaningful with dedication to the family, and the blessings of the community.

At the root of the issue though, is the fact that society doesn't need more children born. The world faces over population, and societies struggle not with gaining the members to maintain itself and survive against the wilderness, but rather with how to feed all its peoples and find them places in the web. In other words, there's really no need by society for all families to make children. In fact, couples who will raise unwanted children without producing their own-- society could only benefit (unless you happen to be Japan, South Korea, or Italy apparently, who have extremely problematic birthrates... then you get to do whatever legislation you want in order to force people to have sex and kids, lol).

When culture no longer fits the mold, no longer makes practical sense, culture should change. Forcing people to change their culture is a monstrous crime, but if culture makes no sense, it should change-- and will, given time. If it no longer makes sense for families families to be strictly founded on a male/female couple, culture will change to accommodate.

Still, because of my strong feelings about family and marriage, I can't really give my blessings to gay marriage... it just feels wrong.

I would rather have marriage stop being a legal institution altogether, with heterosexual couples also having "civil unions," and that marriage as a concept be preserved only in tradition and ceremony. As ceremony alone, perhaps its traditions and intentions could be preserved by those who value them.



If the above post does not make it clear, the notion of churches being "forced" to marry people is outrageous, infuriating to me. NOT because of religious freedom/importance/whatever, but because a marriage without the good wishes and intentions of all those present, will only make for a sad household. Marriage isn't something you do out of your own selfishness or "right" to do it-- that is exactly the attitude that makes for so many bad heterosexual marriages. Marriage isn't only for yourself, it's also for the family and community. Marriage without the acknowledgment of the community is simply not marriage.

Whether you are gay, or straight, it matters not-- marriage is not between two people, it is between the couple on one side, and the community on the other.

Marriage has meaning only because of love, acceptance, and the good wishes of the community for a couple, and belief in the couple. Whether you are gay or straight, marriage is the formation of family, and joining the community. A marriage that parties are forced to not only accept, but acknowledge... that cannot possibly make anyone happy...






By the way, I have actually seen what I believe to have been an alien space craft, so I voted "YES" for the poll. Aliens exist my friends.
 

mattj

blatant Nintendo fanboy
i'm okay with forcing churches to honour any kind of marriage.

they are funded by public money, making them public institutions. you don't get to enforce your own religious nonsense in a public institution.

if you want a private church where you get to make the rules, pay your taxes. if you're paying what you owe, i don't care who you declare to be married or not married.
Please do not troll serious threads.

Churches are not public institutions. They are private non-profits. Their entire income comes from donations and the vast majority of what they do is charity. Arguably, there are exceptions such as the extreme amount of wealth the Catholic church has amassed over two thousand years, and the occasional televangelist with 10 houses. But by and large, most churches are honest, charitable non-profits.

For a personal example, our church runs about 150 people or thereabout. Our pastor still works a full time job as a Geologist for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. His reimbursement is negligible. Beyond upkeep, the vast majority of donations collected are sent to the main headquarters of our denomination and then directed to various charities. Our small church ends up providing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to support various charities and outreach programs, including but not limited to orphanages, foreign medical aid, disaster releif, and resources for low-income families.

There is a very good reason that churches have nearly always been tax exempt in the United States. Unlike for-profit organizations, we provide needed services using our own donated time, energy, and money so the government doesn't have to. I don't have to donate 20% of my income to charity and the government knows that. This is all aside from the whole separation of church and state (i.e. get your grubby hands off of my church mr. big government). Remember Katrina, when the government really screwed up the relief effort? You know who was one of the first ones down there cutting up fallen trees and cleaning up yards and fixing up houses? Not FEMA. My buddy Nathaniel from my church, and thousands of men and women like him. Do you know where he got the idea, direction, and planning to help in the recovery effort? At our church. Did the government ask him to do it or pay him for his time. Nope. Its just part of what we do.

I also think its worth noting that churches are not the only charitable organizations that are tax exempt. Pretty much any charitable organization can apply for tax exemption. This is not a matter of churches alone receiving some special privileged deal. I could actually understand an argument posing the position that all charitable organizations should no longer receive tax exemption. Whether or not the benefits that charities provide are worth that exemption is a reasonable discussion to be had. But making the claim that churches alone should no longer be tax exempt wreaks of ulterior motives.

So, forcing the government run Marriage License Office to provide marriage licenses to homosexual couples makes sense. Its the government's office. They are usually run by local authorities with the chain of command leading up to the state governor. Forcing a private charity to sin against their conscience, in this case by marrying homosexuals, does not make sense. They are not run by the government. They are constitutionally protected from government interference. They provide needed services.

Forcing churches to marry homosexuals makes no sense.
 

Eraddd

One Pixel
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Yeah, agreeing with Mattj; my parents run a church, and none of it was funded by the government. I've also been to other churches (around North America and Asia actually) and they've all told me they weren't funded by the government. Totally dependent on donations and personal funds.

Holy shit did I just agree with Mattj.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
The poll change is awesome, and at least now it's a yes/no question.


I think that Gay people should absolutely be able to Adopt, no questions asked.

In Straight families with Homophobic views, children are most likely going to be brought up with a distinct dislike of gays. People brought up in any family with a strong mindset are going to be somewhat pushed towards that viewpoint. From my own experience, which I'll admit is a rather sheltered one, the people who've grown up in liberal families who insist on allowing children to build their own opinions and just offering guidance tend to be more well-rounded, open minded people. There are exceptions but the rule is mostly adhered to. People who've grown up in christian families, who've gone to church, who've been told that the bible is good, and the people who reject Jesus are going to hell, are very much inclined to believe that. Having been shown faith, few people reject it and look elsewhere. Fair enough. (wow, seriously? You want us to take this post seriously?)

As Rambling as that got, my point is that in a free thinking house hold, children will be brought up to make their own decisions, and make sensible, well thought out ones, as long as they're supplied with a reasonable moral compass. None of the gay people I've ever met are closed minded. Living in a predominantly straight society, Gay people are no strangers to closed minded people who reject them and judge them without ever getting to know them or even consider their viewpoint. Having often met the harsh, intolerant tongues of the homophobes. Gay people are probably the least likely to force their children to be one thing or another. (Wait what? Based on what?) Knowing someone who grew up in a christian family, having been told all their life that being gay is a sin, why would that person then go on and tell their children, that they must be gay, being straight is wrong. (wait, what...? you lost me.)

In short. Gay people, in my experience are the most likely to be liberal and open minded (wtf are you talking about? Being homosexual has nothing to do with being a good person) so those who say that Gays will convert innocent Children are spouting bullshit from unintelligent holes in their faces.

Also, Growing up with just a Mother, I don't feel any worse off for only having a female figure. I have a friend who grew up with just a dad, He feels the same. We would have liked another parent at times while growing up, but with maturity and hindsight, we both came to the conclusion that having 1 parent was better than having 2 parents who were in unhappy, loveless, sometimes abusive relationships. If 2 Gay people want to adopt. If they will offer that child the same love that a man and a woman would, who's to say that they will do a worse job. Hopefully in the future, Homosexuality will become as acceptable as Black people being allowed seats on buses, or Women being allowed jobs in which case bullying in schools will reduce.

I think that it is unlawful to say that a same sex couple is less able to care for a child than a heterosexual couple.
Wow... this post is so irrationally/unfairly bigoted and closed-minded to religious followers and traditional families, that it spits in the face of the good things it actually says. Not to mention the incredible stereotyping and generalizations about both gays and traditional families. wow... way to shoot your own arguments in the foot.

Hypocrisy doesn't help an argument, just saying.
 
I find it ludicrous that in the freest country in the world, in 2012, the rights of an individual are determined by non-dangerous conditions which are set on a person at birth. Really, think about it.

Should the government honestly decide what a person can and cannot do based on something uncontrollable that causes no harm to other human beings?

The idea of gay marriage being illegal is nonsense, in my opinion.
Unfortunately it takes a while for things to change.

First black people couldn't marry whites.

Now gays can't marry.

After 30 years, who's next?

Watch out left-handed peeps, I think you're next.
 
of course churches are publicly funded. the land they are on was not bought and they are not paying a tax on it. that land is given to them by the government, and by extension, the taxpayers.

in any case, this hardly qualifies as a serious thread. anybody who thinks there is still discussion to be had about gay marriage law (or gays in general) is going to be somebody for whom i haven't much patience.
 

Yeti

dark saturday
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
wat.

churches buy the land they build on, or pay schools/other buildings to rent the space. they aren't.. given random land?? lolwut.

no offense UD but you are kind of showing you aren't very well informed on the subject of religious institutions.. they are not paid by the government or just given land, they have to buy/rent and gain zoning permits to build, etc. they are funded by tithes and offerings/donations from their patrons and members.

if you want to FORCE people to do something they don't believe in let's just reinstate the draft then huh lmao.
 
do you know what 'tax-exempt' means

modern churches are not usually given land directly, no. however, many of them are old enough that they were simply set up on public property, and once built, virtually all of them are exempt from property taxes.

mattj: so it didn't pay for the lot it's on, yeah?
 
not sure why we're talking about churches. i had the privilege of going to a catholic school and ending up as an atheist, but that's a tale for another time.

i believe people are people no matter who they fall in love with or if they want to have kids or not. people should all be allowed to get married in either religious or non-religious marriages and everyone should be allowed to be considered to give a child a home whether they are a mom and dad, two dads, or a couple cool moms. not necessarily saying anyone needs to change any rules if it is what they firmly believe in, but the options should be available to everyone in some way or another.

or they could all move to canada.
 
should the catholic church refuse to marry divorcees too? what about people who eat shellfish on friday or whatever the hell the bible says is bad?

nope, just refuse to marry gays because that's yucky
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top