Gay Marriage Poll (private voting)

With several States voting to recognize gay marriage, it's time to see what people here think of the idea of making gay marriage federally recognized as well.

 

I've not allowed "public display" of your vote.

I will say I cast the first vote, and that I have no issue with stating it was a "Yes" vote.

Vote your true belief, please.

 

I see no reason for not letting people "marry" anyone they want to marry. Who cares. It's their life. It has no effect on my life.

 

Oh yeah, it's easy for you to say that. But I'll bet if my marrying my same sex partner pissed off your god or contradicted your interpretation of your chosen holy book you wouldn't be so laid back about it. You probably have neither, which is your whole problem, fella. You simply don't realize the importance of, a) having a religion and, b) imposing it on everyone else.

 

With that said (looks to Tak's comment above ), please feel free to vote "No" if that is your true belief. No other member can see your individual vote, and comments are welcome, but not required.

 

Gay marriage is one of those issues that is so obviously an issue of freedom and equality that it is inevitable that it will come to pass as long as we remain a Democracy. And I think we reached the tipping point on this issue quite some time ago. The country often moves slowly at times but we do tend to get there.

 

Sorry Tak, I wasn't trying to diss your comment there...I was just letting those who may be against the idea of gay marriage know that they too are welcome to cast their vote, and comment if they wished to.

Speaking of that, where is David? I'm pretty sure of his vote, and the type of comment I can expect from him...and he's welcome to both.

 

Again I voted yes I believe that any 2 people that are in love (barring close relatives of course) should be allowed that choice regardless of sex or colour or creed

 

Just for the sake of argument and since you mentioned it, I'll expand on the question a bit and ask "Why not allow close, gay relatives to marry"? The argument has always been that if close relatives are allowed to marry, their offspring often are malformed, etc. However, with gay couples, there is no biological offspring between the two. So, again just for the sake of argument, why not allow close, gay relatives to marry?

 

I'm not particularly interested, have never really thought about it before, and at this point don't care one way or the other. When I have more time to devote to little sidetracks and distractions I might jump in. Am only responding because as the token queer (as far as I know) in our little on-line neighborhood it seemed incumbent upon me to at least make an appearance at this party. Have to go now. Carry on.

 

OK, when you have time I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

 

That's an interesting can of worms yoiu opened up there OKC.
So I'll toss this out. If gay couples could marry close kin due to the lack of offspring would that be construed as descrimination against heteros?

 

Discarding the issue of marriage in that example...what prevents close kin from engaging in sexual activities with each other?

...Nothing really, except family peer pressure and a society that frowns on three-headed babies.

And yeah, huge can of worms there lol

That's what happens when you "step" on something held sacred by a large group of people. Usually it's a physical place though, and not an abstract idea of a union between two people, a relatively new one I might add, and one that has since become law.

The logical extention of the "close kin" argument though, the argument to protect the sanctity of marriage, is bestiality. That's that gritty stuff at the bottom of the can. Then there's the tree lovers, they're such saps. How about animal to animal marriage? I mean aside from the human animal. And maybe the plants are really in love, their vines wrapping around each other would be proof enough to some. And, of course, cats and their catnip...just try to seperate 'em! Is their love so wrong?

So, that's where the point of gay marriage to close kin is heading. I just figured I'd cut through all the in-between stuff and throw it out there. If it's your belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman... and never anything else... those are the things running through your head when you hear of gay marriage.

 

I could see that becoming an argument, indeed. After all, if two brothers were allowed to marry then what is to prevent a brother and sister from marrying? How far apart does the relation have to be? I know that throughout history, close relationship marriage (brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, etc.) has been frowned upon or downright forbidden. But, this has usually been because the offspring is mongoloid or in some other way physically detrimental to the child. I'm no expert on DNA, but I believe it has something to do with the mixing of DNA from close relatives. I think society allows 3rd cousins to marry because it figures the DNA is far enough apart to not cause problems with a fetus. (I may be wrong on that if someone would like to check).

Sometimes, society just doesn't like two people with such a close relationship to marry. But, with a new liberal mindset about marriage sweeping the country, shouldn't we at least look at some of these options and society's passé' laws and mores?

However, this argument is completely wiped away with homosexual couples since no offspring can be biologically produced by the two parties. Therefore, shouldn't brother/brother, father/son, sister/sister and mother/daughter marriages be allowed? Not to mention grandfather/grandson... well, you get the point. Since no biological child is produced from a marriage of this type, it simply boils down to society's general repugnance for such a marriage. But, that's the same argument that the gay marriage debate focuses on: "It doesn't matter whether society thinks it's repugnant, we will marry whom we love".

Now, if anyone here doesn't know it already, I am 100% for gay marriage. There are too many reasons to list here why it should be allowed. Suffice it to say that if one part of the population can benefit from the legal status of marriage, then ALL the population should be able to benefit. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

It will be interesting to see how the courts react when presented with a case where two brothers or a father and son want to marry.

 

Simple answer really Coin I don't believe in it, possibly because of how I was brought up as otherwise I am quite tollerant

 

Honesty, De Orc, your statement sounds exactly like the "Marriage is for only a man and woman" argument. You don't believe in it because that's now how you were brought up. That's one of the arguments the anti-gay-marriage faction uses.

So, if I understand correctly, you're FOR gay marriage, but AGAINST gay marriage if it's two brothers who want to marry. Is that correct?

 

Now you know full well I did not say that so why try to put words in my mouth? I disagree with Incest in any form dont you?
Be it 2 brothers or 2 sisters or father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister
What is there that suggests I am saying anything along the lines of man/woman only?
Do you think that 2 brothers should be allowed to wed?
You asked me why I said what I said and I told you so dont try to start a argument were none exists

 

Ah, but therein lies the argument itself. I started this line of questioning with the phrase, "Just for the sake of argument..." so take a moment and think about what you're saying.

1. You agree with gay marriage

2. You agree with gay marriage unless it's incest

3. My argument is that incest is frowned upon because of the biological offspring produced by such a union. In a homosexual marriage, there is no biological offspring, so why does incest matter?

4. If you feel that incest matters, then is your feeling based upon your "upbringing", "societal mores", just the plain, old "yuck" factor or what?

 

I told you what I think it is up to you if you dislike my response, I dislike incest in any form what you think is what you think.
If you wish to advocate that incest between brothers or sisters is ok more power to you
I also notice that you dont tell us what you think

 

"The new Liberal mindset sweeping the country" Way to tip your hand on this one, Coin.