Should same sex marriage be legal?

[lovesong]

Yeah, I'd be cool with polyamorous marriage being legalised too. Although I wouldn't prioritise it anywhere near as much as same-sex relationships.

Oh I totally agree. One is a much bigger issue today than the other, and I feel like it's safe to say that more people are being hurt by one than the other. I was just saying that of course I'm for same-sex marriage, I'm for all marriage! Same-sex marriage definitely needs more attention right now, but it can't hurt to raise support for other types of marriage too!

 

[Kirran]

@Laika - so the option shouldn't be available for those who do want it?

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

"I want to you spend your life with me, love only me and make babies! let's get married"

In my opinion that person does sound like a pushy person.

 

[David1967]

please vote...do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?...if you are a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, please explain why according to your faith it should be legal.

I don't know how it can be justified from a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim perspective so please help me out. Gratias!

You need IMO to add a "Do not care" option.

 

[Laika]

@Laika - so the option shouldn't be available for those who do want it?

Imagine if you could have one or more partners and no paper work... People can have one partner if they want. But the truth is alot of people want to go out with someone else and not because they are out to hurt the person they are currently with. "Adultery" shouldn't necessarily be seen as bad for people being "disloyal" or not having "commitment" but that they are forced to lie and keep up appearences to meet expectations.

If people want one partner for life- its there choice. But it shouldn't be a norm thats forced onto everyone.

Free union - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You need IMO to add a "Do not care" option.

If you really didn't care, you'd vote "yes".

... if you care about freedom, of course. In a free society, we justify our restrictions on the freedoms of others. If you don't care enough to have an opinion, then you don't care enough to deny someone their rights.

 

[Shad]

please vote...do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?...if you are a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, please explain why according to your faith it should be legal.

I don't know how it can be justified from a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim perspective so please help me out. Gratias!

Get government out of marriage. This solves the problem in any religion justifying it as legal or not. Since the problem in the OP is religion itself the religious can figure it out without the non-religious having to be involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Get government out of marriage. This solves the problem in any religion justifying it as legal or not.

Hell no. I'm not willing to concede marriage to religion.

Since the problem in the OP is religion itself the religious can figure it out without the non-religious having to be involved.

A better idea: leave civil marriage alone. Religions can decide for themselves what their internal marriage rules will be for their own followers, and they can have the right to kick people out if they don't abide by those rules.

Other denominations ought to take some notes from the Catholic approach to divorce: for decades now, they - at least in secular countries - have effectively said "we're not going to try to change the law to make civil divorce illegal, but we aren't going to view divorce (or remarriage after divorce) as legitimate." Anti-gay churches ought to remember that they have this option.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm asking if it should be legal according to people's opinions...better yet, if they could give me an explanation how gay-marriage can be reconciled with Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

I think you are asking the wrong question. There are many things that Christians, Jews and Muslims accept that cannot be reconciled with their faiths. And there are likewise many things that those faiths seem to demand or proscribe -- which "believers" either do not do (when demanded to) or in fact do (when proscribed).

I have said for most of my life that "True Believers" generally don't "truly believe" much of what they suppose they believe. My usual example is that if I see that the burner on my stove top is red, I believe (truly believe!) that it is very hot and will do me enormous damage if I put my hand on it. I believe this strongly enough that you would have to apply a lot of force to get me to go against that belief. Yet, I can find hundreds of things, every day among every religious "believer" I know, that they will do even though their religion tells them that to do so will earn them eternal punishment. And that tells me this: they THINK they believe it (and that's what religion is, really), but really do not in the same very real, very visceral way I believe in my hot stove.

 

[Shad]

Hell no. I'm not willing to concede marriage to religion.

I am not talking about conceding marriage to religion. I am talking about getting government out of marriage so that government does not have to address all these various claims of what marriage is based on religious opinions and faith. So if you are religious you can use your religion, or various denominations of a religion, as a basis of what marriage means to you. If you are not religious you are free to use whatever basis for marriage you want.The government is not dictated to by the religious using religious opinion. Likewise the government does not dictate what marriage is to the religious.

A better idea: leave civil marriage alone. Religions can decide for themselves what their internal marriage rules will be for their own followers, and they can have the right to kick people out if they don't abide by those rules.

Which is my point in part. I would just do away with civil marriage as it is just an nonsensical term created in opposition to the religious idea of marriage. If government simply told people that their religious convictions are irrelevant there would be no need for any of the back and forth.

Other denominations ought to take some notes from the Catholic approach to divorce: for decades now, they - at least in secular countries - have effectively said "we're not going to try to change the law to make civil divorce illegal, but we aren't going to view divorce (or remarriage after divorce) as legitimate." Anti-gay churches ought to remember that they have this option.

Which again shifts the problem religions have with marriage back to those that have the issues, the religious.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Given the existence of marriage, would you rather it included same-sex relationships rather than be purely for different-sex couples?

Loving versus Virginia, 1972 (Google it).

Given the existence of marriage, would you rather it included multi-racial couples, rather than be purely for those belonging to the same racial demographic?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If people want one partner for life- its there choice. But it shouldn't be a norm thats forced onto everyone.

Well, I'm a gay man, and I've been with the same partner for lo these 25 years. We never married (I'm way too old, and grew up in a world in which such a thought was unthinkable), but in all that time, I've never been with anyone else, nor do I now wish to wander elsewhere.

For me, "marriage" is what the heart does. I'm where I am because I love my partner, and it's where I still want to be -- not because I promised anybody anything.

AND I respect your right to live your life your way, as long as you're doing so with willing partners whom you are not hurting. Honesty is not a bad thing, really.

 

[lovesong]

I am not talking about conceding marriage to religion. I am talking about getting government out of marriage so that government does not have to address all these various claims of what marriage is based on religious opinions and faith. So if you are religious you can use your religion, or various denominations of a religion, as a basis of what marriage means to you. If you are not religious you are free to use whatever basis for marriage you want.The government is not dictated to by the religious using religious opinion. Likewise the government does not dictate what marriage is to the religious.



Which is my point in part. I would just do away with civil marriage as it is just an nonsensical term created in opposition to the religious idea of marriage. If government simply told people that their religious convictions are irrelevant there would be no need for any of the back and forth.




Which again shifts the problem religions have with marriage back to those that have the issues, the religious.

The problem is that legal marriage comes with certain legal benefits. If we just let everyone go by their own ideas about marriage with no kind of legal system, how could people get those benefits? You would still need to sign a legal document to get them, which basically just circles back to legal marriage.

 

[Shad]

The problem is that legal marriage comes with certain legal benefits.

Which can be resolved by a simple civic union contract that has nothing to do with marriage itself. Persons A, B (if polygamous) C, D, E, etc. No husband and wife, no male and female partner.

If we just let everyone go by their own ideas about marriage with no kind of legal system, how could people get those benefits?

See above.

You would still need to sign a legal document to get them, which basically just circles back to legal marriage.

No. Remove the marriage concept and shift it back to a simple agreement between parties. A contract. The problem with marriage is that it is regulated by government and people think their religious convictions should be considered by government. More so why even have benefits? More so married couple have different tax codes compared to single people. Like I said regulations are the problem in some cases as much as religion. People just focus on religion so much as the religious are the loudest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not talking about conceding marriage to religion. I am talking about getting government out of marriage so that government does not have to address all these various claims of what marriage is based on religious opinions and faith.

"Getting government out of marriage" means doing away with civil marriage.

So if you are religious you can use your religion, or various denominations of a religion, as a basis of what marriage means to you. If you are not religious you are free to use whatever basis for marriage you want.The government is not dictated to by the religious using religious opinion. Likewise the government does not dictate what marriage is to the religious.

And marriage would convey no legal rights, responsibilities, or protections. No thanks.

Which is my point in part. I would just do away with civil marriage as it is just an nonsensical term created in opposition to the religious idea of marriage.

No, civil marriage is a legal relationship with real ramifications.

If government simply told people that their religious convictions are irrelevant there would be no need for any of the back and forth.

You can still do that while keeping civil marriage.

Which again shifts the problem religions have with marriage back to those that have the issues, the religious.

... and this is fine by me.

 

[lovesong]

Which can be resolved by a simple civic union contract that has nothing to do with marriage itself. Persons A, B (if polygamous) C, D, E, etc. No husband and wife, no male and female partner.



See above.



No. Remove the marriage concept and shift it back to a simple agreement between parties. A contract. The problem with marriage is that it is regulated by government and people think their religious convictions should be considered by government. More so why even have benefits? More so married couple have different tax codes compared to single people. Like I said regulations are the problem in some cases as much as religion. People just focus on religion so much as the religious are the loudest.

Then do exactly what we're all arguing for, and kick religion out of marriage. You're literally just arguing for not calling marriage marriage at this point and calling it a civil union instead. Consenting people signing a contract to share assets and whatnot is all marriage is! That's really all there is to it. All the fluff is just put in to make people feel better, all the wedding stuff is just formality, it doesn't do anything legally. So, then what is the difference between marriage as it is and the civic unions as you want them? Restrictions. Marriage now is restricted... because of religious groups... which is exactly what me and @9-10ths_Penguin are advocating to ditch.

 

[Spiderman]

I dont have anything meaningful to say , just, Ahahaha...I love you guys...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which can be resolved by a simple civic union contract that has nothing to do with marriage itself. Persons A, B (if polygamous) C, D, E, etc. No husband and wife, no male and female partner.

There are rights associated with marriage that no contract could give.

No. Remove the marriage concept and shift it back to a simple agreement between parties. A contract.

If that's what you want for yourself, nothing's stopping you from going that route, regardless of whether civil marriage is a thing or not.

 

[David1967]

If you really didn't care, you'd vote "yes".

... if you care about freedom, of course. In a free society, we justify our restrictions on the freedoms of others. If you don't care enough to have an opinion, then you don't care enough to deny someone their rights.

Some are for it. Some are against it. Some really are indifferent about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some are for it. Some are against it. Some really are indifferent about it.

So you don't care about same-sex marriage while still caring so much about it that you're on the fence about banning it?

I hope you see the contradiction here.