Progress...

[Tiberius]

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-...riage.aspx

[Faith No More]

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-...riage.aspx

Now let's see if the majority is willing to actually take a stand, then I'll be impressed.

[Doubting Thomas]

Unfortunately, a majority of states have put anti-same-sex amendments into their constitutions. It will take it a while to make it legal across the country.

[Statler Waldorf]

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-...riage.aspx

I have never understood why atheism is so closely tied to political liberalism. You call this progress, but progress towards what? Progress alone means nothing.

[Tiberius]

I have never understood why atheism is so closely tied to political liberalism. You call this progress, but progress towards what? Progress alone means nothing.

I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian. Not exactly conservative, but not exactly liberal either (generally a bit of both). It's progress towards things being defined by common sense and fairness rather than by tradition. Tradition says marriage should be between a man and a woman, but if marriage is going to get perks from governments, then it should be open to all citizens who love each other, and that includes gay people.

That said, I'm not generally "for" marriage of any kind. I see marriage today as some form of state sponsored union rather than something concerning love. Sure, love plays a big role, but I don't see why the government has to get involved in the first place. I'd much rather prefer that the government stayed out of the marriage business, and allowed marriage to go back to what it is supposed to be: a union of two people in love, celebrated by close friends and family.

This could also solve the whole problem with churches being forced to perform gay marriages. If the government didn't try to control what marriage is and isn't, then that decision is ultimately left up to individual groups of people. Some churches will allow gay people to get married, others won't. Even if all the churches rejected gay marriage, gay people could get married by holding the ceremony themselves; getting all their friends and family together to celebrate their union.

I'm intrigued though, why don't you think this step towards equality (in thinking anyway) is progress?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I have never understood why atheism is so closely tied to political liberalism. You call this progress, but progress towards what? Progress alone means nothing.

I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian. Not exactly conservative, but not exactly liberal either (generally a bit of both). It's progress towards things being defined by common sense and fairness rather than by tradition. Tradition says marriage should be between a man and a woman, but if marriage is going to get perks from governments, then it should be open to all citizens who love each other, and that includes gay people.

That said, I'm not generally "for" marriage of any kind. I see marriage today as some form of state sponsored union rather than something concerning love. Sure, love plays a big role, but I don't see why the government has to get involved in the first place. I'd much rather prefer that the government stayed out of the marriage business, and allowed marriage to go back to what it is supposed to be: a union of two people in love, celebrated by close friends and family.

This could also solve the whole problem with churches being forced to perform gay marriages. If the government didn't try to control what marriage is and isn't, then that decision is ultimately left up to individual groups of people. Some churches will allow gay people to get married, others won't. Even if all the churches rejected gay marriage, gay people could get married by holding the ceremony themselves; getting all their friends and family together to celebrate their union.

I'm intrigued though, why don't you think this step towards equality (in thinking anyway) is progress?

---

Oh ok, that makes more sense now. I have some libertarian tendencies myself, which is kind of ironic considering I am a federal employee. I don't support gay marriage because the legal benefits given to married couples are not designed for a gay marriage. Couples are given those benefits as a way of rewarding them for creating a more solid platform to raise new upcoming citizens within. Kind of a "you are helping us all my being married and raising your children in a marriage so here is some financial help." Since gay couples do not raise children the perks should not apply to them. I look at it like the fact that I can't get maternity leave from my work. Is this unfair, I don't believe so because it is designed for moms, not guys like me. If gays want to have a marriage ceremony, there is no law stopping them from doing that (although I think forcing churches to do it crosses the line between church and state). Though I would rather the government just get out of the marriage business as well rather than open it up to homosexual and multiple partner marriages.

[theVOID]

I don't support gay marriage because the legal benefits given to married couples are not designed for a gay marriage.

Name them, these marriage benefits that wouldn't be applicable to homosexual or multi-partner scenarios.

Almost all of them that I know of are simply in recognition of their intent to share their lives, property, liabilities (bankruptcy), and families - There is absolutely no good reason to say homosexuals shouldn't be entitled to these benefits, it's none of your damn business to tell other people what they can do for starters, I can see it now: "Sorry fag, I know your partner is on life support but hasn't got a chance and his mother is nuts and wants to keep him on there for decades, but you're not married so take a hike!" - Seriously, what damn business is it of yours what gender it they are?

Couples are given those benefits as a way of rewarding them for creating a more solid platform to raise new upcoming citizens within.

No it damn well isn't - Infertile and disinterested couples can still marry and there are fuck all benefits that married people with children get compared to non-married parents, and it's none of the government's fucking business to coerce people into having children - that would just be fucking sick.

Kind of a "you are helping us all my being married and raising your children in a marriage so here is some financial help."

Like the money is a big issue for them.... What an asshole.

And following your reasoning there, we should tell infertile and disinterested married couples to shove their tax breaks right? Are we going to get government spies to check and see if everyone is trying to have kids or is infertile? After all it would be a form of tax-fraud... Damn the IRS is going to be busy in the US.

Oh, and all of the aid received for caring for children is contingent upon the number of children under your care, NOT whether or not you are married - You want to tell single moms that they don't get the same aid because they're not married? What about unmarried couples caring for children?

Since gay couples do not raise children the perks should not apply to them.

Have you never heard of adoption? Of course you have, so stop kidding yourself with this bullshit. Gay people who are married without children, get the same benefits as straight folks without kids, and if they have children under their care, either from their own prior relationships or because they adopted they should get the same aid, based on means relative to need - The more children under your care the more help you get relative to income - There is absolutely no reason why that could not be applied to gay couples.

I look at it like the fact that I can't get maternity leave from my work. Is this unfair, I don't believe so because it is designed for moms, not guys like me.

False analogy, you cannot get pregnant, Gay people can chose to share their lives, property, families etc - You bigoted assholes simply want to treat them unfairly when they chose to do so - It's actually analogous to a bunch of fundie assholes telling a woman who can get pregnant that she cannot do so and have the child recognized by the state and she won't get the same funding, simply because of some bullshit arbitrary reason like "You're going to be raising that child with another woman".

If gays want to have a marriage ceremony, there is no law stopping them from doing that (although I think forcing churches to do it crosses the line between church and state).

They want fair treatment by the state, not being shoved aside by bigoted assholes who think they have the authority to tell other people what they can do with their own damn lives, given second rate treatment and being opposed when it comes to having a family.

I agree that churches shouldn't have to marry anyone they don't want, it's not my place to tell them what they can or can not do - All the state should ever do is recognize the intent of consenting adults and treat them the same as everyone else, the people themselves can call it whatever the fuck they like, you fundie nuts can call it 'marriage under the eyes of the lord' or whatever the fuck you like, masochists can call it 'life bondage', someone else can call it 'wooplah' and I couldn't care less, but when one of you self-righteous authoritarian douche-bags tries to order people around and impose your values on everyone else I gotta say FUCK YOU.

Though I would rather the government just get out of the marriage business as well rather than open it up to homosexual and multiple partner marriages.

Yeah but that's not going to happen, not with all these imposing ass-clowns sitting up high and telling everyone how shit's going to happen, whether you like it or not, in the mean time we're treating good people like second rate pieces of trash - that has to stop.

[Minimalist]

41% of Americans also think that jesus is "coming back" within the next 40 years and 40% are fucking creationists, Adrian, so don't put too much stock in American public opinion.




http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,...31,00.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20...99078.html

[DeistPaladin]

Unfortunately, a majority of states have put anti-same-sex amendments into their constitutions. It will take it a while to make it legal across the country.

Not really. The state amendments are blatantly unconstitutional. The federal constitution trumps the state amendments. All we need is a supreme court that will rule on the 14th amendment as it should be.

[HeyItsZeus]

Statler Walderf, or whatever, I wage war against you, sir. En garde!