[C4Lukins]

I am all for gay marriage. That or eliminating marriage from the federal government in general and going with the whole civil unions for all.

If marriage is defined by Christianity as being between a man and a woman, then it has no place in the US Federal Government.

But even California, despite polls saying 50% of Americans support gay marriage,,,, California turned it down. What the fuck?

Obama sees it as an "evolving" topic. Romney ran on the gay marriage topic in Mass... Saying he was better then Ted on the issue.

I dont know, what do you guys think? Are we ready? Does pushing it now instead of lets say 10 years from now, screw up the whole debate?

[ivysaur12]

It's not a debate. One side is for equality. The other is for bigotry and discrimination.

It really is that simple.

[C4Lukins]

It's not a debate. One side is for equality. The other is for bigotry and discrimination. It really is that simple.

Which side is for equality? Because I am failing to see a significant push from the left on this matter.

[Canuck76]

Can we just have one thread on this? Seriously we've had like 5 of these in the past week

[MisterNugNug]

"Holla we want gay prenup, we want gay prenup."

On a more serious note, we as a country drag our feet every time when it comes to social issues, but inevitably when the tide turns and wrongs are righted; we champion ourselves as some bastion for freedom and progress. Its a bit stale. I mean Mexico will have Gay Marriage before we do. Future generations are going to look back and think "what the hell took you so long".

[Emitan]

It's not a debate. One side is for equality. The other is for bigotry and discrimination. It really is that simple.

You're suppressing people's rights to force their bigoted ways on others. You bigot-bigot!

[hateradio]

I'm pro, because, well, it would be doing myself a disservice if I should ever consider the option.

Can we just have one thread on this? Seriously we've had like 5 of these in the past week

It's an "evolving" topic, can't you read? It evolves. Soon it will replicate all across NeoGAF.

[Dan]

There's equality, and there's a whole bunch of FUD to muddy the waters of bigotry.

I heard some lady on KCRW tonight arguing that we're moving too fast. We shouldn't overturn ages of traditional in just a decade or so. It's just nonsense. If something is wrong, it's wrong. We don't need studies, research or years of consideration and reflection. All that shit is just an excuse to delay progress, and then the same issues about messing with tradition are brought up again and again.

Society isn't going to crumble because a minority of the population can get married and have equal rights. It's absurd. The people opposed to this are likely to never even notice anything happen.

[EloquentM]

I believe in civil unions for everyone.

[Emitan]

I believe in civil unions for everyone.

I believe in marriage for everyone.

[shidoshi]

I believe in civil unions for everyone.

I can't be 100% certain, but I may actually be of this belief.

[onemic]

Gay marriage is wrong!!!!!

Why? *twiddles thumbs*

[Majine]

[Computer]

I'm not in favor of gay marriage. Just get rid of civil marriage altogether. The government shouldn't spend our money celebrating unions and administrating our private lives.

[TacticalFox88]

Let em do it. Why? Because it has ZERO impact on your life. ZERO.

[C4Lukins]

"Holla we want gay prenup, we want gay prenup." On a more serious note, we as a country drag our feet every time when it comes to social issues, but inevitably when the tide turns and wrongs are righted; we champion ourselves as some bastion for freedom and progress. Its a bit stale. I mean Mexico will have Gay Marriage before we do. Future generations are going to look back and think "what the hell took you so long".

I agree with this. If you look at our Constitution, it is all about freedom. The few amendments we created that denied freedom to blacks or females, were eventually destroyed.

I think homosexuality is the next big debate. And some ass hole is going to attempt to make an amendment banning gay marriage. But it will fail in the end. Our next amendment is more likely to recognize homosexual marriages instead of banning them.

It just takes us a few decades to work it out.

[Emitan]

I can't be 100% certain, but I may actually be of this belief.

The issue I have with that is that I don't want a civil union, I want a marriage. I don't care if they're functionally identical. How come all those people can get a marriage and I can't? And "dumbing down" marriages into civil unions sucks for the people who could already get married.

Actually I don't want to get married, I just want to know I have the right to do so.

[Majine]

Let em do it. Why? Because it has ZERO impact on your life. ZERO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow

[Pollux]

I agree with this. If you look at our Constitution, it is all about freedom. The few amendments we created that denied freedom to blacks or females, were eventually destroyed. I think homosexuality is the next big debate. And some ass hole is going to attempt to make an amendment banning gay marriage. But it will fail in the end. Our next amendment is more likely to recognize homosexual marriages instead of banning them. It just takes us a few decades to work it out.

We don't even need an amendment. Just get it to the Supreme Court. Marriage is a fundamental right according to te Court. That would be MUCH easier than trying to pass a Constitutional amendment.

[Air]

Seeing how most of the drama is about the word marriage, I was always in favor of replacing the name for civil unions for everybody. There would be far less drama which is always a plus. Since its far too late for that, than gay marriage it is.

[DanteFox]

I believe in marriage for everyone.

do you? Including children and siblings and multiple partners? otherwise, you don't.

[C4Lukins]

We don't even need an amendment. Just get it to the Supreme Court. Marriage is a fundamental right according to te Court. That would be MUCH easier than trying to pass a Constitutional amendment.

An amendment would be nice though right? A federal government mandate granting freedom to do such and such. That is what the US constitution is about. Granting freedoms.

[Emitan]

do you? Including children and siblings and multiple partners? otherwise, you don't.

I want to marry a dog

[darkwing]

replace marriage with civil union, problem solved

[MisterNugNug]

I agree with this. If you look at our Constitution, it is all about freedom. The few amendments we created that denied freedom to blacks or females, were eventually destroyed. I think homosexuality is the next big debate. And some ass hole is going to attempt to make an amendment banning gay marriage. But it will fail in the end. Our next amendment is more likely to recognize homosexual marriages instead of banning them. It just takes us a few decades to work it out.

Just imagine if Hilary won the election.

"ONLY IN AMERICA!!!!"

"GO USA!!! WE ELECT A FEMALE PRESIDENT!!!!"

"We're so GREAT!!!!!"

Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Benazhir Bhutto, Aung San Suu Kyi, Pratibha Patil, Imelda Marcos, etc. Some candidates by the way who had large opposition opponents to defeat in their respective elections. Wealthy and extremely violent opposition in some cases.

[Pollux]

An amendment would be nice though right? A federal government mandate granting freedom to do such and such. That is what the US constitution is about. Granting freedoms.

No, you don't need an amendment. There's no provision or amendment about heterosexual marriage only so there's nothing to amend. All that is required is for the Court to extend the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to include gay marriage, just as they did in Loving v Virginia to include interracial marriage.

[Cyan]

do you? Including children and siblings and multiple partners? otherwise, you don't.

Did you actually not understand his post, or are you just being disingenuous?

Edit: And yeah, we already have like five threads about this...

[Beardz]

I mean Mexico will have Gay Marriage before we do.

Mexico already have gay marriages.

[C4Lukins]

Seeing how most of the drama is about the word marriage, I was always in favor of replacing the name for civil unions for everybody. There would be far less drama which is always a plus. Since its far too late for that, than gay marriage it is.

That to me is a middle step. But I guess that is how it works. Gays in the military sort of needed "Dont ask dont tell" in order to reach where they are now.

Baby steps.

[RDreamer]

replace marriage with civil union, problem solved

People keep saying this, and I wish it were possible, but it just isn't. This route would probably be harder. You know what would happen the second someone suggests it? WAR ON MARRIAGE! OBAMA IS TAKING AWAY YOUR MARRIAGE! THOSE GODLESS HEATHENS ARE GETTING RID OF MARRIAGE IN AMERICA! WE NEED TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE FROM ATTACK!

Don't lie, you know it would happen. I can practically hear Limbaugh and Hannity in my mind parroting that shit.

Same sex marriage is the only route now.

[MisterNugNug]

Mexico already have gay marriages.

I stand corrected! Its freakin sad. Our country is shameful.

[C4Lukins]

No, you don't need an amendment. There's no provision or amendment about heterosexual marriage only so there's nothing to amend. All that is required is for the Court to extend the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to include gay marriage, just as they did in Loving v Virginia to include interracial marriage.

Well without an amendment you leave it up to the courts. And as much as I enjoy certain aspects of the court system, I believe that certain freedoms should be granted straight up from the Constitution.

[Air]

People keep saying this, and I wish it were possible, but it just isn't. This route would probably be harder. You know what would happen the second someone suggests it? WAR ON MARRIAGE! OBAMA IS TAKING AWAY YOUR MARRIAGE! THOSE GODLESS HEATHENS ARE GETTING RID OF MARRIAGE IN AMERICA! WE NEED TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE FROM ATTACK! Don't lie, you know it would happen. I can practically hear Limbaugh and Hannity in my mind parroting that shit. Same sex marriage is the only route now.

Well yeah it would be a mess now since people hate change. Especially when it comes to words. But it would have been the most sensible thing to do when all of the laws or whatever were being put together. I can't see how that would be debatable tbh.

[Suairyu]

Well without an amendment you leave it up to the courts. And as muc as I enjoy certain aspects of the court system, I believe that certain freedoms should be granted straight up from the Constitution.

Make it a constitutional ammendment. Then future generations will have it as a constant reminder that their forebearers were bigoted fucktards.

[Mecha_Infantry]

I think gay people should be together, but I don't think they should marry under the name of God or church

To me it's spitting in the face of Christians and what they believe in. So they should just separate that idea and have a legal ceromany to declare their togetherness.

[Pollux]

Well without an amendment you leave it up to the courts. And as much as I enjoy certain aspects of the court system, I believe that certain freedoms should be granted straight up from the Constitution.

What would your proposed amendment say?

[Suairyu]

What would your proposed amendment say?

"By right, everyone can marry. Gays too."

[Arment]

I think gay people should be together, but I don't think they should marry under the name of God or church To me it's spitting in the face of Christians and what they believe in. So they should just separate that idea and have a legal ceromany to declare their togetherness.

Marriage isn't a religious institution. My parents were married by a justice of the peace in San Francisco city hall.

It wouldn't be spitting in their face because it doesn't belong to them. They think it does, but they're mistaken.

[Cyan]

I think gay people should be together, but I don't think they should marry under the name of God or church To me it's spitting in the face of Christians and what they believe in. So they should just separate that idea and have a legal ceromany to declare their togetherness.

So... you're in favor of gay marriage. Since that's exactly what it is.

[DanteFox]

Did you actually not understand his post, or are you just being disingenuous? Edit: And yeah, we already have like five threads about this...

I'm sorry. I thought this was a debate thread.

[Pollux]

"By right, everyone can marry. Gays too."

Sounds good.

[Emitan]

I'm sorry. I thought this was a debate thread.

You did? Then why use logical fallacies on the first freaking page?

[NathanMcMahon]

I think gay people should be together, but I don't think they should marry under the name of God or church To me it's spitting in the face of Christians and what they believe in. So they should just separate that idea and have a legal ceromany to declare their togetherness.

Separate but equal. Sounds good to me as it's worked wonders before.

[Pollux]

Separate but equal. Sounds good to me as it's worked wonders before.

That example has literally nothing to do with separate but equal

[catfish]

"Holla we want gay prenup, we want gay prenup." On a more serious note, we as a country drag our feet every time when it comes to social issues, but inevitably when the tide turns and wrongs are righted; we champion ourselves as some bastion for freedom and progress. Its a bit stale. I mean Mexico will have Gay Marriage before we do. Future generations are going to look back and think "what the hell took you so long".

this is one of the most amusing things about america. Look at the media and you would think that America wrote the book on 'how to be nice to black people' when in actual fact....

The gay marriage debate isn't really much of a debate.

You have most of the first world
Afghanistan

America lies somewhere in the middle there

[DanteFox]

You did? Then why use logical fallacies on the first freaking page?

The only way it's a logical fallacy is if you amend your previous quote, which is the point I was trying to make. You don't really support marriage for everyone.

[NathanMcMahon]

That example has literally nothing to do with separate but equal

you are wrong.

[C4Lukins]

People keep saying this, and I wish it were possible, but it just isn't. This route would probably be harder. You know what would happen the second someone suggests it? WAR ON MARRIAGE! OBAMA IS TAKING AWAY YOUR MARRIAGE! THOSE GODLESS HEATHENS ARE GETTING RID OF MARRIAGE IN AMERICA! WE NEED TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE FROM ATTACK! Don't lie, you know it would happen. I can practically hear Limbaugh and Hannity in my mind parroting that shit. Same sex marriage is the only route now.

Yeah sure. The right would bring up some of those issues. It does not defeat the purpose though. The attitude you are displaying here is what causes the negativity more then anything else. You are not even attempting to communicate with the opposition. And I guarantee you that they will listen if you do not treat them like idiots. That just causes disdain.

I am a right wing fella, but I have the ability to communicate with people without offending them. To make them think without causing animosity for whatever my cause may be. My parents are super conservative, and just through basic discussion I have been able to get them to support same sex marriage plus a number of other issues that are anti Limbaugh in nature.

Truthfully, they are not going to vote for Obama anywhere in the near future. But they will support many leftist issues because someone bothered to get in there and respect their opinions while disagreeing with them on a fundamental level. That is how you get to people, that is how you get shit done.

[Dreams-Visions]

1.) Remove marriage from federal and state laws, books and policies.

2.) Make it such that the state's only authority is to grant civil unions. Everyone gets a civil union. Gay and Straight. The State should not recognize any union other than civil unions. As in if you get married and don't bother to get your civil union papers, it would be as if you're simply 2 single people living together in the eyes of the State. No joint taxes, hospital rights, etc. Nothing.

3.) Reduce "marriage" to nothing more than an extra ritual/ceremony that has no bearing on legal status or rights. Marriage should grant no additional legal privileges or rights. It should be nothing more than a rite/ritual performed by...whomever...and sought by those who want to do the pomp and circumstance just because.

And any institution that wants to do those legally-empty marriages should be happy to marry whomever they want.

[Emitan]

The only way it's a logical fallacy is if you amend your previous quote, which is the point I was trying to make. You don't really support marriage for everyone.

Do you support civil unions for everyone? Someone made a post identical to mine except "marriage" was "civil unions" and yet you only quoted me.