Do you do find gay marriage repulsive?

[DanielX]

Yes/Yes.

My personal feelings in the matter really shouldn't be the law - government's main job isn't to be the morality police, after all. Government best chase after the real crooks... you know, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. Not to mention terrorists. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

No, I don´t find the concept of gay marriage repulsive. And yes, it should be legal to find it repulsive.

[angus]

No/Yes.

I agree with you.

[Nation]

no/no.

[opebo]

I find marriage repulsive, but gay marriage no more so than the marriage of breeders.

And of course both should be legal.

[The Duke]

It is not morally repulsive.  However, since I am on the other side of the debate, the concept f it being enacted is repulsive to me because I believe defeat is shameful and repulsive.  If it were enacted, it means my side has lost, and this repulses me.

But I don't find homosexualty, gay relationships, or the non-binding ceremonies for show that happen all around the country repulsive.

Er, so you're against gay marriage because the Republican Party is?  And you'd be for it if the Republican Party wasn't?

I'm not sure I follow... if you're in favor of gay marriage, it would seem to me that you're not on the other side of the debate.

Not exactly.

I am against gay marriage, though I don't find it repulsive.  I am against gay marriage for a variety of reasons, none of which is related to party loyalty.

But, I never like my side of the debate to lose, and if gay marriage were legalized, that means my side lost (opponents of gay marriage).  I am repulsed by the thought of losing.

[ian]

No, I don't find it repulsive.  Yes, I think it should be legal.  Two people in love should never be kept from expressing that emotion.

[A18]

No, I don't find it repulsive.  Yes, I think it should be legal.  Two people in love should never be kept from expressing that emotion.

Marriage isn't an expression of love, but whatever. Should a brother and sister be able to get married?

[Lunar]

No, I don't find it repulsive.  Yes, I think it should be legal.  Two people in love should never be kept from expressing that emotion.

Marriage isn't an expression of love, but whatever. Should a brother and sister be able to get married?

Yes.

[Erc]

Voted incorrectly:

Said yes/yes instead of Yes/No.

I do strongly support civil unions, however.

[Rob]

No, I don't find it repulsive.  Yes, I think it should be legal.  Two people in love should never be kept from expressing that emotion.

Marriage isn't an expression of love, but whatever. Should a brother and sister be able to get married?

Yes.

I hope you're joking.

[WalterMitty]

No, I don't find it repulsive.  Yes, I think it should be legal.  Two people in love should never be kept from expressing that emotion.

well said.

[A18]

Why the hell should it be limited to two people?

[Lunar]

No, I don't find it repulsive.  Yes, I think it should be legal.  Two people in love should never be kept from expressing that emotion.

Marriage isn't an expression of love, but whatever. Should a brother and sister be able to get married?

Yes.

I hope you're joking.

I'm not.  Forcing arbitrary conceptions of morality on everyone else when there are no rights violations is the antithesis of my beliefs.

Like most social libertarians, I support getting the government's corrupting influence out of the holy institution of marriage all together and support civil unions as legal contracts to deal with people.  Yes, you should be able to get a civil union with your mother if you want.  It doesn't imply sex, merely a union to recieve the economic and legal benefits of such a bond.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slippery-slope arguments are silly.

I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy, but it seems a little unpractical and self-defeating to allow infinite amounts of civil unions.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slippery-slope arguments are silly.

I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy, but it seems a little unpractical and self-defeating to allow infinite amounts of civil unions.

Who said anything about a slippery slope? What's slippery about it?

I happen to be much less repulsed by polygamy than homosexual marriage.

[Alcon]

I have to give major kudos to John Dibble for posting something a while ago that became my view on this subject. I can't believe I did not think of it until I saw that post.

My view is that the government should get out of defining what is marriage. Everyone who is willing to fill out a form that says they are a loving couple and somehow gets sanctified somewhere, in my view, should be able to have a legal marriage.

Of course, this could be abused, but so could (and is) the current system. I am STRONGLY in favor of gay marriage, in any case. I do not care what the definition of marriage is, nor how slippery the slope is.

It isn't going to hurt me, and it is going to make lots of other people very happy. Screw definitions.

That's my view.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slippery-slope arguments are silly.

I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy, but it seems a little unpractical and self-defeating to allow infinite amounts of civil unions.

Who said anything about a slippery slope? What's slippery about it?

I happen to be much less repulsed by polygamy than homosexual marriage.

Your argument was based on slippery slope logic, wasn't it?  Saying that if we legalize homosexual couples, we have to legalize polygamy, man-turtle relationships, etc. is rather silly.

[A18]

Why the hell should we not legalize polygamy if we're going to legalize gay marriage?

[opebo]

Why the hell should we not legalize polygamy if we're going to legalize gay marriage?

I would have no problem with that.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slippery-slope arguments are silly.

I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy, but it seems a little unpractical and self-defeating to allow infinite amounts of civil unions.

Who said anything about a slippery slope? What's slippery about it?

I happen to be much less repulsed by polygamy than homosexual marriage.

Your argument was based on slippery slope logic, wasn't it? Saying that if we legalize homosexual couples, we have to legalize polygamy, man-turtle relationships, etc. is rather silly.

Slippery slope arguments are generally overly simplistic, and wrong. There's no reason why the line can't be moved a little, without eliminating it altogether. It's not a black and white issue; nothing is, really.

[A18]

There is absolutely no justification for gay marriage that does not justify polygamy.

In fact, polygamy is a much more moderate change. I wouldn't care as much if we legalized that.

[Lunar]

There is absolutely no justification for gay marriage that does not justify polygamy.

In fact, polygamy is a much more moderate change. I wouldn't care as much if we legalized that.

Most arguments for airport metal detecters also justify police states.

I'm in favor of legalyzing polygamy, but I'm just curious as to how one would implement it without it being self-defeating.

[A18]

If you're going to argue that not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory, and therefore is an evil that must be eradicated, then the same is true of polygamy.

Now, you can think gay marriage is fine but not polygamy, and that's fine, but then you can't use the discrimination argument.

[Lunar]

If you're going to argue that not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory, and therefore is an evil that must be eradicated, then the same is true of polygamy.

Now, you can think gay marriage is fine but not polygamy, and that's fine, but then you can't use the discrimination argument.

I already addressed the fallacious nature of slippery slope arguments.

I don't care though, because I don't mind polygamy.

I justify my gay marriage argument typically in terms of limiting governmental power.

[A18]

It's not about a slippery slope. It's about consistency.

I wasn't accusing you of being a hypocrite. You are, from what I can tell, completely consistent in your ideology.