gay marriage roll call

[© tweed]

I oppose gay marriage but would let them have civil unions.

Why does the terminology matter?  It's all the same thing, according to the state governments that recognize marraige/unions.

[DanielX]

Yea.

[ilikeverin]

Civil unions for all

[The Dowager Mod]

Yes.

[Max Power]

Yes, as Joe said, the only "argument" against it is that current marriage is a "tradition".

[KillerPollo]

yea, it doesn't hurt anyone or anything.

Ban this troll!

No, btw!

[Joe Republic]

I'm yet to see a credible argument against it.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Actually I have been.  So far every argument against it can easily be refuted.

While I'm here I may as well point out that I agree 100% with Emsworth, Philip and M&C's posts.

[J. J.]

Other.

I believe it's up to the states to decide. I don't really support or oppose it.

No, but I believe that this should be up to states.  I do not feel that the US should tell a state it cannot permit it, but neither should the federal government require one state to recognize a same sex marriage contracted in another state.

[J. J.]

I'm yet to see a credible argument against it.

Then you aren't paying attention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I have been.  So far every argument against it can easily be refuted.

While I'm here I may as well point out that I agree 100% with Emsworth, Philip and M&C's posts.

Actually, here is one.  My father, a widower, gets a pension; his widow would continue to collect it when he dies.  If same sex marriage is permitted what would prevent me from "marrying" him and, when he dies, collect his pension for the remainder of my life?

[ian]

Yes.

[Gabu]

I'm yet to see a credible argument against it.

Then you aren't paying attention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I have been.  So far every argument against it can easily be refuted.

While I'm here I may as well point out that I agree 100% with Emsworth, Philip and M&C's posts.

Actually, here is one.  My father, a widower, gets a pension; his widow would continue to collect it when he dies.  If same sex marriage is permitted what would prevent me from "marrying" him and, when he dies, collect his pension for the remainder of my life?

If it was your mother instead of your father, wouldn't the same problem arise from heterosexual marriage?

[MaC]

yea, it doesn't hurt anyone or anything.

Ban this troll!

No, btw!

Who's more troll?  The troll, or the troll who follows him?
Care to give an explanation of why it would hurt anything Pollo?

[Ebowed]

Yes, I support gay marriage, as long as there is no polygamy or incegamy involved.

[J. J.]

I'm yet to see a credible argument against it.

Then you aren't paying attention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I have been.  So far every argument against it can easily be refuted.

While I'm here I may as well point out that I agree 100% with Emsworth, Philip and M&C's posts.

Actually, here is one.  My father, a widower, gets a pension; his widow would continue to collect it when he dies.  If same sex marriage is permitted what would prevent me from "marrying" him and, when he dies, collect his pension for the remainder of my life?

What would prevent that under heterosexual couples, with the mother's pension?

Well, for one thing, the daughter couldn't do it.  Two, because the couples cannot biologically product children, the incest argument could not be made.

[Alcon]

I'm yet to see a credible argument against it.

Then you aren't paying attention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I have been.  So far every argument against it can easily be refuted.

While I'm here I may as well point out that I agree 100% with Emsworth, Philip and M&C's posts.

Actually, here is one.  My father, a widower, gets a pension; his widow would continue to collect it when he dies.  If same sex marriage is permitted what would prevent me from "marrying" him and, when he dies, collect his pension for the remainder of my life?

What would prevent that under heterosexual couples, with the mother's pension?

Well, for one thing, the daughter couldn't do it.  Two, because the couples cannot biologically product children, the incest argument could not be made.

If I'm understanding you, your argument is that the relationship could be abused by those of the same gender - they would marry and get the benefits.

But this can already be done with heterosexual couples.  Yes, it would make abuse even easier, but if people intend to abuse that, they will think of a system under current marriage structure to do it.

Is it really worth depriving marriage rights to an entire group just to make marriage abuse (which, as far as I know, isn't all that common) a bit harder?

[Gabu]

I'm yet to see a credible argument against it.

Then you aren't paying attention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I have been.  So far every argument against it can easily be refuted.

While I'm here I may as well point out that I agree 100% with Emsworth, Philip and M&C's posts.

Actually, here is one.  My father, a widower, gets a pension; his widow would continue to collect it when he dies.  If same sex marriage is permitted what would prevent me from "marrying" him and, when he dies, collect his pension for the remainder of my life?

What would prevent that under heterosexual couples, with the mother's pension?

Well, for one thing, the daughter couldn't do it.  Two, because the couples cannot biologically product children, the incest argument could not be made.

It still strikes me that the problem lies in the consequences the government set of getting married, not in the marriage itself.  Your example could be easily rectified by simply placing restrictions on marriage based on whether or not the people are blood relatives; it seems to me that completely banning same-sex marriage because of potential abuses of it is going a bit overboard, especially given that similar abuses are also possible in opposite-sex marriage.

[The Duke]

I'm yet to see a credible argument against it.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Actually I have been.  So far every argument against it can easily be refuted.

While I'm here I may as well point out that I agree 100% with Emsworth, Philip and M&C's posts.

Not close enough attention.  The countries of Europe, (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway), that have legalized gay marriage/civil unions have the highest divorce rates and illegitimacy rates in the world (outside Iceland).  Before they legalized these changes, this was not true, and all three have seem a marked shift towards more divorces and more illegitimacy at a time when divorces and illegitimacy in other western countries have remained steady.

There is statistical evidence that gay marriage at the very least correlates with a collaps of traditional marriage.  Its not some religious hysteria.  Perhaps you simply don't value traditional marriage, but for those who do, the arguments against gay marriage have in fact not been universally refuted.

[Emsworth]

Not close enough attention.  The countries of Europe, (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway), that have legalized gay marriage/civil unions have the highest divorce rates and illegitimacy rates in the world (outside Iceland).  Before they legalized these changes, this was not true, and all three have seem a marked shift towards more divorces and more illegitimacy at a time when divorces and illegitimacy in other western countries have remained steady.

There is statistical evidence that gay marriage at the very least correlates with a collaps of traditional marriage.  Its not some religious hysteria.  Perhaps you simply don't value traditional marriage, but for those who do, the arguments against gay marriage have in fact not been universally refuted.

Sorry, but correlation does not imply causation. Your own marriage is not in any way being affected by some same-sex couple getting "married." After all, they would have been living together anyway, whether or not the government calls them "married." Why should the labeling of their partnership affect others in any way whatsoever? How would one same-sex getting married somehow affect another's decision to get a divorce? Unless I can see a coherent explanation of how labeling one partnership as "marriage" somehow affects another totally unrelated couple, I would not accept this argument.

Secondly, the concept of "illegitimacy" is not something that I think is particularly meaningful to talk about. Just because a child is "illegitimate," it does not follow that his parents will be bad at raising children. Similarly, just because a child is "legitimate," it does not follow that his parents will be particularly good at doing so either. There are, for example, several instances in which a legitimate father or mother abuses his or her own child, and several instances in which an illegitimate father or mother takes care of him very well. Thus, the statistic of the number of illegitimate children is not (IMO) an appropriate argument. Rather, it is the unquantifiable variable of how the children are actually brought up by their parents (whether they are legitimate or not) is much more significant. I don't think that there should be an automatic stigma associated with illegitimacy.

[Platypus]

Completely in favour. But start off with civil unions first and then work upwards. Oh but let the states decide.

^^^^

[Alcon]

I don't mean to pile on you John, but in addition to what Emsworth stated, I must point out that the list of countries that allow gay marriage or civil unions is much, much longer than Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.  In fact, it is as follows:  Canada, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Netherlands, France, South Afirca, Germany, Portugal, Finland, Croatia, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Andorra, Slovenia, and soon in Switzerland.  This plus some regions of Argentina, Australia, Italy, Brazil, and the United States.

The most recent data I can find is 1996, three years after Norway legalised civil unions and seven years after Denmark did, with Norway's divorce rate moderately below the United States's (43% versus 49%) and Denmark's far, far below (35%).  That doesn't exactly seem like a "collapse of marriage" to me.

Sources:

1996 divorce statistics
Civil union legalisation

[Moooooo]

I used to be for it.  Then I was against it.  Now Im not sure.

[Storebought]

No. Too much social trauma inflicted already to satisfy a political fad.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I do not support gay marriage. However, I'm also not the stereotypical rabid "God-hates-fags" type who would have a heart attack if they were legalized

[nclib]

I fully support gay marriage.

It seems like the vast majority of arguments against it involve either religion or tradition.

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes, of course. I love freedom