Do you support gay marriage?

[PaulR]

Tangentially:

Full article here.

It'll be a close race in November; so if we find ourselves swearing in President Romney in January, the folks we shall have to thank may be the agitators who felt that the most pressing issue facing the country now, is gay marriage.

I am not sure if this will be a negative on Obama, though, in the campaign.  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/poll-majority-approves-of-obamas-marriage-decision/

Still, that is poll of very small numbers.  I think it will help him try to recapture the youth vote, but I don't think it will be any significance in November.

[drogulus]

      You rarely hear the "agitator" epithet outside the ol' Confederacy. What happened to "outside"?

      An agitator, if you don't know, is a supporter of a position you don't hold, or better, your imaginary friend doesn't hold, and it gets to decide for everyone. *

    _{* Actual Size!}

     
     

     


     

[Sammy]

Tangentially:

Full article here.

It'll be a close race in November; so if we find ourselves swearing in President Romney in January, the folks we shall have to thank may be the agitators who felt that the most pressing issue facing the country now, is gay marriage.

It would be most amusing if Romney won the election because of social issues, for I don't believe that Romney actually cares about any social issues.  His passion is "money", nothing else.

[Todd]

I think it will help him try to recapture the youth vote, but I don't think it will be any significance in November.

Of course it won't.

[drogulus]

      I agree. We know where the parties stand. The Romney story and The Perils and Pitfalls of Joe Biden are confirmation of what everybody always knew about the parties and cast of characters. Obama got "evolved" by his ambitious subordinate. Hillary should be upset, but I don't see how anyone else should be. Biden is truly a mixed blessing. He can't be controlled, but OTOH he is one of the very few politicians that people actually like. Nobody votes for veep, though, and there aren't many nobodies.

[Karl Henning]

It would be most amusing if Romney won the election because of social issues, for I don't believe that Romney actually cares about any social issues.  His passion is "money", nothing else.

Agreed. It would be an irony, and not a welcome irony.

[Kontrapunctus]

I think this woman is against it. What an eloquent spokesperson. 

http://www.youtube.com/v/nMANMIe0ZZI

[Sammy]

I think this woman is against it. What an eloquent spokesperson. 

http://www.youtube.com/v/nMANMIe0ZZI

That was very funny.  At least she has fortitude and likely 10 more pages she wanted to read.

[Karl Henning]

. . . Biden is truly a mixed blessing. He can't be controlled, but OTOH he is one of the very few politicians that people actually like.

Whenever there is any Biden news, honestly, it makes me smile, knowing full well how he is no Dick Cheney.

[hadimd]

I actually don't support "the marriage" 

[Henk]

I saw marriage always as a contract between man and woman.

But gay people really like to get the possibility to marry as well. They are already in a weak position, not giving him this opportunity makes them even weaker. With the marriage for gay people they feel more free, and more like anybody else instead of being excluded from rights and been seen as a minor human being.

You hurt gay people's feeling when you don't give them the opportunity to marry. When they can marry, this can really mean an enrichment of their lifes, and they honestly feel happy about it, not because the comparison with others, but because of themselves as a pair. Just like any other couple who marries (and even maybe in some cases in an extraordinary sense, because of emancipation).

[david johnson]

support it? no!  but it will happen anyway.
i do support the civil union track.

[Henk]

I saw marriage always as a contract between man and woman.

But gay people really like to get the possibility to marry as well. They are already in a weak position, not giving him this opportunity makes them even weaker.

Let me formulate this more analytically. In the natural system they are weaker. In the social system they should be equal, it's not fair if they are being kept weaker here too. In the communicative system they give their own meaning to their marriage, like every couple.

[Iconito]

Tangentially:

President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage is energizing Christian conservative support for Mitt Romney in a way that the likely GOP nominee has so far not been able to do on his own, according to religious leaders and activists.

Full article here.

It'll be a close race in November; so if we find ourselves swearing in President Romney in January, the folks we shall have to thank may be the agitators who felt that the most pressing issue facing the country now, is gay marriage.

      You rarely hear the "agitator" epithet outside the ol' Confederacy. What happened to "outside"?

      An agitator, if you don't know, is a supporter if a position you don't hold, or better, your imaginary friend doesn't hold, and it gets to decide for everyone. *

    _{* Actual Size!}

(My emphasis above)

It's not a friend; it's a father. A vengeful, wrathful, jealous, homophobic (not to mention absent  ) father... Conservative Christians would be much better with a gay father, honestly... BTW: Are conservative Christians allowed to marry? 

Everybody check out this short video (you can thank me later)

http://www.youtube.com/v/dCFFxidhcy0

[ibanezmonster]

Maybe it should be promoted in certain parts of the world to solve the population problem.

I thought the population problem has been solving itself in many parts of the world, though... (where would you be referring to?)

Reminds me of the South Park episodes where the future people come in and take all the rednecks' jobs ("They took 'ur jaaaaaaawwbzz"); the rednecks the start a gay orgy so they could prevent people from being born in the future (obviously an ineffective plan)  .

[eyeresist]

I was actually going to pick the non-existent Banana option, because, since the issue doesn't affect me personally, I really don't care much either way. But felt compelled to pick the Support option after reading the argument for the negative. Having gay parents would be bad for the children? Yeah, because of course no-one was ever massively screwed up by heterosexual parents.


EDIT: I do however support the right of churches etc to refuse to conduct gay weddings. First, because it makes as much sense to me as a black person trying to join the KKK, and secondly because organisations should be allowed to be administered according to their beliefs, no matter how stupid. Also, it would be unconstitutional ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").

[Hollywood]

I voted yes. I have an aunt, a uncle and two cousins who are gay and I feel that they should have the same legal right to marry as the rest of America.

[eyeresist]

Aaaagh! Teh kittey trying to eat teh penguine!

[Wendell_E]

EDIT: I do however support the right of churches etc to refuse to conduct gay weddings. First, because it makes as much sense to me as a black person trying to join the KKK, and secondly because organisations should be allowed to be administered according to their beliefs, no matter how stupid. Also, it would be unconstitutional ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").

I don't disagree, but churches aren't really the issue.  Churches set their own rules about who they marry, and government recognition of marriage equality wouldn't change that.  First cousins can marry in about half the states, but if they want to get married in a Catholic church, they need a special dispensation from the church.  OTOH, if those first cousins want to get married in a state where it's not legal, they can't, dispensation or no dispensation.


"First, because it makes as much sense to me as a black person trying to join the KKK"

That assumes that all churches are anti-gay, but there are churches that are accepting of  the LBGT community, and that'd marry same-sex couples right now, but don't only because it isn't legal.  Are their constitutional rights being violated?

If (when?) Muslims and Mormons take over all branches of government, and pass a constitutional ammendment permitting polygamy, Southern Baptists should still be permitted to insist on monogamy, unless other changes were made to the Constitution.

[Florestan]

A few years ago I had a very long debate with Scarpia on precisely this issue and I'm not going to reiterate my arguments here but my answer is "no". I have one question though: does anyone know of any statistics regarding how many gay marriages (either in absolute numbers or as percentage of gay couples) have actually been registered in those states and countries where it is legal for homosexuals to marry?