{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Mad Max:
7/26/2013 5:00:08 AM
307
How do you feel about same-sex marriage?
Do you support equal marriage rights and legal benefits? Call it something other than marriage? Against it entirely?
Discuss. Explain your position.
-
2 RepliesDepends on the country.
-
I'm from California, what do you think :P
-
I don't really care about it. It doesn't really bother me if they do get it and it doesn't really bother me if they don't.
-
I ain't even mad!
-
Of course, I support equality for everyone.
-
Um, why not? Who cares now anyways? The world is already going down the shitter.
-
I support same-sex marital rights and legal benefits.
-
I'm glad I live up here in MA. We don't have this dumb problem.
-
Simple: I'm not interested. I'm not going to give an opinion on if someone else should be allowed to or not. Frankly, that's none of my god damn business.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Myth of Tyrant: 1/11/2013 10:29:24 PMDisclaimer: I am steeped in Christianity as a person in almost every aspect of my life. I believe that the whole business of government being in the marriage business at all is ridiculous. All government "marriages" should be civil unions, be it between man and man, man and woman, woman and woman, man and toaster, whatever. That's what they are, civil unions. Unions created for legal effect by a civil system, not a religious one. That one semantic change would completely diffuse the justification behind a majority of same-sex resisters. Marriage should be the sole construct of the religions that give them context and meaning, and it should be up to them to decide on how to proceed with the issue. That being said, I am heavily in favor of religious institutions taking a long, hard, comprehensive look at their doctrines, purpose, texts, beliefs and mission in order to really understand if they should be excluding people based on how they were made. In summary: all marriages should be civil unions at the government's interest level, and marriage should be defined by religions, who should really work to be inclusive, but on their own terms.
-
6 RepliesNo, where will it stop? I want to marry a toaster so I should be able to.
-
9 RepliesMy problem isn't with same-sex marriage. It's with the blatant lack of respect towards tradition, the militancy of the people supporting it, and the fact that the government doesn't even need to intervene in marriage.
-
1 ReplyI'm completely for same sex marriage, I just find it quite stupid that any Government doesn't allow it. There really isn't any true reason against it. If two people love each other, let them marry. It shouldn't really affect anybody else.
-
I'm against any government involvement in marriage. You could get married to a turtle for all I care.
-
1 ReplyI support equal benefits and rights for everyone. There is no reason for the government to keep two people of the same gender from getting married.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Coup de Grace: 1/12/2013 12:21:35 AMI think people are getting the wrong idea about these "rights". Gay couples can't marry in some states, but that's about it. They're not being denied anything except the ability to set legal guide lines on their relationship It's not like the cops are interfering with their lives and arresting them
-
Of course I support it. It's one of the few issues where I truly believe that there is no gray area. Same-sex couples deserve to be able to get married.
-
100% for it.
-
What logical reason is there to be against it?
-
2 RepliesAs long as marriage is a legal contract then yes. Anyone who supports legal discrimination is nothing short of a bigot.
-
Edited by OaklandPaintbalr: 1/12/2013 12:17:09 AMPrior to the civil rights movement, the South had enacted "Separate but Equal" laws that kept whites and blacks segregated into separate facilities. We all know that these facilities were, in fact, very unequal. In Brown V Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that these laws violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. [quote]No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [b]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/b][/quote] In addition, even if these facilities had been 100% equal, the Supreme Court ruled that separation in itself was unequal. The nature of separation is harmful and unequal because it implied blacks were somehow inferior to whites and therefore had to be separated. This was the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. This applies to gay marriage. Separating it into "Traditional Marriage" and "Civil Unions" implies that gay marriage is somehow undesirable and unequal to traditional marriage. It serves no practical purpose other than to segregate. Therefore, separating gay marriage from traditional marriage violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment and is unconstitutional. I don't care what your holy book says. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
-
I used to be all against mostly because of my religious beliefs. But in the last year or so my beliefs have kind of shifted so as of right no I am all for. I don't see why they should not have the same rights as everybody else due to their sexuality.
-
Whatever tickles your pickle.
-
2 RepliesIm all for gays being together. However IN MY OPINION, if you dont call it marriage, I'd be satisfied.
-
Support equality for all. Do I need a reason?
-
I have absolutely no concern with stupid government government benefits that have nothing to do with me. I'm against it for religious reasons, so I really don't care as long as churches don't have to acknowledge gay marriages. *Hate me
