Gay marriage?

[Shane]

For or against? Poll is private so you can vote your honest opinion.

[Shane]

No comments!

I'd bet you're not shocked that I'm in favor of it.

[Blisken]

I honestly don't see the reasoning behind not allowing gay marriage. I know those against it claim that it's meant for only a man and a woman. Guess the word adaptation isn't in their vocabulary. But I guess that if you still believe gay people are automatically going to hell its not hard to say no to gay marriage.

[Trajan]

I see it as a simple question of human rights. In America we either support equality, or we don't. If we try to make any claim on equality, we must support gay rights.

Besides, anyone who says "male-female family units" are the natural foundation for all of human history are frankly dead wrong. Evolution has explicitly shown us that human evolution research shows a pattern towards polygamy as well as multi-male/multi female groups where long term bonds between two individuals were at best a minority in any human population until the past few millenia. Furthermore, if homosexuality is unnatural, why is it found in every single animal species on the planet. In many populations it makes up to 1/3 of all animal sex pairs.

At the end of the day, sex is natural, homosexuality, is just as natural as "normal" sexuality. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get one.

[Trajan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-..._b_432890.html

[Dr_John]

I try to understand opposing views, but this is one topic I have yet to hear a single reasonable argument against it. They all boil down essentially to "I don't like it" or the bible says it's bad.

I really wish we could all just move on beyond this.

[vulpnine]

The subject is a bit tricky to talk about but I keep myself to an open mind as far my views for/against the topic at hand.

Personally I don't see a problem between the union of same sex couples and I can't understand why people would be against such an act. If a man and/or a woman want to explore ones sexuality with others of the same gender then they should be left be instead of programmed to think of what's right or wrong by mob mentality.

When one thinks about the cultures of the world aside from Judiaism (including Christan beliefs) and Islam, most would have little to no reference regarding disallowance of homosexuality with some texts going into depth into the union of same sex couples.

From what I currently feel, the only reason why there would be opponents to the question of same sex marrages would be more towards a religious standpoint. Those with religious fervor in converting everyone to be the ideal, overly moral, cutter type person.

To recap. I don't see a problem between the union but I can understand why there's opposition and why the time would be too soon.

[Shane]

Good comments.

Originally Posted by Dr_John

I try to understand opposing views, but this is one topic I have yet to hear a single reasonable argument against it. They all boil down essentially to "I don't like it" or the bible says it's bad.

Yep. If you look at every anti-GM point of argument, there is a total lack of logic or reason.

1. "Marriage is for procreation"

Please show me the state that requires a fertility test as part of the marriage license? Show me the church that wouldn't marry to 80 year old widowers?

In the Prop 8 trial, after the anti-GM made this argument the judge himself (a Bush senior, iirc, appointee) pointed out that last marriage he performed was between an elderly couple.

2. "It violates biblical/traditional standards of marriage"

You mean like allowing divorce for any reason under the sun? Jesus never said 1 word about gays, but he did about divorce. And yet, there's no outcry to ban divorce (or is there?()

So, if they truly cared about traditional marriage or biblical standards they would not have allowed such liberal divorce laws to come into place.

I had a guy on his 4th marriage tell me to my face, given that he had 3 times broken what no man should put asunder it was immoral to him to let gays marry. Any surprise that he was bedecked in a minuteman hat and shirt?

Of course, we could also bring up all the other scripture that we have conveniently decided to ignore because its INSANE.

3. "They'll teach it in schools"

Yes, but so what. Teaching is not advocacy. They already teach about all the other kids of families that are out there: single parents, foster kids, raised by the grandparents, and even parents w/ 2 dads or moms.

If I teach you about the history of slavery in the US does that mean I think its a great thing?

I could go on and on, but the point is clear. If you've been following the trial the contrast between the illogic and ever so slightly veiled bigotry of the anti-GM with the pro-GM argument based is striking.

As horrific as our current SCOTUS is, at the worst, they'll punt this if it gets that far. The argument for GM is too strong.

[Shane]

btw, here's the latest on the trial.

[Dr_John]

Yep. If you look at every anti-GM point of argument, there is a total lack of logic or reason.

How's this?

CBS this week refused to air a Super Bowl ad made by a gay dating site, an announcement that came just days after news broke the network would air college football star Tim Tebow's Christian pro-life ad during the big game.

But of course, there's this:

"We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms," spokesman Dana McClintock said this week. "In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time."

CBS "will continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV," McClintock said.

What a load of crap. Check the commercial. I was thinking it was going to be too much, but to me, it seems right in line with other ads.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sport...577.html?tsp=1

The ad: