Do you support the right for gay people to marry like everyone else?

[Anonymous]

[Aerissa_Jade]

Yes and no, I am against gay marriage because marriage has been a state rights, that the feds now have taken over since the SCOTUS ruled it legal. Thus it is no longer a state right, if a state wanted to make it legal, I'm okay with that.

That is, IF the government needs to be involved, it should fall under the 10th amendment for state rights.

That said, I'm actually against marriage being between people and the government. Having a three way relationship is bad. Historically, marriage did not need legal recognition from the government. There is ways to do the same thing without that could be done easier.

Legal benefits, without government involvement, and let religions or culture or whatever decide to allow gay marriage or not.

If your religion won't allow it, find one that does... problem solved.

I personally think that poly relationships should be allowed to, any kind... and the government is also interfering with that. If a woman wants to be married to another woman and a man at the same time and each of them married to the others, why not?

I'm fairly liberal on marriage, but people see that I'm against gay marriage and form opinions without understanding why.

Let anyone do whatever they want, and have non marriage easy legal ways to do so.

[abc3643]

Marriage is not a complete "state right" nor is it a Federal right.

For the most part, states get to define who can get married.
But, states do NOT have a right to unjustifiably discriminate.
Since no state has a justifiable reason to discriminate against people of the same sex to get married to each other, states cannot discriminate against such people to get married.
This is based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

"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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, in case you needed a refresher on the Amendment Process, 3/4 of states must ratify an amendment for it to go into force. Well, all U. S. states that existed during Reconstruction have ratified the amendment. ALL OF THEM. This means that they knew what they were getting into and understood that they cannot discriminate.

[Aerissa_Jade]

@abc3643 Which is exactly why states, should just get out of the marriage business and let the feds handle it all, the feds can deal with tracking who got married and issuing licenses at their expense.

I don't believe people should have to get a license (pay a tax) to get married anyways, even if there is nothing states can discriminate against.

Right now I could go to one state, get a license, marry someone, then go a different state, get a license and marry someone else. The states often aren't linked very good, if at all.

The federal government really should just take it over why don't they? because the feds like to say do this and here is how you have to do it, then list the reasons.

They can't actually force states to do it the way they want to, which is why the Medicaid expansion of ACA has to be a state choice. States that wanted to continue outlawing gay marriage, should of just quit the marriage business, 100% stop issuing licenses, shut down and let the feds take it over. They have no legal obligation to issue licenses, or recognize licenses from anywhere else. Shut it all down, let the feds open up offices to handle it all in that state. To issue licenses, recognize from other states and such.

There is ways around things, nullification would work too. States do it all the time, they ignore federal laws and rulings.

Historically they haven't always even been involved in marriage anyways.

[Curmudgeon]

@abc3643 And there you go again! You are reading magical things into the 14th Amendment (created for emancipated slaves, not sexual behavior, and not strictly women either, that came later with the 19th) that Just. Are. Not. There.
And yes, I am applying the same argument of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization here. When you start reading "progressive" ideas into the Constitution as written that Just. Are. Not. There., you get the judicial tyranny of unelected law school grads in robes. And I don't care how "enlightened" you think that is - it's despotic.

And questions are not being asked: IS a same-sex relationship a "marriage" in the sense of a heterosexual union from which children are spawned? Might such a relationship, no matter how loving or kind or wonderful (and I don't disagree that when two lonely people get their love where they can, it is a net positive) still NOT be the same as marriage as traditionally understood? Might we just create a Domestic Partnership Legal Code for such relationships and leave it at that?

And this is where the states need to hash out the issues, per the 9th and 10th Amendments. The process is messier, but once resolved over the years it is final. Women's suffrage was done right, so it is settled. Abortion was an edict handed down by "enlightened" despots from law schools in robes, and so it remains divisive. Ditto for how we should handle same-sex partnerships.

[abc3643]

@Curmudgeon I am not reading anything magical into the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment has been with us all this time and interpreted consistently for over 150 years.

[exitseven]

you pretty much covered it.

[Curmudgeon]

@abc3643 with us? Yes. Consistently interpreted? No. We still have sex / gender distinctions in Law, the madness of Transgenderism notwithstanding.

[Qdbrown]

I really don't care what conscenting people do for love and what they do behind closed doors.

That said, I am tired of gay going mainstream. Making it popular didn't seem like a bad idea, until I heard my daughter say her entire Freshman English class was either gay, bi or trans. That's a trend, and not normal.

Back in the day, gays and queer folks had their place. Now they want to open up and popularize the lifestyle. And I mean if you're truly gay, I understand. But the world cannot be entirely gay.

It's so bad now, there is a practically war on straight and cis. Especially with the younger generations. This is not healthy. This is not a society sustaining. This is a society sold on lust and sex. Instant gratification. Perversion, low character, weird fetishes and now pedophilia. Every five or so years it just keeps getting worse.

Studying Native Americans and the First Nations, I can see why they split the differnt people up. Effectively segregating the drunks and high people on one side of the camp that was miles away. Then another place for the two spirits. Another place for the mentals. Then a place for families. And a place to train warriors and post lookouts. If the tribe was ever attacked, they could come together as one. But on a daily basis, they didn't break bread together.

You can tell people are all ready begin to tribe up these days. It's getting to where the blue states are going pure blue and the red states are going ever so red, with things like making abortion illegal and consitutional carry becoming normal.

Now all the rage is to chase off all the drag queens doing shows for families. This is utterly weird, and more of a reason to push people to places they belong.

[abc3643]

Oh course. I will let retired Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy describe marriage in his Opinion of the Court for the case Obergefell v. Hodges, the case decided in June 2015 which allowed same-sex marriage throughout the US.
======
www.supremecourt.gov/.../14-556_3204.pdf

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

[Cassie88]

The very definition of the term "marriage" has always been a union of one man and one woman. Calling two men or two women who decide to live together "married", is like calling a tractor a tank, or a bicycle a motorbike; it makes no sense, because it isn't what people are calling it.

[AviatorTom]

In my ideal world, marriage is only between a man and a woman. I'm perfectly okay with same-sex partnerships, but I really don't like it being called marriage.

[Sasha0426]

You’ll be ok. They’re not gonna hurt you.

[jennifer_bloom]

I neither support nor withdraw support for gay people to have a union in a certified form. How others live is not for me to manage unless they are family or best friends.

[BCA6010]

I don't care what consenting gays do with each other, but it's not a marriage. A marriage is a specific type of relationship established with the intent of starting a family through procreation, and that detail is not unique to just a handful of cultures or religions; it is universal. That is not physically possible to do, so the only way for say a gay man to be married is to marry a woman, which for what it's worth, is exactly what plausibly gay monarchs in history did.

In regards to the government, they shouldn't be involved outside of encouraging the creation of strong families. Western governments have largely done the opposite however, and are actively trying to undermine the family unit through actual policies and propaganda.

[Stoner710]

I support civil unions for gays for tax breaks, I don’t support calling a civil union marriage. Marriage has its definition which is a union between a man and a women with the interest of barring and raising children. That is the definition and purpose of marriage. Even older folk who can’t have children together there marriage is meaningless. A marriage between an 80 year old man and a 18 year old serves there more of a purpose then a 60 man and a 50 year old women. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get the tax breaks or there love is less valid then younger couples. The marriage itself is less valuable. This is why I settled on the idea of civil unions. Gay marriage isn’t marriage gays can’t get pregnant naturally so it’s not conducive of the definition of marriage. So just call it a civil union.

[Sasha0426]

But, do we actually need more humans though? I say just let our species die off.

[Cassie88]

@Sasha0426 You seriously want the human race to "die off"? Are you insane?

[Sasha0426]

No, why?

[Cassie88]

@Sasha0426 Do I really need to explain this to you? Well, first of all, you yourself are a member of this species. Do you have a death-wish, or do you somehow think you'll be excluded?

[Sasha0426]

@Cassie88 I’m aware I’ll be included as well.

[Subglacial]

@Cassie88 We're each going to die eventually, whether or not we want to. The only question on the table here is whether or not we want more new people in the future.

The opinion that we should let the human race die off is nothing new. "Antinatalism" is the idea that having children is immoral or unethical because it creates suffering (in various ways, depending on who you ask).

Many half-joking organizations and advocacy groups centered around the idea have been created over the years. All of them stress that human extinction should be voluntary -- they do not advocate killing other people.

[Stoner710]

@Subglacial both you and cassie88 dont know how to take a joke. clearly Sasha0426 was joking. if she had an actual disagreement with the argument i made wouldn't have said that.

that being said humans are trash. we've been trash since the fall of man all we do is consume and don't put anything back to the earth. we're suppose The Stewart of the earth but we have failed in that mission

[Subglacial]

I could see Sasha's opinion going either way, but I don't really need to speculate, because my response doesn't hinge on it. It was aimed at Cassie (whose horror - at the very real opinion some people have - IS genuine, as far as I can tell). Getting a joke doesn't require me to run with it.

I am fun sometimes. I promise.

[Stoner710]

@Subglacial fair, still both of y'all are stupid cassie is stupid for taking it seriously and your at stupid for trying to over analyze her stupidity. also doesn't help i haven't eaten all day woke up 3 gours before my normal time and tired now I've been drinking so less pist but still stupidity on all side is irritating. (especially my phone which pisses me off)

[Subglacial]

This is exactly why we need to let the human race die off.

[Cassie88]

@Subglacial Are you "joking" now? I can't tell. Oh, I'm "stupid" for taking it seriously am I? One of you even admitted there are people who call themselves "anti-natalists" who really do want to see the human race become extinct, and it sure doesn't seem like any of you are "just joking" here.

[Cassie88]

Stoner - Couldn't you see that my response to Sasha was just a joke? Wow, you have no sense of humour, and you can't be terribly bright if you didn't see that.

[TrengerAdreinne]

Stoner, so sterile people or people that just don't want to get kids shouldn't be allowed to marry?

[NotTacocaT6969]

Yes.


To put it bluntly, marriage is fake made up nonsense and it doesn’t matter who decides to participate in it as long as it makes them happy.


I would support your right to marry a toaster if that’s what you wanted in life.


Not my life, not my toaster, not my problem.

[genericname85]

i do support the right for gay people to promise themself life long loyalty and live whatever life they want to live together in accordance with the law. though i do not support the use of the word "marriage" for the unification of 2 men or 2 women. i'm not opposed to it conceptually but we need a different word for it.

because marriage means the unification of 2 different things. like for example if a car frame is combined with it's motor, we call that marriage. what would be the point in "marrying" a motor with another motor or a frame with another frame? that's not a marriage. that's a combination of sorts but not a marriage. also marriage between humans was always conceptualized as an institution to protect young families. are gay people gonna have children? no. so i do think it would be best to call that differently consequently.

i do think that we could make exceptions for gay couples who're adopting childen tho.

[Sasha0426]

I honestly think even straight should stop reproducing and adopt kids instead. Why try to overflow this planet?

[Sasha0426]

*straight people

[genericname85]

@Sasha0426 well simply because it is each individuals goal to spread "their" genes. not help someone elses genes along. that's not how evolution works :D

[Sasha0426]

We don’t need to continue the human race.

[genericname85]

@Sasha0426 no life on earth "needs" to continue.

[genericname85]

@Sasha0426 nothing in general needs to continue XD

[Cassie88]

@Sasha0426 The planet isn't "overflowing" though. That's a myth. Numbers around the world are actually in decline.

[Subglacial]

@Cassie88 "Numbers around the world are actually in decline." Since when? We hit 8 billion just a few months ago.

[genericname85]

@Subglacial that's actually not entirely true. they decline in "most" first world countries as well as china currently. but the numbers are growing like crazy in the 3rd world in africa. if you average out the current global growth rates, it seems to level off. but if you consider the trend in africa, that may cause a global overall rise. so i wouldn't necessarily say that the world population is "shrinking". it's not. it "may" depending on which projection scenario ends up becoming a reality.

[loveslongnails]

The short and simple version in my mind is this - marriage in the USA is a legal contract, not necessarily a spiritual one, which is a private matter. For that reason alone, I agree with abc3643, that it falls under discrimination laws and not what your religious gut tells you. Marriage has tax benefits for the individuals, but also has serious financial consequences if you divorce (so can co-habitation). The states are in the game because it's big business, and they're not getting out of it anytime soon.

[miniskirtcaley81]

Fu*k yeah I do! LGBTQ+ members pay taxes, can go to prison, can buy a house, a car, get murdered just like cis gender and straight people can why should they be deemed special and denied the misfortune of marrying whoever the hell the choose to?🏳️‍🌈💍

[Berethor]

I don't support gay marriage if that what you asking, even though I am a secular person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Same-sex_marriage_around_the_world

[qwert1234]

Yes, I do.

However - if a certain religion or sect or group forbids it, we should not force them to change their ways just to accommodate people who are seeking to get married - with the exception of the government.

The government should legalize same-sex union, since it's not just marriage, there are also some benefits attached to it. Usually taxes, inheritance, medical coverage and so on. And the government should work to make everything as equal as possible.

[Lliam]

Yes. As far as I'm concerned, people of legal age can love or marry anyone they want. It's none of my business.

There are legal benefits to marriage, such as financial, next of kin notifications and visitation rights, inheritance, etc. Same sex partners should not be denied those benefits.

[Screenwriter]

Sure. Let everybody be miserable and married!!! But this is long overdue.

People love who they love. It's hardwired. Nobody CHOOSES to be different from the mainstream. They just end up that way! So acceptance is due.

You don't have to like gay, transgender or bi people or their marriages, but you have to accept people as they are and hope they find love and happiness!

[TheVigilantFox]

Yes, they’re not hurting anyone, anyone should be able to do whatever they like as long as they don’t hurt anybody, if 2 men/women love each other then why can’t they marry?


People being gay bi or trans has nothing to do with anyone only the gay, bi, trans people, why should other people get a say in other peoples lives?


If I wanted to marry a man then that’s my choice same as if I wanted to marry a woman it has nothing to do with anyone only me and my partner.

[lightbulb27]

yes. I think it's an issue of individual freedom.

I could be talked into it being... like clinton suggested... a different word. I think that makes sense since only male/female reproduce, but like/like can raise kids and don't want to diminish those kids.

[joeldalton]

I'm generally against the idea that the Government should dictate who can get married. It's really none of their business what two people agree to do. Marriage has been a cultural or religious ceremony. That's where it should stay. Culture and religion can set the rules.

[HuskyJ]

I'm going with 'as much as they support me'

Never had a general problem with - but with a few persons (who might be LGBT+) I did - even for them - as long as they support (and enable/help) my relationship and marriage pursuit - I support theirs.

I'd rather have my girl date a gay/bi girl or transgender than any risk of her getting pregnant by another male.

[VforVindication]

Heck no, it is one of the most repulsive things on earth. And they even force us to watch f@gs kissing in commercials nowadays. The majority 90+% is appalled by all this disgusting shit forced down our throats nowadays. No normal sane society should accept that crap.

[Sasha0426]

I do 😄 The reason people have an issue with gay couples is that they can’t reproduce. But, who the hell cares? We don’t need more humans on this shit hole planet. If literally everyone was straight, the planet would be overpopulated than it already is.

[Hafia_xo]

Well no because gay people literally WANT babies and conceive as well

[TJ1892]

I don't understand how this is even a question thay is still brought up in the 21st century! Why shouldn't LGBT have the same rights as non LGBT? You are who you are and you can't help who you fall in love with. The lack of empathy and need to cast sin on a proud population of people is toxic yet so predicable and cunning in modern society. 🏳️‍🌈❤️

[Gent207-2]

What 2 consenting adults do in the bedroom is their business.

BUT religious and personal liberty is a two way street. The government shouldn't be used to compel others to provide services for something they don't agree with

[NamerOfStars]

Of course- civically, at least; the government shouldn't be poking its nose into religion anyway. I've seen firsthand the incredible benefits a strong family presence gives; denying it on the basis of orientation is just cruel.

[BobbieBoy666]

support the right for gay people to marry. 💞 👬👭

[Amur8711]

I don't think its morally right, but thats my religion. I don't have the right to keep them from marrying, however they don't have the right to force me to accept it is morally right and they don't have the right to push their morality of it on children.

[Paul_in_Indy]

“Gay people” have always had the right marry “like everyone else.” I think you are asking if they should be able to marry in a different manner from everyone else. In the US, they can.

[Ill_made_Knight]

Yep, a man should be able to marry another man if they love each other, same with women and different ethnicities. People should be able to marry the one that they love.

[mobiusforniner]

Yes. I believe people should marry who they want. But i also dont think a church should be forced to perform marriages that are against their doctrinal beliefs.

[Sirenboobzilla]

Fully support it. It's not mine, not anyone else's place, to dictate who they can devote themselves to.

[CateM]

Obviously, just because they love someone of the same sex doesn't mean they don't deserve the benefits that come with marriage like lower tax rates

[slatyb]

Gay people are pay of "everyone else". Marriage is just a legal contract and should be available to any adult couple. It should not be legal for minors to marry under any circumstances.

[Danny_dan92]

Sure. I don’t give a shit honestly. Just they better not try to mold young kids to become gay themselves, and also not then go and try to infringe on the rights of others.




For example. Gun rights.

[dustybiker]

Marriage is an agreed commitment between two people. Not the rest of the world. Yes. I support.

[Lowiu]

Yes sure people should be able to marry whoever they want

[JohnOh1986]

Yes but I don't think any religious body should be forced to if its against their beliefs either.

[John_Doesnt]

It's sad to see society going backwards after making some progress. Yes, people should be allowed to get married regardless of sexual orientation. Religious beliefs do not belong in politics.

[WeirdoFriendly]

No. I'm of the christian religion and although I don't like gay people, I'm not going to hate the people. But I don't agree with them and their sinful choices

[LiamJHayden]

If they want to join in on the misery that is common in modern marriages, who am I to deny them?

[Astarlessnightsky]

Yes.

No ones losing anything and they are gaining everything.

[Nikki1989]

Of course, I do. What right does anyone have to say who can get married or not?

[PBandJ_Nerd]

Yeah. I think where I live it's legal for them to marry.

[Adam1978]

I don't support marriage at all with current system. Genders in the couple is irrelevant.

[RobT312]

I think is fine. My neighbors are a married gay couple and have kids and they are great

[Apulu_Imback]

I mean I don't have a problem with that. I'm not against LGBT.

[humanearth]

It don't effect me in any shape or form. So why should I care if gays and lesbians get married. That's none of my business

[nickaboy]

Yes and I live in the country with the bragging rights of being the first to it

Man and man
Man and woman
Woman and woman

I Respect the wishes off everyone of the 2 genders

[tfan1]

No. Only man and woman can marry. According to the Bible 🙂👍

[smølf]

It depends on what you mean by marriage, if in the church then no, if legally then sure why not, who cares.

[Pohjolan]

If we talk about legal marriage then sure, why not?

Whether religious institutions should marry gay couples however is a religious question and outside my expertise.

[collie22]

I don't know why they would gay marriage doesn't make any sense

[LimitedBenefits101]

Absolutely Not

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Asker]

Says who?;

[BJP21]

Love is love even if its the same sex. YES. Everyone deserves happiness with a partner.

[LegendaryDater]

Yeah everyone deserves to marry who they want.

[Echosoul]

Absolutely yes. Let them live how they want to. As usual religion is doing the gatekeepung controlling thing.

[dudewithnoname]

If the government is going to tax them like everyone else then they should be able to marry like everyone else

[Paul09]

Well I'm against religions, so I'm against marriage. But I'm not against people marrying whom ever they want.

[Anonymous]

Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. There are no same-sex "marriages" in the Bible. Why would anyone support something that God calls wrong?

[Asker]

Because most people are not Christian and marriage existed before your religion was even founded.

[Opinion Owner]

Marriage existed before Christianity, yes, but God is the one who instituted marriage at the very beginning of time.

[Asker]

Only according to those religions that profess it. Majority of people disagree, as does science and history.

[Opinion Owner]

"Majority of people disagree." Sadly this is true. And the Bible says such would be the case.

[Asker]

It's also irrelevant. You don't get to use the bigotry of only a 3rd of mankind, to oppress and deny rights to the other 2/3

[Opinion Owner]

What?

[Asker]

You heard me

[Opinion Owner]

I don't understand what you're saying. What is the 1/3 and what is the 2/3?

[Asker]

Christianity makes up only a third of the world population. Two thirds, the majority of the world's population, should not be oppressed by the minority.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm sorry that you are blinded by hatred toward those who profess Christianity but do not actually practice it. True Christianity makes up far less than 1/3 of the population.

[Asker]

So an even smaller minority. Less of a reason to allow you to oppress.

[jjj101010]

Really doesn’t bother me, probably the easiest way to normalise this is to stop making it out to be something people should have an issue with.

[Anonymous]

it's really none of my business as it doesn't affect me at all

[Jackblue]

I take a neutral view towards that, the world has too many bigger problems to deal with.

[Jerre]

Yes, I do support gay people to marry other gays.

[Anonymous]

Nope, it is a religious sacrament. Religious sacraments are a privilege of believers; not a right of the masses.

[Asker]

Not every religion is against it, so why should they be excluded?

[Opinion Owner]

I am just saying that it isn't a right. If your religion allows it and you are in good standing; then you should go for it if you want it. The state needs to get out of marriage altogether. They only got into regulating it because they wanted to prevent interracial marriages. And despite the fact that they stopped trying to prevent those marriages they still want to have a say in marriage.

[Asker]

Except it is a legal right, at least in my country.

[Opinion Owner]

It shouldn't be a right in any country that has a separation of church and state like the US does.

[Asker]

If there's a separation of church and state, like here, why wouldn't it be a right?

[Asker]

Regardless it is a right

[Opinion Owner]

You don't have a right to a religious sacrament. The church determines who is allowed to partake. You don't have a right to communion.

[Asker]

This isn't about religion, as you said the USA has a separation of church and state. Marriage is also done secularly too. So yes, they have the full right to marriage, whether you agree or not.

[Opinion Owner]

The government has no authority over marriage thusly it is not a right. You don't have a right to a patriarchal blessing; because it is a religious sacrament.

[Asker]

Except it does. And stop bringing up religion when you brought up us having a separation of church and state. This isn't about some stupid blessing, stay on topic.

[Opinion Owner]

I am bringing up other religious sacraments to make a point. The state has no business in these other sacraments; so why do we allow them to regulate this one? Which is why I mentioned the separation of church and state. The state aught not have any say in marriage. It shouldn't guarantee it as a right; nor should it regulate it as a privilege. It should be left to religious organizations to do with as they will. The fact that they don't is a violation of your right to religious freedom. As well as the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.