NationStates Jolt Archive

Just curious, are there any secular types against gay marriage, or only religious types?

I would venture to say that all sources of the anti-gay agenda stem from religiousity. Even a secular person who makes the argument against it would most likely be doing so on the basis of morals they learned from society via religion, or other less obvious religious influences.

Just curious, are there any secular types against gay marriage, or only religious types?

I'm not supportive of marriage. :D

Oh you mean gay marriage. Those too.

Personally I couldn't care less whether gays get married or not. But on general principles, I don't like it when the government tries to legislate based on their (the government's) supposed morality.

As for being religious, I'm theist, but I don't totally agree with any religion I know of.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The people who oppose equal rights for gay people are people who think gay people are "yucky." That's basically it.

They will go on to use an excuse, usually piss poor, for this behaviour - religion is just the most convenient one (as it used to be for racists and mysoginists), but there are other excuses for it for those who might not like religion, such as the stupid "it's unnatural" claims. It's just a ruse to attempt to make their true opinions (those fags are yucky) seem legitimate. It doesn't fool anyone, of course.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The people who oppose equal rights for gay people are people who think gay people are "yucky." That's basically it.

They will go on to use an excuse, usually piss poor, for this behaviour - religion is just the most convenient one (as it used to be for racists and mysoginists), but there are other excuses for it for those who might not like religion, such as the stupid "it's unnatural" claims. It's just a ruse to attempt to make their true opinions (those fags are yucky) seem legitimate. It doesn't fool anyone, of course.

Dont forget they also think "If we let them get married they will try and marry and then fuck me personally".

The real power against gay marriage is MONEY. The way the conservative movement in the US works is big business finds something that might make or cost them MONEY. They wrap their needs for MONEY in a religious or moral cloak and sell it to the "religious right" who then carry the ball for them and eventually make or save money for the richest of the rich.

The whole gay marriage thing is based on not wanting to pay the cost of health care for AIDS. Also all of the other benefits that business offers to married people.

Not all gays have AIDS or STDs for that matter.

Anyways, Religous and Gay.

I would venture to say that all sources of the anti-gay agenda stem from religiousity. Even a secular person who makes the argument against it would most likely be doing so on the basis of morals they learned from society via religion, or other less obvious religious influences.
Thats about right.

Surely gay people still have sex even if they aren't married?

Wouldn't allowing gay marriage theoretically stop AIDS being spread quickly?

Surely gay people still have sex even if they aren't married?

Wouldn't allowing gay marriage theoretically stop AIDS being spread quickly?
Not all gay people have AIDS. Thats a stupid stereotype. Straight females(at least in the US) are the ones mostly likely to get AIDS now, not gay men.

Just curious, are there any secular types against gay marriage, or only religious types?
Not here.

Hooray! Another thread about gay marriage! :rolleyes:

Surely gay people still have sex even if they aren't married?

Wouldn't allowing gay marriage theoretically stop AIDS being spread quickly?

In theory. Although it raises the question of how frequently people are unfaithful to one another. If there is a correlation between marriage and monogamy, then it would most likely reduce AIDS rates.

It is mostly religious types that are against gay marriage. (I being one of them, and I have a right to that opinion.) This forum would be a bad place to get an accurate poll as the majority of people on this forum are very liberal.

Actually I don't really trust polls. The more people, the more I can believe them, but unless everyone in America or on Earth is polled, they aren't completely accurate.

Hooray! Another thread about gay marriage! :rolleyes:
Yay!

(The 14 year old spins around on his office chair at home)

It is mostly religious types that are against gay marriage. (I being one of them, and I have a right to that opinion.) This forum would be a bad place to get an accurate poll as the majority of people on this forum are very liberal.

Actually I don't really trust polls. The more people, the more I can believe them, but unless everyone in America or on Earth is polled, they aren't completely accurate.

And to what type of scientific method do you submit your religion to where it becomes "completely accurate" in your eyes? Or is this just an anti-education double standard?

That is, why would you lack 'trust' in polls, which can be extremely accurate, because they aren't "completely accurate" when you have no problem putting your trust in religious beliefs which can never be verified to be accurate in any way?

This seems to be a perfect example of the anti-education bias that comes with religiousity.

And to what type of scientific method do you submit your religion to where it becomes "completely accurate" in your eyes? Or is this just an anti-education double standard?

That is, why would you lack 'trust' in polls, which can be extremely accurate, because they aren't "completely accurate" when you have no problem putting your trust in religious beliefs which can never be verified to be accurate in any way?

This seems to be a perfect example of the anti-education bias that comes with religiousity.
I believe education is great. I also didn't say that I don't believe polls. I don't trust them because accuracy is greater the more people polled.

What type of scientific method do I submit to my religion? Its called "faith", ever heard of that?

I believe ignorance is bad, so I study the issues. Every day I read the news, listen to people, see the world around me. After doing that, I come to my own conclusion. I am enlightened, but have not chose the same opinion as you. You see, that's one thing I hate: When people call me ignorant for my beliefs. Ignorance is refusing to listen to others' opinions, whilst I listen to as many opinions as possible. Having an opinion is one of the least ignorant things someone can do.

It is mostly religious types that are against gay marriage. (I being one of them, and I have a right to that opinion.) This forum would be a bad place to get an accurate poll as the majority of people on this forum are very liberal.

Actually I don't really trust polls. The more people, the more I can believe them, but unless everyone in America or on Earth is polled, they aren't completely accurate.
Incorrect ... it could be a VERY acurate poll ... it all depends on the population you are projecting it on.

I believe education is great. I also didn't say that I don't believe polls. I don't trust them because accuracy is greater the more people polled.

What type of scientific method do I submit to my religion? Its called "faith", ever heard of that?

I believe ignorance is bad, so I study the issues. Every day I read the news, listen to people, see the world around me. After doing that, I come to my own conclusion. I am enlightened, but have not chose the same opinion as you. You see, that's one thing I hate: When people call me ignorant for my beliefs. Ignorance is refusing to listen to others' opinions, whilst I listen to as many opinions as possible. Having an opinion is one of the least ignorant things someone can do.
Accuracy plataus at about 3000, more is not always better (Depends on what your CI and CL are)

And to what type of scientific method do you submit your religion to where it becomes "completely accurate" in your eyes? Or is this just an anti-education double standard?

That is, why would you lack 'trust' in polls, which can be extremely accurate, because they aren't "completely accurate" when you have no problem putting your trust in religious beliefs which can never be verified to be accurate in any way?

This seems to be a perfect example of the anti-education bias that comes with religiousity.
Also, to say religiousity is anti-education is in itself ignorance. During the Middle Ages through the Renaissance the Church was very important when it came to education. The monsteries provided books for people and taught people how to farm, make tools, and the like. The Church gave money to artists such as Michealangelo, who created some of the greatest works of art in history.

What type of scientific method do I submit to my religion? Its called "faith", ever heard of that?

Nope. I've never heard of a scientific method called faith. There's little scientific about faith.

Doubt has a lot of basis in scientific methods. Faith, however, does not. Doubting that an airplane will work can save lives, and at worst cost time and money if you are incorrect. Having faith that a plane can work will cost lives, if the plane then fails to work because you couldn't be bothered to use accurate scientific methods.

Incorrect ... it could be a VERY acurate poll ... it all depends on the population you are projecting it on.
However, polls never say what population was polled, thus, I find it hard to trust them.

Also, to say religiousity is anti-education is in itself ignorance. During the Middle Ages through the Renaissance the Church was very important when it came to education. The monsteries provided books for people and taught people how to farm, make tools, and the like. The Church gave money to artists such as Michealangelo, who created some of the greatest works of art in history.
Too bad they started to slack off on that … they were actually doing some good.

Shows you what a good motivational tool religion is.

Nope. I've never heard of a scientific method called faith. There's little scientific about faith.

Doubt has a lot of basis in scientific methods. Faith, however, does not. Doubting that an airplane will work can save lives, and at worst cost time and money if you are incorrect. Having faith that a plane can work will cost lives, if the plane then fails to work because you couldn't be bothered to use accurate scientific methods.
There must be a balance between faith and doubt. I must doubt something, but if I'm not willing to try it, then I'll never know what could happen.

However, polls never say what population was polled, thus, I find it hard to trust them.

Polls often say "we polled people in this area, of this age, of this gender, in these percentages, in these workplaces."

what more do you want to know?

Just don't trust the ones that don't state who they polled. Polls DO state who they poll at times.

Too bad they started to slack off on that … they were actually doing some good.

Shows you what a good motivational tool religion is.
They no longer need to be involved as much in education with the arrival of public schooling and libraries, that, and they are not allowed in those places.

There must be a balance between faith and doubt. I must doubt something, but if I'm not willing to try it, then I'll never know what could happen.

But it's not a scientific method, however much you'll want it to be.

You can test an airplane once you think it's ready, but will you just send it on its way in the faith that it will work? I highly doubt it.

You can also take a wild guess. Again, not a scientific method. Perhaps a good way to achieve something, but not scientific.

However, polls never say what population was polled, thus, I find it hard to trust them.
Then you misplace your mistrust … polls are as good as you use them.

As a projection of the USA this is a non random bias population … as a sample of this forum or possibly internet forums, it may be highly accurate.

Learning more about how to interpret and understand what polls and stats are telling you can be a very good thing.

I believe education is great. I also didn't say that I don't believe polls. I don't trust them because accuracy is greater the more people polled.

What type of scientific method do I submit to my religion? Its called "faith", ever heard of that?

No, you didn't say that you don't believe polls. You said that you don't trust them, because they don't poll every person on Earth.

And faith isn't a part of scientific method. I think we all know this. And this is where the double standard comes in. You are willing to apply 'faith' to your religion, but when it comes to systematic works of science or logic like polls, are you willing to put the same amount of faith into them? I think in the latter situation you expect actual, verifiable results and method to demonstrate accuracy, while in the former there is nothing at all to demonstrate accuracy except your desire to believe.

And this is why there is an inherent anti-education bias and double standard in regards to religiousity. You apply one standard when taking in new, scientific information, then apply a totally different standard when it comes to your own personal religion.

Im single. I dont like paying more taxes than married people. Lose the tax breaks for marriage and I wouldnt be against gay marriage. Until then it isnt in my best interest.

Polls often say "we polled people in this area, of this age, of this gender, in these percentages, in these workplaces."

what more do you want to know?

Just don't trust the ones that don't state who they polled. Polls DO state who they poll at times.

You make a good point. Its national polls I don't trust, because I am usually not told the unbias of the poll, I mean 75% of the people could be polled in California, and the rest in various other states.

They no longer need to be involved as much in education with the arrival of public schooling and libraries, that, and they are not allowed in those places.
That’s because they tend to have a detrimental effect to free thinking, Not only is religion a good tool for motivation of change. Its also a good tool to retard change.

You make a good point. Its national polls I don't trust, because I am usually not told the unbias of the poll, I mean 75% of the people could be polled in California, and the rest in various other states.
Most polls state their sampling size and acquisition methods if you care to look.

Not only that they show sampling error (usually about 5% or less for a population poll) this gives a definite clue to the quality and randomness of the poll. Usually they shoot for a 3.5 or a 4 on the sampling error to keep the total error under 5

You make a good point. Its national polls I don't trust, because I am usually not told the unbias of the poll, I mean 75% of the people could be polled in California, and the rest in various other states.

And that might be a bad poll and it'd be acceptable to doubt it.

But it still says something, doesn't it?

However, they usually also include, as stated by one of the other posters, a certain measure of accuracy.

Anyways, I'll leave you to upward thrust and tropical sands :p

No, you didn't say that you don't believe polls. You said that you don't trust them, because they don't poll every person on Earth.

And faith isn't a part of scientific method. I think we all know this. And this is where the double standard comes in. You are willing to apply 'faith' to your religion, but when it comes to systematic works of science or logic like polls, are you willing to put the same amount of faith into them? I think in the latter situation you expect actual, verifiable results and method to demonstrate accuracy, while in the former there is nothing at all to demonstrate accuracy except your desire to believe.

And this is why there is an inherent anti-education bias and double standard in regards to religiousity. You apply one standard when taking in new, scientific information, then apply a totally different standard when it comes to your own personal religion.

I do put faith only into my religion and in science use logic. But I cannot replace religion with science, or vice-versa. I can use them both at the same time, but not consider science a religion or religion as completely scientific. Also, I was just trying to make a point when I said faith is a scientific method. It would indeed be foolish to use faith as a scientific method. I study my religion, ask questions of it, find answers, come to a conclusion and then use faith. I have always been a religious Catholic, however, I study it to learn more.

Also, to say religiousity is anti-education is in itself ignorance. During the Middle Ages through the Renaissance the Church was very important when it came to education. The monsteries provided books for people and taught people how to farm, make tools, and the like. The Church gave money to artists such as Michealangelo, who created some of the greatest works of art in history.

I'm glad you wrote this, I was thinking something similar.

Religion in the Middle Ages was quite different than the anti-education bias we find in religions like Christianity today. For one, they were naturalists. Thus, they attempted to reconcile science, the natural world (things like polls), and their religion. Unlike today, where Christians reject science (evolution, polls) in leiu of religion.

Monestaries, etc. aren't really examples of religiousity effecting education either. They are examples of religious infrastructure effecting this. Religiosity itself is the condition of a person being religious. And this does tend to cause an anti-education bias, much more so today than in the Middle Ages. Aside from the reason I mentioned above (naturalism), another cause is that education and religion are more oppossed today. Religion, as a literal view, would teach various creation myths, unscientific ideas, unhistorical beliefs, etc. in direct contrast to established scientific or historical fact. Thus, people are often forced to make a choice between these two fields today, whereas in the Middle Ages they didn't know better regarding many scientific or historical issues, so they weren't forced with the choice.

That’s because they tend to have a detrimental effect to free thinking, Not only is religion a good tool for motivation of change. Its also a good tool to retard change.
Well only if you blindly accept them. You must study them first. It depends on how you use your religion. Also, is change always a good thing?

Well only if you blindly accept them. You must study them first. It depends on how you use your religion. Also, is change always a good thing?
Not always … but you should decide that rationally not with faith. And on a personal level no it does not have to restrict education depending on how you use it. But as a tool it can do many things good and bad …

I do put faith only into my religion and in science use logic. But I cannot replace religion with science, or vice-versa. I can use them both at the same time, but not consider science a religion or religion as completely scientific. Also, I was just trying to make a point when I said faith is a scientific method. It would indeed be foolish to use faith as a scientific method. I study my religion, ask questions of it, find answers, come to a conclusion and then use faith. I have always been a religious Catholic, however, I study it to learn more.

Alright, fair enough. Just to clarify, would you say you put more faith into science or into religion?

And on that note, do you ever feel like science and religion contradict one another? And if they do, how do you reconcile them?

I'm glad you wrote this, I was thinking something similar.

Religion in the Middle Ages was quite different than the anti-education bias we find in religions like Christianity today. For one, they were naturalists. Thus, they attempted to reconcile science, the natural world (things like polls), and their religion. Unlike today, where Christians reject science (evolution, polls) in leiu of religion.

Monestaries, etc. aren't really examples of religiousity effecting education either. They are examples of religious infrastructure effecting this. Religiosity itself is the condition of a person being religious. And this does tend to cause an anti-education bias, much more so today than in the Middle Ages. Aside from the reason I mentioned above (naturalism), another cause is that education and religion are more oppossed today. Religion, as a literal view, would teach various creation myths, unscientific ideas, unhistorical beliefs, etc. in direct contrast to established scientific or historical fact. Thus, people are often forced to make a choice between these two fields today, whereas in the Middle Ages they didn't know better regarding many scientific or historical issues, so they weren't forced with the choice.
Religion is not necessarily completely based in myth. Nothing is wrong with following a religion today, it does not make you a dolt. You can have a religion, but you must keep an open mind. I used to be very close-minded, but I have learned to listen to others' opinions. I think about them and come to a conclusion. Yet I still follow a religion.

Religious, gay and (predictably enough) in favour of same-sex marriage.

Though it has to be said I've got nothing to do with any of the Abrahamic religions which is generally what people mean when they say "religious", especially in this context.

Alright, fair enough. Just to clarify, would you say you put more faith into science or into religion?

And on that note, do you ever feel like science and religion contradict one another? And if they do, how do you reconcile them?
I put more faith into religion. And, yes, at times I do feel like science and religion contradict each other, for example, evolution. I believe God started the universe, and has helped control evolution. That is my reconciliation between the two ideas.

Religious, gay and (predictably enough) in favour of same-sex marriage.

Though it has to be said I've got nothing to do with any of the Abrahamic religions which is generally what people mean when they say "religious", especially in this context.
What religion do you practice?

You know what I think would be near impossible? Someone who's gay, yet against gay marriage.

Still, I bet there's probably someone out there who can prove me wrong.

You know what I think would be near impossible? Someone who's gay, yet against gay marriage.

Still, I bet there's probably someone out there who can prove me wrong.

Someone earlier in the thread said they were against all types of marraige. So if you were gay and against all types of marriage, you would be against gay marriage. Probably not unheard of. :p

What religion do you practice?

I'm a Kemetic Traditionalist by practice and an animistically-inclined "hard" polytheist by theology.

Someone earlier in the thread said they were against all types of marraige. So if you were gay and against all types of marriage, you would be against gay marriage. Probably not unheard of. :p
There you go. Someone out there has that opinion.

I'm a Kemetic Traditionalist by practice and an animistically-inclined "hard" polytheist by theology.
Interesting.

Someone earlier in the thread said they were against all types of marraige. So if you were gay and against all types of marriage, you would be against gay marriage. Probably not unheard of. :p

Im not against marriage as such.
Im against married people having tax and other monetary advantages over single people.
The less married people there are the better as far as Im concerned.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with where anyone likes to rub their genitalia however. That part of it isnt my business.

I'm religious, heterosexual and for gay marriage (or civil partnership as the call it in the UK). Although I do follow reformed Judaism (different to in the USA). I also think there is a lot of truth in a post made earlier about all opposition to gay marriage stemming from religion.

I'm not supportive of marriage. :D

Oh you mean gay marriage. Those too.

That's one reason secular types (and some otherwise open-minded religious types) are against gay marriage: they simply, out of libertarian beliefs, don't believe that the government should be involved in the issue.

However, though I agree to some extent with the viewpoint (although for the most part I feel that a large minority of couples cannot be trusted to be responsible in family matters without government assistance/intervention), it's completely illogical to speak out against gay marriage (as opposed to simply marriage), especially when the current social/political environment is ripe with ignorance, intolerance, and detrimental religiosity.

I've never understood why CJM's (Christians, Jews, Muslims) were against gay marriage. Actually, I'm not even sure Muslims are against it.

The English language is a fickle thing - after something is edited over the course of a thousand years and translated many times over, and then translated into English, something small like people being gay could be completely misconstrued even without someone putting their personal opinion into the thing to change it the way he wants, which is very possible (and technically did happen with the church).

"Thou shalt not lay with man as he would lie with woman" or some such. If he's not laying with woman in the first place, there shouldn't be a problem, because he's -only- laying with man. Now, having something copied by hand is a very tricky thing. One word could be screwed up by a monk who's been working too hard and screwed up without realizing it - "Thou shalt lay with man as he would lie with woman". Now god's telling you to fuck both men and women, because this monk screwed up, and you never knew it. Not just that, but this is English, where it's more obvious - you can compare both sentences and go "Well obviously there's a change from here to there, therefore the previous one is correct." but you can't do that, because I'm not aware we have a 1st edition bible laying around the house anywhere.

Have you ever learned Japanese? It's VERY different from English. The structure and subcontext of wording is a whole different ballpark. This is a current language, too, imagine back when everyone spoke ancient latin. With certain languages, it's all up to context and situation that decides what the sentence means, because it could change within the context to a dramatic extreme. Maybe Leviticus was being sarcastic, but you didn't know, because all the bible did was quote that one thing without telling you if he was making any hand gestures or laughing while he said it.

It's just cold, improbable words. You can't rely on those words because they're not emotions, they're not definitive, they're not up to date, they're not explained. It's almost as if it was created with the intent to confuse - just quoting someone one sentence at a time without explaining what they meant, leaving it up to each person to figure it out - that's very inefficient for something that's supposed to be taken as the word of god himself. You'd think god would make damn sure you know what he's talking about and why.

I'm just saying, don't rely on a sentence to base your morals off of. You can look around and see humanity as a whole, as one consciousness, as a pure being, and embrace it as the holy spirit itself. From that basis, much more concrete and enlightened than a cold sentence from a thousand-year-old book, you can dig out your morals as a humanist from within yourself, as you accept all that is good. When you do so, things like "Is he attracted to men" fades away at the speed of light as you realize they don't matter at all compared to the whole of humanity coming together as one, not fighting itself, not killing itself, not persecuting itself.

The proper translation was Love, and it seems to have been lost throughout the years.

Actually, I'm not even sure Muslims are against it.

No, they just cut off your head. :D

No, they just cut off your head. :D

Aha! Yes, that would be funny. Y'know. If it were true.



... Nope, not even then.

Im single. I dont like paying more taxes than married people. Lose the tax breaks for marriage and I wouldnt be against gay marriage. Until then it isnt in my best interest.
Depending on where you live, that is not true. I know some states in the US actually tax more those married.

And what about the other social advantages that marriage grants? Like power of attorney and visiting rights when one is in the hospital? Surely you are not against denying those to Gay couples?

What if we strip away the tax cut that married people get? Would you still oppose it then?

Depending on where you live, that is not true. I know some states in the US actually tax more those married.

Where I live it is true

And what about the other social advantages that marriage grants? Like power of attorney and visiting rights when one is in the hospital? Surely you are not against denying those to Gay couples?

Never said I was against these.

What if we strip away the tax cut that married people get? Would you still oppose it then?

Im not against gay marriage. Im against being treated unfairly for being single.
I dont care if people marry their goldfish as long as they dont get an unfair advantage over me by doing so.

Its a combination of both, but I'd say religious people tend to be more against SSM, for obvious reasons.

Im not against gay marriage. Im against being treated unfairly for being single.
I dont care if people marry their goldfish as long as they dont get an unfair advantage over me by doing so.
Well, your stance is perfectly understandable.

Although one has to wonder why marriage gets tax break. Some of those tax breaks are understandable (like, say, a break on tax in the event of death as each spouse own half the house anyways) whereas some could easily be extended to single people (say, for having children).

Although I must say that you being treated unfairly is not my concern as long as I'm being treated fairly.

Well, your stance is perfectly understandable.

Although one has to wonder why marriage gets tax break. Some of those tax breaks are understandable (like, say, a break on tax in the event of death as each spouse own half the house anyways) whereas some could easily be extended to single people (say, for having children).

Although I must say that you being treated unfairly is not my concern as long as I'm being treated fairly.

You do get a tax break for having children. You file a W2 and mark them as dependants.

As far as I can tell, you get a tax break for being married for having to live with someone else, most likely to buy a house, having children, generally doing well for the economy. That's my guess, though, it's probably way off.

I put more faith into religion. And, yes, at times I do feel like science and religion contradict each other, for example, evolution. I believe God started the universe, and has helped control evolution. That is my reconciliation between the two ideas.
Not really a reconciliation … by the very supposition that there was “control” by an un-falsafiable force makes it automatically bunk (from the scientific standpoint)

You might as well go all the way and say a pink invisible bunny made it 20 years ago. As scientific theory it has the same worth.

Not really a reconciliation … by the very supposition that there was “control” by an un-falsafiable force makes it automatically bunk (from the scientific standpoint)

You might as well go all the way and say a pink invisible bunny made it 20 years ago. As scientific theory it has the same worth.

That bunny was blue, but nobody knew about it because the damn thing was invisible.

http://www.frozenreality.co.uk/comic/bunny/strips/140506.gif

You do get a tax break for having children. You file a W2 and mark them as dependants.

As far as I can tell, you get a tax break for being married for having to live with someone else, most likely to buy a house, having children, generally doing well for the economy. That's my guess, though, it's probably way off.
It all depend on where you live, though. This is an international forum.

It all depend on where you live, though. This is an international forum.

Yeah, this is true. *shrugs*


Kay, in USA, in Virginia, I know this to be true. Anyone else?


EDIT: Woot, Superior Gamer!

Well, your stance is perfectly understandable.

Although one has to wonder why marriage gets tax break. Some of those tax breaks are understandable (like, say, a break on tax in the event of death as each spouse own half the house anyways) whereas some could easily be extended to single people (say, for having children).

Although I must say that you being treated unfairly is not my concern as long as I'm being treated fairly.

I can see your point too. Just because some of the population has advantages over me doesnt mean I would want more having advantages over me.

No, not necessarily religious people. Irrational people reacting with emotion rather than sense are the ones against gay marriage.

There are even irrational, overemotional, knee jerk reactionary Atheists.

Religion seems to be a primary reason, but religion is incidental. It is the human emotional condition that is the problem.

There is no rational reason to prevent gay marriage.

I can see your point too. Just because some of the population has advantages over me doesnt mean I would want more having advantages over me.
How very egoist of you. ;)

You probably fit right at home in a capitalist society. :)

How very egoist of you. ;)

You probably fit right at home in a capitalist society. :)

I do! Im not great at it or anything but I get by and it suits me.

I'm one of these 'religious types' and I say go for it. It's not like there has been a such thing as the sanctity of marriage in a long, long time.

I don't think that the government should be granting what a sacrament(which marrage is), however since the government needs to recognize civil unions, they should grant them to all couples gay or otherwise. If you want married go to a church. EDIT: Religous organizations should be allowed to do what they please.
Anyway, the main reason that politicians atleast tend to be opposed to gay marrage is because rural America is largely(but by no means totally) made up of religously conservitive protestants. These also happen to be amoung the poorest regons of the country, and if these people were to not be voting baised on "social issues" they would vote in a government that would do something about it (instead of exclusively helping bussiness owners and the wealthy). This is simply a wedge issue that they use to keep people distracted while large bussinesses cut wages and benefits, screw oversmall farmers in too many ways to list , and break unions.

I am in no way religious and am quite happy for gay couples to tie the knot. However, I do not feel that religious organizations should be forced to perform ceremonies they feel are contrary to their beliefs. Civil ceremonies are fine as are ceremonies performed by religions who are happy to perform them, but those that are not happy should not be villified for it.

Secular people against gay mariage, what the hell? Speak up.

Fergi America']Personally I couldn't care less whether gays get married or not. But on general principles, I don't like it when the government tries to legislate based on their (the government's) supposed morality.

As for being religious, I'm theist, but I don't totally agree with any religion I know of.

This is pretty close to my own view.... though I'm Christian... I don't think that marriage is something that should be left to the federal government to define (and I already have a beef with the states trying to define it).

O.K., well if your worried about the definition of marrage, why have the government marry people at all. Civil unions for everyone.