Census Should same-sex marriage be legal?

I voted yes because (1) I hate all the people who are against it, (2) I don't want to be an ******* all the time, (3) no gods have told me which group of people are the more important ones yet (even if that happens I'll probably chalk it up to hallucination and igonre that god) and (4) oppression is wrong.

Maybe reason (4) should've been (1).

For those who vote or think 'no': http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppression

 

so you only practice bigotry in secret?

 

Pardon me?

 

Isn't Brighton cockney rhyming slang for "gay"? I thought it was; so there was a strange, in some ways nice, synergy to your comments.

 

That's... only half true. I have a few christian friends, like me. As far as I know they don't push their beliefs on other people either.

 

close. It's short for Brighton Rock, which is slang for penis.

Well, slang for a slang word of penis.

 

I'd heard Brighton Pier.

 

I voted "yes". This should not be a debate anymore.

 

Haha. Well I haven't had anybody nudging me in the ribs asking "do you reckon that geezer's a Brighton Pier"? Will be back to post if it happens though.

 

Ive never come across that one. (Hoho!)

but then you could say "did you see that brighton's Brighton?"

 

Please do, the synergies are brilliant and should be celebrated.

 

I'm really curious as to how this thread would have been 10 years ago.

 

We had several debates about it in the mid 00s in the Senate. There was a lot more moderate and even progressive support for marriage being, conceptually, heterosexual simply because it had always been that way.

 

Yes because equality.

 

I'm one of those whose view has shifted towards full government recognition. Used to argue(roughly in that timeframe) government get out of marriage business entirely but that's not realistic.

 

I seem to recall circa 2007 or so I wasn't in favour of it either.

 

I'm against marriage entirely. I've never been religious so that aspect isn't particularly relevant. However, as far as state recognition of a union is concerned, I think that either legal benefits shouldn't exist or should be moot (e.g., health benefits, though this is almost exclusive to the United States). It's an outdated property/procreation arrangement and stubbornly misogynistic as an institution. I also find seeking a state's recognition of my commitment to another person to be highly distasteful. I would only apply for a marriage license because of those aforementioned benefits. I'm a romantic, I know.

That said, even as my views have evolved to be against marriage that hasn't changed my views on recognition of SSM. As long as marriage is a thing that states recognize, same-sex couples should be able to do it. Equal protection and due process should still apply.

 

Yeah, most of the people here are finger-in-the-wind lemmings who think they're contrarian. In 15th Century Spain they'd have cheered loudest at an Auto De Fé.

 

Except two pro- people said their views have changed over time, OZK. IATI asked a valid question, it warrants a less flippant response.

 

Not sure about the stubbornly misogynistic part.
I know it's circumstantial, but most married men I know were trapped into it by creatures with the patience of a scavenger.

 

My ex-wife was also the one who wanted to take my last name; I thought it was paternalistic. It's... a complicated arrangement that transcends traditional misogyny.

(Though sounding more, not less Dutch, is probably my ex's motive and frankly who wouldn't want to have a Dutch name?)

 

Did she keep it?

 

There is this weird idea on the far Right that somehow marriage equals making babies and if gays get married then everyone will become gay and no one will make babies. I think they get this everyone is waiting to be gay idea from prison survival or something.

 

Ha, yes - along with everything else lol.

 

My mother didn't keep my father's last name after their divorce, but for some strange reason she had me keep it. Caused quite a bit of confusion.