Same Sex Marriage Poll - You Decide!

[PostAnarchy]

Being a revolutionary left site I figure we are all here are pro gay rights. So what do we think of gay marriage? Support it? Favor civil unions? Nothing?

Discuss!:)

[Drace]

I wouldn't go as to far as to say that I support it in the sense that I threw myself out there to be heard, but I'm in simpler terms, in favor of it.

I really do not care about homosexuals and rather leave them alone. Let them do whatever they want. Not my problem.

The only reason one would vote against is it that its gross, or of course, religion.

[ashaman1324]

being a leftist site, i dont think religion is going to be a major factor.:)
i voted in favor of it, why would we stop two people from being happy together?

[F9]

Basically i dont give a fuck about marriages,because its a religion "tradition",thing,whatever is called,though not letting same sex to marriage is plain discrimination,and sick thing to do from those religious guys that support "love",as they say!
So yeah if people from the same sex wanted to get married, i personally 1000% support their right to do it!

Fuserg9:star:

[RedAnarchist]

I support it fully, although I see marriage as a religious institution.

[The Something]

I think this thread is a waste of time. What two people's interpretation of marriage is their buisness. I support it fully, pass the love around.

[Lenin's Law]

I really do not care about homosexuals and rather leave them alone. Let them do whatever they want. Not my problem.

The only reason one would vote against is it that its gross, or of course, religion.

Why would it be gross? And why is homosexuality a "problem?"

[reddevil]

i support the right of homosexuals to marry but i think marriage is bad decision for anybody, whatver their orientation.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Marriage is a religious institution which makes a simple fact (two people love eachother) complicated, but if those two people want to marry, no problem.

Concerning gay marriage: according to a recent biological examination homosexuality is natural and appears in nature a lot more than one would think.
Wether someone is gay or not is not my business, but they have the right to love who they love.

[Module]

Not to sound like an arsehole, but this is a pointless poll.
Of course everybody here is going to support the equal right of same sex couples to get married. :huh:

[lvl100]

Why would it be gross? And why is homosexuality a "problem?"

Well, non discriminating a minority doesn't necessarily means you will also join it.



I support it fully, although I see marriage as a religious institution.

Marriage was always about the need of humans to have a stable partner , religion its just a side effect.

[bcbm]

Marriage was always about the need of humans to have a stable partner , religion its just a side effect.

Actually marriage has always been about economic relationships, whether within the family or with other family units, at least in most civilized societies.

As to the topic at hand, no government sanctioned marriage for straight or gay couples- it isn't a state issue. Let the religious types marry people.

[Antiprophet]

But... DIRTY GAY SEX MAKES GOD SEND HURRICANES!

[apathy maybe]

As to the topic at hand, no government sanctioned marriage for straight or gay couples- it isn't a state issue. Let the religious types marry people.

This.

Government has no right nor reason to interfere in our relationships, nor right nor reason to even know about them.

Fuck off with your government.

Edit: apparently I'm the only one who opposes gay marriage. I also oppose hetero marriage as well, so don't ban me.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Actually marriage has always been about economic relationships, whether within the family or with other family units, at least in most civilized societies.

As to the topic at hand, no government sanctioned marriage for straight or gay couples- it isn't a state issue. Let the religious types marry people.
^ This.

However, I also believe that the state should offer various types of legal partnerships for people who want to pool their economic resources, get visitation rights in hospitals, hold joint custody over children, etc. Some of these don't need to have any sexual or romantic implication attached to them. For instance, I might like to be able to give visitation rights to some of my close friends. Some people might want to give their brothers or sisters joint custody over their children. And so on.

So in fact there should not be one single kind of state-sanctioned marriage, but a number of different levels of legal partnership - available to straight and gay couples as well as larger groups of people.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No government marriage. Period.

[apathy maybe]

You know something is wrong when the anarchists and the libertarians are saying exactly the same things.

And I suppose you support government run marriage?

Just because capitalist "libertarians" and anarchists agree with certain things, doesn't mean that they are the same. Your argument is sorta long the lines: "You know something is wrong when both fascists and Marxists use the word 'socialist' in their party titles".

Anarchists do share a lot of ideas in common with liberals, as do Marxists...

Oh yeah, and I'm an atheist, "You know something is wrong when the anarchists and [John Stuart Mill, Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Enver Hoxha, Nikita Khrushchev etc.] are saying exactly the same things"...

[Kassad]

I can't think of one way that homosexuals getting married supresses my life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

[apathy maybe]

Well I do that question to your notion of the state as an abstract evil, which it clearly isn't, and irrational hatred of 'government' is at best the result of inadequate understanding of it and it's functions.

If what you mean by 'government' is as Lenin called it the 'military-bureaucratic machine', then I agree, but saying 'fuck government' could also be taken to mean 'fuck proletarian government'.

I don't have an "irrational hatred of 'government'". I have a perfectly rational hatred of government. Government is one of the forces in society that prevent me from doing what I like* (e.g. getting a job in a foreign country).
* And by "what I like", I don't mean going on a killing spree...

I don't know what your definition of "proletarian government" is, however, if I say "fuck the government" to almost everyone with a basic understanding of English, they are going to know what I mean. The fact that you don't, well, that's a problem with how you define things perhaps?

You said:

You know something is wrong when the anarchists and the libertarians are saying exactly the same things.
In a thread talking about marriage, and you weren't talking about marriage?


Anyway, I probably would object to your "proletarian government" if it looks anything like previous "socialist" governments. For the same reason I object to the present governments. Governments restrict freedom.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Government is one of the forces in society that prevent me from doing what I like* (e.g. getting a job in a foreign country).
* And by "what I like", I don't mean going on a killing spree...
And that is precisely the problem with anarchism. In any imaginable orderly society, there will have to be some organization with the power to stop sociopaths from going on a killing spree.

Now, this organization could take many forms... but logically, any organization with the power to stop sociopaths from going on a killing spree needs to be an armed organization; and furthermore it needs to have greater military strength than any single individual or gang could muster. How would this organization not be a government, broadly defined?

Any organization powerful enough to protect you from maniacs going on killing sprees is also powerful enough to prevent you from doing what you like. Any organization too weak to prevent you from doing what you like is also too weak to protect you from maniacs going on killing sprees.

How do you resolve this problem?

[apathy maybe]

Can someone split this out please? A new thread in Learning perhaps...


You see, anarchists do this all the time, abstraction. You are applying universal 'bourgeoisie right' to unequal surroundings, Lenin spoke about this in State and Revolution.
I'm happy for Lenin. I don't care though.

Engels himself said socialism is not freedom, socialism is merely the proletariat holding down their adversaries by force.

I'm also happy for Engels, but see, I'm an anarchist, for me socialism is about freedom. Crap about "the proletariat holding down their adversaries by force" means nothing to me. I'm not a "working class hero", the only class war I want is the one which brings down the rulers, and doesn't set up new ones.

Until you recognise that not everyone agrees with your definitions, then of course you are going to have these same "debates" over and again.

And that is precisely the problem with anarchism. In any imaginable orderly society, there will have to be some organization with the power to stop sociopaths from going on a killing spree.

Now, this organization could take many forms... but logically, any organization with the power to stop sociopaths from going on a killing spree needs to be an armed organization; and furthermore it needs to have greater military strength than any single individual or gang could muster. How would this organization not be a government, broadly defined?

Any organization powerful enough to protect you from maniacs going on killing sprees is also powerful enough to prevent you from doing what you like. Any organization too weak to prevent you from doing what you like is also too weak to protect you from maniacs going on killing sprees.

How do you resolve this problem?
I direct you to the "police and courts" thread in Learning where Robin Hood Underground Love has said that there would be police and courts in an anarchist society. Of course, he thinks that they would be nothing like what they are today (but still justify the name). I personally think that there would be a rotating militia (and wouldn't call it police, because everyone would be part of it, and wouldn't have a uniform etc.).

You are, at any rate, using a very broad definition of government, far more broad then is justified.


Any organization powerful enough to protect you from maniacs going on killing sprees is also powerful enough to prevent you from doing what you like. Any organization too weak to prevent you from doing what you like is also too weak to protect you from maniacs going on killing sprees.
A people's militia organised along democratic lines, rotated around the population (everyone takes turns), along with everyone having ready access to guns, is very much on a different order to a state as we currently see them. Governments now stop me from working in their country because I'm not a citizen. Why would an organisation comprised of the majority of people stop me from working?
(Also, since when has any organisation been able to stop "maniacs [from] going on killing sprees"?)

Governments want to stop me from doing things (driving without a seat belt, using LSD and dope etc.) that don't harm others. Why would an anarchist organisation want to do that? (And even if they did, if they did stop me, they would stop being anarchistic.)

[apathy maybe]

Well you haven't convinced me of anything new Apathy, as I already knew it, but at the least you have confirmed to me that anarchism is always going to play a counter-revolutionary role in society. This is because of your opposition to class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. You out and out deny class society, taking the right-wing libertarian line that the 'state' and 'authority' is the source of all problems, failing to see problems as structurally and scientifically, further revealing your infantile and childish politics.

'Freedom' cannot exist in class society, it can only exist in the higher-phase of communist society. Anarchist rhetoric of 'freedom' is about as hollow as the bourgeoisie courts saying 'all are equal before the law', economic structures make this impossible, same way democracy and aforementioned freedoms are corrupted in capitalist society.

You actually remind me of the Italian fascists, you have no scientific basis, you hate all that theory, 'we don't give a damn' as the blackshirts used to say.

I'm not interested in talking to you, and after this post I'm not going to reply to your posts.

I am for freedom, and that automatically means I'm against class society. Class society includes your bullshit about the proletariat governing. Get back to me when you have a majority class running a state, and I'll have a look.

In the mean time, I'm going to be fighting for a class-less society, not one where a small minority rule in the name of the majority.

[JimmyJazz]

Being a revolutionary left site I figure we are all here are pro gay rights. So what do we think of gay marriage? Support it? Favor civil unions? Nothing?

Discuss!:)

This poster has never returned to a single one of his own threads. Can we please give him a spam warning?

[Prisoner#69]

Let 'em marry. Who cares? :confused:

[MarxSchmarx]

Marriage as an institution should be abolished. I therefore oppose homosexual marriage.

[Revy]

As a gay man, I support marriage equality. I think if marriage was not a legal right, it would not be an issue. There are those who disagree with the institution of marriage, that is fine, but equality should take precedence. Under this logic, it would be acceptable to oppose interracial marriage just because you disagree with marriage. So as long as marriage is a legal institution, homosexuals should be equal to heterosexuals. It's not so much an endorsement of marriage, it's an endorsement of equality and part of a more general movement for liberation. I would be fine with a society without marriage. It wouldn't bother me. I just don't want to not be equal.

[Drace]

I do not understand why gays even care.
Isn't marriage a religious ceremony?

Gays can have the benefits of being legally married though domestic partnership. So...do they even want get married?

[deLarge]

I do not understand why gays even care.
Isn't marriage a religious ceremony?

Gays can have the benefits of being legally married though domestic partnership. So...do they even want get married?

That's irrelevant, the very fact that they cannot marry indicates discrimination, regardless of whether or not they would want to.

[Elway]

Well, a post-revolutionary society wouldn't need the state's recognition of marriage in any way. Removing the religious aspect to it all (one can have a non-religious marriage ceremony, gimme a second on that), there's no need for marriage from a civil point of view, as property would no longer be an issue, and the non-religious aspects of marriage seem to focus on community property law. All of that would be gone, so what would the state care about it all.

Non-religious/Non-civil ceremony: Okay, people are funny. They create all sorts of events like birthdays with candles on them and visiting graves of loved ones and talking with them. Neither of these things are "religious"; people just do them. Post-Revolutionary conduct will not stop people from having some ceremony and party of pledging themselves to one another. It will happen, and you can call it marriage if you want. Like sharing a glass of wine together to symbolize it. Or two friends who want to show their friendship toward one another by mixing their blood. People do these things.

If people create a ceremony that has nothing to do with the state, or religion, it may mean something to them, and they may call it a marriage. I doesn't mean they're any less "socialist". But the ceremony will only mean something to them, and perhaps their friends; it will have no property or religious implications.

I can see people doing this. I can see hetro and homosexual people doint this. Big deal. Both types of couples will do it, and who cares. Doesn't take from the big picture of getting the capital and control of humanity away from the class of non-deserving bosses.

[Jazzratt]

I do not understand why gays even care.
Isn't marriage a religious ceremony?

Gays can have the benefits of being legally married though domestic partnership. So...do they even want get married?

You seem to have set up a bizarre dichotomy between gay and religious people. If two religious people of the same sex wish to undertake a marriage ceremony then that's fine by me.

A lot of people here are attacking this from a strange angle of being against marriage. Marriage is one of many, many legitimate relationship types - it has been given a priveleged position in our society but I would not place it morally above or below any other living arrangement/relationship. I consider marriage to be something attached to religion and thus something that will pretty much disappear as we destroy religion, but as long as it remains consensual then marriage is fine by me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If marriage was a strictly religious institution, then my uncle's secular marriage would not have been recognised, but strangely it was and is recognised as legimate.

The fact of the matter is that "marriage as a religious institution" is used by religious fundamentalists to justify their opposition to homosexual marriage. By intertwining marriage with religion, "radical" critics of marriage are playing straight into the hands of medievalist bigots.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Support it 100%

[Elway]

NoXion brings up the same point. NEVER let the religious right dictate what life is all about. Don't call it "pro-life". It's "anti-choice". THEY don't get to dictate the names for relationships. THEY have become so margainalized, it's funny.

[BIG BROTHER]

the last thing we need is more divisions among any other human being and more specially between the working class.

so i support same sex marriage 100%

[S.O.I]

nobody should get married:p

but hey, if they want to, let em ruin theire lives just like anyone else.

[Saorsa]

Find out who voted against gay people's right to marriage and ban them.

[Black Dagger]

I support abolishing inequality or discrimination against anyone because of their relationship status or sexual identification - not just married folks.

[Drace]

Edit: Dumb post....Delete.

[Ivhouse]

What does same sex marriage have to with socialist/financial equality. Leave sex to the individuals in the bedroom.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Find out who voted against gay people's right to marriage and ban them.
They arent bothering anybody; they expressed their honest opinion based on the options available.

[Sasha]

everybody should have the same right to being an idiot IMO. so yeah i support gay-marriage (and than god ;) we have it here)
and if there any people from callefornie around who didnt went out to vote and so helped passing prop 8.

[Dr Mindbender]

Support 100% obviously.

anyone who voted for the last 2 options should be restricted immediately.

[Dr Mindbender]

Marriage as an institution should be abolished. I therefore oppose homosexual marriage.

..but within the context of straights being allowed to marry?

Furthermore, I support marriage (gay and straight) continuing post revolution because not only would its abolishment undermine religious autonomy (as much as i have contempt for religion i dont feel it necessary to ban religion) but seculars such as humanists practice marriage as a token of their love and promises to each other in witness of their family and friends. I dont think people should be denied that right.

The poll question isnt about the legitimacy of the institution of marriage but the rights of gays.

[F9]

Support 100% obviously.

anyone who voted for the last 2 options should be restricted immediately.

No he shouldnt!Being against the religion traditions like marriage isnt something that we have as a restriction policy.
Even if i dont support "religion marriage" i support peoples right to married and do whatever they want so i voted yes!

Fuserg9:star:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I support it. Marriage aint everyones cup of tea but its somones choice which effects no-one directly than the people involved.

[Dr Mindbender]

No he shouldnt!Being against the religion traditions like marriage isnt something that we have as a restriction policy.


You misunderstood me. I meant anyone against gay marriage specifically.

Also MarxShmarx did not differentiate between religous and non religous marriage instead attacking both (but i personally support people's rights to participate in either).

The poll wasnt questioning the legitimacy of the marriage institution per se which is for a seperate thread and should be treated as such.

[Dr Mindbender]

I support it. Marriage aint everyones cup of tea but its somones choice which effects no-one directly than the people involved.

Exactly. It's about personal autonomy which is what winds me up about the marriage bashers. If you dont want it fine but leave other people the fuck alone.

[F9]

You misunderstood me. I meant anyone against gay marriage specifically.

Also MarxShmarx did not differentiate between religous and non religous marriage instead attacking both (but i personally support people's rights to participate in either).

The poll wasnt questioning the legitimacy of the marriage institution per se which is for a seperate thread and should be treated as such.

Ok, fair enough.

Fuserg9:star:

[The New Left]

I support civil unions because I don't support marriage as it is a religious institution that made its way into everyday society. However, as of right now in today's world, marriage should be legal for all. All people should have the same rights, blah, blah, blah whether they be a man/woman, woman/woman, and man/man. People are free to do what they want regardless of people think now.

[Dóchas]

i dont mind either way as long as the two people are happy i dont see why they shouldnt be together

[redguard2009]

Hundred Flowers question!??!?

[Sankofa]

As much as I abhor marriage in general, I'm all for same-sex marriage. If gays want to get married and be miserable then let them. No harm, no foul, case closed.

[Dr Mindbender]

I support civil unions because I don't support marriage as it is a religious institution .

No it isnt. My wedding was a secular state wedding.

[Kukulofori]

The existence of marriage as a legally recognised institution is unacceptable. By nature it is the idea that a relationship is less valid if it isn't recognised by the government and that's bullshit.

[Dr Mindbender]

The existence of marriage as a legally recognised institution is unacceptable. By nature it is the idea that a relationship is less valid if it isn't recognised by the government and that's bullshit.

I think its more complicated than that. Many religious and non religious folk view it as a way of making their promises to each other public in front of others. Also it is an integral part of some religion and i support the right of others to practice their beliefs regardless of how absurd i view them personally.

The only part i disagree with strongly is the copius amount of money that people are encouraged to spend on their wedding even when it outside their means.

Besides which even if you 'ban' marriage people are still going to do it so i don't see the point (unless it's a forced marriage).

I think another important part you are missing out on is the legalities, specifically pertaining to divorce. If your girlfriend dumps you then she can dump you on the street but under marriage you have some legal protection and can claim 50% of the overall assets. Outside of marriage a solicitor (lawyer in the US) can offer you no such protection.

[Dr Mindbender]

^ i think this thread is going off in a tangent, so i'm going to start a poll thread ''should marriage be banned''. Please follow the debate there.

here http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-marriage-banned-t93851/index.html?t=93851

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Marriage as an institution should be abolished.

Why?

[Chicano Shamrock]

I do not understand why gays even care.
Isn't marriage a religious ceremony?

Gays can have the benefits of being legally married though domestic partnership. So...do they even want get married?

I can tell by the way you talk that you are homophobic and I didn't expect that on this site. Gay people don't get all of the legal rights in a domestic partnership that they would get in a marriage like federal taxing recognizing their partnership.

Either way your point is a bad one and one which is used to suppress the rights of homosexuals. As long as it is called something else then that means that a group of people are being treated differently than another group of people under the law. That is discrimination. It is using the state to tell a group of people that they are different from everyone else when that isn't true.

Separate is never equal and the US learned that long ago. I support gay marriage 100% and I was talking to everyone prior to the election here in California. Unfortunately I am not registered to vote and I wanted to vote on prop 8 but I missed the registration point.

I am not sure if any of you coming at it from the "I don't support marriage... so I don't support gay marriage" are in California. If you are and you were siding with banning homosexuals from getting married over some dogmatic bullshit like "I don't support marriage" you are an idiot and I would say an enemy of the revolutionary "left".

Take a second to step out of your dreamy anarchist world and step into the real world. Marriage comes with legal benefits. It is not a religious institution within the US. If it was you wouldn't be able to get married at the local court house. It is a legal institution. Preventing one group of people from participating in this institution is plain wrong. Claiming "I don't support marriage.. so I don't support gay marriage" is just so you can look that much more "revolutionary" and does nothing for anyone here in the real world.

[Faction2008]

Don't care, marry who you like.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There shouldn't be government marriage, but I support homosexual and polygamous marriage for the time being.

[Black Dagger]

Gene, do you also support arranged child marriages? Coz there's mighty cross-over between said form of marriage and polygamy (not to mention ultra-patriarchy... polygamy as most commonly practiced is for men only).

[Lenin's Law]

Not to sound like an arsehole, but this is a pointless poll.
Of course everybody here is going to support the equal right of same sex couples to get married. :huh:


I guess not...sadly.

[FlamingChainsaws]

Why would it be gross? And why is homosexuality a "problem?"
You stole the words from my mouth.

Queercore for life, yo!

[progressive_lefty]

In my mind we still have the same problem of people being insecure about their sexuality, and taking it out on homosexuals.

[PostAnarchy]

In my mind we still have the same problem of people being insecure about their sexuality, and taking it out on homosexuals.

Very disappointing to have people here on a revoltuionary left site being against the rights of same sex couples!

[FlamingChainsaws]

I don't kill gay people because I'm comfortable with my genitalia.

[PostAnarchy]

What? :confused:

[The Intransigent Faction]

Is having a "civil union" option sufficient, or should an option be added that specifically clarifies one being against marriage in general insofar as it's a religious institution?

In any case, I support any sort of secular union; heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.
The religious right's promotion of bigotry in the name of a psychopathic imaginary friend should just not be accepted in any just society as a reason to keep apart people who love each other.

[red-carnations]

I can't think of one way that homosexuals getting married supresses my life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

Absolutely!!!

[Andropov]

100% support it, their choice and it harms no one.

[Dimentio]

I don't know if it would be comfortable forcing churches to wed homosexual couples. That could radicalise reactionary churches.

Rather, under current conditions, give everyone the right to civil unions. Withdraw the legal framework from religious marriages, so a religous marriage effectually would mean nothing.

[gorillafuck]

I support their right to marry if they wish to get married.

[scarletghoul]

If people want to get married it seems stupid that they should be not allowed to. But a religious organization should not have to conduct weddings and stuff if it is against them.

Still not sure what the definition of marriage is though... Does it have to be recognised by the state or what?

[KurtFF8]

I don't know if it would be comfortable forcing churches to wed homosexual couples. That could radicalise reactionary churches.

Rather, under current conditions, give everyone the right to civil unions. Withdraw the legal framework from religious marriages, so a religous marriage effectually would mean nothing.

This is similar to what I think should happen. Leave marriage in the private sphere all together. Grant people (hetero or homosexual) civil unions, thus the stigma around the term "marriage" being used in a different way disappears. And churches that are opposed to gay marriage will still be able to refrain from doing it (there is of course a "social/cultural" battle to be had here I think, but that is a different subject).

This would also give opportunity to redo family codes to make gender equality better, instead of just cutting and pasting the word marriage, the state could do things like make divorce easier if just one party wanted it for example.

[duffers]

I voted for marriage blindly, but I'd prefer some secular union. Wouldn't like to say that's a compromise, 'cause I think full rights as granted by marriage should be given. Just the notion of a modern day marriage in the religious sense is naturally off putting to a Marxist or atheist.

[Circle E Society]

And that is precisely the problem with anarchism. In any imaginable orderly society, there will have to be some organization with the power to stop sociopaths from going on a killing spree.

Now, this organization could take many forms... but logically, any organization with the power to stop sociopaths from going on a killing spree needs to be an armed organization; and furthermore it needs to have greater military strength than any single individual or gang could muster. How would this organization not be a government, broadly defined?

Any organization powerful enough to protect you from maniacs going on killing sprees is also powerful enough to prevent you from doing what you like. Any organization too weak to prevent you from doing what you like is also too weak to protect you from maniacs going on killing sprees.

How do you resolve this problem?

Get your head out of the pre revolution society. Sociopaths will be few and far between due to the lack of alienation of an autonomous anarchist society. Plus there would be a whole bunch of collectives that person would be a part of so in turn would be dealt with accordingly.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

But... DIRTY GAY SEX MAKES GOD SEND HURRICANES!

And makes all of the angels masturbate to it.

I am in favor of it although I think that we should deal more with other issues like fighting back against those who perpetrate hate crimes.

Although, I'm not gonna lie, I wouldn't mind if I met the right guy settling down and getting married.

But yeah, I'm in favor of gay marriage! :thumbup1:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Get your head out of the pre revolution society. Sociopaths will be few and far between due to the lack of alienation of an autonomous anarchist society. Plus there would be a whole bunch of collectives that person would be a part of so in turn would be dealt with accordingly.

I agree with you to an extent. But I have a question: What about those who are not going to go on a killing spree as a result of societal alienation, but because of how their minds are wired. The crimes of necessity versus the crimes of pleasure.

Just playing devils advocate. It's in my nature to argue.

[Invincible Summer]

Couple of questions:

- Why can't I give rep to any post previous to Circle-E Society's (#76)?
- I've noticed that many people have mentioned that "government-sponsored marriage" or something is stupid. Could someone elaborate?

[AnthArmo]

out of curiosity, who voted against gay marriage for reasons apart from being against marriage as a whole?

[ev]

Marriage seems to belong to religion whilst civil unions belong to the state (legal authority), if marriage had no religious affiliation then I would be all for same sex marriages. However the religious bodies (such as churches) want only "man and woman" to be married, i think this discriminatory idea is completely absurd however do we need to respect these religious beliefs such as we would with indigenous rights (like not mining an area because it may upset the dream time snake) ???

I suppose what I'm saying is.. Because the ceremony of marriage manifested from religion (which i assume it does), shouldn't the religious bodies (the church) and not the state dictate who can and cannot be married? (even though I am against this) and the state provide an alternative?

Who is for marriages anyway, I thought we had a poll a while back and everyone said that marriages are stupid and we should just be able to live with someone (or something like that i wasn't really into the post but i remember it)

Anyway. Thoughts, clarifications? ta <3

[ev]

Oh for the record I'm in favour of gay marriages as long as it does not incure on the religious beliefs of the churches. Which of course it always does... Why cant we just say "fuck you religion your fucking stupid" and slap the people who dont allow gays to get married? oh sorry, were living in a world where people are entitled to there ridiculous ideas (inc. scientology - FUCK) What is wrong with people?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I can't think of one way that homosexuals getting married supresses my life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

or your ability to quote the constitution, huzzah

[political_animal]

100% for same sex marriage within the confines of the present system but marriage should be abolished anyway. But as long as gay and straight people are treated equally I'm happy.

[Invincible Summer]

Can someone please explain why "marriage should be abolished?" Is it more that the state's involvement with marriage (ie. having to register) should be abolished or that people shouldn't be allowed to have a "married" status?

[Black Dagger]

Both - though concering the latter only if by 'status' you mean some kind material privilege denied to those who lack said status.

[political_animal]

Can someone please explain why "marriage should be abolished?" Is it more that the state's involvement with marriage (ie. having to register) should be abolished or that people shouldn't be allowed to have a "married" status?

I consider marriage to be a religious act that requires people to commit to each other 'until death do us part'. Inherent within marriage is the historical acceptance of the male as dominant bread winner and female as sub-servient home-keeper and child-rearer. It is also a religious/historical promotion of heterosexuality to the detriment of anyone that doesn't fit that paradigm. It also pre-supposes that those engaging in marriage become 'property' of each other.

[Invincible Summer]

Both - though concering the latter only if by 'status' you mean some kind material privilege denied to those who lack said status.

I see - that's understandable. So it's more like marriage will have to be purely about loving another person, as opposed to potentially about material privileges (which is more and more common)?


I consider marriage to be a religious act that requires people to commit to each other 'until death do us part'.
How is "until death do us part" religious? It's not like only religious people believe in death...

And call me old-fashioned, but if you say you're going to marry someone, that should mean that you want to commit yourself to them for the rest of your life - of course, things can change and divorces may happen, but I see marriage as way more than just a "oh okay it isn't working out see you later" thing. This isn't high-school dating.


Inherent within marriage is the historical acceptance of the male as dominant bread winner and female as sub-servient home-keeper and child-rearer.
I think those are stereotypes and social norms that people have to overcome themselves. Also, I personally don't know many families that force the woman to be the sub-servient housekeeper/child-rearer. If the woman chooses to do that, what's stopping her? Just because it's old-fashioned doesn't mean you can't go up to her and say "YOU'RE REACTIONARY!" and force her to get a job as an auto mechanic just to break gender stereotypes.


It is also a religious/historical promotion of heterosexuality to the detriment of anyone that doesn't fit that paradigm. It also pre-supposes that those engaging in marriage become 'property' of each other.

Just because it has historically been heterosexual doesn't mean it can't change. Horses were historically the primary means of transportation for many societies, but when better forms or transportation arose, they changed.

[commyrebel]

This.

Government has no right nor reason to interfere in our relationships, nor right nor reason to even know about them.

Fuck off with your government.

Edit: apparently I'm the only one who opposes gay marriage. I also oppose hetero marriage as well, so don't ban me. Ok marriage is the union of two that combines them in a communist country it is has no meaning. the meaning of it would be though everything the two will stay together and the promises from both that this will happen(doesn't have to be religious its just a binding promise)

[brigadista]

marriage is a commercial contract so in a capitalist society why should anyone be excluded?

[Martin Blank]

In the United States, marriage is neither a moral nor a religious issue. It is a state service and an entry into a legally-binding contract. You go to the local county clerk's office to obtain a marriage license and certificate; the only non-state element, if you choose such, is who performs the ceremony.

Thus, the issue here is not separation of church and state but equal access to state services and equal protection under the law. In the U.S., equal access and equal protection are guaranteed under Section 2 of the XIV Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As such, the right of any couple to the state service of obtaining a legally-binding marriage license or certificate is already granted, and any such legislation that has been passed by Congress, state or local bodies is unconstitutional (and has only to be properly challenged in court).

The reason why the reactionary elements want a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is because they know it is only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court has to rule on this, and they know that access to obtaining a marriage license is an equal protection/equal access issue.

[Black Dagger]

Poll edited.

[FuckYoCouch]

[quote=Miles;1381872]

Thus, the issue here is not separation of church and state.

you are the only person ive ever seen. EVER.to use the Phrase "seperation of church and state" Correctly in a sentence. :thumbup:

[DancingLarry]

As an eminently wise friend of my youth, Donna Louise* once said to me:


Marriage is a creation of Church and State. If I don't believe in the Church and I don't believe in the state, why should I believe in marriage?

*30 years later, wondering where Weezy's at these days.

[EqualityandFreedom]

Voted for the 1st option but would have voted for the 4th option if it had been there. Unmarried couples shouldn't be discriminated against either.

[Killfacer]

I support it so much that i think even straight people should be forced to marry people of the same sex.

[Rebel_Serigan]

Homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, wiether it be in the work place, schools, and in thier pursuit of being miserable (hehheh just kidding) I think as a true Lefist and one who wants to abolish classes we would be all for gay marrage, and aside from being a leftist we still should be for it. We are all human no matter how much people try to say we aren't.

[Unclebananahead]

There is no reason I could conceive of to oppose it. Gay couples are entitled to the same rights and privileges as straight ones, or at least they should be. There will of course be some people who will oppose gay marriage not because the persons involved are the same sex, but because they oppose marriage in general.

I don't think I quite understand this particular viewpoint myself. Marriage is, in my view, a great way to establish a loving unit of people sharing the responsibilities and burdens of life together. You know, dealing with life as a team. At least that's the way I tend to think of it. Such 'teams' could made up of two men, two women, or a man and a woman. As long as those who are involved love, and are committed to one another, their biological sex should bear no relevance. Also, the formation of a married unit creates a more appropriate, stable, and secure environment for the raising of children, be they biological, adopted, or fostered.

[redarmyfaction38]

Being a revolutionary left site I figure we are all here are pro gay rights. So what do we think of gay marriage? Support it? Favor civil unions? Nothing?

Discuss!:)

couldn't give a shit, why do you need a bit of paper or civil ceremony to prove your love for your partner?
that applies to both gays and heterosexuals.
the only reason i can see for getting "married" is to ensure that, should you die, the state recognises that your partner should inherit all your "wordly goods" and benefit from the dubious "insurance policies" you took out.
that's why me and my wife got married, we were quite happily living together with our children up to the point our solicitors pointed out our joint wills could be challenged by former partners.
not dissing the "marriage ceremony" though, we had a lot of fun with it and enjoyed the public commitment to one another, played a song that meant a lot to us for the actual ceremony (elation) and then took the piss at the evening celebration and played another song that summed up our attitude to all the shit involved (bet you think you look good on the dance floor), the "dj" nearly wet himself laughing.

[redarmyfaction38]

couldn't give a shit, why do you need a bit of paper or civil ceremony to prove your love for your partner?
that applies to both gays and heterosexuals.
the only reason i can see for getting "married" is to ensure that, should you die, the state recognises that your partner should inherit all your "wordly goods" and benefit from the dubious "insurance policies" you took out.
that's why me and my wife got married, we were quite happily living together with our children up to the point our solicitors pointed out our joint wills could be challenged by former partners.
not dissing the "marriage ceremony" though, we had a lot of fun with it and enjoyed the public commitment to one another, played a song that meant a lot to us for the actual ceremony (elation) and then took the piss at the evening celebration and played another song that summed up our attitude to all the shit involved (bet you think you look good on the dance floor), the "dj" nearly wet himself laughing.
soz! forgot to mention, having played the game, we went home and "jumped the broomstick", promising love and fidelity for a year and a day like we always had done.

[Idealism]

How is civil union a comprise? it simply doing what should've been done before, taking the definition of marriage as enforced by the state and separating from any church. Such that all married couples get a license that allows them the privilege of "marriage" but if they want to be "married" they'd have to do it in a church of their choice.

[pastradamus]

Its unbecoming of any leftist to not support Gay marriage... plain and simple.

[Glorious Union]

I see no reason why anyone should ban gay marriage unless it is becoming a serious threat to population growth and the future of humanity. But as that is highly unlikely to ever happen, it should not be banned or restricted at all.

[apathy maybe]

Its unbecoming of any leftist to not support Gay marriage... plain and simple.
I oppose all marriage, plain and simple. (I also support equal rights for all.)


I see no reason why anyone should ban gay marriage unless it is becoming a serious threat to population growth and the future of humanity. But as that is highly unlikely to ever happen, it should not be banned or restricted at all.
Fuck off. Even if humanity was going to die out you should not restrict the rights of people.

Just because you want to keep humanity going on and on, doesn't mean that the people who could make it happen should be forced to do so.

[pastradamus]

I see no reason why anyone should ban gay marriage unless it is becoming a serious threat to population growth and the future of humanity. But as that is highly unlikely to ever happen, it should not be banned or restricted at all.

Thats the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. Forcing anyone to do anything sexual is called rape.