Gay Marriage [Flow Chart]

Submitted by: Pilanus 7 years ago in Misc

The entire Gay Marriage flame war, in one easy-to-read chart.
There are 175 comments:
Female 735
I decided I was bisexual upon finding out that you COULD be. I had never considered it! I was introduced to it, and after a while I saw a certain girl I found attractive and knew it was okay to like her, so I did. Not as sexually at first, but it grew. I now identify as pansexual, and started identifying as such upon hearing about it, and realizing it described my sexual interests more specifically. (Look it up, if you must...). Now, I don`t know where all this fits into the born/choice argument, but it`s what happened. Make of it what you will!
0
Reply
Female 934
@ Lynea

"...criminals BECOME criminals because of abuse or neglect during their childhood."

"Gay people ARE born that way. I`m bisexual and I`ll never be able to change that. Even if I always have relationships with guys I`ll still be attracted to girls"

Dear, I`m sure there was something in your childhood/teenage past that "assisted" you in becoming one of these self-proclaimed bi-curious folk. It could have been a number of things: media, molestation, abuse, a friend of the same gender who helped you to overcome some struggle, whatever.

Saying that you can be born gay but not born a criminal is ridiculous. They are both manifestations of something bigger. Kind of like when a man/woman cheats on their spouse. It`s all because of a bigger problem.

0
Reply
Male 281
Why is it that all the arguments for gay marriage are presented in a seemingly logical way while all the arguments against it are illogical to the point of lunacy? Methinks the one behind this chart has an agenda.
0
Reply
Male 48
...and God said, DOH!
0
Reply
Male 771
Well some studies show

So like I said being born gay is crap and if you wanna say its possible to be born a certain way, be prepared to be open to all possibilities its like believing in God, but pretending the devil doesn`t exist

0
Reply
Female 267
"1) If your gay be gay and be proud of who you are, that whole born gay thing is BS if that`s the case lets let criminals do what they want they can`t help it they were born that way!

2) Stop comparing Gay Civil rights to racism its not the same and technically your rights aren`t violated I can`t have gay marriage either so its not discriminatory. Women and minorites were discriminated against. Gay bashing and it`s allowance was very bad, ill give you that.

Now all that aside let them marry whoever they want as long its not me and let them adopt the kids that are being neglected."

Uh, except criminals aren`t born that way. Sure, you can be born a psychopath or sociopath, but usually criminals BECOME criminals because of abuse or neglect during their childhood. Gay people ARE born that way. I`m bisexual and I`ll never be able to change that. Even if I always have relationships with guys I`ll still be attracted to girls.

0
Reply
Male 771
I think this whole gay thing is crap.

1) If your gay be gay and be proud of who you are, that whole born gay thing is BS if thats the case lets let criminals do what they want they can`t help it they were born that way!

2) Stop comparing Gay Civil rights to racism its not the same and technically your rights aren`t violated I can`t have gay marriage either so its not discriminatory. Women and minorites were discriminated against. Gay bashing and it`s allowance was very bad, ill give you that.

Now all that aside let them marry whoever they want as long its not me and let them adopt the kids that are being neglected.

0
Reply
Male 182
& FYI: start at "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve."
0
Reply
Male 182
This is my absolute favorite flow chart of all time.
0
Reply
Female 914
confrused
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]well. thank you chart, for putting that all into perspective! ...still against it.[/quote]

Why?

0
Reply
Male 90
what this chart fails to list is the fact that "Legal" marriages have nothing to do with religious marriages. In the eyes of a christian church, a Muslim Heterosexuaual marriage is just as forbidden as any Gay marriage, as no Christiam misiter would ever accept marrying a muslim couple. But they could marry in a muslim church just fine. This issue is laced with homophobia. To a christian, gays getting married may not be sacred in their eyes, but neither is the muslim couple!
0
Reply
Male 617
well. thank you chart, for putting that all into perspective! ...still against it.
0
Reply
Male 987
I absolutely hate how oriented this is around christianity.
"America is a CHRISTIAN nation and other faiths are here on sufferance"
Just blatantly offensive.
0
Reply
Female 5,222
0
Reply
Male 289
Huge flowchart is hard to read. And the special Olympics in the comments aren`t even entertaining.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion - Uhm. Here`s my answer to everything you`ve said so far:

Piss off.[/quote]

That`s as pointless as the rest of your posts, but at least you`re making sense now. Well done!

0
Reply
Female 3,574
yeah I`m with Swaywithme. This flowchart gives me a headache x_x
0
Reply
Female 3,696
There is nothing easy about reading this flow chart! Where do you start? Ugh! my head hurts.
0
Reply
Male 102
Don`t confuse civil union with common-law marriage.
0
Reply
Female 876
Angilion - Uhm. Here`s my answer to everything you`ve said so far:

Piss off.

Liquidglass -

To the best of my knowledge, heterosexual couples can`t get civil unions. It`s exclusive to same sex couples. Are you thinking of civil marriage, perhaps?

0
Reply
Male 901
I thought it was funny, mostly because the debate is so stupid and one-sided.
0
Reply
Female 895
If hells` where the party is, then damn right I`m invited!
0
Reply
Male 2,576
V
V
V Best answer so far. Going into Facebook quotes.
0
Reply
Female 3,828
o god im sick of this debate. dont like gay marriage? then shut the fuuck up and dont get one.

0
Reply
Male 1,111
Well a few things about it all, not that it matters thrown into the mix.

* Overall like many have said, the chart is obviously biased and uses extreme examples for those against and mostly reasonable examples for those for*

Example: So Pork and Homosexuals are parallel according to the pro side of the argument but a quote taken out of context by the con side is a strawman argument. Dumb asses.


- The person has no clue what they`re talking about with civil unions. Obviously they haven`t done their research about how many heterosexual couples engage in such a thing.

- Either way you lean, people are people. You can disagree with them all you like, but hatred for someones point of view will only push them toward the extreme end of their argument.

0
Reply
Female 744
I just don`t think gender should be that big of a deal. If you love someone, then you love them, and that`s all there is to it. And it doesn`t matter if they`re male, female, both, or neither.
0
Reply
Male 29
christian fundamentalists are typically stupid, arrogant, hateful bigots. Obviously.
Marriage is a idiotic thing as well, started by similar religious folk, though almost certainly not christian. We should probably just find another means of figuring up rights to children and property. That would most definitely make this much easier. Then you could skip race and gender and sexual orientation and such and just factor in whatever is deemed necessary to be a legal guardian or partial owner of something.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Marriage, specifically the word `marriage`, has had religious connotations for a very long time. Certainly long before the USA existed. You can`t simply take the religion out of marriage by saying it isn`t religious, or even by having secular marriages. It would take decades at least to get religion out of marriage, if it`s possible at all.

Why is the word `marriage` a basic right?

Not state recognition of a private relationship, not legal benefits, just the word itself.

0
Reply
Male 42
Upon reading through a few of the comments, I feel there is one more thing that I need to say. I`m an atheist, and I see several comments implying that marriage is strictly religious. I plan on being married one day, so why should religion have anything to do with it? How does which imaginary friend I have effect my basic rights?
0
Reply
Male 42
Hate is such an interesting concept. Look at how their are people who hold so much hate on both sides of this argument (although the majority are in the anti-gay spectrum) and simply cannot comprehend how love and marriage are just words. I can see clearly both sides of this dispute, on the one hand the belief that equality is a basic freedom no matter who you love, and on the other... actually I honestly can`t think of a decent argument against gay marriage, I really tried. My point is that people get so wrapped up in their faith and beliefs that all they can do is hate. Which is ironic when you realize that Jesus supposedly only preached love. I changed my mind about what I was going to say nearly six times in the course of that message.
0
Reply
Male 31
I like how the chart has preset insults for opponents of gay marriage. The assumption that people who are opposed to it couldn`t possibly understand exotic terms like "non sequitur" is my personal favorite.

Gay marriage has been on the ballot in 31 states now and has lost every single time. From a public policy standpoint, I think the vast majority of Americans really don`t care about same sex partner benefits or for that matter what consenting adults do behind closed doors, but they really and truly oppose the concept of gay marriage.

I personally support the concept of civil unions, but apparently this opinion is very 2007. The one thing I`ll point out that this chart accurately depicts is that the concept of "marriage" is rather murky cultural and religious territory.

0
Reply
Male 672
This makes me sad, mostly cuz we lost the battle in Maine. Damn straight people, stop ruining things forever :(
0
Reply
Male 503
as a militant Homosexual who is also heterophobic, I can safely say F#$% you hateful bible thumping breeder lowlifes... everybody else may live.
0
Reply
Male 3,296
"this is way too complicated to actually read."

yeah this is exactly what i was thinking too, i doubt anyone including me, actually made sense of this black hole of a chart, and angilion i think you understood my main idea, times change, the morals we have now, as liberal as they are, will be viewed with as conservative, women couldnt vote 78 years ago


0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Religious people need to get off their Jesus-galloping horse, and realize that we dont live in the new testament times, they would have probably written the bible differently if it was written today, after all it was humans that wrote the bible[/quote]

There`s little or nothing about homosexuality in the new testament. Most of what little there is in the bible about homosexuality is in the old testament.

All of the alleged references to homosexuality are open to dispute, based on literal meaning and context. It might be that the bible as originally written doesn`t condemn homosexuality at all.

What almost everyone means when they talk about the bible is English versions *deliberately modified by the church* and dating back no further than 1611 (the King James Version).

People were executed as heretics for creating accurate translations of the bible into English.

0
Reply
Male 1,381
this is way too complicated to actually read.
0
Reply
Male 3,296
Religious people need to get off their Jesus-galloping horse, and realize that we dont live in the new testament times, they would have probably written the bible differently if it was written today, after all it was humans that wrote the bible
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]My own opinion is that two consenting adults should be be allowed to be -- let`s called it `paired`. In this day and age, I can`t believe we`re still arguing about it.[/quote]

I wouldn`t limit it to two, but apart from that I agree.

[quote]Also, could anyone list some countries that have legalized gay marriage or who have fully functional equivalents?[/quote]

UK has civil partnerships, which are identical to civil marriages. The custom is for marriages to be created by spoken vows and partnerships by signed vows, but that`s just a reflection of changes in literacy levels over the last few thousand years and has no legal status (either spoken or written vows are binding in both).

"home of the free" is just national propaganda, like referring to England as the mother of democracy (which used to happen often). There`s some truth in both, but not much.

0
Reply
Male 1,164
Best "red" argument I`ve heard...

"I do not want gay marraige because I do not like gay people. They disturb me on an inexplicable level, and therefore I want to make my environment unpleasant to them so they will exist elsewhere."

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion, to be honest, your argument is pretty ambiguous.[/quote]

Really? How? Where is the ambiguity?

I`ll restate it again.

The word `marriage` has religious connotations. That can`t be changed quickly, if at all. This makes changing marriage a religious issue, which creates much more widespread and much more determined opposition.

It isn`t necessary to do so if your objective is state recognition of a civil partnership and the resulting legal rights, as opposed to forcing fundamental changes to religion.

People who won`t accept it won`t accept it regardless of what you call it, so even if you manage to eventually win the pointless fight over religion, it won`t make any difference. Except to all the people who had to suffer in the meantime because you advocated a fight instead of rights.

People will tend to call civil partnerships marriages anyway, so even if you only care about the word, this is still the better way.

0
Reply
Female 4,028
I still think it`s incredibly sorry that we`re still needing to debate this issue.
0
Reply
Male 2,690
Bottom left blue one is my favorite
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`ve decided that I really dislike you. Mostly because we seem to speak two different languages. I don`t understand you. You don`t understand me. But you`re old, so that`s probably why.[/quote]

That`s fine, because I dislike you too. My reason is quite simple - you make crap up and claim I said it. I really don`t like that.

[quote]Giving same-sex couples the 1138 rights right now today isn`t going to happen. Why? Because evidently people don`t like that and vote against it.[/quote]

Wrong - most of them are voting against a word - marriage. Just the word. They`re opposing just the word, in the same way that you are supporting just the word.

Gay marriage wasn`t happening in the UK either. So they changed the name, just the name, and it went through immediately, no problems. Most people refer to it as marriage anyway.

But I was talking about what I advocate, not what I think could be done. It would take some months in reality.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Furthermore, I don`t "enjoy fighting for nothing". I don`t fight at all.[/quote]

Then why were you advocating a continuous fight? Note that you weren`t advocating the rights, the legal status or any of that - just a continuous fight about a word specifically chosen to provoke entrenched opposition.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Actually, this site has a biassed towards reason and rationallity.[/quote]

Why, thank you. We try, yo!

0
Reply
Male 2,576
gatorade777 -
1- Actually, this site has a biassed towards reason and rationallity.

2- However, they will say otherwise.

3- This site is intended to entertain, and there is nothing more entertainning than stupidity. See "1"

0
Reply
Male 492
"Let gay couples be as miserable as straight couples"

There, that sums up my feelings on this topic!

0
Reply
Male 528
jesus, if you read that all you MUST be gay.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Angilion, I`ve decided that I really dislike you. Mostly because we seem to speak two different languages. I don`t understand you. You don`t understand me. But you`re old, so that`s probably why.[/quote]

Again, with due respect, I suspect it`s more of the former than the latter.

0
Reply
Male 1,193
i see it now and lol to: "non sequitar in a fag to english dic, not adam and steve, those studies were conducted by fags" btw this chat looks like it definitely has a bias from gay standpoint not that i care at all.
0
Reply
Male 1,193
Not working for me atm and stuff always works for me. anyone else?
0
Reply
Male 999
harly.
0
Reply
Male 2,238
[quote]Why can`t we be friends, why can`t we be friends...
[/quote]

We`re a happy family. We`re a happy family. We`re a happy family.

0
Reply
Female 876
theracaffe,

Language barriers can be frustrating. Maybe it is immaturity, but I can live with that.

0
Reply
Female 15,763
"Angilion, I`ve decided that I really dislike you."

Why can`t we be friends, why can`t we be friends...

0
Reply
Male 49
Blakcat you`re being immature. How can you dislike him just because you disagree with him?

Angilion, to be honest, your argument is pretty ambiguous. I`ve only recently understood it after reading several comments. After all that, though, I`d like to say I agree. Making the fight against religion only makes it much more difficult than it needs to be.

My own opinion is that two consenting adults should be be allowed to be -- let`s called it `paired`. In this day and age, I can`t believe we`re still arguing about it.

Also, could anyone list some countries that have legalized gay marriage or who have fully functional equivalents? I`d like to know where the U.S. stands in all of this. You know, being the home of the free and all, as long as you reach certain arbitrary requirements of being a decent human being in the eyes of the majority.

0
Reply
Female 876
Furthermore, I don`t "enjoy fighting for nothing". I don`t fight at all. The whole thing doesn`t concern me personally, anyway, because frankly - I don`t want to get married. Not now, anyway. I`m 21, it`s my nature to fear commitment and simply enjoy what`s left of my young-adulthood. I simply enjoy debating online because it helps keep my rhetoric skills sharp between term papers.
0
Reply
Female 876
Angilion,
I`ve decided that I really dislike you. Mostly because we seem to speak two different languages. I don`t understand you. You don`t understand me. But you`re old, so that`s probably why.

Regardless of that fact, I want to clear up a few things.

Giving same-sex couples the 1138 rights right now today isn`t going to happen. Why? Because evidently people don`t like that and vote against it. There are some states with unequal civil unions; however, there are some others with completely equal (ish?) civil unions. And still, there are other states that will recognize an out-of-state marriage, but not grant any in state. Other states that will not recognize marriage or unions at all (what the hell is with that?). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with "the system", but these things take time. A lot of time. Getting all of those rights will not happen instantly, and the fact that you think otherwise is amazing.

0
Reply
Male 74
I lol`d
0
Reply
Male 49
I`m appalled as a country that we are still debating this subject.

There is no logical reason why two people of consenting age shouldn`t be allowed to get married.

None. Whatsoever.

I am truly scared at the condition of our political system/leaders that this is still a controversial subject.

0
Reply
Female 15,763
"its unethical."

Excuse me, what?

0
Reply
Male 132
lilhawk, that might deter gay marriage, but think of all the possibly miserable and possibly turned-gay children there would be (emphasis on possibly).

Btw, I personally don`t believe in gay-marriage, but legally I think they should be allowed to marry.
If the church doesn`t allow gay people to get married in a church, or won`t recognize according to the law of God, then so be it. But the United States can recognize it as a legal bond between two people.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And I have NO idea what you`re talking about with thousands of years being equal to a day. So... Yeah.[/quote]

Well, it`s my day off work so I can waste some more time explaining things for you to ignore.

I argued in favour of giving formal homosexual relationships all of the 1138 (or however many there are in the USA) rights that marriage has, right now. All of them, today.

You claimed I said that those rights should be worked in one per year over the next 1138 years.

So you`re arguing that 1138 years is one day.

[quote]But regardless, the fight will go on.[/quote]

That`s what you hope.

I`d rather the unfairness was stopped.

That might be the main difference between our views.

[quote]You`ll get over it. Or die. Whatever. It`s going to happen. Cry about it.[/quote]

You really have utterly failed to understand anything.

The people crying about it are those who continue to suffer while people like you enjoy fighting for nothing.

0
Reply
Female 876
lilhawk2892,

Why not just require every couple, regardless of sexuality, to adopt one child? Or make the adoption process easier for people who actually have a desire to adopt?

I would NEVER force a child, let alone 3, on a person who didn`t want them or couldn`t handle having them. That`s cruel to the children.

-1

0
Reply
Female 876
Angilion,

Now I`m even more confused. And once again you just restated what you said in your last post. Le sigh. Sorry, but I`m not sifting through your conversations with other people to figure out what you`re trying to say to me. It`s a waste of my time.

And I have NO idea what you`re talking about with thousands of years being equal to a day. So... Yeah.

But regardless, the fight will go on. You`ll get over it. Or die. Whatever. It`s going to happen. Cry about it.

0
Reply
Male 610
i detest flow charts that don`t have a logical starting point
0
Reply
Male 221
Anybody who agrees should just write a little +1 at the bottom of theyre actual post. Maybe itll catch on.
0
Reply
Male 221
Yknow. For a long time. I was really REALLY against homosexuals. I still am, its unethical. But ive decided that gay couples should be forced to follow a certain rule. You MUST have 3 children. And they MUST be from an adoption agency. This means no semen injections for the woman. That way atleast were solving the problem of the over crowded adoption agencies.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I`ll quote you, npdarren:

[quote]Just as you and I see marriage as something totally separate from religion, many other people, because of the Bible, see it as something holy.[/quote]

So why do you want to fight against religion when you don`t have to? It just makes the fight far, far harder.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Or...we can just let gays be legally married; that would solve the problem too, along with a few other problems.[/quote]

It isn`t working.

It is creating more opposition.

So it`s creating more problems, rather than solving them.

All over a word, just a word. In the meantime, people are suffering because of this futile obsession with a word.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I have said what you said. You said to fight for the rights that come with marriage, instead of fighting for marriage itself. I fail to see why you think you`re saying something different than I did.[/quote]

I`ve explained it in simple terms several times. You`re saying something completely different to what I said, claiming it`s what I`ve said and now you say that you fail to see the difference.

You are arguing that 1138 years is the same as one day and you don`t even realise what you`re doing.

I can`t think of a simpler way to explain it to you. I`ve tried multiple 1000-character posts, I`ve tried single sentences, I`ve tried analogy.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`m not saying a civil union is inferior to a marriage in any way, but the effects of withholding the right to an actual "marriage" from gays is detrimental to society because it breeds the narrow-minded patterns of discrimination. [/quote]

But I`m not suggesting witholding any rights, so you`re countering an argument I`m not making.

I think it`s impossible to completely remove all religious connotations from the word `marriage` just by passing a law and that all you gain by trying to do so is enemies. Even if you ram the law through, it won`t actually work for that purpose.

I argue that getting the legal recognition without the word `marriage` (a) is more important (b) is more attainable and (c) will get the word `marriage` more widely used for homosexual partnerships sooner. In other words, that it`s a better approach in every respect.

Or drop the word `marriage` from all state-recognised relationships. Getting tied up in a word just stops the problem bein

0
Reply
Female 876
Angilion,

[See what I mean? You`ve written something utterly different in every respect to the argument I`ve made in simple terms more than once and you`ve said that`s my argument.]

I have said what you said. You said to fight for the rights that come with marriage, instead of fighting for marriage itself. I fail to see why you think you`re saying something different than I did.

0
Reply
Male 601
>Angilion

Or...we can just let gays be legally married; that would solve the problem too, along with a few other problems.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
There`s another plausible solution - cede the word `marriage` to religion completely. It`s only a word. It isn`t even a concept.

So you`d then have;

Civil partnerships - state recognition of a relationship, with all the accompanying legal rights. Hetero or homo, doesn`t matter. Or re-introduce an old word for this sort of thing - wedding, from the O.E. [i]weddian[/i] - to vow, to pledge. So these people are wedded.

Marriage - religious blessing of a relationship. Up to any given religion which relationships they will bless.

The word is not the real point. You could call it wibblebibbleflobble if you like.

0
Reply
Male 601
"It comes down to whether the point is rights and status or a word"

I`d argue it`s a little of both. The principle of the matter is inequality and discrimination, both of which surface when one group of people cannot have what another has (like having the title of being married) for various reasons including but not limited to being gay. I`m not saying a civil union is inferior to a marriage in any way, but the effects of withholding the right to an actual "marriage" from gays is detrimental to society because it breeds the narrow-minded patterns of discrimination.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Also, those people who "won`t use the word" will die one day. If that sounds morbid, sorry. But there were people who wouldn`t use the word marriage to describe interracial marriages. Most of them are dead now, and the rest of the country (mostly) has moved on intellectually and morally.[/quote]

So why do you care so much about trying to ram the word (just the word, remember, not the rights) through now? It won`t make any difference to who uses the word. If instead you deal with the rights and formal legal recognition, the word follows anyway as people change their minds or die.

Just make the formal phrase for it longer than `marriage` and people will tend to use `marriage` instead anyway.

Those who won`t do so wouldn`t do so regardless of the formal name - these are the parallel to those who wouldn`t recognise "inter-racial" marriages and you can`t change their minds that easily.

0
Reply
Female 18
i don`t even know where to start on this thing!!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
For a bit of light-hearted relief...does anyone else think "THX-1138" when they see `1138` in posts in this thread?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]To make this "flow chart" easier to read, cover up everything that doesn`t say "Separation of Church and State" and "Discrimination is Illegal". Problem solved.[/quote]

But that would be a lie, because some discrimination is legal and some is illegal.

The distinction between the two is political, which basically comes down to politicians judging how many votes each side has.

So, for example, polyamorous marriages aren`t allowed. Just because at the current time politicians think (correctly, IMO) that the number of votes they`d gain by supporting the legalisation of polyamorous marriages is less than the number of votes they`d lose for it.

Ditto for homosexual incestuous marriages - there`s no practical reason why, for example, two adult brothers shouldn`t marry. It`s just a matter of votes.

Off the marriage topic - affirmative action. There`s an example of discrimination which is legally required, exactly the opposite of being illegal

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You mostly just re-stated everything you previously said.[/quote]

I was hoping that restating it in a different way would help people understand it. But obviously not, as you`re talking about something completely different and labelling it my argument:

[quote]Do you propose that fighting for individual rights (1138ish) is a better idea? This year, we`ll fight for combined tax returns. Next year, we`ll fight to see our partner in the hospital. The year after that, we`ll conquer custody. The year after that... [/quote]

See what I mean? You`ve written something utterly different in every respect to the argument I`ve made in simple terms more than once and you`ve said that`s my argument. That`s really irritating. You`re a parallel to the people who say that those in favour of gay marriage are in favour of trying to make everyone gay, especially children.

How bloody simple do I have to make it? It`s not even a complicated argument.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
Nice argument, npdarren, but it fails to address some key points:

Legally, the two are the same.

Officially (i.e. government forms, etc), the two are the same.

Socially, the two are not going to be the same to everyone regardless of what name you attach to them.

Practically, one method works and the other doesn`t.

It comes down to whether the point is rights and status or a word. I say it`s rights and status, you say it`s a word.

A word that people tend to use anyway - you`ll find people over here referring to civil partnerships as marriages. So this method brings the word you`re arguing for before your method does, too. All you gain with your route is enemies and a lack of rights.

0
Reply
Male 144
*boom*
0
Reply
Female 362
"What`s `Non Sequitur mean? Do I look it up in a Fag-To-English Dictionary?"

Are you kidding me? I can`t think of what to say about how stupid that person must be,

0
Reply
Male 601
>Angilion

Are you saying that because a civil union (or civil partnership as you put it) gives the same benefits as a marriage, gays have no reason to complain? That it`s okay to separate two peoples legally as long as it is equal? Try saying that to civil rights leaders during the 50s and 60s when they fought that same "separate but equal" view of society. The fact that heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions are separated legally makes them inherently unequal.


0
Reply
Female 471
This made my head hurt. D:
0
Reply
Female 876
Angilion -

You mostly just re-stated everything you previously said. Do you propose that fighting for individual rights (1138ish) is a better idea? This year, we`ll fight for combined tax returns. Next year, we`ll fight to see our partner in the hospital. The year after that, we`ll conquer custody. The year after that... The year after that... This is assuming that we tackle one a year, and it takes only a year - then maybe we`ll be equal some one-thousand years from now.

Damn.

Also, those people who "won`t use the word" will die one day. If that sounds morbid, sorry. But there were people who wouldn`t use the word marriage to describe interracial marriages. Most of them are dead now, and the rest of the country (mostly) has moved on intellectually and morally.

0
Reply
Female 4,447
To make this "flow chart" easier to read, cover up everything that doesn`t say "Separation of Church and State" and "Discrimination is Illegal". Problem solved.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Civil marriage guarantees both partners 1138 rights by means of a contractual agreement. So yes, fighting for marriage is fighting for rights. I`m not sure why you think otherwise.[/quote]

Because people are NOT fighting for rights. They are fighting for a word. Only the word. The rights are just an add-on that comes free with the word, not the thing they`re fighting for.

It`s utterly futile even if they win, because people who won`t use the word `marriage` to refer to homosexual couples still won`t. All they gain by fighting for the word instead of the rights is more enemies and less chance of success.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I guess I`m not a real Christan than, I`m okay with gays.[/quote]

No, you`re fine. You`ve got three decent arguments you can make:

i) The essence of Christianity is the teaching of Jesus the Christ, so the important thing is what he said about homosexuality. Which is nothing, according to the Christian bible. If it was of no importance to Jesus, the essence of Christianity should be that it doesn`t matter.

ii) You disagree with the usual inaccurate translations of the biblical passages allegedly referring to homosexuality. This is a valid position - every one of them is very dubious.

iii) You do not regard the bible as inerrant or church tradition as inerrant - both tenable Christian positions. As long as you believe in the Abrahamic god and believe that Jesus was the Messiah, you`ve got the fundamentals covered.

0
Reply
Female 876
Angilion-

Civil marriage guarantees both partners 1138 rights by means of a contractual agreement. So yes, fighting for marriage is fighting for rights. I`m not sure why you think otherwise.

That said, I don`t believe in marriage. I don`t want one. I don`t regard married people as special. But because marriage yields so many rights/conveniences, among the annoyances and pain, I imagine it`s in my best interest to get one.

Whatever.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Either my monitor is too small or my glasses are wrong, because I couldn`t read some of that.[/quote]

Same here. Some of the writing is tiny.
Anyone else with the same problem:
1) Right-click the flow chart that isn`t a flow chart.
2) Click "View Image".
3) Click on the bits you can`t read to zoom in.

0
Reply
Female 355
I notice how all the arguements against gay people all sound ridiculous and without good proof behind it. The gay side seems more reasonable, and I agree with them. <3 I am /for/ gay marriage.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So what do you gain by ignoring legal rights and fighting only about the single word `marriage`?

You don`t gain legal rights, which isn`t surprising as you`re not fighting for them.

Oh, I know what you gain. You gain more enemies - all the people who wouldn`t object to pair-bonded homosexual couples having the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but who object to the word `marriage`.

I know what you gain, but I don`t see why you want to gain it.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
Either my monitor is too small or my glasses are wrong, because I couldn`t read some of that. Not that I need to - I`ve seen all the arguments repeatedly.

Things would be much easier if you just ignored the contentious word `marriage`. Christians have stolen it and rebranded it - that`s a done deal. You can fight them for it or you can just ignore it.

Even if you fight them and win (unlikely), it will make no difference. People who don`t regard formally recognised homosexual relationships as valid still won`t - they won`t call you married, ever. People who regard it as valid will do so regardless of what it`s called. So why argue over a completely pointless word and only that word?

The whole issue just disappeared in the UK by having exactly the same thing with a different name. Civil partnerships are exactly the same as civil marriages, as is dissolution (divorce)...and many people refer to them as marriages anyway.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]gay marriage - i dont have a problem with it as long as i dont have a dude proposing to me :D[/quote]

You are allowed to turn down marriage proposals.

0
Reply
Male 3,425
That wasn`t a flowchart. A flowchart needs a start and a clear direction. That was just a bunch of statements about gay marriage with arrows stuck between them.
0
Reply
Female 9,572
I guess I`m not a real Christan than, I`m okay with gays.
0
Reply
Male 45
"...i would punch them with a stupid hammer for being so stupid..."
u mind if i use that quote? its hilarious
0
Reply
Male 45
marriage used to be 1 man and many women, the 1 man and 1 women, why is there the argument that same sex marriage will change the definition of marriage?
0
Reply
Male 291
I can`t read some of these, too small
0
Reply
Male 4,745
You and I are on the same page npdarren.

I totally get why they think it needs to be included. I`m just saying that, currently, our society marries people, without religion being involved. So, it`s already being done. Why can`t the religious folks just let the gays get married at city hall. Then it`s not a religious marriage, but a legal one. Really, there shouldn`t be any broken eggs in that situation...

0
Reply
Male 601
>patchouly

I agree with you, but the reason religion needs to be considered in an argument about marriage is because the Bible, as you put it, hijacked the institution for its own. Just as you and I see marriage as something totally separate from religion, many other people, because of the Bible, see it as something holy.

0
Reply
Male 1,523
Um... Where do I start? I feel so dumb... -.-
0
Reply
Male 4,745
We don`t really need to look at the origins of Marriage. Currently, you can be married without any intervention of the church what so ever. You can say your vows in front of a judge. You can sign the legal papers and you are married. No church involvement what at all.

If I can be married, without "God", why can`t a gay couple? (Although I think they should have the right to declare their love in a church if they wanted too, but just for sake of argument, why does the church have anything to do with this?)

0
Reply
Male 601
>SeamonkeyX

Well, I can`t really argue on the basis of the Bible`s indoctrination of marriage, but I do know that marriage can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia, which means marriage surfaced before any of the monotheistic religions. Of course we don`t view marriage in the same light as the ancients because of how religion has changed its purpose and meaning, however, I still see that as evidence that marriage is not something exclusive to religion, nor should it be bound by religious doctrine.

0
Reply
Male 68
@npdarren:

No no, i know that the actual organised religion of Christianity wasn`t formed until after Jesus` death, but i was saying that Christians believe marriage to be a religious ceremony because of the Bible. It says that God made marriage a holy Union, so, it may not have started as a "Christian" ceremony, but a "Godly" ceremony.

0
Reply
Male 1,219
"I hope everyone here knows that there`s no such thing as separation of church and state and that saying that in the way they`re saying it is taking it way out of context."

Tis true. "seperation of church and state" is extremely condensed.

0
Reply
Male 1,182
this is chart is gay
0
Reply
Male 601
>SeamonkeyX

So you`re saying it`s not a generally accepted fact that before Jesus there were no Christians? I don`t know how anyone, even the most devout Christians, can come to the conclusion that Christianity existed before Christ. It seems obvious to me (His name is even in the title), and I`m pretty sure most people would agree. With that said, it just goes back to my initial argument that marriage as an institution was not created by Christians and therefore should not be labeled as a Christian right or ceremony.

0
Reply
Male 1,837
if i knew the people who have been quoted (on both sides) i would punch them with a stupid hammer for being so stupid.

(yes i can.)

0
Reply
Female 172
"Heterosexual marriage is sacred" --> "Britney Spears" lol
0
Reply
Male 334
not joining in the religious argument

but that chart was NOT easy to read as the caption said.
my eye hurts now.

0
Reply
Male 68
@npdarren

It`s hard to tell a Christian that and say you have any evidence. Someone who does not beleive in religion can say Christians adopted ceremonies such as marriage, but a Christian would look to the Bible, which is taken as fact, and say that marriage is based on religion.

I`m not arguing just to argue. Just making a point that no matter what anyone says, it`s almost impossible to prove a point between someone who does beleive in God and someone who doesn`t.

0
Reply
Male 268
Actually seamonkey the great sky wizard was not even spoke of until the Cristian religion was formed from a bunch of crack pots who mis-translated a bunch of documents
0
Reply
Male 601
>seamonkeyX

I see your point, but I meant there was no such thing as Christians when marriage first came about, and like patchouly said, now they`ve kind of adopted it as a religious thing like most ceremonies we have today.

0
Reply
Female 15,763
"I hope everyone here knows that there`s no such thing as separation of church and state and that saying that in the way they`re saying it is taking it way out of context."

I completely disagree with the first part of your statement and do not understand at all the second part.

Care to elaborate?

0
Reply
Male 68
@npdarren:

"Marriage existed before Christianity or Catholicism, so objecting to gay marriage on religious grounds makes no sense"

From a Christian`s point of view, Christianity (though not "real" Christianity, because technically that started after Jesus died.) started when God created everything, so a Christian`s view would be that Christianity has been around just as long as anything else has.

0
Reply
Male 4,867
..the fcuk?
gay marriage - i dont have a problem with it as long as i dont have a dude proposing to me :D
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Effort was made, humour was lost!
0
Reply
Male 85
:-)
0
Reply
Male 14
I hope everyone here knows that there`s no such thing as separation of church and state and that saying that in the way they`re saying it is taking it way out of context.
0
Reply
Female 17
broken....
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Marriage is NOT a religious thing. My wife and I were married by a judge at city hall. No church involved at all.

It is about two people who love each other, making a commitment. Also, it covers the legal right of the married couple. Rights that are being denied.

The religious folks (not all of them of course) seem to have hijacked "marriage" and won`t let anyone else use the term. Ok...We`ll call it a "love pairing"...Who cares what it`s called. As long as EVERONE is given the same rights.

0
Reply
Male 4,680
"Telling gays that they can`t marry is telling them that they are not allowed to participate in something everyone else is participating in, simply because they were born different. It`s no different than discrimination against Blacks. It`s a disgusting position to uphold and I have no respect at all for a person who would deny another person their basic human rights."
You deserve a nobel prize.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Just based on the math with that chart, There are 43 arguments against and 37 for.

Christians FTW!

0
Reply
Male 716
This flow chart proves one thing... and one thing only!

This argument is annoying!

Just let anyone marry and shut the hell up! If you want to go after them later, fine. You two can duke it out in quiet until one of you successfully kills the other... or you just both pass out from exhaustion, either way.

0
Reply
Male 601
Marriage existed before Christianity or Catholicism, so objecting to gay marriage on religious grounds makes no sense. You can object to gay activity on religious grounds, but not gay marriage, especially because it`s a legal contract and therefore discriminatory to exclude anyone from that right.
0
Reply
Female 120
i lol`d
0
Reply
Male 5,314
i get it. gays aren`t people so you dont put up a picture, only a little red x.


just kidding people

0
Reply
Male 236
tl;dr probly just idiotic gay opinions vs idiotic straight opinions.. i dont think there should be such a big deal about all this. just let them get married and have them find a pastor or w/e to do it. if the church has a problem with that then don`t allow clurgy to marry gays. simple as that. then it wont be a religious ceremony.
0
Reply
Male 1,219
Homophobia: Fear of things being the same.
0
Reply
Male 1,406
I agree hobo, that right now a civil union certainly doesn`t solve the issues; I`m just saying that in order to gain those rights we shouldn`t have to go through marriage (e.g. marriage is just a means, not an end).
0
Reply
Male 515
@ chesseman
I agree with you on that, but certain parts of marriage bind the two people legally, there was an article a while back, where on of the two lesbian couples was in the hospital, they had been together for a long time and had to adopted children. They could see her because by law, they were not immediate family. they were only able to see her after she passed on.
Civil Unions try and remedy that, but is has not caught on, there is just to much religious opposition.
0
Reply
Male 403
Gay!
0
Reply
Male 171
I am gay, Marriage is a religious rite, it is up to the religion to follow their own teachings and change them if they wish. If a religion wants to allow gay marriage then good for them but here in the UK civil ceremonies represent as much importance as marriage.

People should not try and force their own beliefs upon religions just because it suits them and religions should not try and force their beliefs on people.

0
Reply
Male 1,406
What really upsets me is that homosexuals are fighting the wrong fight. Instead of trying to correct the fundamental problem, they just want a certain right that hardly changes anything. The very concept of marriage is outdated as the concept of only heterosexual marriages, or only same race marriages.

In order to fight for change, they shouldn`t fight for such an artificial one; gaining entrance into something useless isn`t going to make a difference. Fight the idea of marriage, which is bounded by tradition, and embrace a new, more liberal idea. I`ve had enough of people seeing marriage as the be-all-end-all of life, when it`s just a religious ritual. If we can get past marriage, we will no longer need to worry about such traditions as opposite sexes and the like. Break from your chains fully people, not just partially!

0
Reply
Male 394
Homophobes are just pissed `cuz they can`t get laid.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]I`m gay and my view on what Legal marriage should be...[/quote]

You`re gay, are7era? With that avatar pic, I never woulda guessed!

0
Reply
Male 1,646
""what does non sequiter mean? do i look it up in the fag to English dictionary?""
and the thing says that is an actual quote... lol ignorance truly is bliss.
0
Reply
Male 1,451
Someone spent all this time making this chart and couldn`t take 2 seconds to check how Britney Spears spells her name?
0
Reply
Male 563
I`m gay and my view on what Legal marriage should be is this:

Two consenting of age adults who are in love.

About the polygamy, I personally think that if the people in the relationship are all of age and rightful consent then they should be allowed to practice their relationship without any question. But I do not think the relationships should have legality, frankly, because that would be a buttload of paperwork.

0
Reply
Male 1,929
Stopped me from being bored for 5 minutes. Win.
0
Reply
Female 213
LOOOL! i love this!
0
Reply
Female 15,763
Lazy, the number everyone says is about 10% but that statistics is sort of made up. There`s no real percentage that has any sort of accuracy. Who knows, maybe it`ll be asked in the next census poll...
0
Reply
Male 10,440
I consider this `debate` to be beneath me. I`m not gay nor am I a christian fundamentalist drone...

Just out of interest though, does anyone know approximately what % of the population is gay?

0
Reply
Female 198
rick s -

im for gay marriage and poligamy. im not gay, nor do i want to marry more than one person.

but if both people (or more than one person) think it`s fine, and they don`t have a problem with it, why not? its not effecting you.

0
Reply
Male 23
I disagree with the description of this chart. at some poarts it was difficult, nay, Impossible to read.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
I think pink should be gay and blue should be straight. I feel like I`m looking at a color blindness chart.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
I don`t agree with you Rick S.

Polygamists are polygamists because they choose to be. It is a "lifestyle choice" and therefor not something you have to support under a "human rights" tent.

Gays are no different than you, with the exception of their sexual preference. They have no choice in who they are attracted to. Therefor it becomes a basic human right for them to be allowed marriage. Telling them that they can`t marry is telling them that they are not allowed to participate in something everyone else is participating in, simply because they were born different. It`s no different than discrimination against Blacks. It`s a disgusting position to uphold and I have no respect at all for a person who would deny another person their basic human rights.

It`s was a very sad day indeed when gay marriages were disallowed in all States. It has set your country back, years.

0
Reply
Female 1,077
"If I were to start a family in 5 years with my girlfriend via invitro-fertilization, to the government even though she will raise our child the exact same amount as me, my girlfriend will have absolutely no legal relationship to our child. I`m sorry, but who the f*ck are you to tell me my family is not a family?"

exactly how i feel. i love my girlfriend with every fiber of my being. it`s pathetic that in the 21st century we`re still talking about this.

0
Reply
Female 15,763
That, and having legal marriage rights apply towards couples of two or more would require the complete overhaul and revision of the taxation system, land ownership, health visitation and decision rights, and all other institutions regarding the rights granted by marriage.

And if one day our country gets to a point when that is necessary, then so be it. Times change.

0
Reply
Female 15,763
"If, however, we allow gay marriage, the next group will be polygamists. When you move the line currently drawn in the sand, you have to be willing to move it for more than just one group. I don`t think I want to move the line that far, so I choose not to move the line at all. Perhaps a bad argument, but that`s mine."

Slippery slope, eh? Exactly the logic they used to vote against interracial marriage, to withhold women from their divorcing rights in marriage, to even allow nothing but white marriage, to do many things we would find despicable today.

If I were to start a family in 5 years with my girlfriend via invitro-fertilization, to the government even though she will raise our child the exact same amount as me, my girlfriend will have absolutely no legal relationship to our child. I`m sorry, but who the f*ck are you to tell me my family is not a family?

0
Reply
Female 1,077
"yea... see what i did there?"

I see what you did tharr.

0
Reply
Male 27
0
Reply
Male 260
people against gay marriage are gay

yea... see what i did there?

0
Reply
Female 1,077
"If, however, we allow gay marriage, the next group will be polygamists."

...who cares? what if it makes them happy? you`d want to take that away from them because maybe you don`t want to see a man sitting with two women when he goes out to dinner? isn`t a man and two women like, 95 percent of porn?

0
Reply
Male 761
wait, how did Britney Spears got into that chart?
0
Reply
Male 3,332
"Any argument against gay marriage tends to infuriate me."

I agree that gays are people who have rights, but I`m not so sure I`m "for" gay marriage. I don`t see anything wrong with two people, regardless of gender, who are in a committed relationship getting married. If, however, we allow gay marriage, the next group will be polygamists. When you move the line currently drawn in the sand, you have to be willing to move it for more than just one group. I don`t think I want to move the line that far, so I choose not to move the line at all. Perhaps a bad argument, but that`s mine.

0
Reply
Female 353
broken pic is broken
0
Reply
Female 1,578
i like this, and i agree with davy.
0
Reply
Male 3,619
this is amuzing xD
0
Reply
Male 949
Just let them marry so I don`t have to hear anymore whining from either side. ¬.¬
0
Reply
Male 276
"I love it. I have a drink or two in me at the time of posting, so I probably shouldn`t comment, but I will anyway.

The most epic flow-chart ever, full of dead ends, with no good answer. Stick a dick up your ass, religious bigots. "
love the comment, love the chart
no on prop 8
(and no i`m not gay)

0
Reply
Female 1,697
Lol, just yestarday I went to the gay pride parade, to support gay marriage. I`m straight, but, like the chart says: it`s none of your business who they marry with.
0
Reply
Male 7,831
i dont know where to begin or where to end, but erm, huh, go blue?
0
Reply
Male 349
Oh, and people don`t turn gay. I`d understand the argument if it was like "A gay guy bit me and now I`m gay. drat." But gay people aren`t like zombies.

Ok, now I`m really done ranting.

0
Reply
Male 964
Wait i just want to break this down kinda...If god did make everything , and being gay isn`t a choice (don`t flame me on that because that is going off topic) then didn`t god make gay people and god loves all of his creations , so god loves gays :P!
0
Reply
Female 961
nice. really does summarize this whole thing. now, i`m going to go ahead and throw my opinion out there. i might regret it, but it`s a valid point.
america`s laws, constitution and bill of rights should not be based of religious beliefs and this whole gay marriage thing is a religious belief. if we were communist and we were forced to all be christians, then yeah, gay marriage should be illegal. but we`re not, so...yeah
0
Reply
Male 349
Amen Davymid.

Any argument against gay marriage tends to infuriate me. I don`t understand how everyone doesn`t just see this as another case of straight up discrimination, just like women not being allowed to vote or blacks being considered less then human. By not allowing these people the same rights as straight people, we`re de humanizing them, and telling them they`re not as good as us just because they`re gay. How does it effect any of us, anyway? It doesn`t. It`s not like gay parent`s will adopt and turn their children gay, or artificially inseminate and raise them gay. It doesn`t work like that.

Ugh. /rant.

0
Reply
Male 95
Lol... so this is what Christians spend they`re time doing when they`re not trying to out-law condoms.
0
Reply
Male 1,406
What argument can you use against "What if everyone turned gay" that you can`t use against "What if everyone didn`t vote"?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I love it. I have a drink or two in me at the time of posting, so I probably shouldn`t comment, but I will anyway.

The most epic flow-chart ever, full of dead ends, with no good answer. Stick a dick up your ass, religious bigots.

0
Reply
Male 674
Link: Gay Marriage [Flow Chart] [Rate Link] - The entire Gay Marriage flame war, in one easy-to-read chart.
0
Reply