Do you support gay marriage?

[Marquis]

I know in America there is a lot of talk about gay marriage.
My question to everyone here especially Bylli Crayone is what do you all think of gay marriage? Do you support it or are you against it? I am a gay fan and I love Bylli Crayone. I really hope he is for it and not against it. I met him last year at his show in London at the club Heaven. It is a gay club and everyone loved him. I hope he comes back soon to the UK. I love Bylli Crayone.

From Marquis

[Bylli Crayone]

Yes. I do support it. of course

[Paddy]

Yes I do support gay marriage. always.

[Leon]

Yes. Love is beautiful, why do some people want to stop it from happening?

[TRISHA]

I absolutely support gay marriage. A person's sexuality should not determine whether or not they can marry. Marriage is sign of committment to the person you love and have chosen to spend rest of you're life with.

Civil Partnerships that we have here in UK,is good,its step in right direction and provides security for loved one's in case of death etc. But I personally believe it should be pushed further and recognised as marriage itself.

I think it was disgrace that Prop8 in America overturned the gay marriage vote, I support all of American gays and their rights to get it overturned,and have/continue to do so sign petitions,online to get gay marriage vote through.

I am huge supporter of gay community,and here in London have attended Gay Pride,and subscribed to various newletters,StoneWall,etc for support.

I believe in: EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE!!

[Brian Mora]

I am afraid that I am going to draw some brickbat here for disagreeing with the concept of gay marriage. That said, it is important that we have a rational discussion about it.
But if such a concept is going to become law, it should be done the right way - by a majority vote of the people in an election, not by judicial activism (as has been the case for California, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Canada) or even by legislative action (as has been the case in Vermont and Maine).
The people of California voted to approve Proposition 8 not because they hate anyone, but because they saw a problem with judicial activists in the State Supreme Court ruling against a voter-approved law that established the definition of marriage as the exclusive dominion of one man and one woman. In 2000 the people of California approved a law defining marriage as the exclusive dominion of one man and one woman, with 61,4pct of the vote. Prop 8 passed with 54pct of the vote.
When the courts abuse their powers to force their will upon the masses they infringe upon the freedoms of the individual - thus such aggressive government policies threaten the basic definition of freedom itself. Unfortunately, a few of the opponents of Prop 8 here and there exercised vandalism and even violent physical attacks against those who supported Prop 8, even to the point of violating state laws regarding yard signs for political candidates as well as assault and battery. You saw NONE of that from the Prop 8 supporters - but PLENTY of that from the opponents.
Now it would be foolhardy to compare this issue to the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, because there is less control over racial composition than there is over sexuality and especially the behaviours and activities that come with it. Occasionally someone CAN and DOES change his or her sexuality, but it is neither a choice nor something you are born with. You are born with innate desires for one sex or the other but you also make decisions in life that are based upon those desires, and those equal components comprise your sexuality, one of the few grey areas in life.
But the big issue with the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s was genuine discrimination. Whereas non-Whites were discriminated against in a few elements that have since been removed from the Constitution, homosexuals have not specifically been listed anywhere in the Constitution. This does not mean that they are not entitled to Constitutional freedoms, to the contrary they too have been protected.
But this issue focuses round something that would benefit only a small amount of the population, maybe only 4 percent or so, or maybe even as many as the 10 percent cited by the old Masters and Johnson research reports of the 1940s and 1950s. It is such that many if not most folks, at least in America, and this too is a sentiment felt to some extent in Canada, as well as other countries that have legalised gay marriage (Spain, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium), think that there is undue special recognition of a specific sexuality.
Could it be that the government sanctioning gay marriage is the equivalent of "affirmative action" policies that have placed lesser-qualified individuals in government positions simply for the sake of "diversity"? That could very well be the case as Americans have found in some recent court decisions upholding such policies, causing some states to abolish them by popular vote, only to be challenged by some radical representing some community or another.
And therein lies the big problem with gay marriage: Radicals have always had reason to condemn marriage. Consider this: Karl Marx had great disdain with the institution of marriage, calling it "bourgeois", his pejorative for people who aspired to greater personal and financial success through the acquisition of property. That must have led to the outgrowth of the concept of gay marriage, as radicals, specifically Marxists and socialists, infiltrated the civil rights movements during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, to give us what we have seen in the 2000s.
And there is no question that radicalism has a role in American history; however, the Founding Fathers had genuine concerns for personal freedom. That cannot necessarily be said for the Marxist radicals of the past 40 years, 50 years, 60 years, the most vocal of whom have invaded media outlets, schools, and the courts, giving us outrageous decisions on a number of issues - and irrationally condemned anyone who dared disagree with them. They are the most ardent promoters of gay marriage - and though they are picking up supporters most of them are not picking up the radicalism that comes with it. This next statement is not meant to paint gay marriage supporters with a broadbrush, but the radicals that promote that issue also promote gun control, euthanasia, abortion on demand, radical environmental stances like forcing Americans to drive smaller cars and disallowing exploration of American energy sources, and redistributionist measures like the corporate bailouts of companies favourable to one ideology or another on the taxpayers' dollar. And whilst there are many rational folks who support all of those ideas, the problem comes from a few radical folks with outrageous ideas, like Cass Sunstein, who recently proposed abolishing marriage, but also has outrageous reasonings regarding childbirth and issues ....
Most folks who oppose the idea of gay marriage do so with an understanding that marriage is a buildingblock of our society, and changing that institution would invite a slippery slope in which polygamy, bestiality, and even pederasty could be encouraged with changes to the definition of marriage - and polygamists have already targeted the coming New Hampshire gay marriage law claiming they are discriminated against, unfortunately supporting the slippery slope theory projected by many on the right, and unfortunately I must admit my own reasoning in that regard. Many others are concerned about how the children in such relationships will grow up - although researchers have found that 95 percent of children raised by gay couples still turn out heterosexual anyway.
But we don't have to come to a radical reasoning for our support of traditional marriage or of gay marriage. We can make our own rational decision. Myself, I would have no problem with a civil union for same sex couples, but it should be constructed in a way that would prevent it from being called marriage - and this is NOT meant as a slight against those who support gay marriage. We must be careful about how we regard those whom we disagree with. Not all gay marriage supporters are Communist or socialist or otherwise liberal - some libertarians - who tend to be more or less to the RIGHT of conservatives - ALSO support gay marriage.
But in conclusion this is a very sticky topic and certainly one that will not go away, now that we have seen Maine vote to overturn the legislature's law sanctioning gay marriage. Now it is time for cooler heads to prevail, with an abandonment of irrational partisanism and radical tendencies and violent tactics - and a REAL dialogue to take place on this controversial and volatile issue.

[Tom Nissley]

Brian Mora said:

I am afraid that I am going to draw some brickbat here for disagreeing with the concept of gay marriage. That said, it is important that we have a rational discussion about it.
But if such a concept is going to become law, it should be done the right way - by a majority vote of the people in an election, not by judicial activism (as has been the case for California, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Canada) or even by legislative action (as has been the case in Vermont and Maine).
The people of California voted to approve Proposition 8 not because they hate anyone, but because they saw a problem with judicial activists in the State Supreme Court ruling against a voter-approved law that established the definition of marriage as the exclusive dominion of one man and one woman. In 2000 the people of California approved a law defining marriage as the exclusive dominion of one man and one woman, with 61,4pct of the vote. Prop 8 passed with 54pct of the vote.
When the courts abuse their powers to force their will upon the masses they infringe upon the freedoms of the individual - thus such aggressive government policies threaten the basic definition of freedom itself. Unfortunately, a few of the opponents of Prop 8 here and there exercised vandalism and even violent physical attacks against those who supported Prop 8, even to the point of violating state laws regarding yard signs for political candidates as well as assault and battery. You saw NONE of that from the Prop 8 supporters - but PLENTY of that from the opponents.
Now it would be foolhardy to compare this issue to the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, because there is less control over racial composition than there is over sexuality and especially the behaviours and activities that come with it. Occasionally someone CAN and DOES change his or her sexuality, but it is neither a choice nor something you are born with. You are born with innate desires for one sex or the other but you also make decisions in life that are based upon those desires, and those equal components comprise your sexuality, one of the few grey areas in life.
But the big issue with the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s was genuine discrimination. Whereas non-Whites were discriminated against in a few elements that have since been removed from the Constitution, homosexuals have not specifically been listed anywhere in the Constitution. This does not mean that they are not entitled to Constitutional freedoms, to the contrary they too have been protected.
But this issue focuses round something that would benefit only a small amount of the population, maybe only 4 percent or so, or maybe even as many as the 10 percent cited by the old Masters and Johnson research reports of the 1940s and 1950s. It is such that many if not most folks, at least in America, and this too is a sentiment felt to some extent in Canada, as well as other countries that have legalised gay marriage (Spain, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium), think that there is undue special recognition of a specific sexuality.
Could it be that the government sanctioning gay marriage is the equivalent of "affirmative action" policies that have placed lesser-qualified individuals in government positions simply for the sake of "diversity"? That could very well be the case as Americans have found in some recent court decisions upholding such policies, causing some states to abolish them by popular vote, only to be challenged by some radical representing some community or another.
And therein lies the big problem with gay marriage: Radicals have always had reason to condemn marriage. Consider this: Karl Marx had great disdain with the institution of marriage, calling it "bourgeois", his pejorative for people who aspired to greater personal and financial success through the acquisition of property. That must have led to the outgrowth of the concept of gay marriage, as radicals, specifically Marxists and socialists, infiltrated the civil rights movements during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, to give us what we have seen in the 2000s.
And there is no question that radicalism has a role in American history; however, the Founding Fathers had genuine concerns for personal freedom. That cannot necessarily be said for the Marxist radicals of the past 40 years, 50 years, 60 years, the most vocal of whom have invaded media outlets, schools, and the courts, giving us outrageous decisions on a number of issues - and irrationally condemned anyone who dared disagree with them. They are the most ardent promoters of gay marriage - and though they are picking up supporters most of them are not picking up the radicalism that comes with it. This next statement is not meant to paint gay marriage supporters with a broadbrush, but the radicals that promote that issue also promote gun control, euthanasia, abortion on demand, radical environmental stances like forcing Americans to drive smaller cars and disallowing exploration of American energy sources, and redistributionist measures like the corporate bailouts of companies favourable to one ideology or another on the taxpayers' dollar. And whilst there are many rational folks who support all of those ideas, the problem comes from a few radical folks with outrageous ideas, like Cass Sunstein, who recently proposed abolishing marriage, but also has outrageous reasonings regarding childbirth and issues ....
Most folks who oppose the idea of gay marriage do so with an understanding that marriage is a buildingblock of our society, and changing that institution would invite a slippery slope in which polygamy, bestiality, and even pederasty could be encouraged with changes to the definition of marriage - and polygamists have already targeted the coming New Hampshire gay marriage law claiming they are discriminated against, unfortunately supporting the slippery slope theory projected by many on the right, and unfortunately I must admit my own reasoning in that regard. Many others are concerned about how the children in such relationships will grow up - although researchers have found that 95 percent of children raised by gay couples still turn out heterosexual anyway.
But we don't have to come to a radical reasoning for our support of traditional marriage or of gay marriage. We can make our own rational decision. Myself, I would have no problem with a civil union for same sex couples, but it should be constructed in a way that would prevent it from being called marriage - and this is NOT meant as a slight against those who support gay marriage. We must be careful about how we regard those whom we disagree with. Not all gay marriage supporters are Communist or socialist or otherwise liberal - some libertarians - who tend to be more or less to the RIGHT of conservatives - ALSO support gay marriage.
But in conclusion this is a very sticky topic and certainly one that will not go away, now that we have seen Maine vote to overturn the legislature's law sanctioning gay marriage. Now it is time for cooler heads to prevail, with an abandonment of irrational partisanism and radical tendencies and violent tactics - and a REAL dialogue to take place on this controversial and volatile issue.

[Tom Nissley]

No brickbats to throw, but I do want to point out that justice is not measured by the percent of persons involved, and in turn to argue that putting civil rights up to a referendum is bad business. If 51% of persons want to discriminate, they can do that in a referendum, but it's not justice. Justice means taking care of the smallest percentage just as if they were the largest percentage. Little folks have rights. You might not like the history of the French Revolution or the American Revolution or the idea that slaves could become free persons and that Jews and Homosexuals could be worth having around, but Justice demands full rights and freedom for everyone. So not only do I support gay marriage, but I also support the responsibility of the government to provide protection for each of us to live complete and full lives.

[Brian Mora]

That is quite understandable Tom, I cannot see the need to argue, and I believe firmly that slavery was wrong but there is nothing we can do about that part of our past, I believe that the pogroms initiated against Jews and homosexuals in Germany on Kristallnicht in 1938 and at that particular time were particularly heinous.
It is true that justice demands full rights and full freedom for everyone. That said, there is no legal statute that specifically demands special recognition of the heterosexual majority in American society. The reality is with the biological components necessary for reproduction being found only in a union between a man and a woman - men cannot reproduce with other men and women cannot reproduce with other women - this was reason enough for those voting to support traditional marriage.
Certainly it is important to protect the minority from the majority where necessary. However that has been applied primarily to basic freedoms we have in America - the First Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition for redress of grievances, freedom to assemble peacefully), the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms), the Fourth Amendment (privacy from unreasonable searches), you know the rest.
And those amendments have had to be cited in protecting other folks. And believe me I understand the history of those revolutions you have stated - imperfect as they were they were important for our ability to live free and discuss this hot topic in peace on this site.
The primary focus on gay issues is on marriage - which most Americans are reticent to approve. However, many of those who oppose gay marriage will have no problem with civil unions - and Washington's R71 just passed with a very slim margin, giving same sex couples all but the ability to use the term 'marriage'. They now enjoy practically all of the freedoms afforded to traditional couples.
It is no question that little folks have rights too; however a few "little folks" have invaded certain institutions and imposed their will on the masses, most of whom are unwilling to accept that ideology. They ruin the issue for us and make it harder to take their side. Irrational partisanism by the No-On-8 forces in California in 2008 was particularly present in that ability. If people on that side of the issue would stop attacking people and defacing and destroying yard signs that oppose their issue they would surely gain greater respect even from more conservative folks who abhor the violence directed at them.
Do I think Jews and homosexuals are worth having around? You know I do. Some of the best of us happen to be Jewish and/or homosexual.
I also believe government should carry the responsibility to provide protection for each of us to live complete lives. The problem is they are selective at best at that - they will protect only certain classes and ideologies and even sexualities. What about policies that truly work with ALL of us?
Marriage was not even considered by homosexuals in the 1950s and 1960s. Older homosexuals today can tell tales of their relationships with their partners in those days, with a desire not to marry because they didn't want the hassle of angry arguments and hateful attitudes commonplace with many failing marriages, especially not when they manifest themselves over morning coffee.
Some people have abused the meaning of civil rights and next thing we know we could see some of our freedoms stripped away because of those abuses. Radicalism of that variety should be disregarded in this argument.
But when the will of the people clearly states that certain institutions are better off without any drastic changes - it is in the government's best interest, and certainly the judiciary's best interest, to honour the wishes of the will of the people.