should the LGBT community have marriage equality?

Nakey's picture
yes
83% (24 votes)
no
17% (5 votes)
not sure
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 29

Comments

Nakey's picture
Beta Tester

this is a question that's come up to be voted on by the australian people this month. what do you think?

Got a poll question you want to see on spiked? work on it. contact mods@spikednation.com with “poll question” in the subject line.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Timmy Tosser's picture

Hell yes! Nakey its time you and I take this budding bromance to a whole new level!

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
TheWeirdo's picture
Beta Tester

He tosses Timmies, he tosses salads.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

How could anyone possibly say "no" to this question?  What, is it like 1994?

+1
+4
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Don't forget, even in this community there are religious cunts.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

Then why ask the fucking question in the first place?

 

You don't ask a question to simply confirm your own views.

You ask questions to figure out what the truth is.

And the truth is, not everyone agrees with equal marriage rights for LGBT.

 

BUT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO CHANGE THAT. BECAUSE THAT IS EVIL IN MY OPINION.

 

Being LGBT is a sign of evil in someone elses' opinion. A belief older than yours, I might add. Stop being surprised at obvious shit. Comfort yourself with the result clearly being in your view's favor.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

A belief being "old" certainly doesn't give it merit.  I very commonly mock Bronze Age ideals.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

The problem is that you think this basis for morality(for religious people) dissappeared somehow around the time Obama got elected. There was clearly a majority that considered religion to be the basis for morality when Bush was in office, and most people accepted that religious people thought that way. I hate to bring up Obama and Hillary again, but it's still less than five years ago they turned on the issue. The two people that are supposed to represent progressive values in America has videotapes of themselves saying, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman", after they got elected into office. We all know America is overwhelmingly religious.

 

There's still lots people in the world that don't want equality of marriage. It would even be safe to say MOST people in the world are against it, because nearly two billion of them are Muslims, whose religion isn't vague or forgiving on that subject at all. They represent 23% of the human population of Earth.

 

We can mock it, yes(in our countries). But ignoring the facts and going on as if it never happened will never give you an accurate representation of reality. They outnumber atheists many times over, and they have access to the internet too. The world is changing, but not as quickly as it may appear to be.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

"There was clearly a majority that considered religion to be the basis for morality when Bush was in office, and most people accepted that religious people thought that way."

 

How old are you?  Do you not remember that had to be very shadily decided by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore?  The race was so razor close in delegates that it literally went to the Supreme Court...that's certainly not a "clear majority; I think you're mistaking loud and crazy religious freaks for a "majority".  Interestingly enough you bring up Hillary and Obama's change of hearts, which is simply more evidence that the "majority" of Americans were turning up in favor of same sex marriage which forced both of them to turn to placate their Democratic base.  In response to this Republicans hardened their stance against same sex marriage to appeal to their base; and as we have seen in 2008, 2012, and even in 2016 (due to the loss of the popular vote), being against same sex marriage is definitely NOT what the majority wants.

 

I'm not interested in what the people of developing nations such as Chad, Saudi Arabia, and Niger want when it comes to same sex marriage.  I live in Indiana and the United States of America is the country I reside in and I care about what they think...I also extend that to our first world nation democratic allies such as Canada, Great Britain, and Australia.  In terms of Western thought it is dumb as fuck to be against same sex marriage and indeed the entire concept of marriage altogether is one that should be discarded soon, but that is my ultra-progressive side speaking.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

I was actually thinking more about moral values during the Bush presidency, not how many voted for him. If a presidential candidate doesn't believe in God and officially states it while running, they're unelectable. If you want any chance of winning you'll have to and it's still like that today. 

 

I'm simply saying that the Christian religion, as written in their Bible, is against homosexuality. As well is Islam, but without the tolerance we see here in the Western world because they're more literal about their beliefs, and they haven't had anything a even mimics a "gay revolution", not in their history or even today. Saudi Arabia announced that women will be able to drive next year, just yesterday! That's how far they've come on human rights issues. We are decades, maybe even a century from Islam recognizing homosexuals as equals. They don't even tolerate them at this point.

 

Not only are you assuming that the number of voters represent all Americans, but also that it's only the Republican side that are religious. Because that is wrong. More than 90 million people didn't vote in 2016. 

And 75% of Americans identified themselves as believing Christians in 2015. That's just two years ago. But that's a poll. Polls aren't representative of a population of 350 million people, because their sample sizes are too small. Therefore, in my opinion, polls can't be trusted. Which is why this last election was such a shocking ordeal to many people. New polls every day with smaller and smaller sample groups. They may be accurate in their results, but not accurately representing the whole of United States.

 

Things take time. Simply because a value is currently being displayed in the media as common, does not show the reality of the matter. And if liberals keeps attacking people who haven't caught up to their hyper evolution of progressive values, they will only produce more polarisation of opinions in America. Where one side is always convinced that the only reason for someone else's different opinion is evil. Which is ignorance.

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

"Where one side is always convinced that the only reason for someone else's different opinion is evil. Which is ignorance."

 

Denying consenting adults the right to get married to each other is evil.  

 

I will state that loudly and clearly.  Do you wish to attempt to counter my declaration?  You *should* want to counter my declaration due to what I quoted above.  I am prepared for your counter argument.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

And again you are assuming that the basis for being against gay marriage in religions is evil and that the people who follows those religions agree with it because they are evil too. 

 

It is because they've been taught by their religion that homosexuality is an aspect of evil, the devil. They believe being against homosexuality is morally GOOD. Just as the last progressive President thought up until a few years ago. Just as the woman who ran as a Democrat did up until a few years ago.

 

Expecting the conservative, and even more religious people to accept it at the same time just proves your closed-mindedness. And labelling them as evil is just as fucking ignorant. Because it leads nowhere.

 

You have to debate them in a civilized manner. Don't threaten them or label them as evil. They'll just become even more determined to defend their beliefs. They won't be willing to question it themselves. Which is the solution, Groth.

 

Think Hitchens. You can be a savage in your arguments during debates, but don't discount them as human beings. Be nice to them. Talk about other stuff with them. They probably watch the same shows and listen to the same music as you do. And if you take time to listen to them, even when they're wrong, you'll learn how to convince them, in time. And even if you can't, they won't tell you to shut up. They'll respect your input, even if they disagree.

 

Which is how a civilized society works. Which is how progress happens.

Which is why Saudi Arabia is legalizing driving for women, which will hopefully result in more changes down the line.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

"You have to debate them in a civilized manner. Don't threaten them or label them as evil. They'll just become even more determined to defend their beliefs. They won't be willing to question it themselves. Which is the solution, Groth."

 

If they can't arrive to the conclusion that withholding civil rights from others is wrong on their own then I'm not interested in changing their minds.  They're slaves to a belief system at that point and I have no pity nor respect for them.  Here is what I would say to them, verbatim:  Provide me evidence that your silly sky fantasy god exists in any fashion.  When that happens then you will be allowed to comment upon civil rights and we will respect your diety's views upon civil rights.  Until then, your silly sky fantasy god is no different than Allah and I declare that Allah and Yahweh are the same being.  That is my compromise to you.  We will treat Yahweh and Allah as the same being because they both have the same amount factual backing.  Now go drink your Kool-Aid and get your shit moral code based on being scared of the Greek concept of Hades out of my goddamn face you fucking looney tunes idiot mutherfucker.

 

How's that for civilized manner?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

Yes, it would be like a movie where those perfect comments happen exactly like you want them to. And there would be no good arguments against any of your comments, only dead silence, in disbelief that they couldn't even provide a single piece of evidence for the existence of their own deity, in the face of Groth's superior logic. The bravest of them, trembling in your presence, would only stutter "But...but...bu...b...b...".

 

And there you would stand, a shining example of virtue, victorious in every way.

 

Get the fuck out here, Groth. That was the most cringy thing you've ever written. I kind of want to submit it to the "I am very smart"-subreddit. I won't, but come on. We have standards here at spikednation, don't we?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Go for it.  Be sure to include this entire thread where you're telling me we should coddle a bunch of religious idiots because Sky Fairy God from the Bronze Age says THE GAYS should be destroyed.  I'm not frightened of my stance against people who do not tolerate civil rights.  Please feel free to include the link to your Reddit post.  

 

If religious people want to hate the gays they certainly are allowed to; that doens't mean their opinions will not be mocked and denounced by the rest of us living past the year 1990.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Here in spain we have a system that has a "parallel path". You can go to the council and register as a couple. You will enjoy the same rights and protection (i.e. insurance or pension in case your partner dies) but there is no fuss or cost when getting seperated (unless children and their support is an issue). I personally think this is perfect as they don't discriminate by gender.

What I DO NOT understand is why on earth some LGBT's insist on getting married in a church when the deluded cunts don't weant them there (almost) everyone else in society accepts "them" and "their" way of life anyway. 

 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Pulpgimp1's picture

It's a slippery slope, Australia. That's all I'm saying. Next people will be marrying outside of their income bracket or even outside their own race.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
lawngnome's picture

Not the T part. T's piggybacked on the LGBs and I don't think society was quite yet ready for them.

IMO, T's need head meds.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Well, you quite obviously are part of the (of course uninformed and unwilling to inform themselves) society that is not ready for them. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

Equal marriage in front of the law yes. Equal marriage in a religious institution? Depends on the religion. So not sure.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
warriorcookie's picture

I would be one of those "religious cunts" refered to earlier.

 

I believe in marriage equality and am proud to say I'm from Canada, a country that officially recognized marriage equality over a decade ago.

 

I however do not believe a church or buisness should be forced to participate in a wedding they don't agree with.  I also believe any buisness that discriminates for any reason deserves to go out of buisness as customers will/should support buisness' that aren't run by biggots.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

LOL, now that's a bit of a conundrum isn't it?

 

  1. "I however do not believe a church or buisness should be forced to participate in a wedding they don't agree with.  "
  2. "I also believe any buisness that discriminates for any reason deserves to go out of buisness as customers will/should support buisness' that aren't run by biggots."

 

1 is an absolute contradiction to 2.........

 

also regarding the "religious cunts":

they would be part of the "no" voting group, so if you are part of this group and religious, yes, you are a religious cunt, if not you are just religious.....

 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
warriorcookie's picture

Perhaps semantics, but the distinction is an important one to me:  While I don't agree with discrimination of any kind, I generally believe it's not the government's place to force anyone to do anything that's against their beliefs or will.

 

The buisness that refuses to serve a class of person based on discriminitory beliefs will most likely go out of buisness because people won't patronize them, they'll support a buisness that doesn't discriminate.

 

Personally I don't care what someone else's sexual preferences are.  It's none of my buisness and certainly not my place to judge.  If someone is LGBQT they are more than welcome at the church I go to and welcome in my group of friends.  They are still a person, a human like the rest of us, why shouldn't they have the exact same rights as the rest of us?  Again, don't care. 

 

I know some churches and people would cast someone out for being gay, but they are hypocrites.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down