Poll: Would you accept gay marriages?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
I don't see nothing wrong with it except the following:

We would have to start accepting other types of marriages since we're so openminded. For example, why if someone wants to marry multiple wives and the women all want to marry him? Can we accept that too? How about a woman with multiple husbands? How about if someone felt they must marry their fish or dog or horse, etc. What should we do then? Changing the marriage structure can lead to destablizing it completely.

Other than that, I don't care who someone wants to marry as long as it doesn't affect me directly.

I was under the impression that a marriage was the unity of 2 people. So the animals wouldn't really work. The only animal that would even be able to say "I do" would be a parrot anyways. Also, Multiple wives/husbands goes beyond the unity of 2 people. But, I am not completely against the multiple husbands / wives. If all the people involved think it is ok... then go with it. The divorce would be some sort of financial nightmare, I imagine.

Why couldn't we change the definition again to include animals. Hell, thats what the gays are doing with the word marriage now.

KK

If that would mean you would no longer be breaking the law...sure.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
I don't see nothing wrong with it except the following:

We would have to start accepting other types of marriages since we're so openminded. For example, why if someone wants to marry multiple wives and the women all want to marry him? Can we accept that too? How about a woman with multiple husbands? How about if someone felt they must marry their fish or dog or horse, etc. What should we do then? Changing the marriage structure can lead to destablizing it completely.

Other than that, I don't care who someone wants to marry as long as it doesn't affect me directly.

I was under the impression that a marriage was the unity of 2 people. So the animals wouldn't really work. The only animal that would even be able to say "I do" would be a parrot anyways. Also, Multiple wives/husbands goes beyond the unity of 2 people. But, I am not completely against the multiple husbands / wives. If all the people involved think it is ok... then go with it. The divorce would be some sort of financial nightmare, I imagine.

Why couldn't we change the definition again to include animals. Hell, thats what the gays are doing with the word marriage now.

KK

because in our society, other animals are not given the same rights as humans

 

[Koing]

I don't give a sh!t if two gay people get married. Its their life they can live it how they want. As long as no one is harmed its good.

Koing

 

[nick1985]

its against my religion, i dont believe in it, its a sin, and i think its just wrong.


<insert flames here>

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Penis goes into vagina. That is the basis of marriage. That is all.

^^^- Not gonna last long in his marriage

 

[classy]

The idea of gay marriages is repulsive.

 

[Cyberian]

Because 100 years ago the majority in this country didn't think women were smart enough to vote.

And . . . . ??

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Because 100 years ago the majority in this country didn't think women were smart enough to vote.

And . . . . ??

What are you just trying to be cute? I think the passage of time has shown us that it was wrong to award rights to men and withhold them from women. Just as time has shown us we were wrong to withhold rights from non-white racial groups. Just as time will show us that doing so with gays is wrong. One day, people won't be so afraid of homosexuals.

l2c

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: luv2chill

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Because 100 years ago the majority in this country didn't think women were smart enough to vote.

And . . . . ??

What are you just trying to be cute? I think the passage of time has shown us that it was wrong to award rights to men and withhold them from women. Just as time has shown us we were wrong to withhold rights from non-white racial groups. Just as time will show us that doing so with gays is wrong. One day, people won't be so afraid of homosexuals.

l2c

Yes, I was just kidding.
I would like to see results of a National Poll on gay marriages broken down by the respondant's age and education level. I think that would be very interesting.

 

[Nocturnal]

All I know is that there are a lot of homos on this forum. It's funny to see you guys get riled up and fight for your right for homosexual marriage! Can you pin point the homos? I can!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: classy
The idea of gay marriages is repulsive.

Yeah I know. You only want equality when it benefits you. Not suprised.

 

[Howard]

I would accept gay unions, recognized by government and all, but I don't suppose I would accept gay marriages.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: dtyn
Will the kid be raised to think that gay marriages are what are supposed to happen? If that trent continues, will humanity die out due to the lack of procreation. Yes, those are extremes, but why not point them out? They could happen.

I always find these arguments amusing. For the first point about gay marriages, the situation wouldn't be any different than the gay parents raising kids with their live-in partner. There was a recent study on it I believe. Shows that society and its views are still more responsible for fvcking up the kids than the parents are, by a long shot. As to the second point, I find the vision of the future as shown by Joe Haldeman in The Forever War to show exactly why "everyone going gay will doom us all" is a crock of sh!t. The second time the main character returns to Earth, we all HAVE gone gay. The next generation is cloned and decanted a la Brave New World. Of course the traditional family has gone the way of the dodo in that society, too, I believe. Still, shows how technology will overcome things and allow us to go on.

Been kind of wanting to bring that one up now for a while. Always found it really amusing that he saw the world going that way. He's about the only author I can think of that did.

-- Jack

I can see clearly now, the brain is gone...

 

[Mani]

I say if they wanna do it, let em. People who are adamantly opposed to it need to find a hobby and quit worrying about how other people live their lives.

 

[CraigRT]

Poll: Would you accept gay marriages?

couldn't care less... it's not my business.. they can do whatever they want.

 

[Swanny]

I voted no. It's just doesn't go with my moral/ethical/religious/political/whatever outlook on life.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: spidey07
Conjur,

Like I said. If a majority of the people don't want it, then we give the people what they want.

I've got no problem with gay marriages. What I do have a problem with is a minority dictating law.

Then I just have to state I completely disagree with that. Dictating law based on morality (and religious beliefs) has no place in our government, regardless of majority opinion.

Majority opinion used to hold slavery as acceptable.
Majority opinion used to hold the Earth was flat.

Ignorance of an issue is no excuse.

So let's see what life is like in Conjur's world:

1. Don't believe in God
2. Make up your own moral structure (god) as you see fit. Worship it.
3. Don't pay attention to anyone else's moral structure (gods). Curse them.
4. Mandatory workdays on Sundays. No more religious holidays. Employers can now work people 7 days, 56 hours a week.
5. You can sleep with your father and mother (or both at the same time). Sisters and brothers too. And don't forget the cat and dog.
6. There is no such thing as Murder. If your god (moral structure) want's to kill someone, you should obey.
7. Sleep with whoever you want, whenever you want. Avoid monogamy. Screw, screw, screw!!
8. Take what you want. You deserve it. Don't pay for anything.
9. Truth is overrated. Lie whenever it suits you.
10. Lust is good. Worry about what you don't have and rely on rule 8 to get it.

Boy, what a model for society!

Stark, I was about to make a post addressing your side of the issue and address the other side (conjur's). Both of you made interesting points. But after reading this last post, I can't understand what kind of thought process went through your mind. My opinion of your viewpoint just went into the gutter with this one. I'm shocked to say the least.

All I can say is wow...

I mean seriously everyone, how can you argue with this one?

 

[GeekDrew]

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">

 

[GeekDrew]

This has nothing to do with race or "rights." I'm sick of hearing that this is like discrimination against blacks in the 50's, women, etc.
And gay people DO make a choice to live a "gay lifestyle" (hence the use of "gay" as an adjective). There are average lifestyles, then there are alternative lifestyles. Having multiple wives is an alternative (Utah). Swingers live an alternative lifestyle. Monks and nuns live alternative lifestyles. Priests are supposed to. Saying they're all equal and normal is simply not true. They are not the same.
Nobody is saying that people can't partner up and live with whomever they please. To say that it deserves the same legal classification as a man and woman joined together to promote childbearing and a growing and stable society is insane.

How is it that gays live an alternative lifestyle? Some do. Some don't.

That rationale makes zero sense. Last time I checked, caucasian, disabled, middle-aged, tall are all adjectives as well... does that mean they are "lifestyle choices" as well?
If you hate the racial example, perhaps you could deal with another comparison that has some common threads. Disabilties. Say someone (either through birth defect or some environmental cause) develops a disability that makes him unable to use conventional restroom facilities in national parks. Do we just say "too bad, being disabled is your lifestyle choice. You live an alternative lifestyle and are therefore not equal to those of use living average lifestyles. You will just be unable to enjoy our national parks because we are not willing to accomodate your needs."
You will likely balk at that example too, saying that disabled people could not make a choice to pretend that they are non-disabled people (or that being able to use the bathroom is "more of a right" than getting married--neither is mentioned in the Bill of Rights actually). But to a gay person, pretending they are straight is just as crazy a notion as a handicapped one pretending to be not handicapped.

Agreed.

You used the phrase "gay lifestyle." I don't know if you actually know any gay people, but most (all the ones I've known) really do have certain elements of their lives that are different than "straight" people.
I gave you several examples of "alternative" lifestyles. None of them included physical handicaps.

My boyfriend and I live a lifestyle of the same type as the "straight" people. The only difference that I can find is in the bedroom.

I don't see how letting gays get married effects anyone else other the people getting married. They should be able to do what they want. As long as it's humans getting married i'm okay with it (dogs and such, that's just rediculous )

I agree, again.

What next? Gay pedophiles getting married?

More right-wing reactionary horseshit. God, I pray that you will please enlighten your flock to the point where they understand that there is a vast degree of difference between two sexually mature people engaging in consensual sexual relations and one sexually mature person engaging in non-consensual sexual relations with a non-sexually mature person. Amen.
I'm sure if the guy hadn't already excluded bestiality that you would have included it in that post as well.
Now I'm just waiting for you to chime in with "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".

Now how, prey tell, is pedophilia relevant to this conversation? Because of some idiot pedophile down the street, should my boyfriend and I not be able to be married? We have nothing to do with pedophilia. Neither of us supports NAMBLA. Pedophilia is not even CLOSE to the same realm. EVERY gay person that I am a friend of (which is quite a few), is not even close to a pedophile, and only associates with men age 18 or older.

But I'm sure you can see the point about where Gay Marriages will take us. NAMBLA will get federal funding.

But please face facts. The country does not want Gay Marriages.

The fact that this debate is going on indicates that there is a significant enough portion of this country concerned to make their lawmakers raise the issue.
You might not like where the country is going, but waving your hands won't change what's going on.

Why on earth would NAMBLA get federal funding? That's lunacy! We are talking about two adults of responsible and legal age marrying, and becoming a couple. NAMBLA has nothing to do with it. And no, I cannot see any reason why gay marriages being legalized would further NAMBLA in the least bit. They aren't even related subjects.
And yes, there are quite a few people in the country that are forcing lawmakers to raise the issue. I would love to see a vote on this issue. I personally believe it would be a very close call; at least in my area, that is.

Suit yourself... I am just really tired of shooting down the same irrational and non-sensical arguments time after time. Nothing personal. Actually I consider myself to be a pretty nice guy.
And yet it's like you didn't even read my posts. NAMBLA will not get federal funding because the overwhelming body of scientific research shows that children are psychologically and emotionally harmed by sexual contact. The fact that they are not yet sexually mature should make that point obvious even without the evidence.
Correct, the majority in this country do not want gay marriages. But that doesn't stop me from fighting for them. You know why? Because 50 years ago the majority in this country didn't want black people to use the same drinking fountains as white people. Because 100 years ago the majority in this country didn't think women were smart enough to vote.
I will welcome the day when the majority is in favor of allowing gay marriage because apparently that's when you will as well.

Thank you...

I don't see nothing wrong with it except the following:
We would have to start accepting other types of marriages since we're so openminded. For example, why if someone wants to marry multiple wives and the women all want to marry him? Can we accept that too? How about a woman with multiple husbands? How about if someone felt they must marry their fish or dog or horse, etc. What should we do then? Changing the marriage structure can lead to destablizing it completely.
Other than that, I don't care who someone wants to marry as long as it doesn't affect me directly.

I was under the impression that a marriage was the unity of 2 people. So the animals wouldn't really work. The only animal that would even be able to say "I do" would be a parrot anyways. Also, Multiple wives/husbands goes beyond the unity of 2 people. But, I am not completely against the multiple husbands / wives. If all the people involved think it is ok... then go with it. The divorce would be some sort of financial nightmare, I imagine.

I also believe that marriage is a unity of two people. That's what I believe in. I guarantee that the great majority of the nation would agree with me on that issue. Animals have NOTHING to do with this at all!!!!!! We (the gay community) are not animals. Gay marriage does not change marriage 'structure' at all. Everything is structured the exact same way; two people in unity. The ONLY difference is that both people are of like gender.
I would personally be against multiple wives/husbands... but that's a debate that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Penis goes into vagina. That is the basis of marriage. That is all.

How so? Stop by one of these days, and I could give you a demonstration to the contrary. My boyfriend and I love each other very much... and believe me - there are no penises entering vaginas in our residences.

Why couldn't we change the definition again to include animals. Hell, thats what the gays are doing with the word marriage now.

And to quote myself: Animals have NOTHING to do with this at all!!!!!! We (the gay community) ARE NOT animals. How do you think that we are changing the word marriage to mean something other than a 2-person human unity? Any logic that says that a gay person is an animal is utterly and completely false.

All I know is that there are a lot of homos on this forum. It's funny to see you guys get riled up and fight for your right for homosexual marriage! Can you pin point the homos? I can!

Though there are some homosexuals on this forum, many people that you probably believe are gay, are not. How can you think that fighting for the right of marriage - that any straight couple can enjoy - is funny?
I don't care about pedophiles. I don't care about animals. I don't care about NAMBLA. I don't care about any homosexual that is promiscuous. I DO care about homosexual couples that are not able to enjoy monogamous marriage with their partner.

I say if they wanna do it, let em. People who are adamantly opposed to it need to find a hobby and quit worrying about how other people live their lives.

That?s what I don?t get. Why are people so opposed to it, when it?s not going to affect them at all in life?

 

There's no way in hell--even if any scientists agree or profess that it's genetically determined. In my view, accepting everything based upon science means destroying a society, because it leads to a society without structure and moral rules to sustain it.

Let's put it this way: We can't seem to even handle this business of heterosexual marriages, so how much then homosexual marriages? Marriage seems just ceremonial at this point. And I frankly I don't think anyone needs the government's approval for a ceremony. We can talk serious business when marriage seems like something more than a ceremony. And if I were to accept homosexual marriages (i.e., the approval of the government and perhaps society), marriage would have to be officially redefined. From my point of view, this means no adoption of children by homosexuals as "couples".

Of course this is my expressed view. If you have a problem with it, then deconstruct it or ignore it. Don't pull personal attacks 'cuz I'll ignore, as that in my book means you've stooped low. I don't stoop low to people's levels. Alternatively, I may give it back to you, but I really don't do stuff like that 'cuz I feel it's a waste of my time.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Yes. There is a seperation between religious marriages and legal marriages. Religeons can descriminate against anyone they want concerning their marriage practices government, however, is bound by the constitution which calls for a seperation between church and state. Therefore I see no reason why Gay marriages shouldn't be allowed.

Edit: as for "spitting in the face of marriage" that would only be true of religious marriage, i guess. But, sorry, your religious beliefs do not extend to other people's rights. And there is a difference between a religious and legal marriage.

Please point me to the part of the constition that calls for a seperation of church and government.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: spidey07
dtyn,

Because it is a minority opinion.

-edit- even on this extremely young board it is a miniority opinion.

Very good point. If you want to live in a democratic society, accept the things that the majority want.

That's a VERY dangerous precedent. There must be underlying principles if the people are to live with freedom and liberty. A democracy or in our case a republic can enslave the people just as easily as a totalitarian/dictatorship government. The difference is that the people accept it and go along on their merry way, with the notion that other's in a different country aren't as "free" as they. Rest assured our founding fathers are turning in their graves after hearing the laws we have today. The fact that every American ISN'T a libertarian is disturbing to say the least.

The overruled sodomy laws and this marriage issue aren't about gays. It's about gov't interference in the the private lives of the people. It's not a "win for gays" its a win for everyone. That is just one less aspect of our lives the gov't dictates.

For those of you that think it spits on the traditional marriage idea, you mean to tell me that your marriage is sacred, secure, and important because the gov't says it is? That without the gov't defining it as a union between a man and a woman it would be any less important? It is no one else's business but the two people in the marriage. Why would you want to dictate that? Why should you dictate that?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Yes. There is a seperation between religious marriages and legal marriages. Religeons can descriminate against anyone they want concerning their marriage practices government, however, is bound by the constitution which calls for a seperation between church and state. Therefore I see no reason why Gay marriages shouldn't be allowed.

Edit: as for "spitting in the face of marriage" that would only be true of religious marriage, i guess. But, sorry, your religious beliefs do not extend to other people's rights. And there is a difference between a religious and legal marriage.

Please point me to the part of the constition that calls for a seperation of church and government.

As a nation supposedly based on freedom. The freedom of religion must also include freedom from religion. For the gov't to remain impartial, leave ALL religion out of gov't. Religion is a part of one's personal life, not the gov't's. Why would you want it to be?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

That?s what I don?t get. Why are people so opposed to it, when it?s not going to affect them at all in life?

I look at it this way:

I might not like where you put it, but I'll fight to the death for your right to put it there.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: classy
The idea of gay marriages is repulsive.

Yeah I know. You only want equality when it benefits you. Not suprised.

This not about equality, moron. They are equal to live any way they want, but life has dealt them certain cards they should have to live with.