Poll: Would you protest in favor or against gay marriage?

[slackerinabox]

Regardless of your view on homosexuallity, would you go out there to support them on the basis that this is a civil rights issue? When I continue to hear about all of the small town mayors and politicians breaking the law to support members of their community I keep on thinking that these laws have to change - thoughts?

 

[minendo]

YAGMT

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: minendo
YAGMT

Hey minendo, are you a moderator? I'm just curious.. If you are I'll add the YAGMT to my post.. But I think people could figure that out by the title..

 

[jjones]

I think all marriages should be a gay event. If you're not happy at your own wedding, then maybe you should reconsider getting married.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: jjones
I think all marriages should be a gay event. If you're not happy at your own wedding, then maybe you should reconsider getting married.

hahaha.. good one :beer:

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: minendo
YAGMT

Hey minendo, are you a moderator? I'm just curious.. If you are I'll add the YAGMT to my post.. But I think people could figure that out by the title..

There are enough threads on this topic already.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: minendo
YAGMT

Hey minendo, are you a moderator? I'm just curious.. If you are I'll add the YAGMT to my post.. But I think people could figure that out by the title..

There are enough threads on this topic already.

I did a search and couldn't find anything similar.. I'm sorry if this is a repost, I'll sharpen my searching skills this weekend..

 

[dullard]

I'm straight - happilly married for 5 years.

I feel the government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Marriage is a religious institution, and I believe in separation of state from the church. So I feel ALL government marriages should be immediately converted to civil unions. A marriage will then entirely religious and up to the church to decide who can/cannot marry.

Once everything is converted to civil unions - I have no problem with gays sharing the benefits (ie hospital visitation of partners, insurance discounts, next of kin laws, etc) that straights enjoy.

That way a gay civil union does not destroy the institution of marriage.

 

[moshquerade]

i wouldn't protest either way

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: dullard
I'm straight - happilly married for 5 years.

I feel the government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Marriage is a religious institution, and I believe in separation of state from the church. So I feel ALL government marriages should be immediately converted to civil unions. A marriage will then entirely religious and up to the church to decide who can/cannot marry.

Once everything is converted to civil unions - I have no problem with gays sharing the benefits (ie hospital visitation of partners, insurance discounts, next of kin laws, etc) that straights enjoy.

That way a gay civil union does not destroy the institution of marriage.

But marriage is a religious institution - the argument is really about civil unions and the fact that most cities refuse to issue licenses to gay couples...

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Protesting is for the clueless, those that have no idea about how to influence public policy other than waving a sign touting their position. They're probably also indicating that they don't have a job either, considering the hours you see them out their waving their signs.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: dullard
I'm straight - happilly married for 5 years.

I feel the government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Marriage is a religious institution, and I believe in separation of state from the church. So I feel ALL government marriages should be immediately converted to civil unions. A marriage will then entirely religious and up to the church to decide who can/cannot marry.

Once everything is converted to civil unions - I have no problem with gays sharing the benefits (ie hospital visitation of partners, insurance discounts, next of kin laws, etc) that straights enjoy.

That way a gay civil union does not destroy the institution of marriage.

Destroy the institution of marriage?

I agree with everything you've said, except that. Marriage, as a religious institution or otherwise, has already been destroyed by the modern-day attitude toward it; allowing gay marriage poses little threat to it as an institution, IMO. Aren't there churches that allow for homosexual marriage?

Rob

 

[Triumph]

My jury is still out on gay marriages in general, but there is one thing I would NOT support: A Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional amendments should be made only on VERY important issues where the correct answer is clear... It is fairly obvious that this gay marriage issue is nowhere near the end of its debate. A Constitutional amendment now would seriously F things up. Let the country take its natural course of debate on this issue, and in the future an amendment will be unnecessary: the country will have decided one way or another.

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
Protesting is for the clueless, those that have no idea about how to influence public policy other than waving a sign touting their position. They're probably also indicating that they don't have a job either, considering the hours you see them out their waving their signs.

That's the worst thing I've ever heard out of anyone's mouth. yeah, all those Boston Tea Party folks were just a bunch of jobless idiots. MLK was a deadbeat with nothing better to do than walk around the Mall.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
Protesting is for the clueless, those that have no idea about how to influence public policy other than waving a sign touting their position. They're probably also indicating that they don't have a job either, considering the hours you see them out their waving their signs.

I agree for the most part, especially people protesting things such as a necessary water treatment plant... But to say that the protest of the Civil Rights movement did nothing is a bit misguided...

 

[Electric Amish]

I don't understand your choices, but I don't support the government's ability to dictate how one should "pursue happiness".

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
I don't understand your choices, but I don't support the government's ability to dictate how one should "pursue happiness".

I'll update it if something's not clear..

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Entity

Destroy the institution of marriage?

I agree with everything you've said, except that. Marriage, as a religious institution or otherwise, has already been destroyed by the modern-day attitude toward it; allowing gay marriage poses little threat to it as an institution, IMO. Aren't there churches that allow for homosexual marriage?

One could effectively argue that marriage is already destroyed. Taking the 10 minute marriage ceremonies (in front of a judge that get annulled a week later) out of the definition of marriage will be one step towards reviving the institution.

I personally don't think a gay marriage will destroy marriage, but many people do argue that. So changing everything to a civil union is my solution to their complaints.

Yes religions differ. Some let you marry multiple people, some won't let you divorce, some allow gay marriages, etc. If you don't like what your church does, you can join a church that matches and practices your beliefs.

 

[azazyel]

The Lady doth protest too much...

Gay Agenda

 

[Linflas]

How about we just get government out of the marriage business period?

 

[gururu]

Everybody should be able to get married as they please.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Triumph
My jury is still out on gay marriages in general, but there is one thing I would NOT support: A Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional amendments should be made only on VERY important issues where the correct answer is clear... It is fairly obvious that this gay marriage issue is nowhere near the end of its debate. A Constitutional amendment now would seriously F things up. Let the country take its natural course of debate on this issue, and in the future an amendment will be unnecessary: the country will have decided one way or another.

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
Protesting is for the clueless, those that have no idea about how to influence public policy other than waving a sign touting their position. They're probably also indicating that they don't have a job either, considering the hours you see them out their waving their signs.

That's the worst thing I've ever heard out of anyone's mouth. yeah, all those Boston Tea Party folks were just a bunch of jobless idiots. MLK was a deadbeat with nothing better to do than walk around the Mall.

Did you see people at the Boston Tea Party waving signs at passing cars at 11:00 A.M., harrassing people crossing picket lines, etc.? I didn't see MLK Jr. waving a sign either (Yes, I know he marched and carried one with several other people, that is not the image of him that comes to mind when I think of him though), I saw him giving speeches, holding marches, etc.

Let me try and get my point across another way, since my initial attempt did not succeed. There are gay political groups, activist committees, even gay politicians. At this point in the game, it seems more could be accomplished by working the system than by waving a sign on a street corner. They're not totally excluded from the political process like blacks were during the Civil Rights movement.