True or False: Allowing gay marriage will lead to greater acceptance and tolerance for gays

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: rchiu
To me, marriage is between a man and a women, with the ability to form a traditional family of parents and children.

Then by all means, you should not marry a gay person of your same sex. You should marry traditionally.

There is nothing wrong with having your personal beleif, but why do you want to deny the right to others?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You cannot legislate people's opinions. So no. People who are against will still be against it whether its legal or not.

I find myself wondering why you are in every single gay marriage thread arguing against it.

Why are you so passionate about it?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You cannot legislate people's opinions. So no. People who are against will still be against it whether its legal or not.

I find myself wondering why you are in every single gay marriage thread arguing against it.

Why are you so passionate about it?

You fail at reading all my comments. Im not against it.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You cannot legislate people's opinions. So no. People who are against will still be against it whether its legal or not.

I find myself wondering why you are in every single gay marriage thread arguing against it.

Why are you so passionate about it?

You fail at reading all my comments. Im not against it.

OK... So I went back and looked at the other current thread and this one... What exactly is your position? It seems a bit slippery at best. You seem to want to keep attaching Gay marriage to Polygamy. What exactly is your point then, because I don't see it. I see an aweful lot of posts without a clear point. You can read any one of my posts and clearly see I am for gay marriage.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You cannot legislate people's opinions. So no. People who are against will still be against it whether its legal or not.

I find myself wondering why you are in every single gay marriage thread arguing against it.

Why are you so passionate about it?

You fail at reading all my comments. Im not against it.

OK... So I went back and looked at the other current thread and this one... What exactly is your position? It seems a bit slippery at best. You seem to want to keep attaching Gay marriage to Polygamy. What exactly is your point then, because I don't see it.

If you want further explanation of my position on polygamy as I see it relating to gay marriage, why dont you ask on the appropriate thread? My position on gay marriage is pretty clear. I couldnt care less, and as I responded to this thread, I dont think legalizing it in 50 states will change people's opinion. Where's the confusion?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

If you want further explanation of my position on polygamy as I see it relating to gay marriage, why dont you ask on the appropriate thread? My position on gay marriage is pretty clear. I couldnt care less, and as I responded to this thread, I dont think legalizing it in 50 states will change people's opinion. Where's the confusion?

Okeedokee... Soare you just passionately ambivalent? - I feel very strongly neither way

So, you dont care about gay marriage one way or another - yet you are in every thread arguing/debating what then? Polygamy?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
OK... So I went back and looked at the other current thread and this one... What exactly is your position? It seems a bit slippery at best. You seem to want to keep attaching Gay marriage to Polygamy. What exactly is your point then, because I don't see it. I see an aweful lot of posts without a clear point. You can read any one of my posts and clearly see I am for gay marriage.

I would agree with that argument though, I mean if we are talking concenting adults and making decisions who are "we" as society from stopping multiple people getting married? Why is this wrong when homosexual marriage should be allowed?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: retrospooty
OK... So I went back and looked at the other current thread and this one... What exactly is your position? It seems a bit slippery at best. You seem to want to keep attaching Gay marriage to Polygamy. What exactly is your point then, because I don't see it. I see an aweful lot of posts without a clear point. You can read any one of my posts and clearly see I am for gay marriage.

I would agree with that argument though, I mean if we are talking concenting adults and making decisions who are "we" as society from stopping multiple people getting married? Why is this wrong when homosexual marriage should be allowed?

I agree too. The problem with Polygamy is it has a stigma about underage girls being married off against thier will, in a dominating and controlling society. That happens, and defintely should remain illegal - but Polygamy between concenting adults should be legal.

Dammit, now I am talking about Polygamy =)

Anyhow, yes, there is a parralel, but this is about gay marriage, not polygamy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: retrospooty
OK... So I went back and looked at the other current thread and this one... What exactly is your position? It seems a bit slippery at best. You seem to want to keep attaching Gay marriage to Polygamy. What exactly is your point then, because I don't see it. I see an aweful lot of posts without a clear point. You can read any one of my posts and clearly see I am for gay marriage.

I would agree with that argument though, I mean if we are talking concenting adults and making decisions who are "we" as society from stopping multiple people getting married? Why is this wrong when homosexual marriage should be allowed?

I agree too. The problem with Polygamy is it has a stigma about underage girls being married off against thier will, in a dominating and controlling society. That happens, and defintely should remain illegal - but Polygamy between concenting adults should be legal.

Dammit, now I am talking about Polygamy =)

Anyhow, yes, there is a parralel, but this is about gay marriage, not polygamy.

My comments about polygamy are simply added to a few others who feel the same way-that if we make a sweeping effort to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states, we need to take a look at doing the same with polygamy. Theyre related. Thats my only point. As far as your points about stigmas with polygamy...your comments are pretty cliche, but based somewhat in truth; however, legalizing polygamy wont make underage marriage legal, or anything else. So the stigmas attached to polygamy are irrelevant.

Back on topic, my comments and position are pretty clear on gay marriage. As Ive said on the other thread, I wouldnt lose sleep either way. I really dont care. If I was in a ballot box presented with vote yes or no on gay marriage what would I do? I dont know. I probably wouldnt cast a vote.

 

[Possessed Freak]

I would prefer if states and federal government just abolished the term marriage. Leave it ALL as civil unions and leave it to the religions/organizations to set restrictions on the term "marriage". I see absolutely no point in a government to redefine the term marriage.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: retrospooty
OK... So I went back and looked at the other current thread and this one... What exactly is your position? It seems a bit slippery at best. You seem to want to keep attaching Gay marriage to Polygamy. What exactly is your point then, because I don't see it. I see an aweful lot of posts without a clear point. You can read any one of my posts and clearly see I am for gay marriage.

I would agree with that argument though, I mean if we are talking concenting adults and making decisions who are "we" as society from stopping multiple people getting married? Why is this wrong when homosexual marriage should be allowed?

I agree too. The problem with Polygamy is it has a stigma about underage girls being married off against thier will, in a dominating and controlling society. That happens, and defintely should remain illegal - but Polygamy between concenting adults should be legal.

Dammit, now I am talking about Polygamy =)

Anyhow, yes, there is a parralel, but this is about gay marriage, not polygamy.

My comments about polygamy are simply added to a few others who feel the same way-that if we make a sweeping effort to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states, we need to take a look at doing the same with polygamy. Theyre related. Thats my only point. As far as your points about stigmas with polygamy...your comments are pretty cliche, but based somewhat in truth; however, legalizing polygamy wont make underage marriage legal, or anything else. So the stigmas attached to polygamy are irrelevant.

Back on topic, my comments and position are pretty clear on gay marriage. As Ive said on the other thread, I wouldnt lose sleep either way. I really dont care. If I was in a ballot box presented with vote yes or no on gay marriage what would I do? I dont know. I probably wouldnt cast a vote.

Why would you abstain from voting? If your civil rights are ever in question, I will do all in my power to fight for them.

 

[piasabird]

Who gives a darn about Gays. The economy is in the gutter and spending by the government is going through the roof.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

I would prefer if states and federal government just abolished the term marriage. Leave it ALL as civil unions and leave it to the religions/organizations to set restrictions on the term "marriage". I see absolutely no point in a government to redefine the term marriage.

That's meaningless drivel. Marriage already exists without any "redefinition" by anyone, and calling civil marriages by another name wouldn't change anything. You're talking about a collection of letters on a page or vocal syllables that have meaning only because society has a common understanding of their meaning.

As long as Federal and state statutes confer specific rights, priviliges and duties for married couples, the Constituional guarantee of equal rights and protections for all citizens should apply to all married couples.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Who gives a darn about Gays. The economy is in the gutter and spending by the government is going through the roof.

Fine, then suspend all marriages until the economy is solved.

 

[BoberFett]

If gays want to marry, let them, it doesn't bother me. Misery loves company after all.

But it's not going to change anyone's opinion. You can't change opinions with legislation.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Who gives a darn about Gays. The economy is in the gutter and spending by the government is going through the roof.

never mastered the art of walking while chewing gum, huh?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: bozack
It won't do anything to futher my acceptance of them.

Fixed for 'ya, Bo.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Just good to see rationality invade the nation.:shocked:

 

[Sacrilege]

Expect years and years more of this right wing squriming as society becomes more accepting. That is, unless they rise up in their armed revolution.

I propose, that social conservatives, in the long haul, are always "loosing" in their mind. They are always going to be disappointed with a free-er social society. Which, so far, has been the history of America: the emancipation of blacks and banning of slavery, womens' suffrage, removal of Jim Crow laws, the civil rights movement, acceptance of interracial marriages, acceptance of non-Christian faiths, rights for Asian and other non-White immigrants, etc.

This differs from what faces economic conservatives and libertarians (and somewhat the left wing as well), as they win and loose in cycles as the US goes back and forth on issues they are concerned about.