Log in

View Full Version : Poll: Are u PRO Gay Marriage? Yes or No!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

lemiwinks31
06-28-2011, 10:57 AM
How fitting that the 2 groups meet at the head of the penis.




I dont think this "poll" was meant to be serious.


and if it is serious......that guy should have those dots checked out by a doctor.

MissMynxx
06-28-2011, 11:16 AM
IGNORING this polygamy thing, and trying to pull it back on topic...

I have no problem with gay marriage - but I'm with a couple other people here, a church shouldn't have to perform the marriage.

I also, personally, have no problem calling it something other than marriage. Marriage is largely a "religious" thing NOW, regardless of what it was supposed to be in the first place. Call it a civil ceremony, a civil union, whatever. Should have all the same rights without pissing anyone off. Gays get the rights they deserve, religious people don't have to trip balls about the "sanctity of marriage" being compromised. Nevermind divorce rates, etc...

HOWEVER - I think we as a country have far better things to worry about than gay marriage. And, the last time it came up for a vote - I voted against it. Before you nail me to a cross, the other agendas that keep getting tacked on to a gay marriage bill are ludicrous IMO. If a bill ever comes up that allows gay marriage - and JUST allows gay marriage - without all the other crap attached to it, then I'm down.

Just my $.02.

Lord knows my best friend's moms have been married (legally in Canada, domestic partnership here in the states) for 12 years now and are literally one of the healthiest relationships, with the most well adjusted kids, and the most open and loving home I have EVER seen. It's wrong that they can't call it what it is - they are more dedicated than most married or civilly ceremonied straight people I know.

JayATee
06-28-2011, 11:21 AM
Look, if you want to spend the rest of your life with another guy, go ahead, just show the church the respect of not equating it with one of their sacraments. I begrudge you none of the rights and benefits bestowed upon traditional couples.

Why because the church has been so respectful of every other religion out there? Again, YOUR church isn't the be all end all. You're so stuck on YOUR religion and YOUR church that you can't even see outside the box. ::)

MARRIAGE AND RELIGION DO NOT GO HAND IN HAND. There are a lot of married people out there who don't believe in religion at all. Stop equating the 2.


Calm down.....



I did not say or do anything in my post that requires you to tell me to calm down. Grow up.

bem401
06-28-2011, 11:49 AM
Wrong, it's now dead even.

http://i.imgur.com/Ds0Kr.png

It's impossible to refute the trend too; it won't be long before there's a clear majority in favor. Slippery slope arguments (i.e. if this, what next) are also poor unless it's part of clearly established pattern with a logical next step. As you've said gay marriage has historically never been recognized by the federal government or some Christian sects, so there's no pattern. You just end up with arguments like if gays are allowed to marry, what next, dogs?

It has never been approved when put to a vote. The trend is in the direction you indicate but its not there yet and it might, repeat, might change, but this country has been in such a downward spiral the last two decades I'm not holding my breath.

i mentioned nothing about dogs but you make my argument for me without being sharp enough to realize it. You cite trends in your argument and I basically cite trends in mine. If the trend is toward chipping away at marriage, indeed, what next? On top of which ,read what I wrote. I said if the vote goes that way, so be it. You're trying to make the case because its trending that way, do what, forget the vote and just enact it?

And MM, the government would never be able to force churches to perform same-sex anythings.

Athenathefabulous
06-28-2011, 12:04 PM
bleh well, obviously considering my political viewpoints, im against marriage period. putting government paperwork on love seems very, uhh, un-romantic. if i ever do get married, it will almost definitely be to a friend for a practical reason... i.e. citizenship or money.

that being said, if i thought that marriage was something worthwhile... i think the easiest way to do it would be to scrap marriage all together and give everyone civil unions. leave it to the church and personal preference to use the word marriage. civil union sounds much more bureaucratic...so assign the bureaucratic title to the bureaucratic part. and leave the ceremonial title to the ceremonial components.

bem401
06-28-2011, 12:05 PM
Why because the church has been so respectful of every other religion out there? Again, YOUR church isn't the be all end all. You're so stuck on YOUR religion and YOUR church that you can't even see outside the box. ::)

MARRIAGE AND RELIGION DO NOT GO HAND IN HAND. There are a lot of married people out there who don't believe in religion at all. Stop equating the 2.

Seems like one of your primary interests here is to somehow or other "get even" with the church for some reason. Given your siggy, you clearly have problems with religion. I'm all for equal rights and benefits but against calling it the same thing as a religious sacrament because that's unnecessary especially if equal treatment is given, yet you insist on it And BTW, I rarely attend church any longer but I know the teachings and the operation and fail to see the upside of antagonizing them if you're already being treated the same..

Krill_
06-28-2011, 12:45 PM
It has never been approved when put to a vote. The trend is in the direction you indicate but its not there yet and it might, repeat, might change, but this country has been in such a downward spiral the last two decades I'm not holding my breath.

You're basically throwing out the same "our nation is going to hell in a handbasket" argument made when the Kansas–Nebraska Act doomed slave power, women's suffrage crept towards a constitutional amendment and civil rights were enacted. You're right that popular votes have failed at the state level, but the "marriage defense lobby" (a misnomer if there ever was one) is better funded and more motivated in popular votes. Strait people who are for gay marriage are less motivated than strait people against gay marriage when it's time to get out and vote. If the trend continues the motivation advantage of the defense lobby will eventually be overwhelmed.


i mentioned nothing about dogs but you make my argument for me without being sharp enough to realize it. You cite trends in your argument and I basically cite trends in mine. If the trend is toward chipping away at marriage, indeed, what next?

You're making the case of what's next. I honestly have no idea what people are afraid will come next; there have been farcical suppositions of marrying domesticated animals but I have a hard time taking that seriously.

You seen like a person who's a traditionalist. Well how's this, the founding fathers sought to emulate Greco-Roman ideas of republican government and individual liberty (at least for some), and the Greeks who essentially established the entire foundation of western civilization were almost to the man engaged in homosexual affairs. So using this awesome swooping narrative logic you could say our whole government, from the penning of the declaration of independence to present is a gay idea.

venerable vixen
06-28-2011, 12:59 PM
I voted no.

lemiwinks31
06-28-2011, 01:58 PM
Seems like one of your primary interests here is to somehow or other "get even" with the church for some reason. Given your siggy, you clearly have problems with religion. I'm all for equal rights and benefits but against calling it the same thing as a religious sacrament because that's unnecessary especially if equal treatment is given, yet you insist on it And BTW, I rarely attend church any longer but I know the teachings and the operation and fail to see the upside of antagonizing them if you're already being treated the same..


You didnt respond to the point of Jays post(and i think the main point of her arguement) that marriage refers to a religious sacrament.....AND ALSO non-religious unions.

Marriage was and still is very important to me....nothing about it has anything to do religion. My wife and i got MARRIED by a judge, no religion involved.

Look at your bolded statement......non religious marriage ceremonies have been taking place for over 100 years. So are you are also against hetero couples getting "married" non-religiously?

No one is asking for a same sex catholic church sanctioned sacrement...so if your opposition is based solely on religious reasons.....you can rest easy. We arent even talking about that.

lemiwinks31
06-28-2011, 02:13 PM
bleh well, obviously considering my political viewpoints, im against marriage period. putting government paperwork on love seems very, uhh, un-romantic.


I understand your view.

But i dont look at it as putting governmental paperwork on love.......its more like legally binding paperwork on your commitment. It spells out what your LEGAL commitment is. You and your loved one have already decided the love, devotion..etc part of the relationship and commitment.(and usually, that is what the ceremony is celebrating.....the signing of the certificate is done separately, and not a big deal..that is the legal part of it and it takes about a minute)

When you are young, childless, both work and keep your own money.....i agree, no real reason for it. When you start to combine money, buy a house, have kids, wife stops working to stay at home.......it makes sense.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 02:31 PM
I understand your view.

But i dont look at it as putting governmental paperwork on love.......its more like legally binding paperwork on your commitment. It spells out what your LEGAL commitment is. You and your loved one have already decided the love, devotion..etc part of the relationship and commitment.(and usually, that is what the ceremony is celebrating.....the signing of the certificate is done separately, and not a big deal..that is the legal part of it and it takes about a minute)

When you are young, childless, both work and keep your own money.....i agree, no real reason for it. When you start to combine money, buy a house, have kids, wife stops working to stay at home.......it makes sense.

I agree with that. I think that two people can definitely be just as in love as a married couple without going through with actual marriage. But, no matter how un-romantic it may seem, there are ramifications to consider if you don't spell it out as a legal commitment. Ideally, people in love should never fall out of love and screw each other over. But, even if you think it'll never happen to you, no one can blame you for wanting to cover your ass.

I would also like my SO to make the full commitment if they want to stay with me forever (well, theoretically forever). Any jack-off can say "of course we'll be together forever" but actually having to go through with a wedding and make it "official" takes a real sense of commitment to the idea. (Not that you can't have real commitment without a marriage or that people who go through with weddings are necessarily totally committed, I definitely know that. But it would be nice to feel more a little more reassurance that they're serious because they actually want to make it official and "shout it loud and proud"). Without the official commitment, they could just up and leave the second they get mad. At least with the stress of divorce looming, they might take the time to try to make it work instead and save the relationship instead of booking it.

Kellydancer
06-28-2011, 03:09 PM
I understand your view.

But i dont look at it as putting governmental paperwork on love.......its more like legally binding paperwork on your commitment. It spells out what your LEGAL commitment is. You and your loved one have already decided the love, devotion..etc part of the relationship and commitment.(and usually, that is what the ceremony is celebrating.....the signing of the certificate is done separately, and not a big deal..that is the legal part of it and it takes about a minute)

When you are young, childless, both work and keep your own money.....i agree, no real reason for it. When you start to combine money, buy a house, have kids, wife stops working to stay at home.......it makes sense.

But not all women quit to stay at home (actually something like 80% of all women work)and men quit too. I get what you mean though that it changes when you have kids, which is does. People don't realize that married parents have more rights than unwed parents do. Also, married couples who own houses together have more right than living together people. In fact I would never even consider having kids or buying a house with someone I wasn't married to.

ZePeanut
06-28-2011, 03:41 PM
I vote YES!

*offtopic* I really have a hard time imagining people being offended by lesbians... lesbians are just so...sexy..

eagle2
06-28-2011, 04:00 PM
I have not been changing my reasoning one bit since I weighed in on this thread. The definition of marriage has not changed in the eyes of the US during its history. It has not changed in the eyes of the church in its history. If neither of these institutions have changed it heretofore, why should it change now when the majority of the population opposes changing it? It would only open the door to people looking for changes at least as significant in the future.

The definition of marriage has changed in the eyes of the US during its history. At one time, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race in many states. That definition was changed more than 40 years ago.

eagle2
06-28-2011, 04:08 PM
It has never been approved when put to a vote. The trend is in the direction you indicate but its not there yet and it might, repeat, might change, but this country has been in such a downward spiral the last two decades I'm not holding my breath.


People shouldn't be voting on things that don't affect them in any way. Our country has been in a downward spiral ever since George W Bush became President.

Kellydancer
06-28-2011, 04:09 PM
The definition of marriage has changed in the eyes of the US during its history. At one time, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race in many states. That definition was changed more than 40 years ago.

Not just that but marriage was very unequal back then. Women were expected to give up their careers or at least have them come second to the husband. The husband was expected to be the head of the household and his rule was final whereas the woman was expected to take care of the house and kids. Now, we have women who are breadwinners and men who stayhome, or both people work, or any variation.

bem401
06-28-2011, 05:08 PM
People shouldn't be voting on things that don't affect them in any way. Our country has been in a downward spiral ever since George W Bush became President.

So who makes the decision then? You? A judge? Legislators? Obama? BTW, why is he content to let the 10th Amendment dictate the handling of this but not other issues? This country has been in a downward spiral since before W. IMO, I'd go back to his father.

You provide evidence for why "chipping away" at the definition of marriage is a bad idea. Up until 40 yrs ago, marriage (wrongly) excluded interracial couples for the most part, up till now it has excluded gay couples. What makes you think other types of relationships aren't going to demand to come under the umbrella down the road? Is there evidence of this happening? NO, but 50 yrs ago, interracial marriages were unthinkable, 20 yrs ago gay marriages were unthinkable, and right now the other ones are unthinkable. But just like you just used the reversal of the interracial ban to argue your case, they'll use that and the proposed reversal of the ban on gay marriages to argue their case. The deterioration of what has meant marriage in this country will continue.

Fridays
06-28-2011, 05:13 PM
People shouldn't be voting on things that don't affect them in any way. Our country has been in a downward spiral ever since George W Bush became President.

U are so smart! lol
So.. all poles and statistics would be 100 % yes or 100 % no.:D
Edit: and THIS affects everybody.

camille27
06-28-2011, 05:34 PM
three things that are really sad:

1) in threads like these, you can always tell who is outside of the united states and who went to a non-religious college/university. and you can certainly tell...mmm let me know.

2) sex workers, the most invisible marginalized group in society are discussing whether another marginalized group should be able to make their own life decisions. the irony is astounding.

3) i cannot see the posts of the people who are in favor of separate but equal institutions because they have consistently said so much racist, misogynistic, and idiotic shit that they were on my ignore list ages ago. that's how revealing one's beliefs are. all this hatred goes hand in hand.

shoutout to tall the canadians on the board, yall always give me hope for white people.

Fridays
06-28-2011, 05:45 PM
OMG DUN U C GUIZ, IF WE LET GAY PPL GET MARRYD, PPL R GOIN 2 START MARRYNG ANIMLS N CHLDRN N DER WILL B NO LAWS N IT WILL B TTL CHAOS.
was this directed to me? and if so what this type of typing supposed to mean? spit it out

natilinia rouge
06-28-2011, 05:48 PM
Im sorry i have nothing against gay's but i vote no it was just the way i was raised and my beliefs

Fridays
06-28-2011, 05:53 PM
Barack Obama on Gay Marriage



Politics and Gay marriage

bem401
06-28-2011, 05:57 PM
three things that are really sad:

1) in threads like these, you can always tell who is outside of the united states and who went to a non-religious college/university. and you can certainly tell...mmm let me know.

2) sex workers, the most invisible marginalized group in society are discussing whether another marginalized group should be able to make their own life decisions. the irony is astounding.

3) i cannot see the posts of the people who are in favor of separate but equal institutions because they have consistently said so much racist, misogynistic, and idiotic shit that they were on my ignore list ages ago. that's how revealing one's beliefs are. all this hatred goes hand in hand.

shoutout to tall the canadians on the board, yall always give me hope for white people.

Funny how you lament your impressions of racism by targeting a specific race when that has nothing to do with this debate. .

4everresolutions
06-28-2011, 05:58 PM
shoutout to tall the canadians on the board, yall always give me hope for white people.


We're not perfect but we're working at it.

eagle2
06-28-2011, 06:07 PM
U are so smart! lol
So.. all poles and statistics would be 100 % yes or 100 % no.:D
Edit: and THIS affects everybody.

U are so smart! Poles are what strippers use when they're performing.

eagle2
06-28-2011, 06:10 PM
So who makes the decision then? You? A judge? Legislators? Obama? BTW, why is he content to let the 10th Amendment dictate the handling of this but not other issues? This country has been in a downward spiral since before W. IMO, I'd go back to his father.


Judges or legislators. If desegregation was decided by referendum, the south would probably still be segregated today.

Amy Lee
06-28-2011, 06:10 PM
Hell NO...seeing what people do with it, I'll pass.

JayATee
06-28-2011, 06:16 PM
Im sorry i have nothing against gay's but i vote no it was just the way i was raised and my beliefs

People like you are my favourite. You have no idea why you have the opinion you do, you've absolutely no basis for it besides "its how I was raised. It's ok to hate black people, or indians, or Jews, and not give them the same rights as everyone else because it's how you were raised? Your parents couldn't have potentially raised you with the wrong ideaologies? They're opinions are the be all and all and you'll never think and grow for yourself? Really? That's sad to me.

bem401
06-28-2011, 06:26 PM
Judges or legislators. If desegregation was decided by referendum, the south would probably still be segregated today.

So the people have no say as to the conditions under which they live? That is the definition of tyranny.

bem401
06-28-2011, 06:28 PM
People like you are my favourite. You have no idea why you have the opinion you do, you've absolutely no basis for it besides "its how I was raised. It's ok to hate black people, or indians, or Jews, and not give them the same rights as everyone else because it's how you were raised? Your parents couldn't have potentially raised you with the wrong ideaologies? They're opinions are the be all and all and you'll never think and grow for yourself? Really? That's sad to me.

Must the race card be played when race has nothing to do with her position? The willingness to play that card is greater evidence of racism than is an objection to gay marriage, which has nothing to do with race..

4everresolutions
06-28-2011, 06:45 PM
U are so smart! Poles are what strippers use when they're performing.

ZING! Hahahaha! Good catch. I didn't see that one. :D

lilykane
06-28-2011, 06:54 PM
Judges or legislators. If desegregation was decided by referendum, the south would probably still be segregated today.
You call other people bigots and yet you're allowed to make sweeping generalizations. You call others narrow-minded, and you say shit like this? I've tried to ignore the bulk of your moronic posts, but I just can't do it anymore. I support gay marriage and everything that goes with it, but if I didn't, people like you would likely make me even more opposed. Just stop talking, because you're hurting the cause.

eagle2
06-28-2011, 06:58 PM
No, you are an idiot because you don't understand my point.

lilykane
06-28-2011, 07:00 PM
No, you are an idiot because you don't understand my point.
And every time you open your mouth you prove my point ::)

Trem
06-28-2011, 07:01 PM
So the people have no say as to the conditions under which they live? That is the definition of tyranny.

Letting the majority oppress the minority sounds like tyranny to me.

bem401
06-28-2011, 07:04 PM
No, you are an idiot because you don't understand my point.

I understood your post perfectly. Justify the tyranny to me and the basis for your claim that segregation would still be in effect. It was ended back in the 60's, spearheaded by the GOP, over the objections of some Dems like Gore's father and the Klansman Senator.

bem401
06-28-2011, 07:09 PM
Letting the majority oppress the minority sounds like tyranny to me.

Do you know how to use a dictionary? So now majority rule is tyranny? Look it up. And where is the oppression?

sparky72
06-28-2011, 07:19 PM
Do you know how to use a dictionary? So now majority rule is tyranny? Look it up. And where is the oppression?

To those in the minority majority rule can seem like tyranny

Mr Hyde
06-28-2011, 07:21 PM
this thread needs to be closed. It's why the Political board was shut down.

Is there a mod here that can kill this thread? It's just poison.

eagle2
06-28-2011, 07:22 PM
I understood your post perfectly. Justify the tyranny to me and the basis for your claim that segregation would still be in effect. It was ended back in the 60's, spearheaded by the GOP, over the objections of some Dems like Gore's father and the Klansman Senator.

No, it was spearheaded by President Johnson. African Americans in the south were oppressed for hundreds of years before the Civil Rights Act was passed. What would have caused attitudes to change in the south if the federal government didn't pass the Civil Rights Act? How would civil rights for African Americans have come about in the South if there weren't federal laws passed to guarantee them?

bem401
06-28-2011, 07:40 PM
No, it was spearheaded by President Johnson. African Americans in the south were oppressed for hundreds of years before the Civil Rights Act was passed. What would have caused attitudes to change in the south if the federal government didn't pass the Civil Rights Act? How would civil rights for African Americans have come about in the South if there weren't federal laws passed to guarantee them?

The Act was passed by a GOP-congress and signed by Johnson, who was busy doing his Great Society damage. People decided it was time for a change and the legislation was passed. It was not the case of the minority jamming something down the throat of the majority, aka tyranny..

lilykane
06-28-2011, 07:41 PM
I understood your point; I just think it's incorrect and that you should stop being such a know-it-all. But next time could you spell out referendum for me as well? Big words make my head hurt;)

I grew up around the people you find so awful and backward, and your constant insults and jabs at them are frustrating to say the least. I know plenty of people who are against gay marriage, and I know that your attitude would only make them feel justified in their beliefs. You're condescending and judgmental, and that attitude does NOTHING to sway someone to your side. My earlier comment was not only in response to your desegregation claim; it was in response to your general claims about Republicans, southerners, conservatives, Christians, etc etc.

I want people to understand that gay marriage is not some wrong, harmful thing, but the way to change people's opinions is not to tell them their views are wrong and call them a bigot.

We're on the same side, I just feel like your attitude is hurting rather than helping.

JayATee
06-28-2011, 07:42 PM
Must the race card be played when race has nothing to do with her position? The willingness to play that card is greater evidence of racism than is an objection to gay marriage, which has nothing to do with race..

Omfg are you truly this dense? I'd rather believe you were doing this on purpose. I am talking about biased ideas instilled by parents. I didn't play a race card I made a valid point. If you'd stop simply arguing with me just to argue maybe you'd see it.

Women in the 20's had to fight to vote. I guarantee parents taught their children prior to the women's rights movement that women shouldn't be allowed to have those rights for whatever reason. Was that correct? Hardly. How about the civil rights movement in the 60's? Was it right to not consider black people people? Of course not. Were kids taught that? You bet your ass. How about when Hitler came to power and started murdering Jews? You don't think the German army men responsible taught their kids that they're superior and they should hate and murder them? Now its the 21st century and now we're once again denying people rights.

I'm not pulling a race card. I'm pulling a life card.

bem401
06-28-2011, 07:44 PM
To those in the minority majority rule can seem like tyranny

So? Now we're going to redefine "tyranny" as well? I'm not minimizing their struggles but it doesn't mean you can redefine the word like they are trying to do with marriage.

lilykane
06-28-2011, 07:49 PM
If a referendum on desegregation was held in Mississippi or Alabama in 1964, how do you think the vote would have turned out?
I'm not disputing that it certainly would have taken longer, but I disagree that desegregation would still be in effect. Attitudes had already begun to seriously change in the 60s; I'm pretty sure it would have only taken the south a decade or two to follow suit.

eagle2
06-28-2011, 08:02 PM
That's true. It would have been better worded if I specified the 1960's. I am aware that attitudes in the South have changed significantly since then. It's just hard to say how much of the change was as a result of civil rights laws that were passed. Perhaps without these laws being passed, peoples' attitudes would still have changed over time.

bem401
06-28-2011, 08:09 PM
Omfg are you truly this dense? I'd rather believe you were doing this on purpose. I am talking about biased ideas instilled by parents. I didn't play a race card I made a valid point. If you'd stop simply arguing with me just to argue maybe you'd see it.

Women in the 20's had to fight to vote. I guarantee parents taught their children prior to the women's rights movement that women shouldn't be allowed to have those rights for whatever reason. Was that correct? Hardly. How about the civil rights movement in the 60's? Was it right to not consider black people people? Of course not. Were kids taught that? You bet your ass. How about when Hitler came to power and started murdering Jews? You don't think the German army men responsible taught their kids that they're superior and they should hate and murder them? Now its the 21st century and now we're once again denying people rights.

I'm not pulling a race card. I'm pulling a life card.


Bottom line, opposing gay marriage is not akin to racism and shouldn't be likened to it. On too of that, the color of your skin, your ethnicity, and your gender are not the same as the life-style you choose.