|
|
|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Are you for or against gay marriage | |||
| For gay marriage |
   
|
405 | 96.66% |
| Against gay marriage |
  
|
14 | 3.34% |
| Voters: 419. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#51
05-13-2012, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And I realize you're just saying the argument exists (which it does) and not presenting it as a sound argument. Last edited by Little Nemo; 05-13-2012 at 01:38 PM. 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#55
05-13-2012, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#56
05-13-2012, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#57
05-13-2012, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IMHO, if TPTB changed this whole thing to mean that such unions would allow equivalent rights in a lawful relationship for gay people (by whatEVER name they decided to call it), then the debate would likely be over and gay people would be joining in legal partnerships with the full benefits afforded those in marriage.
The problem is that "they" (on both the pro and con sides of the issue), are trying to legislate the definition of the word "marriage". I believe that if states started putting "civil union" (or insert other acceptable term here) on the ballet instead of SSM or Gay Marriage (or whatever is currently on these ballets, I haven't seen one), that they'd be getting passed on a more regular basis and without several iterations of the vote. As long as it's being called "marriage" on the ballets it's going to be balked at by a percentage of the population. From what I see in the news, it's enough of a percentage of the population to keep the vote from being passed. It seems that this has long been a standoff. One side wants to retain the word to mean only what they believe it means and the other side wants to have the word expanded to mean what they want it to mean. Supposedly the word "doesn't mean anything" but both sides seem to be fighting for the rights of just that, a word.
|
|
#58
05-13-2012, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I voted no. *dodges thrown objects*
My views are probably badly stated, but I just want to say I have no problem with gay people getting the same legal rights as heterosexual people in regards to being together, just that I think marriage is a religious thing. Though if there are pastors that are willing to do gay marriages, I'm fine with that too, though I imagine the majority (of pastors) wouldn't. People should be able to get both if they want, though I suppose it is also up to the religious instituiton as well. I'm not entirely sure. Though I'll repeat that I am not against gay unions. So I suppose I probably should've voted for.... oh well. So CU = legal = for everyone Marriage = religious = depends I suppose. Probably going to get bashed for this, but oh well. You wanted an opinion. Edits in brackets. Last edited by Visorslash; 05-13-2012 at 09:04 PM.
|
|
#59
05-13-2012, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, I, for one, am encouraged that this bass-ackwards nation is finally, albeit slowly, coming to the realization that not allowing same-sex couples to marry or, almost as bad, foisting the weaselly, bigoted, discriminatory, and separate and unequal status of 'civil union' on same-sex couples who wish to be married, is not only unacceptable but insulting.
I'm not for 'gay marriage' (stupid term). I'm for marriage, period, regardless of one's sexual orientation. Last edited by Onomatopoeia; 05-13-2012 at 10:05 PM.
|
|
#60
05-13-2012, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#61
05-13-2012, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#62
05-13-2012, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you want my real view, I personally agree with CanvasShoes that the biggest mistake the pro-SSM crew are doing is falling for the anti-SSM crew's bait of bickering over the definition of "marriage" while completely ignoring the real issue of gay couples having inequal, if not nonexistent, legal rights compared to straight couples.
To me, trying to define "marriage" is a pointless exercise because I don't think it has much of a definition to begin with. A better way of achieving equality between gay and straight couples would be to dispense with the word "marriage" altogether and just have the government offer a one-size-fits-all package of full legal rights to any couple that wants them, gay or straight. No difference at all, and gay couples and straight couple will have the same legal rights, and neither will be considered married because no couple will be. So that's the government, and legally "marriage" is now completely irrelevant. As for churches, they can make their own decisions about whether to "marry" gay couples or not. That said, the marriages they do perform will have no legal weight whatsoever and any religiously married couple will be considered no different in the eyes of the law from any unmarried couple in a civil union. Some churches will allow gay couples to marry there, some won't. But any couple that gets married in a church will be having a gesture, while intimate, is completely symbolic and has no practical ramifications whatsoever. If a gay couple wants to marry in a church that allows it, fine. If they aren't allowed to in one, find one that does. If none do, then it still isn't much of an issue because they still have the same exact legal rights as straight couples anyway. (And any America that feels ready to enact this idea is probably going to have a large number, if not a flat-out majority, of churches that will marry gay couples.) The only way this would end up having a real impact on gay couple's lives is if America becomes a theocracy, and if that happens, then gays will have a lot worse problems, such as trying to avoid getting killed. (And again, an America that is willing to enact this idea has zilch chance of ending up a theocracy.) If people want to bitch about the sanctity of marriage, great. Heterosexuals have destroyed that one on their own with half of marriages ending in divorce and idiots like that Kardashian woman staying married for less than the time it takes to finish a football season. Seems to me that there isn't any sanctity left to destroy, and since marriage hasn't always been about romance anyway, which is what the "sanctity of marriage" people are whining about anyway, then there was never any there to begin with. That's the real problem I have with the pro-SSM crowd. The anti-SSM want to make it about the definition of marriage, and the pro-SSM people are falling for it and wasting their time arguing over that and not the actual issue. If the pro-SSM people would figure this out and not take the bait, then we wouldn't have a handful of states with SSM now, we'd have a good half if not more and that's assuming nothing happening on a federal level. The pro-SSM crowd have the right goal in mind, but what they're doing right now will take a lot longer to achieve it, if at all. It isn't about fighting the war, it's about winning it, and the best way to do that is to know how your opponent operates so you can defend against it and give a better offense in return. I know a lot of pro-SSM people understand this and are trying to shift the focus on the legal issue, but there's a lot who are still taking the bait. Fuck marriage, gay or straight. Loving relationships, regardless of who they're between, aren't summed up by a word, and if they were, it sure as hell wouldn't be "marriage".
|
|
#63
05-13-2012, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#64
05-13-2012, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Onomatopoeia what exactly are the legal rights within a civil union? If they're not the same legal benefits of marriage, why not? And IF they're not, good grief! Make it so! Heaven's to Betsy....this isn't that difficult, most anti-gay marriage folks are that way due to religion, so as MWTGG says here, then MAKE marriage a religious institution and make the gov't sanctioned unions be termed something else. After all, that makes sense from an IRS, property division (and all that other stuff) standpoint. So why has the whole "MY word!" "NO MY word" nonsense been going on for SOOO damned long? GAH! just divide them up, I mean, we're supposed to have separation of church and state right?
|
|
#65
05-13-2012, 11:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#66
05-14-2012, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The reality is exactly backwards of what you, and many others, seem to believe marriage is. It's a societal contract, a legal contract between two people, be they christians, taoists, atheists, muslims, zoroastrians, whatever. Religion is not a requirement for marriage and may actually impede it. For example, if your religion allows you to marry your 10 year old sibling, too bad - the state does not, so no legal marriage has taken place. Religion does not determine legal marriage. The state does.
|
|
#67
05-14-2012, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#68
05-14-2012, 05:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Color me shocked by the result. Further proof that the makeup of the general population of this board bears little resemblance to that of the public as a whole.
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#69
05-21-2012, 05:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are gay people getting hung up on the word "marriage"?
Two prongs. The first is the 14th amendment, equal protection before the law and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board that something cannot be separate and equal. Marriage is the right referred to in the 16th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the right to marry is independent of race, nationality or religion. Which leads to the second point, that if marriage were really a religious institution, then congress would be supporting an establishment of religion by proffering certain rights to married couples since those rights wouldn't be available to the irreligious (which simply isn't true, as atheists marry frequently). Then all the stuff Bricker talks about comes in (rational basis [with or without teeth], strict scrutiny and due process). From a logistical standpoint, there are plenty of politicians that'd oppose and debate civil unions for all posterity (Mitt Romney for instance), then once civil unions are achieved, there'd probably be a push to have sexuality recognised as a suspect class (if it isn't already) and federal anti-discrimination legislation, then there'd be a federal case arguing that civil unions violate the equal protection act which'd probably pass. So they may as well argue for this fundamental right (as defined by the UDHR mentioned above) now. Then we can go back to focusing on poverty, disease, starvation and death.
|
|
#70
05-21-2012, 06:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
No, it's not as bad as death. Nothing is. Nothing, absolutely nothing is worth talking about if that's the standard you're putting out there.
|
|
#71
05-22-2012, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone gives a flying fuck who someone else decides to marry. Same sex marriage would not become mandatory, so why does anyone oppose it? Makes no sense to me.
|
|
#73
05-22-2012, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#75
05-22-2012, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Anything? A separate Poll.
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
