Americans: Please express your opinion on Gay Marriage in this poll - Page 3

Neutrino · December 20, 2003, 02:10

I am straight and voted for gay marriage. If it makes them happy and doesn't harm society, who am I to deny them that choice?

The Emperor Fabulous · December 20, 2003, 02:11

I voted...but it doesn't tell me the results.

Perhaps they removed them?

EDIT: nm, there it is

Opposition - 40.11% (158964)

Support - 51.55% (204318)

Civil Only - 8.35% (33082)

So will they REALLY show these results to Congress?

MrFun · December 20, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
What's your fallicious reason for not supporting gay marriage? As long as straights are allowed to marry under the governments, gays ought to as well.

If your problem is religious connotations, that shouldn't be under the government whatsoever.

Domestic partnerships are bullshit to me as long as that's all straights can get under the government as well.

I disagree -- if the government ends up compelling religions to include gays in recognized marriages, then this is an infringement on their religious freedom -- even their freedom to be stupid is protected.

So, while I agree that the different religions should be allowed to cling to their stupid conceptions of human dignity tied with relationships, I will in the meantime, advocate for civil unions that are legally recognized on the same ground as marriage.

The Vagabond · December 20, 2003, 02:12

Quote:

Originally posted by reismark
I can't believe our monkey of a president is supporting a constitutional amendment to limit marriages to heterosexual couples ...

It's "to limit gay marriages to heterosexual couples"...

BustaMike · December 20, 2003, 02:13

Quote:

My problem with that is by doing so you admit marriage is obviously a religious instutition, and therefore has no place in government whatsoever -- and all the government should grant to anyone is "domestic partnerships".

Unfortunately this means churches can give marriage certificates to whomever they please, including gay couples. So they don't like that...they want their religion engrained in public policy and law, which is shameful.

Exactly!

However, the separation of church and state these days isn't exactly there a lot of the time. This is a perfect example.

Asher · December 20, 2003, 02:14

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I disagree -- if the government ends up compelling religions to include gays in recognized marriages, then this is an infringement on their religious freedom -- even their freedom to be stupid is protected.

No one said anything about forcing religions to do anything.

The solution is simple:
Disassociate the government from religious concepts such as "marriage" altogether and distribute domestic partnerships to everyone.

Churches may give out marriage certificates to whomever they please, but they hold only religious meanings.

No one would force them to give those out to anyone.

MrFun · December 20, 2003, 02:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

No one said anything about forcing religions to do anything.

The solution is simple:
Disassociate the government from religious concepts such as "marriage" altogether and distribute domestic partnerships to everyone.

Churches may give out marriage certificates to whomever they please, but they hold only religious meanings.

No one would force them to give those out to anyone.

I see -- so you want the government to withdraw all legal privileges for marriages?

I guess I disagree with you on that point, too then. We ought to allow for equal, legal recognition for marriages and civil unions under government law.

Asher · December 20, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I see -- so you want the government to withdraw all legal privileges for marriages?

I guess I disagree with you on that point, too then. We ought to allow for equal, legal recognition for marriages and civil unions under government law.

I don't understand how you think it is equal if both are discriminatory and have the same legal effect.

The government is a legal body, it's not a church. It should not be giving out religious certificates such as marriage, period.

It can grant domestic partnership status, but this should be a single status available to any two people who consentually agree. Having "marriage" restricted for the "moral" straights and "domestic partnership" restricted for the "immoral" gays is a step forward but still not far enough.

If you want future generations to be more tolerant and accepting, one of the things you must do is break down the barriers rather than preserve them. And one of them is different marital statuses.

Boris Godunov · December 20, 2003, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I disagree -- if the government ends up compelling religions to include gays in recognized marriages, then this is an infringement on their religious freedom -- even their freedom to be stupid is protected.

Huh? This makes no sense, since no religious institution is compelled to marry ANYONE, straight or gay, that they don't want to. Many churches refuse to marry a couple when one or both persons are not members of the church's denomination. They can marry whom they wish. Nothing in legalizing gay marriage, even as it stands now, would require a church to marry gays if they didn't want to do so.

Kirnwaffen · December 20, 2003, 02:24

From a practical standpoint, there is no reason to distinguish between the two. Any church that does not wish to perform the ceremony does not have to, and it benefits no one in the government to call it a 'civil union'.

Kirnwaffen · December 20, 2003, 02:28

One minor addition: I also see no reason to withdraw the term 'marriage' from the legal system. It is an established legal tradition, regardless of its origins, and it will be far simpler to expand it than to uproot and replace it (not to mention less controversial).

Al B. Sure! · December 20, 2003, 02:46

hate to burst your bubble, my 'fabulous friends' but this is kind of like the Truman/Dewey election. Phone polls showed Dewey was well in the lead but of course, with phone polls, you could only get the opinions of those with phones and hence, this being 1948, a very large demagraphic of poor people did not respond with Truman so the phone poll was very misleading.

JohnT · December 20, 2003, 02:47

So... all the poor people who can't afford to get on the internet are anti-gay marriage?

Boris Godunov · December 20, 2003, 02:47

Worst analogy ever!

Kirnwaffen · December 20, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

So... all the poor people who can't afford to get on the internet are anti-gay marriage?

Actually, that is probably largely true.

However, since that is a fairly small demographic, I don't really think the situations are analagous.

JohnT · December 20, 2003, 02:50

heh-heh. The gay guy said "anal".

KrazyHorse · December 20, 2003, 02:52

I thought that highly scientific web polls were the way we decided things nowaday.

Kirnwaffen · December 20, 2003, 02:55

Quote:

I thought that highly scientific web polls were the way we decided things nowaday.

Oh, haven't you heard? In America, we've regressed to punch cards...

KrazyHorse · December 20, 2003, 02:56

What's wrong with pencil and paper? We don't seem to have that many problems...

Asher · December 20, 2003, 02:58

That's because there's no one to vote for.

KrazyHorse · December 20, 2003, 03:01

There's always people to vote against, though.

KrazyHorse · December 20, 2003, 03:01

Plus, now that Ed's back we can all agree to vote for the NDP, right?

Vince278 · December 20, 2003, 03:03

The words "gay" and "marriage" are mutually exclusive. Anyone trying to be politically correct can stuff it.

Asher · December 20, 2003, 03:03

I'm tempted to vote for the NDP just for the fun of it.

If only the Natural Law party had candidates in my riding.

KrazyHorse · December 20, 2003, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278
The words "gay" and "marriage" are mutually exclusive. Anyone trying to be politically correct can stuff it.

That's one hell of a post.

Kirnwaffen · December 20, 2003, 03:08

He's got one hell of a sig to go with it.

KrazyHorse · December 20, 2003, 03:10

People who quote themselves are *******s.

Vince278 · December 20, 2003, 03:11

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
heh-heh. The gay guy said "anal".

Yep. The gays are getting to be a real pain in the a**.

Asher · December 20, 2003, 03:13

You should quote that one in your sig, too.

Kirnwaffen · December 20, 2003, 03:15

Either he'll be ignored, or he's going to want flame-retardant clothing.