View Poll Results: Would you vote to legalize same gender marriages?

Voters
142. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I would vote to make gay marriage legal

    99 69.72%
  • No, I would vote against making gay marriage legal

    37 26.06%
  • I am undecided and wouldn't vote

    6 4.23%
Page 20 of 48 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 473

Thread: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

  1. #191
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,605

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy
    I don't have a problem with what you say here. I have a problem with you denigrating the religious.
    Have all the problems you want. I have problems with the religious trying to force their religious views on a secular society.

    No, you miss the boat on this. Your interpretation is too broad, as one MAN, one WOMAN is quite specific. This is why the law could not be modified to allow women to vote. An amendment had to be created. This is why the law couldn't be modified to abolish the slavery of black people. An amendment needed to be created. This is precisely why, from a discrimination standpoint, new law would need to be created...not modifying old law. From a benefits standpoint, modification is far easier.
    It could have been, it simply wasn't. You confuse an event with a requirement. It's entirely possible that they could have simply decided that blacks couldn't be slaves or women could vote, both happened to end up as amendments because they were pushed as such. Certainly we didn't need an amendment when the military was desegregated or women got other rights equal to men, it simply wasn't necessary.

    And to allow it you would have to create new law, not modify old law. Are you telling me that YOU can't tell the difference.
    No, but apparently you can't.

    And yet my argument has easily dumped yours in the garbage, showing that is yours that is asinine.
    Yeah, you keep on telling yourself that. Might actually get someone to believe it.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  2. #192
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,637

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Have all the problems you want. I have problems with the religious trying to force their religious views on a secular society.
    Force. When they do that, I will stand with you. But, I wonder if your and my definition of "force" are the same.

    It could have been, it simply wasn't. You confuse an event with a requirement. It's entirely possible that they could have simply decided that blacks couldn't be slaves or women could vote, both happened to end up as amendments because they were pushed as such. Certainly we didn't need an amendment when the military was desegregated or women got other rights equal to men, it simply wasn't necessary.
    Because there was precedence in other laws. Using the discrimination tactic worked because of that. And they could not alter those things, originally without an amendment.



    No, but apparently you can't.
    Actually, I can, but no matter how much I explain it, you refuse to.

    Yeah, you keep on telling yourself that. Might actually get someone to believe it.
    As long as what I'm believing is accurate, which it is, what you believe is your business.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #193
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-16-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Anyone who attaches any relevancy to genetics concerning behavior of people is fundamentally entering the world of bigots and such considerations should be completely disregarded.

    All of you claiming people are gay because they are born to be gay then also get off on so-called studies showing that blacks are most physically capable but whites more intellectually capable - for which then blacks should be laborers and whites the management. You put significance on claims that men are better at mathematics and women at linguists. For this you absolutely, completely discredit individuality and put people into various sub set of the human species collectively.

    IF gayness is a genetic trait, then it is legitimate to debate whether it is desirable or undesirable, indeed whether it is then a birth defect. There are many reasons then to claim it is a genetic defect that is undesirable - reason then to urge gays not to have children.

    It is known that gays are drawn to those similar to them and repelled by those who are different. Gays can only handle romance, marriage and sex with people the same as them. While heterosexuals are drawn to what is opposite. Gays can't handle difference.

    This would be consistent with how so many gays in general and on this forum rage and throw tantrums when anyone disagrees with them. It would explain how quickly gays try to put themselves on the persecution cross. It also would explain who so many gays express they are psychologically crushed by parents who don't agree with their being different from them, while parents have been disagreeing with the lifestyle and values of their next generation children for centuries at least and millions of heterosexual youths have been thrown out of the house without seeing their entire lives crushed.

    The worst trait of gay "genetics" (for those who accredit it to genetics) is their high suicide rates compared to heterosexuals. Self destructiveness isn't limited only to suicide. It can also mean inability to maintain relationships, unable to work with others in employment, and overall depresssion and instability.

    As you "debate" the genetics of gays compared to straights, you should also go ahead and also return to debating the genetic differences between blacks and whites, the genetic differences between men and women, and even the genetic differences between liberals and conservatives.

  4. #194
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    IF gayness is a genetic trait, then it is legitimate to debate whether it is desirable or undesirable, indeed whether it is then a birth defect. There are many reasons then to claim it is a genetic defect that is undesirable - reason then to urge gays not to have children.
    No, it is not legitimate. There are innumerable genetic traits. Only a few can be posited as genetic defect. "Desirability" alone is a poor criterion for assigning the status of defect to a genetic trait.

  5. #195
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,445

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    I suppose I'll eventually have to accept some sort of "civil union" law. I'd prefer it as a contract between private individuals making each other "next of kin", primary heir, power-of-attorney, household-members, ownership-in-common, etc.

    I don't want it called "marriage", because it isn't what marriage has been and meant in almost every culture for thousands of years.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #196
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,323
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Why does that need to be an entirely separate argument?

    (Hint: it doesn't)
    It probably does not need to be handled as a different issue, though I think it should be. They are however two entirely different things, and not the same issue at all.

    Hint: 2 different things are not the same thing.

  7. #197
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I don't want it called "marriage", because it isn't what marriage has been and meant in almost every culture for thousands of years.
    That's a whole heap of things you're trying to call one thing.

    The Chinese only outlawed polygamy within a few years of us legalizing interracial marriage. Jealousy used to be grounds for divorce.

  8. #198
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-22-16 @ 07:06 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,215

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    It probably does not need to be handled as a different issue, though I think it should be. They are however two entirely different things, and not the same issue at all.

    Hint: 2 different things are not the same thing.
    Apples and oranges are both fruits.

  9. #199
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    It probably does not need to be handled as a different issue, though I think it should be. They are however two entirely different things, and not the same issue at all.
    Are they?

    So there is agreement and conformity on the definition of "marriage"?

    You sure about that?

  10. #200
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,445

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    That's a whole heap of things you're trying to call one thing.

    The Chinese only outlawed polygamy within a few years of us legalizing interracial marriage. Jealousy used to be grounds for divorce.
    To elaborate on what I was saying:

    While marriage customs have varied according to period in history and local culture, thoughout history the norm has been "male, female, childen." Sometimes it was polygamous, yes, but still male-female.

    Male-male and female-female has never been a marriage norm, to my knowlege. Even those ancient Greek cultures where homosexual behavior between men was commonplace, typically reserved "marriage" as being male-female with procreation in mind. While the Romans may have briefly tolerated same-sex marriages among the "eccentric aristocracy" during a certain period of history, it wasn't even close to being the norm.

    Throughout history, marriage has been man-woman-children as the norm, whatever other differences might have existed.

    The family is the fundamental unit of stable societies. Changing the definition of "marriage" from that fundamental man-woman-children principle seems inadvisable.
    Last edited by Goshin; 07-05-09 at 01:28 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

Page 20 of 48 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •