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 38 of 48 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 473

Thread: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

  1. #371
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,230

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Life couldn't continue if all animals were homosexual, could it?
    And the likelyhood of that ever happening?

  2. #372
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,321

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    And the likelyhood of that ever happening?
    The same as God's existence.
    It was a mere question, Sherlock.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  3. #373
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    68,004

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    And the likelyhood of that ever happening?



    That could only happen if the Good Reverend was "bi-curious" fortunatly for the human species, he is not. Just sayin...


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  4. #374
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Seen
    02-03-11 @ 07:17 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    585

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    As homosexuality is an observable trait in many different species, the position that it isn't 'natural' is incorrect. Homosexuality is perfectly natural. Claiming that it is not is akin to me saying, "rearing children to adulthood is unnatural"; or even better, "mongamy is unnatural". The scientific evidence supporting these two claims would be shaky at best. Same with homosexuality as being 'unnatural', as all scientific evidence points to homosexuality as being perfectly natural.
    By that standard, serial murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, embezzlement, shoplifting, genocidal rampages, in effect everything is 'perfectly natural', unless you believe in magic and the supernatural, there is no such thing as an 'unnatural act'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    My dog humps strangers' legs.
    What does that mean?
    It means your doggy is kinky and into the canine equivalent of bestiality?

  5. #375
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,504

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No.

    What you said could be construed as failure to conform to standard uses of basic English, like taking things in their proper context.
    Because I'm not a lawyer, I speak english freely and accurately enough for usage here.

    The function of marriage is to publicly announce a formally recognize pair bond, which traditionally carries penalties to outsiders who seek to poach. Naturally, as anyone can see, a marriage in itself is public to that extent. But the decission of who marries who is, in modern culture, up to the individuals foolish enough to tie the knot.

    So you're trying to construct an imaginary contradiction because you can't find a real one.



    It doesn't mean they have the right to interfere. A marriage is an announcement that interference is not permissible.

    How many times do you hit on broads wearing wedding rings? I've done it a time or two, for kicks, but the grazing's easier when the grass doesn't have a fence around it.

    Must you always act like that? I have attempted to debate honestly and I get this ****, being accused of making up imaginary contradictions and mangling the English language. If you can't refute my argument, don't resort to BS.

    A social institution is a part of society...you know, that gestalt of "norms" that a given population uses as a baseline of interaction. Those who publically deviate from those norms affect society as a whole, because they show by example that they can thumb their noses at society. When divorce was percieved by society as abnormal and outside of most people's experience, it was rare. As that norm was broken the social stigmas weakened and divorce became more and more common. Thus the actions of individuals affected society as a whole, and THAT is why "social institutions" ARE a concern of "society".

    Look dude, I live back in the woods and don't participate in "society" all that much, but even I know that no man is an island, and that my actions do affect society as a whole to some degree, and vice-versa.

    If it is a purely private institution, why is it established in public? Because it is part of the social matrix and some degree of acceptance by society is involved.

    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. #376
    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 Picaro View Post
    By that standard, serial murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, embezzlement, shoplifting, genocidal rampages, in effect everything is 'perfectly natural', unless you believe in magic and the supernatural, there is no such thing as an 'unnatural act'.
    So what?

    Anger is natural. Violence is natural. Hate is natural. Sickness is natural.

    That does not make them right.

  7. #377
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Must you always act like that? I have attempted to debate honestly and I get this ****, being accused of making up imaginary contradictions and mangling the English language. If you can't refute my argument, don't resort to BS.

    A social institution is a part of society...you know, that gestalt of "norms" that a given population uses as a baseline of interaction. Those who publically deviate from those norms affect society as a whole, because they show by example that they can thumb their noses at society. When divorce was percieved by society as abnormal and outside of most people's experience, it was rare. As that norm was broken the social stigmas weakened and divorce became more and more common. Thus the actions of individuals affected society as a whole, and THAT is why "social institutions" ARE a concern of "society".

    Look dude, I live back in the woods and don't participate in "society" all that much, but even I know that no man is an island, and that my actions do affect society as a whole to some degree, and vice-versa.

    If it is a purely private institution, why is it established in public? Because it is part of the social matrix and some degree of acceptance by society is involved.
    There's no requirement that the marriage be established in public, or to be a public declaration. I suppose you need a witness, but it doesn't have to be open to the public or attended by anybody but those required for the paperwork. Allowing people to get married is not an endorsement of them in any sense. When two infertile atheists are allowed to get married that does not imply that the majority-Christian nation we have agrees with their union. It's allowing them to make a contract and treating them equally under the law. For some reason gays are treated differently.

    People don't have the right to never be offended, or else anything could be illegal. The fact that religious and homophobic people would be offended by gay marriage does not indicate they have any real stake in the matter. When religion became a legal institution the religious lost their monopoly over the symbol. If marriage can be desecrated by immoral marriages, it was destroyed long ago when it became a legal institution.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-08-09 at 05:22 PM.

  8. #378
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,504

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    There's no requirement that the marriage be established in public, or to be a public declaration. I suppose you need a witness, but it doesn't have to be open to the public or attended by anybody but those required for the paperwork. Allowing people to get married is not an endorsement of them in any sense. When two infertile atheists are allowed to get married that does not imply that the majority-Christian nation we have agrees with their union. It's allowing them to make a contract and treating them equally under the law. For some reason gays are treated differently.

    People don't have the right to never be offended, or else anything could be illegal. The fact that religious and homophobic people would be offended by gay marriage does not indicate they have any real stake in the matter. When religion became a legal institution the religious lost their monopoly over the symbol. If marriage can be desecrated by immoral marriages, it was destroyed long ago when it became a legal institution.
    You are arguing about things I didn't say, after quoting my post.

    Sticking to the social aspect of the argument rather than the strawman ringers:
    Marriage involves a certain level of acceptance by society. As a general rule, society accepts that the married individuals are "off the market" sexually, and are exclusive to each other; others are supposed to keep their hands and etc to themselves.
    Society treats the married couple and their children as a family, as a fundamental building block of the greater society. It is assumed by society that the married couple will raise their children and see to it that they learn society's norms and values and do not casually violate them too often.

    You have to understand that society operates quasi-independently of the law. If you made a law today making gay marriage legal, it will not make married gays ACCEPTED BY SOCIETY as a married couple, because a majority still oppose that issue. At this point in time it would likely INCREASE the fracture between mainstream society and gays because mainstream society would be P!**ed-off at having it shoved down their throats. In fact the ONLY way you can force society to accept gay marriage when a majority oppose it, is exactly thus: BY FORCE. That is, using the force of law to tell everyone "you are required to treat this gay couple as a married couple in all regards, whether you agree with it or not... fail to do so and the LAW will punish you for discrimination and hate crimes."

    People don't like it when these sorts of things are shoved down their throats against their will.

    If the day comes when you have a large majority in favor, social acceptance will be more achievable. I'm not saying that makes any difference in terms of right or wrong, or whether I personally would accept it or not, but speaking socially it matters.
    Last edited by Goshin; 07-08-09 at 05:34 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.'.."

  9. #379
    User smartaleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Central Florida
    Last Seen
    08-31-09 @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    79

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    At least you are being honest and I like the idea that you don't vote no.
    For myself I feel that if all are not free to do what the choose then none are free to do as we choose because sooner or later a law will be made to limit one of my rights. All or none.

  10. #380
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    You are arguing about things I didn't say, after quoting my post.
    No I covered things you did say, and also went into things you didn't say. So what?

    Sticking to the social aspect of the argument rather than the strawman ringers:
    Marriage involves a certain level of acceptance by society. As a general rule, society accepts that the married individuals are "off the market" sexually, and are exclusive to each other; others are supposed to keep their hands and etc to themselves.
    You are incorrect on all counts. The idea of them being "off the market" is just what is usually the expectation, though there are swingers who are married. Marriage does not mean the same thing to all people. It is a contract. The fact that swingers can be married does not mean society is endorsing swingers by letting them get married.

    Society treats the married couple and their children as a family, as a fundamental building block of the greater society. It is assumed by society that the married couple will raise their children and see to it that they learn society's norms and values and do not casually violate them too often.
    Where do you live, Pleasantville? That's not how society is. Society operates on us not putting each others actual interests at risk, not in instilling universal norms. They're not the same from family to family, nor are the majority of families organized in the traditional way you describe, for better or worse.

    You have to understand that society operates quasi-independently of the law. If you made a law today making gay marriage legal, it will not make married gays ACCEPTED BY SOCIETY as a married couple, because a majority still oppose that issue.
    Yes that's true, but it contradicts the rest of your argument. Most gays don't want to get married to be accepted, they want to be treated equally under the law and have equal access to marriage.

    At this point in time it would likely INCREASE the fracture between mainstream society and gays because mainstream society would be P!**ed-off at having it shoved down their throats.
    That's exactly what happened for other civil rights advances tht the majority opposed (all of them that I recall) huh? (:

    In fact the ONLY way you can force society to accept gay marriage when a majority oppose it, is exactly thus: BY FORCE. That is, using the force of law to tell everyone "you are required to treat this gay couple as a married couple in all regards, whether you agree with it or not... fail to do so and the LAW will punish you for discrimination and hate crimes."
    Only in the sense of legal rights. Churches and religious organizations are separate and there should never be grounds to sue churches for discrimination that applies to government conduct. Churches should be able to exclude anybody for any reason, good or bad.

    This whole allowing gays to get married by force is necessary because it will show the majority that society will not be any worse off because of it, some people will merely be happier for it.

    People don't like it when these sorts of things are shoved down their throats against their will.
    It has nothing to do with them. They have no stake in the matter.

    If the day comes when you have a large majority in favor, social acceptance will be more achievable. I'm not saying that makes any difference in terms of right or wrong, or whether I personally would accept it or not, but speaking socially it matters.
    It will come, but at the cost of equality deferred over blind devotion to the false value of democracy. Your argument would apply very well to the South seceding because the majority of them wanted to... actually, yes they should have been allowed to, but not for that reason alone. (:
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-08-09 at 06:39 PM.

Page 38 of 48 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... 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
  •