View Poll Results: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Voters
430. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    186 43.26%
  • Yes, explain

    244 56.74%
Page 19 of 192 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969119 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 1915

Thread: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  1. #181
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    1.) And that wouldn’t change it, they can still hold it sacred no matter what others do. so no need to change the name. There’s 100 of things religion holds sacred that others don’t but they don’t change do they? only to the person who doesn’t share those beliefs. That’s why I feel its a BS issue with the word sacred. Only in the GAY case is it sacred all others no big deal.
    I am confused as to what you are saying here...

    As I understand it, some religions hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, no other options. Thus it would seem anything except that would not be considered sacred/acceptable.

    Not just gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    2.) No you would NOT be legislating a legal (you mean religious, yes?) matter unless you are claiming we already are? You can get married WITHOUT religion and Religion can also deny you marriage RIGHT NOW. That wouldn’t change either
    I find this statement confusing as well...

    However, several things.

    Yes, it could be argued that we are currently legislating a religious matter by involving legal financial unions and tax breaks with a religious union system.

    Currently, a man and a woman (and man-man or woman-woman in some states?) can get "married" in the legal sense without religion, but religion cannot (contrary to what you say) deny you marriage. Any given religion can deny you marriage within that religion, but not in any legal way.

    Obviously that wouldn't change, but I am saying that redefining the legal half of "marriage" by some other word, and then granting gays the option to take part, would most likely eliminate a portion of the opposition to it...by sidestepping the thing.

    Obviously, any religion could then (and can now) marry two persons of the same sex according to the procedures of their religion.

    Only difference would be the freakin' word, really, but that's important to some...probably even the majority.

    The gay couple could call it marriage, but the persons who don't accept it as such wouldn't have to recognize it as such legally - as opposed to the current idea of simply extending the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    3.) While I agree "resistance" might be removed some, there shouldn’t be resistance in the first place, and where resistance would get moved others would want to know why they are being discriminated against and they have to use a different name when it is the same thing.
    Why shouldn't there be resistance? If someone believes the gay marriage is against the will of (insert entity here), who am I to disagree with them?

    Obviously, no matter what is done there will be some who want laws actually banning gays from getting married. But that's unconstitutional. There's a reason we have a constitution, and it’s to prevent people from doing such things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    4.) again nothing would change clinging to the word marriage is just an excuse IMO because of the countless OTHER things people don’t cling to religiously. Allowing gay marriage changes nothing accept gives equal rights to those currently being denied them
    If the wish of gay couples is only for equal rights, than changing the name of a legal union shouldn't matter in the least to them. They can still get married at a church that accepts such.

    Demanding that it be called marriage in the law is completely pointless, from my viewpoint, as is calling it any other term.

    But it would probably eliminate a majority of the opposition, as well as removing much of the anger. What's wrong with that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    5.) I know what you are saying but there’s no need because there isn’t a separate one right now?
    No idea what you are saying here...You appear to be contradicting yourself.

    If what you are saying is what I think you are saying…

    Then yes, there are currently two separate “marriage” parts, the religious and the legal.

    Renaming the legal part to something else seems a fairly simple and easy measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    6.) Rights are NOT being preserved right now, they are being denied, allowing gay marriage would preserve them not the other way around.
    You can't preserve something by allowing it unless it was previously allowed and then banned, and depending on your religious views, there is or is not a "right" to gay marriage.
    Further, gay marriage is not being denied, only the right to legal gay marriage is being denied.

    As to the preservation of rights that I mentioned, changing the legal word usage before extending the system to gays would preserve the right for people who believe a certain way to continue in their non-acceptance of gay marriage as valid.
    Now, obviously they would still have that right, but enshrining it in the law would mean the had to acknowledge it legally. Which would cause issues…

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    7.) Oh? I never heard of that definition of a centrist, at least not in the group I belong to that made me decide to be one. They aren’t people with NO opinions they are people that understand that there’s two sides to everything the world is grey and what is best for them might not be best for others. They want most if not all people to have happiness, and equal rights. They understand that ONE decision may need special rules to work right and can’t not (double negatives worry MS word) always be a blanket fix. But again thanks for explaining I get it now.

    Like you I am also a leaner but with center roots. It funny because it get reinforced all the time in debates because people say I’m a lefty when talking about Gay rights, healthcare abortion but I’m a righty when talking about Guns, military etc

    Good talks BTW
    Interesting, indeed.
    Last edited by The Mark; 05-02-10 at 10:58 PM.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #182
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,166

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    1.) you should read SLOWER next time without the over emotion. I didnt say your CONCERNS were all that stuff in relation to what you believe, they are fine that way you are allowed to be concerned with what ever you want sir BUT when it comes to STOPPING it yes they are all the aforementioned. See OP for further understanding

    2&3.) I have no burden of anything, it in fact existed for over 1000 years so IM not redefining anything LMAO it DID existed so the definition of MAN WOMEN is fallacy Or elective in believing pick one. lol

    4.) its my job to convince you? why its my poll and question LOL and you have in facted stated some fantasy and fallies no changing that deny if you wish but facts remain the same. Also you are still not understanding which parts im am calling selfish etc your generalizing and doing it wrong

    5.) "militant faction" LMAO wat a joke are you imlying that ONLY militants want gay marriage hahahaha because if not this is another meaningless fantasy of your doom and gloom type of worry and future. Guess we should never change anything because the "militant faction" will never stop. Lets do nothing then forever. lol

    6.) really? pot meet kettle then, I have no burden of proof. Gay marriage existed for over 1000 years, fact. Gays not being allowed to marry is denying them equal rights, fact.

    7.) what unproven assertions? like what? that we will NOT lose our freedom of religion and speech because of gay rights like in your fantasy world? Rest assured if we lose those two things it will have NOTHING to do ith gay marrige LMAO yes I call that a fallacy because nothing will change to effect those things, if we are going to lose them it will happen with or without gay marriage because it does nothing to add to the case of removing them LOL

    8 & 9.) dont say something so silly and i wont laugh, i simply used your poor example against you to show you theres no logic behind it. Again have no desire to persuade you at all in any believes etc. this is my thread and poll so its your job to convince me why you think personally you have the right to STOP it. Not asking about voting not asking about believing thinking it wrong. Convince me that you have the right to tell two other consenting adults who they can and cant marry seems you misunderstanding the whole point or you are trying to spin it since you cant defend it. You claimed something might happened that is down right silly because it has ZERO basis and I gave you examples but yet some how you tell me when i use examples have no basis? interesting?

    10.) really? how do you figure that? my way EVERYBODY gets to marry and do what THEY want and its EQUAL and NO ONE one is discriminated against. The other way only SOME groups of people get to do what they want and the others ARE discriminated against. Seems perfectly centrist to me. Explain to me how my way is HYPER-partiasn but the other way is bipartisan LMAO

    11.) again you should open mouth insert foot cause you are using emotion not logic. My last statement was in general, notice my EXACT statement was "MANY of peoples arguments" Aka MEANING (not all) LOL and certainly never said YOU.

    nobody said YOU are racist sexist etc LMAO Mr dramatic. I certainly didnt by any stretch of the imagination

    and again lastly i wasnt trying to convince you of anything but for some reason reality seems to escape you LOL

    congratulations to you and your over barring emotions, your spin machine and misunderstanding or just about everything

    thanks for admitting i was open and honest maybe next time you will do the same thanks for playing

    Quantity of verbage is no substitute for quality.

    No you didn't directly say I was unreasonable, arrogant and anti-american...you simply attached those labels to my position and imputed them to me by implication. Nice try, no cigar.

    If you think I attached any particular emotional content to our exchange, you are mistaken. That would mean your opinion mattered to me... it doesn't, as you've already demonstrated you aren't here for open and honest debate, but merely to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you. It isn't like I haven't seen this kind of behavior dozens of times on this board.

    I was simply trying to determine whether you were worth bothering with; the answer is no, and I will waste no further effort on you.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: 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.'.."

  3. #183
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    SO just to be clear are you saying if there was a vote you would just not vote on the subject? and its because while you believe in your beliefs you understand that in america your beliefs arent right for all and shouldnt be opposed on anyone.

    im i "guessing" right or full of it lol
    Not full of it, but totaly missed what I was saying.

    "I see it as nothing but wanting to legitimize something I see as illegitimate." - Blackdog

    Even if I was not a Christian, I would still vote against gay marriage. I would vote yes for civil unions recognized by the federal government. I would vote yes to get government out of marriage completely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  4. #184
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    1.)I am confused as to what you are saying here...

    As I understand it, some religions hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, no other options. Thus it would seem anything except that would not be considered sacred/acceptable.

    Not just gay marriage.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    2.)I find this statement confusing as well...

    However, several things.

    Yes, it could be argued that we are currently legislating a religious matter by involving legal financial unions and tax breaks with a religious union system.

    Currently, a man and a woman (and man-man or woman-woman in some states?) can get "married" in the legal sense without religion, but religion cannot (contrary to what you say) deny you marriage. Any given religion can deny you marriage within that religion, but not in any legal way.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3.)Obviously that wouldn't change, but I am saying that redefining the legal half of "marriage" by some other word, and then granting gays the option to take part, would most likely eliminate a portion of the opposition to it...by sidestepping the thing.


    Obviously, any religion could then (and can now) marry two persons of the same sex according to the procedures of their religion.

    Only difference would be the freakin' word, really, but that's important to some...probably even the majority.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4.) The gay couple could call it marriage, but the persons who don't accept it as such wouldn't have to recognize it as such legally - as opposed to the current idea of simply extending the system.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5.) Why shouldn't there be resistance? If someone believes the gay marriage is against the will of (insert entity here), who am I to disagree with them?
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    6.)Obviously, no matter what is done there will be some who want laws actually banning gays from getting married. But that's unconstitutional. There's a reason we have a constitution, and it’s to prevent people from doing such things.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    7.) If the wish of gay couples is only for equal rights, than changing the name of a legal union shouldn't matter in the least to them. They can still get married at a church that accepts such.

    Demanding that it be called marriage in the law is completely pointless, from my viewpoint, as is calling it any other term.

    But it would probably eliminate a majority of the opposition, as well as removing much of the anger. What's wrong with that?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------


    8.) No idea what you are saying here...You appear to be contradicting yourself.

    If what you are saying is what I think you are saying…

    Then yes, there are currently two separate “marriage” parts, the religious and the legal.

    Renaming the legal part to something else seems a fairly simple and easy measure.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    9.) You can't preserve something by allowing it unless it was previously allowed and then banned, and depending on your religious views, there is or is not a "right" to gay marriage.
    Further, gay marriage is not being denied, only the right to legal gay marriage is being denied.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10.) As to the preservation of rights that I mentioned, changing the legal word usage before extending the system to gays would preserve the right for people who believe a certain way to continue in their non-acceptance of gay marriage as valid.
    Now, obviously they would still have that right, but enshrining it in the law would mean the had to acknowledge it legally. Which would cause issues…

    Interesting, indeed.
    1.) yes some religions do define it that way and they still would be able too. The law would NOT change the "religious" definition of anything therefore it would STILL be sacred to the people it currently is.

    2.) sorry religion can in fact DENY you marriage under their religion as you say, a church can choose not to marry ANYBODY they dont want to and the law wouldnt change that. I have a friend that had to go to 3 churches before he could get married and then only if he took classes and converted. There was nothing he could legally do about because the church reserves that right based on religion.

    3.) Again i get what you are saying but it shouldnt be needed, no religion is trying to stop other marriages not mbased on their religion so why do it in this case. Changing the word sidesteps equal rights IMO

    4.) again they dont have to accept it except legally and all religions already have to do that for many things because this is AMERICA first. Legal trumps religion on certain things. For example you are a sinner by some religions if you drink, have premartial sex or masturbate. But those things arent illegal right? Some religions dont want you to eat meat at certain time, food places are still open? right

    5.) like i said in the OP its fine to believe that but once you try to stop it IMO its wrong because you are in fact forcing your religious beliefs on others and acting like you are not a hypocrite (not really YOU but you know what i mean )

    6.) I agree 100% it is unconstitutional and it will eventually change because we get smarted as time goes on certain things, mainly discrimination

    7.) I agree to a point but would have no argument for gays who said calling it something different is still discrimination. Now this example is just humor and stretching but just giving an example for you to see. Ok mr obama you can be president but were gonna call you something else instead, you just get all the rules or president but we cant call you that. Now when somebody else fully whit becomes president we will go back to using the "word" president. Again yes i know thats a crazy example but im just saying it makes it easy to see why some find that offensive oppressive and discriminatory

    so thats what i see gays thinkin is wrong with that

    8.) What im saying is that right now there is only ONE type of marriage, the LEGAL. The religion is secondary and isnt needed. SO currently they arent separate and still called marriage with or with out religion so nothing would change.

    9.) but there is a right to marry and equality and that isnt being preserved. I do understand what you are saying that since it wasnt allowed before than preserve is the wrong word but equality and marriage is allowed and is being denied to a certain group

    10.) just dont see how keeping the word the same effect them at all. Right now I could marry anybody I want with out religion and they dont have to accept it except legally and thats fine. No need to change that just because it gay marriage,
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #185
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Quantity of verbage is no substitute for quality.

    No you didn't directly say I was unreasonable, arrogant and anti-american...you simply attached those labels to my position and imputed them to me by implication. Nice try, no cigar.

    If you think I attached any particular emotional content to our exchange, you are mistaken. That would mean your opinion mattered to me... it doesn't, as you've already demonstrated you aren't here for open and honest debate, but merely to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you. It isn't like I haven't seen this kind of behavior dozens of times on this board.

    I was simply trying to determine whether you were worth bothering with; the answer is no, and I will waste no further effort on you.
    translation: "I cant defend what i was saying or answer your questions so ill just act like im writing you off and try to devalue your points, ill even lie and say you arent here for honest debate to make myself look better and try to discredit you"

    well you failed sir but thats fine with me LMAO
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #186
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Not full of it, but totaly missed what I was saying.

    "I see it as nothing but wanting to legitimize something I see as illegitimate." - Blackdog

    Even if I was not a Christian, I would still vote against gay marriage. I would vote yes for civil unions recognized by the federal government. I would vote yes to get government out of marriage completely.
    so you would vote no to stop equal marriage. Why do you think that is your right to tell two consenting adults who they can marry?

    why does the term marriage bother you?

    Government needs to be in marriage IMO cant change that and also it is a government thing first and religious secondary anyway.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    Why do you think that is your right to tell two consenting adults who they can marry?
    They asked for my permission.

  8. #188
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    currently civil unions do not have the same rights so thats one thing "bad" with it
    secondly marriages has NOTHING to do with private institutions unless the people getting married want it to. A magistrate, judge, or even somebody with a license can marry people.
    I should've been more clear. I support civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage as it's currently defined, and then leaving marriage to private institutions.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  9. #189
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    They asked for my permission.
    dodge the question again, its typical for you
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #190
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    I should've been more clear. I support civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage as it's currently defined, and then leaving marriage to private institutions.
    Oh, ok thanks

    Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Anything else is secondary so why do you feel the need to hange the name?

    you dont think thats discrimination by changing the name?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Posting Permissions

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