View Poll Results: What is same sex marriage?

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • A special right

    109 56.77%
  • Equal protection

    62 32.29%
  • Other

    21 10.94%
Page 38 of 98 FirstFirst ... 2836373839404888 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 976

Thread: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

  1. #371
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, just the other day I was talking about this with my husband. I think that when children are involved in the marriage, the couple should have to work on their problems (exceptions could be made for abuse and perhaps some other things). If there are no children involved, the couple should be able to get a divorce whenever they want though.
    I'll even take that.

  2. #372
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:57 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    perhaps our differing predictions here stem also from our differing assumptions of the issue at hand; with you seeking out the "civil rights" parallel and myself seeking out the "sexual issue" parallel. i think in particular, though, when people marry and have children they tend to lose their tendency towards support of homosexual marriage; though I admit off hand I have no data to back up my presumption.

    does anyone have a good breakdown of the voting records from the States that have put Homosexual Marriage on the ballot?
    I don't see it as primarily a civil rights issue.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #373
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    so is your argument that it was never really in religion to be against interracial marriage or racism for that matter people just twisted it and used it for a tool to try and do so? or now the interpretation changed and we no longer practice it that way?
    not until the late 19th and early 20th Century did any part of Christian theology ever discuss interacial marriage; except to comment that in Christ there no longer was any distinction between the races. in premodern Christian culture there are multiple public incidents of interracial marriage. note, for example, Othello the Moor from Shakespeare; where the strife wasn't that a white woman married a black man, but rather that a passed-over junior officer was jealous of how loved Othello was. but fast forward to an era where now eugenics is science, and then take the institutions built upon eugenics, and deprive them of their moral stance via the fell swoop of the Holocaust. people will always seek to anchor their arguments in the most unassailable sources, and so yes, as social darwinism fell apart and science no longer lent its' credibility to opposing miscegination, some sought instead to anchor the argument in the bible. the move didn't work as Christian theology wasn't a natural home for such a belief system; and in fact it could be said that it objectively failed as instead the Christian church ended up on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement (just as it had been on the front lines of the abolitionist movement).

    but yes, just as Jim Wallis today claims that the New Testament is secretly all about how Christ wants us to support Obamacare, people who feel strongly about a subject will often seek to anchor it in Christianity in order to lend it credibility.

    the problem at claiming that the racial and sexual arguments are same-same is that while the New Testament doesn't discuss the sin of miscegination (if anything it would seem to encourage it), it does discuss the sin of homosexuality; and when it discusses marriage it is always within the definition of a man and a woman.
    Last edited by cpwill; 01-04-11 at 01:42 AM.

  4. #374
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,817

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    actually i think it's been pretty ably demonstrated here that i have a much firmer grasp of the history of this issue than yourself, at least, as far as you are demonstrating.
    nope in your logic you clearly ignore how the majority doesnt always get its way ESPECIALLY when it comes to the constitution.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    you're the one who went with the sidelining to the history of Christians in this venue. no fair later complaining that it didn't turn out how you like
    good lord what planet are you on, all i said is that religion has in fact been used against those movements, interracial marriage, womens and minority rights. Those are FACTS and you went on babbling about good things religion has done, which I agree religion has done great things! People have also used it to support those same movements which I CLEARLY said. The problem was you just seemed to choose ONE side of reality coin,I didnt let you, so it worked out for me VERY well for me thanks LMAO
    seems you are even still in denial about that fact


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    and homosexuals are not in man-woman relationships. do you really not get here that your charge of hypocricy because i choose to utilize a definition of marriage is rung hollow by the fact that you then impose your own? you can argue that mine should change because of this reason or the other; but to claim hypocricy for the act of having a definition is self-defeating..
    wrong again, I claim you have hypocrisy because you want to force your religion on others AND because you say you want equality while denying it to gays.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    on the contrary. nowhere are you promised equality of result as a right. however i agree that their relationships remain unequal as regards the social institution of marriage. because society does not view them as equal.

    which is what i pointed out in the beginning.
    more circle talking that says nothing, its discrimination and thats why its wrong for it to be unequal.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    none at all eh. perhaps you could list for us some of the conservative thinkers whose cases you have read and your subsequent reasoning for why their arguments are predicated on inaccuracies?
    I dont need them I got YOU, you were inaccurate with your blanket statements.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    no one asked if you believed in the right of free expression. you were asked if you believed it possible for well-meaning individuals to come to differing conclusions on this issue.
    and I clearly answered, the answer is 100% NO if it involves STOPPING gay marriage. Next time quote the whole thing and it will contain the answer genius lol



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ah. perhaps you could go back and quote all these.
    no thanks, not really worth my time, you should have answered them the first time and not dodge them, history is proving you'll just dodge them or talk around them or give an empty bs bias answer anyway the questions I asked will due but youll probably dodge them too.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    sure as soon soon as you answer the simple YES/NO question of "have you stopped raping children" ?
    another dodge



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I think that you type too fast. However I will say what I have already said about Loving in this thread: the Court made the wrong decision for the right reasons; and I will reiterate as I stated above that their case would have been significantly strengthened had they pointed out the Constitutional questionability of the electorate.
    good god thanks for the YES/NO answers and circle talking just like I said you would. Dodge 2
    at least you got something right, I do type to fast.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I think you are utilizing a stereotype here, and one i have already answered.
    another fail at yes/no
    dodge 3



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    given that both women and minorities were given equal rights by a supermajority of the citizens of the United States of America, i'm afraid you are, in fact, making this question up.
    wow, just wow, so the majority of americans were for minority rights and womens rights when they passed them? link please what was the percentage.

    not to mention I said either way pretend it wasnt, pretend 75% of america against it what your answer?

    dodge 4



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    if there were a vote tomorrow on whether or not to alter the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions i would vote against it.
    again what a joke, atleat you told the truth about your answer and further showed your hypocrisy.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    sure. so did you know growing up that you would end up raping children? just yes/no please.
    more deflection and diversion to save face but with your BS answers and question dodging everybody has all the info they need about you. I knew this is the BS you would give me and couldn't man up, now whip the egg of your face.
    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. #375
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,817

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    not until the late 19th and early 20th Century did any part of Christian theology ever discuss interacial marriage; except to comment that in Christ there no longer was any distinction between the races. in premodern Christian culture there are multiple public incidents of interracial marriage. note, for example, Othello the Moor from Shakespeare; where the strife wasn't that a white woman married a black man, but rather that a passed-over junior officer was jealous of how loved Othello was. but fast forward to an era where now eugenics is science, and then take the institutions built upon eugenics, and deprive them of their moral stance via the fell swoop of the Holocaust. people will always seek to anchor their arguments in the most unassailable sources, and so yes, as social darwinism fell apart and science no longer lent its' credibility to opposing miscegination, some sought instead to anchor the argument in the bible. the move didn't work as Christian theology wasn't a natural home for such a belief system; and in fact it could be said that it objectively failed as instead the Christian church ended up on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement (just as it had been on the front lines of the abolitionist movement).

    but yes, just as Jim Wallis today claims that the New Testament is secretly all about how Christ wants us to support Obamacare, people who feel strongly about a subject will often seek to anchor it in Christianity in order to lend it credibility.

    the problem at claiming that the racial and sexual arguments are same-same is that while the New Testament doesn't discuss the sin of miscegination (if anything it would seem to encourage it), it does discuss the sin of homosexuality; and when it discusses marriage it is always within the definition of a man and a woman.
    you like reading your own words dont you? LMAO
    ok so we agree religion WAS used on the negative side of those movements thanks, thats all you had to say

    also please save the use of religion for defense of marriage because its MEANINGLESS

    Law wise, religion plays ZERO role in marriage unless the people involved want it too.

    Societ wise, the religious definition is nothing more than an opinion.

    Lastly and this doesnt make it a worldly fact just going off of my life but everybody i know in my real life picks and choose what they want to use out of the good book. Now i am TOTALLY fine with that but once you try to use it for a defense or force it on others thats when they all instantly have egg on their face. Ill always laugh at a person that quotes Leviticus(among others) and only chooses PARTS of it to "obey" and cast judgment on others while violating numerous other parts. Its a joke. Thats why the religion argument NEVER works because MAN interpret it how they see fit when they see fit to do so. They choose to follow or not follow when they feel like it and change the rules, and when they do, GOD is never involved? how convenient
    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. #376
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    nope in your logic you clearly ignore how the majority doesnt always get its way ESPECIALLY when it comes to the constitution.
    actually (theoretically) it does. a local simple majority is not enough to override a national supermajority; leaving the victory with the majority. so, for example, the state of (making this up) kentucky votes to ban gun ownership, puts the measure to a referendum, and it passes overwhelmingly. but obviously it get's overturned by SCOTUS. did the majority not get it's way? the majority did get it's way because the majority on this question was the Supermajority of Americans who say "no taking away people's right to bear arms".

    good lord what planet are you on, all i said is that religion has in fact been used against those movements, interracial marriage, womens and minority rights.
    yes. it was a stupid argument.

    the reality is that all these things we are discussing (gender equality, individual rights, so forth) are rare and relatively new in the order of human society. they are the exception, not the rule.

    wrong again, I claim you have hypocrisy because you want to force your religion on others AND because you say you want equality while denying it to gays.
    equality before the law =/= equality of result. you are engaging in a fallacy of assumption here, a just-so argument.

    more circle talking that says nothing, its discrimination and thats why its wrong for it to be unequal.
    discrimination isn't wrong in and of itself. as has been pointed out here, we discriminate against all kinds of people and in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons. you are arguing from the assumption that this particular discrimination is morally unjustifiable, which is fine, but let's not pretend it's a universally accepted precept (as you do).

    I dont need them I got YOU, you were inaccurate with your blanket statements.
    says the man who is tacitly admitting that he can't back his claim by proving a negative.

    and I clearly answered, the answer is 100% NO if it involves STOPPING gay marriage. Next time quote the whole thing and it will contain the answer genius lol
    lol no you didn't you stated a series of common beliefs lmao and then ttyfn you made a just so statement repeating your belief in a particular set of others motivation bff without answering the question rofl of whether or not you believed that it is possible for well-meaning individuals to come to differing conclusions on this issue lol. jeez. how old are you?

    no thanks, not really worth my time
    it would take about 1/5th of the time you will spend responding to this post at most. what you mean, i believe, is that you cant.

    another dodge
    project much?

    good god thanks for the YES/NO answers and circle talking just like I said you would.
    well as i pointed out, you weren't necessarily asking yes/no questions.

    wow, just wow, so the majority of americans were for minority rights and womens rights when they passed them? link please what was the percentage.
    yes they were. you do know this is the only way these things were put into law, right? 14th, 19th Amendment ringing any bells? Civil Rights Act of 1964? it passed the House 290-130 and it passed the Senate 71-29. that's what the math world calls a "majority".

    not to mention I said either way pretend it wasnt, pretend 75% of america against it what your answer?
    if there were no 14th Amendment, 19th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, so on and so forth, then obviously these people would not have full expression of their rights (which they would retain) and I would fight with them as my ancestors did. however, as far as our legal system would be concerned obviously the situation would be different, and the answer would be to change the legal system by convincing a majority (or, if necessary, supermajority) of my fellow citizens to do so.

    dodge 4
    see, whenever you say "dodge" i'm translating to "i have no answer to that".

    again what a joke, atleat you told the truth about your answer and further showed your hypocrisy.
    no hypocrisy here. there would only be that if i accepted your assumptions which i've tried to point out to you i don't; but you seem to have trouble really comprehending that.

  7. #377
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    you like reading your own words dont you?
    you asked a question.

    ok so we agree religion WAS used on the negative side of those movements thanks
    certainly it was used. as was the Constitution.

    also please save the use of religion for defense of marriage because its MEANINGLESS
    actually as a voter I am free to use whatever rationale i like when i vote. If i wish to vote for all measures that start with consonants and against those that start with vowels, i am free to do so. as the voting records tend to make clear, religion has been anything but meaningless when it comes to the defining of marriage in modern America; even demographics as traditionally blue as African Americans tend to vote in favor of traditional marriage because they are also disproportionately religious.

    but you will note i divided my answer into two parts. i would vote the way i would because of how my faith informs my view of humankind. the state should govern the way it should because the people told them to, and it has no authority other than that which they give it.

    Societ wise, the religious definition is nothing more than an opinion.
    as is your opinion limiting it to adults. it just so happens that both of those opinions are widely shared, and we as a society have woven those opinions into our law.

    Lastly and this doesnt make it a worldly fact just going off of my life but everybody i know in my real life picks and choose what they want to use out of the good book. Now i am TOTALLY fine with that but once you try to use it for a defense or force it on others thats when they all instantly have egg on their face. Ill always laugh at a person that quotes Leviticus(among others) and only chooses PARTS of it to "obey" and cast judgment on others while violating numerous other parts.
    for a Christian to do this would indeed be humorous. Paul spent no small amount of time telling Christians specifically to stop worrying about Levitcal law.

  8. #378
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I don't see it as primarily a civil rights issue.
    interesting; care to elaborate?

  9. #379
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    And a few hundred years ago, the definition of freedom excluded blacks, tradition isn't always a good thing, is it.
    Show me a written definition of freedom that excluded blacks. Anyway, let's dump all tradition because you want to point out a single flaw. You call that an argument against tradition? What if someone decides today murder is not murder and blows your freaking head off? Well hey, tradition ain't everything, right? You will have to do better than that.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #380
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Show me a written definition of freedom that excluded blacks. Anyway, let's dump all tradition because you want to point out a single flaw. You call that an argument against tradition? What if someone decides today murder is not murder and blows your freaking head off? Well hey, tradition ain't everything, right? You will have to do better than that.
    Murder violates another person's right to life. Allowing gays to marry members of the same sex doesn't violate another person's rights at all. Legal marriage is a contract. Religion does not own the word marriage. No one has a copyright on that particular word in fact. And religion has nothing to do with legal contract except that religious leaders are authorized to sign as "approvers" of marriages (if they are registered), along with a number of other people who aren't religious leaders. And there are even some religions and religious leaders who will, in fact, sign off on same sex marriages.

    And allowing a group of people to marry does not force anyone to accept that group, nor does it change anyone's religious beliefs. Any religion that thinks that homosexuality and/or same sex marriages are wrong are completely free not to perform those ceremonies or even allow gays into their church if they so choose.

    Laws are passed all the time that go against someone's religious beliefs. As long as those religions are not forced to accept any of those changes, there is no violation of freedom of religion.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 38 of 98 FirstFirst ... 2836373839404888 ... 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
  •