90 replies to this topic

[Wolfgang]

take the poll. give a reason why you believe what you do.

[Wolfgang]

(a semi-unorganized rant about why i voted how i did)

I voted: Civil unions are not enough. Demand equality. Gays should marry.

I believe what i believe on this issue for many reasons. One of which being that I am a homosexual male. I am 17 years old, and I have already gone through hell. My family has damned me. My state has denied my right to marry the person that I love. So when i get married, I am barred certian rights that many heterosexuals take for granted. Such as the fact that when I decide to spend the rest of my life with someone, I will not be insured by his company. Or he wont be by mine. If he is injured, i will not be able to visiit him during special hours. I will not be alerted. I will not gain the right of attourney. I have had my friends abandon me. And i have had my church condem me (for christs sake... i was only ten. How can a 10 year old boy be bound for hell...?). Hell is nothing compared to the things that I have survived, and the things that I have lived through. To deny a person who has been through as much as I have, the right to marry is wrong.

Plus... whatever happend to seperation of church and state...?

What denying gays right to marry does is say that in the eyes of the law, they are not equal. That their love is not valid. That they are not people, subject to the rights, responsibilities, and bonuses that all other people are. I am no less human than anyone else here. Or anyone else in the world, for that matter.

I'd put more. But i really do not have the energy to do so now. 4 day weekend coming up... gonna catch up on sleep. A whole new Drew (me), full of energy, and m4d typing skills (o.O), shall appear after then.

Sorry about my spelling in this post. Its usually better. I'm running on no sleep.

As always, the above are just my opinions. I speak for no one but myself.

[two]

what's the differnce between the first and second to last choice?

[Ikswokawon Leachim]

I care as much about homosexuals getting married as I do about hetrosexuals getting married basically saying I don't care if ya get married I just know that I'm not cause marriage gives the option of Divorce which gives the option of losing half if not more of your belongings plus long fights over senseless bs etc..... I was with a girl for lil over a year now & we don't fight really. Know why? We're not married that's why..... lol but seriously if gays wanna marry I say let them. what ever happened to the discrimination law in America???? I mean why protest against homosexual marriage. 99% of the clowns against it are straight & I don't see why they would raise up such a fuss when they're not the ones marrying a homosexual (if your a girl & another girl wants to marry a girl? then why make a fuss if your not the one marrying the same sex?) I know if I do ever decide to marry that I would marry the opposite sex (female) simply because I love the way God made women their the most beautiful thing in my eyes every thing about them is beautiful & remarkable to me. I love Sexual relations with females & don't care to try with males. but that doesn't give me the right to say that "Another person can't marry the same sex" I say gays wanna marry let them I chose I don't care simply because I know what I'm after & I ain't worried about what others choose to do with their life.

I respect your views & opinions & wish you luck with your marriage Drew.

[Deval]

I voted: Gays shouldn't be able to marry, but civil unions are OK

Simply because marriage was, and for the most part still is, an institute of the church, which as we know, is opposed to homosexuality. If there was something designed the same as marriage, minus the religous background and assosciation of modern day 'marriage', I wouldn't see how it would be a problem.

[Degenerate]

I voted Don't care because...well umm...
because marriage is an institution of the Church
(Churches are just insane people trying to make you believe that theres an invisible man to worship who is all knowing and created everything....and my shrink told me there is no invisible little men living in my ear...or anywhere.....)

and if someone of the same sex wants to get married...well...let em...its noone elses business but there own.


P.S.
THE LITTLE MAN IN MY LIVING IN MY EAR IS THE ONE WHO TOLD ME HOW TO ANSWER AND WHAT TO SAY!

OK gotta go now....its time for my medication

Edited by Degenerate, 24 February 2004 - 10:48 PM.

[busta_newb]

I BE SAID THAT GAY PEEPS SHOULD BE GET MARRIED


JOIN Granny's house of pain!!

[Kharybdis]

I think that homosexual couples should either be able to marry, or be able engage in some sort of union that's fundamentally the same as marriage and confers the same legal status.

The whole proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman is incredibly childish... complaining about "activist judges" while trying to codify their conservative ideology into one of the nation's most fundamental documents... jackasses.

[Deval]

be able engage in some sort of union that's fundamentally the same as marriage and confers the same legal status.

/nod

[Wolfgang]

what's the differnce between the first and second to last choice?

the difference is in the reason. From an average persons perspective, they may chose the first one. Because everyone should have the right. Ya know....?

but the other one is more of an activists opinion. *shrug*. There is no difference really. Its just the reason behind why they have that opinion.

[Medora]

If this discussion isnt kept As a discussion and someone comes in with insulting remarks, starts flaming/bashing/flat out being rude to another individual or their opinions, it will be locked in a heart beat. Not that I know how to lock a topic, but I will report it to someone that does.

That being stated those that can be polite enough to post a Mature opinion on the matter, be respectful, and possibly give insights into the discussion, feel free!

[newb]

The thing that Deval is saying...that sounds reasonable.

[dognapot]

i voted that they should be able to marry. they should, had the american government not gotten so involved with marriage then i could have voted otherwise but right now there is no way that homosexual couples can enjoy the same rights and protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. civil unions show some promise but i know a number of state constitutions protect thier residents from becoming second class citizens which may pose a problem to civil unions.

i heard something funny on CNN today on this subject. "for 3000 years, marriage has been between a man and a woman". the funny part is that he said it's not a civil rights issue right before he said that. so immediately i applied his logic to a civil rights issue: "for thousands of years plantations have had serfs/slaves", "for as long has there's been voting, only men have been voting", and so on. the really funny/tragic thing about that is that he was repeating the most popular arguement against gay marriage, and it basically equates to "time justifies the status quo" which is abhorrently wrong. as a matter of fact, all the arguements against gay marriage that i've heard have either been easily defeated or simply don't address what the issue really is. so ultimately, whether you like it or not, homosexuals will be getting married. the arguements against have fallen, and our lawmakers are too lazy or incompetent to make a working civil union or effectively amend the constitution (sometimes i wonder if bush really believes he can just write "no gays can marry" on the bottom of it and everything will be peachy).

another thing, has anyone seen these civil unions? nope. i wonder why? doesn't massachussetts only have like two months to come up with one before the entire state becomes san fransisco? yep. i wonder what will happen when homosexuals go to thier home state after getting hitched and demand marriage rights? oh the courts will decide right? yep. so eventually gay marriage will be accepted everywhere and no politician will lose thier job for having any stance on the issue, because they never touched it. wow what a wonderfull way for politicians to let gays marry and never lose support. anyways, if you're a betting kind of person, you won't lose money on gay marriage. now's the time to start designing his and his wedding bands.

[Flux]

Don't create a poll and have like 19 options that mean practically the same thing. "Yes," "No," "Don't Care," and maybe one wild card are all you need.

That said, there are so many issues in this political world that have many different shades of gray, and this is not one of them. Love is love. If two people love each other, let them marry. How does it adversely affect our society? Gender is irrelevant. Moreover, to advocate the ban on same-sex marriages is flat out discrimination. Anyone who thinks it's a form of "religious preservation" or some such nonsense is merely using the Bible as a blindfold.

"Civil union" is a joke. It has been a term eagerly picked up by Conservatives who try to pacify their opponents while skirting around the issue. Saying that homosexuals can't marry but can instead engage in a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" is akin to saying that minorities can drink from a water fountain, as long as its marked and separate (and in many ways, denoted as inferior) from the white one.

[two]

if there's a seperation of church and state, why does it say "in God we trust" on all of our currency?

you can also see all thirteen original colonies on lincoln's memorial on the 5 dollar bill. neato!

[Shera]

I voted "Gays should have the right to marry." I voted this way because I feel that any two people that are lucky enough to find someone else to love and are willing to get married should not be denied the right to marry just because the person they happen to want to marry is of the same sex. I loved how the very first couple that was allowed to marry in San Francisco was a lesbian couple that have been together for over 50 years! How could allowing them to get married possibly be a bad thing??

I think that banning same sex couples from geting married violates their constitutional rights. In the first paragraph of the constitution it states: We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Liberty is defined as: A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference. (well one of the definitions anyway) Marriage is one of our civil liberties or so I've had drilled into my head by a few profs. So to deny it to one set of people, while affording it to another group of people based strictly on gender, with the only restriction being that they get a marriage license which any fool can obtain if they have like what 30 bucks violates the very constitution by which we in the US are all supposed to be governed by.

[Lich]

I think they should be allowed. Its their choice who they love and its their choice who they spend the rest of their lives with. Why should they be not allowed to have the same rights as anyone else. Because others beleive it wrong...I think not

[Zylia]

I voted: Gays should have the right to marry

Deval stated that marriage is an institution of the church. Yes, the church views marriage as the union of a man and woman before God. ... The United States has freedom of religion. Not all people for one believe in God. If God sees Gay Marriage as a sin, so what? If a homosexual couple are athiests, how does that affect them? Saying that they cannot wed (which the government itself has taken upon itself to distribute marriage licenses...) because 'God didn't see fit that same sex couples be united.' is just ridiculous in a country where what your religion is means jack.

If two people, regardless of sex, race, or creed want to marry because they love each other.. they should be able to. They shouldn't have to be treated differently because the circumstances are different. Just because they're different doesn't mean that they should be shifted off to the side. Marriage is the union of two people in love, members of the church just spoof it up as a Union before God. If your church disallows Gay Marriage, so be it. It's not fair that church issues (which are SEPARATE from the government) are even touching this. If two people love each other they should be able to be bonded in marriage.

1. marriage - the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce);
2. marriage - two people who are married to each other;
3. marriage - the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony;
4. marriage - a close and intimate union;

Four separate non-church affiliated definitions of marriage. I see no where where it says 'Man and Woman'.

[Vagabond]

I personally think 2 hot chicks been together is fine!!! <<literally

But most lesbians are ugly and gay men are too faggoty. But at the end of the day it's night and this BS isnt happening in my country.

Im against it and homosexuality in general (apart from the top most concept)BUT let them marry just as long as they don't take up Rugby!!!

EDIT: My original vote was hit the bastards with a bible btw, vote now read later is my motto

Edited by Vagabond, 25 February 2004 - 12:41 PM.

[An Eskimo]

gays should go to hell*

but i'm not going to get into another huge ass arugment. I just think that being gay is dumb and disgusting and against religion and dumb. oh yeah its unhealthy to.

Edited by An Eskimo, 25 February 2004 - 02:34 PM.

[An Eskimo]

I personally think 2 hot chicks been together is fine!!! <<literally

But most lesbians are ugly and gay men are too faggoty. But at the end of the day it's night and this BS isnt happening in my country.

Im against it and homosexuality in general (apart from the top most concept)BUT let them marry just as long as they don't take up Rugby!!!

EDIT: My original vote was hit the bastards with a bible btw, vote now read later is my motto

I agree with the first line, but I don't think gays should be able to marry.

[Penguin]

VOTE: gays are going to hell *hits with Bible*
Marriage is an institution of the church. It is a privlage, not a right. Do what you want behind closed doors, like who you want, but don't make it public.

[Penguin]

btw, quit making loaded polls

[Aidon]

Use the edit button, don't post twice.

[dognapot]

VOTE: gays are going to hell *hits with Bible*
Marriage is an institution of the church. It is a privlage, not a right. Do what you want behind closed doors, like who you want, but don't make it public.

gay marriages are happening in san francisco right now, but do you see them happening in a church? it's a big fancy building with nice steps, but it's not a church. you're thinking of a marriage ceremony, people get married all the time without ever getting near a church, and believe it or not, marriage actually predates christianity, and spans all cultures. also, for all recorded history marriage has existed in the legal realm first and the spiritual realm second.

[Thrice]

I voted "Don't care".


Doesn't matter to me, dont need to get involved, dont believe in religion, I am a christian, dont care about that either, dont believe any of it.

[two]

zoinks, it looks like all the religious zealots are pretty mush saying, "the Church doesn't believe it's right, so burn in hell gay plan for the straight man." but not everyone has the same religion. yeah, i know you forgot, but all you christians think it's your way or the highway. since the US recognizes marriage outside of the christian faith, wouldn't it seem possible to achieve marriage there?

for example, let's say i'm a homosexual Buddhist living in Kentucky. Buddhism says absolutley nothing about homsexuality (it's also the 3rd most popular religion in the world, and the quickest growing), so I can get married to my partner by my Buddhist preist. since it's a legal marriage in the eyes of my religion, why won't i be granted the same rights as those who follow other religions? isn't that a little unjust? oh, so let me get this straight, i don't have to believe in the christian faith, i just have to follow their rules...the rules of a Church that is not my own...in a country that sperates church and state...

and to the people that get personally offended when they see homsexual acts occurring, there's a lot more gross stuff on the internet (ask fluff, pandi, deval, and i think jurian has some queezy links as well). gays aren't hurting anyone (omit their tax break will topple the nations economy), they're just trying to be happy in a crazy mixed up world. after all, seeing old people make out is gross, but we suck it up, look the other way, and go about our business.

and i know ya'll are wondering: time to get me some ashes for my Catholic self, later skaters.

Edited by two, 25 February 2004 - 07:13 PM.

[Zylia]

The main point:

CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS!

Our first amendment right people is right here for all to see:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

--- First Amendment to the Constitution, 1791

"The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues."

The bold instance means that the government cannot ban gay marriages on the premise that they are against Church law.

So if you're going to say 'I hate gay marriage because its against God.', thats your opinion, thats your belief. Have it as you like it. The amendment on Gay marriage would infringe on human rights and the right to freedom of religion. A Marriage License is a state given document, its not given to you by church. Therefore, the church has no say as to what constitutes marriage and what doesn't.

A common goal of many heterosexual couples would be outlawed for a whole class of people if the amendment was approved. Its similar to saying that a black person and a white person cannot be wed because they are not the same race.

Edited by Zylia, 25 February 2004 - 09:07 PM.

[Deval]

Some people seem to be jumping to the defensive in regards to my initial post. Allow me to point out, that I was not saying that gay 'unions' (as I choose to describe it) are sinful, bad, wrong, or evil. I've said in the past that, whilst I do believe in god, I'm not a vehement follower of my faith. I do not wish to force my beliefs upon others, and I'm not going to be someone to judge others life styles. My post was simply a suggestion that it might be wise to seperate the coming together of same sex couples in a church enviroment. Don't put words in my mouth, I'm not saying it's sinful or it's bad, I just think it's a contradiction if people whos lifestyle go against a religious belief, want to engage in a ritual, that is regardless of actual facts, commonly associated with the church.