| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are you for or against the concept of same-sex marriage? |
| For |
|
71% |
[ 91 ] |
| Against |
|
28% |
[ 36 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 127 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: Same-sex Marriage: For or Against? |
 |
|
Paperbag Princess' thread reminded me of something I had wanted to do a while back. If such a poll has already been done then please point in its direction as I guess I missed it.
I don't really care about what sort of discussion the thread takes as I'm not really interested in discussing it- just interested in seeing the poll numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since traditionally marriage is a property contract (essentially) between two people and their families, there is no good reason why any two people who want a legal arrangement shouldn't have one. If for political reasons it is called a 'civil union', that's fine.
The church part of the ceremony is not the legal part, that's a religious blessing. It is important to religious people, but is not essential. Evidence of that is that judges and ship captains can conduct weddings. In the US, the presiding official says, "By the power invested in me by the State of X, I now pronounce you man and wife". Obviously same sex couples would have different words there at the end.
I don't see it as at all controversial.
There was an interesting court case in Iowa last week. Two women had gotten married in Vermont a couple of years ago. They then got divorced. Some people sued in state court claiming the state should not recognize the divorce. The state Supreme Court found that these citizens had no standing to sue since the divorce in no way affected them. (At least that is what I understood.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FUBAR
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: The Y.C.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| indifferent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badmojo
Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Location: I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Live and let live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 9-0. Not a big surprise. Most of the conservatives on this board aren't so conservative on this issue either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Doesn't matter to me, one way or the other.
I think this kind of feeling at the ground level makes same-sex marriage an inevitable development. Probably just a matter of time. |
Homosexuals have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
I say let Lance and Gary have their special day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marriage is a civil contract and the government has no right sticking its nose in. Yet another reason why I am not a conservative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
What would someone say who is against marriage say?
But anyway the government ought to recognize civil unions and only civil unions . The government should not be in the business of giving names to or classifying civil unions. Whether it is a marriage or not should be left up to the religious or social authority that performed the ceremony.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paperbag princess
Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Location: veggie hell
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
i'm all for it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
17-0? What a bunch of heathens we are.
Gays can already marry in most Canadian provinces. The current government is very close to making same-sex marriage legal throughout the country. Of course the Conservatives are dragging their heals trying to hold up the inevitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Literal
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Location: Third rock from the Sun.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whatever melts your butter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buddy bradley
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The Beyond
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not gay, so no. I don't see gay guys rallying for the legalization of prostitution (yes, that's right - I'm a pro), so why should I care about their problems? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
What would someone say who is against marriage say?
But anyway the government ought to recognize civil unions and only civil unions . The government should not be in the business of giving names to or classifying civil unions. Whether it is a marriage or not should be left up to the religious or social authority that performed the ceremony. |
Damn, how embarassing to find myself voting the same way as, can't even bring myself to type his name ... and it happened last week with Leslie Cheswick on a thread about Mike Tyson. Spooky.
The dude above is making an important point when he says "The government should not be in the business of giving names to or classifying civil unions" because in the end, I think the concept of the "civil union" will be struck down for the same reason that the "States' Rights" apartheid advocates in the Old South were repudiated for their policies : to wit, "separate but equal" is in fact seldom or never actually equal, but just another way of impopsing second-class citizenship.
Ya-ta Boy
| Quote: |
| Since traditionally marriage is a property contract (essentially) between two people and their families, there is no good reason why any two people who want a legal arrangement shouldn't have one. |
The legal protections afforded by the marriage contract are of most benefit to children created or adopted by the couple. Gay people are having kids, and they are eligible to adopt them in most states of the US (though the religious bigots are trying to turn that back, of course - but the important thing to consider in this question is the status of those children, and the fact that they are being denied the same legal rights to inheritance law and child support as children of straight people.
ChimpumCallao
| Quote: |
| Homosexuals have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. |
I generally hold to the view that marriage is pretty unnecessary in the modern world until children come into the picture. Aside from that it is a ceremony that has value only for sentiment ... though sentiment has some value, I will admit.
buddy bradley
| Quote: |
| I'm not gay, so no. I don't see gay guys rallying for the legalization of prostitution (yes, that's right - I'm a pro), so why should I care about their problems? |
Well, I'm not black, but I'm still opposed to slavery.
And your view is not shared by many of the people you, er, consort with.
COYOTE ("Call Off Your Tired Ethics") was founded by Margo St. James in 1973. COYOTE works for the rights of all sex workers: strippers, phone operators, prostitutes, porn actresses etc. of all genders and persuasions.
Last edited by The Bobster on Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
