View Poll Results: Same sex Marriages?

Voters
260. You may not vote on this poll
  • Support same sex marriage

    217 83.46%
  • Support civil unions only

    12 4.62%
  • Against same sex marriage

    16 6.15%
  • Unsure or don't care

    15 5.77%
Page 1 of 43 1234511213141 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 430

Thread: Same Sex Marriage

  1. #1

    Default Same Sex Marriage



    Quote Originally Posted by LazyAB View Post
    If you think Santorum has a shot in hell of winning the general election, you're deluded. The man is bigotry incarnate, and most of America realizes it. Hard-right social conservatives may be a majority in the Republican party, but they're not even close in the US as a whole, and centrist voters will not vote for such a despicable candidate.


    Quote Originally Posted by NightFox View Post
    Agreed. Santorum isn't only a bigot, he embraces it as openly and loudly as he can.

    Making him the standard bearer of the GOP would be the greatest gift anyone's ever given the Democrats.
    PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE THING BEFORE BLOWING UP ON ME!

    I know his stance on gay marriage is probably what makes you both think this way, but it's not what you think. This is what homosexuals do not seem to understand. More than 75% of Americans identify themselves Christians, and a large portion of them, even if they believe it is a sin, really don't care what you do in your bedroom. What they ARE against is homosexuals pushing their agenda outside the bedroom and in schools and government when the majority are against it.

    I, as you know, am a Christian. I believe, I think, as most Christians do that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I also am certain that most Christians don't have a problem with homosexuals having their own type of social contract (civil unions), that would be just like 'marriage' in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be good enough for most homosexuals. My question is why not? Why do they feel they need to force themselves on people who don't believe the same way? For example, military chaplains being forced to marry homosexuals in Christian Chapels. Yes, I know there are some 'so-called' Christians that are bigots and they are untenable. I don't consider them Christians at all. I believe, if we want America to be free for everyone to follow their own beliefs, we also can't allow our beliefs to keep others from their beliefs. I don't want my Christian values and beliefs infringed upon by the law, so why should I want the law to infringe on someone else's beliefs? But I also don't think someone else's beliefs should trump mine in the eyes of the law either...

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    What they ARE against is homosexuals pushing their agenda outside the bedroom and in schools and government when the majority are against it.
    Oh, so wanting equal protection under the law if your chosen life partner is of the same sex is "pushing [your] agenda outside the bedroom and in schools and government?" Give me a fucking break. Last I checked, it's the fundamentalist Christians, not the LGBT community, that attempts to insert its own morality into law. Legal marriage is not Christian marriage. This is not a Christian nation.

    You could just as well argue that the civil rights movement was the black community "pushing their agenda...in schools and government." After all, what right do they have to seek equal protection under the law for being of a different race than the minority? Surely, they were out of line.



    I, as you know, am a Christian. I believe, I think, as most Christians do that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
    Sure, but the law should not care what *you* think based on *your* religious beliefs. We have this wonderful clause in the first amendment that ensures separation of church and state. We can no more base marriage laws on your Christian morals than we can base punishment for theft on Shariah, and for good reason.



    I also am certain that most Christians don't have a problem with homosexuals having their own type of social contract (civil unions), that would be just like 'marriage' in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be good enough for most homosexuals. My question is why not? Why do they feel they need to force themselves on people who don't believe the same way?
    For the same reason the black community was (and right fully so) not content with "separate but equal." Get your goddamn religious beliefs out of our law. They have no place there.



    I believe, if we want America to be free for everyone to follow their own beliefs, we also can't allow our beliefs to keep others from their beliefs. I don't want my Christian values and beliefs infringed upon by the law, so why should I want the law to infringe on someone else's beliefs? But I also don't think someone else's beliefs should trump mine in the eyes of the law either...
    How does two men being married infringe upon your beliefs in any reasonable way? The law does not care about your beliefs, nor should it. We do not live under religious law in America. Marriage is (or should be) a purely legal construction in the eyes of the law - if Christians disagree, that's their problem. The law does not exist to stratify your religious morals - quite the opposite, the first amendment exists to protect others who do not share them from the very type of bigoted legislation Rick Santorum proposes.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE THING BEFORE BLOWING UP ON ME!

    I know his stance on gay marriage is probably what makes you both think this way, but it's not what you think. This is what homosexuals do not seem to understand. More than 75% of Americans identify themselves Christians, and a large portion of them, even if they believe it is a sin, really don't care what you do in your bedroom. What they ARE against is homosexuals pushing their agenda outside the bedroom and in schools and government when the majority are against it.
    A majority of Christians? Perhaps. A majority of Americans? We've reached a point in history where, regarding marriage, that's no longer true.

    http://i42.tinypic.com/35cpquc.png

    Half of Americans favor allowing people to marry without regard to gender. If more than 75% of Americans identify as Christian, then even the Christian community evidently has a not-inconsequential level of support for marriage equality.

    Moreover, let's ignore for a second how many Americans are Christian and what the predominant Christian opinion is with regard to marriage equality. Looking at that graph, I don't see any reason to think the trend is going to reverse. You're talking about a shift in values which has been happening at a very steady rate. Even when current events caused major mobilization among anti-equality forces, you only see small blips in the overall trend. It seems the advocacy the LDS did on Proposition 8 did very little to change the trend of more and more Americans favoring equal marriage rights. Even if the won the battle, it did very little to turn the ship.

    For comparison, here's a look public acceptance of interracial marriage opinions over time.

    http://i42.tinypic.com/4t6plz.gif

    It's not an accident if they look familiar. In both cases, support for equal marriage rights is strong among the young and weak among the old. As time goes, opposition to equal marriage rights dies out because the people who tend to support equal marriage rights die out.



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    I, as you know, am a Christian. I believe, I think, as most Christians do that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I also am certain that most Christians don't have a problem with homosexuals having their own type of social contract (civil unions), that would be just like 'marriage' in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be good enough for most homosexuals. My question is why not?
    Same reason black people didn't like having to drink out of separate water fountains.

    Moreover, I'm aware that a major part of Brown v. Board of Education was that in separate but equal, nothing really was equal. That said, wouldn't the notion of separate but equal be just as reprehensible if black water fountains were every bit as good as white ones?

    It's not about whether what we have is basically the same as what you have. It's either the same, or it isn't.



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    Why do they feel they need to force themselves on people who don't believe the same way?
    What's being forced? If I want to marry a man and you don't like it, then why is that my problem? How would allowing two men to marry force anything on you? How would that affect any of your affairs?



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    For example, military chaplains being forced to marry homosexuals in Christian Chapels.
    If you don't think that everyone is equal in the eyes of God, and if you think that God judges you for who you love and doesn't validate your love for a person of the same sex as much as a person of the opposite sex, I really think being a minister or a chaplain is a poor career choice.

    Bigotry is bigotry regardless of what anyone perceives their holy book of choice to say on the topic.



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    Yes, I know there are some 'so-called' Christians that are bigots and they are untenable. I don't consider them Christians at all. I believe, if we want America to be free for everyone to follow their own beliefs, we also can't allow our beliefs to keep others from their beliefs.
    So then you would refrain from imposing your beliefs on who I can and cannot marry... yes?



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    I don't want my Christian values and beliefs infringed upon by the law, so why should I want the law to infringe on someone else's beliefs? But I also don't think someone else's beliefs should trump mine in the eyes of the law either...
    And I think the best way to accomplish that is to allow everyone the freedom to marry who they wish. I won't infringe on your right to marry anyone you love if you don't infringe my right to marry anyone I love. Is that not fair?

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by LazyAB View Post
    Sure, but the law should not care what *you* think based on *your* religious beliefs. We have this wonderful clause in the first amendment that ensures separation of church and state. We can no more base marriage laws on your Christian morals than we can base punishment for theft on Shariah, and for good reason.
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - First Amendment to the US Constitution.

    That's all it says. There is NO such thing as separation of church and state. There is not freedom FROM religion. It's freedom OF religion. There is a HUGE difference. It means that the government can't force you to be a Christian if you don't want to be... or Muslim or Jew or Wiccan or whatever. When you make a law that homosexuals can be 'married' you are making a law that is 'prohibiting the free exercise' of my religious belief that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman. Now, if LGBTs want to have 'civil unions' that have all the same rights under the law as 'marriage', I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever with that. None. But, just as my beliefs shouldn't infringe on them, their beliefs shouldn't infringe on mine either.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    When you make a law that homosexuals can be 'married' you are making a law that is 'prohibiting the free exercise' of my religious belief that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman.
    When you make a law stating that two men or two women cannot be married, which is what DOMA is, then you've make a law that prohibits the free exercise of my religion, which states that any person who wants to marry another person is free to do so.

    Also, how exactly does letting me marry a man, and call it marriage in the eyes of the law, impinge upon your ability to practice Christianity?



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    But, just as my beliefs shouldn't infringe on them, their beliefs shouldn't infringe on mine either.
    Unfortunately, your beliefs are infringing on my ability to practice my religion freely.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by NightFox View Post
    When you make a law stating that two men or two women cannot be married, which is what DOMA is, then you've make a law that prohibits the free exercise of my religion, which states that any person who wants to marry another person is free to do so.

    Also, how exactly does letting me marry a man, and call it marriage in the eyes of the law, impinge upon your ability to practice Christianity?

    Unfortunately, your beliefs are infringing on my ability to practice my religion freely.
    Can you answer me this... Why is it so important to you that it be called 'marriage'?

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    Can you answer me this... Why is it so important to you that it be called 'marriage'?
    BTW, before I begin, let me say that I don't see this as relevant to the point.

    As an aside, I'd also turn this around and ask you the same thing. Why do you need to call your union "marriage"? Why can't you be happy just calling your eventual wedlock a civil union?

    Moreover, I'd still like to know how me marrying a man would impinge on your ability to practice Christianity.

    Anyway, the point is that marriage is a cultural institution. Do you ever dreamily wonder about that day where you'll be on the altar with the new Mrs. BabyJessi, and how it's so wonderful that the two of you are culminating your love for each other by getting civil unioned? I doubt it. The reason you don't is the reason we have the phrase "civil union." It was an effort to appease bigots who wouldn't otherwise allow gay people to have any sort of legal recognition for their partnerships. And I find that the fact that my partnership would exist under a label invented to appease bigots is disgusting. Go to any dictionary and look up marriage.

    M-W: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
    dictionary.com: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation
    ninjawords: the union of two people, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life

    I see no good reason to call a partnership between me and another person something other than what every dictionary says it is simply to appease bigots using religion as a veil for legal cover.

    Also, it would seem that dictionary.com disagrees with me. Note that it uses the term "social institution," so this isn't an inaccurate statement regarding the current legal definition of marriage. The point is that the common ground in what is a marriage is people forming a union.

    This is the crux of the argument. I'm exclusively referring to marriage as a legal construct, not a religious one.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by NightFox View Post
    A majority of Christians? Perhaps. A majority of Americans? We've reached a point in history where, regarding marriage, that's no longer true.

    http://i42.tinypic.com/35cpquc.png

    Half of Americans favor allowing people to marry without regard to gender. If more than 75% of Americans identify as Christian, then even the Christian community evidently has a not-inconsequential level of support for marriage equality.
    Just did some research, and it seems it's all in how you ask the question. Here is a poll from last June that says when you ask, "Should marriage be defined as one man and one woman", 62 percent said yes. However, if you ask "Should two men or two women be allowed to marry", it's just over 50% in favor. Sounds contradictory, but it's not. Also, if you ask it with three options, marriage, civil unions, or neither it's almost an even split between the three. Which seems to show what I said, that most Christian's don't have a problem with homosexual couples being together or even having it legally made so. They just don't want it called marriage, because their religion says marriage should be one man and one woman.

    ADF - News Release

  9. #9

    Default

    Forgetting what the specific numbers are at this point in time, the trend is real.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    They just don't want it called marriage, because their religion says marriage should be one man and one woman.
    Where does it say that? The Bible? Newsflash: The Bible isn't originally written in English. You can change the word "marriage" to "gluttlethorp", and just define "gluttlethorp" to be the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony and nothing would change. Words are just a series of vibrations that we attribute meaning to. If anything, you'd think God would be more pissed because people are essentially trying to make loop holes in His Holy Writ. "God" doesn't have a problem with gay people being "married" rather than "civil unioned", God doesn't want same-sex couples to exist. Period. He goes out of His way to make everything same-sex couples do "wrong". Do you honestly think that, granted Christianity is true, God just really likes this one word that was made AFTER the Bible and wants that word to be exclusive to straight people?

    People seem to overlook that the Bible is completely bigoted by making loop holes in it, such as this: Leviticus 18:22? No, God's saying it's okay for gay people to love each other and be in relationships, they just can't sleep together the way straight people do. It's not being gay that's wrong, it's doing those acts.

    If there's one thing that can make my blood boil, it's someone who claims they follow a religion, then makes excuses not to do parts they don't like rather than admit that maybe the religion is wrong.

    As an aside, if God's perfect, why is the book so ambiguous? And to block the terrible excuses I've heard for this before:
    It was written by man. <--- Why did God have a man write it if the man wasn't going to do it correctly? Why not give it to someone that WOULD do it properly?
    Things get lost in translation. <--- Why didn't God have it written so as to prevent this from happening. (Subpoint for those that claim God didn't see it being an issue, if God is omniscient, He would have known from the beginning that things wouldn't come out the way He wanted them to, so why do it anyway?)
    The times have changed. <--- If anything, that's a point AGAINST God's existence. God's laws would be constant or He would have known to say "do x for the next y number of years", so if He says we should kill those that commit sodomy, then those that TRULY believe the Bible to be God's word should continue doing this. They won't, because they lie to themselves and say they believe when they don't, and the ones that do are most likely using the Bible as an excuse, not because they actually believe it.

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Marriage...
    By Baby Nikki in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2011, 06:56
  2. The Marriage Ref
    By Bokeh in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-Aug-2010, 02:34
  3. Gay Marriage
    By MyLastWords in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 23-Jun-2009, 23:09
  4. gay marriage
    By Target in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-Feb-2008, 17:22

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.