Americans: Please express your opinion on Gay Marriage in this poll - Page 5

Kuciwalker · December 22, 2003, 12:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Because it can't even hope that it has a random sample.

Why?

Are you claiming that only uneducated/ignorant people who don't have access to the internet are against gay marriage?

Solly · December 22, 2003, 12:11

Elitism.

No, the fact is the sort of people who dislike benders aren't the sort to waste their time fannying around on a few forums.

The opinions of the poor aren't worth less, are they?

Kuciwalker · December 22, 2003, 12:14

However, the opinions of the uninformed are.

In general, those who don't use the Internet will be more informed than those who do.

Shi Huangdi · December 22, 2003, 12:25

Nice embarassment for the AFA. I voted for the Civil Unions option.

MrFun · December 22, 2003, 16:10

Heterosexuals claim that marriage is "sacred."

I got news for those guys -- many heterosexuals have long-since desacralized marriage.

DRoseDARs · December 22, 2003, 18:41

I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and "civil unions" 34.38%
(184829 votes)
I favor legalization of homosexual marriage 57.36%
(308368 votes)
I favor a "civil union" with the full benefits of marriage except for the name 8.25%
(44373 votes)

BustaMike · December 22, 2003, 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
However, the opinions of the uninformed are.

In general, those who don't use the Internet will be more informed than those who do.

Don't you mean this the other way around

?

Sprayber · December 22, 2003, 19:10

I'm against gay marriage personally. As for what others do, I don't really give a ****.

Ned · December 22, 2003, 19:15

My choice is not listed on the poll as I favor civil unions but would give only relevant benefits to such unions. I specifically would not give such unions benefits that are intended to allow a mother to stay home and raise kids.

Q Classic · December 22, 2003, 19:15

gwyneth paltrow is having a baby with her boyfriend. they are not planning on getting married. they were, however, ****ging like no tomorrow, and now they're having a little baby.

i know of two women who have spent the better part of 15 years committed to each other. they are in love, and have a strong relationship. they would like to get married, but cannot.

who's doing more damage to the notion of family? who's doing more damage to the notion of marriage?

Q Classic · December 22, 2003, 19:21

ok, sorry.

take a look at this image:

i dunno about you, but pink neon is not something i associate with family. the only time i've ever seen pink neon used is in the context of shops specializing in blue material.

Ned · December 22, 2003, 19:26

Q. Qubed, my wife likes to go on and on about how Oprah Winfrey has helped people in United States and in the world. According to her, Oprah Winfrey is now planning to help the people of South Africa. I pointed out to her that the major problem South Africa has is lack of family structures, which is also a significant problem in United States among poor people. Oprah Winfrey is not helping people to improve their lives and to break out the cycle of poverty to the extent that she does not herself provide them a good example because she is not married and is living with her boyfriend of many years.

Oprah Winfrey is a hypocrite.

Q Classic · December 22, 2003, 19:37

i don't know what exactly it is that oprah winfrey does in terms of philanthropy, but if it's true that she is unmarried and merely living with her boyfriend, it is my contention that she is doing more damage to the institution of marriage than two gay people who want to get married.

it is my contention that the fact that two straight people can get married in an hour (30 minutes in a chapel, 30 minutes to have met each other) with no concept of what marriage can be does more damage than a devoted lesbian couple of 15 years.

it is my contention that the ease of getting divorces (advertisements on the el now say that you can get one for under $300) for no better reason than "i don't like him anymore" does more damage to marriage than two gay men who have stayed with each other past the seven-year itch.

MrFun · December 22, 2003, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Q. Qubed, my wife likes to go on and on about how Oprah Winfrey has helped people in United States and in the world. According to her, Oprah Winfrey is now planning to help the people of South Africa. I pointed out to her that the major problem South Africa has is lack of family structures, which is also a significant problem in United States among poor people. Oprah Winfrey is not helping people to improve their lives and to break out the cycle of poverty to the extent that she does not herself provide them a good example because she is not married and is living with her boyfriend of many years.

Oprah Winfrey is a hypocrite.

A woman does not have to be married to be a positive role model, or to make significant contributions to human society.

Bosh · December 22, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

I specifically would not give such unions benefits that are intended to allow a mother to stay home and raise kids.

Why not?

Drake Tungsten · December 23, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

I got news for those guys -- many heterosexuals have long-since desacralized marriage.

So we should just take a big fat dump on it now that it's already been pissed on, eh?

MrFun · December 23, 2003, 01:03

No Drake -- those heterosexuals that I'm referring to, need to stop scapegoating homosexuals for what heterosexuals have already fvcked up.

Not that recognizing gay marriage would make things worse, but I'm playing "devil's advocate" from their pathetic logic.

Q Classic · December 23, 2003, 01:32

it's not that, drake.

it's the fact that the logic behind the argument that homosexual marriage will destroy the institution is pure bollocks.

Drake Tungsten · December 23, 2003, 01:34

There's really no way to prove it one way or the other. The effects gay marriage would have on society are too complex for anyone to really predict.

Mazarin · December 23, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
My choice is not listed on the poll as I favor civil unions but would give only relevant benefits to such unions. I specifically would not give such unions benefits that are intended to allow a mother to stay home and raise kids.

I'd take this kind of benefits from all marriages away: give them to people raising children instead -regardless of whether they're married or not.

Q Classic · December 23, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

There's really no way to prove it one way or the other. The effects gay marriage would have on society are too complex for anyone to really predict.

no, there's no way to prove it with any certainty. but from where i'm standing, it doesn't look like most of the damage is being done by homosexuals. in fact, it doesn't even look like they're much of a threat.

remember, kids, divorces can be had for $300 and a day in court. oh, and that first marriage? you were young! you made a mistake! you're older a wiser now.

optimus2861 · December 23, 2003, 15:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
it is my contention that the ease of getting divorces (advertisements on the el now say that you can get one for under $300) for no better reason than "i don't like him anymore" does more damage to marriage than two gay men who have stayed with each other past the seven-year itch.

Is this just a statement of position on what is 'harming' marriage as an 'institution', or do you advocate making divorce harder to attain? If the former, I don't disagree (though I'm a little skeptical of viewing marriage as anything but the union of two people under the law -- talking of it as an 'institution' seems to lead to the type of arguments that those opposed to same-sex marriage make, on the basis of 'protecting the institution'. It effectively disassociates marriage from the people involved in it.). But if the latter -- what business is it of the state making it difficult for two people who no longer wish to be together to dissolve their union (even if only one of the two wish it)? Just as it isn't the state's business to vet who should & shouldn't get marriage licenses (I support same-sex marriage, for the record), it also shouldn't vet who should & shouldn't divorce.

Az · December 23, 2003, 16:11

The NY Times poll says that most are against, and will support AN AMENDMENT to ban it.

personally, I voted for the civil unions option. well, in my mind, since the poll is for Americans, and requests E-mail.

My real question is for Mr. Fun, who seems to imply some sort of sexual preference politics going on. hint: there is no such thing. It's not "The homos vs. The heteros". If that were the case, I'd really dislike gay people, since that would mean they are working as a group or something, which is obviously not true. Just look at Asher. He's one of the 'straight'est people I've seen in quite some time. looking the gay posters on this forum, you can conclude that they're normal people. There is no 'heteros vs. homos'.

MrFun · December 23, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

My real question is for Mr. Fun, who seems to imply some sort of sexual preference politics going on. hint: there is no such thing. It's not "The homos vs. The heteros". If that were the case, I'd really dislike gay people, since that would mean they are working as a group or something, which is obviously not true. Just look at Asher. He's one of the 'straight'est people I've seen in quite some time. looking the gay posters on this forum, you can conclude that they're normal people. There is no 'heteros vs. homos'.

Well duh, Sherlock.

Why else do you think we have heterosexuals who are allied with homosexuals with concern to their issues?

Where did I say or imply it was homosexuals vs heterosexuals??

Q Classic · December 23, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Is this just a statement of position on what is 'harming' marriage as an 'institution', or do you advocate making divorce harder to attain? If the former, I don't disagree (though I'm a little skeptical of viewing marriage as anything but the union of two people under the law -- talking of it as an 'institution' seems to lead to the type of arguments that those opposed to same-sex marriage make, on the basis of 'protecting the institution'. It effectively disassociates marriage from the people involved in it.).

it's the former.

divorces can happen at the drop of a hat now.

the kids have to deal with the **** that comes up for the rest of their lives.

and gays are the ones harming marriage? total bollocks.

LordVipper · December 23, 2003, 20:58

Hey at least you people can have that debate! try that in a theocracy (dont get me wrong i like greece but....) like mine. Its a step up....but its stupid! why must gays have others teling them what they can and cannot? if two people want to marry,straight or gay,they must be able to.And if someone objects because his sky fairy wrote so in an ancient book of obscure origins....well sorry! you cant keep the world back forever!

Kuciwalker · December 23, 2003, 22:05

And those people who say "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman"... so you want to take away a right because of semantics?!

Drake Tungsten · December 23, 2003, 22:39

Quote:

so you want to take away a right because of semantics?!

You can't take away a right that never existed in the first place.

Guynemer · December 23, 2003, 23:32

My opinion?

Who in their right mind gives a flying **** if two other people of the same sex want to get married?

I think anyone who gets so worked up over the idea that they have to stick their fat, ignorant nose in the middle of the issue to prevent such marriages must have a sad, pathetic, empty little existence, not fit for scorn or bile, but only for pity.

By the power invested in me as a free-thinking, freedom-loving, liberty-defending American citizen, I pronounce them husband and husband, wife and wife. You may kiss each other.

Guynemer · December 23, 2003, 23:43

Although, it is enlightening to see how skewed the Poly community is on this issue. Most of the American conservatives (or right-moderates) on Poly are pro-gay marriage (or civil unions, at the very least). I'd like to think that all this constant hammering from the left has opened your minds, but I think I'd be flattering ourselves.