• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Quick check

Age and position (doggy is not an option)

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
Dogger807

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
238
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In the exit polls there is a clear age gap in the views on gay marriage. I was wondering how it reflects on this forum. Personally I don't believe anti- gay will die anymore than racist bigotry will, but I see it greatly diminishing in less than 10 years as the old make way for the new.

What age range do you fall in and what stance do you have on gay marriage?
 
Your question and answers are too vague. For instance, I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I wouldn't vote to ban it either. I'm OK with civil unions, but I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There are obviously thousands and thousands that would vote for or against legalizing gay marriage, I'm just not one of them. I also believe this is a state's rights issue and not a federal issue. If California wants to make gay marriage legal or illegal, that's fine, but the federal government has no role in this whatsoever.
 
P/N said:
Your question and answers are too vague. For instance, I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I wouldn't vote to ban it either. I'm OK with civil unions, but I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There are obviously thousands and thousands that would vote for or against legalizing gay marriage, I'm just not one of them. I also believe this is a state's rights issue and not a federal issue. If California wants to make gay marriage legal or illegal, that's fine, but the federal government has no role in this whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Your right.. it is vague and there are many ramifications not considered in this simple poll. So let's keep it simple. Gay marriage rights in your state... how do you stand?
 
Dogger807 said:
Your right.. it is vague and there are many ramifications not considered in this simple poll. So let's keep it simple. Gay marriage rights in your state... how do you stand?
Click to expand...

P/N said:
I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I wouldn't vote to ban it either.
Click to expand...

Was that too vague?
 
I'm 23, slightly conservative, and support same-sex marriage.
 
Dogger807 said:
In the exit polls there is a clear age gap in the views on gay marriage. I was wondering how it reflects on this forum. Personally I don't believe anti- gay will die anymore than racist bigotry will, but I see it greatly diminishing in less than 10 years as the old make way for the new.

What age range do you fall in and what stance do you have on gay marriage?
Click to expand...


Abbreviation alert: same-sex marriage = SSM


I don't think gay marriage should even be an issue. Its like love. There is no law that says who you can love and marry (well unfortunately there is in most states). Americans are free to love whoever they want and should be able to marry whoever they want.

I am less than 20 and for gay marriage. I personally oppose homosexuality and SSM, I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but that is my personal and religious view.

I think being against SSM is like supporting over one religion over another.

Marriage has always been religious, there is nothing outside of religion that says only a man and a woman should be together. Because of how ambiguous our Constitution is intended to be, tf you say that only a man and a woman can marry, its respecting the establishment of religion. Its stupid to think that "its traditional" crap. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion but in this case, it is making that law in some states.

Its moronic and redundant. Its actually religious ignorance at its best. Its like dictating what should happen because IT JUST SO HAPPENS that all the major religions advocate heterosex marriage. That's just a coincidence, its NOT the law of nature or law of the universe, it the law of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.

I believe you can be homosexual and still religious, its not a sin to them. Its a sin to deny religion to someone because of what YOU think, its a sin to YOU.

For those of you who are still extremely tightly-wound and conservative on this issue, let me pose this question:

How does it affect you? Is your wallet impacted if someone decides to marry a member of their own gender? Does SSM somehow prevent you from fulfilling your American dream? Does SSM prevent you form living your daily life? No.

Does it make you upset? Maybe.

I am a Hindu. Do people who kick books or throw books on the ground make me upset? You bet, but I'm not gonna make a law to prevent people from touching books to the ground or touching their feet to books just because its based on religion.

It doesn't affect me if someone disrespects a book other than make have some mental conflict where I ask myself "is that right?" I can't do anything about it. Why?

Because my rights end where yours begin. I can pretend to punch you square in the face but you can't do anything about it, 'cause I have that right. Until I actually hit you, then have a right to seek some kind of reparation or consequence and my rights are diminished for the time being. That's the ambiguity of America.
 
Marriage has always been religious...
Click to expand...

In Western Civilization, that is, for the most part, accurate. But in many cultures marriage was primarily a legal arrangement ensuring property rights. The proposition of marriage has been in existence long before Christianity or any organized religion; to believe otherwise is to revel in the ahistorical. Consider Rome pre-Constantine when paganism was in vogue.

Outlawing same-sex marriage on religious grounds is preposterous. The U.S. Government doesn't pay any attention to the religious value of the marriage; it's simply a legal contract. Unless homosexuals are asking that churches be forced to marry them, the religiosity is irrelevant. The legal contract, the marriage license, should be afforded to same-sex couples.
 
Last edited:
Macintosh said:
In Western Civilization, that is, for the most part, accurate. But in many cultures marriage was primarily a legal arrangement ensuring property rights. The proposition of marriage has been in existence long before Christianity or any organized religion; to believe otherwise is to revel in the ahistorical. Consider Rome pre-Constantine when paganism was in vogue.

Outlawing same-sex marriage on religious grounds is preposterous. The U.S. Government doesn't pay any attention to the religious value of the marriage; it's simply a legal contract. Unless homosexuals are asking that churches be forced to marry them, the religiosity is irrelevant. The legal contract, the marriage license, should be afforded to same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

Yes you're right about the fact that marriage is a legal arrangement, but if we take religion out of the equation for a second and say it is just a legal decision, I think everyone has the right have that arrangement with whoever as long as both parties have consent.

If its a legal contract, there's nothing that says it should only be a man and a woman.

I was not trying to be ahistorical, I guess I just overlooked that point that you brought up. I'm glad you did bring it up though, I think we're pretty much saying the same thing and have the same stance.

By the way, why is paganism important? The reason I'm asking is because I don't know much about it.

:)
 
P/N said:
Your question and answers are too vague. For instance, I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I wouldn't vote to ban it either. I'm OK with civil unions, but I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There are obviously thousands and thousands that would vote for or against legalizing gay marriage, I'm just not one of them. I also believe this is a state's rights issue and not a federal issue. If California wants to make gay marriage legal or illegal, that's fine, but the federal government has no role in this whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I do not buy into the if you call it something different then that makes it different nonsense. You either support gay marriage and that includes all the paper coated terms for it like "civil unions and domestic partnerships" or you do not support gay marriage. Most politicians who say they are against gay marriage but support civil unions or domestic partnerships are either spineless closet gay marriage supporters and they think you are a idiotic enough to buy into the "if we call it something different then that makes it different" nonsense or they are idiots who bought into the name change.


Would a vegetarian fall for this just because I called those things something different?
 

Attachments

  • apples.JPG
    apples.JPG
    34.5 KB · Views: 5
  • cucumber.JPG
    cucumber.JPG
    22.6 KB · Views: 4
Cilogy said:
Yes you're right about the fact that marriage is a legal arrangement, but if we take religion out of the equation for a second and say it is just a legal decision, I think everyone has the right have that arrangement with whoever as long as both parties have consent.

If its a legal contract, there's nothing that says it should only be a man and a woman.

I was not trying to be ahistorical, I guess I just overlooked that point that you brought up. I'm glad you did bring it up though, I think we're pretty much saying the same thing and have the same stance.

By the way, why is paganism important? The reason I'm asking is because I don't know much about it.

:)
Click to expand...


Paganism is important because in Rome there were many different factions of it and some were personal beliefs rather than organized, yet marriage was still quite common. Like I said, if it is just a legal contract - and when the government recognizes it, it MUST BE - then there is no logical reason to restrict same-sex marriage. Unless homosexuals are demanding that churches marry them, which they are not, then this whole "one man, one woman" argument is annoying and holds no water. If marriage was strictly a religious concept, why can people get married at court houses by a judge?
 
I did not vote because while i am not for gay marriage
after years debating it here and on another board, I just dont give a **** and do not see how, in any way, it would affect my marriage, if i ever go that route

Also, i do believe my secretary was right in that her generation has no desire to determine how others will live their lives and as a result within their lifetime it will be legal in all 50
and i say so what
might as well be as miserable as the rest of us
and add to the divorce statistics
 
Macintosh said:
Paganism is important because in Rome there were many different factions of it and some were personal beliefs rather than organized, yet marriage was still quite common. Like I said, if it is just a legal contract - and when the government recognizes it, it MUST BE - then there is no logical reason to restrict same-sex marriage. Unless homosexuals are demanding that churches marry them, which they are not, then this whole "one man, one woman" argument is annoying and holds no water. If marriage was strictly a religious concept, why can people get married at court houses by a judge?
Click to expand...

careful, you are close to making sense, and someone will wonder who has taken over your mind...:2razz:
One of the more stupid fears is that preachers can be jailed for not agreeing to officiate at gay marriages. On WHAT point of law could that possibly be based on?
 
UtahBill said:
careful, you are close to making sense, and someone will wonder who has taken over your mind...:2razz:
Click to expand...

I apologized for the anti-Mormon comments. I was in a bad mood.

On WHAT point of law could that possibly be based on?
Click to expand...

None. Governments cannot force religions or churches to do anything. The whole "seperation between church and state" goes both ways.
 
Macintosh said:
I apologized for the anti-Mormon comments. I was in a bad mood.



None. Governments cannot force religions or churches to do anything. The whole "seperation between church and state" goes both ways.
Click to expand...

yes, I noticed that on the other thread....kudos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom