Darth Andrew Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 I'm just wondering what the two people who voted actually voted for. Did they vote "no" to banning gay marriages or "no" to allowing gay marriages?Heh, I voted no, as in no to allowing gay marriage. It's probably impossible to to scrap the poll, but keep the posts and make a new one, or is it possible? The preposterous notion that same-sex marriage as a concept opens the door to marriage of children to adults, adults to animals, etc. is a fallacy. With the legalization of gay marriage, will minors be able to marry soon after? Most likely not. What I'm trying to say (and what I should have made more clearly in my previous post) is once gay marriage is legalized, it could encourage those that want other types of marriages to take their cases, however few, to the courts. And it obviously won't happen overnight, but maybe in a few decades the US could be in a situation very much like this only with different circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 27, 2005 Author Share Posted August 27, 2005 *think happy thoughts* ghay.....must....not.....flame.....*dies* that is one invalid reason for banning gay marriages and not to mention strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 that is one invalid reason for banning gay marriages and not to mention strangeI'm not mentioning the issues I have with gay marriage, I'm comparing it to other situations that in my opinion are similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aash Li Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Darth Andrew thats a *very* weak excuse for wanting to not allow gay marriage. If youre reasoning is based on religious views then fine, its your right to be misguided, but dont use some lame excuse to try and back it up. Lumping gay marriage/unions/whatever you want to call it in a category with "wierd" desires for marriage is at best ignorant. Did you know that in some states you can marry your pet? I believe that in Texas there was a woman (OLD woman) who married her dog... Now tell me how that is any more normal than two women or two men getting married? Getting married to your dog IS bestiality - whether you have sex with it or not. How can you call this the land of the free, and claim to have equal rights for everyone, when youre denying a certain group of people, who are as normal as you and me most likely, the same rights that you enjoy? Thats not true freedom, or just, or even fair (yes Im quite aware the world isnt fair). Remember that separation of church and state (if youre going to use that as an arguement) was intended to protect both from the other, not one from the other. Having a theocracy - where the church makes the laws of the state is just as bad as opposite version where the state makes the laws for the church. You also cant force such religious views of intolerance to gays on everyone in a country where its a huge melting pot and people arent just christians. You cant claim that the US doesnt have a state religion and then force people to abide by rulings that are clearly based on religious principles, it hypocritical. Note that the word "you" isnt refering to anyone person who has posted on this thread, its being used in a general sense. And if anything sounds like Im trying to flame you, then youre wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 With the legalization of gay marriage, will minors be able to marry soon after? Most likely not. What I'm trying to say (and what I should have made more clearly in my previous post) is once gay marriage is legalized, it could encourage those that want other types of marriages to take their cases, however few, to the courts. And it obviously won't happen overnight, but maybe in a few decades the US could be in a situation very much like this only with different circumstances. Let's handle it one situation at a time. We can't blanket homosexuality and pedophilia and polygamy under the same roof. Sure, people will want pedophilia after polygamy and homosexuality. But, there's a very large different between the former and the latters. The kind of Homosexual and Polygamic relations that people want are for those between consenting adults. Pedophilia is between a child and an adult. Totally different ballpark than the current one we're in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 27, 2005 Author Share Posted August 27, 2005 Let's handle it one situation at a time. We can't blanket homosexuality and pedophilia and polygamy under the same roof. Sure, people will want pedophilia after polygamy and homosexuality. But, there's a very large different between the former and the latters. The kind of Homosexual and Polygamic relations that people want are for those between consenting adults. Pedophilia is between a child and an adult. Totally different ballpark than the current one we're in. yes you are right but this whole issue can be resolved if we held true to this part of the declaration of independence "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men(women too) are created equally" which is the basis of which our wonderful *cracks up* country was created under Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Wow. It's amazing how far people are willing to go to find a secular explanation for their religious beliefs. In other threads, I have seen people saying 'Are you Gay? No? Then why should you care?'. Well, that fact is, we do care, and just because you don't see why doesn't make us care any less. It seems ironic to me how so many 'caring' religious types find the notion of empathy so alien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Alright, the main reason I don't like gay marriage is the fact that a couple can't conceive a child naturally through sex because of the gender differences (yes, some heterosexuals can't have children, but I'm talking about gender) In my opinion many people get married to start a family. And please don't think I'm an ignorant loser that hates homosexuals. Like I said a few posts back, though I personally don't like gay marriage, it would be ok with me. And yes, this is the land of the free and home of the brave, so obviously gays should be able to marry by definition. So in case I offended anyone for whatever reason, I am sorry for doing so. Revan the great, though this country isn't perfect, no one country will ever be, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Don't know if [gay marriage] has been discussed in its own thread. Oh yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Andrew, I don't see what's so wrong with adopting a kid instead of birthing them. Same-sex couples can adopt a kid or two and boom, you got a family, provided that the government will allow it... which it currently does not. Why aren't they thinking of the children here? Banning gay marriage is denying children the loving homes they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Andrew, I don't see what's so wrong with adopting a kid instead of birthing them. Same-sex couples can adopt a kid or two and boom, you got a family, provided that the government will allow it... which it currently does not. Why aren't they thinking of the children here? Banning gay marriage is denying children the loving homes they need.Very true, very true. Although this blog article says that if gay couples are allowed to adopt, it wouldn't make much more of a difference (as in more orphans getting adopted): The problem with this is that, as I understand it, most of the kids who are awaiting adoption are doing so because they are either sick, mentally or physically disabled, or older than toddler-age--or a combination of these things. That makes these children undesireable to parents, who are looking for a healthy baby, not a lifetime committment to somebody else's problems. I see no reason that gay couples will be, in this respect, much different from heterosexual couples; most of them will want a pretty new baby with no obvious problems. To the extent that gay couples have been concentrated in higher-need cases (and I don't know whether or not this is the case), I would guess that this is only because they are barred from the most desireable adoptions. Putting gay couples on equal footing with straight ones would, it seems to me, mostly just increase the competition for the small supply of adoptable babies.But that's kind of beside the point. Besides gender , it's also religion that makes myself sort of torn between the issue: should gays not marry because God never intended it, or should they because 'all men are created equal' (which all are). Ah, the blessings and curses of religion. And please, PLEASE, do not turn this into a 'it's all religion's fault' argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 From that last quote, oh don't worry, there isn't any shortage of kids up for adoption and there never will be. But because a kid may be undesirable, they don't deserve a home? Sure, no one would want their kid to be ill, but that kid didn't choose to be ill so why should it pay for that? And there's still plenty of healthy babies that are put up for adoption, it's not just defective ones. Lots of mothers who get pregnant on accident put their baby up for adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 But because a kid may be undesirable, they don't deserve a home? Sure, no one would want their kid to be ill, but that kid didn't choose to be ill so why should it pay for that?Of course it shouldn't, but it's in human nature to choose the more perfect thing. Besides, you're missing the point that the adoption rate won't skyrocket once gay marriage is legal. And no, I'm not using this as an excuse to ban gay marriage. Adoption is wonderful in every circumstance (except if the intention is to harm the child). EDIT: SkinWalker, thanks for making the poll more clear (at least I assume you did). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 The problem with this is that, as I understand it, most of the kids who are awaiting adoption are doing so because they are either sick, mentally or physically disabled, or older than toddler-age--or a combination of these things. That makes these children undesireable to parents, who are looking for a healthy baby, not a lifetime committment to somebody else's problems. There's a lot of chinese baby girls up for adoption who are indeed very healthy with no birth defects. Unless being foreign is a birth defect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Besides gender , it's also religion that makes myself sort of torn between the issue: should gays not marry because God never intended it, or should they because 'all men are created equal' (which all are). Ah, the blessings and curses of religion. God has changed his mind before. Just because he never mentioned it doesn't mean he doesn't condone that sort of thing now. Anyway, if God cared about it, surely he'd put a stop to it, right? You ask us not to turn this into religion-bashing, and I'll try not to, but is anyone here opposed an Atheist or Agnostic? (An actual question, by the way, not me trying to make a point) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Could a Mod please change my vote to yes? At the time I voted it had a different meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 29, 2005 Author Share Posted August 29, 2005 Could a Mod please change my vote to yes? At the time I voted it had a different meaning. mine too cuz erm I'm for gay marrages but I voted no before cuz it had a different meaning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 That can't be right. I voted no to banning gay marriage too. If us three are responsible for those 'no' votes, where has Darth Andrew's vote gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 That can't be right. I voted no to banning gay marriage too. If us three are responsible for those 'no' votes, where has Darth Andrew's vote gone? Probably one of the "yes" votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 When the poll was fixed by a SuperMod (plain old Mods can't do it), there were 6 total votes. 3 were moved to Yes, 3 left to No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 29, 2005 Author Share Posted August 29, 2005 thanks for making that clear cuz I didn't want my vote to count for something i didn't beleive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 But the "no" is still in italics for me... I guess it just still sees my original vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Quote: Originally Posted by riceplant That can't be right. I voted no to banning gay marriage too. If us three are responsible for those 'no' votes, where has Darth Andrew's vote gone? Probably one of the "yes" votes. Actually, my vote is marked 'no'. Unless someone rigged the poll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 yes you are right but this whole issue can be resolved if we held true to this part of the declaration of independence "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men(women too) are created equally" which is the basis of which our wonderful *cracks up* country was created under Yeah your right. That totally resolves it. Notice the created part. By who? God. God says no gay marriage. He doesn't just change his mind either. If he didn't want it 2000 years ago, what has changed since then? thanks for making that clear cuz I didn't want my vote to count for something i didn't beleive Not that the poll matters... BTW, that itallics thing is cool, never noticed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Yeah your right. That totally resolves it. Notice the created part. By who? God. Well I'd say more like created by a man and a woman... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.