Anonymous Poll: Should homosexuals be allowed to get married?

[Weiser Wonder]

I voted yes. It would be interesting if the poll had 4 options:

I'm religious and voted yes
I'm religious and voted no
I'm not religious and voted yes
I'm not religious and voted no

I wonder if there is an aversion to gay marriage beyond the religious reasoning.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I just find it really weird that gay slurs were used so openly when I went to school and it seemed most people were against gays, but then I join CP and it seems that everyone approves of gay marriage or the people against it just don't like discussing the subject.

There are less 10-year-olds on CP, I suppose. Most people tend to grow up past that sort of thing.

[Redliner]

I voted no.

Obviously, I did this because I'm an a-hole and a bigot and am completely incapable of seeing the "reason and logic" behind the convictions of those who voted yes.

You may fire when ready.

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by Redliner

I voted no.

Obviously, I did this because I'm an a-hole and a bigot and am completely incapable of seeing the "reason and logic" behind the convictions of those who voted yes.

You may fire when ready.

Unfortunately, at this time there appears to be 48 other ignorant A-holes who are as backward as you.

[DionPlett]

I voted NO as well simply because marriage belongs to men and women, most of whom choose to have children and contribute to society in a postive way. Not to mention sustaining the human race.

[Dirty Mr. Clean]

I hate the fact that the government calls it marriage because of the religious background of it. Every type of union of two people should be call a civil union. That's my two cents.

[calgaryrocks]

i voted no. marriage is a religious union, a civil union is a secular union. if two men or two women want to join in union, go for it, but i guess i don't see the point of it. if they are committed and plan on spending the rest of their lives together, sure. marriage is very symbolic, between a man and a women. but if two homosexual partners want to spend the rest of thier lives together, thats fine, whats wrong with just being common law or joining in civil union, aside from the church.
the trouble here for me is if we start changing the terms of the symbolic union of marriage, it opens up a can of worms and the symbolism loses its value. although divorce also lessens the value of it. so if homosexuals can get married, then what about marrying several wives? or marrying a dead person, or a ghost or an animal?

[photon]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

I voted NO as well simply because marriage belongs to men and women, most of whom choose to have children and contribute to society in a postive way. Not to mention sustaining the human race.

So homosexuals don't contribute to society in a positive way? What if they have children, then can they be married?

Should sterile couples not be allowed to marry? Or forced to get divorced if they don't have kids after some years? What about people who have kids but don't contribute to society in a positive way, maybe we should take away their children, force them to get divorced, and give their kids to a homosexual couple who will be a positive contribution to society?

And how can marriage belong to men and women? Who gave it to them? How did they purchase it?

Originally Posted by Dirty Mr. Clean

I hate the fact that the government calls it marriage because of the religious background of it. Every type of union of two people should be call a civil union. That's my two cents.

What religious background? One of the earliest references to marriage is non-religious in nature, and heck even animals "marry", and I don't know too many religious animals.

And some Christian churches back to even before the Bible was formed accepted same sex marriage:

http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/200...hristian-rite/

Not to mention that there are religious groups now that perform same sex marriages, so even if your "religious background" position had merit, those churches should be allowed to use the word marriage because they are doing it from their religious background.

[DionPlett]

Originally Posted by photon

So homosexuals don't contribute to society in a positive way? What if they have children, then can they be married?

Should sterile couples not be allowed to marry? Or forced to get divorced if they don't have kids after some years? What about people who have kids but don't contribute to society in a positive way, maybe we should take away their children, force them to get divorced, and give their kids to a homosexual couple who will be a positive contribution to society?

And how can marriage belong to men and women? Who gave it to them? How did they purchase it?

You just think you're so smart, don't you. What most of your smart alecky posts lack are logic,reason and common sense. I will and won't stoop to any little imbecile of your proportions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

i voted no. marriage is a religious union

No, it was a civil union far before.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

marriage is very symbolic, between a man and a women.

Or between two people, why should your version of the symbolism be enforced on everyone else?

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

but if two homosexual partners want to spend the rest of thier lives together, thats fine, whats wrong with just being common law or joining in civil union, aside from the church.

You mean what's wrong with forcing a group of people to be treated differently than everyone else for no good reason? Maybe we should have a different word for interracial marriages too?

What do you mean aside from the church? What if the church wants to marry them? The church should be prevented from doing so? Religious homosexuals want to make their vows before the eyes of God, their family, peers, and their society too just like everyone else. Why do you want to restrict their religious freedoms to match your own beliefs?

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

the trouble here for me is if we start changing the terms of the symbolic union of marriage, it opens up a can of worms and the symbolism loses its value. although divorce also lessens the value of it. so if homosexuals can get married, then what about marrying several wives? or marrying a dead person, or a ghost or an animal?

Why does the symbol lose its value? It gains value because it's inclusive of more people in society.

Slippery slope arguments aren't very convincing.

[photon]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

You just think you're so smart, don't you. What most of your smart alecky posts lack are logic,reason and common sense. I will and won't stoop to any little imbecile of your proportions.

Pardon me?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Pardon me?

lol.

I think his post should go to the HOF.

[photon]

Freaking poe's law.. I can't tell if he's being serious and I should ban him, or if he's trying to be funny.

[Zulu29]

I don't understand why it's such a big deal. If it doesn't affect you then who cares. If you don't like it, look the other way. It's not gonna cause anarchy and the world to implode. They're just people like you and me.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

I voted NO as well simply because marriage belongs to men and women, most of whom choose to have children and contribute to society in a postive way. Not to mention sustaining the human race.

Wow! Gay people and gay unions don't support society in positive ways?

Wow. Just wow.

BTW... The human race is way past sustained. We don't need to be reproducing at the rate we are.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

You just think you're so smart, don't you. What most of your smart alecky posts lack are logic,reason and common sense. I will and won't stoop to any little imbecile of your proportions.

Haha, ok. Says the guy who actually hasn't made a point or shown facts or asked an intelligent question.

Photon is one of the most logical posters on the board. You are proving otherwise.

[Daradon]

Lastly, 'marriage' is not exclusively a religious union or term. It's celebrated all over the world in all sorts of contexts. Just because one group says it is doesn't make it so.

I don't care if all are called ''marriage'', or ''civil union'', or ''partnering up'', or ''ruin my life'' () as long as they are treated the same from AND INCLUDING the term right on down.

There is no logical reason why it should be any different for anyone. If it is, it's a human rights issue and an issue of prejudice, pure and simple.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Wow! Gay people and gay unions don't support society in positive ways?

Wow. Just wow.

BTW... The human race is way past sustained. We don't need to be reproducing at the rate we are.

I think that a contraction in the global population of humans wouldn't be a bad thing. We're getting too big for our own good.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I think that a contraction in the global population of humans wouldn't be a bad thing. We're getting too big for our own good.

Haha, yeah like 10% of people not reproducing is such a bad thing, as the first poster I replied to seemed to be implying.

We could actually really use that.

Besides it's a moot point as many use other methods to reproduce anyway. Donors etc.

Plus many adopt which is another good thing.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

You just think you're so smart, don't you. What most of your smart alecky posts lack are logic,reason and common sense. I will and won't stoop to any little imbecile of your proportions.

There is absolutely no way this shouldn't be in the CP hall of fame.

Since that post is so amazing, why don't I post two lesbians who think you're a moron and marriage is a right.