Anonymous Poll: Should homosexuals be allowed to get married? - Page 7 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Doctordestiny · 06-26-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Substitute "Christian" or "a believer" for religious and I'd agree. Religious and Christian or, better yet, "a believer" are not the the same thing. There are lots of believers who are not religious. In fact, it may be a majority of them. And no it's not semantics.

FlameCity · 06-26-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

What about same sex couples that are married in a church? I believe that some Anglican and Protestant (United Church of Canada) as well as some others do in fact preform marriage services for same sex couples. By your reasoning they are in fact in a marriage as it was a religious union.

For the record I voted yes. I can't ever figure out why in a world filled with so much negativity (war, crime, poverty . . . ) that something like the love of two people, no matter what sex they are, is not more celebrated?

Quote:

From Wiki:

The largest Protestant denomination in the country, the United Church of Canada, offers church weddings to same-sex couples and supports same-sex marriages, testifying to this effect during the cross-country Justice Committee hearings. Unitarian Universalist congregations also solemnize same-sex marriages, as do the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and the Metropolitan Community Church. Some progressive Jewish congregations and some within the Anglican Church have also supported same-sex marriage.

Shazam · 06-26-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

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.

I thought this thread was all good until this post. You jerk, POST THE NAME OF THE VID!

Oh yeah, quoted for awesomeness.

puckluck · 06-26-2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

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.

This has got to be the funniest post I think I have ever read on CP. Literally made me spit out my Pizza.

Azure · 06-26-2010, 06:51 PM

No kidding. If that post doesn't make you laugh out loud, maybe you're wound up a bit tight.

EVERLAST · 06-26-2010, 06:56 PM

Love is love......I have several friends gurls and boys who likes eachothers ....aint nothing wrong with it IMO

all we need is love ....isnt that how it went??

Methanolic · 06-26-2010, 07:10 PM

Wow!

The "No's" are really starting to creep!

...I was a "Yes" ....IAC

Thor · 06-26-2010, 07:14 PM

Well at most its still 2 of 10 people are backwards people, not bad considering our American neighbors to the south.

I wonder how many of the no's come from the US and how many come from Canada.

Traditional_Ale · 06-26-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

History was made on CP today. The gay marriage argument is officially over.

puckluck · 06-26-2010, 07:20 PM

How can anyone deny those beautiful red heads equal rights?

Traditional_Ale · 06-26-2010, 07:21 PM

^ Won't somebody please think of the red-heads?

Pinner · 06-26-2010, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

Well at most its still 2 of 10 people are backwards people,

Backwards huh, think about what's backwards Thor. Two males from the same species, mating in a way that is prone to spreading life threatening and fatal diseases with no possibility of reproduction.

Joborule · 06-26-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

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.

Trying to one up Wolven eh?

Bunk · 06-26-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinner

Backwards huh, think about what's backwards Thor. Two males from the same species, mating in a way that is prone to spreading life threatening and fatal diseases with no possibility of reproduction.

Well, God or nature or something made people that way, so what are we as a society to do? Continued denial? Persecution? Yes, that would be backwards.

Joborule · 06-26-2010, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinner

Backwards huh, think about what's backwards Thor. Two males from the same species, mating in a way that is prone to spreading life threatening and fatal diseases with no possibility of reproduction.

I don't know about the diseases by why is the last one a bad thing? Heck, this world is pretty over populated as it is. As a race we could slow down and keep a sustainable population.

Why is the decision of others, that have no effect on you, or anyone else, a bad, or backwards thing?

Pinner · 06-26-2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk

Well, God or nature or something made people that way,

There are alot of things people do, or desire to do that we would both consider to be backwards or wrong, where do you draw the line?

I just don't see the need for gays to get married and like I mentioned earlier, it's going to cost society alot of money. (post #52)

puckluck · 06-26-2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinner

There are alot of things people do, or desire to do that we would both consider to be backwards or wrong, where do you draw the line?

I just don't see the need for gays to get married and like I mentioned earlier, it's going to cost society alot of money. (post #52)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinner

Well it's politically correct to say "sure, why not".

But tell me why gays need to be married, for the benefits, and tax breaks?

Heteros get married because it's traditional and chances are they will have children that will inherit the family genetics and coincidentally the family name, something inherently important for generations... millennia.

With the increasingly growing tax burden on society, why extend the tax breaks and benefits designed to help families with the financial drain of raising a family, to gays?

Personally I voted no because I don't see a justifiable need that would outweigh the costs to society.

Gay marriage will take billions and billions out of the public and private pension funds, insurance companies and tax coffers. That money will have to be replaced by higher taxes, contributions and premiums... but hey, it's politically correct.

Sweet Jesus do you know what you are even saying in this post? So because of the tax burden on society we should not let gays get married?

What's next? ban all black people from getting health care? One of the most ignorant arguments I've yet to hear in this debate. Congratulations.

GGG · 06-26-2010, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinner

There are alot of things people do, or desire to do that we would both consider to be backwards or wrong, where do you draw the line?

I just don't see the need for gays to get married and like I mentioned earlier, it's going to cost society alot of money. (post #52)

Well your earlier post fails to take into account that Gay people can have children. Lesbians can do it without any state intervention. Gay males would have to fight through red tape of the adoptions but if they hire a surogate I think that would get around any current legal rules.

If you are willing to rephrase your statement to say

"I don't see the need for anyone to get married or I don't see the need for anyone who doesn't have children get any tax benefits or survivor benefits"

than your argument is sound.

Pinner · 06-26-2010, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

Sweet Jesus do you know what you are even saying in this post? So because of the tax burden on society we should not let gays get married?

What's next? ban all black people from getting health care? One of the most ignorant arguments I've yet to hear in this debate. Congratulations.

You're such a Troll Potluck, you start an opinion pole for bait...Lame.

puckluck · 06-26-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinner

You're such a Troll Potluck, you start an opinion pole for bait...Lame.

Last time I checked the title was Anonymous poll. Vote yes or no, and if you'd like, your opinion would be appreciated, but is still up for debate.

I think GGG said it perfectly. You don't want gays to be married because you don't think they deserve the same rights and tax breaks as Hetero couples?
Why? Because gays can't have families?

Excuse me while I go back to my bridge.