ES Gay Marriage Poll

[Larry]

Queue Larry calling me a bigot in 3...2...1...

(I guess I'm a bigot too, Zguy.)

Agreed, I'm a bigot to I guess. . .

Just out of curiosity, anybody want to suggest a different word for "someone who believes that a minority group should be treated differently from everybody else in society, simply because that group is disliked?"

:halo:

[Dictator]

In fact, 100% of gay people had straight parents.

Not always true.

My Wife's cousin is a lesbian. As is her mother...or maybe her mother's bi...at the very least se isn't "Straight"

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just out of curiosity, anybody want to suggest a different word for "someone who believes that a minority group should be treated differently from everybody else in society, simply because that group is disliked?"

:halo:

Woah! Totally unfair Larry...completely a mischaracterization of my position. Go back and read my position in this thread, and honestly say the same thing to me, I have done nothing but argue for equal treatment for gays and straights in the eyes of the law in this thread, and its not a matter of "disliking" a group of people that too is a gross mischaracterization. By that assertion I would not like my wife's cousin and her partner, but guess what she is my favorite of my wives cousins; and you can forget the crap line about the "token gay friend" because that's not gonna fly.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not always true.

My Wife's cousin is a lesbian. As is her mother...or maybe her mother's bi...at the very least se isn't "Straight"

Exaclty, Larry is wrong because he said that 100% of gays had striaght parents and that's not necessarily true in that someone doesn't have to be straight to have heterosexual intercourse.

[Larry]

Exaclty, Larry is wrong because he said that 100% of gays had striaght parents and that's not necessarily true in that someone doesn't have to be gay to have heterosexual intercourse.

So, "100% of gay people had exactly one Mother and one Father, who, in 99.something% of cases, had penile-vaginal sex with each other"?

Is that sufficiently scientifically accurate?

Geez, everybody's a critic.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So, "100% of gay people had exactly one Mother and one Father, who, in 99.something% of cases, had penile-vaginal sex with each other"?

Is that sufficiently scientifically accurate?

Geez, everybody's a critic.

It is certainly better than the first non sequitur comment you posted.

[Birdlives]

I really could care less. Wanna get married? More power to ya. Let er rip. What I'm not into is telling people what they can and cannot do within reason. If it does not profoundly affect others, then why not.

[Teller]

Just out of curiosity, anybody want to suggest a different word for "someone who believes that a minority group should be treated differently from everybody else in society, simply because that group is disliked?"

:halo:

This is not the first time I've had to correct you on this issue. And frankly, your continuing to make this argument, when you KNOW your conclusion is wrong is -- as I said before -- a tactic you are above.

I think there are a handful of discriminatory practices in this country that CAN BE useful. The example I pointed out to you yesterday was the fact that women virtually ALWAYS get the kids in a divorce.

Is that discriminatory? You're damned right it is. Are most women better parents than men? IMHO, yes.

Likewise, I believe that the traditional family absolutely has merit and value, not just to the people involved, but to our communities and our country. You'll excuse me, I hope, if I cling to some of the things that took us from a group of wayward colonists to the greatest damned country on the planet in four generations.

I want to maintain the recognition that the traditional family structure IS the best way to go. It is.

I've also pointed out the fact that I fully support giving homosexual couples ALL of the rights of straight couples. I simply don't want it to be called a "marriage."

You can continue to call the rest of us who disagree with you names, as opposed to actually acknowledging and adressing our ACTUAL reasons for doing so. But then, you're probably in that crowd that thinks respect for our laws, repairing our healthcare system, keeping our population under control, increasing wages, and the like are bull**** reasons for curbing illegal immigration.

[twa]

I voted the 2nd one but here's my opinion (as if that needed to be solicited)

All legals unions by the state should be "civil unions", get the state out of the marriage business, and get the church out of the "legal" business of marriage.

Agreed,while I oppose same sex marriage,I think this is the best solution.

[twa]

Just out of curiosity, anybody want to suggest a different word for "someone who believes that a minority group should be treated differently from everybody else in society, simply because that group is disliked?"

:halo:

How about biased?

I am also biased against a number of other behaviors..are they minorities as well? ( I certainly HOPE so;))

[Larry]

The example I pointed out to you yesterday was the fact that women virtually ALWAYS get the kids in a divorce.

Is that discriminatory? You're damned right it is. Are most women better parents than men? IMHO, yes.

If there's a legitimate reason for it, it's not discriminatory.

Actually, I'd say there has to be a good enough reason. AFAIK, blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites in the US. I don't think that's a good enough reason to, say, forbid blacks from adopting or having children.

Likewise, I believe that the traditional family absolutely has merit and value, not just to the people involved, but to our communities and our country. You'll excuse me, I hope, if I cling to some of the things that took us from a group of wayward colonists to the greatest damned country on the planet in four generations.

I want to maintain the recognition that the traditional family structure IS the best way to go. It is.

Which has what to do with not allowing gays to marry?

I've also pointed out the fact that I fully support giving homosexual couples ALL of the rights of straight couples. I simply don't want it to be called a "marriage."

"Separate but equal" has been tried before. It wasn't.

If I require all gays to wear red at all times, but I permit them to wear red clothes that are just as good as everybody else's clothes, is that OK?

You can continue to call the rest of us who disagree with you names, as opposed to actually acknowledging and adressing our ACTUAL reasons for doing so. But then, you're probably in that crowd that thinks respect for our laws, repairing our healthcare system, keeping our population under control, increasing wages, and the like are bull**** reasons for curbing illegal immigration.

You can continue to call the rest of us who disagree with you names, as opposed to actually acknowledging and addressing our ACTUAL positions.

[ACW]

i voted the 2nd one but here's my opinion (as if that needed to be solicited)

all legals unions by the state should be "civil unions", get the state out of the marriage business, and get the church out of the "legal" business of marriage.

x2.

x3.

[Larry]

How about biased?

Remembering one opening scene from The Magnificent Seven.

Yul Brenner observes an argument. Seems that the local undertaker can't burry some guy, because the dead guy was an Indian, and some folks in town don't want hum buried next to the white folks. He explains that, among other things, the guy who drives the hearse has quit.

Brenner: He's prejudiced, too?

Undertaker: When it comes to the chance of getting his head blown off he's downright bigoted.

[Larry]

I voted the 2nd one but here's my opinion (as if that needed to be solicited)

All legals unions by the state should be "civil unions", get the state out of the marriage business, and get the church out of the "legal" business of marriage.

Got no problem with that, myself. As long as it's equal treatment. (By the law.)

[ACW]

Got no problem with that, myself. As long as it's equal treatment. (By the law.)

Yup. The state would allow civil unions among a couple (gay or straight, or even more than 2, as long as it's CONSENTING ADULTS), and then CHURCHES could decide MARRIAGE.

[Teller]

If there's a legitimate reason for it, it's not discriminatory.

So you agreed with my (not actually-held) premise that women, based on sex alone, are better parents? Interesting. And sexist. And discriminatory, in a way that causes actual damage to fathers. But no one cares about that. Why?

Actually, I'd say there has to be a good enough reason. AFAIK, blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites in the US. I don't think that's a good enough reason to, say, forbid blacks from adopting or having children.

Have you not seen me repeatedly post that I want to give homosexual couples ALL of the rights of straight couples?

*tap tap*

Hello? Is this thing on?

Which has what to do with not allowing gays to marry?

Maintaining the idea that the traditional family structure is the best way to go is not a bad thing. As I said, it is.

"Separate but equal" has been tried before. It wasn't.

Thing is, what I'm proposing isn't separate at all. It's EXACTLY the same. Only when one person uses the drinking fountain, I want it to be called a water fountain. How does that cause ACTUAL damage?

Unlike my fatherhood example, it doesn't.

Yet no rage? Why is that?

If I require all gays to wear red at all times, but I permit them to wear red clothes that are just as good as everybody else's clothes, is that OK?

It's hardly a scarlet letter, Larry. Something tells me that two guys holding hands will be the first tip off that they might be gay. Not two guys talking who both have wedding rings on.

Also, thanks to you, I'll stop using African-American, and revert back to using "black" all the time now. I didn't realize I was singling them out as being different.

You can continue to call the rest of us who disagree with you names, as opposed to actually acknowledging and addressing our ACTUAL positions.

You've called me a bigot two days in a row. What have I called you? If I DID, in actuality, call you a name, I'll happily apologize.

[twa]

Yup. The state would allow civil unions among a couple (gay or straight, or even more than 2, as long as it's CONSENTING ADULTS), and then CHURCHES could decide MARRIAGE.

Bigot:D

[redskins59]

I would say that gay marriage should be legal.

In ancient sparta, almost every man had a homosexual partner. I guess most of them would be classificed as bisexuals because these men had wives at home as well. I think as homosexuality becomes more and more accepted in our society, the majority of people will be classified as bisexuals in the future, not heterosexuals(just like in ancient Sparta). That's a concern.

[81artmonk]

I've also pointed out the fact that I fully support giving homosexual couples ALL of the rights of straight couples. I simply don't want it to be called a "marriage."

In California, they already do. They have all the rights that married couples do. They can adopt, hospital visits, wills,health benefits,ect...So than why is legal marriage so important.

If they get everything a married couple gets they just aren't called married, than what's the big deal??

[81artmonk]

So what would you say about churches?? If it was made legal, than a church who believes that it is against their religion wouldn't be able to say no to a gay couple if they chose to marry in a church.

Now you are forcing people to go against their religion based on someone elses so-called rights??

How would you reconcile freedom of religion and this newly passed law?

[Teller]

In California, they already do. They have all the rights that married couples do. They can adopt, hospital visits, wills,health benefits,ect...So than why is legal marriage so important.

If they get everything a married couple gets they just aren't called married, than what's the big deal??

Like I said, it's not about the "rights."

It's about having homosexuality normalized.

Otherwise, having 100% of the rights would be fine.

Period.

[Larry]

So you agreed with my (not actually-held) premise that women, based on sex alone, are better parents? Interesting. And sexist. And discriminatory, in a way that causes actual damage to fathers. But no one cares about that. Why?

Nope. I stated that if there's a good enough reason, it's not discrimination.

I neither passed judgment on the validity of your reason, nor stated my position on the question. (Because I don't want to hijack the thread.) (And because my feelings on that subject are, frankly, complicated.)

Have you not seen me repeatedly post that I want to give homosexual couples ALL of the rights of straight couples?

Except equal treatment.

If they're allowed to have driver's licenses, but the license is required to be a different color, then it's not equal treatment.

Maintaining the idea that the traditional family structure is the best way to go is not a bad thing. As I said, it is.

What you haven't done is explain what that has to do with gay marriage.

BTW, I agree with you. I'd really prefer a world where everybody was in a straight, lifetime, partnership. (Especially if it means I wind up with somebody hot.) Where every kid had exactly one Mom and one Dad, who both lived with him, for his entire life.

My brother has a kid, with a woman he's never married or lived with. He gets the kid on alternate weekends. I'd

really

prefer it if he were married to the woman. But he doesn't want to. (And, at least according to him, she doesn't want to marry him, either. What she really wants is for him to go away and send a check every month.) But them getting married and living happily ever after isn't what happened.

But that has nothing to do with whether gays can get married.

(I'll give you a hint: What it appears you're trying not to say, is that you want to create a separate, gays only marriage, because you want gay marriage to be officially recognized as inferior. You're phrasing it as "recognition of heterosexual marriage", but it's the same thing. If one marriage is officially recognized as better, then the other, by definition, is officially recognized as worse.)

It's hardly a scarlet letter, Larry.

Nooooo. It's merely a special version of an official document that's different from everybody else's version. One that specially reserved for your kind of people.

You've called me a bigot two days in a row.

Actually, I'm not certain about yesterday, but I'm pretty certain that I haven't today.

(You called yourself, that.)

[Seabee1973]

They are mad because of the lies being told by the Yes on 8 people, like the one about mandatory teaching of homosexual lifestyle in schools. A LOT of people actually thought that was a real concern...

It was a real concern Why do you think the school that went on teh field trip to see their teachers get married the princible would say this is great for curriculum. If it wasnt going to be taught in schools teh CTA which is one of the unions for teachers spent lots of time and money backing the defeat of this. If it was a nuetral on the subject then it would be more agreeable

[Redd]

In California, they already do. They have all the rights that married couples do. They can adopt, hospital visits, wills,health benefits,ect...So than why is legal marriage so important.

If they get everything a married couple gets they just aren't called married, than what's the big deal??

If that's 100% true they're getting all the benefits like a married couple and can adopt then I really have no problem with that law in California about using the word Marriage. If this is all about forcing churches or whatever to accept marrying homosexuals the government should stay out of it completely imo.

Heck you're married in your eyes do you really need the religious nuts to acknowledge it? This is America and there should definitely be a separation of church and state affairs imo.

Oh my god, I might be a bigot.:doh:

Sooooo glad the first two options are spanking choice 3. My faith in humanity and this country is slowly getting restored.:applause:

[Prosperity]

voted number 2, seems to me sanctifying it as marriage is over stepping a line by the government