ES Gay Marriage Poll

[Larry]

If that's 100% true they're getting all the benefits like a married couple . . .

All of them but equality.

If this is all about forcing churches or whatever to accept marrying homosexuals

It isn't. That was just something dragged into the topic to distract the suckers. It's completely bogus.

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

I'd have a lot more faith in my country if my state hadn't voted 65% in favor of Option 3, on Election Day.

[Teller]

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

Wow.

I agree with Destino AND Liberty.

Sorry, Larry. You MUST be wrong.

[Redd]

All of them but equality.

It isn't. That was just something dragged into the topic to distract the suckers. It's completely bogus.

Then I agree Larry it's discrimination and there's no excuse.

[Larry]

So, all you Option 2, folks:

If California passes a law, banning every person who contributed to this initiative from having a Driver's License . . .

But they'll allow them to get a 'civil motorist permit' instead, that's 'just as good as a real Driver's license', but it's a different color, and the person's photo is in a different place . . .

If the stated reason for doing so was that "we don't want to be sanctifying this kind of behavior by treating them like everybody else" . . .

You'd all be in favor of that?

After all, legally, it's just like a Driver's License. (Well, OK, so it's not any good outside California. But we can't help that. Complain to Washington.) And none of them will mind carrying around a card in their wallet that says "I'm different". And having to show that difference every time they rent a car, or open a bank account, or write a check, or use a credit card . . .

It's just the same as a Driver's License. It's just special. For those people who we don't want to be treated the same as everybody else.

OK with y'all?

[Teller]

OK with y'all?

Not enough information.

Are people born with their contribution to this measure in hand, or do they decide to contribute to this measure?

[Larry]

Not enough information.

Are people born with their contribution to this measure in hand, or do they decide to contribute to this measure?

Doesn't matter.

If "separate but equal" equals "equal", then no justification is needed.

Can you explain to me why it makes a difference, to you?

[PokerPacker]

I think religion should have no legal significance. Make marriage strictly a religious matter and then have Civil Unions a strictly legal matter. that way you don't have to deal with the whole "they're ruining the sanctity of marriage" crowd. also helps to separate church and state.

[Prosperity]

So, all you Option 2, folks:

If California passes a law, banning every person who contributed to this initiative from having a Driver's License . . .

But they'll allow them to get a 'civil motorist permit' instead, that's 'just as good as a real Driver's license', but it's a different color, and the person's photo is in a different place . . .

If the stated reason for doing so was that "we don't want to be sanctifying this kind of behavior by treating them like everybody else" . . .

You'd all be in favor of that?

After all, legally, it's just like a Driver's License. (Well, OK, so it's not any good outside California. But we can't help that. Complain to Washington.) And none of them will mind carrying around a card in their wallet that says "I'm different". And having to show that difference every time they rent a car, or open a bank account, or write a check, or use a credit card . . .

It's just the same as a Driver's License. It's just special. For those people who we don't want to be treated the same as everybody else.

OK with y'all?

I see marriage as a religious institution, the government ought not intrude on it any further. Driver's licenses are an entirely civic institution so the analogy falls apart there.

[Redd]

I think religion should have no legal significance. Make marriage strictly a religious matter and then have Civil Unions a strictly legal matter. that way you don't have to deal with the whole "they're ruining the sanctity of marriage" crowd. also helps to separate church and state.

I agree 100%.

[Teller]

Doesn't matter.

If "separate but equal" equals "equal", then no justification is needed.

Can you explain to me why it makes a difference, to you?

Nope. That's why I used a .

BTW, Maryland and West Virginia issue two different drivers licenses. They're BOTH different colors for drivers under 21. They're also BOTH turned lengthwise, and BOTH have the pictures in different places.

Furthermore, the people with the "different" license are only allowed to have a BAC of .02, whereas those with the normal license are allowed to have a BAC of .08, before being charged with DUI.

(And yes, I realize that people under 21 aren't permitted to drink, but we're talking about unequal enforcement of DUI laws specifically here.)

Discrimination, of the specific type you're discussing.

Yet, no one cares.

[Larry]

I see marriage as a religious institution, the government ought not intrude on it any further. Driver's licenses are an entirely civic institution so the analogy falls apart there.

The question is: Is it morally right for the government to be creating special, different versions of government documents, simply for the purpose of banning certain special people from using the same documents everybody else does?

Would you have a problem carrying around a government-issued document that's "just the same as everybody else's", except that it's different? (And the reason it's different is because people don't want the government to be 'sanctifying' you. (By treating you the same as everybody else.))

[Larry]

Nope. That's why I used a .

BTW, Maryland and West Virginia issue two different drivers licenses. They're BOTH different colors for drivers under 21. They're also BOTH turned lengthwise, and BOTH have the pictures in different places.

Furthermore, the people with the "different" license are only allowed to have a BAC of .02, whereas those with the normal license are allowed to have a BAC of .08, before being charged with DUI.

(And yes, I realize that people under 21 aren't permitted to drink, but we're talking about unequal enforcement of DUI laws specifically here.)

Discrimination, of the specific type you're discussing.

Yet, no one cares.

Florida does the same thing. (I think it's one of those "federal law, but the feds don't have the constitutional authority to do this, so we're going to hold your highway taxes hostage until you do what we tell you" things.)

And it's done for the exact reasons you mentioned: Because drivers under the age of 21 are subject to different laws.

But we're discussing a situation where it's done strictly for the purpose of making one group of people different.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Nope. That's why I used a .

BTW, Maryland and West Virginia issue two different drivers licenses. They're BOTH different colors for drivers under 21. They're also BOTH turned lengthwise, and BOTH have the pictures in different places.

Furthermore, the people with the "different" license are only allowed to have a BAC of .02, whereas those with the normal license are allowed to have a BAC of .08, before being charged with DUI.

(And yes, I realize that people under 21 aren't permitted to drink, but we're talking about unequal enforcement of DUI laws specifically here.)

Discrimination, of the specific type you're discussing.

Yet, no one cares.

Your argument is completely irrelevant, though. The law still applies to everyone equally, one of its stipulations is just that there is a 21 year waiting period from DOB before you can drive with a BAC of up to 0.08.

[Teller]

And it's done for the exact reasons you mentioned: Because drivers under the age of 21 are subject to different laws.

But we're discussing a situation where it's done strictly for the purpose of making one group of people different.

Why are they subject to different laws? Aren't we making the assumption that ALL younger drivers are less responsible? And punishing them ALL based on that assumption? Isn't that age discrimination? Doesn't that violate the concept of equal treatment?

Yet, no one cares.

(This is getting a little tiresome.)

[Teller]

Your argument is completely irrelevant, though. The law still applies to everyone equally, one of its stipulations is just that there is a 21 year waiting period from DOB before you can drive with a BAC of up to 0.08.

That's not what it stipulates at all.

It stipulates that from 16-20, you can be charged with DUI at .02. And from 21 on, you can't be charged until you hit .08.

If you guys are going to try to say that this somehow constitutes equal treatment, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Enter Apotheosis]

That's not what it stipulates at all.

It stipulates that from 16-20, you can be charged with DUI at .02. And from 21 on, you can't be charged until you hit .08.

If you guys are going to try to say that this somehow constitutes equal treatment, then I don't know what to tell you.

Your argument really only holds water if you view the law as a blatant example of age discrimination.

Of course... I'm sure your intent was to get one of us to say something like that, ask us if the law is misguided, and when someone inevitably says 'no' you'll draw the parallel to homosexuality.

[Larry]

(This is getting a little tiresome.)

Yes, frantically trying to dodge the subject often has that effect.

[Teller]

Your argument really only holds water if you view the law as a blatant example of age discrimination.

Of course... I'm sure your intent was to get one of us to say something like that, ask us if the law is misguided, and when someone inevitably says 'no' you'll draw the parallel to homosexuality.

Actually, I was directly answering Larry's hypothetical by talking about drivers' licenses when he was talking about drivers' licenses. (And colors, and picture placement.)

I think I demonstrated pretty clearly that that happens, and that it's discrimination, just for a different reason.

But like I said, no one cares.

Why?

You don't want my opinion on that.

[Teller]

Yes, frantically trying to dodge the subject often has that effect.

I used your hypothetical to make a point about discrimination. I'm sorry it wasn't the type of discrimination you were looking for.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Actually, I was directly answering Larry's hypothetical by talking about drivers' licenses when he was talking about drivers' licenses. (And colors, and picture placement.)

Hmmmm... perhaps I gave you too much credit

I think I demonstrated pretty clearly that that happens, and that it's discrimination, just for a different reason.

But like I said, no one cares.

Age discrimination is a tricky thing. I think it's a bit harder to conclusively prove discrimination based on age than it is to do the same with regard to other traits.

[Prosperity]

The question is: Is it morally right for the government to be creating special, different versions of government documents, simply for the purpose of banning certain special people from using the same documents everybody else does?

the government didn't create the institution to keep gay couples from wedding, when it enacted the institution gay couples didn't want to marry. It might be a small nuance but I think it is significant. Now I'd be ok with the government calling marriages unions to, and let the church's decide what marriage is, but I don't feel the need change is compelling enough.

[Capt Rich Fla]

Whaaaaat?!:kiss::moon::mmm: Do we have that many gay people on here?

[Teller]

Whaaaaat?!:kiss::moon::mmm: Do we have that many gay people on here?

I'm sorry, but that was funny as hell. :laugh:

[Capt Rich Fla]

I'm sorry, but that was funny as hell. :laugh:

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I didn't read much, but I bet that has been posted already.

[brianm23]

First off, it's good to see that 47% of the people responded up here are bigots. (the "good" part was sarcasm in case you missed it) I can't believe I've ran across so many that have responded and I'm only on page 3.

I don't have a problem with a civil union or partnership but I do with changing the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships.

My reason is personal in that, being a married person, I don't want to have to explain that I'm married to a woman or have people look at me funny when I tell them that I'm married. I think that's reasonable and also a good reason for same sex legal relationships to be called something else besides a "marriage".

What? Just be like the other people and flat out say you are a bigot. At least I can have some sort of respect for you in doing so. Do you honestly think we buy that load of B.S. about not wanting people to look at you funny when you tell them you are married? :doh: You live in the Bible belt, I know the exact reason why you think like you do.

But, the act of marriage itself (at least in my mind) is the exchange of vows in a church before God which is something that the state should play no part in.

Marriages can take place in other venues besides a church. Justice of the Peace can marry people.

I voted for number three. No matter what I think of the persons involved (yes I have gay friends), my conscience can never allow me to vote in favor of legitimizing in any way, behavior I consider self-destructive and a sin.

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

Hopefully I"ll beat him to it. Bigot. You remind me of one of those closet racists that claim not to be racist because you have black friends.

I am opposed to gay marriage.

It must be a black thing since in The Peoples Republic of California its said that my people voted 70 to 30 or 80 to 20 to overturn the liberal Supreme court judicial activism earlier in the year

This here folks is what we call irony. The very people who cry the most about being oppressed, mistreated, and treated unfairly are the very ones doing the EXACT same thing to another minority group. The gays. Funny how the people screaming equality the most aren't willing to dish it out when it comes to other groups.

Buddy, next time some guy calls you a ****** or you don't get a job because of your color, remember it's karma hitting you square in the jaw.

I voted for option #2.

I fully support giving homosexual couples the exact same rights as heterosexual couples. But frankly, I don't think that's the goal of many homosexuals. I think they want homosexuality "normalized," and I do object to that.

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

Why do you object homosexuality being normalized? You do realize it's been recorded throughout history right? It's a normal part of life my friend, so why shouldn't it be normalized? Do you think you'll catch the homosexuality gene by sitting next to gays? In order to get equal rights and a fair shake, it HAS to be normalized. Otherwise, people are going to continue to shun them as outcasts. Reminds me of that Andrew Dice Clay routine......give em 10% off vasoline ...now get back into the closet!

Agreed, I'm a bigot to I guess, all I know is what my Bible teaches me, but that doesn't mean my Bible should be legislated.

Your bible teaches you alot of phony things that aren't true

I have no strong opinion on it.

My only thoughts are that kids shouldn't be raised by gays or lesbians which is why I am against them adopting. I know there are probably cases where the kids turned out completely normal but still, I think that most kids will have some problems developmentally.

I do not think it should be normalized, as HH said.

I believe they are born gay and it certainly isn't a choice, but if it were "normal" the species would be in decline.

How can you say you don't have a strong opinion on it, then go say you don't think homosexuals should raise kids. I'd call that a pretty ****ing strong opinion buddy. Do you think you can teach sexuality to a person? Do you realize you have ZERO choice in who you are attracted to? I suggest you pick up a psychology book or two. Might do you some good.

I imagine homosexual desires are alot more "normal" than you think. People chose to repress it due to bigots and hate mongers like the very ones up here. If I were gay, I would hide it too.