Opinions on Gay Marriage

[Neoteny]

Animal sacrifices are, shockingly, no longer in practice; this despite chapters 1 through 7 of Leviticus dealing with the particulars of them.

The ultimate sacrifice was made on a cross. This was the last sacrifice God required of His people, and those who come to know Him.

And we're all very impressed by god's leniency on that one.

[jesusfreak16]

Animal sacrifices are, shockingly, no longer in practice; this despite chapters 1 through 7 of Leviticus dealing with the particulars of them.

The ultimate sacrifice was made on a cross. This was the last sacrifice God required of His people, and those who come to know Him.

Yet that sacrifice doesn't work for gay people who are still evil and wrong?

It will work for anyone who accepts Christ as their Savior, and believes that He was the sacrifice that paid for their sins.

[got tonkaed]

Is that the poo one?

Maybe some of it was, but most of it wasn't. He shouldn't have used a glass jar, I really need to get that out of my head somehow...

Yeah, glass-jar was the biggest mistake ever.

sounds like this must have been awful.

[Simon Viavant]

My vote - I don't care; men can have sex with men, women with women, men with horses, men with multiple women; states should do what they want.

Could one of you please find where in the Constitution there is a right to marriage? Further, could you please find where in the Constitution there is a right to homosexuality? I can't seem to find it, but I may be looking in the wrong place. Finally, if gay marriage is Constitutional, could someone explain to my why polygamy is not constitutional? I can't seem to find that one either.

On a sort of related note, does it bother anyone that there are a boatload of Catholics on the Supreme Court, and we may be adding one more?

Some men even have sex with preserving jars... that is not something a person wants to see.

I'm not sure what preserving jars are, but I don't really want to see two gay men having sex. Doesn't mean it's wrong or that it's constitutional to prevent two gay men from having sex. I just want some consistency in the application of the Constitution, instead of randomly saying something is or is not constitutional just because a large enough group of people approve. Why is one of these sentences wrong to say and the other okay to say:

(1) "I think gay marriage is wrong, and therefore should be banned."
(2) "I think polygamy is wrong, and therefore should be banned."

The first one people want to ban for religious reasons, and the first amendment grants freedom of religion, which has been determined to include separation off church and state.

[Frigidus]

Animal sacrifices are, shockingly, no longer in practice; this despite chapters 1 through 7 of Leviticus dealing with the particulars of them.

The ultimate sacrifice was made on a cross. This was the last sacrifice God required of His people, and those who come to know Him.

OK, how about the slavery, shellfish, and sex while on the rag?

[thegreekdog]

The first one people want to ban for religious reasons, and the first amendment grants freedom of religion, which has been determined to include separation off church and state.

So a ban on gay marriage would be for a religious reason, which would violate the separation of church and state? Actually, that's a much better argument than equal protection. I like it!

[Neoteny]

I like the way this poll is set up.

[Frigidus]

I like how four people voted "No problem with it morraly but still needs to be outlawed."

[thegreekdog]

I like the way this poll is set up.

Apart from ths misspellings, JJM, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Kennedy, a/k/a jameyjames did a good job with this.

[pimpdave]

I like the way this poll is set up.

Apart from ths misspellings, JJM, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Kennedy, a/k/a jameyjames did a good job with this.

No they didn't, it's worded to be incredibly slanted towards JJMs side.

If I was feeling ornery right now, I'd report this thread for BIGOTRY! ON THE INTERNETS!


"No problem" is framed negatively, it subliminally transmits the idea that there should be a problem with it.

Instead, it should say, Support enthusiastically, or something.

[thegreekdog]

I like the way this poll is set up.

Apart from ths misspellings, JJM, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Kennedy, a/k/a jameyjames did a good job with this.

No they didn't, it's worded to be incredibly slanted towards JJMs side.

If I was feeling ornery right now, I'd report this thread for BIGOTRY! ON THE INTERNETS!


"No problem" is framed negatively, it subliminally transmits the idea that there should be a problem with it.

Instead, it should say, Support enthusiastically, or something.

Really? "Support enthusiastically"? I support gay marriage enthusiastically, yet I have no problem with Jimbob's question. I thought the options were very well phrased and clear. I thought it did not leave anything to be desired.

[Neoteny]

The problem with the poll is that it's framed in such a manner as to give all those who have no issues with homosexual marriage a boost, while dividing up those who have issues into multiple categories. It makes it look like the most inclusive answer towers above the rest, when, in reality, those who support homosexual marriage, those who are against it, and those in the bizarre middle ground of having no qualms with homosexuality morally, but still think it should be outlawed.

It might be a very accurate poll, but the nature of the choices leaves it open to misinterpretation by people who can't (or, more likely, won't) read the data appropriately.

[Neoteny]

Simply put: gay marriage wins.

[thegreekdog]

Simply put: gay marriage wins.

Depends on what "wins" means - if it means gay marriage should be both legal and morally correct, then, yeah, it wins.

[Neoteny]

Huzzah.

[got tonkaed]

Huzzah.

Im not sure its winning the poll by more than a vote to be honest. Basically he just fragmented all of the reasons to say no and left yes more or less by itself.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, in retrospect, maybe the "pro-gay marriage" answers should be better worded (like "No problem at all" should be "Not morally wrong and is a protected right" or something).

[Neoteny]

Huzzah.

Im not sure its winning the poll by more than a vote to be honest. Basically he just fragmented all of the reasons to say no and left yes more or less by itself.

I just said that.

Yeah, in retrospect, maybe the "pro-gay marriage" answers should be better worded (like "No problem at all" should be "Not morally wrong and is a protected right" or something).

There ya go.

That way, we could be sure there is never any conclusive answer at all, too.

[got tonkaed]

well your problem is your so verbose, i felt like the good forum folk would appreciate it if i summed it up for everyone.

[Neoteny]

I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

[thegreekdog]

well your problem is your so verbose, i felt like the good forum folk would appreciate it if i summed it up for everyone.

Seriously... funniest thing I've read all day.

[pimpdave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haVqcPfeqKI



BIAS! IN THE MEDIA!


lol

[AAFitz]

My vote - I don't care; men can have sex with men, women with women, men with horses, men with multiple women; states should do what they want.

Could one of you please find where in the Constitution there is a right to marriage? Further, could you please find where in the Constitution there is a right to homosexuality? I can't seem to find it, but I may be looking in the wrong place. Finally, if gay marriage is Constitutional, could someone explain to my why polygamy is not constitutional? I can't seem to find that one either.

On a sort of related note, does it bother anyone that there are a boatload of Catholics on the Supreme Court, and we may be adding one more?

The constitution does not specifically mention the right for people to go into walmart either, but sure enough, Walmart cant stop anyone from entering their store based on race or sexual preference. The Constitution does prevent discrimination against groups of people for services that are available to the public. It protects our civil rights. All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto. Marriage is being blocked for an entire group of people based on their ideology, which may be biological, and some would argue, is as biologically decided as race. In other words, people are possibly born homosexuals, or at the very least decide to be in their pursuit of happiness. Hetero people are allowed to spend their lives together in a Union recognized by the state. There really is no justification for blocking two people from being joined. The only reason, is because other people dont like it.

[thegreekdog]

My vote - I don't care; men can have sex with men, women with women, men with horses, men with multiple women; states should do what they want.

Could one of you please find where in the Constitution there is a right to marriage? Further, could you please find where in the Constitution there is a right to homosexuality? I can't seem to find it, but I may be looking in the wrong place. Finally, if gay marriage is Constitutional, could someone explain to my why polygamy is not constitutional? I can't seem to find that one either.

On a sort of related note, does it bother anyone that there are a boatload of Catholics on the Supreme Court, and we may be adding one more?

The constitution does not specifically mention the right for people to go into walmart either, but sure enough, Walmart cant stop anyone from entering their store based on race or sexual preference. The Constitution does prevent discrimination against groups of people for services that are available to the public. It protects our civil rights. All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto. Marriage is being blocked for an entire group of people based on their ideology, which may be biological, and some would argue, is as biologically decided as race. In other words, people are possibly born homosexuals, or at the very least decide to be in their pursuit of happiness. Hetero people are allowed to spend their lives together in a Union recognized by the state. There really is no justification for blocking two people from being joined. The only reason, is because other people dont like it.

The Constitution has nothing to do with why Walmart can't discriminate my friend. There are federal and state laws preventing Walmart from discriminating. The Constitution does not prevent discrimination against groups of people for services that are available to the public. It prevents discrimination by US, state and local governments. Not sure where you're getting your ideas from.

[PLAYER57832]

All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto.

This is what people are debating. Is marriage a fundamental human right, a religious institution, or merely a convention recognized by the state that might or might not have religious significance? In the first and the last, there is no reason to deny homosexual marriage. It is only if you define it as a solely religious institution that it becomes an issue.