Poll For Conservatives:

[JWBooth]

Much as you would like to think otherwise, it's not a yes/no question.

1) I'm against the state being involved in any marriages...The state-issued marriage license is what people pimping for gay statutory marriages are after.

2) If gays wish to draw up their own common law marriage agreements, it's no skin off my ass.

What he said.

 

[The Rabbi]

and the point is, none of that should be attached to a religious ceremony
and no religious leader should be vested with state powers

And I should be in a hot tub with Cindy Crawford. But none of that is going to happen. Marriage is too intertwined in the legal system to separate it without substituting something that is virtually the same but insulting to the population.

So, you pretty much are saying that Marriage, legal Marriage, is the only way to go for gay couples to be treated equally under the law.

Gay couples are already treated equally under the law. They are treated equally with straight couples who happen to live in the same dwelling. Why should they get preferential treatment because they like to boink each other?

 

[Immanuel]

Much as you would like to think otherwise, it's not a yes/no question.

1) I'm against the state being involved in any marriages...The state-issued marriage license is what people pimping for gay statutory marriages are after.

2) If gays wish to draw up their own common law marriage agreements, it's no skin off my ass.

I agree with you completely. However, the big issue is that in your second statement, homosexuals could draw up their own agreement. However, that would not mean that anyone else would have to recognize the agreement and if no one does (i.e. hospitals or health insurance companies) recognize the agreement, then homosexuals would still be treated as second class citizens. The issue is whether or not the laws of this land treat homosexuals equal to straight people.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

Much as you would like to think otherwise, it's not a yes/no question.

1) I'm against the state being involved in any marriages...The state-issued marriage license is what people pimping for gay statutory marriages are after.

2) If gays wish to draw up their own common law marriage agreements, it's no skin off my ass.

I agree with you completely. However, the big issue is that in your second statement, homosexuals could draw up their own agreement. However, that would not mean that anyone else would have to recognize the agreement and if no one does (i.e. hospitals or health insurance companies) recognize the agreement, then homosexuals would still be treated as second class citizens. The issue is whether or not the laws of this land treat homosexuals equal to straight people.

Immie

they already CAN do this
but its not all in one package called "Marriage"
too many legal rights are attached to marriage
and it never should have got that way

 

[Immanuel]

Much as you would like to think otherwise, it's not a yes/no question.

1) I'm against the state being involved in any marriages...The state-issued marriage license is what people pimping for gay statutory marriages are after.

2) If gays wish to draw up their own common law marriage agreements, it's no skin off my ass.

I agree with you completely. However, the big issue is that in your second statement, homosexuals could draw up their own agreement. However, that would not mean that anyone else would have to recognize the agreement and if no one does (i.e. hospitals or health insurance companies) recognize the agreement, then homosexuals would still be treated as second class citizens. The issue is whether or not the laws of this land treat homosexuals equal to straight people.

Immie

they already CAN do this
but its not all in one package called "Marriage"
too many legal rights are attached to marriage
and it never should have got that way

I do not disagree, but the issue for me is that the government should not be favoring one class of citizen over another.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

I agree with you completely. However, the big issue is that in your second statement, homosexuals could draw up their own agreement. However, that would not mean that anyone else would have to recognize the agreement and if no one does (i.e. hospitals or health insurance companies) recognize the agreement, then homosexuals would still be treated as second class citizens. The issue is whether or not the laws of this land treat homosexuals equal to straight people.

Immie

they already CAN do this
but its not all in one package called "Marriage"
too many legal rights are attached to marriage
and it never should have got that way

I do not disagree, but the issue for me is that the government should not be favoring one class of citizen over another.

Immie

i agree
and they shouldn't be "vesting powers" in religious leaders to perform those duties

 

[k2skier]

FAIL, this Liberal voted no, but I do go with the GOP on about 1/3 of their agenda/values.
Question on your #3; with all the straight pornographic material and bizarre sexual acts performed by heterosexuals, this isn't classified as perversion to you?

Lastly, 2 consenting adults can do ANYTHING they want behind closed doors, preferably in the closet, lol.

Homosapiens evolved being heterosexual, and if a homosapien desires the same sex, his/her DNA/Genes are dysfunctional.

thereisnospoon, the definitoin of "marriage" has NOTHING to do with religion, read on...

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sorry bout that,


1. Homo's should not be allowed to marry like normal man and women do.
2. This will come back to bite the culture, and The Nation as a whole, if permitted.
3. When you start calling perversion a good thing, it will affect all points of society.
4. This poll will be skewed, when liberals vote.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[thereisnospoon]

FAIL, this Liberal voted no, but I do go with the GOP on about 1/3 of their agenda/values.
Question on your #3; with all the straight pornographic material and bizarre sexual acts performed by heterosexuals, this isn't classified as perversion to you?

Lastly, 2 consenting adults can do ANYTHING they want behind closed doors, preferably in the closet, lol.

Homosapiens evolved being heterosexual, and if a homosapien desires the same sex, his/her DNA/Genes are dysfunctional.

thereisnospoon, the definitoin of "marriage" has NOTHING to do with religion, read on...

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sorry bout that,


1. Homo's should not be allowed to marry like normal man and women do.
2. This will come back to bite the culture, and The Nation as a whole, if permitted.
3. When you start calling perversion a good thing, it will affect all points of society.
4. This poll will be skewed, when liberals vote.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Really? Then please try to explain away the fact that most marriage ceremonies are performed in churches by clergy?
Marriage has nothing to do with religion....That's like saying Gold is not an element.

 

[Big Fitz]

Gay marriage is pointless. The only reason they are into it is for the gravy of how the tax structure is set up.

Allowing gays to marry makes sense like allowing ducks to eat pork makes sense. Marriage is about guaranteeing the interests of any children produced of the union. (Not all heterosexual couples have or want children, of course , but they are a possibility. ) It is also there to protect the interests of the parties involved because of financial things. Wives do give up a lot to get married. Gays don't need the protections of marriage, they won't produce kids in the marriage, and the only point is to score tax gains.

Not a good enough reason, really.

The lawyers want it because of how bitchy and nasty the divorces would be. Beaucoup bucks there.

 

[k2skier]

FAIL, this Liberal voted no, but I do go with the GOP on about 1/3 of their agenda/values.
Question on your #3; with all the straight pornographic material and bizarre sexual acts performed by heterosexuals, this isn't classified as perversion to you?

Lastly, 2 consenting adults can do ANYTHING they want behind closed doors, preferably in the closet, lol.

Homosapiens evolved being heterosexual, and if a homosapien desires the same sex, his/her DNA/Genes are dysfunctional.

thereisnospoon, the definitoin of "marriage" has NOTHING to do with religion, read on...

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sorry bout that,


1. Homo's should not be allowed to marry like normal man and women do.
2. This will come back to bite the culture, and The Nation as a whole, if permitted.
3. When you start calling perversion a good thing, it will affect all points of society.
4. This poll will be skewed, when liberals vote.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Really? Then please try to explain away the fact that most marriage ceremonies are performed in churches by clergy?
Marriage has nothing to do with religion....That's like saying Gold is not an element.

Easy, the ceremony is just a show, means absolutely NOTHING, the marriage is not official until you sign the paperwork at a different a location, IE courthouse. When the "person" performing the ceremony says I now pronounce you man and wife it is not legal or binding in any way.

 

[DiveCon]

FAIL, this Liberal voted no, but I do go with the GOP on about 1/3 of their agenda/values.
Question on your #3; with all the straight pornographic material and bizarre sexual acts performed by heterosexuals, this isn't classified as perversion to you?

Lastly, 2 consenting adults can do ANYTHING they want behind closed doors, preferably in the closet, lol.

Homosapiens evolved being heterosexual, and if a homosapien desires the same sex, his/her DNA/Genes are dysfunctional.

thereisnospoon, the definitoin of "marriage" has NOTHING to do with religion, read on...

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Really? Then please try to explain away the fact that most marriage ceremonies are performed in churches by clergy?
Marriage has nothing to do with religion....That's like saying Gold is not an element.

Easy, the ceremony is just a show, means absolutely NOTHING, the marriage is not official until you sign the paperwork at a different a location, IE courthouse. When the "person" performing the ceremony says I now pronounce you man and wife it is not legal or binding in any way.

actually i believe it is not a legally binding contract till the minister signs it or a JoP/judge