Do you support same-sex marriage?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 18, 2009, 12:00 am

It's quite simple, really.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 18, 2009, 12:39 am

For two (or three) women yes. That's hot. For two men, no.

Women are all naturally at least bi. Men can stick to civil unions.

Aevian Dreaklear · Post by **Aevian Dreaklear** » February 18, 2009, 1:01 am

I'm going to be that guy and say this poll doesn't have enough options. I think there is a decent population that doesn't care either way. It doesn't affect me, so I don't care. I will say that I don't like the government stipulating who can marry whom. But I'm not going to actively support same sex marriage by protesting anything, writing anyone, etc.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 18, 2009, 1:10 am

Put your money where your mouth is!

Also, if you've already voted, do it again.

But seriously, if you don't care, that's like saying no.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » February 18, 2009, 1:59 am

But seriously, if you don't care, that's like saying no.

I voted that I don't care and would say yes over no if I did care.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 18, 2009, 8:17 am

Gay people deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 18, 2009, 10:24 am

What is the point in a politically motivated poll on this board? You already know the results in advance, so why bother? Are you looking for ways to swell up in pride at running every conservative leaning person off of here?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 18, 2009, 10:34 am

Spang wrote:But seriously, if you don't care, that's like saying no.

No, it's not. Especially if you're looking at "No" as being AGAINST.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 18, 2009, 10:53 am

Saying that you don't care if a minority class of people is treated differently under the law is pretty shabby. At least have the courage to admit that you think it's OK to discriminate. Either you oppose inequity or you do not. Professing neutrality is nothing more than tacit approval.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 18, 2009, 11:26 am

Then paint a rainbow on me, put me in rubber chaps and add me to the Yes list, FFS. I'm not against it asshole. My best friend is gay and he doesn't seem to care either. Kilmoll's right. You guys are making this board a right royal pain-in-the-ass. Could you at least keep this shit in Current Events.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 18, 2009, 12:38 pm

Ashur wrote:Then paint a rainbow on me, put me in rubber chaps and add me to the Yes list, FFS. I'm not against it asshole. My best friend is gay and he doesn't seem to care either. Kilmoll's right. You guys are making this board a right royal pain-in-the-ass. Could you at least keep this shit in Current Events.

I'm sorry, I should have phrased that in different terms. I was speaking in the general, and not specific to you or the two people that explicitly stated they were indifferent (as opposed to you merely defending the position). I didn't quote any specific person for this reason, but I should have been more clear. Allow me to restate this more precisely:

Saying that one doesn't care if a minority class of people is treated differently under the law is pretty shabby, IMO. One either opposes inequity or one does not. Professing neutrality is nothing more than tacit approval. Those professing indifference should at least have the courage to admit that they think it's OK to discriminate.

Happy now? Unbunch your pretty pink panties, please.

Asshole

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 18, 2009, 12:51 pm

People left this board so we can't have discussions anymore?

or

We can't have discussions anymore so people left this board?

What a bunch of fucking panzies. It's a goddamn message board for fuck's sake. Grow a pair.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 18, 2009, 2:03 pm

I think he is referring to the "piling on" that happens quite frequently. Granted, not all debates are civil, but I can see the perspective of some folks and things do get quite one-sided often.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 18, 2009, 2:05 pm

You guys create a poll and then redefine wtf the entries mean to suit your agendas. I think what Spang meant to post was was:

Do you want us to attack you or give you a reacharound?
A. Reacharoundplz!
B. Attack me!

I have a pair. I responded didn't I. I even stated my position. Which was, not surprisingly, similar to Kilmoll's: I really don't care.

I'm not against gay marriage, hey the more the merrier. Put it on the ballot and I may vote for it, but I'm not going to campaign for it because (once again) I don't really care. That doesn't mean I want people tattooed with numbers and sent to death camps.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 18, 2009, 2:26 pm

I voted that I don't care. What I mean by that is, "I don't care". I don't care if they are or are not being discriminated against. I don't care if they like man on man or woman on woman action. If I talk to some guy on the phone who happens to like pounding another man's puckered starfish so much he wants to marry him it makes no difference to me because to me he's just someone I'm talking to on the phone.

Until someone can show me how this is a bad thing other than not conforming to someone elses idea of moral normality I'm not going to care.

If push came to shove and I had to choose either yes or no I would lean more towards yes. There is a huge shortage of Love in this world so who am I to rain on their parade.

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » February 18, 2009, 2:47 pm

I don't want to grow a pair! They wouldn't fit so nicely in my pants

And I vote YES!~

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 18, 2009, 3:16 pm

Xyun wrote:People left this board so we can't have discussions anymore?

or

We can't have discussions anymore so people left this board?

What a bunch of fucking panzies. It's a goddamn message board for fuck's sake. Grow a pair.

Maybe it's because you're a minority and have had whatever experience in the past that makes you such a cumstain on these boards, that's fine, really.
But the point is, the number of people here that want to listen to a loudmouth asshole pushing their extreme political agenda on these boards is lower than you seem to think.

It just isn't that funny anymore, and people are tired of it dude. And yes, I know plenty of "those people" I'm talking about don't like me, and I don't care, the point still stands.

EDIT:

On topic - I don't care. But if this would in any way cut back on the amount of "We're here, we're queer" type of shit the rest of us have to deal with, I'm 100% behind it.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 18, 2009, 3:16 pm

Let's clarify something a bit... There needs to be a line drawn between whether it matters to you if two people choose to marry and whether those two people have the same legal rights to marry as the majority of the population. One is a question of "should they," the other is a question of "can they." Hell, I don't really care if any couple chooses to marry, whether they're gay or straight because that's their business. My ambivalence towards other people's relationships isn't the issue, however. When asking if gays should be allowed to marry, the issue isn't whether or not Steve and Joe get married. It's not about whether or not one approves of gay relationships or is grossed out by gay sex. The issue is whether Steve and Joe should have the same fundamental rights to marry as David and Susan. The real question is, essentially, is it OK to deprive one group of people the same rights enjoyed by other people just because the nature of their relationship makes some people uncomfortable?

Bubba says he's OK with a group of people being discriminated against, and he's entitled to his own opinion on the matter. I'm curious exactly where the other "I don't care" voters stand on the real question.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 18, 2009, 3:18 pm

Spang wrote:It's quite simple, really.

Apparently it's not.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 18, 2009, 3:31 pm

I suppose what I said is technically true. I should elaborate just a bit though. I don't care (and I know I probably should) if they are being discriminated against or not because it doesn't effect me or my family directly. We (my family) aren't racists, classists, sexists, or hold anything against you based on religion (unless so drasticly against what we believe in) or your sexual preference.
For me personally, this is all stuff that happens in the news or on the internet. I don't run into this at work, at home, at the store, or at a sporting event. For me it always is happening somewhere else, to someone else. In the grand scheme of things gay marriage is pretty far down on my priority list of cares. I care about supporting my family. All this stuff seems incredibly petty.

Do I personally discriminate? I probably do. Not to the point of outright hatred or rage. Just as something or someone I choose to avoid if I can. I believe it is your actions that define you more so than any label.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 18, 2009, 3:39 pm

Bubba - I can totally understand that it's an issue that you're not passionate about because it doesn't directly impact you or those close to you. There are plenty of issues for which my convictions just aren't strong enough for me to expend energy worrying about. I don't think that the point of Spang's question was to gauge the strength of our convictions on the subject, though. You don't have to be an activist to have an opinion. It doesn't commit you to writing letters, marching in the street or anything else to say "yes, I think they should have the right to marry" or "no, I think we should discriminate against this group of people."

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 18, 2009, 3:43 pm

Xatrei wrote:Bubba - I can totally understand that it's an issue that you're not passionate about because it doesn't directly impact you or those close to you. There are plenty of issues for which my convictions just aren't strong enough for me to expend energy worrying about. I don't think that's the point of Spang's question, though. You don't have to be an activist to have an opinion. It doesn't commit you to writing letters, marching in the street or anything else to say "yes, I think they should have the right to marry" or "no, I think we should discriminate against this group of people."

We have a winner!

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 18, 2009, 3:45 pm

Behold my ninja editing skills!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 18, 2009, 4:15 pm

Winnow wrote:For two (or three) women yes. That's hot. For two men, no.

Women are all naturally at least bi. Men can stick to civil unions.

We now know what fucked Winnow up when he was growing up. He watched his parents having sex!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 18, 2009, 4:25 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:What is the point in a politically motivated poll on this board? You already know the results in advance, so why bother? Are you looking for ways to swell up in pride at running every conservative leaning person off of here?

This isn't a conservative vs. liberal issue. It's a human rights issue.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 18, 2009, 4:28 pm

It is both. Usually hot-button topics are.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 18, 2009, 7:47 pm

I'm for gay marriage because if being gay is genetic, eventually gay people would no longer exist.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 19, 2009, 4:08 pm

For the record, I voted no. Civil unions yes, marriage no.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 19, 2009, 4:13 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:For the record, I voted no. Civil unions yes, marriage no.

I admire your courage. Why not marriage?

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 19, 2009, 4:23 pm

For those that see marriage as some sort of religious institution rather than a legal status, I'm more inclined to eliminate the word "marriage" from the government entirely. Out in the real world, the church's position on marriage is thoroughly irrelevant. The church has no say in if you get tax breaks, can adopt, or how inheritance laws apply to you, or resolve parental and spousal rights issues. That's the government's purview. Let the government issue unions for couples, gay and straight. Let marriage be a matter for the churches. If a church wants to recognize and sanction gay marriages, that's up to them.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 19, 2009, 4:28 pm

I agree with that. Religion can have the word "marriage", and anyone who is interested in their deity of choice recognizing their partnership should go ahead and get "married". If they want to use that status in a legal manner however, require a "civil union license" that can be notarized or whatever at the church if they're getting "married", or at a courthouse if they are just entering a "civil union".

Any problems with that?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 19, 2009, 4:28 pm

Looks good to me.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 19, 2009, 4:34 pm

I voted yes, but I can deal with that... more separation of church and state is good.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 19, 2009, 5:01 pm

Sylvus wrote:I agree with that. Religion can have the word "marriage", and anyone who is interested in their deity of choice recognizing their partnership should go ahead and get "married". If they want to use that status in a legal manner however, require a "civil union license" that can be notarized or whatever at the church if they're getting "married", or at a courthouse if they are just entering a "civil union".

Any problems with that?

Nope.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 19, 2009, 5:44 pm

Hmm. I like it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 19, 2009, 6:47 pm

Sylvus wrote:I agree with that. Religion can have the word "marriage", and anyone who is interested in their deity of choice recognizing their partnership should go ahead and get "married". If they want to use that status in a legal manner however, require a "civil union license" that can be notarized or whatever at the church if they're getting "married", or at a courthouse if they are just entering a "civil union".

Any problems with that?

I've said something along those lines multiple times on this forum. I'm too lazy to look them up.

Marriage should have nothing to do with our government.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 20, 2009, 12:41 am

Ashur wrote:Then paint a rainbow on me, put me in rubber chaps and add me to the Yes list, FFS. I'm not against it asshole. My best friend is gay and he doesn't seem to care either.

I don't care as I don't care for anyone getting married.

If the question was "should gay couples have every right and benefit that straight couples do?" then I'll vote yes.

The inability to carry a label is not discriminatory.

Kilmoll's right. You guys are making this board a right royal pain-in-the-ass. Could you at least keep this shit in Current Events.

This however is complete bullshit. I see people that rant lunacy on both sides getting attacked here.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 20, 2009, 3:00 am

Zaelath wrote:
This however is complete bullshit. I see people that rant lunacy on both sides getting attacked here.

That's only if Nick is posting...

I made my opinions clear on the prop 8 thread
http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... lit=Prop+8

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 20, 2009, 2:07 pm

Xatrei wrote:For those that see marriage as some sort of religious institution rather than a legal status, I'm more inclined to eliminate the word "marriage" from the government entirely. Out in the real world, the church's position on marriage is thoroughly irrelevant. The church has no say in if you get tax breaks, can adopt, or how inheritance laws apply to you, or resolve parental and spousal rights issues. That's the government's purview. Let the government issue unions for couples, gay and straight. Let marriage be a matter for the churches. If a church wants to recognize and sanction gay marriages, that's up to them.

That would be ideal, but people are tremendously attached to their labels, and the label "marriage" is so ingrained in our culture that most people would never want to give it up even if they just lose it as legal-speak. Even still, the religious right would not be happy just minding their own gardens. Sadly, the only real solution is to let it play out. I'm hopeful that equality will win out eventually.

For those who selected "I don't care" the question didn't say anything about campaigning for the issue or whether it affected you. It's pretty obvious what was intended by the question. I suspect in some cases, some unacknowledged homophobia caused you to "misunderstand" the question, especially in the cases where some folks go so pissy in their responses too lol. Some people dont like questions that make them have to come to terms with their own bigotry I guess.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 20, 2009, 3:07 pm

Some people are awfully quick to cry "bigot" and "racist" here. If it makes you feel better about yourself it's all good I suppose.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 20, 2009, 3:15 pm

"The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference." -Ian Kershaw

Not everyone in Germany was a raving anti-Semite. They were just apathetic. I believe this is the pont Xatrei is driving at.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 20, 2009, 3:17 pm

Did you just play the Nazi card because everyone doesn't believe in homosexual marriage?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 20, 2009, 3:19 pm

Ashur wrote:You guys create a poll and then redefine wtf the entries mean to suit your agendas. I think what Spang meant to post was was:

Do you want us to attack you or give you a reacharound?
A. Reacharoundplz!
B. Attack me!

I have a pair. I responded didn't I. I even stated my position. Which was, not surprisingly, similar to Kilmoll's: I really don't care.

I'm not against gay marriage, hey the more the merrier. Put it on the ballot and I may vote for it, but I'm not going to campaign for it because (once again) I don't really care. That doesn't mean I want people tattooed with numbers and sent to death camps.

I already pre-empted the "Nazi"'ing of this thread thanks...

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 20, 2009, 3:20 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Did you just play the Nazi card because everyone doesn't believe in homosexual marriage?

He did.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 20, 2009, 3:46 pm

I made my post to show the danger of apathy towards unjust deeds. I don't believe it's a good thing to be apathetic towards discrimination, but that's just me. I'm not telling anyone how to live (or not to live for that matter).

Perhaps you would perfer this quote instead:

“Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand”-Bodie Thoene

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 20, 2009, 3:55 pm

Ashur wrote:Some people are awfully quick to cry "bigot" and "racist" here. If it makes you feel better about yourself it's all good I suppose.

Quit spewing your bigotry here you fucking racist.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 20, 2009, 3:59 pm

I would be very opposed to rounding up homosexuals to be baked in an oven just for being themselves. I'd be very opposed if anyone or any group of people were treated this way.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 20, 2009, 4:03 pm

What about if all homosexuals were rounded up and tickled until they were laughing uncomfortably?

It's pretty easy to say "well of course I don't want you to kill that group of people". No one is posting a poll like that because no one is going to answer that they want them dead. The poll, to me, seems like more of a "do you think we all deserve the same rights", and it's apparent that some people here think we do not.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 20, 2009, 4:06 pm

That is because you are using incorrect verbage. Every gay person has the same RIGHTS. You are arguing for benefits.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 20, 2009, 4:21 pm

Which definition of "right" do you like to go with, and how does marriage not fit in it?

At any rate, right, benefit, whatever... The poll should then say "Do you think it's cool to discriminate against people?" And your answer is, unsurprisingly, yes.

The end.