The Gallup Polls – Fake or Real? 54% of Americans support gay marriage? (moved)

[Armoured]

So... still waiting for that explanation of the actual specific negatives to society or children caused by allowing legal secular ssm.

 

[Strathos]

This idea of "doing no harm." Have you really thought this through as it pertains to SSM? It will have absolutely ZERO impact on society, or the raising of kids?

The rest of your answer I agree with completely, and thank you for your response.

Well, it's been legal in Denmark for a quarter of a century, and it doesn't seem to have destroyed their country like some pundits predict.

It's been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years, and they're doing fine.

It's been legal in my own state for 9 years, and I haven't noticed any mass anarchy, rioting in the street, pogroms of Christians, or any real difference at all for that matter.

Whether that's a fact or not, I'll admit I do not know.
I will say that I know not one black person who is against homosexuality. At least not any who would ever vote or make an official standing on it.

You ever hear of a little place called Uganda?

 

[Skybringr]

Does it? Or is that a change? Here in Oz it was only defined as one man and one woman under Prime Minister John Howard which means somewhere between 1996 & 2007. Was it clearly defined originally as one man and one woman or is it assumed that was the case? Also what other things were allowed back then that are no longer allowed? Don't say none because that would be dishonest. Point is that things including laws change.

It didn't need a legal definition because it was a cultural, self-evident fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is why homosexuals weren't getting married before these definitions were put into writing.

They were put into writing to ensure that this acknowledged doctrine of marriage would remain and not be overrun by homosexuals.

You all act as if we attack homosexuals on marriage when really they are the one's intruding. They are the one's trying to force a change in what marriage has been proclaimed as being since classical Rome.

It's not an infringement on rights; we aren't persecuting them- you all are serving a radical campaign and expecting us to just give in.

Funny how the media doesn't tell it like that though.

 

[Armoured]

It didn't need a legal definition because it was a cultural, self-evident fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is why homosexuals weren't getting married before these definitions were put into writing.

They were put into writing to ensure that this acknowledged doctrine of marriage would remain and not be overrun by homosexuals.

You all act as if we attack homosexuals on marriage when really they are the one's intruding. They are the one's trying to force a change in what marriage has been proclaimed as being since classical Rome.

It's not an infringement on rights; we aren't persecuting them- you all are serving a radical campaign and expecting us to just give in.

Funny how the media doesn't tell it like that though.

So let's accept your position, for the sake of argument. It's all about homosexuals wanting to change the definition of marriage. OK. So, why shouldn't we? What reason is there not to change the definition of secular marriage to allow homosexuals to take part?

 

[Joykins]

So let's accept your position, for the sake of argument. It's all about homosexuals wanting to change the definition of marriage. OK. So, why shouldn't we? What reason is there not to change the definition of secular marriage to allow homosexuals to take part?

Because, because, gender roles! If we have two men or two women, how in heaven's name are we going to know who is who is supposed say "jump!" and who is supposed to say "how high?" It'll all be confusion and pigs with wings, I tell you!

 

[Armoured]

Because, because, gender roles! If we have two men or two women, how in heaven's name are we going to know who is who is supposed say "jump!" and who is supposed to say "how high?" It'll all be confusion and pigs with wings, I tell you!

I understand your frustration, but I'd like to see if Sky can actually come up with a genuine response, so let's give him a moment to respond before we start to snark.

 

[Joykins]

I understand your frustration, but I'd like to see if Sky can actually come up with a genuine response, so let's give him a moment to respond before we start to snark.

What, moi? Snark?

It's just not a marriage unless the woman is barefoot, pregnant, and quiet in the church kitchen. It's traditional.

(and I'll let other people speak for themselves, and I'll speak for me)

 

[Armoured]

What, moi? Snark?

It's just not a marriage unless the woman is barefoot, pregnant, and quiet in the church kitchen. It's traditional.

(and I'll let other people speak for themselves, and I'll speak for me)

Well, he is suddenly conspicuous by his absence...

 

[Joykins]

Well, he is suddenly conspicuous by his absence...

...well, in some places it's bedtime.

 

[Armoured]

...well, in some places it's bedtime.

True, but I note his name popping up in new posts.

 

[Joykins]

On the other GENDER thread I see....what did I tell you? Ever since the church sexism thread got shut down...

 

[A2SG]

So... still waiting for that explanation of the actual specific negatives to society or children caused by allowing legal secular ssm.

Hope you brought a book, because you're gonna be waiting a LOOOOONG time!

-- A2SG, I'll cover for you if you need to make a quick trip to the library....

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Gay people already have equality. If gay maraige is legalised everywhere in the world they will still have marriage equality. Equality is actually same rights. So at the moment every person in the US & Australia has the right to marry whoever they want provided consent can be given, the person is opposite gender and is not already married. When gay marriage is legalised everywhere then everyone will have the right to marry provided consent is given and they are not already married. So the equal rights are already there by definition. Changing a definition does not change equal rights.

The problem with that is nobody tells straight people that they have to choose someone of the opposite sex. They're naturally attracted to the opposite sex.

Gays are naturally attracted to members of their own sex. Yet, when a gay couple wants to get married, they're just told, "Sorry, you shouldn't be attracted to the person you're attracted to.... You can't get married like any other couple..... Oh! ....And you're gonna burn in hell. But we don't hate you..."

Why do you imply that having sex with your sister is morally wrong?

Did I imply it's wrong? Can you answer the questions in my hypothetical, please?

Nobody is denying anyone a right to be in a committed relationship. Marriage does not equal committed relationship. it is attitude and choice that determines commitment. People can be married and suddenly say Hey I'm not cut out for marriage so I'm leaving. marriage but no commitment to work through problems.

Perhaps committed was not the right word... But what you quoted wasn't directed at you and really, had nothing to do with commitment in relationships.

no this is not correct. those wanting change are under just as much if not more obligation to justify that change.

Justify my position?

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All fifty states must recognize same-sex marriages that happen in states where it is allowed. It's only a matter of time until every state follows suit.

The definition of marriage is not set in stone. It can AND will change and what that means in the future, I don't know nor do I really care.

My personal gripe in this debate is that Christians don't get to dictate how our society works. No single group of like-minded individuals has that right.

Just like how Muslims don't get to tell our women how they should dress, and Jews don't get to outlaw all food that isn't kosher, Christians don't get to outlaw same-sex marriage.
If you don't approve of it, that's fine. Don't marry a gay man. Tell everyone you love not to be gay, but don't impose your religion's commandments on the rest of society through law. Another part of the constitution covers that as well.

And don't tell me this isn't a religious issue. This is almost entirely the work of the religion of love that has been so influential on western culture and even more on American culture.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It didn't need a legal definition because it was a cultural, self-evident fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is why homosexuals weren't getting married before these definitions were put into writing.

They were put into writing to ensure that this acknowledged doctrine of marriage would remain and not be overrun by homosexuals.

You all act as if we attack homosexuals on marriage when really they are the one's intruding. They are the one's trying to force a change in what marriage has been proclaimed as being since classical Rome.

It's not an infringement on rights; we aren't persecuting them- you all are serving a radical campaign and expecting us to just give in.

Funny how the media doesn't tell it like that though.

The media doesn't tell it that way because that is factually incorrect. You have this whole, "us and them" attitude about this that I find quite telling.

Do you think marriage belongs to you? Or rather, "us"?

In this country, the "them" are also part of society and also get to vote and decide on what the definition of marriage shall be.

Marriage isn't something that Christians have a patent on. You didn't invent the concept and it is open to revision as long as it's within reason.

The public seems to agree that it is within reason to expand the definition to include gay couples.

 

[theophilus777]

I'm calling this for the dishonesty that it is. The moment christian groups campaign to have SSM remain illegal then it is being forced.


Why should your preference change others society?
When you consider that laws are always changing and evolving then your insistence on them remaining the same can be considered change as well.

Sorry but words mean things. Staying the same does not mean change, and vice versa. Elementary, my dear Watson. Plus, the only reason anybody ever campaigned to keep SSM illegal (which won by a landslide in most States btw) was because gays had already attempted to CHANGE the law. See that? Change. Not done by those against SSM.

What gives them the right to shove their practices down my throat, and that of my children? Keep it behind closed doors where it belongs.

 

[theophilus777]

No law validates anything to me. There are laws we have here in Oz that I think are morally wrong and should not be allowed like negative gearing (related to purchasing accomodation). If SSM were to be legalised here i still would not change my view that it goes against my faith and it would not change my faith one bit.

However, it will have an impact on society. Which is their whole point.

 

[theophilus777]

Well, it's been legal in Denmark for a quarter of a century, and it doesn't seem to have destroyed their country like some pundits predict.

It's been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years, and they're doing fine.

It's been legal in my own state for 9 years, and I haven't noticed any mass anarchy, rioting in the street, pogroms of Christians, or any real difference at all for that matter.

This is a very silly and flimsy argument. This is not even 1 generation, let alone several. The magnitude of the experiment you're willing to start warrants more caution.

 

[Armoured]

However, it will have an impact on society. Which is their whole point.

Yes, but why do you assume a negative impact?

 

[Armoured]

This is a very silly and flimsy argument. This is not even 1 generation, let alone several. The magnitude of the experiment you're willing to start warrants more caution.

What do you expect to see after several generations? Since when is "several generations" of observational data necessary to implement social change?

 

[theophilus777]

It didn't need a legal definition because it was a cultural, self-evident fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is why homosexuals weren't getting married before these definitions were put into writing.

They were put into writing to ensure that this acknowledged doctrine of marriage would remain and not be overrun by homosexuals.

You all act as if we attack homosexuals on marriage when really they are the one's intruding. They are the one's trying to force a change in what marriage has been proclaimed as being since classical Rome.

It's not an infringement on rights; we aren't persecuting them- you all are serving a radical campaign and expecting us to just give in.

Funny how the media doesn't tell it like that though.

Pretty much this, yes. All the gays have to counter that is shaming anything in their path, and pity for their poor rights. When everyone is willing to give them their rights, just don't call it marriage.