Poll on Gay Marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2009 5:38 PM GMT
    The poll is down the page a ways on the right side.

    http://www.timesargus.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2009 10:37 PM GMT
    I think it's a bullshit poll.

    The question is (and I'm listing it here so no one is encouraged to go to the site and actually vote) "Do you think same-sex marriage should be a top priority for the legislature? Yes, No or I Don't Know." [emphasis mine]

    For gays it's probably not a top priority, especially if their most urgent issue is health care or something like that. I think the poll was deliberately worded by an ass-hat who hates gays, or a brain donor who doesn't know how to ask a pertinent question.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 10, 2009 10:45 PM GMT
    You're right mickey.

    How about this:

    Do you think equal rights, including same-sex marriage, should be a high priority for the legislature? Yes, No or I Don't Know.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 10, 2009 10:47 PM GMT
    BTW mickey,

    it's down-right hilarious you used the word ass-hat considering your profile pic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 10:32 AM GMT
    If you lived here in Vermont, you would understand the question better. Both the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate have declared passing Equal Marriage legislation to be one of the top priorities for this session. The republican governor is saying that it should not be dealt with and should not be a priority. The question simply reflects the reality of the current debate. This is not an abstract theoretical concept, nor is it "bs" as mentioned. Don't vote if you don't want to, but gay marriage supporters are trying to convince the legislature to deal with it this session and make it a priority to get done before the legislature ends in a few weeks. If it isn't a priority, it will not get done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 12:35 PM GMT
    For the longest time now I have been exceptionally vocal in my opposition to Civil Unions instead of marriages for gay couples. To me Civil Unions always felt like we are getting scraps thrown down from the lofty heights of the “breeders” tables. (I know, I know, some of you hate my pet name for the hetero population. (And yes, I consider my parents, hetero relatives and hetero friends as "breeders.)) But the fact that we accept these mere scraps from these “breeder benefactors” instead of a marriage equals to theirs appalls me.

    I received in invitation to my first cousin’s wedding in the post this past Saturday. Now of course I’m not even considering attending for the fact that I will not step foot inside a church, nor attend any religious ceremonies. (I think by now everyone who knows of me from some past thread postings, know I HATE religion of any kind.) **PLEASE THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR SOME RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT RELIGION DEBATE!!**

    However I find myself in the midst of a revelation now. icon_eek.gif All of this time I have been so angry about we Gays not being allowed by the “breeders” to get married, that I’ve realized that if we were deemed worthy of participating in this archaic religious melee’ of marriage, I wouldn’t ethically be able to take part due to my hatred towards religion.

    It has dawned on me that if the term Civil Union applied to both the Gay community and the “breeder” couple that gets “married”, (for lack of a better term), in a non-religious setting, then it would be equal. What are your thoughts?

    Cheers, Keith
    icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 1:10 PM GMT



    Why do so many in the US think that straight marriages are all religious?

    They're not. Any couple that wants to get married can get a marriage license and then be married by the Justice of the Peace.

    No church. No religion.

    So since when did a church have to be involved to get married?


    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 1:18 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    Why do so many in the US think that straight marriages are all religious?

    They're not. Any couple that wants to get married can get a marriage license and then be married by the Justice of the Peace.

    No church. No religion.

    So since when did a church have to be involved to get married?


    -Doug


    I don't think anyone thinks that. icon_eek.gif That's not what I said. icon_mad.gif Marriage, according to the religious breeding population is a religious term and act. My point and question was that if both gay and breeder couples, who didn't want to take that stupid religious route of marriage, and were BOTH joined by Civil Unions INSTEAD OF "marriage", then it would be equal. Understand? icon_rolleyes.gif
    Keith
    icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 1:22 PM GMT
    Musclequest said
    It has dawned on me that if the term Civil Union applied to both the Gay community and the “breeder” couple that gets “married”, (for lack of a better term), in a non-religious setting, then it would be equal. What are your thoughts?

    Cheers, Keith
    icon_twisted.gif


    I have been saying this for years. Take government out of the "marriage business" and leave it to the churches to have religious ceremonies. Then, all couples, gay or straight, have to get a license to have a civil union. The legalities would be exactly the same.

    Then, if the straight couple wanted to get the church's approval, they can go and get "married" in a church.

    John
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 1:35 PM GMT
    My point and question was that if both gay and breeder couples, who didn't want to take that stupid religious route of marriage, and were BOTH joined by Civil Unions INSTEAD OF "marriage", then it would be equal. Understand?


    Yes completely, which is why I mentioned that government marriages without religion already exist. They just don't have gay marriages 'on the books' yet.

    Here in Canada we have religious and non-religious marriages. Gay and straight. All 100% legal and legit. Take your pick.

    Keep it simple, yes?
  • imperator

    Posts: 626

    Mar 11, 2009 7:50 PM GMT
    The government is in the "marriage" business. It took the business over from churches sometime back, probably for tax purposes, and subsequently made the churches "Government Marriage" franchisees, while the churches maintain their own religious blessing ceremonies that they also happen to call "marriage." But as long as the authority I'm appealing to for access treats me justly-- as long as my government, being in the widely understood "marriage" business, will "marry" me the same way it "marries" hetero people-- I don't care what 'other people' think of the word. Whether it's other homos saying "marriage is their word" or straight reactionaries saying "marriage is our word" or Mormons saying "we marry a bunch of times" or cultists of Zogthar saying "marriage is a ceremony involving ritual cannibalism," they don't matter. The government and I have an understanding (I understand what they call marriage) and an arrangement (they won't try to tell me I can't have it just because I'm a fag); and I'm not paying anyone who isn't the government to govern me or to agree with me or to approve of me. It's my fair access to the halls of power-- the places that matter-- that I really care about. Everything else can be dealt with later.

    I think that right now, wherever there isn't equal access, the whole language debate over "what it's called" is a distraction from the more important question of fair and just governance. It's like we're trying to plan how we're going to invade and take over a country that won't let us immigrate, and we've gotten distracted by bickering over what to call it once it's ours-- because, well, keeping its current name might stir up some kind of insurgency, so we should re-name it to truly brand it as 'ours' and let everyone know conclusively that we will have won. Meanwhile, the army that's so intent on keeping us out is building their fortifications and digging their trenches.

    If "marriage" is currently the most widely understood, accessible term for what you want (a legal union before the government entitling its parties to certain benefits and binding them in certain responsibilities), and if you respect yourself as being an equal citizen to the heteros who currently have access where you don't, then fight for "marriage" on principle. Once that fight is won, then you and the married heteros can start having the "so this is kind of a big change, should we all start using a new word for this" discussion. But don't get distracted with semantics before the real objective is attained.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 8:12 PM GMT
    Musclequest said
    For the longest time now I have been exceptionally vocal in my opposition to Civil Unions instead of marriages for gay couples. To me Civil Unions always felt like we are getting scraps thrown down from the lofty heights of the “breeders” tables. (I know, I know, some of you hate my pet name for the hetero population. (And yes, I consider my parents, hetero relatives and hetero friends as "breeders.)) But the fact that we accept these mere scraps from these “breeder benefactors” instead of a marriage equals to theirs appalls me.

    I received in invitation to my first cousin’s wedding in the post this past Saturday. Now of course I’m not even considering attending for the fact that I will not step foot inside a church, nor attend any religious ceremonies. (I think by now everyone who knows of me from some past thread postings, know I HATE religion of any kind.) **PLEASE THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR SOME RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT RELIGION DEBATE!!**

    However I find myself in the midst of a revelation now. All of this time I have been so angry about we Gays not being allowed by the “breeders” to get married, that I’ve realized that if we were deemed worthy of participating in this archaic religious melee’ of marriage, I wouldn’t ethically be able to take part due to my hatred towards religion.

    It has dawned on me that if the term Civil Union applied to both the Gay community and the “breeder” couple that gets “married”, (for lack of a better term), in a non-religious setting, then it would be equal. What are your thoughts?

    Cheers, Keith
    icon_twisted.gif



    imperator saidThe government is in the "marriage" business. It took the business over from churches sometime back, probably for tax purposes, and subsequently made the churches "Government Marriage" franchisees, while the churches maintain their own religious blessing ceremonies that they also happen to call "marriage." But as long as the authority I'm appealing to for access treats me justly-- as long as my government, being in the widely understood "marriage" business, will "marry" me the same way it "marries" hetero people-- I don't care what 'other people' think of the word. Whether it's other homos saying "marriage is their word" or straight reactionaries saying "marriage is our word" or Mormons saying "we marry a bunch of times" or cultists of Zogthar saying "marriage is a ceremony involving ritual cannibalism," they don't matter. The government and I have an understanding (I understand what they call marriage) and an arrangement (they won't try to tell me I can't have it just because I'm a fag); and I'm not paying anyone who isn't the government to govern me or to agree with me or to approve of me. It's my fair access to the halls of power-- the places that matter-- that I really care about. Everything else can be dealt with later.

    I think that right now, wherever there isn't equal access, the whole language debate over "what it's called" is a distraction from the more important question of fair and just governance. It's like we're trying to plan how we're going to invade and take over a country that won't let us immigrate, and we've gotten distracted by bickering over what to call it once it's ours-- because, well, keeping its current name might stir up some kind of insurgency, so we should re-name it to truly brand it as 'ours' and let everyone know conclusively that we will have won. Meanwhile, the army that's so intent on keeping us out is building their fortifications and digging their trenches.

    If "marriage" is currently the most widely understood, accessible term for what you want (a legal union before the government entitling its parties to certain benefits and binding them in certain responsibilities), and if you respect yourself as being an equal citizen to the heteros who currently have access where you don't, then fight for "marriage" on principle. Once that fight is won, then you and the married heteros can start having the "so this is kind of a big change, should we all start using a new word for this" discussion. But don't get distracted with semantics before the real objective is attained.


    Wow. You make some incredible points. But I could not disagree with you more. EVERY religious sect, brand, domination, or whatever these stupid organizations refer to themselves as consider marriage a religious right and act. Then all of the other mindless breeder drones in society simply follow suit. Unfortunately semantics does play a HUGE role in societal acceptance. The "breeder" world will NEVER accept US into their marriage world.
    If the term Civil Union applied to both the Gay community and the “breeder” couple that gets “married”, (for lack of a better term), in a non-religious setting, then it would be equal.
    -Keith
    icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 8:23 PM GMT
    Mickey, far more invalidating is the very fact that it's an internet poll that is open to any influence under the sun. Online polls are absolutely not, in any way, scientific when done like this. Certainly, you can use email and the internet to do polling, but under restrictions that create accurate samples; this poll that is linked is perfectly useless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 8:39 PM GMT
    [url]funny pictures
    moar funny pictures[/url]
  • Tiller66

    Posts: 380

    Mar 11, 2009 9:03 PM GMT
    The debate about gay"unions" has gotten so heated that I wounder if anyone really remembers what it means to them.Myself I just want to have the choise to proclaim my love for my man and have the same rights as others do.Unfortunetly the biggest roadblock to being equal is our own lifestyle,not to say that we are wrong for being the way we are but if gay marriage is passed what other kinds of marriage will others want.I mean what if a large number of people wanted to make marriage to kids legal would you be for or against.And that is one thing that some think about when asked about gay marriage and I can't say that it does'nt bother me that people like that might use our victory to do some bad things.And one more thing Hate from either side is only going to slow it down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 10:17 PM GMT
    Musclequest> EVERY religious sect, brand, domination, or whatever these stupid organizations refer to themselves as consider marriage a religious right and act. Then all of the other mindless breeder drones in society simply follow suit. Unfortunately semantics does play a HUGE role in societal acceptance. The "breeder" world will NEVER accept US into their marriage world.

    Obviously in some parts of the world this has happened, so I wouldn't say "never".

    Beyond that, I'd point out that many religions and many people (at one time I'd say all and most) considered "gay"/"homo" to be a mental illness. Due to their semantics and definitions, does that mean you wouldn't want to be gay?

    As Meninlove pointed out, CIVIL marriages do exist. I'd further venture that since most people aren't religious freaks that they don't really see marriage as something ordained by God. Sure, it may be done at Church, but that probably has more traditional and social components than religious per se.

    If you still don't agree, then I'd argue: let's take back the word "marriage" as we did "queer"....


    Musclequest> I received in invitation to my first cousin’s wedding in the post this past Saturday. Now of course I’m not even considering attending for the fact that I will not step foot inside a church, nor attend any religious ceremonies.

    I think you should reconsider this. You are going not for "God" or the Minister or religion... but for your cousin. It's her day and (unless you hate her) you should go for her sake - to share in her happiness.

    And yes, to support her marriage just as you will want her to support yours.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 10:27 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidMusclequest> EVERY religious sect, brand, domination, or whatever these stupid organizations refer to themselves as consider marriage a religious right and act. Then all of the other mindless breeder drones in society simply follow suit. Unfortunately semantics does play a HUGE role in societal acceptance. The "breeder" world will NEVER accept US into their marriage world.

    Obviously in some parts of the world this has happened, so I wouldn't say "never".

    Beyond that, I'd point out that many religions and many people (at one time I'd say all and most) considered "gay"/"homo" to be a mental illness. Due to their semantics and definitions, does that mean you wouldn't want to be gay?

    As Meninlove pointed out, CIVIL marriages do exist. I'd further venture that since most people aren't religious freaks that they don't really see marriage as something ordained by God. Sure, it may be done at Church, but that probably has more traditional and social components than religious per se.

    If you still don't agree, then I'd argue: let's take back the word "marriage" as we did "queer"....


    Musclequest> I received in invitation to my first cousin’s wedding in the post this past Saturday. Now of course I’m not even considering attending for the fact that I will not step foot inside a church, nor attend any religious ceremonies.

    I think you should reconsider this. You are going not for "God" or the Minister or religion... but for your cousin. It's her day and (unless you hate her) you should go for her sake - to share in her happiness.

    And yes, to support her marriage just as you will want her to support yours.


    Yes, yes...I read Meninlove's post. (not a big fan of his)

    Oooops I meant the U.S. Not the breeder "world"

    As for the mental illness comment. That was started by religion...which filtered down to society, doctors,....etc EVERY past and modern day predjudice of Gays stems from religion.

    Never in a million years will I step foot into a religious setting. Just being there and participating in the ceremony is hypocrtical for me.
    Cheers, Keith
    icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 2:52 AM GMT
    Musclequest> Just being there and participating in the ceremony is hypocrtical for me.

    Not if you are going for your cousin (who is getting married in a church).
    It's not like you're going to pretend that her husband isn't her husband, right?

    Is being a hypocrite (in your view) better than perhaps being selfish (in the view of others)?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 3:02 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidMusclequest> Just being there and participating in the ceremony is hypocrtical for me.

    Not if you are going for your cousin (who is getting married in a church).
    It's not like you're going to pretend that her husband isn't her husband, right?

    Is being a hypocrite (in your view) better than perhaps being selfish (in the view of others)?


    I would rather chew glass then step into a church. Not going to happen.
    My family knows better. They know I have not stepped into a church since I was 17. My parents and my brother died 8 years ago. Did not go to the church service then.
    -Keith icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 3:05 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidMusclequest> Just being there and participating in the ceremony is hypocrtical for me.

    Not if you are going for your cousin (who is getting married in a church).
    It's not like you're going to pretend that her husband isn't her husband, right?

    Is being a hypocrite (in your view) better than perhaps being selfish (in the view of others)?


    This has nothing to do with the intent of my posting. icon_mad.gif What you are dwelling on is a small matter about me personally. My issue is much bigger about OUR community.
    -Keith icon_twisted.gif
  • Rookz

    Posts: 947

    Mar 12, 2009 3:22 AM GMT
    Musclesquest's issue is not our issue gentlemen, unless he REALLY wishes to speak about it, his free.Otherwise, it's his issue so let's not push it.
    icon_smile.gif

    Back to the point, whomever wrote that website and featured that crap is just writing it to get paid. It's not even written in neutral terms which I wish the media should be in style. And it's in a website that has ALL of this other crap around it.

    As some agreed, its complete and utter BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 3:59 AM GMT
    That is not a poll of the people of Vermont. It is a poll of people who took the poll. There is a disclaimer saying it is unscientific and its results should be viewed as such.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 9:23 AM GMT
    withHonor saidMusclesquest's issue is not our issue gentlemen, unless he REALLY wishes to speak about it, his free.Otherwise, it's his issue so let's not push it.
    icon_smile.gif

    Back to the point, whomever wrote that website and featured that crap is just writing it to get paid. It's not even written in neutral terms which I wish the media should be in style. And it's in a website that has ALL of this other crap around it.

    As some agreed, its complete and utter BS.


    Hello? Not your issue?!? icon_eek.gif WTF!!! My point and issue was/is in my original post:
    "It has dawned on me that if the term Civil Union applied to both the Gay community and the “breeder” couple that gets “married”, (for lack of a better term), in a non-religious setting, then it would be equal. What are your thoughts?"

    How is that not your, mine, and every Gay person's problem?!!!!!
    -Keith icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 10:07 AM GMT
    How typical this whole thread gets shitty using the term breeder and references to the breeder world. We have no chance getting gay marriages without the votes of enough so called breeders, whether they're in the legislature, a supreme court, or a citizen voting on the ballot.

    They're called straight allies, and we wouldn't have gotten this far without them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 10:21 AM GMT
    Keith, you need to stop with the flame baiting. I'm beginning to see why so many leave these forums, altogether. Doors will open all over the place if you stick to the subject matter and keep overly-negative opinions to yourself. I know you're angry. Who isn't at times? But statements like some of what I read from you does nothing to progress these threads.

    Oh, and using emoticons like

    icon_smile.gif

    icon_eek.gif

    and

    icon_twisted.gif

    does little to defuse jaded, bitter comments. Let go of the hate!