GAY MARRIAGE POLL
 

Dont reply, just answer.

Umm if we can't reply its not much of a discussion and I think that is what TFP is kinda about.

Indeed. ::Posts to spite you::

Ack! you bastards :eek:

Also, I think generally the people here are more open minded than most in this country. I bet you'll see a lot of "yes" answers. Not so much so in the rest of the country unfortunatly.

Of course I'm for it.

No reason to be against, imo.

Would be semi-interesting to see someone try to make a non religious-morality-based argument against it.

Don't give a shit. Marriage is dumb no matter what. I don't understand why anyone does it, and I couldn't care less who does do it.

I chose the couldn't give a shit option although I was tempted to say that I'm for it, if only for the slightly devious reasoning that it could spark the end of organized religion as we know it.

How long before the first gay divorce?

Or in the rest of the world for that matter....
In the Netherlands gay marriage was officially legalized some years (2?) back. In my opinion it's just the official seal on a relationship that would exist in the same way otherwise.
That said I take a different view of the current discussion:
I believe in seperation of state and religion. Therefore I would like to see "marriage" removed from law altogether and replaced by an "official partnership". Marriage would be the religious seal on the relationship whereas the OP would be the legal seal.
That way the government can stop meddling in religious affairs (and all discussions about gay OP's would be stripped of religious content), and each religion can decide for itself to sanction the marriage of 2 people of the same sex. Or opossite sex, for that matter.
People would marry twice (like they do in the Netherlands), once in church and once in city hall. Of which only the second is recognized in legal affairs (children, adoption, mortgages(sp?), heirs, etc)

And then Bush would not be able to stop gay marriage because it is not in the spirit of 'marriage' he would need to openly oppose gay people having a lasting relationship.
I think he's ignorant.... *comment removed for trailing off.... *
Next he'll call gay people terrorists threatening the 'security and prosperity of the nation'.

/rant

Excellent thoughts, Silvy. All we need to do here in the States is stop electing old men who get half of their constituencies by being avid churchgoers.

I was one of the "I don't give a shit" votes. I'm terrified at the concept of straight marriage, so if gay people want to, more power to them..

Hell, out of my circle of friends, the gays are the only ones that want to!

I'm undecided when it comes to this so I voted dont give a shit. I *am* an avid supporter of this being decided by the states, I think it is totally irrational for there to be a change to the constitution regarding gay marriage. Bush is just coming out with this now, to make it a big election issue. Republicans will say they are for the amendment; Democrats will say that are against it. Then when people go to the polls in November, in their mind they are voting on whether or not gays will be allowed to be married, instead of who is the better candidate. This is politics at work folks...

If it would ever come to a vote in my state, my vote would largely depend on how the bill is written. For example I am for civil-unions, but againt the adoption of children by gay parents.

Not only am I "for" Gay marriage, I'm for plural marriages of all sorts. Let the people play.

Everybody should be allowed to do what everybody else does.
For

sorry for breaking the rules of the thread ... :o

who cares???

they want a piece of paper (license) to prove their devotion... i don't give a rat's ass

I voted I don't care but completely agree with Silvy comment above. If these two individuals who are in a committed relationship are not allowed to publically annouce this commitment does it not mean that their relationship does not exist?

Let them get married....this affects me how?

Why not? Making it illegal is infringement upon the civil rights of consenting adults who wish to receive equal protection and benefit from the law. The law is not only meant to obey, it is to serve the people of the nation.

Gays and lesbians should have ever right that heterosexual people have. To deny them those rights is discrimination. Discrimination is illegal. There is no way this constitutional amendment preventing gay and lesbian marriages will go through.

You know, there is a huge thread about this very issue in yonder politics forum.
aka
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...718#post991718

just in case, you know, you're interested.

agreed!

I chose "Don't give a shit."

On one hand, though - I'm for it. When it comes to getting spousal benefits, like health care, I always had a problem with same sex couples receiving them, because unmarried hetero couples could not. With marriage - it shows the same commitment that hetero couples need to prove to receive benefits, which was lacking before.

No - it's not. Ask any smoker, or anyone more than 20 lbs. overweight.

I frankly could care less. I'm not exactly for it just because I am so attuned to the male-female relationship, but I'm also realistic enough to recognize that there are many beliefs out there and people should be allowed to do what they want to do.

people should be able to do what they want to do. and i think that gays should be allowed to get married share there benefits with the SO, and lose half of all there stuff in divorce just like everyone else.

I agree we need a new term to distinguish gay unions (and all unions for that matter), such as "official partner", that the government uses to distinguish between singles and couples for legal reasons. This seems simple enough and it forces the government to get over the issue and move on with their lives. But leave the definition of marriage alone.

This is so ironic; I was just having a conversation on this subject with some colleagues the other night.

I'm absolutely for it. There is no reason why anyone who is committed to someone else, regardless of their race, religion, color, creed should be discriminated against and prevented from marrying whom they desire.

The heart can be a deadly weapon. You can't control who you fall in love with. You can't turn a gay person straight or try to convince them that what they are doing is wrong. I say let them be and have the rights that the rest of us have.

Don't people always want what they just can't have? Dam

if the words are a sticky hang up.. call it a civil union for EVERYONE.

Yup. They have the same freedoms I have; I don't remember this country being re-named the United Chirstian States of America.

I don't see why they need a different name for it...that could kind of be viewed as discrimination, labeling their unions differently.

And yeah, I don't see why Bush want's to all of a sudden change the legal definition of marriage. It's been defined by the government as a union between two people for a long time. Where does HIS definition come from. Kind of sad that the president doesn't have to explain his reasoning.

I have seen posts explaining the votes of those that are "for it", and those that "don't give a shit". Yet, I see 13 votes "against it". At the risk of seeming trollish, or flame baiting, I would like to hear from the other side of the fence. I'm not asking you to justify yourselves, or even to explain yourselves. Just come forward with a well thought out argument as to why Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I do not want this to become another "slugfest", or another 5 page thread to nowhere, so let's refrain from the "I agree" posts. I would like it kept clean and streamlined. So...whaddya say? Come on out and play?

I agree, but I think you're misreading this post:
As that poster also wants all unions to be called the same, just not "marriage". Save "marriage" for religious bonds according to the rules of the religion they adhere to.

Spot on!

EDIT: cleaned my post up a little (though it's still ugly)

Jon Stewert put it perfectly the other day on The Daily Show.

If Bush gets his way with adding an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage it will be only the second amendment added to the Constitution that didn’t expend the freedoms of the American people but limited them. The first was Prohibition. And we all know how well that worked.

It’s absurd. Now I understand not as many people want to get “gay married” as want to get drunk but it will have somewhat of the same backlash. Not as illegal I’m sure… not as much murder. Maybe more show’s like Queers Eye for the Straight Guy.

I am not for gay marrige in the sense that I am going to get all of my gay friends together and coordinate a mass marraige, but I am for it in the sense that I feel that if they want to be together, more power to them. I don't believe that anyone has the power to say who should be wed and who shouldn't, but society deems my opionion unjust. Either way, have fun.

Cohabitation - Fornication

Historically, cohabitation and “fornication,” defined as unlawful sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons, was illegal in most states. Maryland has no laws making fornication or cohabitation illegal, nor does cohabitation constitute the Maryland common-law offense of “lewdness,” or “unnatural sexual practice.”

Currently, the District of Columbia and eleven states, still have criminal laws penalizing fornication. A handful of states, have laws making cohabitation a crime. While these laws do exist, they are rarely enforced.

Thirteen states make it a crime for an unmarried man and woman to engage in consensual sodomy in private (which is defined as oral or anal sex or both): Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia fall into this category. A handful of states only prohibit sodomy between individuals of the same sex.

Laws prohibiting consensual sodomy have been used to put defendants in prison for consensual heterosexual sex with another adult. Even when juries have found defendants not guilty of rape, on the rationale that the conduct was consensual, they have found defendants guilty of sodomy because the judge had instructed the jury that, unlike rape, consent is not a defense to the crime of sodomy.

In Maryland, the Court of Appeals held in Schochet v. Statethat the law banning “unnatural sexual practices” did not apply to consensual, non-commercial, heterosexual acts between adults in the privacy of the home. At least one trial court has extended this ruling to same-sex couples. source

There was a case featured in the November 1996 issue of "Marie Claire" involving an Atlanta wife who tried to have her soon-to-be ex-husband charged with rape. She had persuaded her then hubby to tie her up and later used the bondage as a means of proving that the sex had not been consensual. Her sister came forward and informed the court of the plot against the man, but there was another twist in the story.

Although the man was acquitted on the rape charge, the man was sentenced to five years in jail for having performed oral sex on the woman. He had admitted to that during the course of the case and so he was charged and sentenced under Georgia law.

while the above are exerpts of what i found - and trying not to flood this thread - it occures to me that the laws, if made national, would have a wide ranging effect on state constitutions...

archaic as they may be, the cost to implement the changes would be astronomical - the far reaching effect would be tied up in courts for years, i.e. should a cohabitation agreement be reached between consenting partners, would they be valid should a marriage occur? upon the death of a spouse, would the inherritance established prior to marriage be valid?

common law marriages are often in dispute due to such questions...

There are really two types of common law marriages. The "traditional" common law marriage is one which is entered into without formalities. This type of marriage is usually defined as the intent to be married combined with living together and holding one's self out to the world as married. States which recognize the "traditional" form of common law marriage include (as of 1998) Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho (only if before 1-1-96), Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio (only if before 10-10-91), Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas.

A different kind of common law marriage is represented by the situation where a valid marriage is formed from an invalid marriage after the impediment is lifted. For example, a party might be underage at the time of the marriage. Continued cohabitation as husband and wife after the underage party attains majority, however, results in the marriage ripening into validity where this form of common law marriage is recognized. Note that the courts may be reluctant to find a valid marriage when the parties have entered into a relationship knowing it to be polygamous, even after the impediment to marriage has been terminated.
source

i guess my issue is not so much with same sex marriages, doesn't have anything to do with the way i live nor do i feel they should be singled out, but to the extent the relative state's constitutions will tie up the courts and turn into another Roe v. Wade

Thsi should be a total non-issue. Just stay out of your neighbor's business.

I could go into details on this one.

But suffice it to say, I completely agree with Silvy.

We can't argue the point of Gay marriage from a religious POV. Or, we could, but it would never end. Therefore, leave it to whoever wants to argue it, and let the concept of marriage in and of itself remain a religious practice, and not a legal practice.

As marriage stands right now, both the legal and religious are the same. I voted against it due to my Christian beliefs that a marriage is supposed to be a reflection of Jesus's relationship to the church, and a special union between a man and woman. Christian beliefs also hold homosexuality to be immoral. As long as the marriage ceremony is only religious, I cannot justify supporting gay marriage based on my perspective and the beliefs I hold. However, if the discussed seperation between the legal and religious occured, I'd give all the power to those who want to pursue a legal marriage and make that lifetime committment.

I agree and would be interested in hearing the other sides point of view.

For some reasons of their own, my colleagues and friends, I've asked this question to, will say they are 'against it' and can never follow it up with any form of solid reasoning or thought on the matter. Any explanation is always evaded.

I am not in favor of "marriage" for anyone.

I think a simple contractual relationship between people would be the best way to legally define the concept of a "family."

So I voted option 3.