Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DUers who are opposed to same-sex marriage

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
truthspeaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:07 PM
Original message
DUers who are opposed to same-sex marriage
Would you mind explaining your reasoning?

Everone else: please try to refrain from jumping to conclusions or flaming. Let's see what our fellow Democrats have to say on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Creamed Corn Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. I agree with the President on this one.
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 02:43 PM by soultron
Same sex marriage is a disgrace. You've got to hit it doggystyle every now and then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cheezus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. um. explain your reasoning
I'm curious?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. It's a joke.
relax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ezee Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zinfandel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. "The President" perhaps your president...we ALL know your joking and full
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 02:22 PM by Zinfandel
of shit...no one can agree with "the President" and not be joking...either that or completely neurotically paranoid insane!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I don't think I've ever come across a DUer ...
who referred to Bush* as "the President" ... it's kinda creepy. :)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Forgive an ignorant 'mo but...
...what the hell is "lotus style" and why must one "hit it" like that only "every now and then"? I don't understand this post at all. Is it a joke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bog Frog Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. the original post included this phrase: "Would you mind explaining your
reasoning?"

Please do so. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthspeaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I think reply #1 was a troll or an obscure joke. Let's ignore it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. My but no one here seems to have an ear for humor. . .
Poster #1 was poking fun at the concept of boring, repetitive sex in marriage -- the "same sex" night after night. Toss in a little doggystyle, or a heavy dose of Kama Sutra, to liven up things -- that's what soultron was getting at. I'll admit, it was a weak joke and poorly delivered, but 7 people questioning it? Pull your heads out of your collective thought and open your minds -- you're given "liberalism" a dour rep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Hey, some of us ASKED him...
...if it was a joke. When he didn't respond it was concluded that he was a troller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. You didn't get the joke. . .
so the jokester has to explain it to you, otherwise he is, de facto, a troll? Do you wait around after every post, ready to provide instantaneous explanations of everything you wrote to every dim-witted poster who lacks the wherewithal to "catch your drift"?

Unbelievable. Simply mind-boggling. Think I'll wander over to another part of the room now. The air here's a little thick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. In case you haven't noticed...
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 03:31 PM by skypilot
...we DO get trollers and disruptors around here. Sometimes a post will appear that appears to be offensive and/or provocative, we give the poster the oppurtunity to clarify and very often they don't. If you click on their profile, very often you will notice that the moderators have caught on and "tombstoned" that person. That may have not been the case with this poster but unless this is your first day at DU you should be able to understand where that post might have raised some eyebrows.

On edit: And just what is up YOUR ass. You don't sound like a very funny person yourself. Dimwitted? Why should my not catching someone ELSES "drift" upset YOU so much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foreigncorrespondent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. And tell me...
...if something was happening in government that would affect your very life, and people continuously poked fun at your very life, would you actually "get it" every time, or would you be a little sensitive to it?

The dudes joke was in very poor taste. Joke or not, he should apologize for his actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comsymp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Hell, I thought it was funny
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. Try *eight* people questioning it...
...and at least one alerting on it.

Joke or no joke, the LGBT community has taken far more than its share of lumps on this issue.

A little sensitivity -- and the effort to respond to the O.P.'s question as seriously as it was presented -- would go much further than a post that may be a "weak joke" -- or could easily be mistaken for something masquerading as a "weak joke."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yeah, I've notice that it's been edited...
...so that now it says "doggystyle" where it first said "lotus style". Fuck 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. NASCAR fans love doggystyle
That way they can both watch the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foreigncorrespondent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Edited or not...
...it is still in very poor taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. Make all marriages Civil Unions
because of separation of church and state and make them available to adults of whatever gender wanting to marry whatever gender.

"Marriage" in the spiritual sense, blessing ceremonies, whatever, should be considered something separate and it should be up to each religion/denomination/whatever to decide whether or not they honor and perform same-sex marriages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthspeaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. marriages already are civil unions
Of course it should be up to individual churches what marriages they will perform. It already is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cclark401 Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. From my
"born again" point of view I feel that it is wrong. But I also feel that it is wrong for the STATE to mix politics and religon. Let people do as they wish as long as they are not hurting others. I can safely practice my religious beliefs regardless of what others are doing. Yes I want them to "go to heaven" but I also believe that everyone has an opportunity to know God and experience his grace. I do also believe that not everyone will take advantage of it. Even some Christians are only giving the term lip service!

Remember if Adam and Eve had not been given CHOICES by God we would not have been having this discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Well stated!
If only all professed Christians shared your common-sense attitude.

Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. People who believe in a literal "Adam and Eve"...
that the Earth really was formed in 7 days and no evolution occurred and one human of each sex was formed from clay or whatever, etc. must then believe that incest created the rest of the human race because the literal Adam & Eve first produced only two sons ... then ... ? ... you do the math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. you need to read a little deeper
but I doubt you will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. Sounds about right to me -- humans are pretty stupid... hehe :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
14. Get government out of the marriage business
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gator_in_Ontario Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
24. IMHO
there is no reason involved...just a bunch of fear based illogic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
27. I don't agree with it
I am Christian but this has no bearing on it to me.

I think of it as an institution not some religous matter. A social or societal arrangement that covers many areas only one of which involved 'whos zoomin who'. The primary focus is for family definition and responsibilities. Sure, some couples never have children by choice or fate or inalterable science. Institutions cannot cover things 100% and its not singularly about children.

All the rights issues I've heard cited by homosexuals as to the rights that they miss can be managed by simple contracts. Employers can choose to treat significant others as though they were actually married for insurance etc. Churchs can even perform rites so long as they do not seek to file governmental paperwork.

And God knows there is nothing at all that prevents people from loving one another.

I don't feel there is any point in altering the definition as its been understood for milenia due to a misinterpretation os its real meaning.

I know many don't agree with that and I respect your right to disagree and I hope you can respect my right to feel as I do. Its not like I'm trying to codify my beliefs into a constitution or anything, its just me and you did ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. but why should my wife and i be dependent on employers largesse?
Employers can choose to treat significant others as though they were actually married for insurance etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. you are dependant upon their largesse for your job
and anything that comes with it. They are under no obligation to provide anything more than a wage. You are similarly under no obligation to continue to work there if the terms are unacceptable.

The marketplace controls these things. If a company needs resources, it will compensate them as requirements dictate and the market allows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. yes but why should their be a difference
between me and my wife and a hetero couple?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. acknowledgement of the institution as I described originally
for one, bias of management for another. or any other reason they choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foreigncorrespondent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Simple contracts huh?
How about you turn your life into one big contract, and then tell us to do the same. Unless you do it, you have NO rights what so ever to expect others to do it.

BTW! How the fuck is a simple contract going to solve the problem myself and Sapphocrat have, and Gator and Sno have and the many other countless binational couples have? I am of course talking about immigration rights. Gator and Sapphocrat do NOT have the right to sposnor myself or sno for immigration because we happen to be a same sex couple. So you tell me, mate, how the fuck is a contract going to fix that?

As for religion, guess what buddy? Tomorrow is Good Friday for me. I am spending it completely alone, because I can't be with my partner at this time. Guess what buddy? Last month was Sapphs and my anniversary, we spent it apart. Guess what buddy? Sapph and I haven't even seen one another this year, and there is every possibility we won't be either.

Yeah! Simple contracts all right!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Tradition has nothing to do with it.
Marriage as the institution is known today is a modern notion, and one from the English tradition only. Why the hell rely on tradition when regarding civil rights? If we only relied on tradition, slavery would still be legal in this country, women no more than property, homosexuals would be hunted down and killed for being what they are. We would have signs saying "No Jews Allowed" or "No Irish Need Apply", FUCK TRADITION!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
29. Actually, I could care less.
I approve of civil unions, mainly for legal reasons, such as property, children, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Undercutter Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. gay marriage
i don't really have a position on this issue because i don't think there is an issue here.

there are over a thousand financial/legal benefits that go with marriage. when we create a civil union we need to make sure that it has every single one of those benefits that goes with the traditional marriage. anything less than that is discrimination.

from that point on, the only argument left is over a WORD, whether or not it is called marriage on the paper. to spend years and millions of taxpayers money to argue over a WORD is simply moronic, for both sides. the point is that majority of the people in the usa are against gay marriage because they are christians and it offends them, for some reason. so civil unions is the most natural way of protecting the minority without offending the majority.

after a gay couple gets their civil union papers, nobody is stopping them from getting a gay friendly priest and having a full blown marriage ceremony, or saying that they are married in everyday talk...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. The word matters
First, there is the very real issue of transferability. Civil Unions are not recognized in any state save Vermont and few countries. Thus a civil union is not able to be transferred from one state to another.

Second, If we don't have the word we will forever be second class citizens. Marriage is associated with maturity and being a real adult.

Third, civil unions won't be accepted that much more than gay marriage. Most of those who are honestly on the fence will get over it. The rest are opposed to both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 15th 2014, 04:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC