Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GAY MARRIAGE: For It or Against It???

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:26 PM
Original message
Poll question: GAY MARRIAGE: For It or Against It???
Barack Obama came out against a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in California. To celebrate this wonderful information I'd like to start a poll to see if there is ANYONE on DU that does not support equal rights for Gay individuals.

So tell me, are you for gay marriage or against gay marriage?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. for, of course.
Doubt you'll get many against saying it here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. We Got One,...
:shrug:

Shame on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
329. Watch Ted Haggard move to California
Think of all the other folks that will come out of the closet and move to California when the voters uphold same sex marriage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #329
345. Yes, because Ted Haggard is just the first person everyone thinks of as "gay".
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #345
384. There should be a label for someone like Ted Haggard besides.....
two faced, don't you think? I certainly don't like sharing 'gay' with him. What else could we call him that might stick?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:28 PM
Original message
Anyone against it shouldn't be on this board in my opinion.
Not saying you should be banned... just saying you need to rethink your position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
287. I'm a gay man who voted no. I have thought out my position...
see response #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #287
430. I notice that no one will respond to you.
Search out my response to the poll... I think we see things in a similar way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #430
458. They don't respond to me hardly anywhere on the forum.
I'm not surprised. I saw your response and that is exactly what I am talking about. A few here did offer some reasoned discussion, but overall everyone seems really hung up on calling it 'marriage' and not the least bit interested in discussing another reasonable alternative. Obama may surprise them all when he becomes President by proposing exactly what you and I have suggested. I wouldn't be shocked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
406. Skinner himself has actually stated they ARE NOT welcome.
So yes, they should be banned.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. They NEED to get married.
I want them to suffer as much as the rest of us.

Let them deal with the 'honey do' list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. Not to be snarky
But we are not waiting for marriage rights to cohabitate, so please understand that we already have these lists. We already take care of one another. Have for decades in many cases, even my houshold has been seeing to each others to do lists for like 16 years now...and how long have you been at it?
Just saying, I get your joke, but in reality, that joke has no basis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. I was going to say something nasty but my wife won't let me.
I understand you have honey-do lists, I understand you share the same kinds of love and devotion every other human being shares with their mate.

I've been married for 25 years.

Apparently I missed the "Warning, No teasing allowed" sign.

You have my apology for any offense, and complete sympathy for your lack of humor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #36
204. Not a lack of humor
I'm just sick of that oldest and tiredest of jokes about the subject. I was pretty clear that I was not offended, I just want those who do not comprehend to understand the reality of our lives, and that is far more important to me than looking 'hip' or making ha-ha sounds for a joke I've heard at least a hundred times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #204
223. **sigh**
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Growler Donating Member (896 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. A "Gay Marriage" poll on DU??
I'm not sure the point, but for what it's worth I voted "For it".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
139. Well given all of the recent unpleasantness
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:03 AM by tomg
back in GP: Primaries and and with current, ummmm - how shall I say this - difference of opinion on where various and sundry lines need to be or not be drawn on a number of issues ( Clark on McInsane, FISA, Faith-based Funding, Guns and so on and so forth), it is great to affirm that we all pretty much agree on something across the board.

Sometimes it's great to have a poll that reminds of who we really are and what we really want.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. And THANK you, Senator Obama for doing the right thing,
I knew in my heart you would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. And I appreciate your saying that on this board. Sometimes the
good stuff is hard to find in here, amongst all the negative mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. For. Let everyone be happy.
And let them all have the same rights. No exceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. ""I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." - Barack Obama
Obama Statement on Vote Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage

Date: June 7, 2006

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26...

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans,
including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions
about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been"
That attitude was why the marriage of his own parents was illegal in 16 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

In short, Obama continues to support a gay version of the very same Jim Crow laws that made his parents criminals in 16 states. How is that progress?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Herr Schwarzenegger said marriage was between a man and a woman
Actually, he said gay marriage should be between a man and a woman. But when the California Supreme Court made their decision, he supported it.

The point is, do you really care about what someone believes or do you care about what laws they support?

Chris Gregoire was the Grand Marshall of the Seattle Pride Parade yesterday. Here's what she had to say on the subject previously.....



Although the ruling was the judiciary's final word on gay marriage, it seemed to suggest that the Legislature could act to provide civil unions or marriage to same-sex couples. Given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in the lawsuit, the justices wrote, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.

At a news conference in Olympia today, Gov. Christine Gregoire indicated her personal views were more in line with the Supreme Court's dissenters.

"I do not believe the state should be in the business of discrimination and when the state allows me to have certain rights and responsibilities, I think those same rights and responsibilities ought to be afforded to every citizen in our state," Gregoire said.

Gregoire said she would support legislation to grant same-sex couples the same "rights and responsibilities" that heterosexual couples enjoy. But she agreed legislative leaders who said today that there is not enough support in Olympia to amend DOMA and allow same-sex people to marry.
- Seattle Times 7/26/06

So how is her position any different from Obama's?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. The subject is Obama's views, not Gregoire's and not Schwarzenegger's n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #42
90. Again, Obama shares the SAME position on this issue as John Kerry and the Clintons!!
They are ALL for civil unions, not for gay marriage, but also AGAINST a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It seems to be that DUers are painting Obama as some kind of homophobe when he shares the same position on this issue as the Clintons and most other Democrats. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #90
94. When have I EVER had a kind word about Kerry or either Clinton on equal marriage?
While you are at it, you should mention Al Gore, who not only opposed equal marriage, but actively whored for DOMA. Gore spent the two months between Bill's signing this hateful law and the election, trying to convince gay people how it was actually a step forward on the path to equality.

But again, none of that is relevant: the subject is Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. I wasn't directing my comments towards you. I was speaking in general terms...
As for Mr. Gore, he has recently come out (no pun intended) in support of gay marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #95
98. Too little, too late
He actively campaigned AGAINST equal marriage, first as VP, then as a Presidential candidate, then as the party's Presidential nominee. Then he remained silent for almost eight years. NOW I am supposed to embrace him as a friend?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #98
99. I can't argue with you on that point.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 08:19 AM by Liberal_Stalwart71
It was one reason why I didn't vote for him. He's the Godfather of the DLC and too conservative. But I do think he's changed for the better. Too little, too late? Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. You already have Obama's position but chose to ignore it.
Obama is AGAINST gay marriage.
Obama is FOR civil unions.
Obama is AGAINST a federal amendment banning gay marriage.

What is there not to understand? He holds the exact same positions as the Clintons, Kerry and other prominent Democrats.

Why does this issue continue to be rehashed ad nauseum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #96
97. "Marriage is one man and one woman." "Let the states decide if they want to institute bigotry."
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 08:13 AM by TechBear_Seattle
I am not the one ignoring Obama's positions on equal marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
190. No, it means he is not going to allow his personal religious beliefs
stand in the way of democratic opinion. You did note that he OPPOSED the amendment to ban gay marriage - a STATE initiative.

It is very close to my personal objection to abortion will not keep me from supporting abortion rights for those who believe differently. (and don't get all freaked out about equating abortion with gay marriage - the point is the personal belief and the political belief do not always mesh.)

IOW, he doesn't believe in gay marriage; therefore, he will never marry a gay. He also believes in equal rights, and does not believe that discrimination should be written into the law. Therefore, no constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Is that hard to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #190
319. And yet, he keeps repeating over and over again...
"Marriage is one man and one woman." And while he has come out against the California ban -- in a letter targeting a very narrow special interest group and not in any of the broader campaign materials, note -- he has remained obstinately silent regarding DOMA and the fact that while DOMA remains in place, state recognition of equal marriage will still mean that same sex couples are UN equal before the law.

When I he unambiguously declares that he will work to end DOMA, and does so either on national television, as part of a broad-based campaign speech or within his main campaign platform, I will have hope that he really does support my fundamental human rights. Until then.... Let's just say I have been burned far too often by Democratic politicians who say they support my rights and then stab me in the back repeatedly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #319
324. He did declare that he would work to overturn DOMA -
he mentioned it in his stump speech, it is also on his website.

And it is not he who is repeating it over and over - it is his opponants. When asked a direct question about HIS beliefs, he states his personal religious beliefs. He does not campaign on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #324
327. Could you provide a cite?
The materials I have seen, including materials put out by gay rights organizations, have been pretty consistent in claiming that Obama has never once come out unambiguously with any statements to support equal marriage on the federal level. He has made plenty of statements which could be interpreted either way, and yes he has stated opposition to amending the US constitution regarding marriage, but I have never once heard of him saying anything as clear as, "I want to overturn DOMA and have equal marriage recognized at the federal level."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #327
382. Don't be disingenuous. I never said he supports gay marriage.
He has never come out in favor of gay marriage. He HAS spoken of his desire to overturn DOMA - all of it, not just half, the way Clinton wanted to.

He is a moderate centrist whose position is just the same as EVERY leading Democrat, in favoring civil unions - with full rights equivalent to marriage.

Why is your bar for Obama higher than ANY other Democrat?

He has gone just as far as he politically can without turning the issue into a liability. It is also obvious, if you bothered to listen to him, that if the majority would vote for gay marriage, he would not let his personal beliefs stand in the way. Get CONGRESS to pass a bill acknowledging marriage equality, and he will sign it.

Would McCain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #382
386. And McClurkin be damned. Obama can't make himself any clearer . . .
without losing the election. God's grief! The man has done everything possible at this point short of saying he wants to divorce Michelle and marry Dennis Kucinich. Geeeezzzz!!! Some people's children.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #386
395. Exactly.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #386
453. Excuse Me. What Has He Done?
Besides clearly state (many times) that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, recommend that same-sex marriage be handled at the state level, and declare a vague wish to see DOMA and DADT overturned?

What has he done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #382
391. Overturning DOMA and not supporting equal marriage at the federal level is meaningless
Why bother with DOMA if you will do nothing to support, much less further, the rights that DOMA supresses?

Oh, and you still have not provided a cite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #391
394. Again with the disingenuousness.
Edited on Wed Jul-02-08 02:02 PM by NCevilDUer
Was gay marriage recognized at the federal level - or ANY level - before DOMA was passed? Of course not. The trend at the time was TOWARD gay marriage, which was why DOMA was invented in the first place, to kill it before it got started.

Today, there are two states where gay marriage is recognized, and a couple more which allow civil unions. Removal of DOMA will accelerate the trend. But you know that there is no way there will be federal recognition of gay marriages until it is allowed by at least half the states.

Practicing the art of the possible, it is flat out IMPOSSIBLE to pass a marriage equality bill today. But it IS possible to overturn DOMA.

BTW, I can't provide a cite because there is no such thing as a cite - the word is citation. Cite is a verb. And what the fuck am I supposed to cite? A statement where Obama favors gay marriage? There ain't no such thing. Where he favors civil unions? Look at his website.

You know damn well that it is a strawman argument to demand citation of killing DOMA AND supporting gay marriage, because you know damn well he supports the first and does not supoort (at least publicly) the other - and why would you expect him to, a socially moderate centrist? YOU are pretending that he is supposed to be a great liberal icon, and trash him for not living up to standards that YOU invented for him.

Grow up.

ON EDIT: BTW, what rights do you think DOMA suppresses?

From Wiki:
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Does DOMA forbid gay marriage? No. Just look at it. What it does do is forbid federal recognition of gay marriage - and THAT is what Obama wants to overturn. HE does not support gay marriage, but HE is not the government and if the will of the people (the government) supports gay marriage then there should be no law against it.

It's called 'democracy'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #382
452. Wow. Civil Rights are Dependent on the Will of the Majority.
Please explain in detail why we should have left the following issues up to the states, and how the world would be better off if we had:

1. The abolition of slavery

2. Interracial marriage

3. Granting women the right to vote

Apparently, you're fine with Obama leaving fundamental issues of civil rights up to the generous-minded voters in each state. You're also fine with him excusing his admitted bigotry (based on fairy tales from 2000 years ago) against same-sex marriage, as long as he might sign a bill that others would have to champion without his support, and to which he's already expressed his personal opposition.

You're some piece of work.

P.S. If the best defense for Obama that you can come up with is "McCain/Clinton/Jesus/Hitler would have done the same thing", you're beyond pathetic. It should outrage you just as much as anyone else who is personally affected by the frankly-stated homophobia of every one of the "major" candidates that we, as democrats, are not putting forth a candidate who believes in equal rights for EVERYONE, and who will not cower behind the bible in defence of his or her position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
404. Honestly. I Wish He'd Keep His Fucking Mouth Shut About Anything Gay.
He has NO fucking credibility, and even the best of what he says about gays is tinged with virulent homophobia. He's made it pretty clear he doesn't give a shit about us...can't he just not talk about us? I don't want his "support" if it comes with a disclaimer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
88. He, Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton all share the SAME point of view on gay marriage...
For those who continue to assert that Obama is a homophobe, his position is NO DIFFERENT than Kerry or the Clintons. To be sure, Al Gore has now come out in favor of equality for gays/lesbians, as have Elizabeth Edwards. Though John Edwards admits that "he's not there yet," Elizabeth says that they talk about it and his children are for gay marriage and he's "learning a lot."

Honestly, I think it's sad. I think Kerry, the Clintons and even Obama are *secretly* for gay marriage but cannot say that publicly for obvious reasons. They are all in favor of civil unions and I think that's code for "we really want you to be able to get married, but we cannot bravely say it in public."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #88
101. I agree, Democratic candidates are a bunch of cowards...
who are scared to come out in favor or Gay marrige because they fear a bunch of idiotic, bigoted pundits. Pitiful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #88
165. Which is why I think this poll
and others like it are actually important. Upthread some people above were getting into a solid discussion about Obama v. Gore v. Edwards v. Clinton on gay marriage. Your astute point made me realize that this poll isn't about Obama ( or Gore or Clinton or Edwards) on Equal Marriage Rights. It is about us. And we on this board completely and utterly and overwhelmingly support Equal Marriage Rights.

Take into account that even the moderates on this board are pretty left of center and maybe DU isn't exactly where to go to get a snapshot of the average voter. Okay. Well, from what I have seen most Americans either support it, are moving toward it, or don't really care.

I honestly believe that soon, it will be the hatemongerers that have to have a code that says "we really don't want Equal Marriage Rights for all, but we cannot bravely say it in public."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #165
348. Thank you! That is actually a great way to look at the post.
It is about the people who voted YES much more than it is the very few outliers who got a kick out of voting NO. (most of them are probably just screwing with the poll to begin with. This is a great way to look at what is RIGHT about DU rather than what is wrong. Thanks for shedding a wonderful positive perspective on this thread! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #348
379. Thank you. I think the poll was a
great idea. Actually, just before I posted I was listening to the Majora Carter and Pete Seeger interview on This Brave Nation. When I came back to the poll and saw the numbers, the interview and the poll together made me realize that we realy are on the right side not just of human rights but of history. It's a good feeling, so thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #88
314. Obama coming out opposing that amendment in CA, however, is progress.
We should celebrate it. One step at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abacus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. For
though I don't think the government belongs in marriage at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. I support Marriage Equality, as well as The Separation of State and Marriage.
SEPARATION OF MARRIAGE AND STATE
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie5.htm

If marriage is 'religious' and not 'civil', then why is the state dictating to the church?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Okay, here's MY idea for a REAL marriage amendment...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
265. I think we're on the same page. . . .
see my response at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadElephant_ORG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. I support calling it "Freedom to Marry" or "Marriage Equality" - NOT "Gay Marriage"

We've really got to learn our lessons on the left about FRAMING issues. "Gay Marriage" is every bit as leading and incendiary a label as "pro-abortion" or "cut-and-run". QUIT SWALLOWING THE RIGHT'S LABELS FOR OUR VALUES AND BELIEFS!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. absolutely correct its a civil rights issue not a gay issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
300. You make an EXCELLENT point.
I'll try to make sure I use phrases like that from now on. :thumbsup: Emphasis on equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. technically, I support Equal Rights for all
but yes, part of that is supporting Gay Marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. Absolutely FOR gay marriage. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. Who here likes ice cream?
that's a more controversial question for the DU.

one would hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
237. I refuse to appease those filthy Rocky Road fans!
It's not REAL ice cream unless it's got one main flavor! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raebrek Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #237
381. Neapolitan has rights too! n/t (typo)
Edited on Wed Jul-02-08 07:12 AM by raebrek
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalkydem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. Of course
I'm for it as a gay man
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
17. If you don't want to marry a same sex person, don't do it.
That's how it ought to be, and it's nobody's business other than yours.
Next question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
19. Live and let live. It's not like I care if other people marry or not.
Edited on Mon Jun-30-08 05:13 PM by Katzenkavalier
People should be able to marry the person they love if that's what makes both of them happy. What do I care?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
20. I don't really support marraige at all, and I'm not trying to be funny.
I don't know why we have such an archaic custom and don't see why the fuck government should be involved. However, since things are the way they are and gays actually WANT to marry, the government has no place telling them that they can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goldcanyonaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
43. That is your choice but I do not want the govt telling me who can and can not get married
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Didn't I just say that?
"However, since things are the way they are and gays actually WANT to marry, the government has no place telling them that they can't."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
266. I'm on that bus too. I'm gay but don't want 'marriage'. I want my rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Veruca Salt Donating Member (846 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. 100% For It!
I'd like to get married at some point in my future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
24. Since the love within "gay marriage" isn't any different than the love in a "straight marriage,"
I prefer to call it Marriage Equality.

And, naturally, I am for Marriage Equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. Marriage Equality sounds like a good term to me
I couldn't edit though. It says the time limit is up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
25. Who voted no?
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Yeah, I wonder?
As a gay male though... the positive response to this thread has been wonderful. I actually thought more people (though not a lot) would vote no. I am so glad to see so many people voting yes and supporting our right to get married. Many of my gay friends would like to marry because they are Christian, because of legal benefits, or for the mere happiness of knowing that they share that recognized bond with their life partner.

Thank you guys, all of you for being so supportive! :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Seriously you thought many would be against it here on DU?
I understand why Obama said to leave it to the states. Many of the Boosh votes were gained by anti-homosexual rights ballot initiatives. We can't afford to lose an election on this issue and have the Facist Assholes actually start rounding gay people up and putting them in camps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying Dream Blues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
56. Of course! xoxox nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
267. I'm a gay man and I voted no . . .
see response at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
26. For it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
27. It's like asking if you're against puppies or rainbows
Although I'm sure there's a Puppy-and-Rainbow Veterans for Truth somewhere out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
29. Now two people voted no :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
30. WTF would vote "no"? Why not a poll "Is slavery a good thing? or a bad thing?"
Blah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Maybe they were aiming for the "Yes" button but accidentally missed?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #30
58. "Disillusioned in California"
I jest, I jest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #30
268. I'm a gay man and I voted no . . .
please see response at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
308. Well, when you REALLY NEED that pyramid to get built and you can't afford to pay a contractor...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
33. my religious traditions lead me to the belief that marriage is between a man and woman, but...
I think the states should decide and support the CA decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #33
166. Yes because allowing the states to decide who has equal rights has ALWAYS worked in the past, right?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #166
168. excellent point...like the civil rights movement you mean? nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #168
179. You mean the one where people suffered and died over the course of YEARS just so they
would be allowed to vote and drink from public water fountains, and yet to this day a huge segment of the population is still discriminated against and disenfranchised whenever possible, it just isn't technically legal to do it anymore?

Oh yeah, that worked out really well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #179
225. .
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #179
349. I am saving your sig pic to my computer!
:rofl: love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #349
448. My sig is a link to my cafepress store that sells those bumper sticker
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #168
340. What on Earth are you talking about? The civil rights movement only worked
because of federal involvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #166
178. Election year...
focus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #33
169. The problem with the "states decide" position
is that most of the biggest benefits the flow from recognized marriage come from the *federal* government: tax benefits, Social Security survivor benefits, etc. For any of this to actually work (i.e., for true marriage equality to ahppen), the federal government has to recognized same-sex marriage. Otherwise it's next to worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #169
176. Repeal DOMA (as Obama has proposed) and that would be covered. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #176
182. Are you sure?
Im no expert, but I think it would take more than that...like all 50 states enacting same-sex marriages. If it survives in California, it does not mean that people in same-sex marriages in California will be entitled to SS survivor benefits, nor could they file federal taxes as a married couple. I imagine they will be able to file their state taxes that way though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #182
208. DOMA is the federal legislation that deprives married gays their federal rights.

DOMA has two affects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.


I may not be 100% correct. They may have passed a specific ban on same gender spousal benefits for Social Security. They may have passed a law telling the IRS to not recognize same gender marriages. But I do not think so. They would have had to modify every possible benefit. I believe they just passed DOMA and let that take care of everything else.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #208
282. I guess this is unexplored territory
If DOMA is repealed, it will just go back to the way it was...which amounts to neutrality, as far as I know. Given that, I still think it would require lawsuits to force various federal agencies to recognize California marriages, or an act of Congress to force the creation of regulations to ensure such recognition. I don't ever see such agencies (SS Administration and IRS, to name a couple) recognizing same-sex marriages on their own if DOMA goes away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #282
293. There is no federal marriage.

If Illinois says a couple is married, then the couple is married. Period.

The ONLY exception to this is DOMA. No DOMA then, as you say, we just go back to the way it was. And the way it was is that a state determines who is or is not married.

Where the federal government is concerned, we WANT to go back to the way it was.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #293
302. So in your opinion...
if same-sex marriage survives in California, all federal agencies will automatically have to extend federal benefits to same-sex couples married in California?

I know there is no 'federal marriage', legally speaking, but I'm finding it hard to believe it will be that easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #302
333. Yes. It will be that easy. With the repeal of DOMA.

Of course, the repeal of DOMA will not necessarily be easy.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #333
334. Ok. When/if DOMA is repealed
I will hold you to that statement. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
269. Why a man and a woman? See text for link of interest. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
34. Republicans ought to realize..
...if the want gays to stop having sex, let 'em get married. Us heteros have known thatall along! Am I right or am I right?!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
37. Marriage Equality - YES (gay marriage, is like saying gay church) eom
thanks for putting the poll up so we see that there are at least 3 people on DU who aren't for full equality rights, even if they don't approve of it on religious grounds (I'm Christian and GAY, so I'm all for people joining together, so it encourages life partners, how could they be against THAT!) but they should be for it on a civil rights viewpoint!

NEW OBAMA ITEMS WEEKLY! www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
350. I am Christian and Gay too which is why I hope to get married some day when I growu p and find the .
right guy. True I can have the marriage in a church, as I have many friends who go to all gay churches in Greensboro and Winston. BUT, I'd like the state to place onto that marriage their acknowledgement and the legal rights that go along with it. Otherwise, it would feel second class :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #350
367. I hope you get those civil rights from the state, too, brother-in-Christ
best wishes on finding the right guy. wish it was me (as I know what you mean about hoping to find the right one someday) then our hunt would be solved, plus b/c I'm getting old fast. ha... I'm sure you'll find mr. right somewhere around your beautiful state! hang in there... and I'll find mine, I'll pray for you right now since I'm going to bed... :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #367
368. Aw thank you. that is so sweet! And the hug! aw. Ima give you a hug right back :)
:hug:

I'll say a prayer for you as well.

and again, thank you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrs_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
38. yes! absolutely for
and i can't wait until the day i can perform the celebration of marriage for many of my friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
39. Now 4% against it?
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Hard to believe, and none of the 4% voting No have posted to explain their vote
I for one would be very interested to hear why this 4% of "Democrats" are against equal rights for all Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. That is because their position is indefensible. It is based off of ignorance and phobia
They know this, so they do not even bother trying to explain. Even they know that there is no explanation that would allow them to come out looking rational. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
53. they may have been those that commented that they are against "gay marriage"
but are for marriage equality for all Americans regardless of who they marry.

It should be framed as a civil rights issue not a gay issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
270. I explained at my post #249
I'm a gay man who does not support 'gay marriage'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
41. I guess as long as it isn't manditory
Can't see any reason to oppose two people getting married.

Seriously, I support the right of any two adults to marry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
45. If you are against it, you're an idiot....
Plain and simple...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #45
61. That argument has worked so well over the years
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #45
271. I'm a gay man who is against it. . . .
see my response at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
46. That mouse must be awfully slippery tonight
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
47. I'm only for it if they are in love
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #47
299. What do you have against gold-digging marriages, huh?
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
48. Yes. I support equal misery for all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
50. I wish the admins. would make public the names of those who voted "No."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #50
73. I wish you would respect that people think differently sometimes.
And respect that the forum does not require one to explain his vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #73
409. Per Skinner, those who do not support it are not welcome on DU.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #409
426. Skinner's thread from 2004 regarding gay rights.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Scroll down to the part where he says 'including the right to marry'. Not a lot of wiggle room there. You're spot on, Zhade. Anyone who voted no doesn't belong here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #50
272. For what purpose? I'm gay and I voted no . . .
see response at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LBJDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
51. For civil unions
Edited on Mon Jun-30-08 09:41 PM by LBJDemocrat
I think hetero marriages should be termed civil unions by the government as well.

The term "marriage" is up to the churches. It has religious connotations and has no place on legal documents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #51
105. Are you fighting to have the term "marriage" removed from all government documents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #105
276. Yes 'marriage' should be expunged from all government statues and laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #276
427. Good luck with that.
I'm married. Not civil unioned. Members of the GLBT community should be able to marry, not just get civil unions. It smacks of second class treatment and makes me :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #51
186. Marriage was first established as a religious institute at the Council of Trent in 1563.

Prior to that, in Europe, marriage was a government institute.

You want Religious Unions, go for it. But we had "marriage" first. You can use the word, we're not jealous. But you have no right to stop the rest of us from using it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #186
277. Marriage, and marriage between same sex couples has been around far longer than . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #51
290. I'm on the same page with you here. . .
I'm gay but oppose marriage in the state laws and statutes.
See my response at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
52. For it.
Why would I vote no I want the same rights as everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
54. Six! Six bigoted homophobes! Muwahahahahahh!
Edited on Mon Jun-30-08 09:47 PM by newmajority

ERNIE: You mean they don't want me & Bert to get married?

COUNT: I'm afraid not, my friend. It's sad that I have to count such people on a progressive website :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. At least you were able to find a way to make me smile in SPITE of the fact :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #57
69. I think all marriages should be civil unions
and marriage should be left to churches or the people and God or whatever.

I don't see a special status amongst citizens based on associations. I think it can be argued that marriage as a status in our legal system is unconstitutional. I say the whole thing defies equal protection under the law.

As far as legal status if we mean to keep this in place, civil unions are the way to go. Keep it secular, refer to your situation as marriage and in time it'll just become normal terminology. Every change doesn't come all at once. Most don't.
One small step is often a giant leap after the fact. All or nothing isn't a functional attitude in this battle, but rather counter productive. You can't refuse steps forward in protest of progress that still needs to be made. That's arrogant as well as foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #69
291. I'm with you on this.
see my response at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #54
278. As a gay man, I resent being called a 'homophobe'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
55. I support gay marriage, but I'm a realist, and think we need to fight for civil unions first
By civil unions I mean 'marriage in all but name' by the way, I couldn't fit that part in the subject.

The last poll numbers I've seen show something like 36% overall support for gay marriage, but 60ish percent supporting civil unions with the same rights as marriage.

I understand the whole 'separate but not equal' argument others put up against civil unions, but there's much more to gain then just compromising with the moderates and extreme neocons on gay marriage. If civil unions like this are legalized nationally soon gay couples living together will become even less of a big deal. Wait some years after it passes and people who oppose gay marriage now will come to realize that there's not much of a difference between those civil unions, and marriages, and that gay marriage wasn't as bad as they think it is now.

It's the same thing with African American rights, try as they did after the civil war you couldn't just make things perfectly equal with laws and soldiers to enforce it. You need to work on changing people's minds to have real change on a civil rights issue, because otherwise you'll always be a second class citizen to others. That's why Martin Luther King was so successful, he didn't just get some unjust laws changed, his peaceful protests also succeeded in changing the minds of a lot of white people who had once discriminated against blacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #55
331. The bottom line is: you support equal rights. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
59. Fully in favor of.
Equal rights under the law for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
60. I just voted no
so bring it on! Not really because that's how I feel, but more as a protest vote against trying to push forward wedge issues instead of focusing on the general election. It doesn't take a genius to know that there are other possible answers people might have that might be more nuanced, e.g. civil unions or state's rights. Plus I enjoy playing devil's advocate. :rofl:

A more insightful question would be how to make gay marriage legal. What's the pathway toward legalization? Is relying on the state Supreme Courts good enough? That path has proven fruitful (e.g. CA this year), but at this rate it'll take another 100 years before most states have gay marriage as legal. Do people want the Dem Congress to push for a gay marriage bill or amendment after the election? I don't know if there would be enough support for it. There are two many conservative Democrats who wouldn't risk their political livelihood for this cause. So what is the pathway to accomplishing legalize gay marriage across the country? What are people's position on other types of marriage, e.g. polygamy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Thanks SO much for your support for equality. ("Wedge issue" indeed.)
Polygamy, eh? Didn't you forget that gay marriage might lead to the slippery slope towards man-dog marriage? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. Why don't you do a polygamy poll and judge the results yourself
I think you'll find that there are people on both sides of that issue here. If that's what people want to do, then that's what they should be able to do. If the want more problems, then so be it. :rofl:

Anyway, I think you're ignoring my larger point. How do people think that gay marriage should be pursued? Are people satisfied with the current process that depends upon state courts making it legal? Even though it has worked, it's working at a snail's pace. What other paths to gay marriage are people in favor of and how do they foresee these paths coming to fruition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #60
68. What a nasty-ass ignorant response .. with your little rofl smilie.
Do you think this is a game hokies4ever?

Oh I enjoy playing devil's advocate with the civil liberties of other human beings.

That's just hilarious, ha? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. Devil's advocate in terms of sparking a debate, not trouncing on gay rights
Hmmm...let's evaluate the 'substance' of this debate so far:

"I hate people that don't agree with me."
"Same here."
"I agree."
"Me too."
"I agree more than you do."
"No, I agree twice as much as you do."
"But I donate 3 times as much as you do to support gay rights."
"But I founded an organization 3 years before you founded your organization to support this cause."
:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

This thread has a million responses and everybody is at the same intellectual square one that they started at. Now, let's get back to the questions at hand. Let me know if you have anything of substance to add to this debate or if you just want to :boring:. :rofl:

From my earlier post:
"A more insightful question would be how to make gay marriage legal. What's the pathway toward legalization? Is relying on the state Supreme Courts good enough? That path has proven fruitful (e.g. CA this year), but at this rate it'll take another 100 years before most states have gay marriage as legal. Do people want the Dem Congress to push for a gay marriage bill or amendment after the election? I don't know if there would be enough support for it. There are two many conservative Democrats who wouldn't risk their political livelihood for this cause. So what is the pathway to accomplishing legalize gay marriage across the country? What are people's position on other types of marriage, e.g. polygamy?"

You have anything of substance to add? (Apology accepted :rofl: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #71
75. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. I'm not your chimpanzee.
You've already stated you believe this is a wedge issue and you don't deny it.

I doubt you care about any of those questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #78
79. If you don't care about any of those questions
gay marriage will stay outlawed in most states. Let us know when you decide to care for this issue. In the meantime, please step aside while the rest of us move this country forward. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #79
82. I said **you** don't care about any of those questions.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 06:05 AM by cboy4
But nice try.

And I'm begging you not to participate in helping to "move this country forward."

Please, just view from a safe distance if you have to be involved.


on edit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #82
84. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #78
400. It IS a wedge issue.
Not to say it is not an important civil rights issue, but it IS an issue that the other side will use to separate the social conservatives and religious right from the Democrats. As in:

Democrats gay marriage \/ social conservatives

and never the twain shall meet.

In your lexicon is a 'wedge issue' a false issue? Or is it simply an issue that one side can HAMMER on to split support for the other side?

Polls show 65% support of equal rights for gays. AND 35% support for gay marriage.

To us rational people it is a dichotomy, but when you put religion in the picture you can throw out rationality. We can get legal civil unions NOW. Gay marriage is not going to come through until the vast majority of the Greatest Generation, not to mention a good part of the boomers, are gone. The upcoming generations, from the Xers on, will be the ones to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #68
104. Well said.
It's interesting to note how much effort some people invest in trying to disrupt a good thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #68
135. Reminds me of the Republican attitude: "I've got mine, Jack."
People who take their civil rights for granted usually think it's hilarious that other people don't have theirs. "How cute! Look at the little gay people asking for equal rights. Let's taunt them for a couple more generations."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #68
224. Dude. You're wasting your time.
Don't bother.


Some people will never get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #68
292. cboy4, there are other valid arguments. . . .
see my response at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #68
346. Trolly4ever. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #346
425. If that's what comes out of
VA Tech these days, damned glad TM isn't going. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #60
108. real brave. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #60
195. The pathway toward legalization is the repeal of DOMA.

Massachusettes has gay marriage (which did not produce the same excitement as California for some reason). With the repeal of DOMA, the states of New York and Pennsylvania would be forced to recognize all marriages performed in MA.

So gay couples in New York and Philadelphia flock to Boston for their weddings. New York and Pennsylvania is now losing out to a lucrative gay wedding industry in MA, and for no reason since those marriages are now valid in their states.

Money trumps all. NY and PA permit gay weddings in their states. Then their neighbors follow suit. Then their neighbors. And so on.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #195
222. I agree. It will be an uphill battle though
Didn't something like 85 senators vote in favor of DOMA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #60
410. Per Skinner, if you do not SUPPORT our right to marry, you are NOT welcome on DU.
His own words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
62. Is coming out against that constitutional amendment the same as supporting gay marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
27inCali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
64. you can't be a progressive and be against gay rights
period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. What about people in favor of civil unions?
Is Obama not a progressive because that is his position? If the answer is yes, then how many people in Congress would you say are progressives?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #66
115. Separate and unequal, as it always has been...
Were Democrats who supported anti-miscegenation laws and segregation progressives?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #115
118. How many members of Congress favor gay marriage instead of civil unions?
I don't know the number, but I'm guessing it's a small percentage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #118
121. Does it matter?
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 09:53 AM by Solon
Most Americans(and people in Congress) opposed interracial marriages until about 1990 or so, almost 30 years after Loving vs. Virginia was decided. This is why I oppose the reasoning of "letting the states decide", its a cop out, and even worse when you take in the rationale that gay marriage should be voted on, if the same was applied to interracial marriages, they would still be illegal to perform in quite a few states today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #121
129. It matters if you want to get the laws changed
but if you're just concerned about what your internet buddies think, then obviously it doesn't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #129
144. Actually, I'm not relying on Congress to change any such laws...
Nor the President, what I am hoping for is that Obama appoints reasonable judges in Federal Court, including the Supreme Court, and help get rid of DOMA, and then we can have the court rule in favor of the full faith and equal credit clause, forcing all states to not only recognize but also have to register same-sex marriages. Similar to what happened after Loving vs. Virginia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #144
147. You realize the drawback of that political approach, right?
Sure, the CA ruling was a success. That's the good news. The bad news is that if you want to accomplish this change through the judicial instead of the legislative branch, it's going to move slower than a snail's pace. I honestly don't see the Supreme Court making a ruling any time in the near future concerning gay marriage on a national scale in favor of gay marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #147
154. It may be slow, but it'll be quicker than trying to change the laws or overturn the amendments...
in all the other states of the Union. Remember, we have only TWO states that recognize same-sex marriages now, we have over a dozen with anti-gay marriage amendments in their Constitutions, and several others that are considering it. Frankly, I'm not interested in winning everyone's hearts and minds NOW, and then pushing for equal rights, if equal rights have to be jammed down everyone's throats first, then so be it. Then we can push to change people's hearts and minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #154
158. I agree with the endpoint that you propose
but fail to see the connecting dots as to how to get there. "equal rights have to be jammed down everyone's throats" Are you even confident that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of gay marriage on a national level? My bet would be that they would say it's a state issue and wipe their hands clean of this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #158
163. This is part of the reason why I feel it important to elect Obama over McCain...
Frankly, I find Obama's own position on the issue to be a cop-out at best, bigoted at worst, but, what is more important is that some justices are getting long of tooth, and Obama may have an opportunity to change the makeup of the court. It would be in our best interest to see him have this opportunity, and appoint Judges that would vote the correct way on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #144
230. You raised a good point about
Loving v. Virginia ( great name for the case to), but a few points as to why I think at this moment a state-by-state strategy is better ( and I honestly see Equal Marriage Rights being the law of the land well before Obama is done with his second term). First, while there many states where interracial marriage was against the law, there already were far more where it was legal. This provided a pretty strong base from which to proceed. Massachusetts, California, the states will start dropping and fast. Next, there is the economics involved. 12 years ago I was part of a contract negotiation team that was able to get Partnership Benefits where I teach. It is a formerly Catholic college that had a low but still fair number of brothers and ex-brothers still teaching there, a largely Catholic alumni (one of whom is a nationally very well-known and vocal conservative). We faced a split board. One of our arguments (aside from the basic morality/common sense of our stand) was that it made us able to attract a wider range of applicants. It made our institution more marketable. So also with those states where there are equal marriage rights. In fact, that really is why most corporations that provide Partnership Benefits do so. With some states in favor and some opposed, those in favor will have a number of potential economic advantages.

Personally, for the next Congressional election after Obama is elected (2010), I would reverse what the right-wing has done. I would hit every blue state where it is pretty much a lock and get an Equal Marriage Rights on the ballot. By then, the courts, including Supreme, are cleaned up and ready for Loving vs. MoranLand. Just a difference of strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JetCityLiberal Donating Member (706 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #64
70. Thank you. That is a fact.
But the bigots will show their right wing face and transparent ignorance. Nothing liberal, progressive or Democratic about their bigotry. Ask then their liberal and progressive, aka Democratic views, and they have nothing. Because there is nothing in their views or values that is liberal or progressive or Democratic.

Their actions are right wing and pathetic.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
67. For it
though I'd rather this read "pro-human rights".

MPK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
72. I support it because I am tired of the issue.
My personal view that Marriage is between a man and a woman and civil unions for the other stuff but this has been such a divisive issue and seeing as it does not involve me I say have at it and get it done.

LETS MOVE ON!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #72
110. i am glad you think of my life as other stuff, asshole. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #110
122. An important point is being made, whether or not you see it
What are the official positions on gay marriage of any of the viable Dem candidates during the primary season? Were any of them in favor of it? Saying that gay marriage is a wedge issue doesn't mean that it's not important. That term signifies an issue for which people take a very strong view on even if it has no effect on their own livelihood. Seeing as how most of the people opposed to gay marriage aren't gay (obviously), that makes it a wedge issue. Just like people voting Republican because of the 2nd amendment. As if a President is going to knock on their door and take their gun away or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #122
136. dismissing people's lives as other stuff is pure bigotry
you can rationalize bigotry any way you want. just dont expect me to stand by and support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #136
142. It's other stuff to him
because it's not his life. That doesn't mean that he automatically doesn't believe in gay marriage. I support gay marriage but also consider it to be a wedge issue because most of the people vehemently opposed to it won't actually be affected either way the courts decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:06 AM
Original message
maybe you need to read what he said, instead of supporting bigotry
"Marriage is between a man and a woman and civil unions for the other stuff "

not that the issue was other stuff, but the relationships themselves are other stuff.


:eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
152. I disagree with your interpretation
Many people view polygamy as something that should be an individual's decision. I interpreted his "other stuff" to mean any union other than a union between 1 man and 1 woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #152
159. dismissing other people's unions as other stuff is bigotry. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #159
162. typing "other stuff" is an overt act of discrimination?
Seriously? Maybe you can call it insensitive wording, but it's not an overt act of discrimination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:23 AM
Original message
i said it was bigotry not discrimination. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #162
412. It's called dehumanization. Our loves and lives are clearly not as important as hetero ones to him.
It's bigotry, because it intimates that our desire to be married doesn't merit the same consideration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #72
411. Per Skinner, if you do support our right to MARRIAGE, you are not welcome on DU.
Get the fuck out with your bigotry.

You're not welcome here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #72
454. Wow- at least you have the guts to be honest about your bigotry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
74. This is a no-brainer. Of course I'm for it.
And I'd go so far to say that if you don't support equality...including marriage equality...for gay and lesbian people, maybe you shouldn't be here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. What about people that support civil unions?
Little to no discussion so far about this. The way to convince people of your position isn't to just say that I'm right, but to outline your plan to accomplish your political goals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #77
81. Civil Unions do not confer the same rights to couples as marriage does.
That is simply a fact that couples who enter into civil unions are discovering.

We deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples. Again, this is a no-brainer.

The fight for marriage equality isn't going to be easy. It's not going to be quick. I believe it will be at least 30 years, more likely 50, for all 50 states to adopt same-sex marriage. And there will be setbacks. We could lose the fights on the anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballots in California, Florida and Arizona.

Civil unions aren't equality. As long as they don't offer the same rights and benefits as marriage, that IS a no-brainer. And we deserve and expect equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Taking that into consideration...
How many members of Congress are in favor of gay marriage instead of being in favor of civil unions? I'm under the impression that it is a very small percentage. Were any of the potential Dem candidates in favor of gay marriage instead of civil unions? I think that the original post on this thread is very misleading. It praises Obama for being a champion of gay marriage, but his official position is in favor of civil unions. What are your thoughts on the following questions:

Q1. A more insightful question would be how to make gay marriage legal. What's the pathway toward legalization?
A1.

Q2. Is relying on the state Supreme Courts good enough? That path has proven fruitful (e.g. CA this year), but at this rate it'll take another 100 years before most states have gay marriage as legal.
A2.

Q3. Do people want the Dem Congress to push for a gay marriage bill or amendment after the election? I don't know if there would be enough support for it. There are two many conservative Democrats who wouldn't risk their political livelihood for this cause.
A3.

Q4. What are people's position on other types of marriage, e.g. polygamy?
A4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #77
413. Skinner himself expects you to support full marriage rights.
If you don't, you're not welcome on DU. His words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hope And Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:01 AM
Response to Original message
80. 110% For It!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
85. 100% yes.
I believe in the US Constitution; I know that every argument that advocates denying gay maariage violates the Constitution. More, I am religious, and I know that arguments against gay marriage violate the spiritual constitution of the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. "Spiritual constitution of the universe"
Now you're just making up phrases. :rofl:

I think it is important to note with regard to religion in the US, that Christianity provides a refuge of hate for many people that are against gay marriage. You can argue that it shouldn't be that refuge, but many people are intent on making it a refuge. Seems to me that most people against gay marriage usually cite religion and use it as their political bludgeon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
87. I gulped when I saw that 7 people voted *against* gay marriage.
What the freak are they doing on DU? On the other hand, there probably are a fair number of moderate and Blue Dog Democrats who are opposed to gay marriage. It's their prerogative I guess. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #87
89. Taking that into consideration...
How many members of Congress are in favor of gay marriage instead of being in favor of civil unions? I'm under the impression that it is a very small percentage. Were any of the potential Dem candidates in favor of gay marriage instead of civil unions? I think that the original post on this thread is very misleading. It praises Obama for being a champion of gay marriage, but his official position is in favor of civil unions. What are your thoughts on the following questions:

Q1. A more insightful question would be how to make gay marriage legal. What's the pathway toward legalization?
A1.

Q2. Is relying on the state Supreme Courts good enough? That path has proven fruitful (e.g. CA this year), but at this rate it'll take another 100 years before most states have gay marriage as legal.
A2.

Q3. Do people want the Dem Congress to push for a gay marriage bill or amendment after the election? I don't know if there would be enough support for it. There are two many conservative Democrats who wouldn't risk their political livelihood for this cause.
A3.

Q4. What are people's position on other types of marriage, e.g. polygamy?
A4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #89
91. Obama holds the exact same position on this issue as the Clintons, John Kerry
and many other Democrats who support civil unions and are opposed to gay marriage. I really believe, however, that most of these Dems who say they support civil unions really DO support gay marriage but cannot admit that for obvious reasons. I support gay marriage 100% and was raised by a gay, black man!! My father's relationship lasted much longer than my parents' own marriage and I learned so much about how a partnership in love and support really should work.

Americans' attitudes towards gays/lesbians is slowly changing for the better. Until we get over our own issues with sexuality and gays/lesbians we have to endure this equivocation on the issue when it comes to the Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. What good is it if they believe in something
but hold a completely different position? I do agree with your sentiment though. I think that Obama was trying to hint at this by opposing the CA referendum. It's much politically safer to just say that it's a state's rights issue and that you'll abide by Supreme Court decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. Sadly, that has been the problem that I've had with the Democratic party
for a very long time. They have allowed the Repukes to cede the Morality Banner without fighting back sufficiently. Obama seems to be playing the game: the states rights argument is the same one the Repukes have used for years...until the SCOTUS gave Dumbya the presidency and eroded the states rights doctrine.

For now, I can deal with the civil unions narrative because I understand that Americans--especially black and Hispanic Americans--really need to deal with their homophobia. Until that day comes, there's nowhere to go except civil unions.

The younger generations will show us the way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oviedodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #87
100. I am a democrat but do not andcan not understand or
acquiesce to gay marriage. It is both physically and spiritually out of touch for me. I am in favor of "domestic partner" but the word marriage between a man and a woman means something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #100
102. Here's a hug
:hug:

You're gonna need it once the flaming begins. :rofl:

:nuke: :hide: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oviedodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #102
103. Thats fine but I am blue on many issues but this is one I just can't see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #103
132. You're probably still disturbed that black and white people can marry one another, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #132
145. I don't recall him saying that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oviedodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #132
231. Actually no I happen to be black. THe correlation of same sex
and inter-racial marriage IS NOT THE SAME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #231
236. Not to you, maybe. You've got your rights, and the rest of us can go to the back of the bus, right?
Gay people marched for your civil rights. Gay people died for your civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #236
239. Your obsession with race is unhealthy
Gay people are riding at the back of the bus now? You'll make any and every correlation no matter how much or little sense it makes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #236
240. Bayard Rustin in the first name that comes to mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #240
242. Rustin, the black gay civil rights leader, said:
A year before his death in 1987, Rustin said: "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #242
246. At one point, that was my sig line.
Excellent qoute.

:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #246
247. We might need to pull it back out.
It's a shame that DU rules are being ignored on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #231
243. Most of the leading civil rights leaders disagree with you.
Desmond Tutu, Amiri Baraka and Coretta Scott King all have unequivocally stated that there are many correlations between both civil rights struggles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #243
303. You can also add Mildred Loving herself to that list
This was her statement on the 40th anniversary of Loving vs Virginia, June 12, 2007:


When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasnt to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didnt get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldnt allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isnt that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the crime of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didnt have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men, a basic civil right.

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was Gods plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generations fears and prejudices have given way, and todays young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I dont think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some peoples religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies peoples civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richards and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. Thats what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #303
352. You should think about making this its own thread.
I'm sure it has previously been posted, but in light of this thread and the responses it has merited, your post deserves just as much recognition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #352
403. You just gave me an idea, JB
I'll do that thread one day, but I have to take the time to assemble the material first. Apart from dear Mildred Loving (R.I.P.) and her message of love and unity to us from her death bed, I'd want to talk about some of the people who came out of the civil rights movement who, from their own journey on the pathway to equality, and because of what they went through on that violent and hazardous road themselves, were able to understand what it was for people on that road who happened to be L or G or B or T.

There are those black civil rights leaders and activists we know about already who were in the avant garde for civil rights for gays, in advance of most everybody else in the world. And to give a time frame to what I mean by "in advance," I would include the head of the Black Panthers, Huey Newton, by his declaration in 1970 making the Panthers the first and probably only "revolutionary" group from the left to come out in total support of what was then called gay liberation. That's a very well known example. But there are also others less known, civil rights people who at the same time (in the decade after the passage of the Civil Rights Act) were doing very important work behind the scenes trying to expand their recently won civil rights to LGBTs. At a time when the United States they lived in was an extremely homophobic society, more so than today, they still rose above the institutionalized hatred and fear of us at the time, and were able to see gay rights as a clear-cut civil rights issue, no matter that to society we were criminal deviants, no matter the superstitions, beliefs, doctrine of any church or house of worship anybody went to.

If the topic of civil rights/gay rights has received much exposure at DU, or anywhere else for that matter, I don't know. Maybe somebody has already written about. I've never researched it. I lived it. And I guess I still am. I just can't believe, that in this day and age, we're still talking about civil rights for gays. How slowly this world evolves for certain things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #231
416. Considering that both ethnicity and sexual orientation are inborn traits - yes, they are the same.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #100
107. Is it "physically and spiritually" out of touch for you to acquiese to the existence of Jews?
Maybe you still have a problem with the fact that black people can drink from the same water fountains as white people?

What you've posted is the same as stating that you "can not understand or acquiesce" to people of other faith or ethnicities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #107
117. Definitely an unfair attack
Sorry, but segregation and gay marriage are completely different subject matters. Don't flame me, I believe that gay marriage should be legal, but I think your post is just a pure attack piece. Like it or not, opposition to gay marriage is prevalent in our society and will remain so until we win hearts and minds with reasoned logic, not race-based attacks. For all you know the poster might be Jewish or might be black.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #117
123. Opposition to Jews and desegregation was prevalent in our society, too.
I think that my parallel is exactly on target and very fair. We're talking about civil rights laws. We're talking about equal protection under the Constitution. As a lesbian, do I deserve the same thousands of rights granted to heterosexual people, or do I not?

If I am denied marriage equality and the thousand plus legal rights that come with it, then I am just as discriminated against as people forced to use segregated facilities. In fact, in my state I can be fired, evicted from housing, and mistreated in numerous other ways - legally - just because I am gay.

You tell me who is being attacked here. And if that poster is black or Jewish, then they should know better already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #123
133. I don't think you won him over :-)
:rofl:

Would you be in favor of civil unions if it was stipulated that it is unlawful to treat marriage and civil unions differently? I know it's kind of an oxymoron, but I think that might be a better path to lead to gay marriage being legal.

Some other questions:

A more insightful question would be how to make gay marriage legal. What's the pathway toward legalization? Is relying on the state Supreme Courts good enough? That path has proven fruitful (e.g. CA this year), but at this rate it'll take another 100 years before most states have gay marriage as legal. Do people want the Dem Congress to push for a gay marriage bill or amendment after the election? I don't know if there would be enough support for it. There are two many conservative Democrats who wouldn't risk their political livelihood for this cause. So what is the pathway to accomplishing legalize gay marriage across the country? What are people's position on other types of marriage, e.g. polygamy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #117
124. That's no excuse for bigotry...
and opposing equality IS bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #124
137. I thought he wrote that he was in favor of equal domestic partnerships?
It should occur to you that some people just have a problem with the word 'marriage'. Perhaps a compromise could be to just make all unions 'civil unions'. It makes sense in my opinion. Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #137
146. First off, Marriages have been a civil institution far longer than a religious one...
second, under the Federal/State system we live under, civil unions are second best, and in addition, eliminating marriage from the law for ALL couples and calling it something else is less likely to occur than just having same-sex marriages recognized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #100
112. You know, its people like you who piss me off so much...
you take the word marriage and make it unnecessarily restrictive just to satisfy your own brand of bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #100
116. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #116
119. Nice logical response there....NOT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #119
125. Actually, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to reach about a poster who opposes equality. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #125
131. You are no better than bullies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #131
134. I oppose bigotry, period, if I have to be a bully about it, so fucking be it...
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:01 AM by Solon
I don't respect these fucking bigots, why the fuck shouldn't I bully them? Hopefully they will leave this board forever after that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #134
140. Yea whatever.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #134
148. Many people don't view themselves as bigots
if they support full rights for civil unions. Were there even any Democrats this primary season supporting gay marriage? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #148
151. Dennis Kuchinch n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #148
156. Of course they don't view themselves as bigots...
just like many racists say shit like: "I have nothing against THOSE PEOPLE(insert race, ethnicity) I just don't believe in mixing with them, living next to them, etc."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #156
191. Yes but how dare we be mean to them!
They wish to live in denial. What gives us the right to so rudely shove a mirror in their faces?

We should be kind and acquiesce to their wishes to remain in denial about what they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #191
217. I do so enjoy throwing it into their faces...
then again, I'm a caustic asshole, so I have no problem doing that. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #217
297. Your statement about marriage being a state construct before a religious construct....
is wrong. You might want to take a look here. And stop being such a caustic asshole.

http://rictornorton.co.uk/marriage.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #297
301. It varied in most societies of history...
but generally the western notion of a wedding ceremony etc. didn't really exist in the Medieval era, and the Church, for the longest time(damn near a thousand years) refused to bless any unions of any sort. Not to mention that most weddings were for nobles only, the peasant majority "married" like most people throughout history did, they moved in together. If something was needed legally, they just need a witness to take their vows in front of, no priest, minister, or church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #301
307. You might take a look at this. I have several other references. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #307
315. Yes? I don't see much that contradicts what I've said...
Marriage has always been a legal contract first, and a sacrament of religion second. Whether it was called "brotherment" for same sex male couples, or marriage for heterosexual couples is irrelevent to the discussion at hand. I just find the concept that marriage, or its same-sex equivalents to be something that was, in particular, started by any religion, to be wrong. Civil contracts of this sort date back to the dawn of civilization, and weren't nearly as formalized as they are today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #315
322. Have it your way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #148
417. Doesn't matter. If you don't support our right to MARRY, you are not welcome on DU.
That's from Skinner himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #134
233. Great post, Solon.
:thumbsup:


Bigots don't deserve the space they take up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #131
143. That's what slaveowners said about abolitionists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #143
150. Link?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #131
214. ... calling someone who is openly against equal rights a bigot is bullying?
You learn something new every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #214
238. They probably think that the Allied forces bullied the Nazis, too.
How dare the world interfere with the Nazis? Such bullies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #238
251. What's next? The Gauls vs. the Romans?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #119
128. It is a perfectly logical response. Denial of rights equals bigotry.
Either a person is in favor of equal rights for all human beings, or they are bigots. It is as simple as that.

A couple decades ago it was perfectly ok for "nice" people to say that their beliefs wouldn't allow them to "mingle" with people of another color.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #128
172. If the debate stays at homosexuality vs. race
Then gay marriage will always be an election issue for the rest of our lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #100
130. A few articles you should read at the link provided.
Anthropologists even agree that there has never been a fixed definition for marriage.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/07/1585
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #130
155. Not exactly a vote-winning argument
You fail to realize that most people oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, not anthropological grounds. I support gay marriage, but I don't find this logic to be at all convincing to people who oppose it. I think some kind of argument revolving around separation of church and state would be more impactful. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #155
171. In your opinion, not mine.
Taking into account the historical context of how marriage has mutated over thousands of years is an extremely powerful tool, especially when anthropologists are able to confidently point out that marriage has more to do with social and economic institutions, and not religious ones.

If anything, the separation of church and state argument is not exactly a vote-winning argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #171
183. Hand that out as a flyer to people against gay marriage
and watch how long it takes for them to ignore it. Most people's opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, not human history. That's the point I'm making.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #183
194. No... it's not based on religion. Religion is the excuse, that's all.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:46 AM by redqueen
It's been used as an excuse to remain ignorant about so many things for far too long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #194
203. Alright. It's based on religion as an excuse.
But still based on religion. The point I'm making is that to change their minds you have to approach it from a religious angle. I think that convincing them about the separation of church and state would be a more powerful argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #203
210. This is the presidential forum. About the election.
GD is the better place for "how can we change the world" flamebaiting. I mean discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #183
202. That's pure conjecture.
I'd rather open-up a dialog with people in the community that I may disagree with, and show them that anthropologists disagree with right-wing organizations like Focus on the Family, than inject into the conversation your completely baseless prediction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #202
205. You need to talk to more people who oppose gay marriage
None of them will cite human history or anthropological studies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #205
221. Are you being willfully obtuse?
My whole point is to introduce this information into the conversation to prove the point that marriage has never really been based in religious institutions, regardless of what they are bringing to the table.

But, in fact, right-wing and conservatives that disagree with same-sex marriage always claim that historically "traditional" marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #183
418. First off, it's not GAY marriage. It's the equal right to marry, period.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #100
188. Acquiesce?
In what way are you trying to use that word?

Is someone trying to force you to marry someone of your own gender?

Your post is confusing.

You say it's "physically and spiritually out of touch" for you. But what does it have to do with you? I know for certain that you're not gay.

The word "marriage" between a man and a woman? Yes, it means something. It'd mean the exact same thing as it would between two people of the same gender.

I think we all know what you're really saying. Pretty sad, really, considering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #188
192. He uses 'acquiesce' to mean 'agree with'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #100
252. I get where you're coming from, but take a look at this . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #100
351. Marriage has been around long before religion, or even Christianity.
As a gay Christian, love means just as much to me as it does to you. I would like to be married before God's eyes (in one of the all gay churches in North Carolina or in one of the churches such as United Church of Christ on Sunset who have offered to marry me.) and then have that recognized with the same rights you receive... because my marriage DOES mean something. One of my best friends has been with his partner for almost 5 years (yes they are in their early 20's but I see them being together for the rest of their lives). I KNOW that they would DIE for each other. They have been there next to each other when the other one is sick KNOWING they were probably catching the flu. When one of them lost their job, the other one took on a night shift just to make sure that his partner was going to be okay. They are in LOVE, and they dream of being 80 years old sitting on their front porch drinking lemonade and staring down at their WEDDING rings knowing that they spent their entire lives married to one another. That means something. It means as much as any heterosexual marriage does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #100
415. Leave DU, then, because you're not welcome here. Per Skinner himself.
He expects DUers to support our equal right to marry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #100
461. You probably don't understand left foot/right foot, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #87
234. Honestly, with all the trolls here lately, I'm surprised it's not more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #87
279. I'm a gay man and I voted no . . .
see #249

let's REALLY get progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #87
414. Not on DU it isn't. If they don't support our right to marriage, they're not welcome here.
Skinner's own words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goldcanyonaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
106. Are the people voting against it, just against marriage or against gay marriage?
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 09:37 AM by goldcanyonaz
If it is the latter that makes me very pissed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #106
114. See just a couple of posts above yours, someone who thinks
gay marriage is "physically and spiritually off". Right here on DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blu Dahlia Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
109. 1759 views, only 215 answered the poll...
That's kind of telling...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #109
113. Also misleading....
DU's software doesn't count UNIQUE views, those 1759 views could be from 215 people. If you revisit the thread, multiple times, that counts as more views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
111. FOR it... why shouldn't gays have to suffer too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Symarip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
120. Neither
Marriage is a religious sanction and thus, shouldn't be recognized by any state, regardless if it's gay or straight flavored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #120
141. Many anthropologists disagree with that statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Symarip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #141
153. Good read. Quite informative.
Either way, it's all or nothing in my eyes: if hetero's like me can be tortured by marriage then everyone should be.

My thoughts though are this: if it's so sactimonious in the eyes of those most religious then obviously it should be hands off to any governing body with a seperation of church and state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #120
280. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #120
419. Completely untrue, of course - or do you think atheists aren't married?
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
126. I hope everyone railing about the no votes realizes that Obama would vote no in this poll. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #126
157. yeah but his opinion is grounded in political expediency
which may and maynot be rooted in bigotry.

i can understand why politicians dont take up the issue. they are spineless.

but to hear regular democrats refer to an oppressed minority as other stuff is ridiculous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #157
164. he has publically stated more than once that his belief is grounded in his religious traditions. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #164
197. Of course he has.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:48 AM by redqueen
Everyone knows bigots love to use religion as an excuse for their bigotry. Whose votes do we need?
Okay then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #197
229. alrighty. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #164
198. dont you think politicians say this to make nice with conservative dems?
i mean maybe he believes it, maybe he doesnt. its hard to say for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #198
207. deleted
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:53 AM by redqueen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #198
227. I think he is genuinely religious and holds this belief. I admire his ability...
to separate this with his policy to some degree. I do not believe he will ever consider it a civil rights issue, but neither will most politicians or people in general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #157
167. So a politician's viewpoint
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:21 AM by hokies4ever
isn't what they say, it's what you think it should be?

What if the people who oppose gay marriage do so for political expediency as well? You're not going to get laws changed in favor of civil unions if you only support gay marriage. I'm sure some of the 'no' votes are in favor of civil unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #167
173. then i think they are cowardly assholes, but will vote for them in a GE.
because my choice is a coward or a destroyer of humanity.

happy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #126
219. Because everybody else is doing is...
do I need to resort to the juvenile 'would you jump off a bridge' argument? :P

Seriously, if you saw the GLBT forum during the primaries you'd realize how pissed off much of the gay community is at Obama, not only for the McClurkin thing, but also for his stance on gay marriage and many other things.

Unfortunately those viewpoints are shared by MOST of our politicians, including the candidates this year. The only ones who were willing to go out in the open and support things like gay marriage were the ones who had nothing left to lose and were behind in the polls from the very beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #126
226. But he does favor repeal of DOMA.

A full repeal of DOMA means all states and the federal government would have to recognize marriages performed in CA or MA. So he is effectively pursuing a means of making gay marriage legal while not saying so.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #226
257. he favors repeal of DOMA because he believes there is sufficient...
discretion to refuse recognition without it...not because he supports gay marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #257
273. Link?

The Constitution is pretty clear on the subject. I find it hard to believe he is that stupid. You have a link to him saying this?

His legal opinions and personal opinions do not always match. The DC gun ban is a pretty good instance. He always said he supported the DC gun ban while hinting at the fact that it was unconstitutional. In Novak's recent article he utterly failed to understand this dichotomy. But Novak was never very good at any thought more difficult than, "it's my money, mine, you can't have it, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
127. I support it only for gay people who really want to be married
"No" is right out, but "Yes" does not accurately reflect my feelings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
138. For the legal reasons alone I support it - I could care less what the churches
do but I'd like to see civil unions legal in every state. Imagine not being able to visit your partner in the hospital because only the parents are legally considered "next of kin".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
149. I can't imagine anyone on DU not supporting gay marriage. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #149
160. Many people support civil unions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #160
170. Many people also like trying to start fights with people they don't know on the internet.
... not that you'd know anything about that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #170
174. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #174
177. Yes, because being contrary for the sake of being contrary
on a wedge issue = intelligent discussion.

I have yet to see anything intelligent come from your keyboard. Lemme know if you think of anything that's an actual debate and not just an attempt to get a kneejerk reaction from people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #177
181. So you think that gay marriage is a wedge issue?
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:32 AM by hokies4ever
I see that you're denigrating the civil rights of other people. Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #181
185. ...
:rofl:

Wow, you're really reaching for an argument here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #185
189. "I can't imagine anyone on DU not supporting gay marriage"
Yet the poll right in front of your face says otherwise. I bet you also can't imagine that 30% of Americans think that Bush is doing a good job as President. Surely those pollsters are lying, right? Everybody MUST share your viewpoint. Please step outside of your bubble into the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #189
199. You're slipping.
30%?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #199
206. All the polls are between 25 and 30 percent
approving of Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #206
213. Wrong. I thought DUers would be excited about this.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:56 AM by redqueen
ALL dems, really... but especially DUers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #213
216. Your first mistake was...
thinking you were conversing with an actual Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #189
200. Yes, I was sadly mistaken on the number of trolls and bigots here on DU...
oh, no, wait... I wasn't. You're quoting someone else. Yet responding to me.

... you're just not very good at this, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #185
353. You're correct. He is. Many people on this discussion forum do not wish to actually DISCUSS anything
they only wish to argue. And there is a BIG difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #170
201. No, no, of course not.
Dude is like freaking teflon, I can't believe he's still here. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #201
209. I knew somebody like that in real life.
He just loved arguing, he'd find anything he could to try and argue and get under people's skin.

I don't know how he managed to not get beaten up every other day, honestly. I think it was to his advantage that he was kinda small, because he knew people would feel bad about starting a fight with somebody smaller than themselves. :shrug: I dunno, I didn't because I'm one of those who caught onto what he did fairly early, and I'm not one to resort to violence over just words anyway. And I'm generally too laid-back to CARE enough to start a fight over just words most of the time.

I was rather glad when life sent us our seperate ways and I didn't have to deal with him anymore. The fact that he was annoying didn't annoy me... the fact that he TRIED so hard to get under my skin was the one thing that actually did get under my skin. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #201
241. Says someone who called someone else a bigot
Hmmm...personal attacks are...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #241
245. Truth hurts, doesn't it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #241
304. You're right, we should be more worried about hurting the feelings of those
who would be more than willing to fight against equal rights in this country...

wait, what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #241
420. Fuck bigots. I hope they die in a fire.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
161. Personally I think Gay people deserve something better than marriage....
I mean us straight folks have done all in our powers to turn the institution of marriage into shambles. Isn't the divorce rate around 50%? Every day I'm guessing their are millions of Americans out there doing something knowingly that breaks their marriage vows.

I think the GLBT community deserves better.

But yes I support it 110%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
175. And apparently we've got at least 15 trolls and/or bigots on this board... lovely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #175
180. Like it or not
but the poll doesn't distinguish between gay marriage and civil unions. If you think that virtually nobody on the left supports civil unions, then you're slightly out of touch. Hardly any Democrats in Congress support gay marriage. Most support civil unions. Is it that unbelievable that many Dems online might have the same viewpoint?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #180
184. Yes, and hardly any democrats in congress have the decency to stand up for what's right
when it's not politically expedient.

They're politicians. Their job is to get elected.

Attempting to make up for a wrong and getting rid of a wrong are two different things. I'm not going to coddle someone who isn't capable of seeing that difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #184
187. So coddle the politicians, not the voters?
Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. I think people should vote for politicians who share their beliefs. I also think that people who strongly support gay marriage should demand that their politicians do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #187
196. ... and now the best you can do is to try and twist my own words to come up with SOMETHING
to argue against. I don't support politicians who bow under pressure and refuse to do what's right. The only reason I'm voting D is to do my damnedest to keep people who are actively seeking out the wrong things on just about every issue, in this case McCain, from taking office. I do demand the same from my politicians. But for some strange reason the voice of a single voter in a sea of tens of thousands of others doesn't have a whole lot of volume to it. Hmm... I wonder why that is. (For those unversed in actual conversational techniques, that's a bit of wry sarcasm there. Maybe you could try something like that insted of just throwing out arguments. Might be fun to change things up a bit.)

Now, until I see actual intelligent discourse under your screenname, I'm just not gonna bother responding anymore. You have pretty well proven that you're just looking for an argument. I, on the other hand, am looking for discussion. Until I see evidence that you're willing to discuss rather than throw out contrary points for the sake of argument, there's really no point in continuing as we're just not here for the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #196
211. You're hilarious :-)
Not in a good way either. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #180
193. That is not a fair rationalization
because the fact is that most Dems in Congress are either conservative DLC or Blue Dogs and don't even come close to representing the Liberal Base of the Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #193
212. Agreed. Some people are just living in lala land
if they think that most Dems in Congress support gay marriage or are very progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #212
215. I don't really consider the DLC and Blue Dog Reps to be "real Democrats" though
rather, they are the plan to make both sides of the political coin the same in order to suppress Liberal ideology and promote Corporate conservatism regardless of which party holds power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #215
218. As long as people are voting them in
they'll just continue this pattern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #218
228. These politicians are not unaware of that though which is why many waited until AFTER
being elected to Congress to announce their DLC ties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuiderelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #180
220. Yes, it IS hard to believe. Politicians say "civil unions" because they're politicians.
Democrats should believe in equality for all. Civil unions do NOT give us equality. At the state level they give us literally NOTHING federally, and if they were at the federal level, besides taking a lot of time and resources to reinvent a wheel that's already there (marriage), we could only ever be "separate but equal" with civil unions.

Democrats should believe in equality. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #175
264. I'm a gay (homosexual) man and I voted no. . .
I don't think you have any right to call me a homophobic bigot. Please read my response at #249. And keep your words off me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #264
295. I saw your response and thought it was a load of bull.
Seperation of church and state is one thing, but right now marriage IS something done by the government. You don't have to go to a church to get married. You can just go to a government clerk and sign some papers and voila. You're married.

Unless you're gay.

Then you are not allowed to be married by law. You can have all the religious ceremonies you want, but the government WILL NOT recognize your partnership as being of equal value to that of a straight couple who are married. That is wrong.

Marriage is not just a religious term, it is a cultural term and in this country along with many others, it is a LEGAL term. I'm sorry, but you are wrong in this instance. I want church and state seperated too, but marriage is not owned by the church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #295
305. Sorry you missed my point. I guess you have a hard time thinking outside the box.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #305
306. No, I'm afraid you missed my point.
You have a pre-defined notion of what you think marriage is. But marriage is not limited to your pre-defined notion. Marriage encompasses a lot of things. Including the legal matters. Try thinking outside your own box and inside the current legal situation. That's where you'll find my point.

The only way to make your way work is to start over from scratch, and the only way that would be possible would be to start your own country.

If you do, let me know, I'd love to live there. But until then we need to work on fixing THIS country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #306
309. You obviously will always be right, in your opinion. So be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #309
312. No, that's not what I said at all.
In this instance I'm fairly certain I am. I am open to debate, but what you are suggesting would require starting anew, like I said. I like that idea. It would be nice to have the full separation. But right now it is IMPOSSIBLE. Marriage is not just a religious institution. Marriage is a legal institution as well. Just because you personally see it as something religious does not change that fact. I'm sorry, but in this case you are wrong. I like your ideas. They're very good ideas. But they are not applicable here in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #312
321. I like your ideas. They're very good ideas. It was a load of bull.
Thanks for understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #321
325. I thought your reasoning for not supporting gay marriage was a load of bull.
Your ideas for the way you think it SHOULD be are good. However that is not how it is, and it cannot be changed to that. So not supporting gay marriage because of your ideas is not a sound line of reasoning.

I'm sorry if my first response was a little harsh, but the bottom line is: Just having a good idea is not a good reason to choose your position. Having a good idea that can be implemented is a good reason to choose your position.

Spreading a good idea around to see if anyone else can think of a way to implement it is also a good choice. That way if somebody can come up with a way that your idea would work, people like me who like it but don't find it workable at the moment would be the first to jump behind it. That's why I didn't want to respond to your post itself with 'that's bull' because I'm not disparaging your idea of how marriage should work. Just your rationale for being against gay marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #321
356. You seem to be the person who is not very interested in listening to other people's ideas
and then throw up "but I'm gay" as a defense for your particular belief. Or call someone else's belief to be a "load of bull".

You have the right to feel the way you do, and so does the other poster. However as a Gay Christian I would like to have the state recognize my marriage because it is important to me. Regardless of the fact that marriage is found in almost ever society, and has been around since the dawn of time in one fashion or another.

I think your argument comes off as someone who just wants to stand out by having an opinion contrary to your particular subgroup. I see this a lot in forms where people say things like "I'm a _____ and I disagree with the issue I'm supposed to typically agree with."

Please look at it from the perspective of someone who is CHRISTIAN and would like to have a Christian gay wedding that legitimized by the state. It does feel important to that person. It means the world to that person and to some may never truly be seen as right in God's eyes without the approval of the state. Who are you to deny them that. Then there are people who are atheists and they too would like to get a marriage certificate because it is a status that says "look, I am accepted by my government as being equal to straight people."

Marriage is important to many different people. The WORD marriage is important to many different people. It may not be important to you but you should look beyond your own world view to try and see how others are experiencing this.

Lastly, I see no reason to rid marriage from the government as it has nothing to do with religion. SOME people make it about their religion, some do not, but the term marriage itself has nothing to do with religion outside the heads of a particular conservative group.

I don't expect a very nice response to this post though, because you seem like a person who is here to start arguing and calling people's opinions a "load of bull", and point out that you are gay and therefore your opinion should have more weight... rather than to discuss anything. I'm gay and being gay makes my opinion no more important than a straight posters.

IF however, I somehow horribly miss-read you or misunderstood your intentions (which is always possible) I would like to apologize for this response in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #356
361. I didn't call anything bull. I was responding to someone. . .
who called my ideas bull. You totally misread me but I really don't have time to argue all the fine points you make in your response. I simply expressed my view and I knew others would not like it. I don't protest just for protests sake. These are my firmly held beliefs. Read my post at #249. I am constantly accused of being wrong when people cannot see beyond their own idea of how things should be on this subject. I don't oppose marriage of any kind and if you think the government needs to recognize a "Christian marriage" then I think you're wrong. That will NEVER happen just like the idea of removing marriage from government will probably never happen. I choose to wish for the ideal. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #361
369. Well I owe you a bit of an apology for my above post. That came off very bitchy and that's so not me
I don't really know what had set me off before I started writing that response to you. It might have been something in another thread. You are entitled to your opinion. I do disagree to some respect. I think the state should recognize a "Christian" marriage, a Wiccan marriage (and if I married some of the people I've dated... it would be both), a Muslim marriage, or a Jewish marriage, or (of course) an atheist marriage. I think marriage is marriage, unaffiliated with religion but also holding certainly special values to particular people of many religions(including religious gays). That is why it is important to me that the state recognize it, but we can agree to disagree. I am very happy to hear that you voted against the amendment. I am sorry that it passed. I live right next door in NC. I know how crappy it can be to live in the south. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #264
355. I am a gay (homosexual) man but don't see why pointing that out in ever response is supposed to
give any extra weight to your opinion on the matter? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #355
365. I'm not a bigot and don't like being called one.
I wasn't asking for "special" consideration. I was responding to people who thought ANYONE voting no in this poll was a bigot. I voted no when my state held a referendum to amend the state constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman the only legal one. That was a vote in favor of marriage equality. Unfortunately it passed and they made it so anyway. All I have suggested is a path that has not yet been explore to any degree. But many think that their way is the only way. I would be overjoyed if marriage equality became law. But I would continue to fight to get marriage out of our government and back between two people and their community of peers where it belongs.
My original post is at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
232. FOR IT. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
235. So much for it, I went and got myself one in 2004.
But then it was ruled invalid. Had a great time in San Francisco, nonetheless.

New Jersey isn't far behind, so at least I have that to look forward to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
244. I am 100% in favor of the state and federal government recognizing
marriages contracted between people of the same gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
248. FOR IT! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
249. I am a gay man. I do not support gay marriage . . .
I support equal rights for all people. I think anyone who wants to should be able to have a domestic partnership that is fully recognized by the state with all the privileges now granted to legally married couples. But I believe 'marriage' is not about the state. Some will argue that it is a legal construct of the state therefore we must work within those boundaries. I think if that's the case then we need to de-construct those boundaries.

Marriage is a sacred trust between two people and should have nothing to do with the state. If two people love and trust one another that's all that is really necessary to have a marriage. If they choose to share that trust among a community of their peers, so be it. If they want to have a marriage ceremony in a gay bar, so be it. If they want to have it in a big fancy church, so be it. If they want to have it in a clearing in the forest, so be it.

I have been 'married' to the same man for nearly eighteen years. I don't really give a flying fuck if the state recognizes it or not. But I am angry that I don't have the same rights afforded a heterosexual couple when it comes to estate, family, health care, taxation and a host of other issues.

I realize I am in the minority opinion, but democracy is not about majority rules. It is about freedom of thought (life), individual rights (liberty) and equal justice under the law, FOR ALL.

marriage = love & trust - a sacred construct
civil union (domestic partnership) = legal - a state construct

Well, that's my two cents. Flame away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #249
250. This is the most reasoned response on this entire thread
Essentially a separation of church and state argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #250
255. Yes. Separation of church and state.
My 'gay' 'church' (I'm a Pagan Xian) already recognizes that I have a 'marriage'. Now I need for the state to recognize that I have a domestic partnership. The mistake many make is thinking that 'church' means Christian, Jewish, Catholic, whatever. But there are many religions that are not based in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Take a look at this article. I just posted it for another person who was arguing that marriage is somehow suppose to be between a man and a woman.

http://rictornorton.co.uk/marriage.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #249
254. Sacred is a pretty loaded word.
Do you mean it in the religious sense? If so, it seems to me that you're arguing that marriage is a religious act, and I'm not sure if you mean that or not. Am I misinterpreting you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #254
258. Sacred is a loaded word . . .
What is 'sacred' to you? My marriage to another man is sacred to me. No one should be allowed to tell me what I should consider sacred. That's my business. If, for instance, I said " I'm gay, I worship the phallus, and that is sacred to me." Do you have the right to tell me I can't do that? So, yes, I mean sacred in a religious sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #258
275. As an atheist, nothing is sacred to me
But I am married, so I can't agree with you that marriage is a sacred thing or act.

Perhaps we are dissecting non-meaningful semantics here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #275
284. Agreed. But I have a question...
explain why nothing is sacred to an atheist?
Holiness, or sanctity, is the state of being holy or sacred, that is, set apart for the worship or service of gods. It could also mean being set apart to pursue (or to already have achieved) a sacred state or goal, such as Nirvana. It is often ascribed to people, objects, times, or places.

If I were an atheist (which I have seriously thought about), I would consider my state of non-belief sacred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #284
289. I personally reject the idea of sacredness
because to me that word is inexorably tied up with the idea of divinity, which I reject as being unreal. I define the term more narrowly, I think, than you do, and I'd likely use different adjectives to describe people, objects, times and places you might call sacred; like "untouchable" or "inviolate" as possible examples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #249
288. I agree, but the fact is that the state calls it marriage.
The state calls it marriage and provides that institution, which carries more than a thousand specific rights with it, to straight couples but not to me. The state used to provide those rights to me, when I was married to a man. Now that I'm with a woman, I'm a second class citizen, undeserving of the same rights I had before.

I agree with your spiritual definition of marriage and I agree that the state can't touch that. But, like it or not, the word "marriage" is currently defined by the federal government and my state as a legal construct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #249
318. If that works for you then fine, siomply don't get married if its allowed
but for this gay couple here, our relationship is based on "love & trust", so while our concerns DO include the rights, privileges, and protections afforded by marriage, there is also the emotional aspect. We don't run our relationship as strictly a "business arrangement". Rather than fight against the concept because you personally don't care, think on behalf of the millions of others out there who DO care., and especially those gay couples where children are involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #318
338. I'm not fighting against anything. And it's not that I don't care.
I think you have made many assumptions about me without knowing anything me. I only offered my opinion. I doubt it will never happen this way but I can still express my opinion. I will be overjoyed if equal marital rights are granted. When my state voted to make marriage only between a man and a woman, I voted against it. Unfortunately the referendum passed anyway. Those who don't fully consider the options are being blind sided by the majority voice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #249
397. One point of disagreement. You describe "liberalism" not "democracy."
I realize I am in the minority opinion, but democracy is not about majority rules. It is about freedom of thought (life), individual rights (liberty) and equal justice under the law, FOR ALL.

In fact, 'democracy' IS about the majority will and NOT about individual liberties. That's the core of the book by Henry Steele Commager "Majority Rule and Minority Rights" ... and is the very essense of liberalism. It's why I describe myself as a liberal (small-d) democrat. It why the Bill of Rights even exists.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #249
407. And If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride.
I get your reasoning, and you're correct. However, you're also being willfully simplistic. "Marriage" isn't going anywhere. You may have issues about it, but it's the way couples are legally recognized as couples in this country. That's not going to change in a hundred years.

You can rant against terminology all you like, but I hope if you ever personally have the chance to advance same-sex marriage, you'll take it. Otherwise, you're not just cutting off your nose to spite your face, you're helping keep the rest of us second-class citizens as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galledgoblin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #249
440. I've tried this arguement on conservative opposition
they'll hear none of it. I like this arguement, but in all honesty it'll be easier to win marriage for gays than to win civil unions for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #249
449. that make sense.
I support equal rights for everyone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
253. For it, under the law
Anything less would be saying gays are not equal citizens. Gays deserve all that straight people get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #253
256. What are your thoughts on:
Is relying on the state Supreme Courts good enough? That path has proven fruitful (e.g. CA this year), but at this rate it'll take another 100 years before most states have gay marriage as legal. Do people want the Dem Congress to push for a gay marriage bill or amendment after the election? I don't know if there would be enough support for it. There are too many conservative Democrats who wouldn't risk their political livelihood for this cause. So what is the pathway to accomplishing legalize gay marriage across the country? What are people's position on other types of marriage, e.g. polygamy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #256
259. I'm straight, and not going to say what is..
more or less important. I support fighting for their rights, if that's what you mean. It might not happen overnight, but societal change has come multiple times in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #256
435. You have been all over this thread pushing your same-sex marriage = polygamy RW bigotry BULLSHIT
Get the fuck out with that. You're not fooling anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
260. 18!! 18 homophobic bigots posting at DU!! Muwhahahahahahahahaha!!


COUNT: Kermit, can you believe these people??
KERMIT: No, it's sad, Count. Bert & Ernie are my friends, and deserve all the same rights as Miss Piggy and myself.
COUNT: Yes, And I'll bet these bigots are opposed to frogs and pigs getting married also
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #260
261. I'm a gay (homosexual) man and I voted no. . .
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 12:55 PM by papapi
I don't think you have any right to call me a homophobic bigot. Please read my response at #249. And keep your words off me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #261
274. I pretty much agree with your response in #249
It does come down to separating the religious ceremony from the legal document. And in doing so, there is no valid argument as to why a same sex couple should not be treated 100% equal to a heterosexual couple. That's how I interpret Obama's position as well, and as we have seen in recent years, leaving it to the states to decide is logical, because the states that are likely to do so, will do it soon, and they shouldn't be held back by states like Utah and Alabama which literally have to be dragged into the 21st century.

Now having said all that, I still suspect that most of the "no" votes in this poll came from homophobic bigots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #274
281. Okay. I won't argue with your last sentence.
:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #261
357. Not saying that you are (I don't think you are) but I have run across several homophobic homosexuals
in my lifetime. I have even, unfortunately, dated one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #357
366. I'm not one of the homophobic homosexuals you speak of although . . .
I have also met several of that 'species variation'. I have a different view of how the marriage equality issue should be resolved. I doubt my idea will ever get serious consideration but I still hold that it is the ideal situation. It defangs the religious right and gives equality in domestic relationships to ALL couples without invoking Jim Crow separation. I expounded at post #249.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #260
326. I was a fan of The Count... but then I discovered he had a helluva pottymouth...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galledgoblin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #260
439. you are my favorite poster of the week! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
262. I only discuss this with people until they bring up religion
Once someone mentions the church I'm out of the conversation.

I think Churches can decide what they want to "sanctify" for themselves. People can agree with them or not but everyone is free to leave. But the legal definition of marriage should apply to gay or straight people. If a couple also wants to have that union recognized by their church that's up to them.

I actually like the way they do things in parts of Europe. A couple gets married at the registry office and has a church wedding later, if so desired.

But who am I to say a gay couple shouldn't have the same rights my husband and I have?

And as for the "sanctity of marriage" that the right keeps touting... ask McCain about dating Cindy while he was still married. Hell, he proposed to her while still married to his first wife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #262
263. Please see my opinion at #249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #262
286. I agree with you on all counts.
Ironically, the churches are not really a barrier to gay people marrying. Most gay couples can find a church of some kind in their area that will spiritually sanctify their union.

I know that there are many churches that discriminate against gay people. I think they're jerks, but I also recognize their right, as private institutions, to do as they wish.

It's the U.S. government that is the problem, not the churches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #262
317. How many gay people are jumping up and down and
stomping their feet about demanding a church wedding?

I don't hear this from anyone.

The whole argument about why equal marriage should not be an issue, is the fact that gay people are not asking for religions to sanction it and perform weddings.

Nobody is suggesting that religions should be forced to alter its stances.

And without speaking for the entire gay population, I would say most are perfectly happy tying the knot away from a church where we know we're not welcome anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #317
358. I would like to have my marriage in a church. But then again, I know several churches that would
Edited on Wed Jul-02-08 12:22 AM by musicblind
like to marry me as well. Including two all gay churches. But yes you are very right in that it varies for each person. I know some who would like to marry on the beach, and some in their back yard, and some at Disney World. It just depends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
283. I don't support state sanctioned "Marriage" for ANYONE. Straight, gay, purple, green.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 01:25 PM by cryingshame
IMO, the state should issue Civil Union Contracts to all those adults who want to join households.

Let "Marriage" designate those who then go on to choose the option of engaging in some sort of secular or religious ceremony later on after they've signed the Civil Union Contract.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marimour Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #283
285. completey agree with this statment. thats why this poll is incomplete.
I was one of the No's and it be laughable to call me a bigot. To the person said current civil unions don't confer the same rights how so? I haven't really researched that issue so I don't know much about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #283
320. That's a nice thought, but since we already HAVE state-sanctioned marriage
it needs to be available to all equally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
294. I support gay civil marriage.
Meaning any religion can wed same-sex couples, however, the government can't force churches into this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cate94 Donating Member (573 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #294
298. The govt already can't force
churches to marry anyone. Does the government force the Catholic church to marry people who have been divorced? No. They can't and they don't.

This is a scare tactic used by churches to get their membership to oppose gay marriage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #294
313. See, this kind of comment plays right into the right wing
hysteria that, oh my God, gay people want churches to sanction equal marriage.

That could not be further from the truth. Nobody is asking or demanding same sex church weddings.

And what is gay civil marriage?

You either support civil unions or you support marriage.

There's no combination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #294
316. Umm... that's already how it is with straight marriage.
All we're looking for is the equal rights under the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #294
328. the govt cant force churches into any marriage, even straight ones
i believe for instance that divorced people cant get married in a catholic church
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
296. 100% for it.
In fact, I'm hoping that more gay couples come to Mass so we can drive out the few remaining Republicans still left here. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
310. For it! They should be allowed to be miserable just like the rest of us......
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #310
311. Believe me. Our misery already knows no bounds.
But I can still choose to lead a happy life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
323. Wow 20 votes for no?
Thats odd, I thought everyone believed all people are equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleveramerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
330. everybody should get to see what a pain in the ass being married can be
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #330
332. Everybody should see what a pain in the ass being denied your civil rights can be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhythm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
335. To the 23 people who have said that i am a second-class citizen...
Go Fuck Yourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #335
337. K&R! Go fuck yourselves!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #335
341. seconded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #335
344. You said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swimmernsecretsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #335
360. Yeah!
Go fuck yourselves!

Don't fucking get a same-sex marriage then! Fuck you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #335
376. I agree. Go fuck yourselves.
I'm sick and fucking tired of seeing plain out and out condoning discrimination and bigotry in this forum. Either you are for equality or you're a bigot. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #335
462. Wish I could K&R a post!
You said it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
336. Ummm.... duh... for it.
That's like asking if we're for women's rights or black equality. Come on... let's move on people. This is hardly a suprize anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
339. Other.
I think the government has no business in marriage at all - recognizing either same sex or opposite sex marriages. Marriage shouldn't be a government issue, it should be a ceremonial commitment between people, meaning whatever those people want it to mean.

Individuals should be free to designate co-habitants, and next of kins for purposes of taxes, medical decisions and other rights commonly granted by "marriage" today. And they should be able to designate whoever the want, male / female / lover / friend / family member.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alberto Flash Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
342. Another Obama flip-flop, but I like this one
He once said the gay marriage issue should be left up to the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
343. Skinner, can we get the persons who voted "no" perma-banned?
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #343
359. As much as I would enjoy that... I guess the shouldn't be banned
because no matter how much I disagree. People have the right to have a different opinion to me and the right to express it to my face. I have the right to respond however ;)

:hug:


Thank you for supporting this btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #359
421. Actually, per Skinner himself, people who do not support our right to marry are not welcome on DU.
I say torch their bigoted asses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #343
363. Ban people because they voted differently than you on a yes-no poll?
Makes a lot of sense. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #363
374. If they vote no, then they are bigots,
and DU is not a haven for bigots. Nevermind that, it should not be a haven for bigots, for there are definitely bigots here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #363
398. he did it for the racists, why not the homophobes?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredScuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
347. what an embarassment
24 bigots reside among us. Boo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #347
362. Half-full vs. half-empty
Or in this case, 93% full vs. 7% empty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
354. Supporter, of course
We'll get there eventually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
364. Marriage sucks.
Edited on Wed Jul-02-08 01:50 AM by Breeze54
Why anyone would get married is beyond me but each to their own. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
370. I'd say neither for nor against
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I am against any kind of measures put on the ballot that are anti-gay. We have seen quite a few in Oregon the last 15 or so years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #370
371. Just curious....why wouldn't you be for it? .... we're talking
about two people forking over a wad of cash for a license to be married.

We're not talking about them forcing the church to sanction it.

It's "you sign here, you sign here.. congratulations.."

And then the couple goes back to living the same life they led before, only now they're afforded some important rights and their marriage doesn't affect you in the least.

How can you feel indifferent?

I'm not trying to pin you into the corner because you don't sound like a right wing fundamentalist christian conservative.

I'm just trying to learn why you wouldn't be more in favor of this human right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #371
372. I don't know
That along with the death penalty I've never really had a strong opinion on. I'd say in reality I probably lean more toward gay marriage then against. Not everyone has a strong opinion about every issue. I'm sure there are issues I care about that you probably don't have a strong opinion about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #372
373. Well David, you seem like a smart enough guy .. clearly you
can distinguish between "every issue" and human rights issues.

I'm sure that there are indeed some issues you care about that I don't necessarily have a strong opinion about **UNLESS** of course, (key word: unless) they are civil liberty issues.

I have strong opinions about civil liberty/human rights issues, and would always side with you regarding those.

Hopefully you can give this some thought and come to the conclusion that suppressing the human rights of any person -- minority or not -- is not progressive.

(Not of course implying that you do).

And hopefully you can convince yourself that allowing a couple of gay people to sign a piece of paper doesn't hurt anyone.

So yes, I do have strong opinions and support everything you care about if it involves treating human beings with respect, dignity and equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #373
375. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #373
377. Honestly your condesending attitude doesn't sway me
and you were one of the 50 "special people" I had on my ignore list during the primary. Welcome to the list again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #377
378. Thrown under the bus!
He had it coming though! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #378
380. Thrown under
more like ran over.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #378
399. Another anti-gay comment.
You're on a roll!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #377
388. He didn't say anything condesending. I he disagreed with you and tried to state his point.
But he was not rude about it. He merely wanted to have a discussion. Since this is a discussion board. Not even an arguement, as he complimented that you were a very smart guy, and then tried to appeal that by laying our why he feels this issue is different than other issues. Unless there is something in the "deleted subthread" that I did not read and am missing. Which maybe there is :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #377
390. Awwww, how can I go on? Sniff.
Hopefully with myself out of the picture and on ignore (it's like winning the lottery some days around here), that will allow you more, umm, "davidpdx time" to concentrate on your homophobia.

Poor thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #373
387. Thank you cboy4
Thank you for caring so much about my rights. It means the world to me that there are people out there who are willing to fight for gay rights even though they are not gay and it does not directly effect them. It means a lot to me that you are willing to put yourself in my shoes. Your passion is priceless to a lot of us.


Thank you so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adoraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #373
431. I'm sorry, but David is right in ignoring you
Edited on Wed Jul-02-08 10:12 PM by adoraz
He's just saying its not one of his main issues. He doesn't have a strong opinion. He isn't against it, but he obviously hasn't given it much thought. Really, why do you care?

Lay off him. I can't stand people like you who try to make it seem like everyone needs to have strong views on what they believe in. He isn't even disagreeing with you for God's sake.

Its not the fact that you are trying to persuade him, its your attitude in doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #431
432. human rights should always be a main issue
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adoraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #432
433. 2 points....
Edited on Wed Jul-02-08 11:11 PM by adoraz
I have 2 points-

1. He is up in arms over someone who is neutral on it, or at least that's his tone. David's stance on gay marriage isn't going to change anything, so the other poster shouldn't care so much. He obviously isn't going to be the type of person who marches in a gay parade, and he is voting Democrat anyways. Him simply saying "I support gay marriage" will have zero effect on human rights as long as he continues voting Democrat.
2. Far more importantly, I was saying that I (and obviously David) didn't like his tone. That is why he was ignored. There are two ways to disagree with people. The first is to have a bad tone and try to act superior to them, which usually gets the person nowhere (like the poster). The other, is to try to persuade them in a much better tone. This stance usually gets far, far better results.

Just my 2 cents. Point 1 may be debatable, but point 2 isn't. In their argument, point 2 made the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #433
436. There is no argument really
You are for human rights, or you are a bigot. Choose your side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #436
437. I think you really should go and read up thread
before you proclaim people bigots. The with us or against us is exactly the kind of lame ass pittly shit Bush pulled on us after 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #437
442. If one does not support gay marriage, they are a bigot.
It's a pretty simple concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #442
445. And tell my how your acting like an asshole
should convince me otherwise? I've said repeatedly I don't have a strong view on it. Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adoraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #436
447. way to completely miss the point
Edited on Thu Jul-03-08 09:47 AM by adoraz
maybe he just hasn't heard enough of the argument yet. you should always base an opinion off of hearing both side of the argument, no matter what it is.

Why do you care so much anyways? His stance won't change anything as long as he votes Democrat.

And finally he repetitively said he WASN'T against it. He just isn't for it. He doesn't have a stance yet.

You and the other poster are doing an incredibly poor job of trying to act persuasive. Maybe if you paid attention to point #2, you would learn a thing or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #431
438. Thanks for saying that
Edited on Thu Jul-03-08 03:36 AM by davidpdx
and also my I clarify that I didn't say I was against gay marriage (and I didn't vote either way in the poll), it is more or less I don't have strong stance on it.

That being said, the person I put on ignore definately had it coming for attitude they have portrayed both before and after the primary. Since the end of the primary season, my ignore list has been empty (I actually only had about 50 people on it back then). Until two days ago, it has remained empty. However, I've chose to put those who really don't support Obama (and make that clear though their post or people that are utterly rude.

That being said, if you want to be an asshole, welcome to ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adoraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #438
446. no problem, I have seen other posts by him in the past
Edited on Thu Jul-03-08 09:37 AM by adoraz
I don't like his attitude either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HannibalBarca Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
383. It's not even an issue for me
I cannot comprehend why it's any of my business if two people are permitted to marry, perhaps my mind is too limited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
385. Fuck yeah!
Gay people have the best weddings!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
389. Option #3 -- None of my damn business what two people do of their own volition
and further more, to crib from Wil Wheaton, my marriage is not affected by other people getting married, so why should two men or two women getting hitched affect it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
392. I think it's a shameful reflection of this place that this post only got one rec.
Can't be bothered with "the gays" around here anymore, can we. Sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #392
401. and that 27 people, at this writing, said No
That's even sadder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #392
402. I was hoping it would get at least 5 so it could go to the greatest page :(
Though I am amazed it has gotten 400 plus posts so far. The thread has been VERY interesting to read. I too am shocked at the number of people who have voted no however. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
393. The State has no business deciding who can & who can't fall in love.
It should be removed from the marriage business entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeaLyons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
396. Live and let live!!!
Of course we are for gay marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
405. REMINDER: SKINNER HIMSELF HAS SAID YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE IF YOU OPPOSE EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS.
If you're that bigoted, get the FUCK off DU.

(Not aimed at the OP.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #405
408. .
:applause:

Everyone who voted no should get a granite cookie. JMHO of course, YMMV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #408
423. agreed
I bet this thread will end up just being locked with now pizza deliveries made. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #405
422. So you would ban Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #422
434. No actually, according to DU's own policy, Obama would be banned...
nothing to do with the poster's viewpoint, but DU's posting guidelines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #405
429. A lot of conservative detectors lately
Here we have people against gay marriage. A couple of days ago there were people in favor of vigilante justice. I hope the mods get them all. I'm tired of having to deal with conservatives here. There are plenty of conservative sites out there. Why do they come here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #429
444. A-freaking-men.
If I wanted to read trollish posts, I go over to the yahoo boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #429
451. Who are you voting for? A conservative?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
424. Insofar as I am for marriage at all, for
granted, thats not very for, given the way marriage is worked in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blondiegrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
428. 100 percent in favor of gay marriage. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galledgoblin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 04:08 AM
Response to Original message
441. I am 100% in favor of equality, whether that means
marriage for gays or civil unions for all...

but I don't like this attitude that you're for equality or you're gone.

this is a discussion board, and though we don't like it, this is still an issue of discussion among many Americans.

if we choose to simply ban anyone who opposes equality, then we risk putting ourselves into a bubble and even growing complacent as a result. we should welcome debate and try to change as many minds as we can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adoraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #441
450. I don't understand the ban threats either.
Edited on Thu Jul-03-08 12:01 PM by adoraz
You're one of the few in this thread making sense. If people who voted against it got banned, that isn't going to change their minds. If it does, it will be for the worse.

Some people here really need to think before posting. The ban threats are completely unjustified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
443. My thought process has always been -
How in the hell does two, loving committed people getting married effect me? And the answer is always been, it doesn't. There is still a strong misconception that homosexuals are pedophiles, especially in rural areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
455. I am shocked and saddened that there are 32 no votes on a progressive board
32 people here believe that all people are not created equal and some are not worthy of equal rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
456. This is the most bigoted thread in a while
Congrats GD :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #456
459. I see it as more of a Babe Ruth homeruns vs. strikeouts kinda thing...
yeah, there's a fairly big bigot turnout... but there's also a pretty big anti-bigot turnout too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
457. Good riddance:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #457
460. I get discouraged around here trying to explain why equality is a good thing for all of us.
But sometimes I feel better about it. As, well...that.

Really...realistically, we're not there, as a country, on same-sex marriage yet. But we're getting there. And it's perfectly valid and perfectly right to say that we deserve equality. I recognize our nominee doesn't support that. But still...we have a right to full first class citizenship in this country. And there is no "right time" to express that right.

Fuck, I don't know what I'm trying to say. But I hope that people respect our rights for equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
463. Locking
When all the flames are kindled and burnt down, the fact remains that Democratic Underground has an official policy on this question, which can be reviewed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
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 Sun Jul 13th 2014, 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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