ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[morment]

welpers...i agree that tradition alone is no reason to maintain a mindset...but changing it is akin to evolution, albeit cultural rather than biological, and i see cultural evolution as the struggle of social order to establish a framework for individual growth and dignity.....america nearly destroyed itself in a war about just that, and the constitution and the political institutions that it created recognized the importance of it, as well.

so i see boce's pov as one that acknowledges the need for change without dishonoring tradition, for the simple reason that the tradition of marriage as between a man and a woman -whether you agree with its importance or not- is extraordinarily important to a large % of the people in this country.

while i personally agree that any two adults that wanna get married outta have the right, our social framework needs some more small steps in that direction before that individual growth and dignity can be fully recognized, and i think the reason for that is principally because heterosexual males (who historically are the dictators of religious values) can't see past the sexuality of homosexual males, and so can't conceive that the emotional milieu of "romantic love" would have any meaning between two guys.

and in all honesty....i have a hard time wrapping my head around that too (which is why also why i feel that gay pride parades tend to be over the top, and self-defeating).....but then, it's really not my problem to understand it and judge its merit....only to accept that others can feel it and that it has merit for them.....

and given what wierd creatures we all are, that acceptance is easy :lol:

bottom line then for me is that whatever word is gonna be used to describe homosexual marriage at this point in time is a-ok with me (gays won't give up their fight....nor will the other side).....making an important political football of the issue is to ignore the nature of real game being played between the right and the left, imo.....

that's my nickle....carry on

You have some good points in there, and yes making it legal tomorrow would be too fast for a lot of people in this country. I just don't understand why it bothers them so much and I probably never will.

 

[morment]

I just saw a tweet from Jason Alexander that referenced political discussions which ended with: "Condemn policy, not person". I think that fits here.

He's had a few poignant, and very extended, tweets on a few topics that surprised the hell out of me given the characters I usually see him play on tv. And it always cracks me up when he retweets people who disagree with him with something along the lines of "your fucking stupid."

 

[Jupiter551]

so i see boce's pov as one that acknowledges the need for change without dishonoring tradition, for the simple reason that the tradition of marriage as between a man and a woman -whether you agree with its importance or not- is extraordinarily important to a large % of the people in this country.

The problem is, civil unions or whatever you want to call them will always be seen as "less" than marriage, if marriage is held up as some pinnacle of social union that homosexuals can't aspire to.

It's akin to saying "sure black people can eat in the restaurant - JUST NOT AFTER 8".

 

[Anonymous]

I just saw a tweet from Jason Alexander that referenced political discussions which ended with: "Condemn policy, not person". I think that fits here.

And yes, I can't believe I'm quoting George Costanza :mrgreen:

I noticed that you and I make a lot of Seinfeld references on the forum. :lol: :thumbleft:

 

[Bocefish]

I have to fess up... my stance last night was a bit of an experiment. Although I wish that we could somehow honor both tradition and change equally, I understand why a civil union would seem less equal than a marriage. It was just an attempt, albeit a weak one, to defend the honored tradition to see where that might go, if anywhere. The truth is I really don't care what people call it, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Just out of curiosity, how do gay marriages handle things like introductions, addressing and so forth? Would two females each consider the other their wife, so there would be two wives in the home? Does one or the other ever take the other's name? Would their mail be addressed as Mrs. & Mrs. Smith?

 

[Nordling]

I have to fess up... my stance last night was a bit of an experiment. Although I wish that we could somehow honor both tradition and change equally, I understand why a civil union would seem less equal than a marriage. It was just an attempt, albeit a weak one, to defend the honored tradition to see where that might go, if anywhere. The truth is I really don't care what people call it, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Just out of curiosity, how do gay marriages handle things like introductions, addressing and so forth? Would two females each consider the other their wife, so there would be two wives in the home? Does one or the other ever take the other's name? Would their mail be addressed as Mrs. & Mrs. Smith?

I haven't seen any polls on this but just from what I've seen, two women call themselves both "wives" and men, "husbands," but it may vary from couple to couple.

As far as addressing, it probably varies--from only addressing one, to "The Joneses" to maybe even your suggestion, "Mr. and Mr." There's probably other variations. Eventually, an etiquette may appear for all these instances.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

The truth is I really don't care what people call it, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

:-D :thumbleft:

Also, yes. The Daily Show is amazing. Jon Stewart always points out the idiocy of the lefts as well.

My overall opinion of this election: it's not a real one. Romney has a snowball's chance in hell. Obama, while some people disagree with him on a few issues, hasn't offended the overall population so much that he won't get reelected. The GOP knows that this election isn't even a contest; that's why they have Romney and Ryan running. They're not taking it seriously. They don't want to win; they're looking at 2016.

The gay marriage and abortion debates are going to become obsolete soon. It's just time and progress. My guess is going to be that in another 4 years we'll be seeing a republican candidate that is fiscally conservative but socially neutral, and gay marriage/abortion won't even be relevant issues.

 

[LailaBaise]

I have to fess up... my stance last night was a bit of an experiment. Although I wish that we could somehow honor both tradition and change equally, I understand why a civil union would seem less equal than a marriage. It was just an attempt, albeit a weak one, to defend the honored tradition to see where that might go, if anywhere. The truth is I really don't care what people call it, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Just out of curiosity, how do gay marriages handle things like introductions, addressing and so forth? Would two females each consider the other their wife, so there would be two wives in the home? Does one or the other ever take the other's name? Would their mail be addressed as Mrs. & Mrs. Smith?

You should also bear in mind that not all heterosexual married women change their name to that of their spouse. It really doesn't matter what they call themselves, as long as they are given the same choices as any other adult human beings.

 

[JickyJuly]

I think the weirdest part of the Civil Union instead of Marriage idea is that it assumes that all people need is the same right to tax deductions, shared insurance or weddings. Really, people get married for all sorts of reasons and there's no real way to restrict that. So, singling out same sex couples is completely unfair.

I didn't have a big wedding. The only person I invited was my Dad. My dude and I stood up in front of a pastor, said vows, signed a paper and ran off to eat barbeque. My husband is disabled and doesn't work. So, gaining insurance didn't happen. Tax wise, his debts have eaten the tax returns we qualified for. So, no benefit there either. What I got out of getting married was to be able to say this is my marriage, this is my Stepdaughter and this is my Husband. If that's important to an adult couple, there's no reason to deny the right.

I know some people feel that if they aren't gay, a woman or a minority those issues don't pertain to them, and Mitt Romney probably won't be able to damage those groups all on his own. But, I hate the idea of living in a country that would vote someone in whose platform involves so much unfairness.

 

[Alana Cruise]

And I do. I also believe committed same sex couples should have the same rights as married couples.

I get the feeling you do not have reliable sources. Just out of curiosity, have you been to college? Not trying to be a smartass, but most people do not know how to look for credible sources, and the media for sure is not one. Neither are popular magazines, or talk shows.

Not trying to be a smart ass?

What are your sources that are so credible beyond reproach?

Do I need collegiate sources for my opinion?

Oh my bad i thought you were making your decision based on facts which would require credible sources.

 

[Nordling]

You make a great point regarding why we should defend the rights of people who are being persecuted for things that don't apply to us. A bunch of quotes come to mind... "we're only as strong as our weakest link." And the big one that comes from mid-century Germany:

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

The Republican Party, in my opinion doesn't really care about abortion or civil rights so much as they like using them as wedge issues to gain votes from their supposed base, and that level of cynicism makes me a little ill.

 

[Just Me]

Not sure who I would vote for, Martin Sheen? Josiah Bartlet? Aaron Sorkin? :lol:

 

[bob]

You have some good points in there, and yes making it legal tomorrow would be too fast for a lot of people in this country. I just don't understand why it bothers them so much and I probably never will.

i don't really understand it either, but i will say this....most dissent that restricts the growth of human dignity/individual choice is based in fear, and what i'm hearing from the religious right is that their interpretation of the bible has produced a god that defines human dignity/individual choice as a worship limited by the interpretation

it is a circular logic that at the very least, defies rational thought, imo, but it's the marvel of religious freedom that everybody gets to look at god the way they want too....it would get a little wierd if we started banning religions because of mental illness :lol:

but even in christain terms, that god has become an idol, imo....something that can't change without being destroyed....and it's the fear of that destruction that we're listening too, imo.

not so unlike whatever the hell was going through that AZ judge's mind in Shaun's random thread :whistle:

we live in strange times

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Yes, that is a valid fear... if we allow gay marriage to be legal, people will start to want to marry dolphins, dogs, horses, kitchen tables and perhaps even trees.

Your fear is absolutely valid. It could happen.
:roll:

When people inject this stupid idea into this kind of discussion, I don't know if I should laugh at it's absurdity or be heartbroken with pity that someone can actually say that sort of thing out loud, and think it's a valid point.

And keep on trying to make you think it is too.
:?

Some people fucking scare me.

 

[bob]

Yes, that is a valid fear... if we allow gay marriage to be legal, people will start to want to marry dolphins, dogs, horses, kitchen tables and perhaps even trees.

hey!!! i like trees :love7:

 

[Nordling]

And the dish ran away with the spoon. :mrgreen:

 

[Red7227]

Yes, that is a valid fear... if we allow gay marriage to be legal, people will start to want to marry dolphins, dogs, horses, kitchen tables and perhaps even trees.

hey!!! i like trees :love7:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... years.html

 

[AllisonWilder]

People do crazy shit and say crazy shit all the time. I remember a while back there was a woman in the news who left her entire estate to her cat. And Emily Mabou marrying her dog a few years back was big news. If crazies didn't exist, we wouldn't have sites like this: http://www.marryyourpet.com/ hanging around.

ETA: I am not saying I think it's a valid argument, I'm just saying that it could be rallied for in the future.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Some chick's 'married' to the Eiffel Tower. But when I was over in Paris a few years back, I swear that thing was giving me the eye. I reckon I could make a real go of things with Old Eiffy :?

 

[Jupiter551]

I can't think of a valid reason why people shouldn't be able to marry whatever they want - animals excepted since, like children, they're not capable of consent/expressing consent.

If it concerns benefits/extra pay then I would have two thoughts. Firstly, in many cases is it even fair to pay someone who's married benefits without paying them to someone who has contributed the same but unmarried? Not to derail but there's a lot of pro-marriage discrimination in our system that just wouldn't fly if it were anything else (tax breaks, annuities, pensions), and I think that's what a lot of the debate about marriage is actually based on. For businesses it isn't a matter of whether gay marriage affects them - it's how much it's going to cost them.

Secondly, if the only concern is benefits then simply stipulate that the beneficiary partner be human. Then people can marry their tables and none of us will lose sleep, right?

 

[bob]

The problem is, civil unions or whatever you want to call them will always be seen as "less" than marriage, if marriage is held up as some pinnacle of social union that homosexuals can't aspire to.

It's akin to saying "sure black people can eat in the restaurant - JUST NOT AFTER 8".

more like....just not at my table....
to be all pc...gays are the new "n" word,
and i agree completely that the "lesser, but somehow equal" argument is ludicrous....but at this point in time, any step in the right direction is a plus, imo


it took a while for the barbarians to crash the party of the roman empire......mostly because it took a while for the moral bankruptcy of that empire to weaken it to the point where change became inevitable.

 

[Bocefish]

It would have never crossed my mind either until I ran across this a while back...

Woman marries dolphin

Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back.

In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to "marry" a dolphin.

Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss. And a piece of herring.

"It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London.

Tendler, who said she imports clothes and promotes rock bands in England, has visited Israel several times a year since first meeting the dolphin.

When asked in the past if she had a boyfriend, she would always reply, "No. I'm going to end up with Cindy." On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.

"It's not a bad thing. It just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It's just a pure love that I have for this animal," she said.

While she still kept open the option of "marrying human" at some stage, she said for now she was strictly a "one-dolphin woman".

She's hardly the jealous type, though.

"He will still play with all the other girls there," she said, of their prenuptial agreement. "I hope he has a lot of baby dolphins with the other dolphins. The more dolphins the better."

- AP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/wom ... 39590.html

As far as dogs and horses, we've already seen some sickos that would marry a dog or a horse if it were legal.

 

[Jupiter551]

I remember reading a guy in South Korea married a video game character (not one played by another person, an npc).

 

[mynameisbob84]

I remember reading a guy in South Korea married a video game character (not one played by another person, an npc).

:-D

 

[LailaBaise]

I find it disturbing that whilst discussing gay marriage you think it's apt to compare it with a human being marrying an animal. We're talking about human beings marrying each other here. Gay marriage is nothing like marrying a fucking dolphin.
Oh, and for the record, Bocefish, I don't buy for one second you were practising an experiment on us chimps. It's such an obvious backtrack. We're not stupid.

I'm out. :thumbleft:

 

[Bocefish]

I find it disturbing that whilst discussing gay marriage you think it's apt to compare it with a human being marrying an animal. We're talking about human beings marrying each other here. Gay marriage is nothing like marrying a fucking dolphin.
Oh, and for the record, Bocefish, I don't buy for one second you were practising an experiment on us chimps. It's such an obvious backtrack. We're not stupid.

I'm out. :thumbleft:

:hello2:

Believe whatever you want. The dolphin thing came up as an extreme example contradicting the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman and questioning how far the definition may get stretched or changed. It was by no means comparing humans, gay or straight to animals. It was about the definition of marriage as my post above about a woman marrying a dolphin and other so-called wedlock unions others have posted has shown.

 

[LadyLuna]

New definition of legal marriage:

Legal marriage is a legal partnership between at least two adult humans with the intention of forming a family.

Religious marriage is whatever the particular religion decides it to be. Government shall NOT force religions to hold ceremonies for people who do not fit the religion's definition of marriage. Those individuals should pick another religion or just stick with a legal marriage.

---

The reason politicians are against gay marriage is because of how much in benefits that will cost the corporations who have bought the politicians.

The reason religions are against gay marriage being legal is because they are afraid the government will then force them to marry people they don't believe should be married.

The reason I'm mad at the government is because my male partner is not married to me, and not a blood relative (or adopted relative), I cannot claim him as a dependent on my taxes despite having paid for him completely all last year. This lead to some interesting things when he applied for fafsa this year (Independent, but not making any money? Not good enough, you now have to tell us how the fuck you're even alive! :roll

 

[camstory]

i think the reason for that is principally because heterosexual males (who historically are the dictators of religious values) can't see past the sexuality of homosexual males, and so can't conceive that the emotional milieu of "romantic love" would have any meaning between two guys.

and in all honesty....i have a hard time wrapping my head around that too ....but then, it's really not my problem to understand it and judge its merit....only to accept that others can feel it and that it has merit for them.....

I just don't understand why it bothers them so much and I probably never will.

I think your answer, in great part, is contained in Bob's post ^^^^, but my main reason for quoting here is the absolutely perfect train of thought that follows, "wrapping my head around that too". (do I need to say IMO?... No, I think it is obvious that its only my opinion man.)

 

[Bocefish]

Oh, and for the record, Bocefish, I don't buy for one second you were practising an experiment on us chimps. It's such an obvious backtrack. We're not stupid.

You are correct, it wasn't an experiment on you guys. It was more an experiment if I could reasonably uphold the traditional definition despite all odds against me. Marriage is just a word, and words only have the strength we allow them to have.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Nice backpedal.
:lol:

I don't buy it either.
:naughty: