Federal Marriage Amendment

Romulan_nemesis · Post by **Romulan_nemesis** » 2004-08-17 03:35pm

Are you for or against the FMA?

Being a homosexual myself, I'm obviously against it, but I'm curious to see what you lot are.

~RN

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-17 03:37pm

The poll is pretty lopsided in its wording. I agree with you, but you can be opposed to certain people getting married (underage children, for example) and still be in favor of equal rights. Better to conduct an honest poll and risk not getting the results you want (though I doubt that) than cook the questions so you get the "right" numbers.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-08-17 03:40pm

RedImperator wrote:The poll is pretty lopsided in its wording. I agree with you, but you can be opposed to certain people getting married (underage children, for example) and still be in favor of equal rights. Better to conduct an honest poll and risk not getting the results you want (though I doubt that) than cook the questions so you get the "right" numbers.

Cooking the question only works when dealing with 'normal' people. the people at Sd.net arent normal, and I have a bit more 'faith' in their intelligence.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-17 03:42pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
RedImperator wrote:The poll is pretty lopsided in its wording. I agree with you, but you can be opposed to certain people getting married (underage children, for example) and still be in favor of equal rights. Better to conduct an honest poll and risk not getting the results you want (though I doubt that) than cook the questions so you get the "right" numbers.
Cooking the question only works when dealing with 'normal' people. the people at Sd.net arent normal, and I have a bit more 'faith' in their intelligence.

It's still not good practice to make a deliberately lopsided poll unless you're trying to make a joke or illustrate a point about polls.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-08-17 03:42pm

RedImperator wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
RedImperator wrote:The poll is pretty lopsided in its wording. I agree with you, but you can be opposed to certain people getting married (underage children, for example) and still be in favor of equal rights. Better to conduct an honest poll and risk not getting the results you want (though I doubt that) than cook the questions so you get the "right" numbers.
Cooking the question only works when dealing with 'normal' people. the people at Sd.net arent normal, and I have a bit more 'faith' in their intelligence.
It's still not good practice to make a deliberately lopsided poll unless

True enough.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-08-17 03:50pm

What the fuck is wrong with a man marrying a man or the female equivalent? Undermines the fabric of society? Riiight. Gimme a break. If you wank to tradition that hardcore, I suggest you watch Fiddler (on the fucking) Roof. 'course, if you did that, holding to stereotypes already held by idiots who support such an ammdendment, you'd be gay, too.

CrimsonRaine · Post by **CrimsonRaine** » 2004-08-17 04:11pm

RedImperator wrote:The poll is pretty lopsided in its wording. I agree with you, but you can be opposed to certain people getting married (underage children, for example) and still be in favor of equal rights. Better to conduct an honest poll and risk not getting the results you want (though I doubt that) than cook the questions so you get the "right" numbers.

I agree. The wording of this poll made it loaded, but I understood your intent, which is why I'm not having a fit about it at the moment.

Raine

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-08-17 04:48pm

while i find the poll loaded as well, it's silly to deny someone the same rights as every other american simply due to artificial separations. eg - race, orientation, religious preference, etc. the only single qualifying factor in determining whether or not two people can legally get married is age of consent, for obvious reasons. beyond that, let 'em at it. it's not harming anyone after all.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-08-17 05:02pm

The only arguments against gay and lesbian marriage I have ever seen are either appeals to Judeo-Christian tradition or hinge on flimsy assertions that children raised by such couples will be damaged in some subtle, intangible way.

This is insufficient reason for a Constitutional ammendment. I say nay.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-17 05:24pm

I would oppose the amendment even if I didn't support gay marriage.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-08-17 05:33pm

It's a shame the poll is accurate in it's lopsidedness, that kind of exonerates it from benig biased really, after all, the people voting against it can try and show it to be wrong if they wish.

Am I against the amendment? Yes, of course I am, and to be honest, I think there's something wrong with people who are for it. Societies change, and they should evolve to give people equality, and justification beyond appeals to tradition and popularity of people who are too stupid to realise when their discrimination hurts or oppresses someone.

In popular culture, thanks to the work of the apologists and preachers, the Bible's now a 3000 page novel of "John 3:16," "out of context" and "don't be gay." It's the last part, coupled with indoctrinated politics and fear that leads to this popular thinking that doesn't belong in the last century, let alone this one.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-08-17 05:35pm

Who are the two dingle choads who voted for man and woman only and didn't bother to post any sort of reason for doing so?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-08-17 05:46pm

Baa-Ram-Uuuuu.

People who vote yes on that poll are right wing sheep. They follow each other wordlessly and unquestioningly. that's why they fial to post a reason for their idiocy.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-08-17 06:14pm

Probly Talon Karrde and jegs2 going by experience...

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-08-17 06:17pm

I've got an "other" vote. I don't think marriage should be between anything but a man and a woman, but I also don't want the government passing laws about marriage.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-17 06:43pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I've got an "other" vote. I don't think marriage should be between anything but a man and a woman, but I also don't want the government passing laws about marriage.

Too late, marriage is a LEAGAL state...that means that it's part of the LAW the LAW should have fuck all to do with the donkey molesting, child abusing, asshole filled world of RELIGION. Religion can go fuck itself instead of just other people and let the discrimination end.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-17 06:45pm

Oh wonderful, the tally is now up to three total fuckheads. Wonderful, come on, there's two of you who clearly have no fucking balls! Did the priest accidently rip 'em off when he molested you? Or did your right wing minister of propoganda have them removed so you would pay better attention to sucking his cock and swallowing his cum....er....truths?

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-08-17 06:53pm

I know why the donkey raping sons of a rabid wombat haven't posted. They're too busy wanking off to a fantasy about having a threesome with supermonkey er, president bush and porto john asscrack.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-17 06:58pm

darthdavid wrote:I know why the donkey raping sons of a rabid wombat haven't posted. They're too busy wanking off to a fantasy about having a threesome with supermonkey er, president bush and porto john asscrack.

I figure it's actually Mrs. G.W. Bush that's for this ammendment because she doesnt want dumped for Cheney, and the slippery slope bullshit about it leading to immorality and polygamy is because she thinks it'll end up as a group marriage with Ashcroft.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-08-17 07:19pm

Thanks, Captain Chewie. At least you have some manner of balls, however small it is...

Alright you two anonymous authoritarian fundycrat fucktards, speak up now or keep your maggot-infested cocksucking holes shut till the motherfucking cows come home and the sky turns red with your blood you grabastic pieces of disorganized amphibian shit!

darthdavid wrote:I know why the donkey raping sons of a rabid wombat haven't posted. They're too busy wanking off to a fantasy about having a threesome with supermonkey er, president bush and porto john asscrack.

DD, you're a lulu

You managed to insult donkeys, wombats, and monkeys in one post! That deserves a FUQ or at least some commendations!

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-08-17 07:22pm

Oh no America, you have to pass that admendment before its too late. If you don't its fire and brimstone for you just like up here in Canada. *chokes on his own blood and burns*

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-17 07:25pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Oh no America, you have to pass that admendment before its too late. If you don't its fire and brimstone for you just like up here in Canada. *chokes on his own blood and burns*

How often do you have to be told, no using the laptop in the BBQ, only at it. *shakes his head*

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-17 07:35pm

Joe wrote:I would oppose the amendment even if I didn't support gay marriage.

Agreed, I prefer ammendments that restrict the goverment, not amendments that restrict the people.

I've wrestled with the issue for many years, though, until I just came to the conclusion that I don't give a god damn what two consenting adults do in their spare time as long as it doesn't harm anyone (who isn't consenting

).

I fail to see a valid reason to stop two people who love each other from forming a contract with the STATE. On the other hand, I wouldn't force a 'church' to marry anyone either.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-08-17 07:36pm

My friend Marquis Beaudreaux says this: "To the one guy who had the nuts to admit voting for the anti-gay-marriage thing, I respect that. Cheers, here's to you. But you're still wrong. Kinda like the KKK minus the hoods.

To the other two: Cowards, Cowards, COWARDS! If you had the conviction to actually vote for anti-gay laws, don't be ashamed of it. Stand up and be counted as Fascist/Nazi/whatever fucktards (but we wubs you anyway!) We respect your freedoms, let us have ours."

Gerard_Paloma · Post by **Gerard_Paloma** » 2004-08-17 08:03pm

The only arguments against same sex marriages were used 30 years ago against interracial marriages. They didn't make any sense then, and they don't make any sense now.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Federal Marriage Amendment

For or against the FMA?

Federal Marriage Amendment