Poll Results, Ghetto Names of the Week (4/11)

Boy, you people actually voted on an issue poll, I need to start doing those more often! As a matter of fact, the new one that’s going up tonight is going to be another issue poll.

Here are the results of this weeks poll:

Do you think gays and lesbians should be able to marry?

  • Yes, they deserve the same rights as everyone else (54%, 117 Votes)
  • Yes, if straight people can, let the gays be just as miserable (22%, 48 Votes)
  • Yes, love is love (12%, 26 Votes)
  • No, same-sex marriage threatens traditional marriage (8%, 17 Votes)
  • NO, Homosexuality is an abomination (3%, 6 Votes)
  • No, I don

5 thoughts on “Poll Results, Ghetto Names of the Week (4/11)

  1. Hey-

    I definitely would have voted because I definitely think that there should be the same rights for everyone, but there was no answer that really states what I believe in. ‘Marriage’ is just the legal component of a religious tradition and the way for the government to hand out the benefits that go along with this union. Basically, the government wants couples to have children and make productive members of society. Because they figure heterosexual couples will do this, they give them tax breaks and allow them to file jointly when they get married. When homosexual couples adopt, they are given tax breaks, however, but are not able to file jointly. Same financial benefit, less glory. I feel that the government should have no say in marriage and that it is totally religious. All legal aspects of it should be considered unions for homosexual and heterosexual couples. Anything done in a place of worship should be a marriage. I know it is a bizarre stance, but I find it ridiculous that we want to have separation of church and state yet we hand out marriage certificates every day, when marriage is a religious institution that the government hawked in order to have women to have babies when many women were dying in the process. Dumb. Obviously, I think both heterosexual and homosexual couples should be able to be united.

  2. The purpose of marriage is not the emotional satisfaction of the participants. The purpose of marriage is a stable framework for rearing children. Same-sex marriage would indeed mess with that framework and would perform a social experiment on a grand scale on children who cannot give informed consent to the experiment.

    Although it’s not fashionable any more to admit it, men and women are different and it takes two to make a complete child: moms are all about safety and security, and dads are all about dealing with the big bad outside world. No lesbian can put the fear of God into a boy taking her daughter out on a date the way a man can, and no gay man can nurse a child with all the bonding that provides.

    You can see it in advice columns, you can hear it in call-in shows on the radio, you can see it on shows like Oprah on TV: moms want to protect their children and kiss their boo-boos and make it better. Dads are generally more of a “toughen up and tough it out” school of thought. It’s not that never the twain can meet; it’s just that generally they don’t. And deliberately taking half of that away from children, whether it’s through easy divorce or same-sex marriage, is not fair to the kids.

    And the kids are what matters, not your feelings.

  3. I imagine it is a legal threat. All the laws and precedent state marriage between a man and woman. Family law is a completely separate court. The effect of opening the definition of marriage reaches much farther than just marriage. Child custody, to name one.

    I don’t have a personally issue with homosexual marriage being equal to heterosexual, I would just like to see the advocates have a plan for foreseeable secondary consequences.

    You are applying the concept of homosexual marraige specifically to yourself and partner. One example, as with anything, does not encompase all possible variations and therefor the adaption of homosexual marriage needs to be done with consideration for additional ripples.

    I have yet to hear a plan and several countries have encountered these problematic areas already.

  4. Carol: is there ANY fucking evidence that supports your claims? Can you provide evidence that children of gay parents grow up at a disadvantage? Until there is conclusive proof that two women or two men cannot raise a child as well as a woman and a man, it’s all just dangerous speculation.

    Also…what about single parents? By your reasoning, they should not be allowed to raise a child on their own. Does a one-parent household provide as stable a framework as a two-parent household? Usually not, but there are plenty. Therefore, why should children be subjected to divorce? Do you agree that divorce should be made more difficult for couples that have children? Maybe that children of single parents should be placed in adoptive two-parent households?

    Who says that all couples want to have kids anyway? Marriage does not exist solely for the purpose of procreation. Some gay couples just want the same legal and social recognition as people who happen to be straight.

  5. I know I’m uber-late with this comment, but I just wanted to let Carol know she is an ignorant bigot. I would elaborate more, but your comment is full of so many invalid and hateful points, it would be a waste of time. Wouldn’t that hate be better suited if the energy was reversed to something positive, lady?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s