Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

There should have been a, "It isn't my business who you feth" option.

 Fishboy wrote:
We all sin but forgiveness comes when we turn away from that sin. In cases where people have killed or committed other sins there are still consequences of sin but you can be forgiven. In cases like Homosexuality forgiveness for the sin again comes when the sinner turns away from sin which they will not do. Instead they grasp that sin tighter and want to force acceptance of that sin as a lifestyle on those that know it as sin. They don't want anyone to tell them it's wrong and feel everyone MUST accept them. Remember that we hate the sin and not the sinner (although some do take that hate too far). Yes you should be punished for murder etc but that in no way ties to marriage. It is the act of gay marriage that is the sin and proud announcement of that sin that is an affront to God.

Fair enough, I accept my comparison was perhaps poorly drawn there.

You seem prepared to answer questions, so if you have time (or anyone else does).. Which part of homosexuality is considered the sin?
Loving someone? Acting on it? Or the whole parcel?

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

TC wanted to hear what arguments people had against it. Perhaps the poll option was unnecessary, but it provided the platform for discourse.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
TC wanted to hear what arguments people had against it. Perhaps the poll option was unnecessary, but it provided the platform for discourse.

Yeah, that conversation has certainly NEVER happened here before....

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

No, but neither do you and neither does the LGBT community and neither does the government.

Exactly. Which is why you missed the point. The legal definition of marriage is not decided by one faith, hence why marriage is a civil contract between two people recognized by the state. That's also why the state has the authority to decide what marriages to recognize.

You are right, but I did not miss the point. Exactly this is why I would like to see civil and religious marriage seperated. It will keep civil marriage as it is, and make it available to all people without reasonable objections from the different religions. At the same time, it will also make religious people happy as they can now have their covenant with God without being forced to accept homosexual people into it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Yes, but it is also a religious contract.

If you chose for it to be. Understand this distinction yet? My marriage had absolutely nothing to do with God, am I not married? The framed marriage certificate and license I was granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia says I am.

I suspect that the situation in the US is the same as in the Netherlands, which means there is only one kind of valid marriage, which is civil marriage. Whether you want it or not, a marriage is a covenant with God in the eyes of the Church, and every (civil) marriage is seen as such (because there is no other kind of marriage allowed). Your marriage, whether you want it or not, carries significance in traditional Christian theology as one of the sacraments.
Again, I propose a seperation of these two concepts of marriage.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wow, what a great way to have arguments. Lets call people with different opinions bigots! Yay!
I am dissapointed that some people here on Dakka can't speak to other people with different opinions without resorting to childish namecalling.

When someone's exact words are this:

I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.

Well, that's pretty much the exact definition of being a bigot. Because the LGBT community is the same as us; they get up in the morning, they go to work, they spend time with their families, they enjoy their hobbies. At the end of the day, they want to be treated the same because they're fething people and they deserve it. They don't want to be concerned with losing their job or being denied access to housing, all because of their choice in partner.

Here's an radical idea, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot, don't say bigoted things.

Gay people are not the same as straight people, otherwise there would not have been a distinction between gay and straight in the first place, and gay people would not have needed to fight for their rights. They are still people, just like you and me, but just as there are differences between you and me, there are differences betweem them and us. Not all people are the same.
I think all people deserve equal rights, but not acknowledging the differences between different groups of people is refusing to acknowledge reality.
I don't think Fishboy is a bigot for saying he is tired of the demands made by the LGBT community (altough I am curious to the reason why he is tired of this, if it does not personally affect him).
But even if he were a bigot, it is still wrong to start calling him out as such, because that shuts down any meaningful discussion and can only lead to conflict.

Gay Marriage is totally okay as long as tax laws go in accordance with it. Tax advantages for gay couples compared to normal couples should not exist, instead, tax laws regarding marriage should always take children into account, i.e. having children as a married couple grants tax advantages instead of just being married.

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.

And before you claim innocence, your vocal attack against a "historically liberal members website" and the derision in your text-voice (plus all your old posts on the subject) prove your viewpoint well enough.

Anti-discrimination is what the Christian faith is SUPPOSED to be based on.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Gay Marriage is totally okay as long as tax laws go in accordance with it. Tax advantages for gay couples compared to normal couples should not exist, instead, tax laws regarding marriage should always take children into account, i.e. having children as a married couple grants tax advantages instead of just being married.

I'd argue there should be no tax benefits for married couples at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
[

Anti-discrimination is what the Christian faith is SUPPOSED to be based on.

You and I must have read different posts.

Is Dakka pretty socially liberal? Yes.

Are liberals more likely to agree with gay marriage? Yes.

Not sure what your beef is with that particular comment....

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd argue there should be no tax benefits for married couples at all.

I'd agree. I'd prefer no benefits or penalties based on marriage status.

So far as the original question, I think that any consenting adult should be able to enter into a marriage with any other consenting adult.

Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Gay Marriage is totally okay as long as tax laws go in accordance with it. Tax advantages for gay couples compared to normal couples should not exist, instead, tax laws regarding marriage should always take children into account, i.e. having children as a married couple grants tax advantages instead of just being married.

I'd argue there should be no tax benefits for married couples at all.

That's my point. Grant tax advantages for children in a married or similar relationship. Tax benefits for regular couples makes sense because you increase the chance of enlarging the gene pool. Problem is that it isn't a reliable method as even married couples sometimes don't have children and are as prone to divorce / breakup as any other couple. If anything, the major problem is that the part of the society you want to procreate (i.e.: upper levels) doesn't, or, rather, to a very small degree compared to lower classes. 'tis another problem, tho.

 Frazzled wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.

But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?

Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.

They do?

Yes, they do. Here is an example from Catholicism.

Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.

Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.

Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.

I'd argue there should be no tax benefits for married couples at all.

Here. Stand on the X. NO NO don't look up. Everything is fine. (cuts rope...)

 Verviedi wrote:
Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.

You should expand your horizons. I could reference a few where I'm considered a "libtard yankee" and been called a communist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.

But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?

Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.

They do?

Yes, they do. Here is an example from Catholicism.

Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.

Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.

Why do assume someone is trolling because he disagrees with you? ANd your article is what we call poopy.

Please cite a central Tenet that has changed in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Shiia or Sunni faiths?

 Sigvatr wrote:


That's my point. Grant tax advantages for children in a married or similar relationship. Tax benefits for regular couples makes sense because you increase the chance of enlarging the gene pool. Problem is that it isn't a reliable method as even married couples sometimes don't have children and are as prone to divorce / breakup as any other couple. If anything, the major problem is that the part of the society you want to procreate (i.e.: upper levels) doesn't, or, rather, to a very small degree compared to lower classes. 'tis another problem, tho.

Ehhh..

Despite the research that supports two parent homes, I think it's a specious argument to make if you're claiming people should only get dependent (child) tax privileges in a relationship...

And while I agree with your Idocracy inspired last sentence anecdotally, I think there's recent research that doesn't bear that quite out. Lemme see if I can find it.

 Verviedi wrote:
Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.

This.

I don't trust the mental stability of Freerepublic, Frazz.

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.

Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.

Had it been his first post on the matter, I'd have agreed with you and in fact said nothing. But he's made his voice on the matter loud and clear in the past.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.

Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.

Had it been his first post on the matter, I'd have agreed with you and in fact said nothing. But he's made his voice on the matter loud and clear in the past.

As has this topic been addressed ad nauseam. That's why I yellow triangled it from the outset

 Verviedi wrote:
I don't trust the mental stability of Freerepublic, Frazz.

Don't know what that. Too scared to fiind out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.

Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.

Had it been his first post on the matter, I'd have agreed with you and in fact said nothing. But he's made his voice on the matter loud and clear in the past.

And? It makes it no less valid. Thread is a polling thread. All views are acceptable, unless of course they disagree with mine in which case as our hero and lifecoach Caesar once said: "I pardon you."

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.

This.

wut?

Where do ya'll spend your non-Dakka time?

As a rabid, stinky righty (mostly)... I'm cool with Gay marriage.

*shrugs*

 Frazzled wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
I don't trust the mental stability of Freerepublic, Frazz.

Don't know what that. Too scared to fiind out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.

Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.

Had it been his first post on the matter, I'd have agreed with you and in fact said nothing. But he's made his voice on the matter loud and clear in the past.

And? It makes it no less valid. Thread is a polling thread. All views are acceptable, unless of course they disagree with mine in which case as our hero and lifecoach Caesar once said: "I pardon you."

Warning. Severe chance of brain cell death.


Image removed for swearing. Please make sure your images don't have profanity in them, motyak

Sorry can't open pics here. Frazzled sad.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry can't open pics here. Frazzled sad.

Probably a good thing.

Now, imagine this.

A website, with hundreds of thousands of users. Almost every one of them is a racist, sexist, homophobic social conservative.

And they are all backed up by dozens of other users, creating massive spirals of hate and circlejerking.

That is Freerepublic.

 Frazzled wrote:
[


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.

But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?

Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.

They do?

Yes, they do. Here is an example from Catholicism.

Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.

Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.

Why do assume someone is trolling because he disagrees with you? ANd your article is what we call poopy.

Please cite a central Tenet that has changed in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Shiia or Sunni faiths?

So you are moving the goal post. You inquired about religions changing. I gave examples. Religions change with society. To state otherwise is to willfully deny, well facts.

And why is that page I linked to "poopy"? It is a post written by a Catholic Deacon of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Is that a suspect source?

 Verviedi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry can't open pics here. Frazzled sad.

Probably a good thing.

Now, imagine this.

A website, with hundreds of thousands of users. Almost every one of them is a racist, sexist, homophobic social conservative.

And they are all backed up by dozens of other users, creating massive spirals of hate and circlejerking.

That is Freerepublic.

You might want to use a better example. I'm not entirely sure the one you posted supports anything you're saying.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.

This.

Really? I mean, I haven't been here long, but just from everything I've seen in this poll, and a few other political topics I've read here, it seems mostly liberal. I dunno, maybe because I went to college in Alabama the concentration seems lighter, but I would never dream of calling this forum conservative.

And religion changes in the same way evolution works. Let's use society as the environment and religion as the organism. In Christianity, it used to be absolutely common that women could not be practicing leaders of the church. However, as society became more accepting of women, pressure was put on churches that did not allow women to teach. Churches that did not change to fit the environment started dying out (and still are; this is still a problem), while those that changed with society stayed active. The same goes for other women's rights, slavery, and it will start happening with gay rights. The reason the number of churches is on the decline right now is because society, namely the younger generations, are more accepting of gay marriage and other social issues. However, the church is slow to adopt this. But as more churches start to embrace homosexuality, numbers may begin to rise again.

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

ironically im a Moderate conservative. And I fully support gay rights and gay marriage. Im a supporter of gun rights, I served in the Military and don't care about the environment as much as Al gore, does that make me a liberal in your book?

So as a Christian I do not support Gay marriage. That said I will NEVER hate on someone for being homosexual.

I will just stay out of it. I know that I don't have enough personal knowledge of the bible to make a convincing argument against Homosexualism. But I'm not going to hate on you or treat you radically different from someone who isn't gay.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?

ironically im a Moderate conservative. And I fully support gay rights and gay marriage. Im a supporter of gun rights, I served in the Military and don't care about the environment as much as Al gore, does that make me a liberal in your book?

I think this pole was destined to be majority yay because we are largely a younger generation. Sure, I'll bet this is an older forum than most (as far as member age), but gay marriage is highly accepted by the younger generation.

Also, I can't believe I just realized it but this thread title is misspelled.

 Verviedi wrote:
Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.

Dakka is very left, actually, given the feedback of users on most political topics. As others said, it's mostlly an age thing. I'm in my mid-and-closer-to-end-than-I-would-like-to-thirties and deeply conservative, but a lot of people here are young and thus more open to stuff like homosexual marriage. Moderation also plays a part into it.