View Poll Results: Do you support the legalization of same sex marriages?

Voters
161. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm opposed to same-sex marriage.

    94 58.39%
  • I'm in favor of civil unions for homosexuals but not marriage.

    29 18.01%
  • I believe same-sex marriage should be legal.

    27 16.77%
  • No opinion.

    11 6.83%
Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1318192021222324 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 231

Thread: Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legal?

  1. #221
    Account Inactive
    PendaMercia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 11th, 2009 @ 08:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    East Prussia, Saxon England
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Western PA
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    hired gun
    Politics
    will to power
    Religion
    Odian
    Posts
    137
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Logical they are, but many remarks seem to me irrelevant for the subject at hand, and give me the impression you like to drift away with your thoughts, loosing yourself in blabbering.
    But well, that is just a general impression from all your posts, nothing specific.
    Ironic that the above quoted statement is absolutely irrelevant to the subject at hand (the thread, the original post). I do get carried away. I can be more focused.

    Well, if the alternative is death, and thus you say the individual consciously decided against death, and thus permitting another being his will, then this sounds like nothing more than word acrobatics to me, mere semantics.
    Not acrobatics, simply fact. Fighting to the death instead of wearing the yoke of an external power is called WAR and it is very much the ancient Germanic way of refusing to cede ones freedom to an external authority.

    There is a risk-reward factor in play. You choose your battles and risk death when the odds for success are the highest.

    Only in the most exceptional of situations is one faced with the options of certain death or ceding ones freedom to an external authority.

    It is not semantics or blubbering to die instead of being a slave, it is only honorable.

    This is another thing, unrelated to "decisions", if you think you have the right to walk the streets on your feet standing tall, and another being cuts of your legs, then this right is effectively taken, with or without consent.
    Trust me, I will only be legless if I am dead. I will fight to the death, and if my legs come off in the process the end result is the same: it was my choice.

    In order to not further derail current threads, I am going to post this concept of 'decision' as its own thread.

  2. #222
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    23
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    121
    Thanked in
    90 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Trust me, I will only be legless if I am dead. I will fight to the death, and if my legs come off in the process the end result is the same: it was my choice.
    So if I use secretly a tranquilizer and when you are asleep surgically remove your legs, which you will just find out when you wake up, then this was still your choice?
    I would claim your intentions were to keep your legs, yet, you couldn't satisfy this intentions, how can this be your choice?

    Furthermore, it doesn't really matter anyways, because even if you die, by choice of defending your right, you then still didn't succeed in defending it, and won't walk the streets anymore. No rights at all then.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  3. #223
    Account Inactive
    PendaMercia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 11th, 2009 @ 08:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    East Prussia, Saxon England
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Western PA
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    hired gun
    Politics
    will to power
    Religion
    Odian
    Posts
    137
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    So if I use secretly a tranquilizer and when you are asleep surgically remove your legs, which you will just find out when you wake up, then this was still your choice?
    I would claim your intentions were to keep your legs, yet, you couldn't satisfy this intentions, how can this be your choice?
    I would make the choice to not allow you (or your intent, secretly or not) to get near me when I am sleeping. If you did it was because I failed to choose to adequately inform and defend myself.

    Furthermore, it doesn't really matter anyways, because even if you die, by choice of defending your right, you then still didn't succeed in defending it, and won't walk the streets anymore. No rights at all then.
    Nearly every situation a person finds himself in is the combined consequence of past decisions made. Of course there is the rare exception of unrelated events tumbling together to form a condition that is outside of ones control.

    Your examples are particularly individualistic, choices a person makes affects more than just that person. If ones intentions are purely self-oriented he has made the choice from the start to limit his own freedom.

    You are arguing against the idea that individual sovereignty is absolute. I am not arguing that individual sovereignty IS absolute, or that rights are absolute. Choices are made or they are lost. An individual or group only has those rights which they have the power to define and enforce. This power comes only from choice, NOT from happenstance.

    btw, its funny you are using these kinds of examples because I actually make a living doing exactly what you are saying (preventing subterfuge, engaging in subterfuge, enforcing rights etc.) To be good at it you have to understand choice and why people make the choices that they do. I'll digress instead of entering into a blabbering rant.

  4. #224
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    23
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    121
    Thanked in
    90 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    If you did it was because I failed to choose to adequately inform and defend myself.
    I can follow your line of thought, but it doesn't change the fact, that people do things, that they don't want to do, simply because they are either promised something they want, or threatened with something they don't want.
    More is not needed to rule others.
    I agree with you that it is not the ideal, and the ruler will certainly not be one of those.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  5. #225
    Account Inactive
    PendaMercia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 11th, 2009 @ 08:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    East Prussia, Saxon England
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Western PA
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    hired gun
    Politics
    will to power
    Religion
    Odian
    Posts
    137
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    I can follow your line of thought, but it doesn't change the fact, that people do things, that they don't want to do, simply because they are either promised something they want, or threatened with something they don't want.
    More is not needed to rule others.
    I agree with you that it is not the ideal, and the ruler will certainly not be one of those.
    Most people do things that they do not want to do for the reasons you mentioned. The same people do not distinguish between want and will. There is ones Will which rules ones Wants- following the dictate of Will often means doing things one does not want to do. This will is (like) a combination of decision-making faculty and decisions made. It is personal power (no deutsch cognate to Main/mægen so far as I know, only 'mögen') If one has a weak, unhealthy, malformed, or immature Will, it is dominated by the stronger Will of others. So the weak serve the will of the strong. In literal terms, the strong make the decisions that the weak have not empowered (chosen) themselves to make.

    This 'choosing' is not a purely individual thing, a 'frozen moment' unaffected by time gone by. It usually goes back generations. Obedient sons follow the Will of their Father, it is an ordeal. Poor fathers have a weak will and this is inherited by the son, obedient or not. But each has the chance, the luck, to improve the Will he wins or inherits. IMO commitment to obedience and the improvement of this Will through individual decision-making as a cultural value is the path to power for a People.

    That, to me, is the ideal. It is what I try to articulate in these posts.

  6. #226
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 21st, 2012 @ 11:02 PM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    585
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Here is the thing. By defining marriage we are able to understand what it's intent is, concerning the state. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, with the consent of the state, to facilitate the procreation of human resources, I mean children. The state imposes a tax to provide this service so they can employ someone to enter this information into a data base. I see no reason why the state should ban same sex marriage. It will bring the state revenue and more importantly, it will bring them into the light, where they will be visible. I would be firmly against any type of adoption or other instance where children are concerned.

    As far as rights go. The only inalienable rights you are born with, is to resist or challenge the in-justice that you are subject to. That should be evident. Freedom and equality are merely an abstraction.

    On the issue of homo-sexuality, it can be answered very easily by asking a question. Does such a union go against nature? If the answer is yes than it should be accepted that to engage in such behavior will evoke a future consequence. Natural law is not merciful, in this regard. It will not care whether or not man's law sanctions such. While man is the cause of in-justice, nature is justice. Her judgment is final, and always right. This is a fact beyond our control. What we can control is our own families, and promote to our children the proper true meaning of marriage, which has nothing to due with the state.

    On the issue of natural. We should turn to the reproductive organs themselves. There is no reproductive act a woman can perform on her partner other than what her natural partner, a man, can naturally do. Female homosexuality, does not go against nature in this regard. Male homosexuality on the other hand dose because the reproductive act that they perform on each other can not be performed in a natural manner by their natural partner, a woman.

    Consider this, the most destructive and fatal type of disease or infliction is cancer, because it goes on undetected by the immune system. Until the immune system can classify it, it can not fight it.

  7. #227
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 18th, 2012 @ 03:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic American
    Ancestry
    German, Austrian &Swiss
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Location
    SW Indiana USA
    Gender
    Age
    81
    Family
    Grand + Great Grandparent
    Occupation
    Retired Auto worker-QC
    Politics
    Middle of the Road Conservative
    Religion
    Asatru/ Northern Heathen
    Posts
    341
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Did anyone notice??

    It was on the News, this morning that 2 more States, here in the US, have legalized Same Sex Marriage, Iowa,(in the heart of the Midwest), and Vermont, whose 2 neighbors Massachusett and I think Rhode Island, already have legalized it.

    There are also 26 States, which have passed Laws, defining Marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and against same sex marriage.
    However, I believe, most State, maybe all of them have a reciprocal aggreement recognizing most Laws of the other States.

    It's a battle the will not soon be over, over here, I think.
    As a recognized Asatru/Heathen Gothi, i.e. Minister, I will never perform a Same-sex Marriage.

  8. #228
    Senior Member
    arthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, April 27th, 2012 @ 08:33 PM
    Ethnicity
    anglo-welsh
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Yorkshire/Gwynedd
    Gender
    Age
    62
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    History Teacher
    Politics
    monarchist
    Religion
    Asatruer/Vanatruer
    Posts
    139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    lost track

    Greetings

    I voted no. I have no problem with two blokes or two women having sex. I have no problem with lots of people having sex. It is just another sexual preference, perversion, kink call it what you will. I just feel that they should keep it to themselves. To engage in a "marriage" is as far removed from keeping it to yourselves as you can get. For the state to make it legal is basically promoting it (as they do with mixed race partnerships etc). It is our job to educate our children and provide a good example for them. To encourage children to feel that homosexuality is normal is NOT good guidance and will leave them confused. As soon as homosexual "marriage" was allowed, adoption of children by homosexuals had to follow along with women getting themselves pregnant by unnatural means and bringing the child up with their lesbian partner. How are those kids going to react when they mix with others and wonder why their mum and dad are both male or female when everyone else has one of each???
    The comment on same sex marriages not being discriminatory was very well put and valid.
    One of my pet hates is the use of the word gay. That word is supposed to mean jolly, happy and carefree and I object to it being hijacked and used in the homosexual context.

    wasshael

  9. #229
    Senior Member
    thoughtcrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 29th, 2017 @ 09:40 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germany, Denmark
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Gender
    Politics
    Reason
    Religion
    Science
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Yes, als long as we talk about secular (civil) marriage. Still, unlike heterosexual partners they should get no tax advantages over singles, because they can't have children and their relationship is therefore economicly useless.

    If we talk about church-marriage, then its not my business for I'm not a christian.

  10. #230
    Senior Member
    Phoebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Online
    Tuesday, February 28th, 2012 @ 12:25 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    224
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Of course NOT!

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Marriage Now Legal in Connecticut
    By Æmeric in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: Thursday, January 18th, 2018, 04:24 PM
  2. Obama Backs Same-Sex Marriage
    By Verðandi in forum The United States
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016, 06:36 AM
  3. Gay marriage legal in Iowa for one day
    By Æmeric in forum The United States
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 07:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •