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 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 51011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 231

Thread: Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legal?

  1. #141
    Senior Member
    Viking King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, May 17th, 2009 @ 02:50 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norse-Irish
    Ancestry
    Norway, Ireland, Scotland, France
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid + Bruenn
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Taoist
    Posts
    48
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Personally, I would go even further to fight homosexuality, but this is another topic (which I also referenced).
    You can't fight people being blond, freckled or curly haired? Can you.

    (By the way I like your new avatar, better than the Nazi SS Officer)

  2. #142
    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 
    117
    Thanked in
    86 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking King View Post
    You can't fight people being blond, freckled or curly haired? Can you.
    As it seems, I changed the verb too late in my post, however, the trick is to fight the people themselves, not their traits
    "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. #143
    Senior Member
    Viking King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, May 17th, 2009 @ 02:50 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norse-Irish
    Ancestry
    Norway, Ireland, Scotland, France
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid + Bruenn
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Taoist
    Posts
    48
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the 1974 (in this country at least). What groundbreaking medical discovery or event led to it no longer being classified as such, and reclassified as completely normal behavior?

    A vote of the board of directors of the American Psychiatric Association. That's right, a vote. Of privately-appointed "experts" representing a board of business interests in a particular field.
    In all honesty I'd rather the vote be cast by highly regarded and educated medical "experts" deciding issues like that, than a group of Southern bible thumping nutjobs. (Mind you I have nothing against Southeners; I've got a few friends from the South in fact. It just seems that those with extreme right wing views tend to congregate in the there. Likewise the extreme left tend to congregate in cities and college campuses/universities. Both I tend to avoid).

    That's it. That should be kept in mind when considering issues like these. Do you agree that laws (which are the inevitable result of such events) should be based upon the votes of a few unelected professionals who aren't in any way beholden to the public? That's the real question. Now we have a new term, "homophobic," which has been created as a new mental condition!
    As far as I'm aware, homophobia isn't currently in DSM-IV (the book psychiatrists use to diagnose psychiatric conditions). God hope the state of psychiatry when it is.

    As it seems, I changed the verb too late in my post, however, the trick is to fight the people themselves, not their traits
    But aren't you fighting them either way? It's like saying "I don't like the fact you're blond, I'm not going to fight your blond genes I'm going to fight you!".

  4. #144
    Senior Member
    Ocelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, July 9th, 2010 @ 02:49 PM
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Ancestry
    Dutch, German, Italian
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    State
    Friesland Friesland
    Location
    Leeuwarden
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Fascism
    Posts
    60
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Renwein View Post
    Homosexuality is defined by same-sex sex, so it's true for a bull whther it thinks of it or not, anyway, humans are guided by instinct jsut as strong, and often do many things which aren't 'as it should be' or are 'wrong' from somebodys subjective point of view, even when they recognise it ('I see the good, and approve it, but follow the bad' - Ovid). Its just that homosexuality gets some people's (especially men's) knickers in a twist, so we get these inflamed discussions. The best part (ie, the reason we became great) of euro. culture came from greece/rome (rather than christianity), where homosexuality was practiced, and it didn't harm the survival of those people (they eventually fell for different reasons). (i'm not saying that homosexuality is why they were great, just that it doesn't follow that homosexuality destroys a people...)
    I'm not saying it destroys people, I say that I oppose same sex marriage, and that I condemn acts of homosexuality. And although it's obvious that many aspects of the Roman and Greek cultures can be considered as greatness today (ie. science and warfare techniques), it doesn't mean we have to accept homosexuality as they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renwein View Post
    as for homosexuality being 'wrong' ie. unnatural, if it was truely unnatural it wouldn't occur at all. there is no 'how it should be' in nature, only how it is, so bull homosexuality, or human homosexuality, is not 'a wrong depiction of how it should be', it is just how it is, what makes it right or wrong what you view as useful for your goals, or in tune with your emotion (which amounts to the same thing). Usually nationalists say homo. is bad from this point since they don't breed, but they can (and have) contributed in other ways, eg fighting in war so that the nation can survive... (eg in greece, as mentioned, it was viewed by some as useful for the goal of the nations survival, by strenthening men's bonds, and making men better soldiers etc...)
    As I said before, 'unnatural' maybe is a bad choice of words, and that abnormal is perhaps a better word to describe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renwein View Post
    this is off topic, but iId just like to disagree I think Nazi Germany was a part of Fascism, even more, I think was most true to (and even improved upon) original Fascist ideals, which is why it was also had the most admirable achivements IMO. Italians watered down/compromised on their ideals much more, if italian fascism was the 'true' fascism then there were no other fascisms, and which Italian fasicsm was the 'true' one? answer is all of them had the traits of fascism, so did the german kind, obviosuly there were differances, but the same is true between strands of italian fascism too... as for Franco he was only using the name to jump on a then-popular bandwaggon, he was a conservative dictator, but not Fascist...
    Nazi-Germany was imo nowhere near the original (Italian) fascist ideals, it saw the destruction of European Jews as one of its main objectives, and genocide does not belong in any doctrine of fascism.

  5. #145
    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 
    117
    Thanked in
    86 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking King View Post
    But aren't you fighting them either way? It's like saying "I don't like the fact you're blond, I'm not going to fight your blond genes I'm going to fight you!".
    I am not sure what you want to tell me here.
    "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)

  6. #146
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 17th, 2021 @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,253
    Thanked in
    739 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rozenstorm View Post
    What are you talking about? Inability is capacity?
    Sorry, I made a typo with all that fast writing. I meant "incapacity".

    Are you a marxist?
    NS. I thought it was obvious from my profile.

    Of course it's not a choice, do you think homos choose to be homo?
    No. As I said, they don't. I was quite clear about that. You feel sexual attraction, you don't decide whether you'll be attracted to males or females.

    Damn, then they really must be sick.
    If not having a choice about who you are attracted to qualifies as a mental illness, then heterosexuals are mentally ill too. Sexual orientation is not an illness.

    They can't have children if they act accordingly to their mental disorder.
    It looks like you are deliberatly pretending not to understand. Inability is not a matter of choice. Not having children despite being biologically able to is a matter of choice. So which is it again that qualifies someone as mentally ill? Inability or making a wrong choice? Make up your mind please.

    Point. And bisexuals can only have children when they act accordingly to a normal non-deviant sexual relationship. You are thinking in a circle and want to drag me in it. It won't work.
    You are going in circles, you failed to demonstrate your premise, and yet you keep repeating it as though I am suppose to accept it as valid. Prove its validity first. You haven't. You say homosexuals are mentally ill because they can't have children, and that homosexuals can't have children because they are mentally ill. If that's not a circle, then I don't know what is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. Lyfing View Post
    Oh, I think you see it you just won't admit it.
    No. All I see is your personal bias against homosexuality. You make up arguments as you go along, to suit your bias, you start from a conclusion instead of trying to reach a conclusion by analyzing the facts.

    I said nothing about choice until you brought up rapists and murders, and I said to rape and murder is a choice. Not a cycle of life.
    Yes it's a cycle of life, some animals get killed and raped by other animals. Humans get killed by humans too because we are animals, we are just civilized animals so we punish killing while the rest of the animals don't.

    I highlighted the strange question there..? To answer that, yes most things are allowed when they are legal.
    That wasn't the question. The question was, is legal = good/beneficial?

    Yes, interracial marriage is legal, but it shouldn't be.
    We are getting somewhere finally. Legal status doesn't speak of the value of something. Interracial marriage is legal, but it shouldn't be. The death penalty is illegal (in Europe), but it shouldn't be. Legal status is just what a state decides should be allowed and what not, it is relative. Now let's get back to your argument against homosexual marriage. You said homosexuals can already lead relationships, exchange rings, vows, etc. and be happy without marriage, thus, homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. I said heterosexuals can do all this and be happy without marriage too, so if the basis for disallowing something legally is that it can be done anyway without legal status, then heterosexual marriage should be illegal too.

  7. #147
    Senior Member
    Mrs. Lyfing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 21st, 2010 @ 10:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    Old Stock American
    Subrace
    Bruenn
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Alabama Alabama
    Location
    Where the mountains are
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    I Love Him!
    Occupation
    Women-ness.
    Politics
    Liberal/Traditional
    Religion
    Spiritual
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    16 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    No. All I see is your personal bias against homosexuality. You make up arguments as you go along, to suit your bias, you start from a conclusion instead of trying to reach a conclusion by analyzing the facts.
    We all make up arguments as we go along. I really haven't seen any facts from you either, only your bias opinion as well. And, thats the way it should be here.


    Yes it's a cycle of life, some animals get killed and raped by other animals. Humans get killed by humans too because we are animals, we are just civilized animals so we punish killing while the rest of the animals don't.
    But, to me it a choice for a human being to kill, rape, etc...in an animal it is a bit different, it is their instinct 100 percent.


    That wasn't the question. The question was, is legal = good/beneficial?
    Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. And, thats a fact.

    We are getting somewhere finally. Legal status doesn't speak of the value of something. Interracial marriage is legal, but it shouldn't be. The death penalty is illegal (in Europe), but it shouldn't be. Legal status is just what a state decides should be allowed and what not, it is relative. Now let's get back to your argument against homosexual marriage. You said homosexuals can already lead relationships, exchange rings, vows, etc. and be happy without marriage, thus, homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. I said heterosexuals can do all this and be happy without marriage too, so if the basis for disallowing something legally is that it can be done anyway without legal status, then heterosexual marriage should be illegal too.
    Good try, but I find that to be a silly comparison. Marriage between man and women is whats traditional, it is what has been for many many moons. It is what created you and me and our children. It is the human cycle of life. Gays or lesbians are not what creates the cycle of life. Yes, they are entitled to their own happiness but it doesn't mean I want to give the " go ahead " as if their choices are right.

    Its a " in the long run " kinda thing... In the long run interracial marriages do not look good, they do not produce good and they hurt our race. In the long run it is very harmful to society, as you would agree. And, to me so is same sex marriage.
    "We've become a nation of strangers. There seems to be very little in common to bond us to our fellow Americans outside of our immediate families,some don't even have that to fall back on."

  8. #148
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 17th, 2021 @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,253
    Thanked in
    739 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. Lyfing View Post
    We all make up arguments as we go along. I really haven't seen any facts from you either, only your bias opinion as well. And, thats the way it should be here.
    Nah, the difference between us is that you want to make your personal preference everyone else's rule, while I don't. I'm hetero, I wouldn't like marrying another woman, but I recognize the right of homosexuals to marry if they want.

    But, to me it a choice for a human being to kill, rape, etc...in an animal it is a bit different, it is their instinct 100 percent.
    That's irrelevant to whether it's part of the life cycle or not.

    Good try, but I find that to be a silly comparison. Marriage between man and women is whats traditional, it is what has been for many many moons.
    I thought that argument has already been dealt with. In a few decades interracial marriage will become traditional and for many many moons. Traditional =/= right.

    It is what created you and me and our children. Here we go again with the cycle of life. It is the human cycle of life. Gays or lesbians are not what creates the cycle of life.
    Wrong. Children are created through intercourse and impregnation, not through marriage. Some are born out of wedlock and raised by single parents. Marriage is an institution, it's a social and/or religious construct, the officialization of a relationship. Animals don't get married like humans do yet they still perpetuate.

    Yes, they are entitled to their own happiness but it doesn't mean I want to give the " go ahead " as if their choices are right.
    Some homosexuals can only get happiness if they are allowed to legally marry, just like some heterosexuals prefer to officialize their relationship. Poof, you just took away their happiness.

    Its a " in the long run " kinda thing... In the long run interracial marriages do not look good, they do not produce good and they hurt our race. In the long run it is very harmful to society, as you would agree. And, to me so is same sex marriage.
    The key words here being "to you". You're trying to impose your sexual and marriage preference on everyone else. Here and in the polygamy thread.

  9. #149
    Senior Member
    Mrs. Lyfing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 21st, 2010 @ 10:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    Old Stock American
    Subrace
    Bruenn
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Alabama Alabama
    Location
    Where the mountains are
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    I Love Him!
    Occupation
    Women-ness.
    Politics
    Liberal/Traditional
    Religion
    Spiritual
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    16 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    Nah, the difference between us is that you want to make your personal preference everyone else's rule, while I don't. I'm hetero, I wouldn't like marrying another woman, but I recognize the right of homosexuals to marry if they want.
    No, you are mistaken. I don't want to make everyones personal preference, I am only suggesting my opinions. And to me it seems you are trying to make everyones preference as well. Your opinion may be different than mine but we are doing the same thing.


    I thought that argument has already been dealt with. In a few decades interracial marriage will become traditional and for many many moons. Traditional =/= right.
    Not in my eyes. Not in many people eyes will it ever be traditional.


    Wrong. Children are created through intercourse and impregnation, not through marriage. Some are born out of wedlock and raised by single parents. Marriage is an institution, it's a social and/or religious construct, the officialization of a relationship. Animals don't get married like humans do yet they still perpetuate.
    True it is through intercourse but you get what I meant.

    Some homosexuals can only get happiness if they are allowed to legally marry, just like some heterosexuals prefer to officialize their relationship. Poof, you just took away their happiness.

    Please.


    The key words here being "to you". You're trying to impose your sexual and marriage preference on everyone else. Here and in the polygamy thread.
    Well, ain't that what I here for..? You sound like an old Althing member with quotes like that. Again, I am not knocking you or anyone else's door down forcing anything on you. I am giving my opinion, just as you. So, take that statement somewhere else.
    "We've become a nation of strangers. There seems to be very little in common to bond us to our fellow Americans outside of our immediate families,some don't even have that to fall back on."

  10. #150
    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 
    117
    Thanked in
    86 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    Marriage is an institution, it's a social and/or religious construct, the officialization of a relationship.
    The most important part of the recognition by the state is the support for this relationship, why should the state support gay relationships?
    "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)

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
  •