Poll to gauge GS-US forum members

[Spectrism]

It seems to me that this forum as had an evolving personality.

I just want to get a snapshot of where we are on some issues and this is the first.

[sirgonzo420]

It seems to me that this forum as had an evolving personality.

I just want to get a snapshot of where we are on some issues and this is the first.


Define "sodomy".

;D


(I kid, I kid)

Where is the option for people who personally find homosexuality bizarre and not conducive to a healthy family environment, but who believe that the State should have no place in any marriage?

One thing is for certain - no preacher should be forced to marry anybody, just like nobody else should be forced to do things against their will.

[Spectrism]

It seems to me that this forum as had an evolving personality.

I just want to get a snapshot of where we are on some issues and this is the first.


Define "sodomy".

;D


(I kid, I kid)

Where is the option for people who personally find homosexuality bizarre and not conducive to a healthy family environment, but who believe that the State should have no place in any marriage?

One thing is for certain - no preacher should be forced to marry anybody, just like nobody else should be forced to do things against their will.



Want pics too?

There is a specific reason for having the limited choices. I will explain later... but not now. Sorry that there may be positions that don't fit exactly.... so the next nearest should be chosen. Thanks.

[horseshoe3]

Where is the option for people who personally find homosexuality bizarre and not conducive to a healthy family environment, but who believe that the State should have no place in any marriage?


I would vote for that if it was an option.

[Liquid]

Personally, I think homosexuality is not a choice...but the way a person is born. I am not one to judge that, that's
God's duty.

I say live and let live. I am not one to judge on this..nor, do I think other's should.

Let folks live the way they were intended. My honest opinion.

[the riot act]

Do not judge, lest you be judged.

Ain't my problem, I don't care.

[StackerKen]

Where is the option for people who personally find homosexuality bizarre and not conducive to a healthy family environment, but who believe that the State should have no place in any marriage?


I would vote for that if it was an option.


Me too.

[Shorty Harris]

Where is the option for people who personally find homosexuality bizarre and not conducive to a healthy family environment, but who believe that the State should have no place in any marriage?


I would vote for that if it was an option.


Me Too, Says I

[joe_momma]

Don't really care one way or the other (disclaimer - one of my bosses is a lesbian - went to her wedding this summer).

At issue (for me) is the on-going drive to force everyone to endorse and validate their choice - IMHO - if it was only about rights, they'd have stopped when civil unions were introduced.

I think that legalizing gay marriage will open up a can of worms - the bigamy gambit (the question of 'Why is marriage limited to just two people?") will wreak havoc on the government aid programs as pluralistic marriages result in a "poverty level" rating for patriarchs who have 4 wives who are not in the workforce.

(For example, if the patriarch makes $50k a year but has 8 kids [2 per wife] they're eligible for taxpayer aid.)

[I am me, I am free]

To me it's like the abortion issue - while I'm strongly opposed to abortion, I don't think the state should be in the morality business as that is properly society's role.

Of course the death cult has perverted society, so what does that leave us with?

[keehah]

I'd like a live and let live (or die, depending on how one breeds) but its use as a diversionary distracting issue for elite distraction concerns me option.

[DMac]

I don't agree with any of your poll options.

"it does not concern me so live and let live."

Live and let live, yes. The "it does not concern me" part is a logical fallacy as it may concern me yet does not affect my "live and let live" philosophy.

[mamboni]

I've never done well on multiple choice tests. I call them "idiot tests." Let me think on it some more - maybe I can pick from your limited choices. :oo-->

[I am me, I am free]

In the Bible, the judgments of God are more severe on those societies that enshrine sexual deviancy, and most severe on those that permit homosexuals to define their laws. Sodom, Gomorrah, Canaan, Egypt, Babylon, Israel and even Judah were all destroyed by God for permitting these evil practices. Rome fell because of sexual deviancy, as did Persia, Athens and Sparta.

http://www.moneyteachers.org/Gay.Judge.html

[sirgonzo420]

In the Bible, the judgments of God are more severe on those societies that enshrine sexual deviancy, and most severe on those that permit homosexuals to define their laws. Sodom, Gomorrah, Canaan, Egypt, Babylon, Israel and even Judah were all destroyed by God for permitting these evil practices. Rome fell because of sexual deviancy, as did Persia, Athens and Sparta.

http://www.moneyteachers.org/Gay.Judge.html


I'm not sure those nations fell because of sexual deviancy, per se...

I think "sexual deviancy" may be more of a symptom than the disease itself.

[k-os]

I say live and let live.

I'm agreeing with Liquid that it's not a choice for most gay people. OK, there could be some attention whores who are gay by choice, and there could be some reason to be gay for convenience (drug habit meets sugar daddy kind of thing). Those types of instances are surely rare, but possible nonetheless.

My opinion regarding gay people in general is that whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business only. I don't want anyone else regulating my bedroom activities, or deciding which consenting adults are allowed to participate.

My opinion about marriage in general is that it should not have anything to do with government. It's a personal commitment to someone, not a contract with the state. A person should be able to name whomever they want (yes, even grandchildren, or nieces, or neighbors) as the primary beneficiary of their pension, health care, or who can visit them in the hospital.

[DMac]

In the Bible, the judgments of God are more severe on those societies that enshrine sexual deviancy, and most severe on those that permit homosexuals to define their laws. Sodom, Gomorrah, Canaan, Egypt, Babylon, Israel and even Judah were all destroyed by God for permitting these evil practices. Rome fell because of sexual deviancy, as did Persia, Athens and Sparta.

http://www.moneyteachers.org/Gay.Judge.html


I'm not sure those nations fell because of sexual deviancy, per se...

I think "sexual deviancy" may be more of a symptom than the disease itself.


Agreed. The sexual deviancy of the past nations destroyed by God were engaging in those acts (mostly) as a part of their worship of Baal/Ashtoreth.

[Phoenix]

To me it's like the abortion issue - while I'm strongly opposed to abortion, I don't think the state should be in the morality business as that is properly society's role...Of course the death cult has perverted society, so what does that leave us with?


Abortion is the "death cult's" number one ritual.

[Phoenix]

I say live and let live.


This is why we continue to lose. We won't even acknowledge that we are under attack, that they are out to destroy what is normal and out to destroy those things which have allowed our ancestors to get us to this point in history.

Homosexual "rights" are not about freedom; they're about attacking, and destroying the foundation of a healthy society.




I'm agreeing with Liquid that it's not a choice for most gay people. OK, there could be some attention whores who are gay by choice, and there could be some reason to be gay for convenience (drug habit meets sugar daddy kind of thing). Those types of instances are surely rare, but possible nonetheless.


I refuse to use their perversion of the term "gay," which means "happy."

There are two options about homosexuality:

1) they are "born" that way, which means they are born defective.
2) they become defective in life, which is, like alcoholism, a choice nonetheless.

In either case, they are defective. Homosexuals are not "normal," they are not the equivalent or "equal" of a normal man or woman.




My opinion regarding gay people in general is that whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business only. I don't want anyone else regulating my bedroom activities, or deciding which consenting adults are allowed to participate.


Homosexuality is a "lifestyle," not something that just stays in the bedroom. The deviancy affects every aspect of their lives.




My opinion about marriage in general is that it should not have anything to do with government. It's a personal commitment to someone, not a contract with the state.


Agreed. My wife & I do not have a "marriage license," since our "license" comes from God.

However, you'll notice the homosexual movement is not aiming to abolish state-sanctioned marriages, but rather to use state-sanctioned marriages to destroy the ancient institution itself. Legal equivalency, "registered domestic partnerships," which California already has, is not enough for them. They insist on the redefinition of marriage to accommodate their perversion.




A person should be able to name whomever they want (yes, even grandchildren, or nieces, or neighbors) as the primary beneficiary of their pension, health care, or who can visit them in the hospital.


Indeed.

[oldmansmith]

I agree with K-os with the exception that I think men are either strongly gay or straight, while women are much more plastic and influenced by their environment. We have a good friend who has been serially monogamous with alternating men and women for many years. Many "lesbians" in the nearby colleges graduate, get married, and have children (They even have a name for them at Smith College, "SLUGS": Smith Lesbians Until Graduation).

I know of zero men who have done this.

[k-os]

I agree with K-os with the exception that I think men are either strongly gay or straight, while women are much more plastic and influenced by their environment. We have a good friend who has been serially monogamous with alternating men and women for many years. Many "lesbians" in the nearby colleges graduate, get married, and have children (They even have a name for them at Smith College, "SLUGS": Smith Lesbians Until Graduation).

I know of zero men who have done this.


I know one man who has, but he had an expensive drug habit and a generous "friend".

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

I say live and let live but cannot deny the evidence that there is a homosexual agenda at play here.

[1970 silver art]

I voted live and let live. It does not affect me one way or the other.

[Wandering Wastrel]

I really don't care what other people do with their genitals, or who they do it with.

My problem isn't with gays, it's with marriage.

The way marriage is currently situated in the U.S., marriage is NOT a contract between two parties -- it's between three parties. Spouse A, Spouse B, and the people of the state the marriage takes place in. The people of each state have delegated responsibility for doing the paperwork associated with this contract to their representatives, who delegated it further to county clerks and the like, but the actual party is the people.

And if the people of, say, California have gone to the polls and stated which types of contract they don't want to be a party to, how can judges force them to be a party to it? This is why, while I don't particularly care about gays being gay, I abhor the tactics their groups have used to advance their agenda. I don't even think they really want the monetary benefits that go with marriage; I think they want to force "society" to accept them.

Anyway, the social benefits that were given to married couples were done at a time when children were almost always born within marriage. The point of subsidizing marriage was to promote people having more children, who would carry the existence of the society into the future. But these days, when children are commonly born outside marriage, and men are forced to pay not only for the children they sire, but any child where a woman claims the man sired them (even if DNA tests prove otherwise), I see no reason why marriages should continue to be given any advantage from society.

But that kind of complicated point of view doesn't fit nicely into a poll option, does it? ;D

[MNeagle]

Pity you can't see any results unless you vote. So guests & non-voters see nothing.

[StackerKen]

Question: When it comes to the legality of homosexual "marriages", I believe:

that homo is the same as hetero and should be recognized as such. 2 (6.3%)
it does not concern me so live and let live. 18 (56.3%)
it is wrong and should not be legalized. 10 (31.3%)
sodomy laws need to be reinstated and enforced. 2 (6.3%)
Total Voters: 32

[BabushkaLady]

Since you asked . . . .

I don't think "marriage" for gays is necessary for what "they" say they're trying to accomplish. Most "civil union" states give them recognition and a piece of paper. This is another way to stomp out any religious beliefs and take us towards more diversity.

Overall I don't care if they have Civil Unions. I know plenty of gay couples and they fight/argue/love just like hetros. Not really my concern.

I don't buy into the Marriage License deal. I've always said you should charge the approximate divorce fee for the initial License, then only charge the approximate Marriage License fee for divorce. Lot less marriage, lot less divorce!

I haven't voted yet, it seemed to cut and dry for my opinion.

[Mouse]

google this:

[Shami-Amourae]

I CAN'T RESIST!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w