|
Author
|
Topic: Holy Poller
|
Carlo
Knowflake Posts: 1612
From: Second America
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted August 02, 2003 11:32 PM
 
perhaps some of you might find the time to take this poll for my friends over at datalounge: http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/surveys/record.html?record=20898 if you like  (please observe the Forum Guidelines at the end)
Love,
Carlo
IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted August 02, 2003 11:59 PM
Naw, that survey's questions weren't leading at all...  IP: Logged |
silverbells
Knowflake Posts: 1506
From: The second star to the right (which shines in the night for'eer)
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted August 03, 2003 01:19 AM
Yeah that was insanely leading.
But I have never even heard of that campaign by the president to outlaw same-sex marriages but then again, I don't watch the news really.IP: Logged |
Carlo
Knowflake Posts: 1612
From: Second America
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted August 04, 2003 04:08 PM
okay, my darling skeptics...here's an article by a guy who does not even support gay marriage... http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0804-02.htm maybe after reading it, you can take the poll from a position of being more informed on the issue, so that you aren't led unwittingly like big, dumb, doe-eyed knowflakes to the painful death of actually falling for such a leading poll I know you have it in you proxy...do you agree with me? Love,
Carlo IP: Logged |
Aphrodite
Knowflake Posts: 4992
From:
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted August 04, 2003 04:22 PM
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that." 
IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 9417
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted August 04, 2003 05:08 PM
Aphrodite
You didn't mention the 1996 Congress passed -- and "President Clinton" signed -- the "Defense of Marriage Act," which denied federal recognition of same sex marriage and bolstered the exclusionary laws now on the books in 30 states.Or that Prop 22, an initiative limiting the definition of "marriage" in California to a man and a woman, passed overwhelmingly 61% to 38%. Similar results occurred in both Hawaii and Alaska. When President Bush enunciates exactly the same sentiments as Clinton, he gets an exasperated rolleyes from you? jwhop IP: Logged |
Aphrodite
Knowflake Posts: 4992
From:
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted August 04, 2003 05:27 PM
Hello Jwhop,I was rolling eyes about the lawyer comment. Actually, come to think of it . . . I wasn't even referring to Bush! LOL. I have an ironic sense of humor. I honestly don't care who said what, just what was said.  Cheers, Aphrodite IP: Logged |
ally
Knowflake Posts: 269
From: U.S.
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted August 04, 2003 05:29 PM
If "marriage" is meant for a man and woman,then why don't we just come up with a different word? IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted August 04, 2003 05:29 PM
Don't get me wrong, Carlo, I know what's going on and I wholeheartedly disagree with (ahem, all of) the statements put out by the admin/endorsed by certain sectors (er, the recognized heirarchy) of the Catholic Church...
...but the questions were still leading as all hell The Poll's good as far as getting the point across, but it's bad science (er, as far as statistics can be called "good" science, anyhow). IP: Logged |
Aphrodite
Knowflake Posts: 4992
From:
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted August 04, 2003 05:30 PM
Hi Ally  I would like to suggest, Partners---for all couples, triples, quadruples, etc. Gender benders too!  LOL. IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted August 04, 2003 05:32 PM
B/c many states (and the Fed. Gov) don't recognize "Partners" when it comes to tax breaks, tax incentives, the joint filing of taxes, etc., nor are "Partners" given the same legal right to access/decision making power in the event of an illness, death, or imprisonment (of either the partner in question or children raised w/i that union).Property rights've gotta be a sticky issue, too. IP: Logged |
Aphrodite
Knowflake Posts: 4992
From:
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted August 04, 2003 05:34 PM
Yep, Proxieme. That is true. I know of heterosexual couples who have taken a stand against the government doctrine of marriage through social and financial resources, and have chosen to live in domestic partnership. In their stand, they take all the same financial hits other people who cannot legally "wed" do.IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted August 04, 2003 05:38 PM
Yep, there should, at the very least, be some legal recourse for those (of whatever sex/gender/number/etc. combination) who wish to claim a state of "domestic partnership" (short of archaic and unwieldy - and biased - "common law" marriages).IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
