Mwa ha ha!

Jan. 4th, 2004 06:21 pm
piasharn: (Beth Oblong)
[personal profile] piasharn
A while ago, I was pointed towards a poll being conducted by the American Family Association on opinions concerning homosexual marriages. They plan on submitting the results to the government to show what people think about the issue. Of course, they weren't exactly advertising the poll to a broad base of people, just the people who read their website. As one might expect from an organization like this, the results were highly opposed to any form of same-sex marriage or even civil union.

A (not so) quick side bar: why do people get so hung up over the word 'marriage'? I know a lot of people who are in favour of civil unions that give homosexual couples all the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts... as long as they don't call it a 'marriage' that is. What is the big deal? I even had someone tell me that the only reason homosexuals want to call their relationships marriages is because they want to try to convince the straight population that their partnerships are equal to traditional ones. What a bunch of shit...

If I ever find the right girl and settle down, I will refer to her as my wife, and tell people that we are married. It has nothing to do with what my neighbors think. I will use those terms because I feel that they fully express what our relationship is and what she means to me. Nothing more. If the rest of the world wants to call us 'domestic partners' or our relationship a 'civil union' then I don't give a fuck.

Anyway...

Some people on various LJ groups found the poll and started to pass it around. The result? In the beginning, the opposition was at about 90%, with those in favour and those for 'civil unions' only split. Now check it out.

I wonder if they're still going to pass along the results now that they don't show the statistics that they wanted it to? ^^

Date: 2004-01-04 07:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sudaki.livejournal.com
My roommate and I were actually talking about this once... and she said "[If they're going to have the same benefits/blah legally] what's the deal with the word? They should invent a word like 'garriage' just to piss stupid people off"

... "Will you garry me?" ^^;;;;;;

Date: 2004-01-04 09:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] djmercurious.livejournal.com
Hmph. I think that's ridiculous. I think that its perfectly fine if homosexuals choose to use the word marriage to describe their relationship. I mean, there really is only one word to describe love, and that's well...love. But, I wouldn't be surprised if there are homophobes out there who think that homosexuals can't actually be 'in love'.

It'd be interesting to see whether or not they actually use the results now, or if they skew them in such a way that they are in the AFA's favor.

Date: 2004-01-04 10:49 pm (UTC)
ext_177486: (cook)
From: [identity profile] travellyr.livejournal.com
"And to each his (her) own, may it bring him (her) joy, just so long as he (she) doesn't piss me off. Since that's quite difficult to do, barring the stupidity of human bigotry and idiocy, we should be fine."

Now, then, AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

There are no emoticons powerful enough to adequately convey my amusement. I AM HIGHLY AMUSED, and I will LAUGH about this for days to come.
HA! HA HA HA!

But I'm much too classy to say "backfire," yes. ^__^

Consider me a random poster.

Date: 2004-01-08 06:54 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I mosseyed on over to your journal after reading a few of your comments elsewhere.

I wanted to say that I appreciate your consideration for the vantage of thouse against homosexuality on the basis of thier religious convictions however much you disagree with them.

And I noticed your asking about the word marriage, so I'll provide you with an excerpt (albit a long one) from a discusion I have been carring on with a friend of mine:

"In further regards to homosexual marriage…the word marriage really shouldn’t be used: To borrow Bush’s terminology marriage really aught to be codified. The term marriage is largely married to religion… and the homosexual populous is seeking legalistic routes into a religious rite. As I stated before most religions do not view homosexuality in a favorable light: Legal legislation by it idealistic position needs to respect that. And such respect should be reflected in their terminology, which it currently is not… presenting a large part of the issue.

If I were advocating for homosexuals, which I am not and can not by my morals do so, I would encourage them to use the terminology of ‘civil union’ which, I agree legalistically, should be their right.

I believe it is that whole separation of church and state, which was codified into American legislation. Really, a lot of legislation comes down to semantics and word play. They leave it vague such that it’s open to interpretation down to the very last… which is where politics and burocracy comes into the arena."

My appologies for not divuldging my identity, and I give you my apprecation for alowing anoymous posting, as I prefer in this regard to remain just another random poster in the ways of homosexual discussions.

No intent to agitate you.
Good evening to you. :)

July 2012

S M T W T F S
12345 67
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 24th, 2017 07:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios