Author |
Message |
   
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1600 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 3:19 pm: |    |
This is pretty funny. I just received this email.
quote:The anti-gay American Family Association is sponsoring an on-line poll regarding same sex marriage. And the great news is, they are losing their own poll! They're trying hard to rally their troops to control the outcome. If you want to assure that same-sex marriage wins out, go to the web site http://www.marriagepoll.com and submit your own vote, then forward this to others who may be interested.
Tom Reingold There is nothing
|
   
Cato Nova
Citizen Username: Cato_nova
Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 6:08 pm: |    |
I am confused about "same-sex marriage." Isn't that one of the biggest complaints about marriage, that it is always the "same-sex?" What is so controversial about that? |
   
Chris Dickson
Citizen Username: Ironman
Post Number: 951 Registered: 8-2001

| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 6:40 pm: |    |
You know about the three kinds of sex when you get married, right ... First, there's "House Sex". No kids, so you can do it anywhere in the house ... Then there's "Bedroom Sex". You've got a kid or three and the bedroom's the only place for nookie ... Then, when you've been married for ten plus years, there's "Hallway Sex" ... That's where you pass each other in the hallway and say to each other "Screw you" ...
|
   
1-2many
Citizen Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 831 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Thursday, January 1, 2004 - 1:04 pm: |    |
at a friend's wedding, the minister said he had heard marriage described as a three-ring circus: engagement ring wedding ring suffering I say let all the GLBT's come to the party. nice poll, TomR, thanks. |
   
Habanero2
Citizen Username: Habanero2
Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, January 1, 2004 - 1:45 pm: |    |
Quick question. Isn't marriage a religious thing whereas unions are secular? If that is the case then wouldn't same sex marriages need the approval of some priest as opposed to the approval of Dr. Dean? "You kids today have it easy. When I was a kid everything was HUGE. My dad was nearly four times bigger than me. You couldn't even see the tops of counters.... Then gradually everything became smaller until it was the manageable size it is today." |
   
jfburch
Citizen Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1197 Registered: 6-2001
| Posted on Thursday, January 1, 2004 - 1:51 pm: |    |
No. There are civil marriages and religious marriages. If there were only civil unions and religious marriages, we might not be fighting about the terminology. If one gets married at city hall, with no religious ceremony or official, it is still a marriage. The right insists on a linkage between civil and religious marriage with stuff about the "sanctity of marriage". And some religious faiths do offer marriage to same sex couples--the state doesn't. And the Feds aren't looking at civil unions either though things like tax policy and social security (among others) are their domain. |
   
argon_smythe
Citizen Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 96 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 10:18 am: |    |
I personally think the government should only deal in "civil unions" and stay out of the marriage business altogether. Yes my own white bread heterosexual marriage with 2 kids should be viewed by my government as a civil union and butt out of it too by the way. But I logged in and voted for "legalize homosexual marriages" just to do my part to screw the results of this stupid poll.
|
   
ina
Citizen Username: Ina
Post Number: 77 Registered: 6-2001
| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 10:25 am: |    |
I just got an email - originally from someone with NJ's Freedom to Marry (advocating for the rights of GLBTs to marry)- that the American Family Association is using the info from people's emails when they log in to vote to gauge where they have more or less political power to strategize accordingly. Damn I hate to think we've been outsmarted by the religious right. |
   
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1611 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 10:48 am: |    |
ina, could you clarify? What can they do with the email addresses? Most email addresses don't reveal a person's location or much of anything else. Tom Reingold There is nothing
|
   
NCJanow(akaLibraryLady)
Citizen Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1130 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 11:25 am: |    |
The poll requires your name, email, state and zip code. As of right now,the results are: I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and "civil unions" 32.86% (241766 votes) I favor legalization of homosexual marriage 59.15% (435192 votes) I favor a "civil union" with the full benefits of marriage except for the name 7.99% (58747 votes) Pretty funny!
NCJ aka LibraryLady On a coffee break..or something like it. |
   
jfburch
Citizen Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1199 Registered: 6-2001
| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 11:33 am: |    |
Most of the folks I know are using madeup e-mail addresses. You can spoof the zipcode too. (These are the same folks who like to tell the Wash Post and other demographic info seekers that they are 4 months old....) |
   
Cynicalgirl
Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 243 Registered: 9-2003

| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 12:33 pm: |    |
Civil unions don't bother me any so long as both parties are of age. Aside from the romantic reasons, there are economic and related reasons to want to establish legally dependent relationships. Do civil union proponents always assume a peer relationship between same sex adults? Wondering if you can civilly unite with a friend, a person of the opposite sex, an older relative, etc. to get gov benefits, employer based benefits, status as a relative for decision making in medical extremus. Those always seemed to me to be reasons that could propel 2 people into establishing an interdependent union. Presume adults can't adopt each other. |
   
Kenney
Citizen Username: Kenney
Post Number: 266 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 1:03 pm: |    |
I think we should promote male homosexuality as much as possible. While extremelely unlikely, my wife just might find someone more studly and leave me. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) |
   
Nohero
Citizen Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2630 Registered: 10-1999

| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 1:22 pm: |    |
FYI, a Domestic Partnership law is in the works in the NJ Legislature. A version has passed the assembly, and was introduced in the Senate a few weeks ago by Senator Codey. The text of the bill introduced in the Senate is at this link. A Statement included with the bill as introduced describes its purpose and intent: quote: This bill, which is designated the "Domestic Partnership Act," creates a mechanism, through the establishment of domestic partnerships, for New Jersey to recognize and support the many adult individuals in this State who share an important personal, emotional and committed relationship with another adult. These familial relationships assist the State by establishing a private support network for the financial, physical, and emotional health of their participants. This bill provides the State with the opportunity to recognize the important material and non-economic contributions that individuals in these relationships make to each other, and to the State, by conferring certain rights and benefits, as well as obligations and responsibilities, upon domestic partners. Currently, a significant number of New Jersey residents live in families in which the heads of household are unmarried. Despite their interdependence and mutual commitment, these families do not currently have access to the protections and benefits offered by the law to married couples; nor do they bear legal obligations to each other, no matter how interdependent their relationship. This bill seeks to redress this oversight and provide certain benefits to, and enforce certain obligations within, these families. The bill provides that two persons who desire to become domestic partners may execute and file an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the local registrar upon payment of a fee, in an amount to be determined by the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services, if they meet all of the following requirements: -- Both persons share a common residence in this State, or share the same place to live in another jurisdiction when at least one of them is a member of a State-administered retirement system; -- Both persons agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses during the domestic partnership; -- Neither person is in a marriage recognized by New Jersey law or a member of another domestic partnership; -- Neither person is related to the other by blood or affinity up to and including the fourth degree of consanguinity; -- Both persons are of the same sex and therefore unable to enter into a marriage with each other that is recognized by New Jersey law, except that two persons who are each 63 years of age or older and not of the same sex may establish a domestic partnership if they meet the requirements set forth in the bill; -- Both persons have chosen to share each other's lives in a committed relationship of mutual caring; -- Both persons are at least 18 years of age; -- Both persons file jointly an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership; and -- Neither person has been a partner in a domestic partnership that was terminated less than 180 days prior to the filing of the current Affidavit of Domestic Partnership, except that this prohibition shall not apply if one of the partners died; and, in all cases in which a person registered a prior domestic partnership, the domestic partnership shall have been terminated in accordance with the provisions of the bill.
|
   
ina
Citizen Username: Ina
Post Number: 78 Registered: 6-2001
| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 1:38 pm: |    |
Tom, I trashed the email so I can't forward or even quote it directly. But assuming the AFA takes zip code info as correct, they could map where the yesses or nos are coming from, find the appropriate Congressperson or Senator and put pressure on. |
   
Tracy
Citizen Username: Maguire0423
Post Number: 5 Registered: 7-2003
| Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 10:22 pm: |    |
gotta post on this one - as this has to be the funniest thing (poll results that is) that I have seen in a long time. 100% back -unions and marriages. This impacts - everyone gay & straight. This impacts things that you would not even suspect...your loved one is in an accident and unless you are legally unionized or married you may not be able to visit them in the hospital...You have to draft a will and authorize your significant other to be able to make life decisions for you...Look I am not married yet - but these are the things that any committed couple ( again read here gay or straight) need to think about if they have not gotten / cannot get a recognized union....think about your day to day stuff - who will get kids - who will get insurance benefits - 401K - etc. All the stuff "straight" married people take for granted. Its scary...I'm all for it... 100% - What impact does a civil union have on someone else's marriage......Why do these people care so much - its like this - if "gay marriage" is somehow going to impact the "sanctity" of a straight marriage - perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with your marriage .... just something to think about... |
   
ina
Citizen Username: Ina
Post Number: 79 Registered: 6-2001
| Posted on Saturday, January 3, 2004 - 1:55 pm: |    |
Here's the email I mentioned. Don't really know what to do with the info. Subject: New informaiton on the AFA poll >Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:00:14 -0500 > >DO NOT VOTE on the American Family Association's poll. >There is a poll that is being forwarded fast and furiously by well intentioned GLBT folk and allies (I've received 10 forwards of it.) that the >radical right is using for voter id. It requires that you give your address information in order to submit your vote, which most people do because they want us to have a strong showing in the poll. However, the stated reasons for circulating the poll are disingenuous in that they are gathering your information to better strategies against the GLBT community. They'll synthesize this information to determine what districts (house, senate, and congressional) they are strong in and what districts they are weak in. > >So, please inform any body who's forward this email to you of the information that I've shared and ask them to pass it forward. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Robyn Maguire >> > Grassroots Organizer >> > The Freedom to Marry Coalition >> > http://www.equalmarriage.org >> > Ph: 617.482.1600
|
   
Joan
Citizen Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2326 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Saturday, January 3, 2004 - 4:14 pm: |    |
Ina: This poll has publically presented a significant pool of data which can be used by both sides to prove their case. The poll demonstrates overwelming support for same sex marriages amongst those responding to the poll. Politicians tend to vote in the same direction as the majority of their constituents. Thus, the on-line victory can serve as a big plus for those advocating same sex marriages when they present their own case to their elected representatives. |
   
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1615 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Saturday, January 3, 2004 - 5:23 pm: |    |
Not really overwhelming in any direction, since it's not scientific. It shows results only from voluntary participants, not randomly sampled ones. Also, it is possible to write a program to connect to the web site thousands of times and generate votes. I think the web site is useful for entertainment, though. Tom Reingold There is nothing
|
   
TomR
Citizen Username: Tomr
Post Number: 73 Registered: 6-2001
| Posted on Sunday, January 4, 2004 - 2:09 am: |    |
I've asked thrice previously and have never seen a response, so I ask again. Can somebody point me to a source outlining the arguments for and against same sex unions/marriage? Arguments regarding sins against nature are not necessary, or appreciated. Would appreciate any help on finding more information. Thanks, TomR.
|
   
Joan
Citizen Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2329 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Sunday, January 4, 2004 - 8:17 am: |    |
Tom Reingold: How many polls conducted for political purposes do you know of which utilize scientific sampling techniques? The aim is usually to produce a sufficiently large listing of potential voters who agree with the position supported by the organization which ordered the poll in the first place. The random generating of votes through a computer program would be workable if the program used the names of real people who were registered to vote in the jurisdiction(s) in which the poll was taken. (I suppose there are still some places where graveyard residents comprise a large per centage of the electorate.) However, such an approach could backfire if the names in their supporting data were carefully scrutenized. |
   
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1616 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Sunday, January 4, 2004 - 11:02 am: |    |
TomR, in Tracy's post at 10:22 on Jan 2, there are reasons for allowing marriage or civil unions for gay couples. There are many tax and other financial advantages of marriage for many couples, too. The fact is that many gay couples act as if they're married, but they don't have the advantages that heterosexual couples get. I think they probably desire the same sort of societal recognition, and the laws, if passed, can help this along. I think this trend is like a steamroller. It's eventually just going to happen. Looking at all the gay couples here in SO/M indicate the trend. It starts in places like this and becomes more common elsewhere. I'll leave it to others to list why they think such unions should not be allowed. Tom Reingold There is nothing
|
   
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1617 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Sunday, January 4, 2004 - 11:14 am: |    |
Joan, good points. I assumed that people running the poll web site do not care if the respondents are real, but perhaps, as you imply, they do. Tom Reingold There is nothing
|