DUers who are opposed to same-sex marriage

[truthspeaker]

Would you mind explaining your reasoning?

Everone else: please try to refrain from jumping to conclusions or flaming. Let's see what our fellow Democrats have to say on this issue.

[Creamed Corn]

1. I agree with the President on this one.

Same sex marriage is a disgrace. You've got to hit it doggystyle every now and then.

[cheezus]

2. um. explain your reasoning

I'm curious?

[Terran]

18. It's a joke.

relax.

[ezee]

3. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY

[Zinfandel]

4. "The President" perhaps your president...we ALL know your joking and full

of shit...no one can agree with "the President" and not be joking...either that or completely neurotically paranoid insane!!!

[BattyDem]

5. I don't think I've ever come across a DUer ...

who referred to Bush* as "the President" ... it's kinda creepy. :)

[skypilot]

7. Forgive an ignorant 'mo but...

...what the hell is "lotus style" and why must one "hit it" like that only "every now and then"? I don't understand this post at all. Is it a joke?

[Bog Frog]

9. the original post included this phrase: "Would you mind explaining your

reasoning?"

Please do so. Thanks.

[truthspeaker]

11. I think reply #1 was a troll or an obscure joke. Let's ignore it.

[Journeyman]

12. My but no one here seems to have an ear for humor. . .

Poster #1 was poking fun at the concept of boring, repetitive sex in marriage -- the "same sex" night after night. Toss in a little doggystyle, or a heavy dose of Kama Sutra, to liven up things -- that's what soultron was getting at. I'll admit, it was a weak joke and poorly delivered, but 7 people questioning it? Pull your heads out of your collective thought and open your minds -- you're given "liberalism" a dour rep.

[skypilot]

15. Hey, some of us ASKED him...

...if it was a joke. When he didn't respond it was concluded that he was a troller.

[Journeyman]

20. You didn't get the joke. . .

so the jokester has to explain it to you, otherwise he is, de facto, a troll? Do you wait around after every post, ready to provide instantaneous explanations of everything you wrote to every dim-witted poster who lacks the wherewithal to "catch your drift"?

Unbelievable. Simply mind-boggling. Think I'll wander over to another part of the room now. The air here's a little thick.

[skypilot]

21. In case you haven't noticed...

...we DO get trollers and disruptors around here. Sometimes a post will appear that appears to be offensive and/or provocative, we give the poster the oppurtunity to clarify and very often they don't. If you click on their profile, very often you will notice that the moderators have caught on and "tombstoned" that person. That may have not been the case with this poster but unless this is your first day at DU you should be able to understand where that post might have raised some eyebrows.

On edit: And just what is up YOUR ass. You don't sound like a very funny person yourself. Dimwitted? Why should my not catching someone ELSES "drift" upset YOU so much?

[foreigncorrespondent]

22. And tell me...

...if something was happening in government that would affect your very life, and people continuously poked fun at your very life, would you actually "get it" every time, or would you be a little sensitive to it?

The dudes joke was in very poor taste. Joke or not, he should apologize for his actions.

[comsymp]

17. Hell, I thought it was funny

n/t

[Sapphocrat]

34. Try *eight* people questioning it...

...and at least one alerting on it.

Joke or no joke, the LGBT community has taken far more than its share of lumps on this issue.

A little sensitivity -- and the effort to respond to the O.P.'s question as seriously as it was presented -- would go much further than a post that may be a "weak joke" -- or could easily be mistaken for something masquerading as a "weak joke."

[skypilot]

13. Yeah, I've notice that it's been edited...

...so that now it says "doggystyle" where it first said "lotus style". Fuck 'em.

[HFishbine]

16. NASCAR fans love doggystyle

That way they can both watch the race.

[foreigncorrespondent]

23. Edited or not...

...it is still in very poor taste.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Make all marriages Civil Unions

because of separation of church and state and make them available to adults of whatever gender wanting to marry whatever gender.

"Marriage" in the spiritual sense, blessing ceremonies, whatever, should be considered something separate and it should be up to each religion/denomination/whatever to decide whether or not they honor and perform same-sex marriages.

[truthspeaker]

8. marriages already are civil unions

Of course it should be up to individual churches what marriages they will perform. It already is.

[cclark401]

10. From my

"born again" point of view I feel that it is wrong. But I also feel that it is wrong for the STATE to mix politics and religon. Let people do as they wish as long as they are not hurting others. I can safely practice my religious beliefs regardless of what others are doing. Yes I want them to "go to heaven" but I also believe that everyone has an opportunity to know God and experience his grace. I do also believe that not everyone will take advantage of it. Even some Christians are only giving the term lip service!

Remember if Adam and Eve had not been given CHOICES by God we would not have been having this discussion.

[Terran]

19. Well stated!

If only all professed Christians shared your common-sense attitude.

Dirk

[Arugula Latte]

25. People who believe in a literal "Adam and Eve"...

that the Earth really was formed in 7 days and no evolution occurred and one human of each sex was formed from clay or whatever, etc. must then believe that incest created the rest of the human race because the literal Adam & Eve first produced only two sons ... then ... ? ... you do the math.

[arewethereyet]

26. you need to read a little deeper

but I doubt you will

[Selwynn]

35. Sounds about right to me -- humans are pretty stupid... hehe :D

[Columbia]

14. Get government out of the marriage business

Period.

[gator_in_Ontario]

24. IMHO

there is no reason involved...just a bunch of fear based illogic

[arewethereyet]

27. I don't agree with it

I am Christian but this has no bearing on it to me.

I think of it as an institution not some religous matter. A social or societal arrangement that covers many areas only one of which involved 'whos zoomin who'. The primary focus is for family definition and responsibilities. Sure, some couples never have children by choice or fate or inalterable science. Institutions cannot cover things 100% and its not singularly about children.

All the rights issues I've heard cited by homosexuals as to the rights that they miss can be managed by simple contracts. Employers can choose to treat significant others as though they were actually married for insurance etc. Churchs can even perform rites so long as they do not seek to file governmental paperwork.

And God knows there is nothing at all that prevents people from loving one another.

I don't feel there is any point in altering the definition as its been understood for milenia due to a misinterpretation os its real meaning.

I know many don't agree with that and I respect your right to disagree and I hope you can respect my right to feel as I do. Its not like I'm trying to codify my beliefs into a constitution or anything, its just me and you did ask.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. but why should my wife and i be dependent on employers largesse?

Employers can choose to treat significant others as though they were actually married for insurance etc.

[arewethereyet]

30. you are dependant upon their largesse for your job

and anything that comes with it. They are under no obligation to provide anything more than a wage. You are similarly under no obligation to continue to work there if the terms are unacceptable.

The marketplace controls these things. If a company needs resources, it will compensate them as requirements dictate and the market allows.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. yes but why should their be a difference

between me and my wife and a hetero couple?

[arewethereyet]

32. acknowledgement of the institution as I described originally

for one, bias of management for another. or any other reason they choose.

[foreigncorrespondent]

33. Simple contracts huh?

How about you turn your life into one big contract, and then tell us to do the same. Unless you do it, you have NO rights what so ever to expect others to do it.

BTW! How the fuck is a simple contract going to solve the problem myself and Sapphocrat have, and Gator and Sno have and the many other countless binational couples have? I am of course talking about immigration rights. Gator and Sapphocrat do NOT have the right to sposnor myself or sno for immigration because we happen to be a same sex couple. So you tell me, mate, how the fuck is a contract going to fix that?

As for religion, guess what buddy? Tomorrow is Good Friday for me. I am spending it completely alone, because I can't be with my partner at this time. Guess what buddy? Last month was Sapphs and my anniversary, we spent it apart. Guess what buddy? Sapph and I haven't even seen one another this year, and there is every possibility we won't be either.

Yeah! Simple contracts all right!

[Solon]

36. Tradition has nothing to do with it.

Marriage as the institution is known today is a modern notion, and one from the English tradition only. Why the hell rely on tradition when regarding civil rights? If we only relied on tradition, slavery would still be legal in this country, women no more than property, homosexuals would be hunted down and killed for being what they are. We would have signs saying "No Jews Allowed" or "No Irish Need Apply", FUCK TRADITION!

[RebelOne]

29. Actually, I could care less.

I approve of civil unions, mainly for legal reasons, such as property, children, etc.

[Undercutter]

37. gay marriage

i don't really have a position on this issue because i don't think there is an issue here.

there are over a thousand financial/legal benefits that go with marriage. when we create a civil union we need to make sure that it has every single one of those benefits that goes with the traditional marriage. anything less than that is discrimination.

from that point on, the only argument left is over a WORD, whether or not it is called marriage on the paper. to spend years and millions of taxpayers money to argue over a WORD is simply moronic, for both sides. the point is that majority of the people in the usa are against gay marriage because they are christians and it offends them, for some reason. so civil unions is the most natural way of protecting the minority without offending the majority.

after a gay couple gets their civil union papers, nobody is stopping them from getting a gay friendly priest and having a full blown marriage ceremony, or saying that they are married in everyday talk...

[dsc]

38. The word matters

First, there is the very real issue of transferability. Civil Unions are not recognized in any state save Vermont and few countries. Thus a civil union is not able to be transferred from one state to another.

Second, If we don't have the word we will forever be second class citizens. Marriage is associated with maturity and being a real adult.

Third, civil unions won't be accepted that much more than gay marriage. Most of those who are honestly on the fence will get over it. The rest are opposed to both.