FReep this Poll: Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

CNN.com ^ | 8-03-03 | CNN

[Salvation]

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

[Jay D. Dyson]

The Gay Jihad has hijacked the poll and are crashing it into the Twin Towers of reason and morality.

But that is no reason for us to give up!

Fine. Write your own 'bot to spam the CNN poll. That's what they're doing. See if it makes any difference.

This whole 'poll' thing has long since degenerated into the digital equivalent of two dogs vying to be the last to mark a fire hydrant.

-Jay

[RnMomof7]

consider it Bumped:>)

[sgtbono2002]

Went there and voted but obviously CNN told Nambla about the poll before they put it there.

[Bigg Red]

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

Yes 31% 266018 votes

No 69% 599096 votes

Total: 865114 votes

I voted, but it looks like the Gayhadis slammed us here.

[El Gato]

"Why should people be required to get a LICENSE from the GOVERNMENT to marry, anyway??" That's a good point

It is, but the real question really revolves around the legal recognition of marriage. Mainly for tax purposes, but also for employee benefit entitlements, inheritance and so forth. Most of those benefits and entitlements were originally put in place to provide for children, and to protect non working mothers, both while raising their children and later in widowhood. With a homosexual union there can be no question of natural children, and there need be no non-working partner who is rasing those non-existant children.

It's just my impression and opinion, but I get the general impressiion that lesbians want the formal recognition for their relationships, while gays want the medical and other spousal benefits.

[templar]

Yes. But not all state's Governments "recognize" common law marriages.

Colorado recognizes common law marriage. There is no common law divorce though. If you want a divorce from a common law marriage, you must go through the usual legal process. Couples living together in Colorado, depending on their exact circumstances, may be legally married even though they don't know it. Makes for interesting court cases sometimes.

[El Gato]

That's why the government issues marriage licenses.

which doesn't explain whey they've only been doing it for a few generations. Before that, it was pretty much a church or other religious institution, or you could get married by a local official. The records from the church or local official were sufficient for the purposes you indicate.

One reason the government got involved was to stop the spread of disease. That's why most states at one time or another required a blood test. When we got married, we got a certificate from the Church as well as the state certificate, and there was a blood test required. The Church also required, although it could be waived, a waiting period and some amount of instruction, especially if one of the partners was not of that church. They didn't require that that spouse join that church or profess any of its beliefs, however.

Births too were once recorded by the churches, or sometimes just in the family bible. The government only got involved in counting the new arrivals every 10 years, although they did and do, maintain records of names and ages.

[Jay D. Dyson]

That's why the government issues marriage licenses.

which doesn't explain whey they've only been doing it for a few generations.

Not to belabor the point, but our society became much more highly mobile in the last few generations. Up until that time, a body was likely to be buried only a few miles from their birth place. During such a time, church records (of churches with ~100% community attendance) sufficed.

Times have changed.

-Jay

[Tribune7]

freeped, bumped

[Zipporah]

ROFL!! I totally agree..

[cricket]

Voted. . .the yes's are gaining. . .slightly and perhaps slowly. . .but moving anyway.

'Marriage' is the union of opposites. . .'yin'. . .'yang'. . .; two 'yangs' do not a marriage make; nor two 'yins'. . .so to speak and just for starters. . .

[cricket]

"I'll Freep the thing, but there are a lot more queers than there are FReepers."

Does seem we are outnumbered. . .

[Jeff Gordon]

Once homosexuals are given the right to "marry", then will Mormons be given the right to legally have more than one wife? Or could two "married" homosexuals be given the right to marry a woman, thus affording them a way to have children?

Why should you care what other people do as long as it not hurting you in some tangable manner?

[Thinkin' Gal]

If marriage has to be "legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman", then the foundation has already crumbled.

A great metaphor for this generation, is the scene in Christmas Vacation, where Cousin Eddie is dumping his "RV" sewage into the sewer. He sees the neighbor as he's holding the hose of sewage and cheerfully exclaims, "Merry Christmas! The sh!tter was full."

[Salvation]

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?
Yes		31%	267499 votes
No		69%	599256 votes
Total: 866755 votes

[Salvation]

Thanks, mom.

[Barnacle]

What pathetic results! It looks like the Communist News Network is living up to its name. Anyone with half a brain abandoned them long ago.


Although their signal is available to me, I blocked it out of our system.

[fatima]

Bump.

[capt. norm]

That pretty much defines what's left of CNN's audience.