Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Gay Marriage Poll

Question: Gay Marriage Poll :: Total Votes:78 Poll choices Votes Statistics Gay marriage should be legal 75  [96.15%] Gay marriage should not be legal 3  [3.85%] Guests cannot vote

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:46    You know what, I'll even rephrase it to make it more obvious for you: The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:01    improvius, You ask for real people looking to get state-sanctioned "marriages" and offer up myself as an example and you slyly avoid the Pandora's Box. Then you ask the following question. Quote The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____. The intrinsic societal value is the recognition of the man/woman complementary and its value to the upbringing of future progeny.  The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:09    Quote The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value. actually if we use yourself on point, I'd say you make a great case as to why we should make same-sex marriages the norm. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:16    Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:01) improvius, You ask for real people looking to get state-sanctioned "marriages" and offer up myself as an example and you slyly avoid the Pandora's Box. Then you ask the following question. Quote The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____. The intrinsic societal value is the recognition of the man/woman complementary and its value to the upbringing of future progeny.  The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value. Tor-dude. Check the poll. See how convincing you are? Has it occured to you to try a different tactic?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:20    Stephen Elliot, The poll just shows how corrupted science is by liberal ideology and why few actually buy evolutionary theory.   How an evolutionary theorist could equate homosexual relations with heterosexual relations is in part why very few buy the theories of the evolutionist. Do you not see this?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:29    Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:20) Stephen Elliot, The poll just shows how corrupted science is by liberal ideology and why few actually buy evolutionary theory.   How an evolutionary theorist could equate homosexual relations with heterosexual relations is in part why very few buy the theories of the evolutionist. Do you not see this? What does this comment mean?

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:29    Quote Do you not see this? LOL.  wow.  haven't you figured out that NOBODY sees this but you? aren't you troubled by that at all? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:36    Stephen Elliot, When England decided to grant gay "marriage," did 96 out of every 100 Britons VOTE in favor?   Are scientists a monolithic political group as exampled by this poll?

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:42    can't you see you are delusional? where did you get the idea that everybody who participated in this poll is a scientist? or a liberal, for that matter? you've totally lost your mind. get help. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:46    Icky, You don't see anything because you dare not look.  Your poll inadvertantly shows the unanimity of at least this forum's "scientists."  It's a closed question in this community and yet you are blind to how this looks to those of us that reside outside of science.     Are there supposed to be closed questions in science especially about something as scientifically-ambiguous as homosexuality?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:49    Thor-daddy, why did you not answer my question?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:52    54-2. damn. I had no idea there were so many sensible people around. My estimate would have had us at 42-14

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:57    Thordaddy, since you're convinced that heterosexual marriage is uniquely and essentially valuable in raising future progeny, why are you depriving your current progeny of its benefits? List the duties and responsibilities of a good parent, in order of difficulty, and "getting married" would have to be somewhere around No. 1,396 -- yet you haven't managed to do that one simple thing, despite how crucial you say it is. Very odd. I wonder how you're doing on the 1,395 things that require more sacrifice and commitment.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:58    Stephen Elliot, My comment means that the poll taken is not representative of the American or European populace at large.  If it were then 96 out of 100 Britons would have voted for gay "marriage."  You know this not to be the case by a long shot. This means the poll represents a very narrow political and/or scientific view.  One that DOES NOT comport with the larger society. My question is why?  Icky is trying to convince me that this poll doesn't indicate either the scientific or political mindset of its voters.  What does it represent as it CLEARLY doesn't represent the view of our larger societies?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,14:06    Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:58) Stephen Elliot, My comment means that the poll taken is not representative of the American or European populace at large.  If it were then 96 out of 100 Britons would have voted for gay "marriage."  You know this not to be the case by a long shot. This means the poll represents a very narrow political and/or scientific view.  One that DOES NOT comport with the larger society. My question is why?  Icky is trying to convince me that this poll doesn't indicate either the scientific or political mindset of its voters.  What does it represent as it CLEARLY doesn't represent the view of our larger societies? Thor-daddy, I would contend that it is you that is mixing things up. In a few posts you have made statements that you consider me a left wing scientist. I am neither. I like having the Royal family provide the head-of-state for the UK. I prefered the house of laws as it was, than how it has become. I would suport the use of the death penalty in very rare cases. I am totally against afirmative action. Yet, because I believe that any 2 adults should be able to enjoy the sanctity of marriage together, you believe I am a left-wing extremist. Mybe it is your vision that is defective. Here is the result of a poll I googled Quote   Should gay marriage be legalized?       THANK YOU, for voting! , Here are the results so far ..... OF 33327 VOTES.... A   Yes       43% B   No       52% C   Not sure       4% But I somehow doubt it is a true indication. Otherwise this event would have probably not have gone so well.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,14:14    Great, just what we need.  Another f*ckin' forty pages of ThorIdiot spouting off his homophobic bigotry. Good stinkin' guys!   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,14:15    jupiter, When will gay "marriage" advocates learn that implicitly denigrating traditional marriage undermines their own argument for gay "marriage?"   If you see no intrinsic societal value in traditional marriage then you are saying unequivocally that there is no intrinsic societal value in gay "marriage."  So why are you pushing for something that means nothing? I didn't get married because I wasn't willing to give a commitment and I saw no value in marriage.  You have to learn to see value in marriage lest you be a liberal and see no value in marriage so much so that you will readily equate it with homosexual "marriage."  I see no equality between the two as far bringing forth a more stable and civil society.  I began to see the value in traditional marriage in accordance with the push for gay "marriage" and its attempt to claim moral and societal equivalence under the guise of "progressiveness."

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,15:00    Stephen Elliot, My point is that the poll that Icky thinks is informative is only informing us how narrow and particular the views are on this forum. I suppose you could say that this forum is populated by conservative IDists voting for gay "marriage" by a 96% to 4% margin.  I suppose? My question is how suspicious of science should we be if it could be said that 96% of scientists are also political liberals?

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,16:15    Quote The intrinsic societal value is the recognition of the man/woman complementary and its value to the upbringing of future progeny.  The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value. So are we to take it that your criteria for determining the value of a marriage is based on the ability to raise children?  Or is it simply producing children that makes the marriage valuable? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,16:26    Quote My question is how suspicious of science should we be if it could be said that 96% of scientists are also political liberals? Well, that's the cool thing about science: The results are completely independent of the scientist's political beliefs. I am nothing like a (modern) policital liberal, and yet, when I conduct biological experiments I get the exact same results as my politically conservative and liberal collegues. When you play basketball do you always pass the ball to your opponent when he is under his basket?

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,16:28    I agree with OA. what is there left to say that hasn't already been said? T-diddy is delusional. best to ignore him altogether at least until he gets off this particular subject, which seems to have wound him up so tight he broke the spring. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Caledonian Posts: 48 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,17:51    If the purpose of marriage in the modern world is to assist with the raising of progeny, why do we permit heterosexual couples that have children to divorce? For that matter, why do we permit sterile people, or people likely to be too old to conceive, to marry?

The Wayward Hammer Posts: 64 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,17:58    I am married.  17 years now.  No children.  And not going to have any. T-Daddy, you live with your girlfriend - I am unsure whether you have children with her. Which one of us is upholding traditional marriage?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,18:45    improvius, I answer your question and in return get more questions?  Why not answer my questions, first? If you see no intrinsic societal value in traditional marriage then are you not saying that gay "marriage" has NO intrinsic societal value? If you do see intrinsic societal value in traditional marriage then what is it and how is it exemplified with the addition of gay "marriage?" Spike, The result of this poll seem entirely due to one's political beliefs unless you can explain how science would influence one's vote in favor of gay "marriage?"  So, we either have a large number of liberal non-scientists voting or a large number of liberal scientists voting?  How else to explain the lopsided results that don't mirror the larger general society?  Either way, this forum is tainted by politics while it's supposed to represent science. Caledonian, Because people have decided that marriage provides financial benefit without the requirement of bearing children seems like no argument for gay "marriage" or the devolution of the ideal of traditional marriage, does it? Wayward Hammer, I am not married.  I had children out of wedlock.  It was not a hard decision at the time because I was an apathetic liberal and cared nothing for marriage.  It has been only the passing of time and experience in life that has led me to see the value in traditional marriage.  Does that mean I should now marry someone that I lived with for 7 years, but never married...?  Perhaps...?  But things might be past a point that I have little control over.   Are you upholding traditional marriage by implying an advocacy for gay "marriage" by way of your question?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:07    Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,23:45) improvius, I answer your question and in return get more questions?  Why not answer my questions, first? If you see no intrinsic societal value in traditional marriage blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl ahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah… Wow. Here we are, 50 pages (that's 1,500 posts! ) later, and Thordady is still asking the same fatuous questions he was asking two months ago. You know, the ones that have been answered at least 20 times each? Amazing. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:14    EricMurphy, Is there really any reason for you to enter this discussion?   Your position is clear.  Gays want gay "marriage" and so they should get it and anyone who opposes them is a bigot.  Does that sum it up?  Is this based on science or your political ideology?

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:17    Quote Is there really any reason for you to enter this discussion? what discussion? all i see is you making an idiot out of yourself, and everybody else essentially egging you on, or just plain poking you with a stick. it's another delusion on your part to think what you continue here is a "discussion". It far more resembles the argument sketch from Python. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:25    Icky, Can you tell us what the result of your poll is supposed to tell us?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:29    Icky, Your poll tells me that this pro-evolution forum attracts a disproportionate amount of political "liberals."  Why is that?  Is there something scientific about "liberalism" or is there something "liberal" about evolutionary science?

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:31    Quote Can you tell us what the result of your poll is supposed to tell us? No. I can't tell you what it tells "us", because the answer is already obvious to "us", it's just not to you. nothing i say would qualify as an answer that would satisfy you. you've made that abundantly clear. over 50+ pages of blithering idiocy and delusions. it really doesn't matter. I have no questions for you.  I don't care what you think, as you aren't rational. get help. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard