Since when did this become X-fan? :p When do we close a topic for veering? I thought topics only get closes, as Bard said, for rude, offensive, or hostile language. When a topic loses its interest it merely drifts to the back pages.

I am wondering too what you Star, or anyone else who thought the topic veered off subject wanted from this discussion? If we just wanted a poll to see who was for it or against it, then we can all just do Link's poll and be done with it.

My bad, because I actually thought part of this discussion was about understanding not only about the pro-gay marriage side, but the con-gay marriage side. Or was this just supposed to be about the positives only for gay marriage?

In fact, I'll quote Star's original message:

Quote:
At the risk of turning myself into the Queer Crusader with the heavily homosexually themed comments I've made of late, I just wanted to post this and get people's reactions.

Good? Bad? Nothing more than a dream in our lifetimes? Does this have any chance in the face of the federal government?


I feel that these 'calls for topicness' seem to come after my posts, and that could be a coincidence. But if not, according to Star's initial post, I have specifically discussed why I don't think this would doesn't have political bouyancy now (thereby will not be in our lifetimes): one of the parameters set out in the initial post.

If anyone doesn't want to talk about civil rights, then I am fine with that...but there were quite a few posts that already brought in civil rights as a comparison to this issue. Shouldn't we have a clearer view, if in fact gay marriage is going to be linked to those struggles directly? Otherwise it seems like an empty comparison. If no one brought it up, I would not have injected it into the conversation.

And there is no way you can discuss this and not talk about religion. So many of this society, as PE said still base their lifestyles...including political inclinations...on it, and it seems this subject in particular.

However, there were also non-religious reasons why people are not for this, that FR and myself brought up.

And how do you advocate for something when you don't have a clear position, or idea of what your opposition is thinking? Without that, how do you overcome it? You can change laws without changing people's hearts in the process.

I was going behind the whys, but maybe that was too much.

And why are people so confused about polygamy??? The majority of people in this country see marriage as defined as a man and a woman (for whatever reason). They feel when you change that definition, then you open the doors for all kinds of change. While many here may see polygamy as bad, there are advocates who could site strong reasons why. And many people see gay unions as just as damaging to the institution of marriage as polygamy, and find your arguement that favoring same-gender parenting but not polygamy relativistic, biased, and arbituary, and will say its different just because you think so, so why should you criticize theirs.

Sorry, but a bit of a pet peeve for an english major. I made a point to stay on topic, as I replied to various topics that were already brought up. I did veer with the Protestantism thing, because Void asked. If anyone can cite where I strayed, by all means, cite it, and I'll investigate it.

Well, that's it for me.

thanks,
dini

ps - I'll be sure to place future warnings for you Voidy! :p Thanks for the read. I'll do the footwork, and pm you what I find!

"Look at the stars, look how they shine for you, and everything you do. Yeah, they were all yellow. I came along, I wrote a song for you, and all the things you do, and it was called Yellow." - Coldplay