POLL: GAY MARRIAGE....:-) AH A HAPPY POLL:-)

Xavi6 wrote: »

Where's the poll option for those not fussed / who would spoil their vote?

Practice what you preach OP in terms of including everyone

No, this was obviously started just so anybody who disagreed with the majority can get jumped on

CianRyan wrote: »

I know this was probably in jest but adding a spoil vote choice has always annoyed me, even if it is boards tradition.

Call me a hypocrite, I guess I am one in this instance.

Not really in jest. There's plenty of people who I'm sure couldn't give a flying one either way so they should have the option to say so too.

To be fair, if you're going to post in the thread "I voted no" then you should be prepared to explain why. It's a discussion forum after all.

If you don't want to discuss it, then just vote and don't post in the thread?

CianRyan wrote: »

Their opinion has no benefit to the topic and it there for not needed.
That's why when we have a referendum there's no "I don't really care" option, you just don't vote.

It is of benefit, it's just as valid as yes or no. You could question them and ask why they are so apathetic to an issue that probably directly affects someone they know. There's room for discussion if included.

And spoiling a vote in a referndum is voting, you've taken part.

Xavi6 wrote: »

It is of benefit, it's just as valid as yes or no. You could question them and ask why they are so apathetic to an issue that probably directly affects someone they know. There's room for discussion if included.

And spoiling a vote in a referndum is voting, you've taken part.

I don't agree that it's of benefit, it's a valid stand point but in my opinion it serves no purpose in a vote.
You don't need to vote to tell us why you don't care either so if you feel like sharing, please do.

Spoiling votes in a referendum are discarded, you have effectively not voted.

Xavi6 wrote: »

I never said I don't care, just pointing out that calling for inclusion to marriage but not including everybody's opinions in the poll is a tad hypocritical

I'll leave you to it.

It's really not the same though, the people that don't care just don't care. It's not going to effect their life in any large way if they can't mark a spot and click a button to tell people they don't care on the internet. If they really feel like they need to share, they can always just post and tell us they don't care.

I'm off to bed anyway, it's getting on at this stage.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yup. It's a bit odd imo how the state gets involved in the whole marriage thing.

It's a lot to do with the legal and inheritance rights of any children of the union.

Any other add-ons to that have developed in an ad hoc manner and are pretty much incidental to it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Probably a relic of the influence of the Church/Religions.

Hmm, the state getting involved in the 'whole marriage thing' hasn't always suited the churches over the centuries.

scudzilla wrote: »

Ok, so please rephrase the poll questions to

YES

NO (But explain why you voted no)

If there were 100 people on a street, 99 dressed and 1 naked, you would ask the naked person why he is so, rather than asking the 99 why theyre dressed.

Why cant you answer? It wont cost you anything and people are interested.

It's no difference to me if they want to get married, I've no idea why it's even an issue to some people.

Captain Commie wrote: »

I voted no as marriage is a sacrament ordained by God and not something that the state should be in the business of legislating over. I firmly believe that marriage is a union between and man and a woman.

I don't think most gay couples want a marriage ordained by God. They just want one legally recognised by the state.

Plenty of straight couples don't get church marriages either, but still get married.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yep, and if they still do they might want to consider the church's teachings in full and either a) choose a religion better suited or b) abandon religion altogether.

What has religion got to do with anything? Marriage is a social union, or a legal contract.

Captain Commie wrote: »

I voted no as marriage is a sacrament ordained by God and not something that the state should be in the business of legislating over. I firmly believe that marriage is a union between and man and a woman.

Let the head jumping begin

Don't have the slightest interest in jumping on your head, dude.

But you're ignoring the fact that marriage is actually two quite separate things which for convenience are often linked or conjoined.

To the churches, to religious people, it's a sacramental expression of the love between two people and a symbol of their union in the sight of their church and their god.

To the state, it's a legal contract between two people which has implications for property ownership and inheritance rights. Marriage by certain religious ceremonies is recognised by civil law as being a civil contract in the same way as marriage before a state-appointed registrar, provided the marriage is duly registered with the civil authorities.

States have been legislating for marriage for many centuries; for pretty much as long as the Christian churches have been in existence, in fact. That battle's lost and won way back in history. In fact, to take a (in the context, relatively recent) example, the Church of England / Church of Ireland had their genesis in a difference of opinion between church and state over marriage, and that was 500+ years ago; we all know who won that spat.

In recent years, happily, the two have been fairly content to go their slightly different ways yet co-exist peacefully in this area. One would hope the same would happen here. The churches will follow what they see as the will of God (though it's noticeable that the various churches don't really agree what God's will is on the matter); the state will, for once, hopefully follow the will of the people once that has been ascertained.

(Btw, I kinda agree with you on the wording of the poll! :rolleyes:)