Doug's Poll on Gay Marriage

[DomWackTroll]

Here is his post about it on Facebook, where more than a few speak out against him:

www.facebook.com/visionforum?ref=mf#!/v ... 0036902708

[Dark Matters]

But most of the comments seem to be agreeing with him. If you check out the poll link, the NO votes are winning.

[FlorenceHamilton]

OK, I voted. This poll about President Obama's decision to come out in favor f gay marriage really demonstrates that Doug Phillips is a tool.

[twin2]

I voted, though not in the VF-approved way. I wonder how many times I can vote..........

From the FB comments, Not sure what Capt Dougie is trying to say.:

Vision Forum

All law is either expressly moral or procedural to a moral concept. There is no neutrality. A decision for the state to grant marital status to same sex religion is an imposition of a religious morality on the people

[DomWackTroll]

But most of the comments seem to be agreeing with him. If you check out the poll link, the NO votes are winning.

Yes, but I counted seven so far who disagreed. In his last post on gay marriage, they deleted a bunch of responses (which made fun of him for misspelling Obama's first name), so they may do that in this one, too. But there are more dissenters than I would have predicted.

[Witsec1]

I voted! SOmeone needs to pass this link to PZ Myers...

[notsocommon]

that won't be slanted in the least!

[grateful1230]

I voted, and couldn't help but wonder if the other 107 'yes' votes were from here. Hi Dougie!

[twin2]

Dammit they only let you vote once! Will have to vote from my work computer again tomorrow!

[GeoBQn]

Voted yes, but I have a feeling that this is going to be like that one Fox News poll where they somehow deleted all the votes they didn't agree with.

[QAF_Rocks]

From the FB comments, Not sure what Capt Dougie is trying to say.:

You see, since they believe all morality is religious, failing to impose their religious morality is really imposing the "opposite" religious morality. Or something. But of course it's only an imposition when it's something fundies disagree with. This reminds me of the argument many of them use about children, ie: not indoctrinating children is the same as indoctrinating them. So if your parents never mentioned a word about religion one way or another, they still indoctrinated you. Don't ask me how that works, LOL.

[twin2]

You see, since they believe all morality is religious, failing to impose their religious morality is really imposing the "opposite" religious morality. Or something. But of course it's only an imposition when it's something fundies disagree with. This reminds me of the argument many of them use about children, ie: not indoctrinating children is the same as indoctrinating them. So if your parents never mentioned a word about religion one way or another, they still indoctrinated you. Don't ask me how that works, LOL.

I'm still stuck on what same sex religion is and why that state would want to grant marital status to it.

[Anxious Girl]

I voted yes. These religious folk must be seriously horny 24/7 if the care about others' sex lives; or sex-deprived and mad that nobody wants to have sex with them so they take it out against the BGLT community.

[thoughtful]

I voted! SOmeone needs to pass this link to PZ Myers...

Done.

Who else should we tell? I'd hate to see Dougie get a skewed result, not representative of the general public. :D

[Maude]

Voted (yes, of course).

[SamuraiKatz]

Okay. I am vote #128.

Oh and DOUG PHILLIPS IS A TOOL!

[Childless]

I'm not going to bother voting because no matter what the actual results are, Dougie's going to fix the poll so that it not only comes out in his favor, but decidedly so. I don't see any point in wasting my time.

What people like Dougie refuse to see is that the tide is changing. More people (and importantly, more young people) are choosing to disagree with discrimination and stripping Amercian citizens of a right that other citizens enjoy. More states are making gay marriage legal. Even Iowa, a relatively conservative state in the Midwest, has made it legal. Dougie is on the loosing end of this debate and he knows it. That's why he harps so much on it. It's his last gasp at trying to control everyone.

[joe_mulcahy]

Thanks for calling this to our attention, I left a comment of my own, and I hope the lot of you do as well! I hope his non-thinking, perpetual head-nodders have a high enough level of literacy to even understand any of the comments left from people here!

I also left the comment to see if it would get deleted, and in the event it does, this is my comment.

"Yes, for it is not for one human being to judge or condemn another for what they are, and what they do, so long as they don't cause harm to others. That is for God to do, not for you. If God wishes to judge a same sex couple then it is for him to do, NOT YOU.

It is un-Christian and punitive for you to condemn, judge and make laws against two consenting adults, many of whom have children. Would you so readily stand by, and subject an innocent child to the double grief of seeing one parent die, whilst the other can have no legal custody of said child because they happened to be of the same biological sex? Is it better that the child have no legal parent, rather than to be legally adopted and raised by a gay/lesbian? If the deceased parent had been a military veteran (and yes gays can and do serve in the military), should the child, through no fault of his/her own, not have the same benefits that any other child would?

Let god judge, not you. Will you be no different than the Pharisees, or those that felt it was their right to stone a prostitute to death? Or will you endeavor to be more Christ-like, and leave it to God to judge?"

I suspect Doug Phillips (Phoul-ups, would be a more accurate name for him) is deleting any comment that makes too much sense.

[debrand]

I cast my vote for yes.

[QAF_Rocks]

I'm still stuck on what same sex religion is and why that state would want to grant marital status to it.

If it's not a typo, I'm thinking it's their way of branding everything a religion. Kind of like how allowing Halloween in public schools is promoting "pagan religion," so allowing gay marriage would be promoting '"same sex religion." A lot of these fundies label everything that goes against what they believe as a religion, so if the state takes a neutral stance (as it should) they can accuse them of promoting that religion. Thus, atheism becomes a religion, evolution becomes a religion, etc.

[thoughtful]

I suspect this commenter has never actually read his Bible:

I look to the Bible for the answer. One man with one woman. So it's a huge no.

[GeoBQn]

Yes, if he looked at the Bible he would see that marriage= 1 man + 1 woman + 1 woman + 1st woman's maidservant + 2nd woman's maidservant.

[twin2]

I suspect this commenter has never actually read his Bible:

I suspect most of them haven't, or just conveniently forget large parts of it.

I also suspect this one hasn't studied much history:

Separation of church and state was so the state could not "touch" the church. It wasn't so the church couldn't have any say in government issues. It was the other way around!! It was to protect the church but that's all twisted too and unfortunately most will believe whatever doctrine our public schools and forums have put into you your heads...

[thoughtful]

I also suspect this one hasn't studied much history:

She certain is emotional, isn't she? I love this comment from her:

Bolded mine.

Who's throwing a tantrum? Not us. :D

[debrand]

Thanks for calling this to our attention, I left a comment of my own, and I hope the lot of you do as well! I hope his non-thinking, perpetual head-nodders have a high enough level of literacy to even understand any of the comments left from people here!

I also left the comment to see if it would get deleted, and in the event it does, this is my comment.

"Yes, for it is not for one human being to judge or condemn another for what they are, and what they do, so long as they don't cause harm to others. That is for God to do, not for you. If God wishes to judge a same sex couple then it is for him to do, NOT YOU.

It is un-Christian and punitive for you to condemn, judge and make laws against two consenting adults, many of whom have children. Would you so readily stand by, and subject an innocent child to the double grief of seeing one parent die, whilst the other can have no legal custody of said child because they happened to be of the same biological sex? Is it better that the child have no legal parent, rather than to be legally adopted and raised by a gay/lesbian? If the deceased parent had been a military veteran (and yes gays can and do serve in the military), should the child, through no fault of his/her own, not have the same benefits that any other child would?

Let god judge, not you. Will you be no different than the Pharisees, or those that felt it was their right to stone a prostitute to death? Or will you endeavor to be more Christ-like, and leave it to God to judge?"

I suspect Doug Phillips (Phoul-ups, would be a more accurate name for him) is deleting any comment that makes too much sense.

I saw your comment. :)

Someone posted the O'Reilly reasoning that because homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people, they have equal right. I first heard that rational on O'Reilly's show. Do any of you have any good arguments against it?