Sixty-Two Percent Of Americans Reject Gay-Marriage Dogma

[frankenstein]

Who funded the other polls? Were they for or against SSM? For all you know POS is for SSM, but they did the poll correctly anyway. Just because they were paid by people whose interest is in protecting marriage, doesn't meant that the organization is corrupt.

who funded the poll, well I must admit I do not know (I was reading the press release wrong), but I can say who sponosored the poll? notice the release in on the Alliance Defense Fund website.

Alliance Defense Fund - which is a strictly religious leaning version of the ACLU which is based in Scottsdale Arizona; of which mostly likely no faithful LDS person could be a part of see ADF statement of Faith - and no ADF is not favor of SSM. Who was the poll for FRC, and family research council is not favor of ssm either. So yes, the ADF and FRC make the poll suspect.

[Jaybear]

What are "gay rights"? Are there straight rights, as well? What is the difference?

T-Shirt

Equal protection, due process, privacy, free speech, not to have to quarter troops, etc.

Yes.

The difference is that their is no current orchestrated effort to take away heterosexual rights.

By way of example, in the Griswold case, SCOTUS struck down the the State attempt to ban contraceptives, which infringed on the privacy right of heterosexual couples.

[Zeta-Flux]

who funded the poll, well I must admit I do not know (I was reading the press release wrong), but I can say who sponosored the poll? notice the release in on the Alliance Defense Fund website. Did you even read the article(s), based of other threads most likely you didn't.

Alliance Defense Fund - which is a strictly religious leaning version of the ACLU which is based in Scottsdale Arizona; of which mostly likely no faithful LDS person could be a part of see ADF statement of Faith - and no ADF is not favor of SSM. Who was the poll for FRC, and family research council is not favor of ssm either. So yes, the ADF and FRC make the poll suspect.

your lack of effort to research the most basic things is mindnumbing.

More poisoning the well. You have any evidence?

[frankenstein]

Mordecai has brought up at least one reasonable sounding explanation for the discrepancy between this poll and the other ones: different questions were asked. It appears that a large majority of people are against gay-marriage, but not against civil unions. Is that surprising?

others polls asks the same question in principle so it seems very unlikely that it is a matter of different questions. go the link I posted in post 22

[Zeta-Flux]

others polls asks the same question in principle so it seems very unlikely that it is a matter of different questions. go the link I posted in post 22

I saw that post, and agree with you that the questions seem equivalent. (You didn't post the entire script, but that's okay.) But I take issue with your clear poisoning of the well with no evidence.

[frankenstein]

More poisoning the well. You have any evidence?

evidence that something should be suspect? Sure, ADF is a religious organization that is opposed to ssm, FRC is also opposed to ssm, that is enough evidence to SUSPECT a poll when the numbers do not reflect other other polls.

what do you mean about not posting the entire script? I saw each question as separate, and unto itself, the other question about gays in the military and such did not seem relevant.

[T-Shirt]

Equal protection, due process, privacy, free speech, not to have to quarter troops, etc.

Those are the same rights granted to everyone.

Yes.

Are you saying that Gays should have special rights granted to them that don't already exist for everyone?

The difference is that their is no current orchestrated effort to take away heterosexual rights.

Given that human rights are the same for all humans, what rights do heterosexuals enjoy that gays do not?

By way of example, in the Griswold case, SCOTUS struck down the the State attempt to ban contraceptives, which infringed on the privacy right of heterosexual couples.

If this law had been upheld, would it have remained legal for gays to use contraceptives?

T-Shirt

[Jaybear]

Those are the same rights granted to everyone.

Correct.

Are you saying that Gays should have special rights granted to them that don't already exist for everyone?

No.

Given that human rights are the same for all humans, what rights do heterosexuals enjoy that gays do not?

In most states, only men are allowed to marry women.

Women in those states are not allowed to enjoy the benefits that come with being married to a woman.

If your point is that all women should have the right to marry a woman, not just the lesbians, then I agree.

If this law had been upheld, would it have remained legal for gays to use contraceptives?

No. But while it affected all couples, it was targeted at those who sought to prevent unplanned pregnancies, which was really not a concern for gay couples.

[T-Shirt]

Correct.

But you said those were gay rights. Which is it?

No.

Then, I fail to see the problem, we agree.

In most states, only men are allowed to marry women.

Women in those states are not allowed to enjoy the benefits that come with being married to a woman.

It is the same for all women. You are advocating the creation of special rights.

If your point is that all women should have the right to marry a woman, not just the lesbians, then I agree.

All women are already governed by the same law, what you want is a new law that grants special rights to lesbians.

No. But while it affected all couples, it was targeted at those who sought to prevent unplanned pregnancies, which was really not a concern for gay couples.

Exactly, it was targeted at anyone who wanted to curtail the birth of children. It had nothing to do with sexual orientation. It was the same for everyone, unless you think there aren't married gays who are still in the closet or that no gays ever have sex with members of the opposite sex.

Best,

T-Shirt

[california boy]

But you said those were gay rights. Which is it?

Then, I fail to see the problem, we agree.

It is the same for all women. You are advocating the creation of special rights.

All women are already governed by the same law, what you want is a new law that grants special rights to lesbians.

Exactly, it was targeted at anyone who wanted to curtail the birth of children. It had nothing to do with sexual orientation. It was the same for everyone, unless you think there aren't married gays who are still in the closet or that no gays ever have sex with members of the opposite sex.

Best,

T-Shirt

I don't know if your answer is met to be funny or you truly don't grasp the very fundimental core of the point of gay marriage. If you don' then here it is. They want to marry the person they love.

Surely you realize the shallowness of your point. Or perhaps you have never been in love with anyone before and don't understand the desire to make a legal commitment to that person to cement that relationship. If you haven't, hopefully it will come to you at some time during your life.

[Bond...James Bond]

You got bad data there Mordecai. The Google can be awesome sometimes. Just a couple of polls I found in 30 seconds that are less biased than the one you posted:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/virginians-are-almost-evenly-split-on-gay-marriage-post-poll-finds/2011/05/06/AFFtojcG_story.html

As you can see in the Gallup poll (and most polls will bear out) Gay marriage support has been steadily growing and should continue to grow as (old) homophobes die off.

[Jaybear]

But you said those were gay rights. Which is it?

I see you are engaging in a game of semantics.

When we require public buildings have ramps, we are insuring that ALL citizens have access to the building.

By doing so we are furthering the rights of handicapped.

But in reality, those people who can walk, if they desired could buy a wheelchair and use the same ramps.

So when I say gay rights, I am referring rights that belong to everyone, but the restrictive law in question is targeted at gays.

Does playing these semantic games help salve your consciousness as you take policy position depriving your fellow humans of important rights.

It is the same for all women. You are advocating the creation of special rights.

Yes, it is the same for all women. No, I am advocating that women have the same right as men, that is the right to marry a woman.

Your suggesting that its okay, if the law applies to all women, is ... well to put it politely ... misses the point.

Think for a moment. Its discriminatory to pass a law denying women the right to vote, even if the law were to applies to all women.

Saying that the law applies to all women, and therefore does not descrimnate, is like saying that the law applies to all blacks, or to all mormons, or to all chinese, and therefore is not descriminatory.

All women are already governed by the same law, what you want is a new law that grants special rights to lesbians.

Wrong again. All women would have the right to marry a women, not just lesbians.

When we ended prohibition, all adults had the right to drink beer, not just "beer drinkers."

You really are trying hard not to get this very simple point.

[frankenstein]

jaybear, other(s) have stated the same, that ssm in Ca. was not for all citizens of Ca. I say more people need to watch the final episode of Boston Legal ---> ssm solely for inheritance and tax benefits.

[Jeff K.]

In CA that had been dealt with through civil (ie non marriage) laws.

[Mordecai]

You got bad data there Mordecai. The Google can be awesome sometimes. Just a couple of polls I found in 30 seconds that are less biased than the one you posted...

First of all, Gallup's didn't represent a large sample size: only 1000 people were questioned. Your second poll is for Virginia, which is a profoundly liberal state. That poll indicates that even Virginians are divided. In my opinion, people have been shamed into not giving their honest opinions. Furthermore, the questions were different in one poll than the other. While most Americans say they want marriage defined as ONLY between one man and one woman, most Americans also want gays to have rights. I suspect civil unions, once implemented properly, will help solve the problem for people whose conscience is bothering them, so they'll respond more honestly to the polls next time. According to POS's poll, 53% STRONGLY agree that marriage should be defined as being between on man and one woman and only 35% disagreed.

You have no evidence POS has lied or distorted the facts. I think the difference is in the wording of the question. (Some people think its subtle, but I don't think so).

As you can see in the Gallup poll (and most polls will bear out) Gay marriage support has been steadily growing and should continue to grow as (old) homophobes die off.

I can see you hate old people (homophobes, huh?) and are anxious for them to die. Also, I'm aware that "gay marriage" is being pushed on the youth of America through public schools. I don't know if you know this, but Americans are sick and tired of our public school system failing our children. There is growing support to end this kind of immoral indoctrination with left-wing dogmas.

[Stargazer]

I don't know if your answer is met to be funny or you truly don't grasp the very fundimental core of the point of gay marriage. If you don' then here it is. They want to marry the person they love.

Surely you realize the shallowness of your point. Or perhaps you have never been in love with anyone before and don't understand the desire to make a legal commitment to that person to cement that relationship. If you haven't, hopefully it will come to you at some time during your life.

I'm sure he knows exactly what the point is. It is clear that he's not granting the point. And neither am I.

OK, you're gay. You're deeply in love with your partner. You live in California. You can enter into a civil union with pretty much all the rights of a man-woman married couple. Only thing is, you can't legally call it "marriage," but you want to. If your civil union gives you pretty much every thing that you need, I don't see why you can't just call it a "marriage" and leave the law out of it. Didn't you do that with the word "gay"? "Homosexual" possibly sounded too clinical, so you took a word which used to mean happy, cheerful and carefree and used it as a code-word, until the codeword itself came out of the closet. OK, you can have it if you want; it had kind of gone out of fashion in the language anyway. For this you don't even need a code-word. Just call it "marriage". The word is frequently used euphemistically in any case (as in "Rock and Roll is a marriage of Blues and Jazz"). Just leave the law out of it.

[Ares]

This thread has gone very political and the title is somewhat provocative. Take the discussion of gay marriage rights to the other topic and please be respectful of all views.

Thanks.