Poll - Gay Marriage Ban

[hoytdwow 202]

For or Against Gay Marriage ban?

For the Ban [ 26 ] ** [40.00%]

Against the Ban [ 39 ] ** [60.00%]

 

That's funny...cause we all know the moment people are actually faced with it and

step into the voting booth it's 80% for 20% against.

Hard to argue with this stunning logic

 

[GettnHuge 1]

About half of Americans oppose gay marriage in general. What makes you think 80% of them want to rewrite the Constitution?

 

I'm speaking in general. the question is: for or against ban, lets see what the geeks think.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I'm speaking in general. the question is: for or against ban, lets see what the geeks think.

 

Isn't that what the poll says?

 

I think that the Geeks have spoken.

[Artist Formerly Known as Big O 0]

I could not vote as there was no option 3: Who gives a fock and are there not more important things government should be focusing on?

[MDC 5,893]

I'm speaking in general. the question is: for or against ban, lets see what the geeks think.

 

You said that 80% of them would be for it. I think you're overshooting by a mile. I think about half of Americans oppose gay marriage. You've got to figure that some people who'd otherwise oppose gay marriage also oppose a constitutional amendment on federalist grounds, so you've talking about less than half. If 80% of the American public supported this amendment you can bet it would've passed the Senate.

[GettnHuge 1]

You said that 80% of them would be for it. I think you're overshooting by a mile. I think about half of Americans oppose gay marriage. You've got to figure that some people who'd otherwise oppose gay marriage also oppose a constitutional amendment on federalist grounds, so you've talking about less than half. If 80% of the American public supported this amendment you can bet it would've passed the Senate.

 

So if 80% of peeps no longer want an income tax, the senate will eliminate it?

 

In all of the states that passed amendments a couple years ago, the closest was 57 to 43.

The rest were total blowouts including 86% in mississippi, 75% kentucky, 70% nebraska,

76% texas, 81% alabama, 76% oklahoma, 70% kansas, 73% north dakota, 69% hawaii,

66% utah, 67% montana, 71% missouri and a few others...

 

so you're saying 'about half'?

[torridjoe 0]

So if 80% of peeps no longer want an income tax, the senate will eliminate it?

 

In all of the states that passed amendments a couple years ago, the closest was 57 to 43.

The rest were total blowouts including 86% in mississippi, 75% kentucky, 70% nebraska,

76% texas, 81% alabama, 76% oklahoma, 70% kansas, 73% north dakota, 69% hawaii,

66% utah, 67% montana, 71% missouri and a few others...

 

so you're saying 'about half'?

None of those states passed amendments to the US Constitution.

[parrot 789]

In all of the states that passed amendments a couple years ago, the closest was 57 to 43.

The rest were total blowouts including 86% in mississippi, 75% kentucky, 70% nebraska,

76% texas, 81% alabama, 76% oklahoma, 70% kansas, 73% north dakota, 69% hawaii,

66% utah, 67% montana, 71% missouri and a few others...

Quite the representative sampling you have there.

[GettnHuge 1]

None of those states passed amendments to the US Constitution.

 

 

who said anything about the us constitution

 

Poll - Gay Marriage Ban

Poll - Gay Marriage Ban

For or Against Gay Marriage ban?

For the Ban [ 26 ] ** [36.11%]

Against the Ban [ 46 ] ** [63.89%]

Total Votes: 72

You have already voted in this poll

 

Ravens 03

 

Let's see what the Geeks think.

[MDC 5,893]

So if 80% of peeps no longer want an income tax, the senate will eliminate it?

 

In all of the states that passed amendments a couple years ago, the closest was 57 to 43.

The rest were total blowouts including 86% in mississippi, 75% kentucky, 70% nebraska,

76% texas, 81% alabama, 76% oklahoma, 70% kansas, 73% north dakota, 69% hawaii,

66% utah, 67% montana, 71% missouri and a few others...

 

so you're saying 'about half'?

 

OK, I got some numbers from the Philadelphia Inquirer today - no link but if you insist I'll dig it up. About 60% of people oppose gay marriage in general, and supposedly 40% support a constitutional amendment. I'm actually surprised there's that much support for it, but looking at other polls (what Bush and Congress' priorities should be) it doesn't seem like a hot issue for many people. I'm in favor of rainbows and friendly puppy dogs but I'm not electing a guy because he runs on that platform, y'know?

 

Far as your stats, there's a difference between supporting a statewide ban on gay marriage and supporting a constitutional amendment. Many people who'd otherwise oppose gay marriage are reluctant to amend the friggin constitution over it on federalist grounds. That's a pretty extreme solution to a non-problem.

 

HTH.

[parrot 789]

who said anything about the us constitution

 

For the Ban

Against the Ban

It would be pretty clear to anyone but a completely disingenuous weasel that the federal amendment is what is being discussed here.

[torridjoe 0]

who said anything about the us constitution

 

MDC, in the post you responded to??

 

If 80% of the American public supported this amendment you can bet it would've passed the Senate.

[GettnHuge 1]

ahhh so I am going by what the poll asks...

and you peeps are making assumptions...

 

that's funny, MDC, referring to polls when my entire point is polls on this

mean shat because when it comes down to reality, people have shown they

will vote against the buttpirates by another 10 to 20%. that was a national

focken story.

[MDC 5,893]

ahhh so I am going by what the poll asks...

and you peeps are making assumptions...

 

that's funny, MDC, referring to polls when my entire point is polls on this

mean shat because when it comes down to reality, people have shown they

will vote against the buttpirates by another 10 to 20%. that was a national

focken story.

 

You are showing me polls on statewide bans on gay marriage, not polls on a constitutional amendment. There is far less general support for a constitutional amendment - like I said, some people who'd otherwise oppose gay marriage for moral reasons are reluctant to amend the constitution on federalist grounds.

 

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to prove.

[parrot 789]

ahhh so I am going by what the poll asks...

and you peeps are making assumptions...

The poll asks about "the ban", as in a specific singular ban. What is "the ban" in question if not the federal amendment?

[GettnHuge 1]

The poll asks about "the ban", as in a specific singular ban. What is "the ban" in question if not the federal amendment?

 

uh, no those are your selections, the question is:

For or Against Gay Marriage ban?

 

let me assume too...

 

For the ban(of gay marriage)

against the ban(of gay marriage)

 

wow that doesn't seem specific at all now does it? I'm still looking for words like constitution,

federal, amendment....

[parrot 789]

uh, no those are your selections, the question is:

For or Against Gay Marriage ban?

 

let me assume too...

 

For the ban(of gay marriage)

against the ban(of gay marriage)

 

wow that doesn't seem specific at all now does it? I'm still looking for words like constitution,

federal, amendment....

:oldrolleyes:

 

Like I said, "weasel".

[hoytdwow 202]

For the ban(of gay marriage)

against the ban(of gay marriage)

But, banned how? By the states? By the Fed? There's a big difference.

[MDC 5,893]

uh, no those are your selections, the question is:

For or Against Gay Marriage ban?

 

let me assume too...

 

For the ban(of gay marriage)

against the ban(of gay marriage)

 

wow that doesn't seem specific at all now does it? I'm still looking for words like constitution,

federal, amendment....

 

This is not the greatest poll.

 

Anyway, I'm generally for gay marriage. I think it has more potential benefits than drawbacks and IMO offering the same legal benefits to committed same-sex couples is just the right thing to do. I think the issue should be left up to the states, and states that oppose gay marriage should not be forced to recognize gay couples that were married in the states that do (they aren't). I'm strongly opposed to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, mainly because I think that would be an incredible intrusion on state rights and there's no urgent reason to do it. And I'm particularly opposed to guys like Bush, who I'm convinced really don't care about gay couples either way but exploit h0mophobia to appease their base. I'd have more respect for this maneuver if it was truly based in Bush's beliefs and not just a cynical, slimy stunt to maintain his death grip on the few people who still don't see what an incompetent failure his administration has been.

 

HTH.

[GettnHuge 1]

but exploit h0mophobia to appease their base. I'd have more respect for this maneuver if it was truly based in Bush's beliefs

 

and the other side believes...what? they quake in fear when the subject comes up. one day

you get one answer, the next another. Dems show support for the buttpirates, get their votes,

then run for cover and abandon them when it matters most. (see john kerry) Hard to see how

anyone can have even a shred of respect for what they do.

[MDC 5,893]

and the other side believes...what? they quake in fear when the subject comes up. one day

you get one answer, the next another. Dems show support for the buttpirates, get their votes,

then run for cover and abandon them when it matters most. (see john kerry) Hard to see how

anyone can have even a shred of respect for what they do.

 

Every Democrat except one voted down the amendment.

[torridjoe 0]

Every Democrat except one voted down the amendment.

 

Two voted for cloture, but Byrd would have voted no on the actual amendment. The only supporter on the Ds was Ben Nelson, NEB.

 

That said, GettnHuge has a point (ugh). The Democrats just BARELY come off as friendlier to the gay community. Many of them are hiding behind the "let's not mess with the Constitution" argument, making it easier for them to avoid saying whether they actually support same sex marriage. Even Barney Frank is against seeking same sex marriage right now (not on philosophy, but timing).

[gocolts 300]

Don't people like GoColts get tired of having opinions so focking stupid that they can't possibly imagine that anyone would believe them?

 

I mean come on, "we can't let gays marry because that will make homophobes feel bad for being wrong?"

What kind an argument is that?

 

Or, in spite of tens of thousands of unofficial gay marriages, allowing them rights to insurance, hospital visitation and due entitlement after death will make people want to have animal sex?

 

It scares me that people are this ignorant.

 

Homosexuality is a human condition. The only people that don't think so either have amazing never met a gay person or just haven't taken the time to think it through.

 

Does anyone care to address the concerns I have listed.I have many more too.

 

Korben is just being silly.Trying to put words in my mouth.So everyone has been wrong for thousands of years,and the phags today are right??Come on man.

 

I am not talking about people wanting to marry their dog.If you can't deny marriage to phags because of "Equal protection under the law",you will not be able to deny it to anyone else because of their beliefs,be it one man-3 women or ANYTHING else you can imagine.

[MDC 5,893]

Does anyone care to address the concerns I have listed.I have many more too.

 

Korben is just being silly.Trying to put words in my mouth.So everyone has been wrong for thousands of years,and the phags today are right??Come on man.

 

I am not talking about people wanting to marry their dog.If you can't deny marriage to phags because of "Equal protection under the law",you will not be able to deny it to anyone else because of their beliefs,be it one man-3 women or ANYTHING else you can imagine.

 

I addressed all of your concerns. You never answer.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I addressed all of your concerns. You never answer.

 

You need to go slower so that he can understand it. Give him time.

[gocolts 300]

I addressed all of your concerns. You never answer.

That's what I thought,you can't

[Bigtraine 24]

That's what I thought,you can't

 

Your slippery slope claims of pedophilia, marriage with inaminate objects and marriage to animals are all invalid because of CONSENT. Underage humans, inanimate objects and animals cannot give consent and cannot enter into a legally binding agreement.

 

I don't know if it was you, or someone else who brought up the idea of someone then wanting marriage with one's self. That cannot occur by definition - you cannot create a union between 1 thing. You need at least 2 things to make a union of anything.

 

But, I will agree with you on some other counts, namely polygamy and incest. In those cases the union would be between 2 or more consenting, adult parties - so applying the same criteria one could make a case for them to be allowed to legally marry.

[GettnHuge 1]

That said, GettnHuge has a point (ugh). The Democrats just BARELY come off as friendlier to the gay community. Many of them are hiding behind the "let's not mess with the Constitution" argument, making it easier for them to avoid saying whether they actually support same sex marriage.

 

 

at some point, if they really believe in same sex marriage, top dems are gonna have to

put their foot down and say it out loud. They are lucky now that repubs are trying to push

it too far and do what the far right wants. The only way dems can make the issue less risky

IMHO is to take a stand and in doing so will bring along the support of most in their party.

Maybe they are looking at poll numbers and saying it's 60-40 against them, well not every

issue is a popularity winner but by solidifying their base on it I'd say it makes the issue

less of a loser. Forcing the issue would make it a loser of course, but at least support it.

[parrot 789]

But, I will agree with you on some other counts, namely polygamy and incest. In those cases the union would be between 2 or more consenting, adult parties - so applying the same criteria one could make a case for them to be allowed to legally marry.

I'd say with incest there is a valid state interest because of the biological complications that it can create.

[MDC 5,893]

That's what I thought,you can't

 

OK, I'll do it again.

 

Your arguments against gay marriage are based on premises that you didn't support.

 

I'm assuming states have laws on the books against marraige within an immediate family, polygamy, bestiality, etc. There is no reason to think that gay marriage would lead to an uptick in people wanting to marry their brother or a horse. At least, I haven't seen anything indicating that's happened in Massachussets, where gay marriage is now legal.

 

You're also assuming that gay marriage is at odds with straight marriage, but you didn't explain why legal gay marriage would threaten or invalidate straight marriages - you just keep claiming that gays who want to get married are telling straights they they're "wrong." Why?

 

Finally, "We've never recognized gay marriage" is not much of an argument. At one time we never recognized women or minorities as equals. Tradition in and of itself is no reason to continue tradition.

 

HTH?

[GettnHuge 1]

I'm getting a beer

[Bigtraine 24]

OK, I'll do it again.

 

Your arguments against gay marriage are based on premises that you didn't support.

 

I'm assuming states have laws on the books against marraige within an immediate family, polygamy, bestiality, etc. There is no reason to think that gay marriage would lead to an uptick in people wanting to marry their brother or a horse. At least, I haven't seen anything indicating that's happened in Massachussets, where gay marriage is now legal.

 

You're also assuming that gay marriage is at odds with straight marriage, but you didn't explain why legal gay marriage would threaten or invalidate straight marriages - you just keep claiming that gays who want to get married are telling straights they they're "wrong." Why?

 

Finally, "We've never recognized gay marriage" is not much of an argument. At one time we never recognized women or minorities as equals. Tradition in and of itself is no reason to continue tradition.

 

HTH?

 

He'll just wait to tomorrow, post the same thing, and then claim that nobody ever answers his 'concerns'.

[MDC 5,893]

He'll just wait to tomorrow, post the same thing, and then claim that nobody ever answers his 'concerns'.

 

Either that, or he'll just repeat the same concerns ("They're threatening straight marriage! We've been doing it this forever! Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!") and claim they weren't answered.

 

I know the routine.

[gocolts 300]

Here is a story where a woman marries a snake

 

Yes,I was the one who said that a woman overseas wanted to marry herself.

 

This is the kind of stuff that happens when you try to make a mockery of marriage,as the phags are doing right now with this bullsh!t.

 

Gay marriage helped to kill heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia.

 

You can stop with the people marry animals crap.I did not say that in this thread.It will happen if gay marriage is allowed,but that is not what I'm talking about right now.

 

How are they going to deny all sorts of marriages if they let the phags marry???

 

Again,they say that it's equal protection under the law is why they should be allowed to marry.So if the phags have equal protection under the law,how are you going to deny someone whos' beliefs are that a man can marry as many women as he wants??Do the phags just get to marry and everyone else is just SOL???I doubt it.

[torridjoe 0]

Here is a story where a woman marries a snake

 

Yes,I was the one who said that a woman overseas wanted to marry herself.

 

This is the kind of stuff that happens when you try to make a mockery of marriage,as the phags are doing right now with this bullsh!t.

 

Gay marriage helped to kill heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia.

 

You can stop with the people marry animals crap.I did not say that in this thread.It will happen if gay marriage is allowed,but that is not what I'm talking about right now.

 

How are they going to deny all sorts of marriages if they let the phags marry???

 

Again,they say that it's equal protection under the law is why they should be allowed to marry.So if the phags have equal protection under the law,how are you going to deny someone whos' beliefs are that a man can marry as many women as he wants??Do the phags just get to marry and everyone else is just SOL???I doubt it.

 

So she married a snake? IN INDIA. IN A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.

Care to explain what the FOCK that has to do with government rights and privileges in the US?

And by the way, when did gay marriage become legal in India? Your thesis is that gay marriage causes things like this.

 

Your assertion about gay marriage in Scandinavia is totally full of crap, but at least we get another clue as to where your talking points are coming from.

 

You can't have a mutually subjugative legal relationship with more than one person. By definition, the person with multiple spouses serves different people in the same capacity, which creates a legally incomprehensible situation.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Here is a story where a woman marries a snake

 

Yes,I was the one who said that a woman overseas wanted to marry herself.

 

This is the kind of stuff that happens when you try to make a mockery of marriage,as the phags are doing right now with this bullsh!t.

 

Gay marriage helped to kill heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia.

 

You can stop with the people marry animals crap.I did not say that in this thread.It will happen if gay marriage is allowed,but that is not what I'm talking about right now.

 

How are they going to deny all sorts of marriages if they let the phags marry???

 

Again,they say that it's equal protection under the law is why they should be allowed to marry.So if the phags have equal protection under the law,how are you going to deny someone whos' beliefs are that a man can marry as many women as he wants??Do the phags just get to marry and everyone else is just SOL???I doubt it.

well, that does it. I have changed my mind. The compelling argument here is proof of the problems that await us should we allow gays to be monogamous according to law.

 

Godolts comes up with the same drivel that is representative of a high school dropout in Indiana. While I believe that each person has the right to their opinion, it is people like this that make me question whether we should have an IQ test before allowing them to vote.

 

We can have tummy tucks, face lifts, liposuction, and breast augmentation to address physical shortcomings. If we could only come up with something to address stupidity, then we would really be making a contribution to society.