The Gallup Polls – Fake or Real? 54% of Americans support gay marriage? (moved)

[GoldenBoy89]

I feel that if homosexual marriage must be part of society, it is much better described as a civil union.

They are so busy playing hardball, they don't want to give the traditional notion of marriage any respect- they want to run over it, redefine it, make it theirs, so on and so forth.

I am disappointed in churches, such as the Metropolitan and Episcopalians, for having ignored what even the State recognizes. It's all to me just radical- a complete sabotage of even the mere consideration of tradition, despite the fact of these churches' otherwise traditional core.

No single group of people has a patent on the institution of marriage. If society says it's time for an update on longstanding marriage laws, society has that right to change, re-define and even do away with marriage if society should so choose to do.

 

[Skybringr]

Democrat =/= liberal. Republican =/= conservative. Blacks vote democrat but not because they are these ultra-progressive liberals. Some probably are but as a group, African Americans tend to be very religious and therefor, conservative in their beliefs.

I'm not sure that's true. The conservatism part, maybe. The homosexual claim, not likely.

Well, it's self evident in our society that conservatism tends to run close with traditional Christianity.
It just comes with the package for a great deal of people because conservatism is in itself just plain traditional.

And it's reasonable that there wouldn't be but so much a large group of LGBT within that. I mean, most homosexuals one is likely to come across will in fact identify as democrat.

I will say however that it's surprising that the majority of blacks do not agree with LGBT despite that they are mostly democrat.
I dunno, it's complicated

 

[theophilus777]

Again, we are utterly ignoring homosexual women.

That can be fixed

Or actually, mostly it can't. The Bible is almost silent on them. But they don't transmit STDs at all? I'm skeptical.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I remember the days before AIDS. They were better. Shroomier, too

The 60's? Yeah... I'll take post AIDS epidemic sex ed over the 60's "free love" philosophy any day.

 

[theophilus777]

There's something to be acknowledged there- homosexuality is in fact very political.

That's it! Vote Democrat, become gay, and catch AIDS. Probably all in the same day, even.

 

[theophilus777]

denying them their right to be in committed relationships.

Praytell, how is this accomplished?

 

[Skybringr]

That's it! Vote Democrat, become gay, and catch AIDS. Probably all in the same day, even.

It's the mindset and coercion of the party.

They make homosexuality a valid lifestyle, and defend it. This makes people more open to choosing such a lifestyle if the desire rests in them to do so. With transgenders specifically, I do honestly feel that a lot of them are talked into and coerced into believing they are a different gender then their body.

All I will say is this: almost four percent of the population identifying as LGBT is very bad for the notion that it's innate or natural.

If we put it into perspective, that's well over double the amount of people in the Department of Justice, who have, for a decade now, had an issue with overpopulation despite how our rural areas are lined with prisons.

That's a whole lot of LGBT, and it just isn't realistic that there should be that many if it should be inherited and not a choice.

 

[theophilus777]

Why do you get to decide what constitutes a valid marriage? Who made you the arbiter of truth?

I wouldn't want to. Why should your preference change my society, dragging your mattress into every Court case?

not a good enough reason to deny members of the public the same liberties that are afforded to other members of the same public.

If there are any "liberties you are not afforded," its your own fault for not going for those civil rights you want and instead conflating it with marriage, which you knew was controversial. If you had left marriage out of it this would've been settled, long ago.

You are the one who wants to protect the current definition of marriage, you are the one that needs to give a valid reason why it shouldn't be expanded to include homosexuals.

Nothing else works that way, but in this case I think both sides will be heard. I suppose you could call that a win.

You've given reasons but so far, none of them are working. The courts disagree with you, most of the country disagrees with you, and more importantly, the constitution disagrees with you.

The Constitution is silent on the matter, the Courts have not ruled, and this thread exists because falsehood in polls is exposed.

 

[SaphireOwl]

I find it just a bit dubious (my favorite word late, dubious) that wherever there's a lot of liberalism, there's a lot of LGBT.

Couldn't have anything to do with it being a choice coerced by liberals could it....

You'll notice that very often there is a decided inconsistency in those that stomp for tolerance and inclusion, while demonstrating a predisposition to intolerance and exclusion of those who do not comport with their ideal.

Take for instance ex-gays. Who report that they are bullied, threatened, harassed, by gays because there is little tolerance for those who choose not to be gay.
PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays)

 

[theophilus777]

The 60's? Yeah... I'll take post AIDS epidemic sex ed over the 60's "free love" philosophy any day.

Yes. Because AIDS really did break out in the 60's. You heard it here first. CF's most credible source
All hail crudo

 

[theophilus777]

I feel that if homosexual marriage must be part of society, it is much better described as a civil union.

They are so busy playing hardball, they don't want to give the traditional notion of marriage any respect- they want to run over it, redefine it, make it theirs

They also want to complain about gay bashing. This is hypocritical, short-sighted,and more likely to increase gay bashing than anything else they could come up with. If the term civil union is so objectionable something else can be worked out and nobody really cares. Let them have equal rights by all means just don't pretend its marriage. Nobody is going to look at them the same anyway, why not give it a rest? If its respect their after, disrespecting others is not the way to get it.

I am disappointed in churches, such as the Metropolitan and Episcopalians, for having ignored what even the State recognizes. It's all to me just radical- a complete sabotage of even the mere consideration of tradition in such regard, despite the fact of these churches' otherwise traditional core.

I agree its shameful, but who are the Metropolitans?

 

[theophilus777]

society has that right to change, re-define and even do away with marriage if society should so choose to do.

Getting Gov't out of the marriage business altogether would be the most peaceful resolution to this whole mess. The first time I encountered that idea it was ... squicky but it really does make sense. Gov't affords civil rights. Those civil rights clearly should be equal.

Beyond that why should Govt be involved?

 

[theophilus777]

Well, it's self evident in our society that conservatism tends to run close with traditional Christianity.
It just comes with the package for a great deal of people because conservatism is in itself just plain traditional.

In your lifetime it probably would seem that way, but do yourself a favor and read up on classical liberalism, and the history of what these words mean. Our bastardization of the English language has re-defined terms to the point of meaninglessness. You and I are liberals, in the classic sense.

 

[Joykins]

I agree its shameful, but who are the Metropolitans?

I think he means the Metropolitan Community Church.

 

[Joykins]

Well, it's self evident in our society that conservatism tends to run close with traditional Christianity.
It just comes with the package for a great deal of people because conservatism is in itself just plain traditional.

A vast majority of black Americans are Christian, and religious.

A Religious Portrait of African-Americans | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

I will say however that it's surprising that the majority of blacks do not agree with LGBT despite that they are mostly democrat.
I dunno, it's complicated

Read the article I linked above; it has a lot of good information on the topic including a lot of details. The upshot is that while many black Americans are conservative or moderate, and religious, they tend to favor liberal social policies. (the same is also true of many Jews. You may want to ponder those similarities a bit).

 

[GoldenBoy89]

A vast majority of black Americans are Christian, and religious.

A Religious Portrait of African-Americans | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project


Read the article I linked above; it has a lot of good information on the topic including a lot of details. The upshot is that while many black Americans are conservative or moderate, and religious, they tend to favor liberal social policies. (the same is also true of many Jews. You may want to ponder those similarities a bit).

Who would have guessed that these two groups that have faced grave social injustice, not too long ago either, will be on the side of social justice and equality?

It's almost as if they have first-hand experience with bigotry.

 

[TheDag]

Anyway...
The issue you ignore is CONSENT. An inanimate object, a goat, a child, etc. cannot provide consent. This immediately removes them from the issue, since they cannot, in any way, be legally married in this country (or most, for that matter).


Now...siblings? I honestly don't care if they do get married. So long as, y'know, they are near the same age, no obvious signs of force, blah blah blah.
Both adults? Both able to consent? Yeah? Then fine. Whatever. Doesn't hurt me; doesn't hurt them: why should I care - legally speaking?

Squicky? Oh yeah. WAY squicky. Like...shudder inducing to even consider the idea, to me. But that shouldn't be a basis for a legal argument, either.

yet in every group I have had that discussion in real life only one person has supported it despite all the arguments for gay marriage being allowed applying to those relationships. That is why I say most gays do not support marriage equality.

 

[TheDag]

It is unequal if everybody in a heterosexual relationship can marry whoever they want but people in homosexual relationships cannot. That is the very definition of inequality and more importantly, that is oppression by a religious majority. Tyranny of the majority, as it is known.

Gay people already have equality. If gay maraige is legalised everywhere in the world they will still have marriage equality. Equality is actually same rights. So at the moment every person in the US & Australia has the right to marry whoever they want provided consent can be given, the person is opposite gender and is not already married. When gay marriage is legalised everywhere then everyone will have the right to marry provided consent is given and they are not already married. So the equal rights are already there by definition. Changing a definition does not change equal rights.

I'll address the sister scenario because that is the only one that is likely plausible.

Let's say a man is raising his adopted child by himself. He needs a handing in raising his kid but can't find a decent relationship so he asks his sister to help him out. Why can't he marry his sister for the sole purpose of her helping him raise his kid? If they aren't having sex, where is the problem with them being granted the same benefits and tax breaks that other couples get to raise children?

And lets be honest here, if a dude is sleeping with his sister, there is no law that can be passed that will stop them from doing what they do. Married or not. You don't need government approval to have sex.

Why do you imply that having sex with your sister is morally wrong?

I'm sure that has nothing to do with conservatives being the ones calling them abominations and condemning their private lives and comparing them to child molesters and zoophiles and denying them their right to be in committed relationships.

Nah... it couldn't be that.

Nobody is denying anyone a right to be in a committed relationship. Marriage does not equal committed relationship. it is attitude and choice that determines commitment. People can be married and suddenly say Hey I'm not cut out for marriage so I'm leaving. marriage but no commitment to work through problems.

You are the one who wants to protect the current definition of marriage, you are the one that needs to give a valid reason why it shouldn't be expanded to include homosexuals. You've given reasons but so far, none of them are working. The courts disagree with you, most of the country disagrees with you, and more importantly, the constitution disagrees with you.

no this is not correct. those wanting change are under just as much if not more obligation to justify that change.

 

[TheDag]

There is no "forcing through legislation" here. Unless if you refer to what the gays are trying to force upon the rest of us.

I'm calling this for the dishonesty that it is. The moment christian groups campaign to have SSM remain illegal then it is being forced.

What is "marriage in the eyes of the State?" I ask because I really do think this is what the issue boils down to. I think it is rights that are within the jurisdiction of the Courts to award: mostly financial, with some other things thrown in, like hospital visitation for example. Why does that need to be called marriage?

I suppose it doesn't have to be but that is part of the rights of those defined by the state to be married.

It affects the entirety of society. And your question can not possibly be sincere, otherwise there would be no opposition.

strange that you won't explain how though. If you need some lessons on how to post a link to a explanation you gave in a different thread then feel free to ask. That way you don't need to type it again. Of course you could just cut & paste. Once again if help is needed with how to do that then just ask.

Lots of holes in your statements, but I think everyone will agree with this much. The question becomes, do we need to point out why re-defining marriage is not a good idea? I don't think we do. We are not the ones wanting to change anything. I think the gays need to make a valid reason why it needs to be re-defined. They haven't done so. Their civil rights can be afforded w/o re-defining marriage. And what they hope to accomplish by re-defining marriage will not be accomplished, so how is it worth the turmoil?

itis only redefining state definition. so no i don't see how that is terrible. even from a christian perspective why is it we hear nothing from these same christian groups who oppose SSM about other laws that don't agree with christian beliefs? This is the heart of the matter. Why the hypocrisy and double standards from christians who oppose legalising SSM? If you would like examples then telling lies is not illegal unless under oath and greed is not illegal and neither is adultery.

I wouldn't want to. Why should your preference change my society, dragging your mattress into every Court case?

Why should your preference change others society?
When you consider that laws are always changing and evolving then your insistence on them remaining the same can be considered change as well.

 

[TheDag]

1. As far as Christianity is concerned, by the Holy Book and the natural ordinance of God, first and foremost- it is not valid marriage.
Marriage is between man and woman. This is indisputable by the acknowledgement of Adam and Eve, and all testimony of Scripture.

What does that have to do with secular laws?

2. It validates homosexuality. It supposes that homosexuality is a workable, natural way of life. This is indisputably against Christianity, and therefore a doctrine of demons.

No law validates anything to me. There are laws we have here in Oz that I think are morally wrong and should not be allowed like negative gearing (related to purchasing accomodation). If SSM were to be legalised here i still would not change my view that it goes against my faith and it would not change my faith one bit.

3. The State itself, although not a Christian state, recognizes that marriage is in fact between man and woman. This is why homosexuals are granted a civil union, and not definitively a marriage.
It is obvious that, to ascertain homosexual marriage, one has to redefine marriage altogether.

Does it? Or is that a change? Here in Oz it was only defined as one man and one woman under Prime Minister John Howard which means somewhere between 1996 & 2007. Was it clearly defined originally as one man and one woman or is it assumed that was the case? Also what other things were allowed back then that are no longer allowed? Don't say none because that would be dishonest. Point is that things including laws change.

The majority of HIV rests in our small population of homosexuals.

I won't even bother to post the statistics, we all know this reality.

How is there nothing wrong with that

actually the highest risk is having anal sex as the cavity walls are not as strong and more prone to tears. That is not the exclusive domain of homosexuals. Also going by that argument then there must be nothing wrong with lesbians because as a group they are least likely to get HIV.