This is a private poll, if you want to share how you voted, feel free to do so in a regular post.

Let's try and have an intelligent discussion and keep the inflammatory slurs and homophobic comments out of this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060605/ap_on_go_co/congress_gay_marriage_8;_ylt=ApZe3LoLDgEzHqNdR5el_ LddlakA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Gay marriage ban short of votes in Senate

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

The president was to make further remarks Monday in favor of the amendment as the Senate opened three days of debate. Neither chamber, though, is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states — three quarters of which would then have to approve it.

Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't but concede the reality of election-year politics.

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week — a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.

As that hearing gets under way, debate on the marriage amendment will enter its second day on the Senate floor. All but one of the Senate Democrats — the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska — oppose the measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up-or-down vote, killing the measure for the year.

Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference.

"A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, which in 2004 began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, on Monday denounced Bush's move as predictable and "stale rhetoric" aimed at rallying conservatives for this year's midterm elections.

"It's politics. It's pandering and it's placating a core constituency, the evangelicals," Newsom said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Fueled by election-year politics, the gay marriage issue is the most volatile Congress will consider as it returns from a weeklong Memorial Day recess.

Other legislation has better chances for success, particularly a record-size emergency spending bill to continue U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provide hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast.

The Pentagon says it needs its money — about $66 billion — right away or delays could begin to affect the conduct of the war in Iraq. The Senate added new relief for farmers and other aid to the package, swelling its cost to more than $100 billion. Bush is demanding that the price tag stick within his $92.2 billion request, plus $2.3 billion to combat avian flu.

The House is expected to consider a $32 billion spending bill that would give the Homeland Security Department $1.8 billion more in 2007 than this year. It also is likely to send Bush a Senate-approved bill to raise indecency fines tenfold, to $325,000 per violation, for television and radio broadcasters.

An election-year debate on the constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was never in doubt, however doomed the legislation. As Republicans geared up to defend their majorities in the House and Senate, conservative groups earlier this year let them know that they were dissatisfied with the GOP's efforts on several social issues, including gay marriage.

Parliamentary maneuvers were likely to sink the amendment for the year. Senate procedure requires two days of debate before the 100-member Senate decides — 60 votes are required — whether to consider the amendment on an up-or-down vote.

I'm for gay marriage.

I really don't care for marriage in the first place. It's become a big joke with all these divorces coming out the fly and shit. I doubt I'll ever get married since I don't believe a ring and a cheesy ceremony should determine ones love for another. Not to mention I don't want to deal with a bunch of drama during a divorce. I want to be able to just walk away.

The straights have already shitted all over marriage and I'm sure the gays can't do any worse to it.

I'm for it.

I really don't care for marriage in the first place. It's become a big joke with all these divorces coming out the fly and shit. I doubt I'll ever get married since I don't believe a ring and a cheesy ceremony should determine ones love for another. Not to mention I don't want to deal with a bunch of drama during a divorce. I want to be able to just walk away.

The straights have already shitted all over marriage and I'm sure the gays can't do any worse to it.

Just to clarify, it looks like you are "against it" (the ban) even though you actually posted that you are "for it".

I know what you meant, but I thought others might get confused.

Personally, I'm also against the ban. Who are we to impose "our" morals on other Americans? I'm pretty sure that being gay has nothing to do with how adept your parenting skills are, whether you pay your taxes, or whether you are an upstanding citizen.

It's really upsetting when the government tries to interfere with private citizens just trying to live their lives. They are not out there killing or hurting anyone, yet they get treated like pariahs.

Trying to protect people from themselves is such an outdated mindset, IMO. I feel the same way about the legalization of casino gambling.

For those that think a ban like this is going to make people stop being gay, I've got bad news for you. It seems like the evangelicals are just looking for a way to rain on someone else's happiness.

I fixed it. I thought the question was whether or not you supported gay marriage.

I dont care what 2 guys or 2 girls do behind closed doors
or if they really "love" each other or whatever

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman

so thats the way it should be

however if the bum buddies want to become a "union" or whatever you want to call it and have a ceremony and exchange O-rings and get the benefits they so desire then go right ahead

but Gay Marriage is an oxymoron

I dont care what 2 guys or 2 girls do behind closed doors
or if they really "love" each other or whatever

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman

so thats the way it should be

however if the bum buddies want to become a "union" or whatever you want to call it and have a ceremony and exchange O-rings and get the benefits they so desire then go right ahead

but Gay Marriage is an oxymoron

When you say "by definition" doesn't it depend on where you look for that definition?




marriage

n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union, spousal relationship, wedlock] 2: two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" [syn: married couple, man and wife] 3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" [syn: wedding, marriage ceremony] 4: a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

Outlawing gay marriage is retarded and unconstitutional IMO. homos should have the right to be homos and marry as such. The only times they've ever irked me is when they compare themselves to minority races and when they tried to march in the st patricks day parade in Boston on some gay pride takeover bs. Outside of that who gives a shit? I mean why on earth is tax money being put forth to stop Bob Fudgepacker from marrying Jim Assmunch? As if thats even important. Marriage doesnt "belong" to anybody but the two who get married. All this sacred talk like marriage is a group thing is one of the many problems with american society. Its like these dumbasses think that if they ban marriages for gays it'll cut down on the gay population or take away the advertising "if you go straight you can get married" advantage of being straight from them. Like a muthafucka will say "I gave up being gay because of the lack of government benefits stemming from me not being able to marry.":confused: ...

Oddly enough i get just as annoyed as the next cat by sissy acting mofos and i hate that will and grace show. but at the same time i dont care. thats a sign of no life to spend your life trying to stop gay marriages. same muthafucka wont do shit to take down currupt oil companies, currupt cops, poverty, shady health care companies, or anything else that matters way more than this garbage.

I mean why on earth is tax money being put forth to stop Bob Fudgepacker from marrying Jim Assmunch?

ROFLMFAO

Shit, yes I'm for a ban. I voted for the wrong one though. I thought the queston was saying are you for gay marriage!


Oh well. I'm against it.

Shit, yes I'm for a ban. I voted for the wrong one though. I thought the queston was saying are you for gay marriage!

Oh well. I'm against it.

There's some irony in there somewhere.

lmao.


http://www.motherbuster.com/wnut/garrison.jpg

LOL at Gutz's ENTIRE post!

Here's a quote from a new Yahoo article that I found to be dead on.




"The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another," Reid said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor. "This is another one of the presidents efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day."

What, no TK yet?

We are speaking about gays.

TK's specialty.



The master art of Haiku transcends forums.


Also, if you vote "unsure", does that make you "bi"?

Wanna preserve the sanctity of marriage? Ban divorce. Fucking hypocritical Republicans.

If you wanna connect it to children, then punish your fucking redneck relatives whose sisters bear them children when they're 15.

This isn't a gay marriage debate. This is a discrimination debate. This is about whether or not gays should have rights.

The only reason this is even a fucking issue is because the word "marriage" got thrown in and we all know how fucking tense that word can be.

This isn't an issue of discrimination. The neocons are bringing this up now to energize their hill billy base. Republicans know they are going to get their asses handed to them if the 06 elections are based on real issues. They put out this fake issue to piss off rednecks and to get them out to the polls. After the elections this issue will die.

LOL at Gutz's ENTIRE post!
I already forgot what i wrote.:confused:

i could care less what they do, i voted against the ban. i had a gay roommate a few years back and i just didnt walk around in my underwear lol. shoot they probably got it made... who knows better how to please a penis than someone with a penis, or please a pussy than someone with a pussy? im not gay, therefore ive spent countless hours instructing girls to do this and do that and its better this way and dont bend it like that. not like i get it with a ton of virgins but they dont have a cock, so they dont know. dated a girl for over a year, we got it on a ton, and i was still giving her pointers in the end. i think what pisses a lot of people off about gay marriage (as far as people who dont care about gay people) is the tax breaks, ive heard that argument a lot. ultimately i think its just another stepping stone for american society to get over, womans suffrage, black rights, and now gay people. the fact that my tax money is being wasted on something like this pisses me off the most. we should be focusing more on immigration, economy, etc.

i voted for the ban, only because its true that glenn is a master of spinning poll results.

im against banning gay marriage, because there are huge advantageous to being married as far as insurance, taxes, and the law go. and like glenn said, the gov should stay out of our personal business (this would be an obvious blending of church and state).

but as a rule, im pretty much against gay marriage, and homosexuallity at all. i do believe its wrong (how is it not, society couldnt survive if we were all gay. infact, in the mid 1800's, there was no homosexuallity. its a biproduct of changing living conditions where a person could live outside the basic familly structure). more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

ps: i really dont hate homosexuals, this is all a biproduct of my anger towards sheed.

infact, in the mid 1800's, there was no homosexuallity. its a biproduct of changing living conditions where a person could live outside the basic familly structure).


in ancient rome there were gay bathhouses, they were quite common and accepted.

more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.




I feel the first step is banning sex not for the purpose of reproduction. Stem the flow there and we're all safe from snuff porn.

more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.
yes, the homos are to blame for pedophelia, as is sheed.:rolleyes:

Once again homos are homos, they have been around since ancient times. Alexander the great took it up the ass for hobby as did cesaer at parties. The idea that things like this effect the morals of society in a negative way is retarded. I'd be much quicker to say killing a a muthafucka for being gay(which was accepted in many cultures and still is in some) is a fucked up set of morals. The only thing that has changed is the freedom for them closet hiding fruitcakes to not have to hide.

IMO its better that they are allowed to be free in their lifestyle choice. So they dont repress it by getting married or becoming a priest. then unload it one day on catholic choir boys and/or a group boy scouts.

Save the kids from bottled up homos taking in youths at big brothers of america clubs just to get some action.

i think you guys are misinterpreting that point. prior to the late 1800's there was homosexual behavior--dudes would do other dudes for whatever reason--but no one was classified as a "homosexual" before that.

i think you guys are misinterpreting that point. prior to the late 1800's there was homosexual behavior--dudes would do other dudes for whatever reason--but no one was classified as a "homosexual" before that.
meaning? men were fucking men. so if we dont label it as gay like the roman fudgepacking aritocrats its cool? what kinda shit are you on man?:confused: maybe i'm still misinterpreting your statement. but that isnt all that clear if your trying to say something else.

My point is that it was there from the jump accepting in some dominant societies of the past more than it is today. So i dont see how you make it the gateway moral dilema to pedophilia and other problems in society. but if thats how you feel fair enough. no need to debate the topic of fruitcakes too long. Cowology may make an appearence for a first hand point of view.

im against banning gay marriage, because there are huge advantageous to being married as far as insurance, taxes, and the law go. and like glenn said, the gov should stay out of our personal business (this would be an obvious blending of church and state).

Should there be huge advantages to being married as far as taxes and the law? To what extent should the law factor "marriage" into account for any purpose, and why? How is the government staying out of our personal business when it's making and executing huge amounts of laws, money decisions, etc. based on marriage as a state of being? If two people grant power of attorney to each other, why is that not marriage from a legal standpoint? Why are single people subsidizing married ones? Is it all "for the children"... what about those married folks who don't have children, then?

This isn't an issue of discrimination. The neocons are bringing this up now to energize their hill billy base. Republicans know they are going to get their asses handed to them if the 06 elections are based on real issues. They put out this fake issue to piss off rednecks and to get them out to the polls. After the elections this issue will die.

You have a valid point, WOD. But the people who are forcibly using this issue to promote "sanctity of marriage" are discriminating. Of course, it does make for a nice little prop.

Here's a quote from a new Yahoo article that I found to be dead on.




"The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another," Reid said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor. "This is another one of the presidents efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day."

If you agree with this statement, as I do, then aren't you part of the problem by creating this thread, instead of a thread about the real problems facing America? (I'm being serious here, not sarcastic as usual.)

Glenn = divider. He wants to drive a wedge between us WTFers.

He wants us to tear each other to pieces over a non-issue.

Sick bastard. (OK, that part was kidding)

infact, in the mid 1800's, there was no homosexuallity. its a biproduct of changing living conditions where a person could live outside the basic familly structure). more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

LMFAO.

Can I have a link to a credible source that can prove there was no homosexuality in the 1800's?

Shit, there was homosexuality before the time of Jesus, so you're at LEAST 1,800 years off (and I'd say millions of years off if you accept that the world is more than 6,000 years old).

PS: The divorce rate is much HIGHER in conservative states, such as Texas, that don't allow gay marriage, than it is in liberal states that do allow gay marriage.

So, if you use the logic of conservative republicans, the only way to save the institution of straight marriage is for every state to permit gay marriage.

If you agree with this statement, as I do, then aren't you part of the problem by creating this thread, instead of a thread about the real problems facing America? (I'm being serious here, not sarcastic as usual.)

Glenn = divider. He wants to drive a wedge between us WTFers.

He wants us to tear each other to pieces over a non-issue.

Sick bastard. (OK, that part was kidding)

Just taking the pulse my good man, just taking the pulse.

I've got a comprehensive database about every poster and his political beliefs.

infact, in the mid 1800's, there was no homosexuallity. its a biproduct of changing living conditions where a person could live outside the basic familly structure). more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

LMFAO.

Can I have a link to a credible source that can prove there was no homosexuality in the 1800's?

Shit, there was homosexuality before the time of Jesus, so you're at LEAST 1,800 years off (and I'd say millions of years off if you accept that the world is more than 6,000 years old).

PS: The divorce rate is much HIGHER in conservative states, such as Texas, that don't allow gay marriage, than it is in liberal states that do allow gay marriage.

So, if you use the logic of conservative republicans, the only way to save the institution of straight marriage is for every state to permit gay marriage.

I have kept my personal beliefs out of this one and will continue to but It's too bad that some in here want to spin this issue in such a way to make you believe that banning gay marriage is a neocon, republican or conservative crusade. Nothing is further from the truth unless most of America is conservative.

leaving my personal feelings out of this I firmly believe this is a states rights issue that should be decided by the voter and the American public has spoken on this issue time and again. Sorry, but the views expressed on this forum, on this matter are in the minority.


ABC News Poll. May 31-June 4, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

.





"Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?





Should 45%
Should Not 48%
Unsure 7%


Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?"

Legal 36%
Illegal 58%
Unsure 5%

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" N=515, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

Should be Valid 39%
Should not Be valid 58%
Unsure 4%


"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"


Favor 50%
Oppose 47%
Unsure 3%

There are several other polls I could post and you may want to check how liberal California and Oregon voted on the voter referendum to allow gay marriage.

AFAICT, the reason this stuff matters to gay people is because of the useful stuff that's conferred onto married folks. Why should married people enjoy separate treatment under the law to begin with? The historical factors that led to marriage's special legal status apply less and less all the time:

- Folks need less children to perpetuate the family business and perpetuate themselves in their old age, and divorce rates have gone up consequently. The # of kids didn't go down nearly as much as the number of broken marriages, so now you have a huge class of unmarried/divorced parents where marriage-like rights are negotiated piecemeal.

- Fewer people want uniformity in how their legal interactions with their spouse work, especially since more marriages aren't "first" marriages. The Brady Bunch is as American as apple pie. Some "How to write a prenup" book was the #1 "marriage" book Amazon sold for a spell there. This trend will only continue with time.

- More people don't get married because of financial and legal ramifications, not because they're not married in any practical sense. My grandpa didn't marry my step-grandma for years because at their advanced age, marriage wasn't a good idea. Why should two people who love each other enough to declare themselves as being married fret about legalese?

Thanks for the poll results Geck, I think most/some of us here were aware of the national poll results about this issue. In no way did I think that this WTF poll would be a reflection of the national pulse. Our group is younger, more tech savvy, etc. than the groups that were polled in your post. (Perhaps you could draw additional conclusions about our posters as a collective group, I'm not sure.)

Also, I agree with you in that this really isn't directly a neocon, Republican, or conservative crusade, it's an evangelical crusade. It just so happens that most evangelicals happen to be either neocons, Republicans or conservatives, in many cases, they are all three.

This poll is nothing more than a reflection of the views of the people at WTF that chose to participate in it. If anyone tries to draw any other conclusions from the results, I think your conclusions would be seriously flawed.

That being said, national poll results should be looked at with a critical eye IMO as well, especially when used as a basis for making public policy. This is an extreme example, but one that illustrates my point. If you polled the nation with a question like "Do you think the government should give every citizen a check for $1,000?" What do you think the result would be? If it were "yes" does that mean the government should actually CTCs? Of course not.

What scares me is that there are factions of our current regime that would like to make law based on the words of the Bible. The separation of church and state is being challenged here, IMO. If we start letting the words of the Bible dictate our laws, how are we any different that the Taliban?

I've got a comprehensive database about every poster and his political beliefs.
Where do I fall in, out of curiosity? :)

Somewhere between Taymelo and Gecko.

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The creation of life is pretty special to me and that takes a man and a woman. So I feel marriage, be definition should be between a man and a woman.

There are plenty of so called 'unions' for peeps who want to be with their same sex.

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The creation of life is pretty special to me and that takes a man and a woman. So I feel marriage, be definition should be between a man and a woman.
Since when? by definition its the joining of two partners in matrimony. Its almost offensive that people are arrogant enough to feel like it belongs to them. whenever you get married its between you and your partner. How would you like it if they said by definition marriage is only for people over 30 and you wanted to get married at 25? You be like "fuck ya'll, I'll marry as I please in this country. Creating life and getting married are two different things if you haven't noticed in the "baby's momma" era of america we are in. I feel you on your thought that marriage is a sacred thing. It is to me too. But thats just for me. If we were talking about who "should" get married, then forget the homos, how about stopping some of these young dumb full of cum kids that you know are gonna get divorced within 2 years. if anyone was ever destroying the legitimacy of marriage, its the 50 percent of couples who get divorced. but we arent allowed to tell them what a marriage is all about, nor are we to gays who want to marry.

Here I am avoiding marriage while "Jimmy Fruitcake's" and "Yolanda Carpetmuncher's" of the world have to fight for it. ~lol~ american society gets funnier everyday.:D

Our group is younger, more tech savvy, etc. than the groups that were polled in your post. (Perhaps you could draw additional conclusions about our posters as a collective group, I'm not sure.)

I understand that this poll would not be a reflection on the national pulse, but you and I both know that much more can be drawn about the social political affiliations of the members of this forum other than just tech savy. It's an overwhelming left leaning crowd. Some a little some far but overall leans left. There is absolutley nothing at all wrong with that but it provides perspective on some things. You know this already though.


Also, I agree with you in that this really isn't directly a neocon, Republican, or conservative crusade, it's an evangelical crusade. It just so happens that most evangelicals happen to be either neocons, Republicans or conservatives, in many cases, they are all three.

58% of America is evangelical? For some, their feelings might be rooted in spirituality, maybe a lot but not all. I think you have too many Jerry Falwell sound bites running through your mind. There's no way to know for sure and it appears it's just a personal opinion, I will concede it's possible.


That being said, national poll results should be looked at with a critical eye IMO as well, especially when used as a basis for making public policy. This is an extreme example, but one that illustrates my point. If you polled the nation with a question like "Do you think the government should give every citizen a check for $1,000?" What do you think the result would be? If it were "yes" does that mean the government should actually CTCs? Of course not.

Umm, I think this is some kind of why for you to say that the polls shouldn't be believed cause they may not lean your way. If liberal California shoots down the gay marriage referendum how many states out there do you think would pass it? We both know that almost every state would turn this issue down. In fact it's well known that the numbers are dramatically skewed the other way. For instance when someone calls and asks you if you are for gay marriage, people not wanting to appear hateful are tempted to either waffle or say yes. It's when they get into the voting booths they vote gay marriage down. 70% of American doesn't want this.


What scares me is that there are factions of our current regime that would like to make law based on the words of the Bible. The separation of church and state is being challenged here, IMO. If we start letting the words of the Bible dictate our laws, how are we any different that the Taliban?

Paranoia. The current President is out in 2 more years. No need to worry about the christian police knocking down your door to force you and your family to eat the euchrist.

If gay marriage were allowed to go through then what group's next? The polygamists would sue under due process asking for their lifestyle to be recognized. Maybe it should be legal to marry animals if you want? Where would it end? Again, I must say that I am not interjecting my personal beliefs just presenting another way of looking at it.

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The creation of life is pretty special to me and that takes a man and a woman. So I feel marriage, be definition should be between a man and a woman.
Since when? by definition its the joining of two partners in matrimony. Its almost offensive that people are arrogant enough to feel like it belongs to them. whenever you get married its between you and your partner. How would you like it if they said by definition marriage is only for people over 30 and you wanted to get married at 25? You be like "fuck ya'll, I'll marry as I please in this country. Creating life and getting married are two different things if you haven't noticed in the "baby's momma" era of america we are in. I feel you on your thought that marriage is a sacred thing. It is to me too. But thats just for me. If we were talking about who "should" get married, then forget the homos, how about stopping some of these young dumb full of cum kids that you know are gonna get divorced within 2 years. if anyone was ever destroying the legitimacy of marriage, its the 50 percent of couples who get divorced. but we arent allowed to tell them what a marriage is all about, nor are we to gays who want to marry.

Here I am avoiding marriage while "Jimmy Fruitcake's" and "Yolanda Carpetmuncher's" of the world have to fight for it. ~lol~ american society gets funnier everyday.:D

I want 3 wives dammit! I see no reason at all why I cannot legally marry 3 women?

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The creation of life is pretty special to me and that takes a man and a woman. So I feel marriage, be definition should be between a man and a woman.
Well, why do you seem to assume that marriage is about the creation of life? Even in the "good old days", that wasn't universally true, and certainly wasn't the only reason people ever got married.

We have plenty of law pertaining to creation of life which is, of practical necessity, quite independent of marriage. So why do we need marriage to have any "legal" governmental status to it at all, much less legal exclusions?

Rather than gay vs. straight, think "polygamy". It's traditional, historically part of major faiths, lusted after in many senses ("two chicks at the same time"), yet enjoys much disdain and isn't a common choice in Western society.

[Edit: I honestly didn't read Gecko's above post before posting this.]

I didn't say that polls shouldn't be believed, I said they should be looked at with a critical eye and not be used as a basis to guide public policy. I see a difference there.

No disrespect Geck, but if you think that allowing gay marriage is possibly setting precedent to allow people to marry animals I think you've swayed from keeping your personal beliefs out of this.

I respect that you feel differently about this issue than I do, but let's not pretend that you are being totally objective in your posts here, I'm certainly not being totally objective, (but I'm not claiming to be either.)

Good discussion.

I (honestly) would support polygmy. I couldn't support the animal thing as we are unable to genuinely guage the animal's intent to enter into what is a legal contract. That said, slippery slope arguements are weak. As I mentioned, why not pull back so sex without intent of procreation is illegal? Surely you are all against interracial marriage? The same arguement could be made to support both those. If we don't stop the negros from mixing with the jews, how can we stop people from marrying badgers?

I didn't say that polls shouldn't be believed, I said they should be looked at with a critical eye and not be used as a basis to guide public policy. I see a difference there.

No disrespect Geck, but if you think that allowing gay marriage is possibly setting precedent to allow people to marry animals I think you've swayed from keeping your personal beliefs out of this.

I respect that you feel differently about this issue than I do, but let's not pretend that you are being totally objective in your posts here, I'm certainly not being totally objective, (but I'm not claiming to be either.)

Good discussion.

And if you think any alternative lifestyle wouldn't be fair game than that's poly anna. Trust me, the polygamists are waiting in the weeds on this one as are other alternative arrangements. Pandora's box and naive to not think otherwise.

I am being objective, never tried to pretend I was earlier, only claimed to bring another viewpoint into the mix. You think you know how I would come down on this one but you may not be right.

I (honestly) would support polygmy.

Then I can follow along with that line of thinking.

I cannot debate anyone here on their personal beliefs only the policy side of things and I can see the argument for those that want the traditional definition of marriage changed.

Anyone know the statistics coming out of the Scandanavian countries that allow these types of marriages? Interesting stuff.

I guess I don't see how a law that states that marriage is a legal union between two people leaves any kind of room for interpretation by polygamists, or barnyard animals for that matter.

I guess I don't see how a law that states that marriage is a legal union between two people leaves any kind of room for interpretation by polygamists, or barnyard animals for that matter.

Law or definition? I am no legal expert on this one but I read enough and listen enough to know that legal scholars have said that the polygamists are ready to sue under due process and probably win. Alternative lifestyle groups have been all over the national cable news networks the past week.

The barnyard animals obviously is a reach but it has been used by the other side to make their points but probably best left out.

Many past and present debates have come down to what the public is willing to consider a "person" as being ... slavery, abortion, wartime crimes, mass slaughter, property laws, child labor.

Personhood is an ever changing distinction. One would think that "species" is a pretty good line but there are all kinds of areas where plenty of people think "not being human" isn't a good enough reason for restricting legal protections or benefits. There are highly respected ethicists who call many of our current practices involving animals "specism" (like racism but about species), Peter Singer for instance.

GD, I don't know the answer so I ask. When you said the "law" states marriage is between two people where did you find that. I really don't know any better.

I see the dictionary has it as:

marriage n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace, or some similar official),

This from Findlaw:
Formal Requirements of Marriage

All states prohibit marriage to more than one person, marriage between the same sexes and marriages between close family members. The remaining limitations and requirements vary by state but some of the typical rules relate to age, medical exams, licensing, blood tests, and waiting periods.

Who Can Marry Who: Each state prohibits marriage between brothers and sisters, parent and child and some prohibit marriage between aunt or uncle and niece or nephew. Same-sex marriages are also prohibited by every state, but that may change very soon as advocates for same-sex marriages convince state legislatures to revise their state's law.And I don't think the constitution defines Marriage yet.

Is all this right?

Sorry, I didn't mean that what I posted was the current law, that is what I imagine the law would have to look like to have gay marriages recognized as legal (or something similar to that).

As far as dictionary definitions go, they are all over the board. Look back to page one of this thread (the sixth post, to be exact) and you'll see a dictionary.com definition that doesn't specify "one man, one woman".

I'm not a legal expert either, not by any means, I'm just muddling my way through this issue which interests me (although not enough to do a bunch of research, I'll admit.)

Luckily, we have our own Dave Kleinfeld on staff here that can clarify the legalese (albeit with a strong liberal bent) .

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The creation of life is pretty special to me and that takes a man and a woman. So I feel marriage, be definition should be between a man and a woman.
Since when? by definition its the joining of two partners in matrimony. Its almost offensive that people are arrogant enough to feel like it belongs to them. whenever you get married its between you and your partner. How would you like it if they said by definition marriage is only for people over 30 and you wanted to get married at 25? You be like "fuck ya'll, I'll marry as I please in this country. Creating life and getting married are two different things if you haven't noticed in the "baby's momma" era of america we are in. I feel you on your thought that marriage is a sacred thing. It is to me too. But thats just for me. If we were talking about who "should" get married, then forget the homos, how about stopping some of these young dumb full of cum kids that you know are gonna get divorced within 2 years. if anyone was ever destroying the legitimacy of marriage, its the 50 percent of couples who get divorced. but we arent allowed to tell them what a marriage is all about, nor are we to gays who want to marry.

Here I am avoiding marriage while "Jimmy Fruitcake's" and "Yolanda Carpetmuncher's" of the world have to fight for it. ~lol~ american society gets funnier everyday.:D


So are you saying you disagree with me? LOL

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The creation of life is pretty special to me and that takes a man and a woman. So I feel marriage, be definition should be between a man and a woman.


Well, why do you seem to assume that marriage is about the creation of life?

Just the way I see things. Look, when I was young I ran, screwed and did just about anything anyone would want to do. So I'm not saying I was some great example. The question was asked and thats how I feel Goddamnit!

How does that saying go? Its just my opinion but I'm right!

I want 3 wives dammit! I see no reason at all why I cannot legally marry 3 women?
Big Love is my second favorite show too. But thats a pretty lame cop out IMO. If gays get marriage i want 3 wives in exchange? thats fair? thats a logical rebuttle(although very humurous i must admit)? c'mon Gecko, seriously polygamy isnt even a legitimate comparison to same sex marriages. thats just as bad as diddy calling it a gateway to pedophilia.

If we were talking about that too, i'd still say let them marry as they please. if a cat can handle being married 3 women for the rest of his life and raises all of their kids right. more power to him.

but to get back on topic, i think its fair to let gays marry. somehow you want an edge over them in some battle of wills or something. because you getting 3 wives isnt a fair exchange for two people of the same sex marrying. and maybe its that "we're better than them because we have things like marriage" ego that makes people give way too much of a shit about this to the point of trying to stop it.

Its just my opinion but I'm right!

I call that the Taymelo line.

So are you saying you disagree with me? LOL
maybe.:p ...i just think america is a nosey country full of snitches and self righteous idiots who can read better than they can think. thats the only explaination for people actually caring about homos getting with homos. me personally i say let them get the marriage license and move on. i got bigger fish to fry than a "pretty in pink" happy days man love wedding reception destroying the community with its sissy element. i'd prefer to deal with the local crack fiends who spent the last 5 hours trying to muster up a story good enough to talk me out of my quarter. they are a disaster. this gay marriage shit is nothing.

I want 3 wives dammit! I see no reason at all why I cannot legally marry 3 women?
Big Love is my second favorite show too. But thats a pretty lame cop out IMO. If gays get marriage i want 3 wives in exchange? thats fair? thats a logical rebuttle(although very humurous i must admit)? c'mon Gecko, seriously polygamy isn't even a legitimate comparison to same sex marriages. thats just as bad as diddy calling it a gateway to pedophilia.

If we were talking about that too, i'd still say let them marry as they please. if a cat can handle being married 3 women for the rest of his life and raises all of their kids right. more power to him.

but to get back on topic, i think its fair to let gays marry. somehow you want an edge over them in some battle of wills or something. because you getting 3 wives isn't a fair exchange for two people of the same sex marrying. and maybe its that "we're better than them because we have things like marriage" ego that makes people give way too much of a shit about this to the point of trying to stop it.

The argument some use is "gay marriage" is an alternative lifestyle (whatever that means) is the same as polygamy is an alternative lifestyle, therefore both lifestyles should be accepted. Your usual trick of disregarding things cause you can't see it isn't gonna work here. You don't like the comparisons talk to the ACLU cause that's who's brining up the comparisons, not me.

Sorry, I didn't mean that what I posted was the current law, that is what I imagine the law would have to look like to have gay marriages recognized as legal (or something similar to that).

Exactly. Which is why the polygamists have a leg to stand on.



As far as dictionary definitions go, they are all over the board. Look back to page one of this thread (the sixth post, to be exact) and you'll see a dictionary.com definition that doesn't specify "one man, one woman".

Yep this is true and I knew that. Some do say between two people as well but they are more slanted towards the "universal" definition. I think this could lead to a pandora's box issue is all I was saying and it appears there's no reason to believe it can't become that.



I'm not a legal expert either, not by any means, I'm just muddling my way through this issue which interests me (although not enough to do a bunch of research, I'll admit.)

Luckily, we have our own Dave Kleinfeld on staff here that can clarify the legalese (albeit with a strong liberal bent) .

I only chimed in when I read numerous posts trying to make this a conservative, religious crusade. Too many like minded opinions some times and it never hurts to add some thinking of the other side. Bush may be using this as some sort of political tool, what politician wouldn't but the one thing that cannot be denied is he is really doing what the people want him to do. When 58% of Americans (in some polls closer to 2/3rds) want a ban on gay marriage then what can you or I do about it? It's the people's will here. I would rather have states put it to a vote but what's happened is a few runaway judges are going against what the people in their state want so enter Big Brother.

Well, we did a decent job not letting this one get too far out of hand, kudos to all involved.

I think we've had a decent mix of viewpoints here, maybe somebody new will join the fray? In any case, I think I've shared all that I have to say on the topic.

Watch out for those damn polygamists, all. lol

The argument some use is "gay marriage" is an alternative lifestyle (whattever that means) is the same as polygamy is an alternative lifestyle, therefore both lifestyles should be accepted. Your usual trick of disregarding things cause you can't see it isn't gonna work here. You don't like the comparisons talk to the ACLU cause that's who's brining up the comparisons, not me.
no they arent in this debate. i bring it to the guy who tried to drop the comparisom on me. hmmmm isnt that Gecko? yessir it is. ;)

up to your old tricks of "i'm just the messenger because imma post what somebody else said and support it". you gave no real comparisom at all. acting like you did doesnt change the fact that gay marriages and polygamy are two very different things. Being gay is a lifestyle, not gay marriage. Muthafuckas are going to be gay regardless of whether they elope or not. Yet you're going to try and push otherwise on me regardless i see.

No offense Gecko, But if you think theres a tactic or "trick" involved. Maybe you shouldnt reply. Because you spend more time making accusations about me using tricks and telling me who I should talk to. Rather than coming up with some logical theory that explains how polygamy is the same as gay marriages. Is that honestly too much to ask for? All I'm asking is how on the green pastures of earth is same sex marriages similar to getting 3 wives? How is that even trade? Is a ban on gay marriages breaking even?

either way taymelo and gecko can have this debate. they'll both get greaseball political with each other and practice their spin techniques on each other(that sounds kinda gay but oh well, this is the right thread for it).

The argument some use is "gay marriage" is an alternative lifestyle (whattever that means) is the same as polygamy is an alternative lifestyle, therefore both lifestyles should be accepted. Your usual trick of disregarding things cause you can't see it isn't gonna work here. You don't like the comparisons talk to the ACLU cause that's who's brining up the comparisons, not me. no they arent in this debate. i bring it to the guy who tried to drop the comparisom on me. hmmmm isnt that Gecko? yessir it is. ;)

up to your old tricks of "i'm just the messenger because imma post what somebody else said and support it". you gave no real comparisom at all. acting like you did doesnt change the fact that gay marriages and polygamy are two very different things. Being gay is a lifestyle, not gay marriage. Muthafuckas are going to be gay regardless of whether they elope or not. Yet you're going to try and push otherwise on me regardless i see.

No offense Gecko, But if you think theres a tactic or "trick" involved. Maybe you shouldnt reply. Because you spend more time making accusations about me using tricks and telling me who I should talk to. Rather than coming up with some logical theory that explains how polygamy is the same as gay marriages. Is that honestly too much to ask for? All I'm asking is how on the green pastures of earth is same sex marriages similar to getting 3 wives? How is that even trade? Is a ban on gay marriages breaking even?
Couple things:

You (and others before you) called into question the merit of bringing up polygamy when talking about gay marriage. Whatever your thoughts on how/if they relate, Gecko's referencing of alternative lifestyles as showing that people in the world do think they relate at least legitamizes his bringing the topic up.

"Being gay is a lifestyle, not gay marriage. Muthafuckas are going to be gay regardless"

This seems a bit confused. Usually the term "lifestyle choice" is used to infer that "being gay" is a choice, thus "Muthafuckas are going to be gay regardless" would seem not to fit. What I think you want to say is that being gay is NOT a lifestyle choice but is genetic. Whatever the case marriage (no matter the number of people or the gender) is definately a lifestyle choice.

Also, I believe the "I've said my peace. You can have the discussion" move is a "trick" and a pretty bad one since the people who use it almost never follow it up.

to all my doubters:

"the word homosexuality did not exist prior to 1869, when it appeared in a pamphlet that took the form of an open letter to the german minister of justice... the pamphlet's author, karl maria kertbeny (1824-82) was one of several writers and jurists who were beginning to develop the concept of sexual orientation. this idea-that some individuals' sexual attraction for persons of the same sex was an inherent and unchanging aspect of their personality-was radically new. thousands of years of recorded history and the rise and fall of sophistacated and complex societies occurred before homosexuality existed as a word or even as an idea...

the ancient greek and latin languages have no word that can be translated as homosexual, largely because these societies did not have the same sexual categories that we do." (taken from pg 3 of A Natural History of Homosexuality by Francis Mark Mondimore, can read it at http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/002-1469666-0372806?asin=0801854407&pageID=S00J&checkSum=X0tFpzvK4huaV4ZaPTsDRu9TH2Mdp3czXeSRxogJe Uk= not sure if link will work)


basically, what the author is saying is that our notion of 'homosexuallity' is relatively new, and while there have always been variations on the traditional form of sexuallity in every culture, they dont usually mesh well with our notion of 'homosexuallity).

and im guessing (havent read the book), is that she'll explain that changes in society (industrial revolution, electronics) drastically changed our culture, where it was no longer necessary for men to work from sun up to sun down (but could work from 9-5, or till the report got finished), and that they no longer needed to live in the traditional familly unit, but could live alone in an apartment. when men could live independantly is where our notion of homosexuallity began (somewhere in the mid 1800s).

this isnt me talking out of my ass, i learned it, in like a class or something.

and guts, i never said homosexuallity leads pedephilia, i was saying our societies acceptance of homosexuality will probably lead to us accepting even more perverse sexual orientations. whats really wrong with pedephilia, if both parties consent?

The argument some use is "gay marriage" is an alternative lifestyle (whattever that means) is the same as polygamy is an alternative lifestyle, therefore both lifestyles should be accepted. Your usual trick of disregarding things cause you can't see it isn't gonna work here. You don't like the comparisons talk to the ACLU cause that's who's brining up the comparisons, not me.
no they arent in this debate. i bring it to the guy who tried to drop the comparisom on me. hmmmm isnt that Gecko? yessir it is. ;)

up to your old tricks of "i'm just the messenger because imma post what somebody else said and support it". you gave no real comparisom at all. acting like you did doesnt change the fact that gay marriages and polygamy are two very different things. Being gay is a lifestyle, not gay marriage. Muthafuckas are going to be gay regardless of whether they elope or not. Yet you're going to try and push otherwise on me regardless i see.

No offense Gecko, But if you think theres a tactic or "trick" involved. Maybe you shouldnt reply. Because you spend more time making accusations about me using tricks and telling me who I should talk to. Rather than coming up with some logical theory that explains how polygamy is the same as gay marriages. Is that honestly too much to ask for? All I'm asking is how on the green pastures of earth is same sex marriages similar to getting 3 wives? How is that even trade? Is a ban on gay marriages breaking even?

Gutz, if would of just asked how they are similar or different I wouldn't of said you were using your usual trick, but that's not what you did.

Anyway, I am not sure how they are the same I have no experience or history with either lifestyle.

infact, in the mid 1800's, there was no homosexuallity. its a biproduct of changing living conditions where a person could live outside the basic familly structure). more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

LMFAO.

Can I have a link to a credible source that can prove there was no homosexuality in the 1800's?

Shit, there was homosexuality before the time of Jesus, so you're at LEAST 1,800 years off (and I'd say millions of years off if you accept that the world is more than 6,000 years old).

PS: The divorce rate is much HIGHER in conservative states, such as Texas, that don't allow gay marriage, than it is in liberal states that do allow gay marriage.

So, if you use the logic of conservative republicans, the only way to save the institution of straight marriage is for every state to permit gay marriage.

I have kept my personal beliefs out of this one and will continue to but It's too bad that some in here want to spin this issue in such a way to make you believe that banning gay marriage is a neocon, republican or conservative crusade. Nothing is further from the truth unless most of America is conservative.

leaving my personal feelings out of this I firmly believe this is a states rights issue that should be decided by the voter and the American public has spoken on this issue time and again. Sorry, but the views expressed on this forum, on this matter are in the minority.


ABC News Poll. May 31-June 4, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

.





"Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?





Should 45%
Should Not 48%
Unsure 7%


Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?"

Legal 36%
Illegal 58%
Unsure 5%

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" N=515, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

Should be Valid 39%
Should not Be valid 58%
Unsure 4%


"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"


Favor 50%
Oppose 47%
Unsure 3%

There are several other polls I could post and you may want to check how liberal California and Oregon voted on the voter referendum to allow gay marriage.





Wait.

I thought our beloved president doesn't pay attention to the polls.

Oh. Wait. Are you acknowledging that the only reason GWB is pushing gay marriage right now is that the republicans are DESPERATE to come up with a divisive, wedge issue to take voter's minds off important governmental issues such as economy, education, infrastructure, security, the military, etc., heading into the 2006 congressional elections, because the only issues republicans can win on are wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage?

Are you acknowledging the only reason GWB is pushing gay marriage is his party is grasping at straws and trying desperately to stay afloat by pandering to his base?

If you're not, you should be. That's what's going on here.

Of course, they used to be able to win on terrorism/security, but I think americans are realizing they suck at that, too.

"There are several other polls I could post and you may want to check how liberal California and Oregon voted on the voter referendum to allow gay marriage."



I could give a detailed explanation as to why Oregon voted yes, but I'll just say that people are most afraid of what they don't know or understand.

Fuck, guys, North Dakota overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage...something like 85% to 15%. Most of them have never seen a homosexual in their lives unless it was on TV.

"There are several other polls I could post and you may want to check how liberal California and Oregon voted on the voter referendum to allow gay marriage."



I could give a detailed explanation as to why Oregon voted yes, but I'll just say that people are most afraid of what they don't know or understand.

Fuck, guys, North Dakota overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage...something like 85% to 15%. Most of them have never seen a homosexual in their lives unless it was on TV.
Correction: they have never seen a homosexual that's publically open about it.

infact, in the mid 1800's, there was no homosexuallity. its a biproduct of changing living conditions where a person could live outside the basic familly structure). more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

LMFAO.

Can I have a link to a credible source that can prove there was no homosexuality in the 1800's?

Shit, there was homosexuality before the time of Jesus, so you're at LEAST 1,800 years off (and I'd say millions of years off if you accept that the world is more than 6,000 years old).

PS: The divorce rate is much HIGHER in conservative states, such as Texas, that don't allow gay marriage, than it is in liberal states that do allow gay marriage.

So, if you use the logic of conservative republicans, the only way to save the institution of straight marriage is for every state to permit gay marriage.

I have kept my personal beliefs out of this one and will continue to but It's too bad that some in here want to spin this issue in such a way to make you believe that banning gay marriage is a neocon, republican or conservative crusade. Nothing is further from the truth unless most of America is conservative.

leaving my personal feelings out of this I firmly believe this is a states rights issue that should be decided by the voter and the American public has spoken on this issue time and again. Sorry, but the views expressed on this forum, on this matter are in the minority.


ABC News Poll. May 31-June 4, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

.






"Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?






Should 45%
Should Not 48%
Unsure 7%


Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?"

Legal 36%
Illegal 58%
Unsure 5%

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" N=515, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

Should be Valid 39%
Should not Be valid 58%
Unsure 4%


"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"


Favor 50%
Oppose 47%
Unsure 3%

There are several other polls I could post and you may want to check how liberal California and Oregon voted on the voter referendum to allow gay marriage.





Wait.

I thought our beloved president doesn't pay attention to the polls.

Oh. Wait. Are you acknowledging that the only reason GWB is pushing gay marriage right now is that the republicans are DESPERATE to come up with a divisive, wedge issue to take voter's minds off important governmental issues such as economy, education, infrastructure, security, the military, etc., heading into the 2006 congressional elections, because the only issues republicans can win on are wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage?

Are you acknowledging the only reason GWB is pushing gay marriage is his party is grasping at straws and trying desperately to stay afloat by pandering to his base?

If you're not, you should be. That's what's going on here.

Of course, they used to be able to win on terrorism/security, but I think americans are realizing they suck at that, too.

If by his "base" you are referring to the American public at large then yes. At least he found an issue that most Americans agree with. I keep seeing polls that show well over half of Americans want this but you keep saying things like "his base", "neocons"? I have a hard time following this logic. Again, I rather debate policy and not get into a political greaseball fight or whatever Gutz said we would do. I know you don't like him and I don't have it in me to defend him.

No where have I seen a poll that asks "would you like Bush and congress to spend valuable time debating the issue of a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage despite it having 0 opportunity of passing", though let me venture the majority of Americans would be opposed.

Do you have that one Geck, cause thats what Tay was talking about. You're welcome for the help with the logic.

"There are several other polls I could post and you may want to check how liberal California and Oregon voted on the voter referendum to allow gay marriage."



I could give a detailed explanation as to why Oregon voted yes, but I'll just say that people are most afraid of what they don't know or understand.

Fuck, guys, North Dakota overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage...something like 85% to 15%. Most of them have never seen a homosexual in their lives unless it was on TV.
Correction: they have never seen a homosexual that's publically open about it.

I stand corrected. My point, I hope, still comes across.

No where have I seen a poll that asks "would you like Bush and congress to spend valuable time debating the issue of a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage despite it having 0 opportunity of passing", though let me venture the majority of Americans would be opposed.

Do you have that one Geck, cause thats what Tay was talking about. You're welcome for the help with the logic.

Thanks Herm, you did clear up what he was trying to say.

This is going off topic now, though it was always destined to end with something Bush is doing wrong. This crowd just won't waste that kind of opportunity. I really don't think this is what GD had in mind when he started this thread but such is life. I guess the majority wanting a ban scared most off topic.

To answer your question, I have no polls about Bush wasting American taxpayer dollars on this venture. If he is I am sure that it might be the first time ever that a President wasted time with something cause no one in the legislative branch ever does this.

P.S. To be genuine in answering your Bush question here is a quote on why he is wasting our time:


From today's Washington Times:
Well, obviously in part its politics, but changing the definition of the oldest social institution in the human race, one that has been a man and a woman in every society for a long, long time, is a big deal. And if it's happening in a country, it's a legitimate issue and I think there is a legitimate issue here in that the president is right that judges have abrogated this decision which ought to be left to people either acting in referendum or in -- through their representatives. And that -- there are states, like Massachusetts in which it's been imposed and states like Georgia and Nebraska, where there has been a constitutional amendment where the people have spoken in large numbers and been stopped, stymied, by a judge.

Actually you should be gracious that our president is upholding the democratic process even if you think he's a war mogering idiot and do agree with his stance on this issue. You do want the peoples voice heard right? I already know the answer.

If by his "base" you are referring to the American public at large then yes. At least he found an issue that most Americans agree with. I keep seeing polls that show well over half of Americans want this but you keep saying things like "his base", "neocons"? I have a hard time following this logic. Again, I rather debate policy and not get into a political greaseball fight or whatever Gutz said we would do. I know you don't like him and I don't have it in me to defend him.

The Pew researchers had continued to report that opposition to gay marriage is dwindling. Here's a report from 03/2006:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273


Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue. Half of Americans (51%) continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, but this number has declined significantly from 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. Opposition to gay marriage has fallen across the board, with substantial declines even among Republicans.

These are among the results of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 1,405 adults from March 8-12. The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.

Despite the fact that gay marriage initiatives are on the ballot in seven states this year, the atmosphere surrounding the issue of gay marriage has cooled off, and public intensity has dissipated compared with two years ago. "Strong" opposition to gay marriage, which surged in 2004, has ebbed to a new low. This is particularly the case among seniors, Catholics and non-evangelical Protestants. Among people age 65 and over, for example, strong opposition to gay marriage jumped from 36% in 2003 to 58% in 2004, but has fallen to 33% today. White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in which a majority still strongly opposes gay marriage, but even here the intensity of feeling has receded somewhat.

"There are several other polls I could post and you may want to check how liberal California and Oregon voted on the voter referendum to allow gay marriage."



I could give a detailed explanation as to why Oregon voted yes, but I'll just say that people are most afraid of what they don't know or understand.

Fuck, guys, North Dakota overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage...something like 85% to 15%. Most of them have never seen a homosexual in their lives unless it was on TV.
Correction: they have never seen a homosexual that's publically open about it.

I stand corrected. My point, I hope, still comes across.
It does. I was just clarifying it because this is such a sensitive issue for most people.

The Pew researchers had continued to report that opposition to gay marriage is dwindling. Here's a report from 03/2006:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273

Good find.

No where have I seen a poll that asks "would you like Bush and congress to spend valuable time debating the issue of a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage despite it having 0 opportunity of passing", though let me venture the majority of Americans would be opposed.

Do you have that one Geck, cause thats what Tay was talking about. You're welcome for the help with the logic.

Actually, the proper poll would ask:

If you could only choose one, woud you rather have a constitional amendment banning gay marriage, or ports that are secure from dirty bombs, and bomb-proofed luggage compartments for the airplanes we fly on with our children?

Or:

If you could only choose one, woud you rather have a constitional amendment banning gay marriage, or a national healthcare system?

Or:

If you could only choose one, would you rather have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, or a national energy policy that eliminates our reliance upon foreign oil and therefore makes us less susceptible to terrorism?

Or:

If you could only choose one, would you rather have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, or would your rather deploy our troops out of Iraq?

Or:

If you could only choose one, would you rather have the government work on tax incentives to keep jobs in the USA, or a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

Or:

If you could choose only one, would you rather have a constitutional ban on gay marriage, or far better preparedness for another 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage


Senate rejects gay marriage ban

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago

A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was defeated as predicted in the Senate Wednesday, but supporters say new votes for the measure represent progress that gives the GOP's base reason to vote on Election Day.

And senators will have to answer for their positions, one sponsor of the amendment warned.

"People are going to be responsible for this vote," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan. "We are making progress in America on defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

Indeed, the amendment was expected to gain as many as seven new votes from freshman supporters who were not members of the Senate when the amendment was last voted on in 2004.

"There's many of us who have not had an opportunity to debate and discuss this," said one of them, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.

The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment's failure was no surprise.

Still, supporters are pleased.

"We're building votes," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., another new supporter, said ahead of the vote. "That's often what's required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote."

A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as does the amendment, according to a new ABC News poll. But just as many oppose amending the Constitution, the poll found.

Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with their own state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the federal amendment.


I'm waiting to hear how those damn polygamists feel about this.

My bet is that, as a result of Bush making this an issue, it polarized people who didn't have strong feelings about it before, which is what makes the recent polling closer. The recent Pew study was done in March, before Bush put it on the radar, and showed decline in folks opposed to gay marriage. In doing a little digging, the same sort of thing happened before. Back in 2003, the Pew studies showed a decline in opposition to gay marriage. Then, good ol' Massachusetts decided to make gay civil unions a legal thing in 2004 and insist it be called gay marriage. Gay marriage opposers of various stripes rallied. I'm sure it benefits the Republican base more than Democrats, but lots of prominent Democrats publically oppose gay marriage.

I think marriage should be a personal matter only, and marriage as a civil and secular status needs to be phased out. Republican-led efforts to bake the idea of marriage into federal law are misguided pandering, be they this stab at a constitutional amendment, or the Defense of Marriage Act 10 years ago. To a large degree, the legal plumbing to make marriage go away as a legal status has already happened. But, because no politician wants to be portrayed as anti-marriage, everything had to happen in parallel with marriage. Now we have -- get this -- redundancy in government. We have a system for the married folks that's dysfunctional in a number of ways, and another system for unmarried folks who have kids and entanglements with each other which is even more fucked up. The society doesn't gain the economies of scale in maintaining the civil marriage infrastructure as it did before. There's too many popular exception cases -- divorce/remarriage and out-of-wedlock kids. Now that more folks don't -need- marriage as much for practical long-term survival in society, they won't go away. We should deal with it by doing something other than burying our head in the sand.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage


Senate rejects gay marriage ban

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago

A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was defeated as predicted in the Senate Wednesday, but supporters say new votes for the measure represent progress that gives the GOP's base reason to vote on Election Day.

And senators will have to answer for their positions, one sponsor of the amendment warned.

"People are going to be responsible for this vote," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan. "We are making progress in America on defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

Indeed, the amendment was expected to gain as many as seven new votes from freshman supporters who were not members of the Senate when the amendment was last voted on in 2004.

"There's many of us who have not had an opportunity to debate and discuss this," said one of them, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.

The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment's failure was no surprise.

Still, supporters are pleased.

"We're building votes," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., another new supporter, said ahead of the vote. "That's often what's required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote."

A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as does the amendment, according to a new ABC News poll. But just as many oppose amending the Constitution, the poll found.

Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with their own state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the federal amendment.


I'm waiting to hear how those damn polygamists feel about this.

Glenn, why you want to keep taking a shot at me? It's fine if you don't see any validity to that argument, it's just one small piece of the larger picture. Now it seems you are parsing that small point and making it the entire point. Not nice.

Sorry, I was just playing, but I can see how that could get lost in the translation.

I was repeating it as I pictured Norm MacDonald would do on the old SNL newscasts (with Frank Stallone or David Hasselhoff, etc)

I guess I found it funny but in actuality, I'm the only one that was privy to the joke.

Please strike those comments from the record.

Sorry, I was just playing, but I can see how that could get lost in the translation.

I was repeating it as I pictured Norm MacDonald would do on the old SNL newscasts (with Frank Stallone or David Hasselhoff, etc)

I guess I found it funny but in actuality, I'm the only one that was privy to the joke.

Please strike those comments from the record.

Done, but seriously here...If you want there are three articles on the debate I have read and can post them. I will say that the argument is mainly a conservative argument so it's slanted. I think on some level I am just going to fade from this conversation. I debate all the time whether I am doing the right thing stepping into the Off Topic forum.

Damn!!!

Look at Gecko getting all sensitive over nothing, almost like the stereotype of a... dare I say... homosexual... and look at Glenn caving like a bitch for no reason.

I think this thread needs some testosterone.

PS: Gecko hurts my feelings every time he asks sarcastically if Al Franken is still on the air. I'm going to cry until he apologizes to me and all the rest of the polygamists.

LOL, just trying to keep it as civil as possible.

I know you like to take a flame thrower to the place every now and then, so just keep doing what you do.

Damn!!!

Look at Gecko getting all sensitive over nothing, almost like the stereotype of a... dare I say... homosexual... and look at Glenn caving like a bitch for no reason.

I think this thread needs some testosterone.

PS: Gecko hurts my feelings every time he asks sarcastically if Al Franken is still on the air. I'm going to cry until he apologizes to me and all the rest of the polygamists.

Welcome back TM, it seemed like weeks since you last posted without talking about Bush. Where were we?

Damn!!!

Look at Gecko getting all sensitive over nothing, almost like the stereotype of a... dare I say... homosexual... and look at Glenn caving like a bitch for no reason.

I think this thread needs some testosterone.

PS: Gecko hurts my feelings every time he asks sarcastically if Al Franken is still on the air. I'm going to cry until he apologizes to me and all the rest of the polygamists.

Welcome back TM, it seemed like weeks since you last posted without talking about Bush. Where were we?

You were in the middle of hurting my feelings by asking if Al Franken is still on the air, when you know darn well that Al Franken is still on the air, you insensitive bastard.

Damn!!!

Look at Gecko getting all sensitive over nothing, almost like the stereotype of a... dare I say... homosexual... and look at Glenn caving like a bitch for no reason.

I think this thread needs some testosterone.

PS: Gecko hurts my feelings every time he asks sarcastically if Al Franken is still on the air. I'm going to cry until he apologizes to me and all the rest of the polygamists.

Welcome back TM, it seemed like weeks since you last posted without talking about Bush. Where were we?

You were in the middle of hurting my feelings by asking if Al Franken is still on the air, when you know darn well that Al Franken is still on the air, you insensitive bastard.

In all fairness that Franken questions was posted a few weeks back. I must say that I think it's a worthy question in light of Air America's financial problems. Maybe we should start a thread titled "Air America - the Countdown". Ya know you and I can go in there and discuss these final days. That would be a hoot.

Jerry Springer's show on AA is surpisingly good, IMO.

The bad thing about being late to the thread is that all the arguments in favor of a ban have been burned to the ground before I even get to reach for a box of matches.

I dont care what 2 guys or 2 girls do behind closed doors
or if they really "love" each other or whatever

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman

so thats the way it should be

however if the bum buddies want to become a "union" or whatever you want to call it and have a ceremony and exchange O-rings and get the benefits they so desire then go right ahead

but Gay Marriage is an oxymoron

Agree %100. I have no problems with people being gay, or rasing kids, etc. They can be joined legally in a union. Just don't call it a marraige, because it's not. I consider marraige to be a sacrament. I have nothing against their lifestyle, just don't call it what it is not (a sacred union between man and women).

Here's the funny thing I bet Gecko is clueless to.

Can anyone tell me what George W. Bush's republican party's position was on gay marriage in the last election?

Can anyone tell me what John Kerry's democratic party's position was on gay marriage in the last election?

Give up?

They held the EXACT same position:

Both AGAINST gay marriage.

Both IN FAVOR OF civil unions providing government (benefits) but not religious recognition to gay couples.

The funny thing is the typical voting republican middle american redneck was fooled by republican ad campaigns, and by their church leaders preaching partisan politics from the pulpit, into thinking the republicans have a different policy on gay marriage than democrats, and that it was important to elect republicans to "preserve the sanctity of marriage".

Of course, they also thought it would be good to vote for the party that took their jobs and healthcare and left them broke and sick, but that's another issue.

Well, most of us have a had a chance to say our piece on this topic, so I'll offer a different angle to try and continue the good discussion.

I stated earlier in this thread that there were two pretty common demographic factors amongst our poster base that I could easily identify. 1. Youth (I would guess that 98% are under 35) 2. Technical savvy- At least compared to the general populus for sure.

Gecko added that it was his opinion that we are an "overwhelmingly left leaning" group. That may also be true.

Looking at the results of this poll so far, it is 17 against the ban (74%), 4 are for it (17%) and 2 are unsure (9%). Basically, 10% of our poster base has logged a vote in this poll, which is a pretty good turnout for us.

So here are some new discussion questions
1. What other "common denomenators" does our poster base share, demographically/psychographically speaking?

2. If you think, in fact, that our group here is overwhelmingly left leaning, why is that so?

3. Specific to the issue of gay marriage, in your opinion, how much does age factor into our poll results? (i.e. are younger people more opposed to the ban? Maybe the ABC poll broke things out by age group, I'll have to investigate that.)

4. Do you believe in the theory that people "develop" conservative ideology as they age? (i.e. Is it true in your opinion that oftentimes people that consider themselves as liberal at a younger age find themselves becoming conservative as they age? Moreso than vice versa?) Do you think this will apply to you?

Agree %100. I have no problems with people being gay, or rasing kids, etc. They can be joined legally in a union. Just don't call it a marraige, because it's not. I consider marraige to be a sacrament. I have nothing against their lifestyle, just don't call it what it is not (a sacred union between man and women).
I see that a polygamist is in da house! :)

Seriously, the problem is that marriage isn't -just- a "sacred union", but a ton of other things in our societal systems. It's a tax status, license, de facto estate planning, social security and other financial aid programs, etc. and that's just at the government end of things -- nevermind those pesky little privatized things in life like banking and insurance. It's perfectly ok in our society's infrastructure to discriminate on the basis of married status. Should it be?

But that is easily overcome by giving whatever alternative title a homosexual couple might go by (should that be the end outcome) the same privileges as a married couple. The tough sell is societal acceptance. Legal acceptance is just a matter of ink and paper.

As I stated: Both democrats and republicans are against gay marriage, and both democrats and republicans are FOR civil unions, which is what Mxy is talking about.

So why are we debating this in Congress and/or on this board?

Because the republicans raised the issue as a means of doing NOTHING MORE than pandering to their conservative christian base in an election year.

Well, most of us have a had a chance to say our piece on this topic, so I'll offer a different angle to try and continue the good discussion.

I stated earlier in this thread that there were two pretty common demographic factors amongst our poster base that I could easily identify. 1. Youth (I would guess that 98% are under 35) 2. Technical savvy- At least compared to the general populus for sure.

Gecko added that it was his opinion that we are an "overwhelmingly left leaning" group. That may also be true.

Looking at the results of this poll so far, it is 17 against the ban (74%), 4 are for it (17%) and 2 are unsure (9%). Basically, 10% of our poster base has logged a vote in this poll, which is a pretty good turnout for us.

So here are some new discussion questions
1. What other "common denomenators" does our poster base share, demographically/psychographically speaking?

2. If you think, in fact, that our group here is overwhelmingly left leaning, why is that so?

3. Specific to the issue of gay marriage, in your opinion, how much does age factor into our poll results? (i.e. are younger people more opposed to the ban? Maybe the ABC poll broke things out by age group, I'll have to investigate that.)

4. Do you believe in the theory that people "develop" conservative ideology as they age? (i.e. Is it true in your opinion that oftentimes people that consider themselves as liberal at a younger age find themselves becoming conservative as they age? Moreso than vice versa?) Do you think this will apply to you?


1. The most important congelliant IMO is a tendency to live vicariously through a sports team. The reason almost all of us are here is we love the Pistons and want to share with others our feelings on them. Liberals tend to live in a bit of fantasy regarding things beyond them (world peace, polar ice caps, and NBA basketball team) while conservitives are worried about the things around them (my Nebraska farm is going to be the target of terrorism).

2. I think we are left leaning, and its a combination of #1 and the examples you gave. That and the appointed leadership here is far to the left which may casue some trickledown.

3. Age is a factor in the results. I googled it but was unable to reproduce polls I've seen. Younger people are also more likely to be swayed (ex: the variances in MXY's results over time) as they are on most issues.

4. Absolutly. Its a matter of becoming more focused on microsociological issues like your own family, small town, wallet, and job. Liberals get tired of chipping away at the mountains of injustices and find it easier to focus on getting a boat or keeping their daughter from marrying a negro.

But that is easily overcome by giving whatever alternative title a homosexual couple might go by (should that be the end outcome) the same privileges as a married couple. The tough sell is societal acceptance. Legal acceptance is just a matter of ink and paper.
It's not that easy. Try legislating to an insurer that they not discriminate on the basis of marriage. They can easily turn around and say "why not, we can show surveys that suggest that marriage prolonges quality of life and lifespan". Try enforcing financial rules that can't consider married status for purposes of hiding assets. Would an advertising campaign cross some discrimination line if targetted toward "married people"? And what about them damn polygamists...

It's do-able, but you can't just assign civil union = marriage and be done with it any more than you can assign GED = high school diploma.

3. Age is a factor in the results. I googled it but was unable to reproduce polls I've seen. Younger people are also more likely to be swayed (ex: the variances in MXY's results over time) as they are on most issues.
Variance in my results? <confused>

I'd love an example or two here. I've been quite consistent in saying that the real issue with gay marriage is the legal/societal status of marriage in the first place. I'd just as soon see "marriage" go away as a legal status (as distinct from a personal one). I've expanded upon at great length, but that's mostly because I'm interested in the topic and responses.

What the heck do you think my age is?

You want variance? Ask me what the Pistons do in the off-season, where I keep bouncing back and forth on what the "right thing" is, but by and large I haven't posted about that yet. :)

I'm not addressing whether it should be legal to descriminate based on marriage. I'm saying its easy to assign whatever union you create for permanent homosexual coupling the same rights as marriage. (I realize those two things can be made one issue but that's not how I'm addressing them as they do have areas of exclusivity).

Yes, you will still have to enforce that equality and no that isn't a piece of cake in all areas (particularly insurance which, as you pointed out, would seem to come down entirely to projections since there would be little to no history to calculate on) but establishing laws, punishments, and checks for these types of things are done every day and are part of the already working system (the laws/penalties/checks are part of the systems as are the means to create/enforce new ones). Getting Bubba's old pappy to recognize Ben and Jerry as equal in status to George and Laura is a much more problematic matter (see Freedom Rides, sit-ins, and the anti-social organizations).

Trickledown from the Syndicate is an idea I hadn't thought about. I imagine it does play a role in who stays and probably who is introduced to the site (assuming the Syndicate promotes it more than the user base).

Age and why?: Responsibility, becoming responsible for the welfare of more people/things (family/business) as you age. As well as growing more accustomed with ideas/ideals you've held for longer. Depending on them more for your feeling of stability and control over your life. I think its easy to be a young liberal but harder to be an old one and vice versa for conservatives.

3. Age is a factor in the results. I googled it but was unable to reproduce polls I've seen. Younger people are also more likely to be swayed (ex: the variances in MXY's results over time) as they are on most issues.
Variance in my results? <confused>

I'd love an example or two here. I've been quite consistent in saying that the real issue with gay marriage is the legal/societal status of marriage in the first place. I'd just as soon see "marriage" go away as a legal status (as distinct from a personal one). I've expanded upon at great length, but that's mostly because I'm interested in the topic and responses.

What the heck do you think my age is?

You want variance? Ask me what the Pistons do in the off-season, where I keep bouncing back and forth on what the "right thing" is, but by and large I haven't posted about that yet. :)

No no no. The results you posted about how approval rating have varied over time due to political climate and attention given to the subject. I think that was you.

Not bashing you, I have as much respect for your stylings as anyone here.

*Edit: Post #69 in this thread MXY.*

Trickledown from the Syndicate is an idea I hadn't thought about. I imagine it does play a role in who stays and probably who is introduced to the site (assuming the Syndicate promotes it more than the user base).

Age and why?: Responsibility, becoming responsible for the welfare of more people/things (family/business) as you age. As well as growing more accustomed with ideas/ideals you've held for longer. Depending on them more for your feeling of stability and control over your life. I think its easy to be a young liberal but harder to be an old one and vice versa.


We left religion out on this one too.

I do like your last sentence, I think its important to include social pressures as many are given to accepting the information they receive from their peers. See: hippy college roommate or WWII vet in nursing home.

people definitly become more conservative (i know i am). i think it has to do with stepping out of the class room and enterring the real world.

spend enough time downtown and you will become conservative. you see so many people who obviously are more than content to live off the government and add nothing to society that you cant help but rethink things.

Brace yourselves Denny and Gecko...

I agree that people become more conservative as they gain responsibility in life.

No one wants to feel like they are working hard to put food on someone else's table, while they find it harder and harder to get what they need/want in life.

But its no reason to become a cold hearted, bigoted, prejudiced, envious, bitter asshole, like most conservatives.

My problem with conservatives is that they are so shortsighted when it comes to the real issues, like the economy.

This is a simplistic example, but they sit there and complain about welfare money, because all they see is someone sitting at home and getting paid the money we worked to earn.

But they don't realize that those on welfare go out and spend that welfare money (even if its only on cigarettes and alcohol), and then the store owner goes out and spends money at the movies, so the movie house owner spends money at a restaurant, so the restaurant owner buys a new wardrobe, and the economy is stimulated.

However, when you cut welfare in order to give tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas, you are then collecting less taxes, less americans are employed, less income tax is earned, less americans spend money stimilating the economy, and we go into a recession.

But who do conservatives blame? The guy whose employer shipped his job overseas and is now on welfare - not the company that shipped the job overseas in the first place.

good post taymelo, but i wouldnt say all those points are reflective of conservative ideology, but just of the current administration (which most people dont consider to be 'true conservative').

^ I can accept that. I clearly painted with a broad brush.

spend enough time downtown and you will become conservative. you see so many people who obviously are more than content to live off the government and add nothing to society that you cant help but rethink things.

The issue with that line of thought is that overall economic performance appears to be independent of how much social welfare you give to people, unless U.S. slackers are particularly unique.

Theoretically, U.S. economic performance should be lording all over the European Union high-tax welfare states, because all of that unemployed Eurotrash will "add nothing to society", in your words. But that just doesn't hold true in practice. The European Union is quite competitive. Why? Keep in mind how much it costs a country to get slacker deadbeats employed, the added infrastructure for the employers, etc. Maybe it makes sense to pay them less and have them sit on the ass, like a subsidy.

Likewise, when you get to the countries that have virtually zero welfare, the citizens need to procreate like crazy to fill in infrastructure needed to provide "basic" social services the state doesn't provide, watering down prosperity. It's no accident that China's fortunes improved with forced population control, but soon they'll start having to figure out how to provide generations of social services for their growing middle class. Hopefully it doesn't involve some kind of war somewhere does the road.

Someone with more gumption than me will tie this into gay marriage. :)

I don't think so.


It's more of a religous thing rather than a law, if two men wanna get busy, who cares. Let them.


Now starting a family, thats a totally different thing.

I agree that people become more conservative as they gain responsibility in life.

No one wants to feel like they are working hard to put food on someone else's table, while they find it harder and harder to get what they need/want in life.

But its no reason to become a cold hearted, bigoted, prejudiced, envious, bitter asshole, like most conservatives.


It is funny how conservatives will resent every single cent spent on social programs of any kind but cheer $300 on a discretionary war. Unless of course the program is housing for the poor which has tremendous support among conservatives--as long as there are bars and guard towers as part of the deal.

I agree that people become more conservative as they gain responsibility in life.

No one wants to feel like they are working hard to put food on someone else's table, while they find it harder and harder to get what they need/want in life.

But its no reason to become a cold hearted, bigoted, prejudiced, envious, bitter asshole, like most conservatives.



Damn.

That was a great quote.

Taymelo for ROY!

1. The most important congelliant IMO is a tendency to live vicariously through a sports team. The reason almost all of us are here is we love the Pistons and want to share with others our feelings on them. Liberals tend to live in a bit of fantasy regarding things beyond them (world peace, polar ice caps, and NBA basketball team) while conservitives are worried about the things around them (my Nebraska farm is going to be the target of terrorism).

2. I think we are left leaning, and its a combination of #1 and the examples you gave. That and the appointed leadership here is far to the left which may casue some trickledown.

3. Age is a factor in the results. I googled it but was unable to reproduce polls I've seen. Younger people are also more likely to be swayed (ex: the variances in MXY's results over time) as they are on most issues.

4. Absolutly. Its a matter of becoming more focused on microsociological issues like your own family, small town, wallet, and job. Liberals get tired of chipping away at the mountains of injustices and find it easier to focus on getting a boat or keeping their daughter from marrying a negro.

Herm, thanks for giving those questions some thought. Interesting stuff.

Bring Prop 8 To Michigan!

I guarantee it will pass.

Bring Prop 8 To Michigan!

I guarantee it will pass.

Michigan voted in a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2004.


Ledezma is terrible.

Bring Prop 8 To Michigan!

I guarantee it will pass.

Is there anybody left in MI to vote?

Michigan voted in a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2004.
It won with 58%, and was part of why Kerry nearly lost Michigan that year. California actually passed a similar measure in 2000 by a similar margin, but it was overturned by their courts. Prop 8 was a do-over. At the rate things are trending, I suspect voters will overturn such measures in a decade or so.

Anyone see the Boston Legal finale? I caught the last half, not knowing it was a two hour thing.

I'm terrible.

Anyone see the Boston Legal finale? I caught the last half, not knowing it was a two hour thing.

Yes, that's been one of my favorite shows for a few years now. A shame to see it go off the air.

Prop 8 was a do-over. At the rate things are trending, I suspect voters will overturn such measures in a decade or so.

How do you figure?

California can't possibly be anymore liberal than they are right now.

So realistically, the only place for them to go is right, which would only strengthen the ban of gay marriage.

Man I just saw this and I hope I voted the right way. Who the hell is anyone to tell two people who love each other that they can't be married? What is marriage anymore anyway? And take the bible and stuff it up your arse for any argument against gay marriage or homosexuality; the bible is clearly a book written by people who took a lot of drugs and had some out of this world hallucinations. Fun stuff, though.
But banning gay marriage isn't gonna do a thing for the so called "American family" which is a contrived myth that is easier to disintegrate and get out of than a fucking Target credit card payment.

people definitly become more conservative (i know i am). i think it has to do with stepping out of the class room and enterring the real world.

spend enough time downtown and you will become conservative. you see so many people who obviously are more than content to live off the government and add nothing to society that you cant help but rethink things.


You have become nothing more than an unbearable and insufferable fuck face.

How do you figure?

California can't possibly be anymore liberal than they are right now.

So realistically, the only place for them to go is right, which would only strengthen the ban of gay marriage.
In 2000, California passed a gay marriage ban with 61% of the vote.
In 2008, California passed a gay marriage ban with 52% of the vote.

What will it be like in 2016?

In 2000, California passed a gay marriage ban with 61% of the vote.
In 2008, California passed a gay marriage ban with 52% of the vote.

What will it be like in 2016?


With the Hispanic population of Cali growing, the ban of gay marriage will be stronger if you ask me.

Personally, I'm glad Prop 8 passed. It's a fine consolation for the conservatives out in Cali who hardly ever have a say in political issues.

The Hispanic population in CA grew quite a bit between 2000 and 2008, yet the % of people who voted to ban gay marriage dropped.

Actually, even if you don't count der Governator as a "true conservative", California conservatives have had plenty of say. California's state budget requires a 2/3rd majority in both houses to pass a budget. It's part and parcel of what makes CA state government so delightfully dysfunctional.

I know there are parts of California that are conservative, I have family in Orange County and in La Jolla, which are both 'conservative'.

But as a whole, I doubt we'll ever see a Republican take California's EV's anytime soon, if ever.

I know there are parts of California that are conservative, I have family in Orange County and in La Jolla, which are both 'conservative'.

But as a whole, I doubt we'll ever see a Republican take California's EV's anytime soon, if ever.

Don't worry, puttz. You still have scared midwestern farmboys and southern racism to bolster your chances every time.

Well, well, well.

MIGHT AS WELL SAY IT'S OK FOR PEOPLE TO FUCK ANIMALS TOO!!!!!

Most noteworthy thing in this thread? 30+ poll votes.

Most noteworthy thing in this thread? 30+ poll votes.
That's what I was going to say, ha.

Finally Jason Colins and Richard Jefferson can make it official.

This guy should be forced to officiate the marriages around here:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/05/20/midland-pastor-resigns-gay/27637341/

Love diving through these old threads when they are brought to the surface.


I would guess that 98% are under 35

How many of us are still underneath that threshold?

Wednesday Update

Dear Members of St. John’s,

God is good today.

Yesterday was hard, of course. The nature of Matt’s sin broke on the news and is now out there for everyone to see. I’m sure it was a shock to hear his name on the news or to be confronted with posts and links that break the confidentiality of this matter wide open. Most difficult is to see the way he has been savaged in all of this.

We have been receiving communication too, of course. There have been many gestures of support from the community and promises to pray. I appreciate and respect those taking the time to understand what we are going through. There have also been communications that are just mean and for no other purpose than to hurt. Apparently this has touched a larger and deeper issue for some, and I pray that they will find peace.

To keep our perspective, though, in the midst of this sudden storm, we must remember that this was never about the details of sin. Not for us. Those details have been revealed now, but they don’t really matter. Everyone faces different temptation, but we all face temptation. And we know what to do with sin. We take it to the Lord Jesus, who has covered our shame with His precious blood. We have been wounded by the public scrutiny that this has drawn, but in the end it reminds me of what we well and truly are:

We are a church for sinners.

There may be some who think they have no faults. There may be those who say there is no such thing as sin. As for St. John’s, we are a place for those who know their sin to come and receive forgiveness from God and understanding from their brothers and sisters.

It is easy to think that Jesus came to save polite sins and to forgive easy faults. But He came to save real sinners, and as such we rejoice to know that our sins, too, are covered. Washed away. Removed as far as the east is from the west. And these tears too will be wiped from our eyes in His time.

In the meantime, please look to one another. We are hurting, but the God who is faithful will not forsake us.

See you in church,

-Pastor Kempin

Official answer: nope.

Wanna get hitched, Mike?

Lol@2006
Lol@33 votes!!!

So wish it was public.

Did Tahoe have 8 logins?

When marriages are outlawed, only outlaws will have marriages.

When marriages are outlawed, only outlaws will have marriages.

:HOGG: