Gay marriage, should it be outlawed?

[Gecko]

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.

[Taymelo]

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.

[Unibomber]

"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.

[Comrade]

"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.

[Gecko]

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.

[Hermy]

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.

[Unibomber]

"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.

[Gecko]

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.

[Uncle Mxy]

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/disp...3?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.

[Comrade]

"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.