PDA

View Full Version : Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage



FlaGator
05-27-2009, 01:27 PM
No movement in poll numbers over the last couple of years.



Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so. Though support for legal same-sex marriage is significantly higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1996, in recent years support has appeared to stall, peaking at 46% in 2007.

Read the whole thing here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx)

stsinner
05-27-2009, 01:31 PM
Good news. The MSM isn't succeeding in its pro-homosexual agenda.

Damn Americans clinging to their religion.

Odysseus
05-27-2009, 07:03 PM
Good news. The MSM isn't succeeding in its pro-homosexual agenda.
Damn Americans clinging to their religion.

And their guns. Don't forget their guns. So bitter... :D

Japandroid
05-28-2009, 06:07 AM
How much longer do you really think this will last?

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 06:36 AM
How much longer do you really think this will last?

Untill the stupid generation wakes the hell up and stops all this shit they are trying to pull.

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 08:40 AM
No movement in poll numbers over the last couple of years.



Read the whole thing here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx)

I wonder how segregation was polling during 1959-1968.

Appeal to Popularity (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/)


Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 09:04 AM
I wonder how segregation was polling during 1959-1968.

Appeal to Popularity (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/)


Its apples and oranges: Segregating someone over what the cant control like their color is one thing. Segregating someone over their choices is another.

Jfor
05-28-2009, 09:48 AM
I wonder how segregation was polling during 1959-1968.

Appeal to Popularity (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/)


What a brilliant argument. Equating ones choice in sexual preference to one's non-choice in skin color.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 10:09 AM
I wonder how segregation was polling during 1959-1968.

Appeal to Popularity (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/)

You are comparing a morally sound initiative with a morally repugnant one. Perhaps your question should be "I wonder how Euthanasia for the mentally handicapped was polling at the turn of the century." It's more accurate to compare the polling numbers from two morally repugnant concepts.

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 10:22 AM
What a brilliant argument. Equating ones choice in sexual preference to one's non-choice in skin color.

IMO

Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. It's a hard-wired personality trait like left-handed.

If you want to PM me some current behavioral and biological studies that say different. I'd be happy to review them.

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 10:32 AM
You are comparing a morally sound initiative with a morally repugnant one. Perhaps your question should be "I wonder how Euthanasia for the mentally handicapped was polling at the turn of the century." It's more accurate to compare the polling numbers from two morally repugnant concepts.

Gator:

I think this is another agree to disagree for you and me. I know your views, I think you know mine.

I will say though that "Morally repugnant" is a very subjective qualifier for a fair comparison. The legal issues in the suit filed against the state of CA are similar to Brown vs. Board of E. -- 14th Amendment. The comparison is fair and logical on that level. Whether Olson and Boies will prevail--I don't know.

My main point was the definition of Appeal to Majority (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/).

Jfor
05-28-2009, 10:35 AM
IMO

Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. It's a hard-wired personality trait like left-handed.

If you want to PM me some current behavioral and biological studies that say different. I'd be happy to review them.

You wrote IMO which means In My Opinion. So your opinion is not fact therefore skin color cannot be picked but sexual choice can be picked.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 10:45 AM
Gator:

I think this is another agree to disagree for you and me. I know your views, I think you know mine.

I will say though that "Morally repugnant" is a very subjective qualifier for a fair comparison. The legal issues in the suit filed against the state of CA are similar to Brown vs. Board of E. -- 14th Amendment. The comparison is fair and logical on that level. Whether Olson and Boies will prevail--I don't know.

My main point was the definition of Appeal to Majority (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/).

The lawyers are seriously rolling the dice with this. If the Surpreme Court rejects the case then it will establish same-sex marriage as a states rights issues and another case may never qualify to be heard by the Surpreme Court. If theyCourt accepts the suit and finds against it then same-sex marriage will again become, a best, a states rights issue and the ground work may be set to be banned in all states. Much like throwing a pass in football only three things can happen and two of them are not good for same-sex marriage.

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 10:47 AM
You wrote IMO which means In My Opinion. So your opinion is not fact therefore skin color cannot be picked but sexual choice can be picked.

Let me be more specific. IMO -- The current beliefs held by the majority of researchers in relevant areas of behavioral and medical science are correct.

Again, feel free to PM me the studies you use to form your opinion. I didn't want to turn Gator's thread into a source quoting contest.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 10:51 AM
Let me be more specific. IMO -- The current beliefs held by the majority of researchers in relevant areas of behavioral and medical science are correct.

Again, feel free to PM me the studies you use to form your opinion. I didn't want to turn Gator's thread into a source quoting contest.

I believe there was a story posted by Megi last week that detailed how the psychiatric boards that determines such things are saying that they are discovering little to no evidence of a genetic for homosexual behavior. I'll see if I can find it.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 10:56 AM
OK I found it

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 11:01 AM
The lawyers are seriously rolling the dice with this. If the Surpreme Court rejects the case then it will establish same-sex marriage as a states rights issues and another case may never qualify to be heard by the Surpreme Court. If theyCourt accepts the suit and finds against it then same-sex marriage will again become, a best, a states rights issue and the ground work may be set to be banned in all states. Much like throwing a pass in football only three things can happen and two of them are not good for same-sex marriage.

I totally agree. Yesterday's filing has many people concerned.

But the names Olson and Boies are raising a lot of eyebrows. To use your Football analogy, Warner and Fitzgerald just stepped to the line of scrimmage. It will be interesting to see how the far-right tries to characterize Olson's involvement.

Gingersnap
05-28-2009, 11:15 AM
Sexual orientation is NOT a choice.

And marriage is NOT a right.

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 11:18 AM
I believe there was a story posted by Megi last week that detailed how the psychiatric boards that determines such things are saying that they are discovering little to no evidence of a genetic for homosexual behavior. I'll see if I can find it.

Well--that's how WND and megi tried to spin the study.

I started a thread which was merged with megi's-- that thread contained links to many current relevant studies. Lots of info packed in one thread for anyone who cares to read it.


The studies I've read on sexual orientation being a function of genetic factors, fetal brain development and prenatal nutrition come from credible research sources. I combine that with my own anecdotal evidence and experience and that's how I've come to form my opinion--personal experience and personal reading. That's really the best any of can do on this issue, unless we're in the field of study.

stsinner
05-28-2009, 11:25 AM
Being born with a cleft pallet or with no limbs or blind or deaf are also all natural.... A person can be born with any number of anomalies and defects.
Are we soon going to say that people born blind don't have anything wrong with them-that it's just another type of normal? That babies who are born with a cleft pallet are also just another type of normal because that's the way they were born and to stop performing surgery to "correct" it? How insulting to say that a condition that someone was born with is a defect and needs corrected, like a heart murmur.

I, however, after witnessing many people turn gay only after a bad marriage which involved procreation, don't believe for a second that it's genetic.. The queer teens or school children I have known have had really Liberal parents who kept their kids in a bubble and coddled them and just didn't act like other parents I know. Two queer kids that I know were raised solely by their mother with no father in the picture..

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 11:27 AM
And marriage is NOT a right.

The CA supreme court has a different opinion.

In re Marriage Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases)


"[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."

There are many rights and privileges that come with marriage. CA has granted those rights and privileges to 18,000 same-sex couples. The other same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection under the U.S. constitution. -- That's just my understanding of the Olson/Boies filing yesterday.

Gingersnap
05-28-2009, 11:53 AM
The CA supreme court has a different opinion.

In re Marriage Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases)



There are many rights and privileges that come with marriage. CA has granted those rights and privileges to 18,000 same-sex couples. The other same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection under the U.S. constitution. -- That's just my understanding of the Olson/Boies filing yesterday.

They may well have a different opinion but those opinions get overturned fairly frequently. It seems ridiculous that any right to marriage exists. It's a voluntary contract. If you can't find anyone to enter the contract with you, you have no marriage claims.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 11:56 AM
Well--that's how WND and megi tried to spin the study.

I started a thread which was merged with megi's-- that thread contained links to many current relevant studies. Lots of info packed in one thread for anyone who cares to read it.


The studies I've read on sexual orientation being a function of genetic factors, fetal brain development and prenatal nutrition come from credible research sources. I combine that with my own anecdotal evidence and experience and that's how I've come to form my opinion--personal experience and personal reading. That's really the best any of can do on this issue, unless we're in the field of study.

You may not like the source, but the source doesn't make the story wrong by default. Until someone finds the "gay" gene I'm still going to lead to the side of nurture over nature. There seem to be stronger evidence that addictive behavior is genetically based than homosexual behavior.

As has been pointed out, just because something is genetic doesn't make it right or perferred.

samurai
05-28-2009, 11:57 AM
The CA supreme court has a different opinion.

In re Marriage Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases)



There are many rights and privileges that come with marriage. CA has granted those rights and privileges to 18,000 same-sex couples. The other same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection under the U.S. constitution. -- That's just my understanding of the Olson/Boies filing yesterday.

Like I said in your other thread, Ex Post Facto law applies here, IMHO.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 12:00 PM
They may well have a different opinion but those opinions get overturned fairly frequently. It seems ridiculous that any right to marriage exists. It's a voluntary contract. If you can't find anyone to enter the contract with you, you have no marriage claims.

I have made this same argument and the pro same-sex marriage crowd refuses to accept it. I heard a woman on the news Tuesday night bemoaning the fact that she just had a right taken away from her. First of all marriage is not a right, it is a civil contract with certain socio-economic provisions for those who agree to the contract. My next thought was how can this woman have lost something that she never had to begin with?

wilbur
05-28-2009, 12:00 PM
I believe there was a story posted by Megi last week that detailed how the psychiatric boards that determines such things are saying that they are discovering little to no evidence of a genetic for homosexual behavior. I'll see if I can find it.

Which was another story from the WND which was shown to be a complete farce. There wasnt any detailing of anything... there were no studies.. the APA changed some wording on an FAQ on their website... then the WND consulted some biased, politically charged organization that is responsible for developing and promoting "sexual re-orientation therapy" to comment on it.... but not a scientist in sight, nor even anyone from the APA.

Read the story, read the FAQ on the APA's website, and then just look at the ridiculous article title.... much ado about nothing.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 12:04 PM
Which was another story for the WND which was shown to be a complete farce.

I wasn't basing my opinion on the WND story. I followed the links to the source documents and they seem to be for the most part in agreement with the WND story. Also, I've seen no evidence of the study being a farce other than the those who don't want it to be true claiming that it must be false because it doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

wilbur
05-28-2009, 12:10 PM
I wasn't basing my opinion on the WND story. I followed the links to the source documents and they seem to be for the most part in agreement with the WND story. Also, I've seen no evidence of the study being a farce other than the those who don't want it to be true claiming that it must be false because it doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

There was NO STUDY!

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 12:12 PM
There was NO STUDY!

Jez I mistyped. Don't have a freeking fit.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 12:16 PM
I did find this interesting reading...

http://www.narth.com/docs/030207Abbot.pdf

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 03:03 PM
You may not like the source, but the source doesn't make the story wrong by default. Until someone finds the "gay" gene I'm still going to lead to the side of nurture over nature. There seem to be stronger evidence that addictive behavior is genetically based than homosexual behavior.

As has been pointed out, just because something is genetic doesn't make it right or perferred.

I don't think they were ever looking for or will ever find a "gay" gene. Just like they may never find an alcoholic gene. However, a combination of genes prenatal factors can lead to roughly 10% of the population having an addictive personality combined with a brain chemistry that processes alcohol differently than say a normal drinker.

Everything I've read about sexual orientation with regards to brain development and brain chemistry believes it to be a combination of genetic and prenatal issues. Also, that sexual orientation is not an all or nothing proposition. There are degrees or homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Jfor
05-28-2009, 03:27 PM
So again, I will say that pedophiles can become a protected class the same as homosexuals. There is no difference between the depravity of both groups.

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 03:27 PM
I have made this same argument and the pro same-sex marriage crowd refuses to accept it. I heard a woman on the news Tuesday night bemoaning the fact that she just had a right taken away from her. First of all marriage is not a right, it is a civil contract with certain socio-economic provisions for those who agree to the contract. My next thought was how can this woman have lost something that she never had to begin with?


Gator:

Take driving. My son is 15 and he thinks it's his right to get a license. While getting the license is his right should he meet all the requirement and pass the test, the license itself merely grants him the privilege of driving. Anyone 18 or older (16 w/ parents permission) has the right to apply for the license.

A marriage license is permission to go get married. Two California residents who meet the requirements, 18 (I think) and not already married, have the right to apply for this license. Last year, 18,000 same-sex couples applied and were granted the license to get married. They returned with the license signed by an authority allowed to do so and were granted all the privileges of married couples.

Now, with the amendment to constitution, the right to apply for that license is being denied to a minority class. This is where the 14th amendment will kick in. The denying of new licenses to other same-sex couples.

I'm beginning to think the CA supreme court may have just passed the buck because there is some wording in the state constitution about extending equal protection according the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe the Supreme court will kick it back down to them and say just annul the marriages. That would result in a legal sh*t storm--also it's my understanding the reason for not annulling the marriages is pretty sound and not being questioned by anyone in the legal community.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 05:40 PM
Gator:

Take driving. My son is 15 and he thinks it's his right to get a license. While getting the license is his right should he meet all the requirement and pass the test, the license itself merely grants him the privilege of driving. Anyone 18 or older (16 w/ parents permission) has the right to apply for the license.

A marriage license is permission to go get married. Two California residents who meet the requirements, 18 (I think) and not already married, have the right to apply for this license. Last year, 18,000 same-sex couples applied and were granted the license to get married. They returned with the license signed by an authority allowed to do so and were granted all the privileges of married couples.

Now, with the amendment to constitution, the right to apply for that license is being denied to a minority class. This is where the 14th amendment will kick in. The denying of new licenses to other same-sex couples.

I'm beginning to think the CA supreme court may have just passed the buck because there is some wording in the state constitution about extending equal protection according the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe the Supreme court will kick it back down to them and say just annul the marriages. That would result in a legal sh*t storm--also it's my understanding the reason for not annulling the marriages is pretty sound and not being questioned by anyone in the legal community.

Anyone at the DMV will tell you that driving is not a right, it is a privilege extended to you and your son by the state. By accepting that license you have made a contract with the state that entitles you to certain privileges as long as you abide by the law thus upholding your end of the contract. You fail to uphold your end of the contract and the state can remove your license and all the privileges it comes with it. In short the privilege can be removed from you. The state can also decide who is fit and who is unfit to drive. The state says that blind people can't have a license for obvious reasons. The state also says that multiple DUI offenders can't have a license because they were extended a privilege (not a right) and they abused it.

Marriage is not a right. It is a contract between two people recognized by the state. This contract offers certain privileges to both parties and the contact can be voided by either party for sufficient cause. It is a socio-economic contract recognized by the state... that is all it is. Religions and beliefs systems add some moral weight to the union but it is still a contract regulated by the state... just like driver's licenses, work artisan licenses, or craftsmen licenses or hunting licenses or any other function that the state wishes to either regulate or make money on. The state can choose to license who every it wants to extend the privilege to. The state can also deny the privilege to anyone it chooses to as long as the qualifiers for the license are known before hand.

The reason the 18,000 marriages were left intact was because the issue at hand that the CA Supreme Court was deciding on had nothing to do with same-sex marriages. They issue before them was if the the CA proposition process was a legal method to amend the state Constitution which they said it was. Now what has to be done is that the opponents of prop 8 have to take this to the Supreme Court and have them rule on whether the amendment itself violates the National Constitution. That would not be wise right now with a majority conservative vote on the bench.

lacarnut
05-28-2009, 05:56 PM
Nutsack:

Gay marriage is not a right, getting a D.L. is not a right, providing free food and shelter is not a right and providing free health care is not a right. Looks like liberals will never understand that.

MrsSmith
05-28-2009, 09:22 PM
Everyone speaks of "marital rights" as though they were advantageous. The fact is that marital rights are often negative...just ask the guy who pays alimony for 10 years. Or, in our case, due to marital rights, if Mr Smith dies and his ex-wife sues for "her children's" portion of "his" estate, thanks to Kansas marital law, she can take 1/4 of the assets I owned before I married my husband.

A huge part of the demand to change the definition of marriage is due to homosexual couples wanting to put their Significant Other on their insurance...but when Mr Smith and I married, we were forced to maintain 2 separate health insurance policies because neither insurance company would cover step-children. I guess this is different than 2 people who have a sexual relationship maintaining 2 separate health insurance policies? :rolleyes:

Somehow, they think that forcing their definition of "marriage" on the whole country would cause hospitals to automatically know which 2 guys are "married?" If they're going to carry their "marriage" license everywhere they go, they can as easily have legal paperwork drawn up by any decent lawyer that gives them all those same "rights," and carry THAT paper everywhere they go.

And exactly why should sexual choices give anyone a "right" to call their relationship "Marriage." Why should it be based on sexual preference? If 2 gay guys can claim to be married, why not ANY 2 guys, regardless of a sexual relationship? Why not ANY 2 people? Someday, I may choose to live with one of my grown children...why can't we have all the same legal "rights" as any other 2 people, but without any sexual relationship? We could share one insurance policy...which should save me a lot of money! Why reward deviant sexual behavior with these "huge advantages." Open up the rights to ALL couples. Make it truly a "civil right!"

samurai
05-28-2009, 09:35 PM
Everyone speaks of "marital rights" as though they were advantageous. The fact is that marital rights are often negative...just ask the guy who pays alimony for 10 years. Or, in our case, due to marital rights, if Mr Smith dies and his ex-wife sues for "her children's" portion of "his" estate, thanks to Kansas marital law, she can take 1/4 of the assets I owned before I married my husband.

A huge part of the demand to change the definition of marriage is due to homosexual couples wanting to put their Significant Other on their insurance...but when Mr Smith and I married, we were forced to maintain 2 separate health insurance policies because neither insurance company would cover step-children. I guess this is different than 2 people who have a sexual relationship maintaining 2 separate health insurance policies? :rolleyes:

Somehow, they think that forcing their definition of "marriage" on the whole country would cause hospitals to automatically know which 2 guys are "married?" If they're going to carry their "marriage" license everywhere they go, they can as easily have legal paperwork drawn up by any decent lawyer that gives them all those same "rights," and carry THAT paper everywhere they go.

And exactly why should sexual choices give anyone a "right" to call their relationship "Marriage." Why should it be based on sexual preference? If 2 gay guys can claim to be married, why not ANY 2 guys, regardless of a sexual relationship? Why not ANY 2 people? Someday, I may choose to live with one of my grown children...why can't we have all the same legal "rights" as any other 2 people, but without any sexual relationship? We could share one insurance policy...which should save me a lot of money! Why reward deviant sexual behavior with these "huge advantages." Open up the rights to ALL couples. Make it truly a "civil right!"
What I've found is that the gay activists want, more than anything, full societal acceptance and support for their relationships. The actual rights are only 1 minor part of that... the far larger part is that they feel if they can legally use the term marriage, and force others (through lawsuits and eventually indoctrination at a young age) to see them as married, that it will bestow upon them societal acceptance and legitimacy. They feel that if they settle for even an iota less or different (such as all the legal rights of marriage but under the term "civil unions") that the acceptance of society will not take place... they'll still be "different" or "not normal", and they wish to be considered "normal" more than anything else. That is why they refuse to accept the legal rights in different packaging. And it would also mean that their more litigious-minded fellows wouldn't have the same grounds for lawsuits and forcing acceptance when they discover that, even if Obama or a few judges award them the term "marriage", that it will generate animosity and backlash (as seen in CA), not the acceptance and normalcy they are so desperately seeking... at which point they'll decide they need to force that acceptance and quiet any dissent (such as churches).

Odysseus
05-28-2009, 09:54 PM
The CA supreme court has a different opinion.
In re Marriage Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases)
There are many rights and privileges that come with marriage. CA has granted those rights and privileges to 18,000 same-sex couples. The other same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection under the U.S. constitution. -- That's just my understanding of the Olson/Boies filing yesterday.
Same-sex couples have the same protection under the US Constitution as hetero couples. A gay man and a lesbian can marry each other at any time, or a gay man can marry a straight woman or a lesbian can marry a straight man. The right of Americans to marry a person of the opposite sex is not restricted by the prospective bride or groom's sexual orientation.

CueSi
05-29-2009, 01:22 AM
IMO

Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. It's a hard-wired personality trait like left-handed.

If you want to PM me some current behavioral and biological studies that say different. I'd be happy to review them.

That doesn't mean you can use it.

Fuck ya'll for comparing color to sexual orientation. You can make case for your gatdamn rights w/o drinking from our well for it... I swear, the next gay person who does it will have to kiss my black ass. :)

~QC

hazlnut
05-29-2009, 01:57 AM
Anyone at the DMV will tell you that driving is not a right, it is a privilege extended to you and your son by the state.

Gator:

Help me out and read what I wrote before responding. The right I was describe is to take the test or apply for the license. The privilege is granted with the license.


Marriage is not a right.

I get that you and Ginger both believe this, however I've showed that the CA supreme court sees it differently. Maybe it's a semantics thing or how the court is defining a 'right'. But they see marriage as a right. See link earlier in thread.


The reason the 18,000 marriages were left intact was because the issue at hand that the CA Supreme Court was deciding on had nothing to do with same-sex marriages.

That wasn't the reason the CA SC gave--if I find a link to the explanation I read I'll PM it. Basically, it was a certain type of exception to making amendments retroactive--which is the norm.

lacarnut
05-29-2009, 02:18 AM
That doesn't mean you can use it.

Fuck ya'll for comparing color to sexual orientation. You can make case for your gatdamn rights w/o drinking from our well for it... I swear, the next gay person who does it will have to kiss my black ass. :)

~QC

Amen to that. Dumb ass homos are too stupid to understand that.

Lager
05-29-2009, 02:45 AM
Though we might not agree whether homosexuality is purely genetic or purely a choice, perhaps we can all admit that there are both prenatal and postnatal factors that lead to the development of one's sexuality. In that case, there is perhaps some element of "choice". It may be that choice resulted from some chain of events so subtle and so complex that one is unaware of having made a choice.

As parents we have a natural interest to teach and model behavior that would benefit our children in their later lives. Should we not then steer them toward heterosexuality? Are we in disagreement about society's preference for heterosexual families? Not as a matter of judgement, but strictly for issues such as raising a family and health concerns, for example.