• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will ask again because no one answered me last time: What is the legitimate state interest in prohibiting same-sex civil marriages from being legal? What benefit to the state does the ban support? It certainly doesn't benefit society to prohibit same-sex marriage because organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the National Association for Social Workers stated to the California Supreme Court (this is straight off of Wikipedia lol).

You won't get an answer because there is none. The anti-gay marriage people's arguments always boil down to "I don't like it so therefore no one else should be able to do it."

That's why debating with them is a waste of time.
 
They are only against gay marriage because of their christian cult, ha when a cult becomes successful it is called a religion, anyhow u aren't going to easily convince conservatives that banning gay marriage is completely against the America that I had learned about.
 
And you are not authorized by the state to preform a legal ceremony, religious personnel are.

So if you do it, like you said it means nothing. Not being recognized by the states means more than just no benefits. It means you are not married according to everyone else and every other state.

Maybe it means nothing to the state, but it means everything to devout followers of the Panachian faith. And it doesn't mean that you aren't married according to everyone else. It just means you aren't married to people who consider marriage to be an exclusively institution. Every devout Panachian on the planet will consider you two married. ;-)

Similarly, I know plenty of gay couples that consider themselves married, and all their friends consider them married. The state doesn't consider them married, but that's just because the state doesn't know any better.
 
Exactly, you just need the right set of circumstances before the state will officially endorse it and grant you all the benefits which that married status brings. Which is really the cruz of the issue here, same-sex couples are being denied those benefits.

Then why do they have a problem with civil unions? You see that is not the issue here. If all the benefits were taken away from married hetero couples it would still be an issue because it is about legitimizing, not benefits.
 
BTW, don't get too excited. It has already been established that since the poll results weren't made public, that someone has been stacking the deck on the side of against gay marriage. A mod put out earlier in this thread, that the results are definitely the opposite of what the poll shows, if you don't count "guest" votes.

The poll on this web site is about as refeltive of public opinion as the internet polls on Ron Paul being elected president.

So it means nothing.
 
Exactly. That's what we have been trying to explain. There are two forms of marriage, civil and religious/private. Civil marriage is all about the license and making your marriage legally recognized by the state. Religious or private marriage is presenting yourself as a committed couple, claiming to be husband and wife, husband and husband, or wife and wife in everything you do. Most religious/private marriages are also civil marriages, and most civil marriages are also religious/private marriages, but neither needs the other to actually exist. The only time that there is truly a problem is when someone who hasn't or isn't allowed to have a civil marriage tries to claim their status as married on legal forms or for legal matters because they recognize themselves as married because of their religious/private marriage.

No the state has blurred the line. All ministers, priests etc are officers of the state and allowed to preform marriages.

Just because someone can say "I am married" does not make it a marriage. Without the recognition of the state it means nothing.

If this were the case gays could just say they are married and that would be the end of it.

As I've mentioned earlier, there are even some cases where two people are viewed as religiously/privately married, by their church or family, but don't consider themselves to actually be married, and are not married civilly.

And thats fine but again in our society it means literally nothing.

The bottom line is that civil marriage should be completely secular. Religious beliefs should have no say in who can be involved in a civil marriage. Now, the government can limit civil marriages, but those limitations should be fair. The best thing the government could do is to explain exactly why it endorses civil marriages, and make the civil marriage laws fit with that reasoning. As the marriage laws are right now, they discriminate against homosexual couples without a good reason why.

As long as they call it other than marriage, I would have no problem with your suggestion.
 
Then why do they have a problem with civil unions? You see that is not the issue here. If all the benefits were taken away from married hetero couples it would still be an issue because it is about legitimizing, not benefits.

Why do people have a problem with calling it "marriage" instead of "civil unions"?

Is it about deligitimizing?
 
Why do people have a problem with calling it "marriage" instead of "civil unions"?

Is it about deligitimizing?

No. It's about not condoning/legitimizing it as a good choice, not just a "sin" but a sinful "life style."
 
No the state has blurred the line. All ministers, priests etc are officers of the state and allowed to preform marriages.

Just because someone can say "I am married" does not make it a marriage. Without the recognition of the state it means nothing.

If this were the case gays could just say they are married and that would be the end of it.



And thats fine but again in our society it means literally nothing.



As long as they call it other than marriage, I would have no problem with your suggestion.

I think you are missing the point, and it seems to be on purpose.

Most religions view a marriage to be a commitment of two people to be together under God. The religions only care about the civil part of marriage to ensure the members of their church are protected legally. Some religions have no concern whatsoever for the civil part of marriage. Some religion or religious persons may be concerned about the civil marriage for their own numbers or some other financial reason, but I have no idea how many would care about that part, especially if the intent is to simply unite two people together in matrimony.

Marriage existed long before the marriage license. In fact the marriage license came about initially from the church itself. Marriage licenses in the US have been mainly in place to restrict marriages. The main purpose of government marriage licenses was to restrict interracial marriages. The marriage license is not a bad thing, as it allows the state to keep accurate records of who is getting married and to help ensure that people who intend to marry are not already marry (although sometimes it still happens) and allows for legal proof that a couple has actually mutually agreed to the marriage.

I don't believe civil unions are necessary, unless every civil marriage is instead referred to as a civil union, not just homosexual pairings. To me, though, it would be moot, because couples would still refer to themselves as married, we would have to needlessly change thousands, if not millions, of legal documents that contain the words "married" or something pertaining to marriage, just to appease religious people who believe that they should own the meaning of a word.
 
No. It's about not condoning/legitimizing it as a good choice, not just a "sin" but a sinful "life style."

There are people who consider being married to someone of a different religion a sinful "lifestyle".

There are also people who consider being in an open marriage with someone or a married couple who are "swingers" as being in a sinful "lifestyle".

However, since both of these types of marriages are allowed to occur, wouldn't our government still be condoning sinful "lifestyles"? Most people do not blink an eye in outrage over these. There is no huge outcry of people trying to make more laws against adultery or laws prohibiting people of different religions from getting married. What constitutes a sinful "lifestyle" is different for many people, and it is not the governments job to regulate sin. It is the governments job to regulate actions that are harmful to others and/or their property. As far as marriage goes, it is the government's job to declare why exactly it endorses marriages and make sure that the rules regarding civil marriage are fair to everyone.
 
I think you are missing the point, and it seems to be on purpose.

Most religions view a marriage to be a commitment of two people to be together under God. The religions only care about the civil part of marriage to ensure the members of their church are protected legally. Some religions have no concern whatsoever for the civil part of marriage. Some religion or religious persons may be concerned about the civil marriage for their own numbers or some other financial reason, but I have no idea how many would care about that part, especially if the intent is to simply unite two people together in matrimony.

I am not missing the point. I am going by Christianity. I don't care about the other religions to be honest. Don't know enough about them to care one way or the other.

I mean 70%+ of this country identifies themselves as Christian,, so we have a vested interest in this society in which we live as we helped build it and maintain it.

Marriage existed long before the marriage license. In fact the marriage license came about initially from the church itself. Marriage licenses in the US have been mainly in place to restrict marriages. The main purpose of government marriage licenses was to restrict interracial marriages. The marriage license is not a bad thing, as it allows the state to keep accurate records of who is getting married and to help ensure that people who intend to marry are not already marry (although sometimes it still happens) and allows for legal proof that a couple has actually mutually agreed to the marriage.

I already know all this, but thanks just the same for your effort.

I don't believe civil unions are necessary, unless every civil marriage is instead referred to as a civil union, not just homosexual pairings. To me, though, it would be moot, because couples would still refer to themselves as married, we would have to needlessly change thousands, if not millions, of legal documents that contain the words "married" or something pertaining to marriage, just to appease religious people who believe that they should own the meaning of a word.

We know the meaning of the word. It was not until the last 20 years gays and progressives tried to change the definition.
 
There are people who consider being married to someone of a different religion a sinful "lifestyle".

So?

There are also people who consider being in an open marriage with someone or a married couple who are "swingers" as being in a sinful "lifestyle".

Yes I consider it a sinfull life style as well.

However, since both of these types of marriages are allowed to occur, wouldn't our government still be condoning sinful "lifestyles"? Most people do not blink an eye in outrage over these. There is no huge outcry of people trying to make more laws against adultery or laws prohibiting people of different religions from getting married. What constitutes a sinful "lifestyle" is different for many people, and it is not the governments job to regulate sin. It is the governments job to regulate actions that are harmful to others and/or their property. As far as marriage goes, it is the government's job to declare why exactly it endorses marriages and make sure that the rules regarding civil marriage are fair to everyone.

Just because they are allowed does not make them right.

You mite as well ask me to support prostitution for legalization. I wont and neither will the majority of Christians, period.
 
I am not missing the point. I am going by Christianity. I don't care about the other religions to be honest. Don't know enough about them to care one way or the other.

I mean 70%+ of this country identifies themselves as Christian,, so we have a vested interest in this society in which we live as we helped build it and maintain it.



I already know all this, but thanks just the same for your effort.



We know the meaning of the word. It was not until the last 20 years gays and progressives tried to change the definition.

You said

Just because someone can say "I am married" does not make it a marriage. Without the recognition of the state it means nothing.

I am telling you that not all religions go by what the state recognizes as marriage. Most religious wedding ceremonies will mention that the couple is being brought together under God. The ceremony is more important to many churches than the license for a couple to claim to be married.

Also, there are gay Christians. Not all Christians believe that being gay is a sin. There are even some Christians who view being gay as a sin, but understand that it is not the government's place to regulate sin.
 
You said
I am telling you that not all religions go by what the state recognizes as marriage. Most religious wedding ceremonies will mention that the couple is being brought together under God. The ceremony is more important to many churches than the license for a couple to claim to be married.

Again so what? It changes nothing. Other religions as I said have nothing to do with anything I am saying as I don't know enough about them to consider it.

Also, there are gay Christians. Not all Christians believe that being gay is a sin. There are even some Christians who view being gay as a sin, but understand that it is not the government's place to regulate sin.

And that is between them and God.

I will not condone a sin, or repeatedly doing the same sin and acting like God is cool with it. Sorry does not fly. At what point does repeating the same sin over and over become un-Christian? At what point does committing the same sin and not being repentant become un-Christian?

I mean non-Christan's seem to like pointing out our sins all the time with things like "What would Jesus do" etc. I mean sorry if I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I will stand by everything I have said.
 
Last edited:
Again so what? It changes nothing. Other religions as I said have nothing to do with anything I am saying as I don't know enough about them to consider it.



And that is between them and God.

I will not condone a sin, or repeatedly doing the same sin and acting like God is cool with it. Sorry does not fly. At what point does repeating the same sin over and over become un-Christian? At what point does committing the same sin and not being repentant become un-Christian?

I mean non-Christan's seem to like pointing out our sins all the time with thing like "What would Jesus do" etc. I mean sorry if I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I will stand by everything I have said.

So you must have direct conversations with God then?

You have no true way to know that what is written in the Bible is truly the word of God or delusions from people who lived thousands of years ago. You have no way to truly know if God ensured that "his word" was translated correctly or if man just did the best they could. You have no way to actually know that if what was written in the Bible was actually everything that He wanted to get across or a way for the early churches to better control and/or convert people to Christianity.

I'm not trying to disrespect your faith or the Bible, but I don't appreciate it when people use what is written in a book from a couple of thousand years ago in a time when many people were trying to gain power and/or influence over the people. Much of the Bible is most likely written in good faith, but that doesn't ensure that it couldn't be biased in some way. Even the teaching of the Bible in modern times is biased.

I'll give you an example. The story of Sodom is one of the most used ways to "prove" God is against homosexuality. Yet in the story of Lot and Sodom in the Bible, God nor the angels ever said anything about condemning the city because of homosexuality or even "sodomy". God said he was planning to destroy Sodom because it had "turned from him". And the final condemnation came because the townsmen showed up to rape the angels. But, if you have any knowledge of ancient superstitions/beliefs you will know that in that time it was believed that sexual activity with a higher or more powerful being would transfer at least some of those powers to the person committing the act. If the townspeople believed this, they really wouldn't have considered the gender of the angels at all. And it seems to me that God would have been quite ticked off at the fact that the men had just raped/attempted to rape his angels, and really not even have a second thought about the act being a homosexual one. Rape is much worse than homosexual sex, I'd bet. Sodom and Gamorrah had always been taught to me as a lesson against homosexuality, yet looking at the story now, I cannot logically get that from the story in my Bible.
 
Last edited:
So you must have direct conversations with God then?

You have no true way to know that what is written in the Bible is truly the word of God or delusions from people who lived thousands of years ago. You have no way to truly know if God ensured that "his word" was translated correctly or if man just did the best they could. You have no way to actually know that if what was written in the Bible was actually everything that He wanted to get across or a way for the early churches to better control and/or convert people to Christianity.

I'm not trying to disrespect your faith or the Bible, but I don't appreciate it when people use what is written in a book from a couple of thousand years ago in a time when many people were trying to gain power and/or influence over the people. Much of the Bible is most likely written in good faith, but that doesn't ensure that it couldn't be biased in some way. Even the teaching of the Bible in modern times is biased.

I'll give you an example. The story of Sodom is one of the most used ways to "prove" God is against homosexuality. Yet in the story of Lot and Sodom in the Bible, God nor the angels ever said anything about condemning the city because of homosexuality or even "sodomy". God said he was planning to destroy Sodom because it had "turned from him". And the final condemnation came because the townsmen showed up to rape the angels. But, if you have any knowledge of ancient superstitions/beliefs you will know that in that time it was believed that sexual activity with a higher or more powerful being would transfer at least some of those powers to the person committing the act. If the townspeople believed this, they really wouldn't have considered the gender of the angels at all. And it seems to me that God would have been quite ticked off at the fact that the men had just raped/attempted to rape his angels, and really not even have a second thought about the act being a homosexual one. Rape is much worse than homosexual sex, I'd bet. Sodom and Gamorrah had always been taught to me as a lesson against homosexuality, yet looking at the story now, I cannot logically get that from the story in my Bible.

Sodom and Gamorrah was not a lesson against or on homosexuality.

As far as the rest goes I have already gone over this many times here and I don’t feel like retyping it.

Rest assured I am fairly well versed in history and the Bible. My faith is not blind, and I know what I am talking about.

Your understanding of the Bible is not really a concern for me. Your translation and understanding of history is again, of no concern to me. This is supposed to be a debate, not you preaching about my faith or religion. No insult taken, it’s just not really the subject.

The subject is do I have a right to stop gay marriage. Yes, I most certainly do. By the election of officials who represent my views and by voting for laws I feel contribute and make the society I live in more to my liking.

If you do not like this, you are free to challenge the laws by vote or a court challenge.

I thank you for being civil and I respect that.

Now if you have anything relating to the debate itself? I will be very happy to continue.
 
I'll give you an example. The story of Sodom is one of the most used ways to "prove" God is against homosexuality. Yet in the story of Lot and Sodom in the Bible, God nor the angels ever said anything about condemning the city because of homosexuality or even "sodomy". God said he was planning to destroy Sodom because it had "turned from him". And the final condemnation came because the townsmen showed up to rape the angels. But, if you have any knowledge of ancient superstitions/beliefs you will know that in that time it was believed that sexual activity with a higher or more powerful being would transfer at least some of those powers to the person committing the act. If the townspeople believed this, they really wouldn't have considered the gender of the angels at all. And it seems to me that God would have been quite ticked off at the fact that the men had just raped/attempted to rape his angels, and really not even have a second thought about the act being a homosexual one. Rape is much worse than homosexual sex, I'd bet. Sodom and Gamorrah had always been taught to me as a lesson against homosexuality, yet looking at the story now, I cannot logically get that from the story in my Bible.

If I recall correctly, Lot then offered to let the concupiscent townsfolk rape his daughters instead of his celestial houseguests.
God approved, and spared Lot's family while destroying the rest of the town.
Lot's wife was, I believe, magically transformed into a pillar of salt, because she looked back at the destruction after having been warned not to.
Lot and his daughters took refuge in a cave, where after awhile they seduced their father into impregnating them both.
God approved of all of this or possibly even dictated it, I don't recall.
So anyway, yeah, I think that's pretty much the story of Sodom, or maybe I'm just having an acid flashback or something.

I'm not too sure this tale is credible enough to mandate public policy in the year 2010, however, even if it somehow were about how God hates fags, which I'm pretty sure it's not.
I think it's more about how God likes incest and perverts who pimp their daughters out to rapists, but then again it's hard to tell what the moral of it is, when there's so much else going on. The story's kind of all over the place, what with angels and pillars of salt and whatnot.
 
If I recall correctly, Lot then offered to let the concupiscent townsfolk rape his daughters instead of his celestial houseguests.
God approved, and spared Lot's family while destroying the rest of the town.
Lot's wife was, I believe, magically transformed into a pillar of salt, because she looked back at the destruction after having been warned not to.
Lot and his daughters took refuge in a cave, where after awhile they seduced their father into impregnating them both.
God approved of all of this or possibly even dictated it, I don't recall.
So anyway, yeah, I think that's pretty much the story of Sodom, or maybe I'm just having an acid flashback or something.

I'm not too sure this tale is credible enough to mandate public policy in the year 2010, however, even if it somehow were about how God hates fags, which I'm pretty sure it's not.
I think it's more about how God likes incest and perverts who pimp their daughters out to rapists, but then again it's hard to tell what the moral of it is, when there's so much else going on. The story's kind of all over the place, what with angels and pillars of salt and whatnot.

Kids…

Don’t do drugs and tell Bible stories.



I apologies 10, I just could not resist! It is only a joke!
 
The subject is do I have a right to stop gay marriage. Yes, I most certainly do. By the election of officials who represent my views and by voting for laws I feel contribute and make the society I live in more to my liking.

If you do not like this, you are free to challenge the laws by vote or a court challenge.

I thank you for being civil and I respect that.

Now if you have anything relating to the debate itself? I will be very happy to continue.

I don't think it is so much about your right to try to stop it. You have a right to try to stop anything you want. However, most of those for gay marriage don't feel that it should be even up for debate, as far as the government allowing it or not. If this country is truly about maintaining a separation of church and state, then there should really be no issue with gay marriage. Most of the objections to gay marriage are religious. The rest would be someone's own discomfort with homosexuality itself.

And I'm sorry if you disagree, but you, nor your religion, nor anyone, for that matter, has a right to force the meaning of any word to remain the same or to just belong to you. No one owns the word marriage or its meaning. Plenty of words change their meanings throughout time, especially words used to describe concepts and intangible things, such as marriage. Change is hard, I realize, but it happens. Civil unions are just another name for marriage if they have all the benefits/privileges and responsibilities of a civil marriage. It is pointless to make a separate name for something that is the same thing as another thing just because people are uncomfortable calling it the first word. It is even technically financially irresponsible, because there would be a lot of documents that would need to be unnecessarily changed.

I know I get to ranting sometimes, and I apologize for that. This is one of the few issues that I am truly passionate about because I have a strong sense of fairness, and I see this as one of those few issues where it is hard to sympathize with the other side when a win for gay marriage would not have any noticable affect on the opposition for it. There is no true harm being done at all by allowing gays to get married, but by denying them a marriage, they are missing out on the opportunities and benefits and privileges that we, as heterosexuals, get to enjoy. I know that I would hate for someone in my family to not be able to legally marry the person they love.

You are a really civil debater, and I appreciate it. I try not to insult others when I debate, and appreciate it very much when others keep it civil too. Thank you as well.
 
If I recall correctly, Lot then offered to let the concupiscent townsfolk rape his daughters instead of his celestial houseguests.
God approved, and spared Lot's family while destroying the rest of the town.
Lot's wife was, I believe, magically transformed into a pillar of salt, because she looked back at the destruction after having been warned not to.
Lot and his daughters took refuge in a cave, where after awhile they seduced their father into impregnating them both.
God approved of all of this or possibly even dictated it, I don't recall.
So anyway, yeah, I think that's pretty much the story of Sodom, or maybe I'm just having an acid flashback or something.

I'm not too sure this tale is credible enough to mandate public policy in the year 2010, however, even if it somehow were about how God hates fags, which I'm pretty sure it's not.
I think it's more about how God likes incest and perverts who pimp their daughters out to rapists, but then again it's hard to tell what the moral of it is, when there's so much else going on. The story's kind of all over the place, what with angels and pillars of salt and whatnot.

You might be surprised how many kids and adults are taught this story when discussing the evils of homosexuality in Bible study. It is also seen as a story of God's wrath though. I'm not Christian myself, but I was raised that way. Now I just try to learn all about religion that I can. Most of what I have learned lately seems to suggest that many people don't so much study their Bibles or other religious texts, as they do listen to their preacher's, family's, friends', or Bible study group's interpretation of what the Bible says. (That's not really directed to members of this board, since normally I stay out of the direct religious debates, except for this particular matter.)
 
I don't think it is so much about your right to try to stop it. You have a right to try to stop anything you want. However, most of those for gay marriage don't feel that it should be even up for debate, as far as the government allowing it or not. If this country is truly about maintaining a separation of church and state, then there should really be no issue with gay marriage. Most of the objections to gay marriage are religious. The rest would be someone's own discomfort with homosexuality itself.

As I said and have shown, separation of church and state has little to do with this situation. In fact people would do far better to use the 14th Amendment and discrimination laws.

It’s funny. Just because my morals are founded in my religion does not make this a religious issue. I am free in this country to draw my morals from the Bible or thin air as I see fit.

And I'm sorry if you disagree, but you, nor your religion, nor anyone, for that matter, has a right to force the meaning of any word to remain the same or to just belong to you. No one owns the word marriage or its meaning. Plenty of words change their meanings throughout time, especially words used to describe concepts and intangible things, such as marriage. Change is hard, I realize, but it happens. Civil unions are just another name for marriage if they have all the benefits/privileges and responsibilities of a civil marriage. It is pointless to make a separate name for something that is the same thing as another thing just because people are uncomfortable calling it the first word. It is even technically financially irresponsible, because there would be a lot of documents that would need to be unnecessarily changed.

No need to be sorry. I see your point, but no right or wrong answer exist for the question of words and meanings.

I know I get to ranting sometimes, and I apologize for that. This is one of the few issues that I am truly passionate about because I have a strong sense of fairness, and I see this as one of those few issues where it is hard to sympathize with the other side when a win for gay marriage would not have any noticable affect on the opposition for it. There is no true harm being done at all by allowing gays to get married, but by denying them a marriage, they are missing out on the opportunities and benefits and privileges that we, as heterosexuals, get to enjoy. I know that I would hate for someone in my family to not be able to legally marry the person they love.

I see it as condemning people to a life of sin and the state condoning it. I can’t be a part of that in any way.

You are a really civil debater, and I appreciate it. I try not to insult others when I debate, and appreciate it very much when others keep it civil too. Thank you as well.

Lord knows I try to be. It is hard sometimes.
 
Last edited:
It's been noted in other polls that DP has a disproportionately large number of members that are atheist or agnostic.... yet if you look at this thread's poll, those opposed to gay marriage lead about 60 to 40 percent.

There are lots of people who are not particularly religious, or not religious at all, who are against gay marriage.

Blackdog and I both have, at the core, religious reservations that prevent us from supporting SSM. That isn't the only reason that people have against it, however. Some have concerns that this precedent will open the door for other, stranger arraingements, or for lawsuits against churches that refuse to conduct gay ceremonies.

For some it is probably simply a gut reaction that "gay" and "marriage" go togther like brussel sprouts and ice cream.

Whatever the reason, a large majority in the US still oppose it. Possibly that will change in 20 or 40 years. Possibly it won't; predicting trends can be difficult.

At any rate, demonizing those who oppose the idea of changing the definition of marriage doesn't make your cause more appealing to those who might be undecided.
 
It's been noted in other polls that DP has a disproportionately large number of members that are atheist or agnostic.... yet if you look at this thread's poll, those opposed to gay marriage lead about 60 to 40 percent.

There are lots of people who are not particularly religious, or not religious at all, who are against gay marriage.

Blackdog and I both have, at the core, religious reservations that prevent us from supporting SSM. That isn't the only reason that people have against it, however. Some have concerns that this precedent will open the door for other, stranger arraingements, or for lawsuits against churches that refuse to conduct gay ceremonies.

For some it is probably simply a gut reaction that "gay" and "marriage" go togther like brussel sprouts and ice cream.

Whatever the reason, a large majority in the US still oppose it. Possibly that will change in 20 or 40 years. Possibly it won't; predicting trends can be difficult.

At any rate, demonizing those who oppose the idea of changing the definition of marriage doesn't make your cause more appealing to those who might be undecided.

As I've mentioned before, this poll really isn't very accurate, since a person can vote multiple times as a guest. I was hoping a mod would update us on if the percentage is the same or changed at all from when CC posted it earlier on this thread, but I'd bet it's about the same as most polls like this go on DP.

Also, many US polls do not show a big majority opposed to gay marriage. The difference between opposed and for is within 10% for most polls on the issue. That is not a "large majority". And it is steadily shifting more towards the "for" gay marriage side than opposed to it.

It really doesn't matter the approval rating though, because from the looks of it, this will be most likely decided in the SCOTUS, if Congress doesn't repeal DOMA first. Most likely we will see legalized gay marriage throughout the US in the next 10 years.
 
For some it is probably simply a gut reaction that "gay" and "marriage" go togther like brussel sprouts and ice cream.

Those people have probably never met committed female partners raising children together, then.
These are commonplace in my city.
You would never spend time with people like that and think "gay and marriage go together like brussels sprouts and ice cream", because they already are married, regardless of what the law says.
They simply don't have all the legal rights and protections that hetero couples have, and the ones who stand to suffer the most due to this fact are their children.
 
It's been noted in other polls that DP has a disproportionately large number of members that are atheist or agnostic.... yet if you look at this thread's poll, those opposed to gay marriage lead about 60 to 40 percent.


People from urban areas and those on the coasts disproportionately support gay marriage (not coincidentally, these are the people who have had the most contact with openly gay individuals).

People from rural areas, small towns, and the mid-west disproportionately oppose gay marriage.
Not coincidentally, these are the people who have had little or no contact with openly gay individuals, because gay individuals, even if born in these areas, realize that homophobia and anti-gay bigotry will make their lives difficult there, and so they gravitate toward urban areas and the coasts as soon as possible, often before openly acknowledging their sexual orientation.

My question is, just because there are (very slightly) more ignorant and closed-minded individuals who really don't have any personal experience with gay people, why should they be permitted to enforce their will not only on gay people but on the 40+% of the heterosexual population who have more informed, educated, and progressive beliefs and attitudes?

:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom