Major survey shows most Americans support same-sex marriage

[neverdie]

All I've learnt in this thread is chocatistic's son takes it in

The blurter, got hiv and is a bit bitter about it.

You could have learned so much more but I accept your limitations.

People need to learn to live and let live, it's as simple as that really.

Militant homosexuals and Russians disagree with you. If it were that simple a decades-long struggle would not have been necessary. There are always consequences for our behaviour. If you are dying of AIDS, experience bigotry or come to regret you will never have children, you may wish it were more simple but it isn't. Is it?

Most of those that protest too loudly have something to hide I suspect, are you having kinky dreams choc ? Your tvf handle seems to indicate so

Crude, insensitive and now baiting. I have been suspended for less.

I tell you what chocs if you are so offended hit the report button old mate & I will gladly a suspension or whatever providing you accept one for your narrow minded bigoted views. It wasn't that long ago that people discriminated against negroid people just because their skin pigment was different. By holding bigoted views against gay people and your own son for crying out loud actually speaks volumes about you.

I'm not gay and I'm not a bigot but I don't mind calling one out. Gays have been discriminated against for far too long & there's counter to that.

Have a nice day & I will stand by for my pending suspension.

[jdinasia]

Back to the topic....

The reality is that the folks who still hold bigoted views are now in the minority in the US. Marriage equality is soon to be the law of the land, and have the backing of the majority. ( majority support isn't needed for basic civil rights, but it is nice to have!)

Arguing about HIV /AIDS or procreation is silly.

One doesn't need to be heterosexual to have children and one doesn't get HIV from being gay.

Those who oppose marriage equality will be such a small minority in a generation or so that they will be in the same league as "flat-earthers"

[lannarebirth]

I am American and am very, very relieved to see this. Hate, bigotry, racism, etc. is not cool and has no place in the 21st century. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Plain and simple The obsession over gay people in my country sickens me! People need to mind their own business an focus on their own relationships, families and marriage. We have an obscene divorce rate, spouses cheating on one another, domestic violence, parents abandoning or abusing their children, etc. Yeah....and its the "GAYS" that are ruining the sanctity of marriage.....LOL.......Give me a break!

What is the obscene divorce rate you mention?

[jdinasia]

I am American and am very, very relieved to see this. Hate, bigotry, racism, etc. is not cool and has no place in the 21st century. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Plain and simple The obsession over gay people in my country sickens me! People need to mind their own business an focus on their own relationships, families and marriage. We have an obscene divorce rate, spouses cheating on one another, domestic violence, parents abandoning or abusing their children, etc. Yeah....and its the "GAYS" that are ruining the sanctity of marriage.....LOL.......Give me a break!

What is the obscene divorce rate you mention?

More than 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce (some much for the sanctity of marriage!)

Source http://www.dailyinfographic.com/divorce-in-america-infographic

The interesting stats include. Higher education = lower divorce rate

Blue states= lower divorce rate

Edited March 18, 2015 by jdinasia

[lannarebirth]

I am American and am very, very relieved to see this. Hate, bigotry, racism, etc. is not cool and has no place in the 21st century. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Plain and simple The obsession over gay people in my country sickens me! People need to mind their own business an focus on their own relationships, families and marriage. We have an obscene divorce rate, spouses cheating on one another, domestic violence, parents abandoning or abusing their children, etc. Yeah....and its the "GAYS" that are ruining the sanctity of marriage.....LOL.......Give me a break!

What is the obscene divorce rate you mention?

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1426654996.333745.jpg

More than 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce (some much for the sanctity of marriage!)

Source http://www.dailyinfographic.com/divorce-in-america-infographic

The interesting stats include. Higher education = lower divorce rate

Blue states= lower divorce rate

Far be it from me to call you an idiot so I'm assuming you know that's nonsense, right?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1OPRB_enUS544US544&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=false+divorce+rate

[jdinasia]

Your link goes nowhere

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

Edited March 18, 2015 by jdinasia

[neverdie]

I am American and am very, very relieved to see this. Hate, bigotry, racism, etc. is not cool and has no place in the 21st century. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Plain and simple The obsession over gay people in my country sickens me! People need to mind their own business an focus on their own relationships, families and marriage. We have an obscene divorce rate, spouses cheating on one another, domestic violence, parents abandoning or abusing their children, etc. Yeah....and its the "GAYS" that are ruining the sanctity of marriage.....LOL.......Give me a break!

What is the obscene divorce rate you mention?

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1426654996.333745.jpg

More than 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce (some much for the sanctity of marriage!)

Source http://www.dailyinfographic.com/divorce-in-america-infographic

The interesting stats include. Higher education = lower divorce rate

Blue states= lower divorce rate

That's what the heterosexual s are worried about.....the gays will be more successful at marriage lol

Anyway, it's no contest.....being married to a woman is EXTREMELY difficult at the best of times 555.....hope the misses doesn't read this ?

[lannarebirth]

Anyway, as to the topic; I support civil unions for gay (who cannot)or straight people (who do not wish to) procreate. I view gay marriage as an artificial construct and thus not meeting the definition (mine) of marriage. I have nothing against gay people, would not care if either of my children were gay. In fact the God parents of one daughter are a lesbian couple, but I don't believe the sacrament of marriage, with procreation implied is intended for those who may not procreate. I'll believe the same when science allows for men to carry and deliver children.

[lannarebirth]

I am American and am very, very relieved to see this. Hate, bigotry, racism, etc. is not cool and has no place in the 21st century. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Plain and simple The obsession over gay people in my country sickens me! People need to mind their own business an focus on their own relationships, families and marriage. We have an obscene divorce rate, spouses cheating on one another, domestic violence, parents abandoning or abusing their children, etc. Yeah....and its the "GAYS" that are ruining the sanctity of marriage.....LOL.......Give me a break!

What is the obscene divorce rate you mention?

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1426654996.333745.jpg

More than 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce (some much for the sanctity of marriage!)

Source http://www.dailyinfographic.com/divorce-in-america-infographic

The interesting stats include. Higher education = lower divorce rate

Blue states= lower divorce rate

That's what the heterosexual s are worried about.....the gays will be more successful at marriage lol

Anyway, it's no contest.....being married to a woman is EXTREMELY difficult at the best of times 555.....hope the misses doesn't read this ?

Don't kid yourself. Gay marriages are the most significant growth area for divorce attornies.

[neverdie]

Anyway, as to the topic; I support civil unions for gay (who cannot)or straight people (who do not wish to) procreate. I view gay marriage as an artificial construct and thus not meeting the definition (mine) of marriage. I have nothing against gay people, would not care if either of my children were gay. In fact the God parents of one daughter are a lesbian couple, but I don't believe the sacrament of marriage, with procreation implied is intended for those who may not procreate. I'll believe the same when science allows for men to carry and deliver children.

In ur world can a woman with no womb marry?

[lannarebirth]

Your link goes nowhere

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

My link works fine, but if by chance it doesn't happen to work for you, why don't you Google "Divorce Rate Myth".

[jdinasia]

Anyway, as to the topic; I support civil unions for gay (who cannot)or straight people (who do not wish to) procreate. I view gay marriage as an artificial construct and thus not meeting the definition (mine) of marriage. I have nothing against gay people, would not care if either of my children were gay. In fact the God parents of one daughter are a lesbian couple, but I don't believe the sacrament of marriage, with procreation implied is intended for those who may not procreate. I'll believe the same when science allows for men to carry and deliver children.

Alas... We know from history that "separate but equal" just isn't equal.

All marriage is an artificial construct. Marriage is a secular (state) defined construct. Churches are welcome to not perform weddings for people who do not qualify in whatever sect they are in. The state doesn't have that option under the equal protection clause.

I would have no problem with the state doing away with something called marriage and calling it something else but I am not willing to have my relationship relegated to second class status. I think that people already married by the state might object though.

I also think that the majority would not agree with your definition limiting heterosexuals from marrying based on the ability to procreate. What happens in your scenario if they marry but never have children and eventually are unable to have children? Annulment?

[lannarebirth]

Anyway, as to the topic; I support civil unions for gay (who cannot)or straight people (who do not wish to) procreate. I view gay marriage as an artificial construct and thus not meeting the definition (mine) of marriage. I have nothing against gay people, would not care if either of my children were gay. In fact the God parents of one daughter are a lesbian couple, but I don't believe the sacrament of marriage, with procreation implied is intended for those who may not procreate. I'll believe the same when science allows for men to carry and deliver children.

Alas... We know from history that "separate but equal" just isn't equal.

All marriage is an artificial construct. Marriage is a secular (state) defined construct. Churches are welcome to not perform weddings for people who do not qualify in whatever sect they are in. The state doesn't have that option under the equal protection clause.

I would have no problem with the state doing away with something called marriage and calling it something else but I am not willing to have my relationship relegated to second class status. I think that people already married by the state might object though.

I also think that the majority would not agree with your definition limiting heterosexuals from marrying based on the ability to procreate. What happens in your scenario if they marry but never have children and eventually are unable to have children? Annulment?

You've misunderstood. I don't think you are equal in this regard.

[jdinasia]

Your link goes nowhere

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

My link works fine, but if by chance it doesn't happen to work for you, why don't you Google "Divorce Rate Myth".

Quartz and the rest don't use either current data or take into account 2nd and 3rd marriages

[jdinasia]

Anyway, as to the topic; I support civil unions for gay (who cannot)or straight people (who do not wish to) procreate. I view gay marriage as an artificial construct and thus not meeting the definition (mine) of marriage. I have nothing against gay people, would not care if either of my children were gay. In fact the God parents of one daughter are a lesbian couple, but I don't believe the sacrament of marriage, with procreation implied is intended for those who may not procreate. I'll believe the same when science allows for men to carry and deliver children.

Alas... We know from history that "separate but equal" just isn't equal.

All marriage is an artificial construct. Marriage is a secular (state) defined construct. Churches are welcome to not perform weddings for people who do not qualify in whatever sect they are in. The state doesn't have that option under the equal protection clause.

I would have no problem with the state doing away with something called marriage and calling it something else but I am not willing to have my relationship relegated to second class status. I think that people already married by the state might object though.

I also think that the majority would not agree with your definition limiting heterosexuals from marrying based on the ability to procreate. What happens in your scenario if they marry but never have children and eventually are unable to have children? Annulment?

You've misunderstood. I don't think you are equal in this regard.

I understood you, you just aren't able to get around the equal protection clause.

Your reasoning isn't rational either. (you are certainly welcome to whatever opinion you want to hold but hey.....

[pigeonjake]

sometimes its not about age,

some of us just dont think its right,!

but acording to the gays, we cant have a point of view,

i also dont agree with same sex maridge being able to adopt inocent children,

going to school saying my dad and my dad are taking me on holiday,

but this is just my view, i dont expect you to agree with it,

and i can have my view,its a free world

and no im not against inter racial maridge after all they are man and women, and can have there own children

and ive got some very good black friends

[lannarebirth]

Anyway, as to the topic; I support civil unions for gay (who cannot)or straight people (who do not wish to) procreate. I view gay marriage as an artificial construct and thus not meeting the definition (mine) of marriage. I have nothing against gay people, would not care if either of my children were gay. In fact the God parents of one daughter are a lesbian couple, but I don't believe the sacrament of marriage, with procreation implied is intended for those who may not procreate. I'll believe the same when science allows for men to carry and deliver children.

Alas... We know from history that "separate but equal" just isn't equal.

All marriage is an artificial construct. Marriage is a secular (state) defined construct. Churches are welcome to not perform weddings for people who do not qualify in whatever sect they are in. The state doesn't have that option under the equal protection clause.

I would have no problem with the state doing away with something called marriage and calling it something else but I am not willing to have my relationship relegated to second class status. I think that people already married by the state might object though.

I also think that the majority would not agree with your definition limiting heterosexuals from marrying based on the ability to procreate. What happens in your scenario if they marry but never have children and eventually are unable to have children? Annulment?

You've misunderstood. I don't think you are equal in this regard.

I understood you, you just aren't able to get around the equal protection clause.

Your reasoning isn't rational either. (you are certainly welcome to whatever opinion you want to hold but hey.....

If you've read anything else I've ever written here you'll know I very much ascribe to the 14th Amendment and the "equal protection" clause within. Nothing I've written is in contradiction to that.

[jdinasia]

Anyway, as to the topic; I support civil unions for gay (who cannot)or straight people (who do not wish to) procreate. I view gay marriage as an artificial construct and thus not meeting the definition (mine) of marriage. I have nothing against gay people, would not care if either of my children were gay. In fact the God parents of one daughter are a lesbian couple, but I don't believe the sacrament of marriage, with procreation implied is intended for those who may not procreate. I'll believe the same when science allows for men to carry and deliver children.

Alas... We know from history that "separate but equal" just isn't equal.

All marriage is an artificial construct. Marriage is a secular (state) defined construct. Churches are welcome to not perform weddings for people who do not qualify in whatever sect they are in. The state doesn't have that option under the equal protection clause.

I would have no problem with the state doing away with something called marriage and calling it something else but I am not willing to have my relationship relegated to second class status. I think that people already married by the state might object though.

I also think that the majority would not agree with your definition limiting heterosexuals from marrying based on the ability to procreate. What happens in your scenario if they marry but never have children and eventually are unable to have children? Annulment?

You've misunderstood. I don't think you are equal in this regard.

I understood you, you just aren't able to get around the equal protection clause.

Your reasoning isn't rational either. (you are certainly welcome to whatever opinion you want to hold but hey.....

If you've read anything else I've ever written here you'll know I very much ascribe to the 14th Amendment and the "equal protection" clause within. Nothing I've written is in contradiction to that.

Absolutely your scenario violates equal protection. Marriage is secular. It doesn't require the ability to procreate. It offers protections unavailable to unmarried people. Separate but equal was ruled unconstrained many years ago.

[arjunadawn]

I am American and am very, very relieved to see this. Hate, bigotry, racism, etc. is not cool and has no place in the 21st century. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Plain and simple The obsession over gay people in my country sickens me! People need to mind their own business an focus on their own relationships, families and marriage. We have an obscene divorce rate, spouses cheating on one another, domestic violence, parents abandoning or abusing their children, etc. Yeah....and its the "GAYS" that are ruining the sanctity of marriage.....LOL.......Give me a break!

I agree with so much of you say... but also object to the assertion that someone who does not agree with you is a "Hate[r]" or a bigot, or a racist, or an "etc" whatever on earth "racist" means. If your argument stands on meritorious grounds it is unseemly to make your argument seem the better by impugning those that would disagree with you and assigning them character defects as social outcasts. This weakens your argument, not enhances it.

I don't approve of gay marriage and I am not a hater. Dolce and Gabbana don't approve of gay marriage and they have been gay lovers for decades; are they too haters, bigots, and racists (I notice you got the kitchen sink in there too- racists- please! You injure yourself with this inclusion)? Please, tell me; does the road go both ways? Are they the inferior societal characters you assert are those who disagree with you?

It is noteworthy you include valid and useful arguments why gay marriage has meaningful contributions to society, but in the manner you present it gay marriage arrives on a white horse to clean up the mess made my traditionalists; your point could have been made without the swipe at the very institution they seek legitimacy to emulate.

I suppose someone independent could crunch the numbers of projected gay marriages in,for example, X years, relate that to potential adoptions and children being raised in a beneficial way, and argue that gay marriage thus provides a means to enable children of traditional sex to later become dutiful contributors to society- from a national policy perspective, this is vital to survive as a people. As an orphan myself I assert these children would likely make it to adulthood anyway and then choose to marry, have children, etc., or not- but having gay parents does not facilitate this end, it only briefly joins the journey of the child. There is an implicit social contract, not with the state, but with nature. Gay marriage by definition cannot repopulate the species. From a purely economic point of view, based on the western State social contract, having numerous gay married couples collecting benefits later in life that are being funded entirely by a workforce produced by the actions of traditional sex couples seems unfair. Basically, gay marriage, if taken to the extreme, dilutes the ability of a nation to replenish its population- this is basic biology. Invariably, all people pay less into social safety systems then they take out later in life; with regard to gay couples other people shoulder that burden- the ones who make the babies;! So, approve gay marriage, but require greater withholding for social security from married gay couples!

There is no hate here. I have no racism (absurd to loan legitimacy to the OP by defending racism). My only bias is to economics. Perhaps I am not seeing all the information that could change my mind. But since my position is not based on an inherent rejection of gay marriage, perhaps I could be convinced. My personal conviction is that all people should mind their own business and leave others alone to live their lives as they see fit. So far, I have only seen that raising my point of view results in pejoratives. My point is not invalid, though perhaps someone could educate me to something I have not factored regarding the economics, as this is my only issue. But save the names; I am not that man.

[Jingthing]

You want economics?

Why should single, and childless people, gay or straight pay taxes that support education of the young?

Of course they should pay.

The above suggestion that gay couples should be forced to pay higher levels regardless of the "outcomes" of their marriages is indeed outrageously bigoted as it supports discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Why not tax Catholics more because they have more kids and use the education programs more?

You could play such stupid games forever.

Happily, most rational people can see past that kind of regressive thinking.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

sometimes its not about age,

some of us just dont think its right,!

but acording to the gays, we cant have a point of view,

i also dont agree with same sex maridge being able to adopt inocent children,

going to school saying my dad and my dad are taking me on holiday,

but this is just my view, i dont expect you to agree with it,

and i can have my view,its a free world

and no im not against inter racial maridge after all they are man and women, and can have there own children

and ive got some very good black friends

"some of my best friends are black " as an assertion of a lack of racism is like saying "I'm not a murderer, some of my friends are alive "

Jake, you can have any opinion you want to.

Your opinion just doesn't matter when its comes to the law. It certainly doesn't matter when it comes to raising children or adoption.

Are there young bigots? Certainly.

Is it more common in older people? Absolutely.

Are old people always bigots? No!

I am pretty old (50) and have never been a bigot.

How old are you pigeonjake?

[jdinasia]

I am American and am very, very relieved to see this. Hate, bigotry, racism, etc. is not cool and has no place in the 21st century. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Plain and simple The obsession over gay people in my country sickens me! People need to mind their own business an focus on their own relationships, families and marriage. We have an obscene divorce rate, spouses cheating on one another, domestic violence, parents abandoning or abusing their children, etc. Yeah....and its the "GAYS" that are ruining the sanctity of marriage.....LOL.......Give me a break!

I agree with so much of you say... but also object to the assertion that someone who does not agree with you is a "Hate[r]" or a bigot, or a racist, or an "etc" whatever on earth "racist" means. If your argument stands on meritorious grounds it is unseemly to make your argument seem the better by impugning those that would disagree with you and assigning them character defects as social outcasts. This weakens your argument, not enhances it.

I don't approve of gay marriage and I am not a hater. Dolce and Gabbana don't approve of gay marriage and they have been gay lovers for decades; are they too haters, bigots, and racists (I notice you got the kitchen sink in there too- racists- please! You injure yourself with this inclusion)? Please, tell me; does the road go both ways? Are they the inferior societal characters you assert are those who disagree with you?

It is noteworthy you include valid and useful arguments why gay marriage has meaningful contributions to society, but in the manner you present it gay marriage arrives on a white horse to clean up the mess made my traditionalists; your point could have been made without the swipe at the very institution they seek legitimacy to emulate.

I suppose someone independent could crunch the numbers of projected gay marriages in,for example, X years, relate that to potential adoptions and children being raised in a beneficial way, and argue that gay marriage thus provides a means to enable children of traditional sex to later become dutiful contributors to society- from a national policy perspective, this is vital to survive as a people. As an orphan myself I assert these children would likely make it to adulthood anyway and then choose to marry, have children, etc., or not- but having gay parents does not facilitate this end, it only briefly joins the journey of the child. There is an implicit social contract, not with the state, but with nature. Gay marriage by definition cannot repopulate the species. From a purely economic point of view, based on the western State social contract, having numerous gay married couples collecting benefits later in life that are being funded entirely by a workforce produced by the actions of traditional sex couples seems unfair. Basically, gay marriage, if taken to the extreme, dilutes the ability of a nation to replenish its population- this is basic biology. Invariably, all people pay less into social safety systems then they take out later in life; with regard to gay couples other people shoulder that burden- the ones who make the babies;! So, approve gay marriage, but require greater withholding for social security from married gay couples!

There is no hate here. I have no racism (absurd to loan legitimacy to the OP by defending racism). My only bias is to economics. Perhaps I am not seeing all the information that could change my mind. But since my position is not based on an inherent rejection of gay marriage, perhaps I could be convinced. My personal conviction is that all people should mind their own business and leave others alone to live their lives as they see fit. So far, I have only seen that raising my point of view results in pejoratives. My point is not invalid, though perhaps someone could educate me to something I have not factored regarding the economics, as this is my only issue. But save the names; I am not that man.

Marriage in the US is secular and not dependent upon the ability to have children.

Economics? You can make that claim but you are framing an equal protection issue incorrectly.

If you want to discuss the fact that without the equal protection under the law it affects inheritance, we can. If you want to discuss the fact that without recognized marriage hospitals can not only deny visitation but also the next-of-kin decision making process automatically granted to married couples. Then there are the taxation issues.

The lack of marriage equality creates second class citizens. All of the rights I listed above are available to married couples regardless of the ability to procreate.

[Choctastic]

I tell you what chocs if you are so offended hit the report button old mate & I will gladly a suspension or whatever providing you accept one for your narrow minded bigoted views. It wasn't that long ago that people discriminated against negroid people just because their skin pigment was different. By holding bigoted views against gay people and your own son for crying out loud actually speaks volumes about you.

I'm not gay and I'm not a bigot but I don't mind calling one out. Gays have been discriminated against for far too long & there's counter to that.

Have a nice day & I will stand by for my pending suspension.

I'm not offended, nor do I feel any need to use the report feature. 'Bigotry', according to the dictionary, is described as: 'stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own'. If you can point to 'complete intolerance' in any of my posts, please do so. Think of another word that doesn't show YOU to be completely intolerant of my opinion. Good man.

[lannarebirth]

You want economics?

Why should single, and childless people, gay or straight pay taxes that support education of the young?

Of course they should pay.

The above suggestion that gay couples should be forced to pay higher levels regardless of the "outcomes" of their marriages is indeed outrageously bigoted as it supports discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Why not tax Catholics more because they have more kids and use the education programs more?

You could play such stupid games forever.

Happily, most rational people can see past that kind of regressive thinking.

I would be in favor of tax exemptions for up to two children. Losing one of those exemptions for the third child and losing both for the fourth.

Edited March 18, 2015 by lannarebirth

[cup-O-coffee]

As this poll is entirely without any legitimacy, and entirely bias, I submit that it is nothing more than a clever and biased ploy to connive and deceive the true facts.

A Pew study reveals a 5–1 bias for same-sex marriage in media coverage. That means that the media understates the opposition to same-sex marriages.

It is a fact that same-sex marriage approval is on the rise in the consciousness of the American people, but to leave it at that and break out the marching bands and baton twirlers is ludicrous at best.

When one considers the factors of the Marxist dominated curriculum in the US school systems, and that children who are undeveloped are being pumped full of these Marxist ideals, then one must legitimately confess that one should not be surprised when teenagers and young adults (the products of these Marxist institutions) graduate with the view that the apple is a lighter shade of purple, and not exactly red.

When one considers such terms as "Social Desirability Bias" and "Priming" in these polls, then one must legitimately confess that one cannot be surprised at the general outcome of a poll. Thus, an intelligent and logical person with a sense of fair play cannot in any instance lend any credibility to the polls outcome.

Polls like this are becoming more of a marketing campaign, backed by those who want to sell their product. When the marketers and the corporations have a monopoly on the product or the service, then is it any surprise that people will more or less quack the same note? Has anyone questioned the poll, or asked what type of questions were asked? No. The gay people and gay sympathizers are all over this like Olympic 100 yard dash athletes at the sound of the gun. Is the OP showing a link to the poll questions? No. Because they are convinced that most people are lazy and stupid, and this is good enough for you, or this is what you had better believe to get on board, or else. There are other reasons, but you get the point. They think you are stupid, and thus can omit the qualifying factors of anything they say.

I have spent around 4 hours today on researching this. Something was not right in my mind. I simply am a skeptical person any time an extremely controversial issue, event or subject comes up and all the results or consequences sway to the left or the right and the middle is never represented. What I mean is, when someone tells me with certainty that this is this and that is that and I feel left out, and I still have questions, which these people do not answer... then my red flags go up instantly.

And that is how I feel about that. When someone tells me that this is this and that is that and they utterly fail to cover all of the factors to make their claims rock solid, and moreover attack me when I hesitate or give off the impression of not buying in to their so called "findings".

Additionally, when ruling courts override the majority opinion of the majority population, and the remaining population is too confused, indoctrinated, ignorant or shy of expressing a concrete opinion, and the polls take advantage of that with their cleverly calculated "Social Desirability Bias" and "Priming", and the results are announced, and the marching bands break out and the baton twirlers twirl their batons and the majority Marxist thinking media, government, entertainment industry and other ilk dance on the rooftops of their cars and trucks, the first thing I think is, "Jumping the gun:, and the second thing I think is, "Something smells fishy in Denmark".

Incidentally, to the poster who said that LGBT is all over this... it might be wise to conduct a bit more research into this, as the remark is entirely without merit. Perhaps this is a good example of what I am on about... that you cannot trust the information you get from any source that is not completely transparent, and which does not fairly demonstrate and/or express the opposing view, and why the one view is more favorable than or less favorable than the other.

Hence... this OP is utter BS, and those who favor same-sex marriage are either fools to jump all over this, who should rather instead be extremely concerned that their proponents are lying scum and cry "foul"... or those who favor same-sex marriage are on an agenda to get that thing that they want without any respect towards those whom they need as allies to get it, and would be happy to run the risk of gaining allies through deceit and treachery.

In fact, 59% (in some polls) and 60% in other (Pew Poll) are the actual current figures fo those who oppose this issue of same-sex marriage.

As I stated at the beginning, the issue is gaining ground, but with tactics like this, one can lose the war overnight when the chickens come home to roost, and people begin to realize that no one told them certain things when they signed on with the outfit.

That's my take on the situation.

Edited March 18, 2015 by cup-O-coffee

[jdinasia]

Cup ---

Marxist???? LOL

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

And since you trust PEW

http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Your argument about social bias and the media goes both ways. The social bias in the past was against the acceptance (and even criminalization) of homosexuality. So you suggest there's "priming" now but ignore that the same would have to be said about the past.

With polling going across the board and all reflecting similar numbers, I cannot with a sense of fairplay in any instance lend any credibility to your opinion.

[Chicog]

sometimes its not about age,

some of us just dont think its right,!

I don't think eating snails and oysters is right, but I should not have any say in other people doing it unless they were to try and force me to do it.

Put simply, it really is none of your business.

You are of course allowed to hold your opinion, but I just find it irrational.

People who like oysters and snails probably find my opinion irrational as well.

And Brussel Sprouts are the very spawn of Beelzebub.

[cup-O-coffee]

Cup ---

Marxist???? LOL

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

And since you trust PEW

http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Your argument about social bias and the media goes both ways. The social bias in the past was against the acceptance (and even criminalization) of homosexuality. So you suggest there's "priming" now but ignore that the same would have to be said about the past.

With polling going across the board and all reflecting similar numbers, I cannot with a sense of fairplay in any instance lend any credibility to your opinion.

JD, I am not disagreeing with anyone's views. I also do not trust PEW. All I am saying is that as long as all sides do not get fair representation - and you have to admit that there is bias - that people will not be able to formulate any truths about what they hear and read.

I understand that a mother and father have pride in their children, and that is alright, but I disagree with the mother and father who refuse to listen to reason over the behavior of their child, and to think about the overall good for the community and the standards in which that community stands ojn... the same community that the mother and father chose to dwell in.

If things are going to change, wouldn't it be better if that change took place in as transparent manner as possible, so that everyone was included and had a chance to feel involved?

I simply feel like there is too much bias going on in this world today, and the majority of the population are either left out, or taught to not care, and hence they are taken for granted that they do not care, and overlooked.

Yes. It goes both ways. I agree. If you cannot accept my point of view, then that is good also. At least I have the privilege of hearing it straight from you, rather than instead hearing it from a biased poll.

I think we are on the same wave length, yet I simply chose to tackle things from a different approach, and perhaps came across in a manner that might not be easy to understand.

Kind regards to you.

[Scott]

I have long thought that it is not so much a matter of people being in favor of gay marriage as it is a matter of people no longer caring much one way or the other.

The trend has fortunately been away from the discrimination and outright persecution of gays and there has been a movement toward tolerance (if not acceptance). It's more a situation of live and let live.

A lot of people have lost their desire to be actively against all things gay.

[jdinasia]

Cup ---

Marxist???? LOL

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

And since you trust PEW

http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Your argument about social bias and the media goes both ways. The social bias in the past was against the acceptance (and even criminalization) of homosexuality. So you suggest there's "priming" now but ignore that the same would have to be said about the past.

With polling going across the board and all reflecting similar numbers, I cannot with a sense of fairplay in any instance lend any credibility to your opinion.

JD, I am not disagreeing with anyone's views. I also do not trust PEW. All I am saying is that as long as all sides do not get fair representation - and you have to admit that there is bias - that people will not be able to formulate any truths about what they hear and read.

I understand that a mother and father have pride in their children, and that is alright, but I disagree with the mother and father who refuse to listen to reason over the behavior of their child, and to think about the overall good for the community and the standards in which that community stands ojn... the same community that the mother and father chose to dwell in.

If things are going to change, wouldn't it be better if that change took place in as transparent manner as possible, so that everyone was included and had a chance to feel involved?

I simply feel like there is too much bias going on in this world today, and the majority of the population are either left out, or taught to not care, and hence they are taken for granted that they do not care, and overlooked.

Yes. It goes both ways. I agree. If you cannot accept my point of view, then that is good also. At least I have the privilege of hearing it straight from you, rather than instead hearing it from a biased poll.

I think we are on the same wave length, yet I simply chose to tackle things from a different approach, and perhaps came across in a manner that might not be easy to understand.

Kind regards to you.

I have no problem with you having an opinion differing from mine.

This is a basic equal protection issue for me.

People are entitled to be racists. Their opinions however aren't a consideration when looking at the law.

If someone doesn't like marriage equality, or equates it with a sin, or has an issue (ignorant) about it due to procreation they are welcome to join a church that doesn't hold gay weddings etc.

What they cannot do is tell me that my legal marriage (Maine) isn't valid everywhere in the US. What they cannot do is prevent me from having the same rights and privileges as other married couples.

BTW this topic has nothing to do with Marxism