Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

*** marriage opposed 2-1

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Smeg Head, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. Smeg Head

    Smeg Head IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    *** marriage opposed 2-1

    Posted on Mon, Feb. 09, 2004

    In Poll, Most Oppose *** Marriage

    WILL LESTER
    Associated Press


    WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans say they don't want laws in their states that would legalize same-sex marriages, according to a poll taken after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in favor of such marriages.
    The Massachusetts high court, in an advisory opinion, said last Wednesday that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage and that civil unions will not suffice. The opinion could set the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.

    In polling conducted by the National Annenberg Election Survey, people said by a 2-1 margin - 60 percent to 31 percent - that they oppose any similar law legalizing same-sex marriage in their states.

    Still, they were cool to the idea of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

    In the poll, 49 percent of those polled were opposed to such an amendment, while 42 percent favored it.

    Those results suggest *** marriage could be a tricky issue for candidates this election year.

    The White House is still reviewing the issue, President Bush's spokesman said Monday. Some conservative groups have been strongly encouraging the president to get involved.

    "If activist judges continue to try to redefine marriage, without regard to the voice of the people, then the only alternative will be a constitutional process," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

    When asked how long the White House review would last, he said, "I don't know that I'd put any arbitrary timetable on it."

    Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, said last week: "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of *** and lesbian couples - from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose *** marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision."

    The Annenberg poll of 814 adults was conducted Feb. 5-8 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    Source

    Anybody else with me in thinking this will be a huge political issue this election?
     
  2. Yaboosh

    Yaboosh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    347

    The fact that 42% of those polled supported an Amendment banning *** marriages show just how little those people know about their country and constitution. God, next thing you know they will want the patriot act as the 28th.
     
  3. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If this poll's findings are and remain accurate, *** marriage probably won't be a huge issue. No sane politician would campaign on a platform that runs counter to what is overwhelmingly the will of the voters. It does seem that if Bush seriously pushes for an amendment, that could come back to haunt him.
     
  4. Dark Matter

    Dark Matter IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/

    Edit: I added initial paragraphs.
     
  5. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's really no way to insure responsibility for offspring within a family unit that isn't legally recognized as one, as far as I can figure.
     
  6. Technetium

    Technetium IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    DM: That's the very argument I've been pushing for in almost every debate we've had on this subject. Nice to finally see someone else like-minded.

    IDuped: There are loads of heterosexual couples with children who aren't married as it is. If that argument were to be used, then we'd have to push for making it illegal for unmarried couples to have children, just to be consistent.
     
  7. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just think it would be a much greater burden when no union is ever legally recognized and DNA testing and custody battles become the norm rather than the Springer episode status these cases currently enjoy.

    It kinda feels like the anarchy version of family to me, and I just don't see a solid enough legal mechanism in place to deal with this for me to jump on board at this point.
     
  8. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One step forward, two steps backwards. Thank you conservatives, soon we'll be back in the dark ages in terms of ideological freedoms.
     
  9. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't get how the will of the people supporting the status quo is two steps backwards.
     
  10. MixedVariety

    MixedVariety Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is a typical reaction from the left if they don't like conservative opinions. No particular reasoning lies behind it.
     
  11. Smeg Head

    Smeg Head IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Huh? It's liberalism thats fueled the moral decay of today's society. THAT's taking two steps backward. Not defying thousands of years of normal behavior.
     
  12. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't presume to know my mind when you don't have any clue about what you're talking about.

    By keeping people in the dark ages about acceptance of things that have been around for thousands of years. By denying people equal status and equal rights. Every time something good happens, like the allowment of equal marriage rights in Ma. someone comes out and tries to shove the movement of equality even further back.

    Please. I think it's well established that the historical norm is not necessarily the good thing. And landing social decay on liberalism is hardly a rational idea or even a plausible one. I'd expect more than such a simplistic answer from you, Smeg. Racism is historically normal behaviour, as is slavery, torture, murder over minor disputes, genocide, ****, etc. Historical norms are not always, or even frequently, a beneficial thing. I've never heard of people getting lynched because of the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation over liberal values. It's not even a valid argument. And why shouldn't we defy thousands of years of "normal" behaviour? Who says we were right all this time. And historically "normal" behaviour isn't even an accurate term, given that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years.

    Any time people are denied their equality and equal rights for no good reason is two steps backwards in my opinion.
     
  13. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Yeah, free thinking has always been a pain in the ***. We should stop that and do whatever the government says. Because the government needs to control every aspect of out lives from the boardroom to the bedroom.

    I don't think you understand what liberalism is, Smeg. You're just tossing it out as an insult. Weak.
     
  14. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dunno, man. I generally test left of center on those little political spectrum quizzes myself.
     
  15. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think almost noone fails to accept homosexuality anymore. Homosexual marriage hasn't been around for thousands of years.

    They have equal rights. Congress has passed no law abridging the rights of homosexuals. You are not Kunta Kinte. Oh no, you don't get marriage tax cuts or next of kin rights for your partner. Having kids saps up a lot more money than even a 100% tax reduction would free. Go take the ten seconds to get a will notarized. Next.

    I know this isn't for me, but I found it noteworthy that of these horrible evils of history, not one is a norm. They are all exceptions to normal human behavior.
     
  16. MixedVariety

    MixedVariety Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yowch, I guess I've been duly spanked.
    The problem is, I do know what I'm talking about, I just can't figure what YOU'RE talking about. I found your initial statement about conservatives unusually (for you) opinionated, trollish and inflammatory, so I merely replied in kind.
     
  17. Pain Probe

    Pain Probe IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Well there it is... I submit what's considered "normal" changes over the millennia. Can you honestly say the american view of marriage over the last 20 years is the same it was, say even in the 1950s? Divorce used to be rare and a social blight.

    My opinion is who cares. If gays want marriage what's the big deal? I've got some bad news for you. You can't stop it. You may have limited success in the short term but mark my words, *** marriage will be "normal" in the not so distant future.
     
  18. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to mention this thing says 60% of the population, not 60% of conservatives. If anything goes down you'll have plenty of people to thank or scapegoat on both sides of the fence, depending on your point of view.
     
  19. Anyee

    Anyee IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,380
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Duped, here's something nice for you who says that hoomosexuals are never discriminated against:

    Kansas has decided that it is acceptable to punish similar crimes of statutory ****/molestation differently depending on whether or not it was homosexual. The reasoning is a sound legal one (sic): the judge wants to "encourage and preserve the traditional sexual mores of society" by punishing two groups of people under the same circumstances differently.

    This is from the article, btw

    In other words, if two couples have underage consensual sex with all circumstances being equal, the *** couple will be punished more harshly just for being homosexual. Remember that the Supreme Court ruled a few months ago that it is not illegal to have *** sex. This is directly akin to punishing a black person and a white person differently for the same crime.
     
  20. LunarSolaris

    LunarSolaris IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,427
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    With regards to *** marriages... what strikes me as particularly hypocritical about those opposed to it, is that many oppose *** marriage based on a moral "sanctity of marriage" foundation. The problem with this argument is that if people were truly concerned about the moral "sanctity" of marriage, then they'd also be opposing Las Vegas and the Elvis Wedding Chapel of Love and the mass-marriage stunts and the sky-diving marriage events... all of which (following the sanctity argument) would supposedly make a mockery of this sacred institution.

    ... and don't even get me started on the 50% + divorce rate hypocrisy.
     

Share This Page