Poll shows growing California support for gay marriage
By LISA LEFF
(AP) — More California voters now support allowing same-sex marriage than oppose it, according to a new poll released Wednesday.
The poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it, DiCamillo said.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...B5hYwD90UOE5O1
I read the rest of that article, and there is another survey that showed just the opposite result. So it remains to be seen what California is really gonna do.
What is clear is that there is no consensus on what "marriage" should mean, and no consensus is likely to emerge for generations, if ever. Whether 51% of the country believes one way or the other hardly settles anything. People are impossibly divided, largely along religous lines. It seems obvious to me that the gay movement is making a mistake pressing for marriage. Civil unions are more appropriate. I think the word "marriage" should be defined by religious groups according to their own beliefs, and the state should ONLY confer civil unions, to either straight or gay couples.
HOFer
That's a California poll--which is going to be slanted much more for gay marriage than a national poll.
Why can't we just agree on gay civil unions and no gay marriage and get it over with?
Because gays are so romantic. They wanna be brides and say "I do".Originally Posted by HarveyWallbangers
I think gays have made a mistake. I understand emotionally why they demand marriage as a matter of principle. But there is no hurry. So what if it takes a couple more generations? Better to accept legal equality, from that position they achieve greater acceptance over the years.
HOFer
Legal equality? Depends what your definition of marriage is. What is marriage supposed to mean? A union between one man and one woman with a religious basis or a glorified civil union that's marked with the pomp of a modern wedding?
I am increasingly coming around to the point of view that this is no big deal--basically a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. They really aren't hurting anybody.
I'd still like to see homosexuality labeled an abomination--legal, but taught to be wrong/bad--kinda like gambling, smoking, prostitution in some areas, etc., but even that isn't really that important.
We're turning full circle on this issue. I don't give a toss if Gays marry. i just don't want 'em raising kids.
But guys, we've done this before...
Now you have crossed the line.
Change "pomp" to "pomp and cash-grab," and you have my definition.Legal equality? Depends what your definition of marriage is. What is marriage supposed to mean? A union between one man and one woman with a religious basis or a glorified civil union that's marked with the pomp of a modern wedding?
Let gays marry. So what if they do?
What I don't get is this: I've always been sold the idea that conservatives are all about people being responsible and making commitments. But when a gay couple wants to be responsible to each other and make a commitment, it's "no marriage or civil unions for you!" And then anti-gay conservatives rip on gays for supposedly being promiscuous and unable/unwilling to form commitments.
I can understand the religious roadblock to calling gay unions "marriage." Marriage has historically been a church-sanctioned thing and gay marriage goes against pretty much any religious teaching (nevermind the fact that "religious" people do all kinds of things that go against religious teaching). So I agree with Harlan that the best compromise is to sanction civil unions that give all the same legal rights as marriage.
But when the religious types get all up in arms about gay marriage and pass "defense of marriage" constitutional bans on it (an abuse of democracy if I ever saw it) why do they usually also ban civil unions (as Wisconsin's amendment did)? How do civil unions threaten marriage? They don't.
Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.
WTF? No Poll?
C.H.U.D.
Why, do they have some kind of disease?
I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.
Because it's friggin' wrong, nutz. Basta!
I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.Why, do they have some kind of disease?
I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.
That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.
Well I disagree. So far you tell me it is wrong but even in the last thread that refered to this topic you wouldn't put your finger on it, you wouldn't explain your reasoning why it is wrong, so please do tell all of your lovely stereotypes of gays.
I guess my wife and I are not "married" because we were wed outside of any religious ceremony. Great! I guess you should be the one to tell her that, I am not.I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.Why, do they have some kind of disease?
I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.
That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.
So you are against giving a child a loving home because he will be made fun of? Maybe they should only allow gay couples to wed and raise children in New England States where making fun of someone is illegal.
well, that's mighty white of ya, LL2!
Harlan, why not just condense your recent threads into one? It would ask: Who's happier (less miserable), Bush supporters or gays? Not to say, of course, that one can't be the other.
Well, they're snappy dressers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote