Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
For those who only want to post poll numbers and try to pick arguments, www.pollingreport.com has ALL major polls listed by most recent.
Here's the most recent.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 17-20, 2012. N=1,004 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"
2005 & 2010-2012: "gay and lesbian." 2009: "gay and lesbian" asked of half the sample, "homosexual" asked of half the sample. Other years: "homosexual."

Legal 53%
Illegal 39%
Unsure 8%

It looks as those saying the majority is against it are dead wrong.

I think you need to go back to school.

31 states have said - no way - to gay marriage.

There are only 50 states.

That means a - clear majority - agree with me.

BTW, i can already see State # 32 is on the way.

We have momentum.

All that means is your country has more ferals than not.

Originally posted by nunya13

Originally posted by Eurisko2012


31 states have said - no way - to gay marriage.

There are only 50 states.

That means a - clear majority - agree with me.

Unless you consider yourself a state, you need to do the math again.

edit on 24-5-2012 by nunya13 because: to make my point more succinct.

Majority as in "over half" ? Last I checked 25 was half of 50. Therefore 31 is over half.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
This information comes from the SAME SOURCE you are mis-quoting

I was quoting wikipedia? That is news to me. I quoted the Huffington post.

Gay Population In U.S. Estimated At 4 Million (1.3%) Says Gates

Gates is demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Huffington Post

How you can get wikipedia and the Huffington Post mixed up, I'm not sure.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
You are clearly being decietful and extremely shamefull in your actions now. If you are going to outright LIE, why should anyone even bother speaking with you? Seriously, if you aren't going to be honest, don't expect discourse.

Enough of the ad hominium attacks.

You are cleary displaying some frustration but please, enough of the personal attacks.

I have noticed that it is impossible to debate the issue of gay marriage with pro gay marriage advocates without them resorting to name calling.

It's typical inflammatory rhetoric by people who are desperate to show they have the politically correct upper hand in a given debate. ABC happens to be running a story on some pastor who made off color remarks and the pro-gay community is running for the goal post with it. You should see some of the ridiculous Christian-bashing going on over there with people making statements about the residents of NC marrying their cousins. I tried to explain that laws allowing marrying of cousins pre-date the Civil War and the Church itself was responsible for not allowing cousins to marry. But atheists love to make ridiculous assertions without even the most basic of historical knowledge.

Some of those warm, loving, tolerant people recommended various remedies for the pastor's mistake by suggesting he be taken to the Intl Criminal Court and tried Internationally, or even impaled with a spoon.

I disagree with point#2 where it is said "gay marriage promotes family values"

What are family values to begin with?
perhaps there can be the promotion of the unity and love the two loving people express towards each other.

And then there's the definition of family itself....people living and cohabiting with one another...is there a husband and wife.....what about foster homes, some of them create families out of a bunch of mismatched orphans to whom someone was will to show compassion to and nurture and shelter and provide for.

In the article linked by the OP its also mentioned at that point the part of gay couples adopting kids.....but without children in the picture you're left with two people loving each other, which is as much about family as it is about commitment and monogamy.

all in all, a bunk article meant to polarize people.

And one poster said marriage is just a contract......which sounds short-sighted.....but given the state of decay in the inter-relationship between man and woman.....Just a contract sounds almost right now.

My take is that give the people the legal mechanism to share their lives with whomever they wish and protect their property and get consent in hospitals....all the things advocates of gay marriage ask for......just don't call it marriage and see what happens. Like a UK commenter said, over there civil unions prvide the equality sought but now there are cases in court fighting over the wordage of marriage vs. partnership or civil unions.

Its just a big battle of egos.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Majority as in "over half" ? Last I checked 25 was half of 50. Therefore 31 is over half.

Simply put: a majority vote by 31 states does not necessarily reflect a majority view of the entire US population.

If you consider the entire population of the US which is eligible to vote (whether registered or not), the number of people who are pro-equality could still easily outweight the majority vote of 31 states. Considering that some of the most densely populated states are not grouped with those 31 states this becomes even more true. Just because people don't express their opinion at the polls does not mean they do not have an opinion.

If most people feel like people on this board, they may not even vote just out of spite because something like that should not be an issue left up to a simple majority vote.

Sadly, people tend to be more likely to act out of a negative compulsion than a positive one.

Originally posted by dbloch7986

Simply put: a majority vote by 31 states does not necessarily reflect a majority view of the entire US population.

And we are a Democratic Republic - - that protects the minority. We are not a Democracy where majority rules.

Just like with Black racism - - the government allowed social change to evolve to a level that would accept the Civil Rights Act - - even though not every one was for it.

Same is happening with Equal Marriage Rights. The major polling companies say we are now about 50/50 - - some areas more in favor - some less.

An Equal Marriage Act will happen. State majorities won't matter.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Amadeo
For an apparently heterosexual male, you seem to be heavily invested in the gay marriage issue, ollncasino. Since there are many gay and lesbian couples who have already gotten "married" in a sense, can you please outline for me here exactly what the consequences of that have been for you? In your own time.

Gays want to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions yet any hetrosexual who opposes that is "heavily invested in the gay marriage issue... for an apparently heterosexual male".

You aren't gay by any chance?

Legal union between a man and a women = marriage

Legal union between two men (or between two women for the pedantic fowls on this board) = a civil union

Why do gays need to hijack the word 'marriage' and change it in a very legal sense, when they already have all of the rights (in the UK at least) of a married couple via a civil union?

In your own time.

Apologies for the late response, I've been away for a few days. The reason I say you seem to be heavily invested in the gay marriage issue is not in any way because of what you claim gay people want to do, it's because you pop up in so many gay marriage-related threads that it's impossible not to come to the conclusion I did.

You dodged my original question but it still stands -- what effect has two gays being married had on YOU personally? Why is it such a big issue for you, who is clearly not gay? You don't gain or lose anything whatever way this issue pans out so why do you seem to have such an emotional investment in it?

Gays want equality with straight people. It's as simple as that, and no amount of petty prejudices or cack-handed attempts at dodging or deflecting questions (as is your wont) is going to change it. There is no, repeat NO, effect on you whatsoever. In fact, there's no actual effect on anyone who isn't gay and wishing to get gay married to their hot male/female partner. What about if we, teh gayz, decide we don't like some parts of heterosexual marriage and want the offending parts outlawed? Would you not be shouting from the rooftops about how we should mind our own business because it has nothing to do with us? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by freakjive
1. Gay marriage promotes personal responsibility.

2. Gay marriage promotes family values.

3. Gay marriage promotes commitment and stability.

4. Gay marriage promotes freedom.

5. Gay marriage is an example of limited governmental powers.

Gays have no right to hijack the word 'marriage' and force the majority to consider a union between two men to be the same, in a very legal sense, as a union between a man and a women.

Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote

The majority of people believe that marriage means a legal union between a man and women, not between two men.

edit on 22-5-2012 by ollncasino because: formatting

Hijacking the word marriage? That's silly. The same way blacks and women "hijacked" the word voting to attain equal rights? That's a loaded statement in itself.

The point is modernization and an understanding of diversity in changing times. Just because "marriage" is traditionally defined as between a man and a woman (due to religious influence) does not mean that should prevent us from modernizing the allowances and definition to fit with changing times. If we remained stuck completely in past times and certain limited and BS "traditions" we would NEVER move forward.

Look up the word marriage in the dictionary. The legal definition is now archaic in today's times and should reflect the actual meaning, and for one to say "the majority believe..." The majority of WHO? The majority of Christians/conservatives, or of Americans? The majority once believed that slavery was ok, and a myriad other things we have transcended.

I think the majority believe in equal rights.

Personal OPINION aside, it neither defaces nor "hijacks" a word--of the definition of said word simply because socially, we evolve overt time.

reply to post by ollncasino

Why can't gays keep sex out of classroom?

Homosexuality has very little to do with sex, but "sex" is part of the vocabulary words "heterosexual" and "homosexual." No offense, but the fact that you don't understand this is disturbing and explains your self-centered perspective. Don't for a minute claim yours is a Christ-centered view; and if you do I suggest you personally read the Bible in hebrew and koine with contextual references to historicity. I have and I am disgusted by the mind-numb idiots in my church. I encourage further language studies to understand the original Bible and not the mess we read in English with a 21st century decoding.

The whole point of this comment is that you have no right invoking the name of Jesus or the Church as a substantiation of your own hatred of a heterogeneous culture within a republic that stands for freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Additionally, if we are to invoke the name of Christ or the Bible, we need to realize that the Bible says a whole heck of a lot more about Divorce and how it is forbidden except in ONE circumstance, yet our courts allow it (and allow it in such huge proportions, which prove that homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with tainting the so-called "sanctity" of the institution of marriage, as indeed, marriage is already a joke even in the best of conservative churches).

If homosexual marriage is to be illegal because of the Bible, then Divorce MUST be illegal as well. Plain and simple. Or are we all two-faced?

Let's make Divorce illegal,
as it should be under the equality of some people's argument here.

Why is the issue of intersex condition and hermaphroditism so rarely brought up in these debates?

While uncommon, they are not nearly as rare as one might think. Plus, if you think it is a new thing happening because of let's say... environmental factors, you'd be wrong about that as well. If more people had their chromosomes looked at, we'd be finding out some interesting things about genetics. For example, complete sex reversal.

How interesting it would be to know of a man who had always been staunchly against gay marriage wondering why he has never impregnated his wife and goes to a doctor to find out why... discovering that he is actually a virilized female.

Do you think he would suddenly divorce his loving wife... or perhaps have a change of heart?

I once considered this somewhat less than the most critical issue on the table concerning politics... but when you look closer at the issue you find that it speaks volumes of how firmly indoctrinated we can be to a dangerous extent... and how we jump to make decisions on things we know very little about.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Why is the issue of intersex condition and hermaphroditism so rarely brought up in these debates?

It has been suggested that LGBTQ - - add an "O" for other. That hasn't happened yet.

You will more and more see the "Q" added. It stands for Questioning.

Maybe it would be good to start using the "O".

Progression doesn't happen over night.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Why is the issue of intersex condition and hermaphroditism so rarely brought up in these debates?

It has been suggested that LBGTQ - - add an "O" for other. That hasn't happened yet.

You will more and more see the "Q" added. It stands for Questioning.

Progression doesn't happen over night.

They don't throw a fit and refuse to change it because of tradition?

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Why is the issue of intersex condition and hermaphroditism so rarely brought up in these debates?

It has been suggested that LBGTQ - - add an "O" for other. That hasn't happened yet.

You will more and more see the "Q" added. It stands for Questioning.

Progression doesn't happen over night.

They don't throw a fit and refuse to change it because of tradition?

Well I'm not gay - - so my opinion can only go so far.

Maybe I'll start adding the "O" - - just because.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing that most people do not realize - - - is just because you are gay - - - does not mean you understand or even fully accept another group. Even Lesbians.

People are people. They know what their world is all about.

There is a support problem with Gays supporting Trans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a lot of awareness and acceptance going on within the LGBTQO - - - community itself - - - to accept all of the subgroups.

reply to post by NotAnAspie

Why is the issue of intersex condition and hermaphroditism so rarely brought up in these debates?

So true. Hermaphrodites, XYY Syndrome, and Triple X Syndrome are fascinating subjects. Though people in my very own church would say it's because the parents sinned against God and are being punished. There are a whole lot of parents being punished left and right.

But the big issue is, as a conservative who supports the least amount of government interference in individual lives, does same-sex marriage count as a civil liberty?

I tend to agree with the OP and others that you don't have to agree with gay marriage but if your political ideology is for individual responsibility (not a Nanny dictator state), then we must be accepting of this as an option for those who find it critically important to their self-identity and emotional stability. Just because a gay couple gets married doesn't mean they are going to destroy my marriage or my children. Same-sex marriage is already happening in our country, and even more so overseas, with absolutely no impact on heterosexual marriages (possibly a slight decrease in divorce). But the main issue here is a political question.

I do think that Barrack Hussein Obama and his campaign team have done an A-class job at crumbling the GOP over such an irrelevant conservative issue as same-sex marriage (if you're truly conservative, you let the gov't be hands off, people take individual responsibility, and the churches do what needs to be within their walls). BHO has us all bickering over this "human rights" issue instead of paying attention the fact that he is bankrupting our country and compromising our national sovereignty in subservience to the United Nations, which will be our global governing body before we know it because we're all too caught up in fighting over homo marriage and following celebrities like the Kardashians. It's time we get to the main program. The only government in which gays should not get married are under a dictatorial regime like Hitler and Stalin: it really is that level of idiocy to not let consenting adults do what they feel is right, even if you/one/we personally disagree.

Originally posted by dbloch7986

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Majority as in "over half" ? Last I checked 25 was half of 50. Therefore 31 is over half.

Simply put: a majority vote by 31 states does not necessarily reflect a majority view of the entire US population.

If you consider the entire population of the US which is eligible to vote (whether registered or not), the number of people who are pro-equality could still easily outweight the majority vote of 31 states. Considering that some of the most densely populated states are not grouped with those 31 states this becomes even more true. Just because people don't express their opinion at the polls does not mean they do not have an opinion.

If most people feel like people on this board, they may not even vote just out of spite because something like that should not be an issue left up to a simple majority vote.

Sadly, people tend to be more likely to act out of a negative compulsion than a positive one.

mmmhmmmm so all the people who are reportedly pro gay just stayed home? mkay

On the other hand, to enact an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. In any case, it seems that gay marriage still has a way to go before being accepted by a majority vote.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

mmmhmmmm so all the people who are reportedly pro gay just stayed home? mkay

On the other hand, to enact an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. In any case, it seems that gay marriage still has a way to go before being accepted by a majority vote.

Doesn't matter, it won't be decided by a vote anyway, it will be decided by the Supreme Court as all other minority issues are decided.

reply to post by twoandthree

I do think that Barrack Hussein Obama and his campaign team have done an A-class job at crumbling the GOP over such an irrelevant conservative issue as same-sex marriage

Oh yeah, he's doing such a great job crumbling the repubs that even his own leftist doctor is disappointed. According to a new book I'm reading by a journalist who interviewed a bunch of people who knew Obama for years, this leftist doctor who is pro socialized medicine thinks Obama doesn't know how to communicate with people and he is too detached. He also says that ObamaCare is too expensive, that Obama's health care plan has no cost control. NO COST CONTROL Imagine that.
source: "The Amateur" by Edward Klein p16

I would also like to point out that dictating to us what our social policies are going to be is part of the One World Totalitarian govt. As such, discussing gay marriage is exactly what they are about and not just a distraction. If the UN even cared about people truly, they would stop running around telling other countries what to do with their land and how to deal with children and so on. I am not kidding because Hillary wrote a book called "It Takes A Village". It certainly does not require a village idiot to understand the Statism in that, and her desire to force all nations to liberate children from their parents is one of thee most abhorrent attacks on the family imaginable. It is the pro-gay crowd which is perfectly happy to send Christian pastors to the Intl Criminal Court to try them for not agreeing with gay marriage. Yes, such people believe that as long as their desires and agendas are fulfilled it matters not how it was done.
The ends justify the means.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

mmmhmmmm so all the people who are reportedly pro gay just stayed home? mkay

On the other hand, to enact an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. In any case, it seems that gay marriage still has a way to go before being accepted by a majority vote.

Doesn't matter, it won't be decided by a vote anyway, it will be decided by the Supreme Court as all other minority issues are decided.

Which of course explains Obama's two court appointees.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

mmmhmmmm so all the people who are reportedly pro gay just stayed home? mkay

On the other hand, to enact an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. In any case, it seems that gay marriage still has a way to go before being accepted by a majority vote.

Doesn't matter, it won't be decided by a vote anyway, it will be decided by the Supreme Court as all other minority issues are decided.

Which of course explains Obama's two court appointees.

They're better than bush's appointees