Meanwhile you aren’t changing my mind until you can show me with some actual data and not just shit you want to believe.[/quote]
In your emotional blindness, you’ve completely misunderstood me. I’m not saying the poll numbers haven’t changed. They have. I’m saying they’re immaterial in any real sort of discussion about where the gay marriage will ‘end’ in anything less than 1-2 yrs. in the future. And even that is granting them phenomenal predictive power.
I don’t have to tell or convince you that a poll doesn’t measure any actual action or cause/effect relationships, just arbitrarily selected whimsical belief.
One could point to specific data showing that conservative social and cultural groups are substantially more fertile than progressive ones.
Which means that current trends could very well reverse themselves in a generation or two.
Possibly less, if things slip on the slope too far or too fast.
Meanwhile you aren’t changing my mind until you can show me with some actual data and not just shit you want to believe.[/quote]
In your emotional blindness, you’ve completely misunderstood me. I’m not saying the poll numbers haven’t changed. They have. I’m saying they’re immaterial in any real sort of discussion about where the gay marriage will ‘end’ in anything less than 1-2 yrs. in the future. And even that is granting them phenomenal predictive power.
I don’t have to tell or convince you that a poll doesn’t measure any actual action or cause/effect relationships, just arbitrarily selected whimsical belief.[/quote]
This is what I’ve said:
The polling of support for gay marriage has been on a freaking rocket for a while now. Public opinion polls (find me something better to use and I will) when broken down by age show that the generations coming up are remarkably for it and the strongest opposition is in brackets that will be around the shortest. It’s not difficult to look at these polls and come to a few conclusions:
Support for gay marriage is rising quickly.
Support for gay marriage should continue to rise UNLESS something in these younger generations who have so much support for it changes.
Knowing 1 and 2 this is a decidedly losing position for people who are against if we’re looking at what the public currently wants (not based on different questions) and using the data will want in the future.
It’s even MORE predictive when you read between the lines and see how Republicans have changed on the issue.
If you want to talk about other stuff that’s fine, but I’ve been talking about the above and the above only.
One could point to specific data showing that conservative social and cultural groups are substantially more fertile than progressive ones.
Which means that current trends could very well reverse themselves in a generation or two.
Possibly less, if things slip on the slope too far or too fast.
[/quote]
In what generation are you looking at?
18-32: 70% approve.
Also, EVERY SINGLE age bracket favorability numbers have been approving.
Conservative social and political groups are moving TOWARDS it, not away from it as well.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Conservatives are looking a bit hypocritical when they say they want government out of their lives, except when it comes to gay marriage. Come on fellas, you don’t want government to ban your soda or salt, but they should dictate who can marry and who cannot ? Wake up.
[/quote]
I don’t think that is it. It should be a choice of the people of each state. In Roe v Wade the Federal Government IMO stepped over it bounds and took control of the situation. The Federal Government should have allowed the states to make a decision that it’s people wanted. In this case for Gay Marriage if Mass whats gay marriage then so be it, but if you move to Texas and gay marriage is not recognized then you do not get the same benefits. You have a choice where you live, so do not force your values on a state that does not want them.
[/quote]
Bad comparison, and if your going to do a bad comparison at least pick something that is a little more closely related.
Bad comparison your opinion? I have been hearing this comparison a lot the past couple of weeks. An individuals right to choose whether to get married to a same sex partner or to choose to have an abortion. Both are an individual choice. Should the federal government step in to force the states to give an individual that choice.
You did not look at the rest of the post and argument. The biggest argument is where is the line in the sand. If homosexuals are allowed to marry what keeps polygamists from being allowed to marry or homosapien and animal marriages?
I support gay marriage and support the churches right not to marry gay people on the grounds of freedom of religion. The bible says homosexuals should be put to death, why any self respecting gay man would want to get married is beyond me. That said if a priest is willing to I am all for it. However if I were gay I would civil partnership it.
The idea of the government telling me who I can marry is revolting. When did the government become gods representative?
Freedom to marry anyone, freedom for a priest to refuse. Freedom to be a bigot or a decent person. When I think of this issue it is not a religious one it is a personal freedom one.
I bet if you phrased the polls ‘Should the federal gov’t be able to reverse or ignore popular opinion within a state regarding social issues like homosexuality?’ you’d get a very different answer. Let alone the sticky situation a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ leaves you in.
[/quote]
Wait a minute, are you saying that polling is an imperfect science? That the wording of the questions has an effect on the composition of the results? That some respondents are likely to downplay prejudices when they’re talking to pollsters? That sometimes polls simply get it wrong?
What a profound observation.
Here’s the thing, though: when you’ve got hundreds upon hundreds of different polls, conducted over the course of more than a decade by a diverse range of firms including some of the most respected in the country (and in the world), and the various trends are unanimously aimed in a single direction…you’ve got what might conservatively be called a pretty damn good idea of what’s going on.
One could point to specific data showing that conservative social and cultural groups are substantially more fertile than progressive ones.
[/quote]
Leaving aside the problems inherent in measuring the “fertility” of an ideological movement (and their practical importance…like in last year’s election), this is too oblique to be anywhere near as relevant as the infinitely more direct polling data.
Edit: I realize now that you meant fertility not in a metaphorical but in a literal sense.
I don’t think the data on that particular point is anything like conclusive (i.e., demographic trends are too numerous to weigh against each other, but there are real good reasons for Republicans to worry as much or more than the Dems). I also think that zeitgeist trendlines tend to be more premonitory than birth rates.
And the point about polling data being a much more direct method of measurement stands. It relies on far fewer assumptions, for one thing. And more importantly, it tells us that placement within a particular generation is more prescriptive of marriage attitudes than placement within a particular family or social context (i.e., if, generally speaking, the attitude of a father had more of an effect on his son than the attitude of that son’s peers or broader cultural trends, then the 18-30 demo–which was raised by the 45-70 demo, which generally disapproves of gay marriage–would be expected to mirror its parents’ attitudes. But, on the contrary, it is substantially in favor of gay marriage.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Conservatives are looking a bit hypocritical when they say they want government out of their lives, except when it comes to gay marriage. Come on fellas, you don’t want government to ban your soda or salt, but they should dictate who can marry and who cannot ? Wake up.
[/quote]
I don’t think that is it. It should be a choice of the people of each state. In Roe v Wade the Federal Government IMO stepped over it bounds and took control of the situation. The Federal Government should have allowed the states to make a decision that it’s people wanted. In this case for Gay Marriage if Mass whats gay marriage then so be it, but if you move to Texas and gay marriage is not recognized then you do not get the same benefits. You have a choice where you live, so do not force your values on a state that does not want them.
[/quote]
Bad comparison, and if your going to do a bad comparison at least pick something that is a little more closely related.
Bad comparison your opinion? I have been hearing this comparison a lot the past couple of weeks. An individuals right to choose whether to get married to a same sex partner or to choose to have an abortion. Both are an individual choice. Should the federal government step in to force the states to give an individual that choice.
You did not look at the rest of the post and argument. The biggest argument is where is the line in the sand. If homosexuals are allowed to marry what keeps polygamists from being allowed to marry or homosapien and animal marriages?
[/quote]
The difference is there is sand to draw the line in.
This is all well and true however, comparing gay marriage to abortion is a really bad comparison. I don’t think pro choice ever had the meteoric rise that support for gay marriage had. Nor do I see gay marriage if allowed going “the other way” where enough people are sick of it to reverse it. It’s WAY different when talking about the life of an unborn than when talking if two dudes should be allowed to say I do. [/quote]
Incorrect, from the standpoint I was talking about. Gay marriage is a divisive, complex issue with strong opinions on both sides - just like abortion. If the court steps in and short-circuits the democratic debate by declaring one side or the other a “winner” as a matter of constitutonal right, that will poison the process that we are seeing - one of compromise.
Many who are lukewarm, ambivalent and even supportive of gay marriage from a policy point of view won’t like the idea of a panel of nine unelected lawyers deciding for the rest of us. This isn’t just a question about the propriety of gay marriage - it’s also a question of “who decides the propriety?”. If the court elects to decide, respective camps will galvanize and become even more ideological.
Just like abortion.
[quote]It is over though and whether the courts do step in or not is irrelevant. It’s clearly a matter of time. I was just saying Republicans should be rooting for it as it gets them out of being on the losing side going forward (which they unquestionably will be, just look at the polling).
[/quote]
False again. If the court steps in, it will be highly relevant the ongoing debate, because the court will declare a “winner” in terms of opinion.
I think SCOTUS dismisses the case. The pro-Prop 8 gang didn’t have standing to begin with - the 9th Circuit just overlooked that issue in order to provide a test-case for SCOTUS (and the nakedly activist opinion was written specifically for Justice Kennedy’s consumption, but ironically, he didn’t seemed too impressed by it and even scoffed at it). I think they will vacate the 9th Circuit and allow the district court decision to stand.
That will be a depressing thought for the legions of “progressives” who apparently think the Supreme Court is designed to function as a kind of hip, 21st century House of Lords that is supposed to ratify trends as the law of the land.
You did not look at the rest of the post and argument. The biggest argument is where is the line in the sand. If homosexuals are allowed to marry what keeps polygamists from being allowed to marry or homosapien and animal marriages?
[/quote]
This is the typical conservative slippery slope fallacy. Let’s take everything to its logical extreme.
This is the typical conservative slippery slope fallacy. Let’s take everything to its logical extreme.[/quote]
Not in the case of a court deciding a legal principle that extends to other potential classes and conduct.[/quote]
It will definitely give polygamists more of a chance. I don’t think there was any legitimate legal basis to outlaw polygamy in the first place though. Animals though? Seriously? Consent is required, horses can’t consent.
This is the typical conservative slippery slope fallacy. Let’s take everything to its logical extreme.[/quote]
Not in the case of a court deciding a legal principle that extends to other potential classes and conduct.[/quote]
It will definitely give polygamists more of a chance. I don’t think there was any legitimate legal basis to outlaw polygamy in the first place though. Animals though? Seriously? Consent is required, horses can’t consent. [/quote]
It’s a legal and moral clusterfuck. Polygamy is the sexual equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Monogamy, gay or straight, should be celebrated as a virtue.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
As promised, my stance on marriage, for anyone who wants to get into it with me (a discussion, not a marriage).
The denotative definition of marriage, according to Merriam-Webster:
[/quote]
No disrespect but please look up the word queer in this internet dictionary. There is a different definition for both words in their earlier offline “hand held” dictionary. Were they ignorant then?
Why don’t gays justify their civil rights “behavior” by using the right to privacy as did proponents of abortion in “forcing” acceptance. I’m 100% certain it is on the board as a device to force bestiality on America. Anyone that believes that won’t happen better study their history. The New World Order: force society to affirm their behavior, regardless of other people’s moral beliefs. They can make surveys to force anything on you.
Remember… incest is best, with insects. 51% agree so it must be made the law.
