Poll: Support for gay marriage continues to rise

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Nov 04, 2011 6:52 AM GMT

    Poll: Support for gay marriage continues to rise

    http://www.latimes.com/news/la-pn-pew-same-sex-marriage-20111103,0,1359028.story
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 1:42 PM GMT
    That is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 1:46 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 1:56 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 2:05 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?
    Not at all.. what part of your young brain has failed to grasp the comprehension of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 2:20 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?
    Not at all.. what part of your young brain has failed to grasp the comprehension of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?


    And what part of your "old brain" has fallen into complete decay? Oh wait, must be the part that can't figure out what a practical and gradual approach to equal rights could possibly entail.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Nov 04, 2011 2:34 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?



    LOL, you're just figuring this out? icon_lol.gif I agree with you whole-heartedly. Had we changed the strategy a long time ago and fought for a solid national civil union bill that granted ALL the rights and privileges of "marriage" short of changing the definition of "marriage" we would have been a lot better off in the here and now. It's this war of semantics that is holding gays back on this issue
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 2:48 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?



    LOL, you're just figuring this out? icon_lol.gif I agree with you whole-heartedly. Had we changed the strategy a long time ago and fought for a solid national civil union bill that granted ALL the rights and privileges of "marriage" short of changing the definition of "marriage" we would have been a lot better off in the here and now. It's this war of semantics that is holding gays back on this issue


    I think we'd be extremely close to having gay marriage today, if not already, providing that had been our early strategy.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Nov 04, 2011 2:54 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    I think we'd be extremely close to having gay marriage today, if not already, providing that had been our early strategy.



    Another reason I am bummed that former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman's campaign has not gained more traction. He is solidly in the corner of gay rights and civil unions.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Nov 04, 2011 3:12 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said

    I think we'd be extremely close to having gay marriage today, if not already, providing that had been our early strategy.



    Another reason I am bummed that former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman's campaign has not gained more traction. He is solidly in the corner of gay rights and civil unions.


    He does come across very well, at least initially. I'd certainly approach
    learning more about him with an open mind. I think with several, Cain for instance, my mind snapped closed pretty fast.

    icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 3:17 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?



    LOL, you're just figuring this out? icon_lol.gif I agree with you whole-heartedly. Had we changed the strategy a long time ago and fought for a solid national civil union bill that granted ALL the rights and privileges of "marriage" short of changing the definition of "marriage" we would have been a lot better off in the here and now. It's this war of semantics that is holding gays back on this issue


    I think we'd be extremely close to having gay marriage today, if not already, providing that had been our early strategy.


    You are assuming that civil unions and the benefits for civil unions would be equal to marriage under U.S. law. In theory, you assume correctly, but in reality, your assumption is wrong.

    If you honestly believe it's nothing more than a simple case of semantics, I recommend contacting Lambda Legal and asking them for insight.

    http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs_civil-unions-are-not-enough.pdf

    "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. Civil unions are precisely the same arrangement, attempting to give gays a separate arrangement than marriage, while conferring equal benefits. But, because 'separate can never be equal', civil unions can never equal. Civil unions, therefore, are unequal, segregationist, and discriminatory, just as were the 'separate but equal' laws of the past."
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Nov 04, 2011 3:21 PM GMT
    credo said
    If you honestly believe it's nothing more than a simple case of semantics, I recommend contacting Lambda Legal and asking them for insight.




    The point that I, and I believe Mock, is trying to make is that there are some compromises and a middle ground that could probably be found that would give gays in a "Civil Union" all the rights and privileges of gay "marriage", without actually changing the definition of "marriage" which seems to be the sticking point for many heterosexuals and religious types. I think MOST gays would be fine with this -- I know I would -- but then it's the stubborn more militant type gays who, while they think they are moving us forward are, in reality, holding us back
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 9:53 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    credo said
    If you honestly believe it's nothing more than a simple case of semantics, I recommend contacting Lambda Legal and asking them for insight.




    The point that I, and I believe Mock, is trying to make is that there are some compromises and a middle ground that could probably be found that would give gays in a "Civil Union" all the rights and privileges of gay "marriage", without actually changing the definition of "marriage" which seems to be the sticking point for many heterosexuals and religious types. I think MOST gays would be fine with this -- I know I would -- but then it's the stubborn more militant type gays who, while they think they are moving us forward are, in reality, holding us back
    We do NOT 'compromise' with discriminatory rights practices in this country. We did not 'compromise' with women being granted the 'right' to vote in 'some elections'.
    We did not 'compromise' with black Americans and their 'certain' rights. We did not 'compromise' with blacks granted the right to marry 'certain' whites or other 'certain' races.
    We did NOT 'compromise' in which 'certain' schools blacks could attend.

    I stand on the 'militant' side which has granted all these rights without 'compromise'.
    The civil contract of marriage isn't being 'changed'.. it will be granted to everyone regardless of sexual orientation without 'compromise'.
    NO one is "changing the 'religious' definition of marriage"..
    And if you do not think there is a definite difference between a religious idea/definition and a civil definition you are being gravely disingenuous to yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 10:18 PM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?
    Not at all.. what part of your young brain has failed to grasp the comprehension of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?


    And what part of your "old brain" has fallen into complete decay? Oh wait, must be the part that can't figure out what a practical and gradual approach to equal rights could possibly entail.

    Really? So the civil rights movement should have first said "hey, we don't need to be equal...but jeez, if you could make us 4/5's of a person instead of 3/5s, that would be swell"???

    If anyone was actually talking about civil unions being equal in all but name to marriage, that would be one thing. But all of the civil union legislation I've seen did not even come close to that mark.

    The idea that "marriage" is a religious ceremony is simply wrong. Marriage is a civil contract that may or may not have extra religious components to it. Historically, marriage was simply a way for men to manage and assess value to their property (including such chattel as wives and daughters.)

    Today's "marriage" bares little resemblence to marriage even 200 years ago (I have an old British book that goes into excellent detail about how to pick a mate for your child...aside from breeding and economic concerns "if the bride is stout, the husband should be lean; if she is short, he should be tall." --they treated it like breeding cattle.) The idea that we should be arbitrarily excluded because of the traditions of one group is absurd; their traditions came AFTER the original intent and purpose of marriage...they are not the reasons for marriage.
    And you are asking a 'twinkie' to think? LMAO!
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Nov 04, 2011 10:25 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    yourname2000 said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?
    Not at all.. what part of your young brain has failed to grasp the comprehension of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?


    And what part of your "old brain" has fallen into complete decay? Oh wait, must be the part that can't figure out what a practical and gradual approach to equal rights could possibly entail.

    Really? So the civil rights movement should have first said "hey, we don't need to be equal...but jeez, if you could make us 4/5's of a person instead of 3/5s, that would be swell"???

    If anyone was actually talking about civil unions being equal in all but name to marriage, that would be one thing. But all of the civil union legislation I've seen did not even come close to that mark.

    The idea that "marriage" is a religious ceremony is simply wrong. Marriage is a civil contract that may or may not have extra religious components to it. Historically, marriage was simply a way for men to manage and assess value to their property (including such chattel as wives and daughters.)

    Today's "marriage" bares little resemblence to marriage even 200 years ago (I have an old British book that goes into excellent detail about how to pick a mate for your child...aside from breeding and economic concerns "if the bride is stout, the husband should be lean; if she is short, he should be tall." --they treated it like breeding cattle.) The idea that we should be arbitrarily excluded because of the traditions of one group is absurd; their traditions came AFTER the original intent and purpose of marriage...they are not the reasons for marriage.
    And you are asking a 'twinkie' to think? LMAO!


    And the name calling begins. Mocktwinkle is the winner of this debate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 10:41 PM GMT
    Aquanerd said
    TropicalMark said
    yourname2000 said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?
    Not at all.. what part of your young brain has failed to grasp the comprehension of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?


    And what part of your "old brain" has fallen into complete decay? Oh wait, must be the part that can't figure out what a practical and gradual approach to equal rights could possibly entail.

    Really? So the civil rights movement should have first said "hey, we don't need to be equal...but jeez, if you could make us 4/5's of a person instead of 3/5s, that would be swell"???

    If anyone was actually talking about civil unions being equal in all but name to marriage, that would be one thing. But all of the civil union legislation I've seen did not even come close to that mark.

    The idea that "marriage" is a religious ceremony is simply wrong. Marriage is a civil contract that may or may not have extra religious components to it. Historically, marriage was simply a way for men to manage and assess value to their property (including such chattel as wives and daughters.)

    Today's "marriage" bares little resemblence to marriage even 200 years ago (I have an old British book that goes into excellent detail about how to pick a mate for your child...aside from breeding and economic concerns "if the bride is stout, the husband should be lean; if she is short, he should be tall." --they treated it like breeding cattle.) The idea that we should be arbitrarily excluded because of the traditions of one group is absurd; their traditions came AFTER the original intent and purpose of marriage...they are not the reasons for marriage.
    And you are asking a 'twinkie' to think? LMAO!


    And the name calling begins. Mocktwinkle is the winner of this debate.
    You ought to try and voice your opinion and why its relevant.. then maybe someone might take you seriously.
    But, with your given blind alliance and ideology expressed in your historical posts, it isnt a big stretch to figure out why you're 'cheerleading' mocktwinkie..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2011 10:48 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Another reason I am bummed that former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman's campaign has not gained more traction. He is solidly in the corner of gay rights and civil unions.


    Who?
  • Cutlass

    Posts: 426

    Nov 08, 2011 12:15 PM GMT
    I think this poll shows we are on a roll, and it won't be long before the majority support gay marriage. After all, the old conservative voters are dying, and the new younger voters have frequently interacted with gays, know a great many of them, have friends, relatives, acquaintances and coworkers who are gay, and just feel it's only fair, right and just that gays have equal rights. So with a few exceptions, most states will eventually legalize gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 12:28 PM GMT
    Settling (and that's actually what it is) gives those who would deny us equality the opportunity to delay gay marriage for a significant time...

    A good example of this is Australia... we have the conservative party opposing gay marriage (for the usual reasons) but also have the labor party opposing gay marriage... the justification being 'we removed every other discrimination under the law, why can't you just sit back and be happy we gave you most of the rights you deserve?'

    I think the number of european countries that have transitioned from civil unions to gay marriage is overstated... there really aren't too many of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 12:43 PM GMT
    "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
    MLK--Letter From A Birmingham Jail, 1963
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 2:21 PM GMT
    credo said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Did everything I said just fly right over your head? Are you seriously THAT unable to comprehend it?



    LOL, you're just figuring this out? icon_lol.gif I agree with you whole-heartedly. Had we changed the strategy a long time ago and fought for a solid national civil union bill that granted ALL the rights and privileges of "marriage" short of changing the definition of "marriage" we would have been a lot better off in the here and now. It's this war of semantics that is holding gays back on this issue


    I think we'd be extremely close to having gay marriage today, if not already, providing that had been our early strategy.


    You are assuming that civil unions and the benefits for civil unions would be equal to marriage under U.S. law. In theory, you assume correctly, but in reality, your assumption is wrong.

    If you honestly believe it's nothing more than a simple case of semantics, I recommend contacting Lambda Legal and asking them for insight.

    http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs_civil-unions-are-not-enough.pdf

    "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. Civil unions are precisely the same arrangement, attempting to give gays a separate arrangement than marriage, while conferring equal benefits. But, because 'separate can never be equal', civil unions can never equal. Civil unions, therefore, are unequal, segregationist, and discriminatory, just as were the 'separate but equal' laws of the past."


    No I'm not you nincompoop. Did you not even read what I said? No one suggested that civil unions is "just as good" as marriage. I'm talking about priorities. The gay community should push for that which is more achievable first and then it will more easily lead to people accepting gay marriage sooner than if we push vehemently for gay marriage at the offset. Like I said, this is the strategy that worked in Europe and now many are accepting or very close to getting ready to accept full gay marriage equality.

    All of you, just stop pretending that I'm suggesting we should only push for civil unions and forget about gay marriage equality.

    God the denseness...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    ^

    This is your opinion and it's one not based on fact. Just because it worked in Europe doesn't mean it will work in the U.S. Your friends on the Right are the first to admit such things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 2:32 PM GMT
    credo said^

    This is your opinion and it's one not based on fact. Just because it worked in Europe doesn't mean it will work in the U.S. Your friends on the Right are the first to admit such things.
    Its called 'backpedaling' ....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 2:44 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThat is awesome news! On another note, the gay community in America has had their priorities wrong. Many countries of Europe pushed for civil unions with the same benefits and then it easily led the way to marriage. Why can't we do that here? Once you get people used to the idea of civil unions then it will be an easy transfer to gay marriage. Pushing for gay marriage at the offset is a bad strategy.
    What part of 'separate but equal' is NOT legal in THIS country do you not understand?


    Separate but equal was a step in the right direction, however when applied to schools way back, that eventually lead to lawsuits and the right people in power to desegregate schools across the country. However, civil unions are not a solution for the long run. Just a quick fix.
  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Nov 08, 2011 2:45 PM GMT
    [quote]
    I think MOST gays would be fine with this -- I know I would -- but then it's the stubborn more militant type gays who, while they think they are moving us forward are, in reality, holding us back[/quote]