Gay Marriage Poll

CNN/ USA poll ^ | June 27-29, 2003 | CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll

[VRWC_minion]

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 27-29, 2003. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
						.
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
		Should Be Valid	Should Not Be	No Opinion
		%	%	%
	6/03	39	55	6
	1/00	34	62	4
	2/99	35	62	3
	3/096	27	68	5

 

[VRWC_minion]

I agree with your comments but the point is that recognzing gay marriages will increase those economic factors over the current situation. They were not given as reasons against marriage. They were given as reasons to folks who say gay marriage will have no effect on them.

Whether one is for or against gay marriage it will have a profound economic effect and a social effect.

If it didn't then gays wouldn;t be fighting for it.

My personal opinion is that social conservatives should act toward providing a "safe harbor marriage for gays" instead of waiting for the courts or some state to impose it on them. Its going to happen anyways, it might as well be done in some controlled fashion.

Placing ones hopes on an amendment to the constitution is as practical as sticking your head in the sand.

[AntiGuv]

When most states have the age of consent at 16 or lower you know I cannot.

The breakdown appears to be: 16 years in 27 states; 17 years in 8 states; 18 years in 15 states. That leaves more than enough states (23) for the purpose at hand. The fact of the matter is that the movement is virtually nonexistent in the U.S. because nearly all states already have uniform age-of-consent statutes as a matter of course.

However, that said its still disconcerting that the rush to have ability to have sex with a minor generates so much energy.

There's little evidence that age-of-consent laws generate much energy, nor did I ever imply as much. In fact, they tend to be the very last vestige of discrimination that any general gay rights advocacy organization confronts. If you survey the websites of the groups I noted above, you will soon find that this issue is the most difficult to find much discussion about. Perhaps your blinded by your backwards approach, which as you pointed out is searching for age-of-consent and coming up with a disproportionate number of gay-related sites. I've already explained the reason for that.

Perhaps if you instead search for gay activist websites, and then come up with a percentage of those that deal with the issue, you will get a much better perception of just how much "energy" this does or does not generate for gays.....

Again, I could understand the case beign made that we ought to raise the other ages to meet the higher gay age but that isn't their quest.

I'm unaware of any objection in any case where this has taken place, nor am I aware of any objection by gay rights organizations in case where uniform age-of-consent has been increased, nor do I have any reason to believe they would object if that were the case.

The desire to lower their age to 16 in most states is in itself very telling about the nature of the importance of gay relationships with minors.

No, it's not.

One wonders why there are not enough partners at the age of majority.

You will have to consult your own fantasy world on this one, since the evidence does not support this as the reason for advocacy toward uniform age-of-consent statutes.

[jethropalerobber]

You are missing that the marriage contract is really a three party contract, not a two party contract. In exchange for recognizing the husband and wife's marriage contract the state puts obligations on the parties to the contract.

If the state opens up this contract to gays, it starts the process of decreased expectations on that contract. The fear is that the marriage contract will loose its meaning over time.

imho, you've nicely outlined the only decent non-religious argument against gay marriage.

what i would ask you is what exactly are a couple's obligations to the state under a marriage contract? and would you not say that the contract has already lost its traditional meaning in a society which has adopted a liberal attitude toward contraception, fornication, adultery, and divorce?

[VRWC_minion]

The fact of the matter is that the movement is virtually nonexistent in the U.S. because nearly all states already have uniform age-of-consent statutes as a matter of course.

Even by your own admission gays are preoccupied with the age of consent given that nearly all states have uniform rules.

[AntiGuv]

Even by your own admission gays are preoccupied with the age of consent given that nearly all states have uniform rules.

My own admission has stated repeatedly at every available opportunity that this is a preoccupation largely restricted to Europe, for very clear historical reasons. Nearly all American states have uniform rules because they never had reason to have disparate rules, because before they repealed their anti-sodomy statutes, same-sex relations were criminalized regardless of age. Whenever they repealed those statutes, the gender-neutral age-of-consent statutes simply applied uniformly as a matter of course.

[VRWC_minion]

what i would ask you is what exactly are a couple's obligations to the state under a marriage contract?

There are a number of tangible and intangible obligations but the two main obligations are raising the children and caring for the other spouse. The primary interest of the state in a divorce is that a financially incabable spouse is not abandoned to the state and that the children are cared for.

and would you not say that the contract has already lost its traditional meaning in a society which has adopted a liberal attitude toward contraception, fornication, adultery, and divorce?

I think it has but I don't think society's expectations have decreased all that much regarding marriage. 2000 years ago Jesus was complaining about the morality of his time. Will gay marriage change the social contract for better or worse ? I don't know but I think there is a far better chance of the a new contract surviving if its written by the majority rather than waiting for it to be forced on everyone.

[VRWC_minion]

My own admission has stated repeatedly at every available opportunity that this is a preoccupation largely restricted to Europe, for very clear historical reasons.

Then why do these sites have to contain every separate state. Why not just a range ? The end effect is the same.

[AntiGuv]

Then why do these sites have to contain every separate state. Why not just a range? The end effect is the same.

Oh, I don't know. Why don't you first tell me what this triviality signifies for you so that I may have some starting point from which to contemplate the issue...

[Clint N. Suhks]

The QU Daily indicates otherwise:

I see why you thought so because the PA percentages run exactly the same as the notional.

44. In general, do you personally believe that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable or morally wrong?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Having sex with a minor self-evidently brings some special excitement to all pedophiles, regardless of sexuality.

But if the homosexual rate of child sex abuse wasn’t so disproportionately higher than heterosexual their obsession with age of consent laws wouldn’t be such a red flag.

[AntiGuv]

Ah, you're right! Thanks for correcting my error.

[Neenah]

How, specifically, does homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage?

This will further weaken families, and therefore threaten the families. Case in point....

When GOD ruled our nation as a whole, and in general (tho some didn't participate) there were laws of the land that were followed. A moral code written and enforced. Slowly, corruption of the institution of marriage, and the weakening of our morals, along with the falling away from God, have lead to various breakdowns of not only our morality and spirituality, but opened the door we are now about to walk through.

We degenerated so to speak in the late 60's..got more liberal in our thinking..burned our bra's and "gave peace a chance" ..now we want to "GIVE PIECE" a chance.

We have had the prolification of cohabitation instead of formal marriage, by law. Used to be that if you lived with someone without being married, it was a scandal. No more! Thanks to those who said..." How does this threaten hetrosexual marriage?"(hypothetically speaking)

There is now an increase in single and teen parentage. How did this happen? We got lax. It used to be the scarlet letter to be pregnant and not married. A scandal to the family. Girls were whisked off out of town to have the baby, and put it out for adoption. A scandal in town !! No more !!! Thanks to those who said...."How does this threaten hetrosexual marriage?"(hypothetically speaking

We have rising divorce rates. Why? Because we got lax and allowed it to be EASY to get a divorce. What was the result? Many, many kids without a family. ( and I know sometimes a marriage is not workable..or had violence..those should be put asunder..but we made it too easy for other's that could have been saved.) But we don't have tough laws..no, No More!! Thanks to those who said..."How does this threaten hetrosexual marriage?"(hypothetically speaking)

All of these things are just part of what has threatened hetrosexual marriage, and more importantly THE FAMILY.

You, Rudder, may think this is just a SMALL THING..but it is NOT. Now we are going to add eventually, homosexual unions acceptable to the court. It is only a matter of time with a dumbed down society. And soon after that, we will add to it..ADOPTION TO GAY UNIONS.Two sodomy partners will adopt a little girl and raise her into a whole woman ? really?

It may not hurt MARRIAGE. But what was marriage designed for ?? The answer to that is FAMILY. You have challenged, (as far as I have read, on this thread) the question of how this will effect marriage. This is the short version of my answer to you...now, I would like you to answer two question...............

1. WHAT BENEFIT TO SOCIETY IS ALLOWING SODAMITES TO MARRY? Sorry....GAY (what is gay about it?) MARRIAGE.

2. Tell me how to explain to a 5th grader who I am teaching about pro creation, what happens between two GAY men. (then tell me what to answer when she says.." But Mama, why would President Bush allow that? How can we say o.k. to something GOD says "no" to?

Rudder...you answer that.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Used to be that if you lived with someone without being married, it was a scandal.

Exactly, same for divorce, out of wedlock pregnacy and sexual relations. The shame factor is gone.

[jethropalerobber]

My personal opinion is that social conservatives should act toward providing a "safe harbor marriage for gays" instead of waiting for the courts or some state to impose it on them. Its going to happen anyways, it might as well be done in some controlled fashion.

would you say that the vermont legislature's civil union solution was a good one (aside from it being motivated by a court decision)?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Two sodomy partners will adopt a little girl and raise her into a whole woman? really?

A resent study, I’d have to look up its name if you want a cite, finds that children raised in homosexual households are more likely to practice perversion than the “current” population. She said the rate was 20% when their population is less than 3%.

[jethropalerobber]

There are a number of tangible and intangible obligations but the two main obligations are raising the children and caring for the other spouse.

i had the same two main obligations in mind. do you feel that gays are not capable of fulfilling both of these obligations?

Will gay marriage change the social contract for better or worse ?

my guess would be niether. i honestly can't see any reason why it would have an effect one way or the other.

[Nowhere Man]

True, I don't agree with libertarians 100%, they have some good ideas, some bad ones, but I have to say that Walter Williams is right on the money on this one.

[Nowhere Man]

The "divorce" wont' be along physical barriers. It will emerge along social ones.

True, but still you got to have the place to put the liberals, I figure they got Frisco/LA and Boston to Washington sewed up already so that would be a good idea. Or maybe go by Red States (Bush) vs. Blue States (Owl Gore), but I figure I want to give up as little territory as possible. Or better yet, we could integrate American Indians into society and put the liberals on the reservations. B-) Whaddya think? B-)

[Rudder]

I didn't think the first part of your answer was responsive to my question, although you did clearly point out how events in the past have influenced the sexual mores of the country. But you concluded that section with, "It may not hurt MARRIAGE." Well, that's what I'm asking: How, specifically, will it hurt marriage? There is of course a tacit assumption in my question and that is I'm not sure it will hurt marriage. But, as I pointed out earlier, that is also your conclusion. We're back to square one on that one.

1. WHAT BENEFIT TO SOCIETY IS ALLOWING SODAMITES TO MARRY? Sorry....GAY (what is gay about it?) MARRIAGE.

I call it homosexual. I don't know, let's see...it keeps them off the street and away from the kids? Actually, I can't see any real benefit.

2. Tell me how to explain to a 5th grader who I am teaching about pro creation, what happens between two GAY men. (then tell me what to answer when she says.." But Mama, why would President Bush allow that? How can we say o.k. to something GOD says "no" to?

Well, should the fifth grader ask such a question and if I were acting in the position of responsibility such as a parent or teacher or a doctor I would tell them that some people are different in that they prefer to have sex with the same sex. That these people are an exception to the rule and that their union is sterile, because it takes a man and a woman to have a child. For the second part: "Some day child, and it can't be too soon, you're going to learn not to trust everything a politican says."

[Rudder]

...why the age of consent is such an important topic to gays.

It has something to do with the concept of "prey."