Poll shows backlash on gay issues

USA TODAY ^ | 7/28/03 | Susan Page

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON

[jlogajan]

About as meaningless as fashion trends.

[jagrmeister]

Another poll I read just a week ago, asking the question differently - "Do you support gay marriage" - was rejected something like 65%-35%. It is a very unpopular issue- even failed as a ballot measure in liberal california. If Dean is the Democratic nominee, he will lose large sections of America on that vote.

http://www.politicaltoons.com/toons/toons124.cfm?toon=124

[Mo1]

Another poll I read just a week ago, asking the question differently - "Do you support gay marriage" - was rejected something like 65%-35%.

Because people don't like to tell others how to live their lives .. but when other peoples lives are being force on them .. then they have a problem

Did that make sense?

Oh heck, it's late

[Clint N. Suhks]

Sorry this here.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Oh Geeze, or this here.

[ChemistCat]

It'd be nice if the federal government wasn't involved in the issue at all. What Constitution are most people reading here?

Stable relationships are good for everybody. You don't force someone to be straight because you don't let them file jointly with someone of the same sex. Whatever homosexuality is, it isn't going to go away just because we let our tax code discriminate against them. (And against maiden aunts living together, mothers living with grown sons, et cetera, et cetera.)

If government has ANY other Constitutionally appropriate reasons, than tax and estate law, to be involved in how we organize our households, I haven't heard it yet.

Please tell me how the status quo makes us a more moral people or how it makes the gay lifestyle any more palatable to those of us who are religiously opposed to homosexuality. I don't see any evidence that not permitting them to form legal civil unions is decreasing homosexual behavior. Benefits? That should be between employer and employee, always, something to negotiate privately.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?

Why not incestual adults?

[ChemistCat]

Ugh. But again, the government has no Constitutional right to interfere. And it's not like it's not happening, legally recognized or not.

If it does. I guess it probably does. Ugh.

[LibertarianInExile]

That the government is involved in private matters like marriage is further evidence that government's far too nosy to BE involved. We shouldn't be making religion part of national politics on either side, which is why government should never have been affiliated with marriage in the first place.

CNS just wants you to support his own pet relationship theories. Don't let him draw you into a discussion that works its way down a slippery slope here--he and his dogs are very happy together, but you don't have to approve of his sex life to want government out of the marriage business.

[Michael2001]

Good. Hopefully the backlash continues, as Hollywood tries to make us feel like homosexuality is so normal.

[L.N. Smithee]

About as meaningless as fashion trends.

Really...is that the way you felt before the "backlash," when the numbers were going in the other direction?

[Susannah]

"Because people don't like to tell others how to live their lives .. but when other peoples lives are being force on them .. then they have a problem"

BINGO! - - - It's not that we want them to disappear, we just don't want them parading around. Recently, seeing two men kissing after their marriage on tv news. Also, the Gay Pride parade. Many heterosexuals with children are concerned how this may affect future generations.

[visualops]

There's a big difference between cohabitation and marriage and/or family.
Should we afford the benefits of marriage to relationships that are often not much beyond roommates or steady dates?

I think it would be better to remove the tax argument (since income tax should be abolished anyway), and then argue whether same-sex civil unions are a benefit or detriment to society. I think they are a detriment.

[Steve0113]

the government has no Constitutional right to interfere.

True, the federal government has no Constitutional right to interfere. But the states do.

[Conservative til I die]

It'd be nice if the federal government wasn't involved in the issue at all. What Constitution are most people reading here?

AFAIK, the federal government has little to do with marriage laws, despite the campaigning by Dean and the likes. It's a state issue, and every state has chosen to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, nothing more, nothing less. Stable relationships are good for everybody.

How so? A stable relationship isn't in and of itself good.

You don't force someone to be straight because you don't let them file jointly with someone of the same sex.

Which was never the point. The reason the people have chosen to define marriage in a way that represents and preserves 3000 years of Judeo-Christian heritage. This is how we want to live. I'm sorry if you think the Constitution only allows for a value-free America. It really does quite the opposite, allowing Americans and the states they live in to choose to live how they see fit, while enumerating a few do's and don't's

[ChemistCat]

It's not a value-free America I seek, not by any means.

The values come from the people. They are not imposed by the government.

[Clint N. Suhks]

But again, the government has no Constitutional right to interfere.

relations between consenting adults

Why only “adults”, age is arbitrary and unconstitutional? If consent is the only constitutional caveat then objectively some citizens under certain ages are being discriminated against under substantive due process.

You must concede bestiality is constitutional then too, “sex” with personal property shouldn’t be regulated right?

[Conservative til I die]

It's not a value-free America I seek, not by any means. The values come from the people. They are not imposed by the government.

Cool. That's exactly what I'm saying too. And in this country, I believe the people have spoken as it regards marriage in general, and gay marriage in particular. Could those views change? I guess. I have no problem if people were to vote in a referendum regarding gay marriage. However, I do feel that gay marriage should not be made legal on a personal level.

[ChemistCat]

Beasts cannot "consent."

Do you only argue with red herrings and similar fallacies?