Poll: Texas ain't fond of gays

Valley Morning Star Online Edition ^

[No Dems 2004]

This is in line with another recent post that I made, observing how the liberals and Democrats are woefully out of step with most of America on gay issues. Texas, America's second largest state, is a classis example.

The summary of the above article is as follows:

-Texans regard homosexuality as morally wrong by a margin of 70%-17%

-Texans oppose gay marriage by a margin of 63%-28%

-Texans oppose civil unions by a margin of 60%-30%

-Texans oppose the USSC decision on striking down the TX sodomy law by a margin of 56%-32%

-Texans want the Federal Marriage Amendment (to the US Constitution) by a margin of 54%-36%

Considering that many analysts and pundits agree that polling often understates anti-gay sentiment, the situation could be even worse for gays.

Sounds like Howard Dean might need to find a new line of work?

[TexasNative2000]

Churches have taken an anti-gay stance."

Make that "Churches have taken a pro-scripture stance."

[FourPeas]

In related news, Poll: Water is wet.

[Sangria]

What is there about gays to be proud of?

[joesnuffy]

Just be happy your name aint Peter Fonda and you have to give it last name first first name last

[RonF]

I have to ask, what if an amendment was more narrowlly drawn to simply say, "Notwithstanding (the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution), no state shall be required to recognize marriage between two people of the same sex conducted in any other state"?

That would preserve the concept of Federalism, which the other amendment doesn't.

[Liz]

I hear that CBS-TV's "Survivor" is considering a local version tentatively called "Survivor - Texas Style!"

The nine Dim prez candidates will start in Dallas, travel to Waco, Austin, San Antonio, back to Houston and down to Brownsville on the border. They'll proceed up to Del Rio, on to El Paso then to Midland, Odessa, Lubbock and Amarillo. They turn back east to Abilene, Fort Worth and Dallas.

Each person will be driving a pink Volvo with a bumper sticker that reads: "I'm gay. I'm a vegetarian. I voted for Al Gore. I love the Dixie Chicks. Your BBQ sucks, and the Alamo was a waste of time. I want Hillary in 2004, and I'm here to confiscate your guns!"

The contestant that makes it back to Dallas, alive, wins.

[bluebunny]

I'm so glad I live in Texas. :)

[WillowyDame]

i am not *proud* of being of being a lesbian-
i happen to be inlove with my woman!! and part of the reason i will rather be with a woman is that i don't want to risk some cheating man bring home some weird disease to me. okay that said;

i disapprove of the sexual practice of gay men!!
it is not even about morality-it is about the physical danger it poses to them and other!!

[EagleMamaMT]

Read later.

[rockfish59]

Buncha damned homos!----Hank Hill

[Waryone]

ROTFL - LOL!

I've never watched Survivor, but I'd love to see a show like that. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

[No Dems 2004]

"That would preserve the concept of Federalism, which the other amendment doesn't."

The only problem is that a lot of us want gay marriage totally banned across the United States. I don't think that your proposed Amendment would do that.

[jsbankston]

56% of Texans believe the State should be able to dictate what two adults do in their bedroom. So much for the Government staying out of our lives.

[No Dems 2004]

"56% of Texans believe the State should be able to dictate what two adults do in their bedroom. So much for the Government staying out of our lives."

Another recent poll found that 59% of Georgians felt the same way. And, the truth is, the percentages are probably higher, considering undecideds and people who mislead pollsters. I don't see it the same way you do. Instead, I feel that the Texans just view homosexuals the same way they view any other perverts.

[ChewedGum]

Make that "Churches have taken a pro-scripture stance."

Amen to that!

Gum

[ICX]

"Churches have taken an anti-gay stance."

Especially those Episcopalians. What planet is this person living on?

[Mat_Helm]

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an anti-sodomy law in Texas making it legal for two consenting adults of the same gender to have sex.

First of all sex can only take place when both genders are in contact with each other. That is what defines sex and gender. Repoduction can only occur with sex. Other than that other physical acts are either foreplay with another gender, individual masturbation, or sodomy with the same gender. Most people still ask what sex they are and not what gender. It is true on most private sector and public forms for identification. Sex implies the capability for reproduction of which no same gender contact is capable of. We have now let the courts swallow the rhetoric of the gay agenda to change the definition of what sex is and isn't, just as the media let Clinton define what the meaning of "is" is and is not.

If this SCOTUS ruling stands than why are state prostitution laws legal? If the SCOTUS says that the State can not tell a man that it is illegal and improper for him to stick his penus in another mans anus, than why shouldn't he be able to stick it where it was made to go in a women in exchange for money? If a state can not restrict what a man does with his repoductive anatomy than as Senator Rick Santorum indicated why would state laws against penial contact with prostitutes, cows, dogs, goats, sheep, children, trees, dead people, etc.. stand the scrutiny of the SCOTUS logic? Is the Supreme Court now on its own without regard to the constitution now defining what amounts to the limits of a moral code? Does the court define to every state what is moraly acceptable and not? Has the world and this court now become so corrupt that common sense and basic laws of God and nature are ignored? The world is insane and this court ruling has convinced me that hell will soon freeze over and it will require Jesus return to rule with a rod of iron to restore things back into order before we destroy ourselves.

[RonF]

The only problem is that a lot of us want gay marriage totally banned across the United States. I don't think that your proposed Amendment would do that.

No, it would not. But for the Federal government to step in and tell the states what they can and cannot define as marriage is a violation of Federalism. Someone can be conservative without being a fundamental Christian/Jew/Moslem. There have been a number of conservatives who are finding a conflict in telling the states what they can define as "marriage", as well as in the concept that one state can tell another state what a marriage is. This fixes that.

[MEGoody]

"i am not *proud* of being of being a lesbian- i happen to be inlove with my woman!!"

Then why the heck tell us that you are one? And no, you aren't 'in love' with another woman - you are simply hiding from men because they terrify you.