More on Gay Marriage

[egan.]

I had no idea about the addendum until i saw facebook today. I think it is great you contacted your congressman about it. I wish I had.

I didn't answer Jeff's question because I didn't understand it. I said I assume it's Obama behind this, I don't know for a fact. It is clear to me that someone is behind it. I would think it is Obama. Obviously if you look at that chart and don't think it is suspicious that 90 million people in the USA alone changed their mind on this fundamental topic in such a short time then there is no hope in me even defending my stance. Maybe all my friends and all the people I know are stubborn but I have not once had someone tell me "I used to be against same sex marriage but now I support it." Maybe I am a blind Californiacentric but if I haven't heard one person change their mind how am I supposed to believe that 1 out of every 3 people in this country have changed their minds?

Your assumption has been proven fallacious a couple of times in this thread and I'm going to skip the conspiracy shit and address some things you haven't considered in the stats. For starters, since that polling started around 80 million people have come of voting age. Overwhelming liberal BTW or with a brand of conservatism that values civil liberties. Secondly, look at the list I made. Politicians, Churches and organizations have changed their positions on this and so have regular people. I have seen this statistically and specifically in my own life.

 

[Jind]

The reason why opinions have changed so quickly is that a large percentage of people now know someone that is gay and with that connection the idea that they may want to live life just like everyone else becomes much more understandable. It really is that simple. No grand conspiracy here.

You really do look for the boogy man in almost everything don't you? I'm not sure if I find it sad or slightly endearing in that "isn't that precious" sort of way. ;-)

 

[TheWinterSnow]

Can you explain how the Obama administration managed to time and force a Supreme Court review of a challenge to the 1996 DOMA act for a time which was (according to your logic) beneficial to the administration? They have zero authority over the SC docket. According to all logic applied by those who actually understand the system they simply didn't. At worst they voiced support late on a seemingly decided issue which is politics 101.
Perhaps you should read this article on how, why and who decided to address this issue and why it's happening now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/u...on-same-sex-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I said it was a saving face issue. When the courts started talking about the review he finally came out to say that he supported same sex marriage. Like I said before, he is just proving lip service so his supporters continue to support him despite that fact that his actions have rarely followed his words. And while everyone is worried about the gay marriage deal, no one or a least a lot of people were unaware that Obama had signed the GMO protection bill. This sounds eerily familiar to how congress passed the NDAA during the Christmas New Years holiday break, with Obama saying if it came to his desk he would veto it, signed it right through.

Sure its not just Obama, its the whole political body. Obama does not have to power to do anything when it comes to the same sex marriage but that doesn't stop him from talking about it to keep his approval ratings up by the idiots dumb enough to fall for his "charismatic charm".

 

[Jind]

For a self proclaimed liberal your sounding much more like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann. Just saying.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

Conservative Libertarian, you know, the crazy Ron Paul types.

Also, Sarah Palin is a fucking joke.

 

[Skinny Viking]

this just in -

Genius Gone Insane shocked to learn Rob Halford, legendary singer for Judas Priest, is gay

"I mean, I find it disturbing that someone has been lulling us into a false sense of metal coolness with the leather imagery, meanwhile the whole time its just been his secret code of expressing his homosexuality. I have no problem with the gays or anything, just don't feel comfortable with someone taking what is obviously the pinnacle of manly, hetero attire and all the while exploiting it as a flag for cock. At least he never took it as far as to infuse any of that nonsense into their music"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0DvT9MxdoE

 

[Line666]

Spot on characterisation.

 

[Jind]

by the idiots dumb enough to fall for his "charismatic charm"

Conservative Libertarian, you know, the crazy Ron Paul types.

The irony in your last two post was too much for me. Yes, two quotes you intended to be directed at two different audiences and about two different individuals, yet oh so fitting about the second and the group of so called Libertarians that have been sucked in by the kindly old man that speaks about the wonders of how no bad things would happen if everything simply self-regulated. We would not have the hungry, the poor - the greedy bastards would suddenly grow big hearts and find it in their interest to provide for them, we would not be in wars because everyone else in the world would also seek out the same existence, they would be like that because recreational drug use would be completely legal in every way - hell who wants to fight when perpetually stoned right? I know - exaggerated points, but it all sounds good at a rally

Squishy libertarians prop up Ron Paul as their idol because Ayn Rand is just too damned unlikable in that "I've got mine so fuck you sort of way".

Talk about falling for the "charismatic charm"

Mind you - I consider myself a somewhat fiscal conservative (very much in the small-c camp) but I'm clearly and in almost every way a social liberal and believe in the collective existence, the importance of "us" and not the singular importance on "I", "me" - every man for themselves type mentality.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I'm 100% good with marriage equality.

My post was directed to how polls are done. Like I said who the fuck has a land line anymore?

So I don't really have much faith in polls.

I also don't understand how any bible thumper can be against gay marriage if they know the golden rule. It's actually a pretty good one, flip the role on yourself and if you wouldn't care for the same treatment then you shouldn't be doing it.

Easy as fuck.

 

[Jind]

I'm 100% good with marriage equality.

My post was directed to how polls are done. Like I said who the fuck has a land line anymore?

So I don't really have much faith in polls./QUOTE]

Modern polling uses a variety of methods to contact individuals - land line, cell phone, internet, email, ... If you think only land line's are used you are sorely mistaken.

While one has to understand how polls are weighted and what questions were actually asked - always a good reason to look into the poll results instead of just assuming you understand what a given chart of the results is attempting to present to you, it is no way is a reason to dismiss polling as a whole.

An example of how Nate Silver's methodology can be found at http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/ - a key point being he is performing a weighted average of many polls (applying both positive and negative weighting to a large variety of polling data that is either known to be generally accurate or questionable).

While I'm of the mindset that numbers never lie, I also accept that they can be used to paint any picture you like by selectively choosing the questions asked and the the data presentation form. It's all a matter of digging deeper into polling to find the truth.

 

[JamieK]

I think gay marriage should be legal in the USA. But I find it disturbing that the views on it have changed so suddenly.

And then you see weird gay rights shit going on all over the news. Seems like the President is using an iron fist to legalize gay marriage. That's my guess at least as to who is behind this recent push.

I'm disturbed that you find it disturbing that view have changed so suddenly.

Most pointless thread ever.

 

[Contra Studio]

Here's my take on this as yes I am a follower of Christ.
A lot of my family is gay, and I'm 100% cool with how ever they want to leave it anyone else. The argument is sound, the right to be happy or the right to love.... Who are we to say who and how one can love.... But (At least in the States) we need to provide that right to everyone. So when a father and a daughter love each other and want to marry or Sister and brother. Sounds whack but it happens, and we too need to provide these people the same right. Some people come to the states from other country's with their different views on marriage. I live on the boarder next to Mexico and kids are seen to be adults at the age of 13, and many family's do allow their kids to marry at that age in Mexico and live here with their spouse and most of the time there older men.... I find that sad but again, who are we to say how one Marries or loves. All I'm saying is if we in the states need to be fair to others view in marriage and allow others to fulfill their right to happiness.

 

[SocialNumb]

Damn Christians!

I can't believe what I just read. What the actual fuck is going on in that head of yours? Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and kill the fucker who made up Jesus.

 

[egan.]

I'm 100% good with marriage equality.
My post was directed to how polls are done. Like I said who the fuck has a land line anymore?
So I don't really have much faith in polls.

Jind's post covers it but I'll add that my mobile was hit up a couple of time by pollsters in the last election. In fact, one could make the case that the adaptation of polling to modern realities over the last 5-10 years has increased accuracy which contributes to the apparent swing in opinion.
That said, I think the 80 million new young voters and 45 million dead old people help too.

 

[egan.]

Here's my take on this as yes I am a follower of Christ.
A lot of my family is gay, and I'm 100% cool with how ever they want to leave it anyone else. The argument is sound, the right to be happy or the right to love.... Who are we to say who and how one can love.... But (At least in the States) we need to provide that right to everyone. So when a father and a daughter love each other and want to marry or Sister and brother. Sounds whack but it happens, and we too need to provide these people the same right. Some people come to the states from other country's with their different views on marriage. I live on the boarder next to Mexico and kids are seen to be adults at the age of 13, and many family's do allow their kids to marry at that age in Mexico and live here with their spouse and most of the time there older men.... I find that sad but again, who are we to say how one Marries or loves. All I'm saying is if we in the states need to be fair to others view in marriage and allow others to fulfill their right to happiness.

This is a tired argument.
Legally marriage is a domestic contract between two adults. The reason your child-bride scenario doesn't work is children can't be legally bound to contracts. Secondly, children can't legally consent to get fucked by old men because they lack the cognitive development to process the situation.
As far as adult incest is concerned, my understanding is that those limitations exist for medical reasons so that we don't accidentally make a bunch of British royalty.

 

[SocialNumb]

^ Brits

It's just the "what next? People marrying animals?" Argument with a different dress.

 

[Jind]

The old "slippery slope" that can be made to counter any effort for change. The biggest scapegoat argument ever for those incapable of coming up with reality based reasons against any action. Any possibility can be taken to ridiculous extremes where things like sensible gun control questions become "there coming to take my guns and enslave us all in their uniquely totalitarian, yet also remarkably socialist commune (boggle)..." or "if we allow two men and two women to marry the next step is legalized pedophilia and marrying cats..."

It's simply the last ditch effort of once reasonable men that succumb to that loser rat hole of arguing a topic with a tired old trope of the "slippery slope".

 

[Contra Studio]

This is a tired argument.
Legally marriage is a domestic contract between two adults. The reason your child-bride scenario doesn't work is children can't be legally bound to contracts. Secondly, children can't legally consent to get fucked by old men because they lack the cognitive development to process the situation.
As far as adult incest is concerned, my understanding is that those limitations exist for medical reasons so that we don't accidentally make a bunch of British royalty.

I agree with the Brit deal, but it's no joke with the marriage of adults with kids. It's sad but it happens, the worse part is the kids involved in it are blinded into believing they are adults and truly love their spouse. I bring it up cause my Cuz was involved with that... They get married in Mexico and come to the states.....

 

[egan.]

But you are missing my point. The government's role in marriage should be contract enforcement and contracts have to be between adults of sound mind. If some backwoods snake handling church wants to marry children in a non-legal capacity they can do that now.

 

[Glenn Fricker]

We've had gay marriage in Canada since 2005, and things are pretty much the same. The world still turns, religion is still bullshit, and life goes on. I don't even know why anyone is debating this.