Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans Favor Legalizing Gay Marriage

[Agorism]

Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans Favor Legalizing Gay Marriage


http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vqf79nrpfewws7ibh-1u-q.gif

[Kludge]

This poll is probably accurate as I have, in the past couple months, been swayed to believe legalizing gay marriage would be a mistake.

[Sentient Void]

It's such a non-issue too. Who fucking cares? Why go through all the trouble to turn this into an issue? Shit.

Here's an idea - if you *don't like gay marriage*, DON'T GET GAY MARRIED.

[ChaosControl]

I don't favor state recognition of marriage.
So that'd automatically make me on against side.

[Elwar]

Too bad the question is about gay marriage and not the government role in marriage.

It's like any issue where one group is being subsidized by the government and another group wants in on the action...the wrong question is always asked.

[tpreitzel]

No ... Marriages shouldn't be politicized with a government license.

[Sentient Void]

No ... Marriages shouldn't be politicized with a government license.

Of course they shouldn't. But they are.

It is what it is. You can't pick and choose what to recognize and what not to. Either recognize all of it or recognize none of it.

You guys who don't want to legalize it are being completely inconsistent.

[Kludge]

Of course they shouldn't. But they are.

It is what it is. You can't pick and choose what to recognize and what not to. Either recognize all of it or recognize none of it.

You guys who don't want to legalize it are being completely inconsistent.
That's not true. At least CC (-- and I agree) favor delegalizing marriage entirely. I personally am not legally married and consider ourselves (legally) to be in a domestic partnership, not for any commitment reasons, but because having to ask the state permission for their blessing to be "married" is degrading and offensive - and currently not financially advantageous.

[BamaAla]

What if my girlfriend and I don't want to get married? Shouldn't we get the same benefits that gay and straight couples get?

[Anti Federalist]

It's such a non-issue too. Who fucking cares? Why go through all the trouble to turn this into an issue? Shit.

Here's an idea - if you *don't like gay marriage*, DON'T GET GAY MARRIED.

No shit, that ^^^

Everybody is in an uproar over this, frankly idiotic, issue, meanwhile, cops are beating innocent old men half to death in their driveways and federal "officers" are putting their hands down people's pants at the airport, and the wars go on.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Of course they shouldn't. But they are.

It is what it is. You can't pick and choose what to recognize and what not to. Either recognize all of it or recognize none of it.

You guys who don't want to legalize it are being completely inconsistent.

Wanted to quote this. 100% agree.

[Sentient Void]

What if my girlfriend and I don't want to get married? Shouldn't we get the same benefits that gay and straight couples get?

Of course. I completely agree with you. I also agree with Kludge above that having to ask the state for a blessing is degrading and offensive - but it's not just that - it's legal issues, tax issues, etc.

You can't pick and choose. I'd prefer abolishing the legal issues and tax issues surrounding marriage altogether. The state has no business in it. But the fact remains, they are in it. So they should recognize all marriage contracts, or get out of it altogether. The worst situation is allowing some and not others. That's just pure bullshit.

[tpreitzel]

Of course they shouldn't. But they are.

It is what it is. You can't pick and choose what to recognize and what not to. Either recognize all of it or recognize none of it.

You guys who don't want to legalize it are being completely inconsistent.

More nutty nonsense from a baby killer ... ;) I'm not being inconsistent one whit as my record has been consistently clear for decades. Didn't I just clearly state it for the umpteenth time? Yeah, I did. Wasn't it post #6? Yeah, it was! ;)

[Sentient Void]

More nutty nonsense from a baby killer ... ;) I'm not being inconsistent one whit as my record has been consistently clear for decades. Didn't I just clearly state it for the umpteenth time? Yeah, I did. ;)

You're not historically inconsistent, you're being logically inconsistent - and recognizing some individuals voluntary contracts but not others as if the others are subhuman is not only logically inconsistent, but absolutely immoral.

You call me a 'baby killer', but I am not. I am personally pro-life and have never killed a baby in my life - but I don't have the audacity to claim I can nor should impose my view on others. I can more accurately call you a SLAVER - believing that you have a right to enslave women to the State, or to yourself, as if you have more of a right to her body, resources, and labor, than she does herself.

[BamaAla]

Of course. I completely agree with you. I also agree with Kludge above that having to ask the state for a blessing is degrading and offensive - but it's not just that - it's legal issues, tax issues, etc.

You can't pick and choose. I'd prefer abolishing the legal issues and tax issues surrounding marriage altogether. The state has no business in it. But the fact remains, they are in it. So they should recognize all marriage contracts, or acknowledge none. The worst situation is allowing some and not others. That's just pure bullshit.

I agree to a large extent, but I'm still not going to get giddy when the preferred class (those who choose to be married) gets expanded and the majority of people (those not married) are left in the dust. We aren't making "progress" on this issue; we are going backward.

[sofia]

its a sign of our decadence and pending destruction....Homosexuality has been associated with many dying civiizations of centuries past.

You people think we can actually have economic liberty in a society of moral degenerates?..Guess again. Morality and liberty walk hand in hand. Thats why the left poisons public morality with shit like this....they know that a society of familyless degenrates are easy pickings for enslavement.

Can I "marry" my dog?...My mom?....My sister?...My son?.....

[fisharmor]

What if my girlfriend and I don't want to get married? Shouldn't we get the same benefits that gay and straight couples get?

We should all get the same state-enforced benefits.
None.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

How about just legalizing freedom and let the chips fall where they may?

[Sentient Void]

its a sign of our decadence and pending destruction....Homosexuality has been associated with many dying civiizations of centuries past.

You people think we can actually have economic liberty in a society of moral degenerates?..Guess again. Morality and liberty walk hand in hand. Thats why the left poisons public morality with shit like this....they know that a society of familyless degenrates are easy pickings for enslavement.

You're making arbitrary assertions and none of it follows logically.

But even if you're absolutely 100% right... here's an idea.. uhhh, don't become a homosexual? Don't get gay married? That's your choice. If people want to be 'homosexual degenerates', isn't that their choice? What gives you the right to tell them what they can nor can't do with their own bodies, or whom they can nor can't freely associate with, in any way they like, as long as they aren't harming your or anyone's person or property or imposing their will on you or anyone?

[tpreitzel]

You're not historically inconsistent, you're being logically inconsistent - and recognizing some individuals voluntary contracts but not others as if the others are subhuman is not only logically inconsistent, but absolutely immoral.

You call me a 'baby killer', but I am not. I am personally pro-life and have never killed a baby in my life - but I don't have the audacity to claim I can nor should impose my view on others. I can more accurately call you a SLAVER - believing that you have a right to enslave women to the State, or to yourself, as if you have more of a right to her body, resources, and labor, than she does herself.

What? You have the audacity to use the word, logic? LoL ... I'd recommend rereading posts #6 and #13 again, but I'm not really sure you can comprehend the logic as you obviously adhere to a different version. ;) I'm serious unfortunately. What part of post #6 don't you understand, i.e. recognizes "some individuals voluntary contracts but not others" in your twisted world of illogic? Whoooo boy! :)

You naturally disregard the fetus' humanity in your twisted comparison of enforcing the rights of the fetus as slavery.... Whoooo boy! ;)

[Sentient Void]

What? You have the audacity to use the word, logic? LoL ... I'd recommend rereading posts #6 and #13 again, but I'm not really sure you can comprehend the logic as you obviously adhere to a different version. ;) I'm serious unfortunately. What part of post #6 don't you understand, i.e. recognizes "some individuals voluntary contracts but not others" in your twisted world of illogic? Whoooo boy! :)

You naturally disregard the fetus' humanity in your twisted comparison of enforcing the rights of the fetus as slavery.... Whoooo boy! ;)

You post is devoid of any actual substance. You make nothing but arbitrary assertions, and clearly aren't worth trying to have a logical discussion with on these issues.

[BlackTerrel]

Here's a more important question: does it matter what Americans think?

In my state we voted against it and then it was overturned by one gay judge. So clearly this isn't an issue that Americans get to decide.

[nolvorite]

Most people in the US are still Christians right? Because if they really think this through then most of them wouldn't vote for it.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Of course they shouldn't. But they are.

It is what it is. You can't pick and choose what to recognize and what not to. Either recognize all of it or recognize none of it.

You guys who don't want to legalize it are being completely inconsistent.


Exactly.

[Sentient Void]

Here's a more important question: does it matter what Americans think?

In my state we voted against it and then it was overturned by one gay judge. So clearly this isn't an issue that Americans get to decide.

On a moral basis, why do you even think that this is an issue that a majority of americans get to impose on a minority of americans in the first place??? Why do you believe a collective gets to decide on this issue? Why can't individuals?

The most minor minority in the world is the individual. A person gets their rights because they are a person. Let's say John is white, christian and gay. John gets his rights because he IS John, not because he's white, not because he's christian, and not because he's gay. Arguing for rights of a specific group does a disservice to humanity as a whole. You only have rights because every other individual has rights. Groupthink and the rights of a collective are antithetical to liberty and justice for all.

I support *individual rights*. Do you?

[Johncjackson]

I don't favor state recognition of marriage.
So that'd automatically make me on against side.


I agree with the first sentence, but I believe in equal application of the existing law, regardless of whether I like the law. So I would support recognition of same sex marriage IF marriage is recognized at all- which it is and probably always will be.

[QueenB4Liberty]

On a moral basis, why do you even think that this is an issue that a majority of americans get to impose on a minority of americans in the first place??? Why do you believe a collective gets to decide on this issue? Why can't individuals?

The most minor minority in the world is the individual. A person gets their rights because they are a person. Let's say John is white, christian and gay. John gets his rights because he IS John, not because he's white, not because he's christian, and not because he's gay. Arguing for rights of a specific group does a disservice to humanity as a whole. You only have rights because every other individual has rights. Groupthink and the rights of a collective are antithetical to liberty and justice for all.

I support *individual rights*. Do you?

+rep

[SovereignMN]

Gay marriage = kosher pig. It's an attempt by some to completely redefine a word to mean something it isn't supposed to mean. I believe homosexuality to be a sin but I would never advocate the government use force against those that practice it. However, to call it marriage just doesn't make sense, IMHO.

[Johncjackson]

On a moral basis, why do you even think that this is an issue that a majority of americans get to impose on a minority of americans in the first place??? Why do you believe a collective gets to decide on this issue? Why can't individuals?

The most minor minority in the world is the individual. A person gets their rights because they are a person. Let's say John is white, christian and gay. John gets his rights because he IS John, not because he's white, not because he's christian, and not because he's gay. Arguing for rights of a specific group does a disservice to humanity as a whole. You only have rights because every other individual has rights. Groupthink and the rights of a collective are antithetical to liberty and justice for all.

I support *individual rights*. Do you?

Exactly. And I also dislike the "states rights" cop out on a lot of issues. States don't have rights for one thing. They have powers. Constitutionally, they have more/different powers than the feds. However, I don't believe that anti-liberty laws on the state or local level are any better. I support liberty for the individual on all levels. This goes for drugs, too- where some often repeat the idea that Ron Paul only favors legalization on the federal level but ..wink wink.. wants to make all kinds of anti-liberty laws on the state level.

You have rights because you a person. Not because a state grants them.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Gay marriage = kosher pig. It's an attempt by some to completely redefine a word to mean something it isn't supposed to mean. I believe homosexuality to be a sin but I would never advocate the government use force against those that practice it. However, to call it marriage just doesn't make sense, IMHO.

a marriage is a union between two people. You could argue religion puts the man and the woman together, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's semantics.

[BuddyRey]

Most people in the US are still Christians right? Because if they really think this through then most of them wouldn't vote for it.

Not all Christians support government's involvement in marriage.

[Johncjackson]

Gay marriage = kosher pig. It's an attempt by some to completely redefine a word to mean something it isn't supposed to mean. I believe homosexuality to be a sin but I would never advocate the government use force against those that practice it. However, to call it marriage just doesn't make sense, IMHO.

I am a man, and I am married to a woman. I honestly see just about no difference between my marriage and the unions that many gay couples belong to.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I am a man, and I am married to a woman. I honestly see just about no difference between my marriage and the unions that many gay couples belong to.

Because there really isn't one.

[BlackTerrel]

On a moral basis, why do you even think that this is an issue that a majority of americans get to impose on a minority of americans in the first place??? Why do you believe a collective gets to decide on this issue? Why can't individuals?

We don't. It's an issue that should be decided by one gay judge in California.

They didn't tell me that my vote was meaningless though when I voted against gay marriage. They should have been up front about it and told me that the final ruling would come down to one gay judge.

[Zatch]

If gays want marriage licenses that is none of the government's business!! Also, keep the government out of my medicare! /sarcasm

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't favor state recognition of marriage.
So that'd automatically make me on against side.
+a zillion

[Ranger29860]

We don't. It's an issue that should be decided by one gay judge in California.

They didn't tell me that my vote was meaningless though when I voted against gay marriage. They should have been up front about it and told me that the final ruling would come down to one gay judge.

Just because the majority wants it does not make it right. The ruling against prop 8 was based on the view that the law was unconstitutional. If a law got passed that the majority voted on to let cops enter their house whenever they want would it be ok for a judge to overturn on a constitutional basis then?

[Anti Federalist]

We don't. It's an issue that should be decided by one gay judge in California.

They didn't tell me that my vote was meaningless though when I voted against gay marriage. They should have been up front about it and told me that the final ruling would come down to one gay judge.

State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.[1] Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century with many available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.[2] Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license.[1] At least 32 nations have established significant prohibitions on same-sex marriage.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence

[BamaAla]

Just because the majority wants it does not make it right. The ruling against prop 8 was based on the view that the law was unconstitutional. If a law got passed that the majority voted on to let cops enter their house whenever they want would it be ok for a judge to overturn on a constitutional basis then?

Someone needs to make Ranger abreast of the situation in Indiana.

I understand the argument that people make in favor of gay marriage, but I think it totally misses the point that the remedy is worse than the disease.

[ronpaulitician]

I favor criminalizing straight divorce.

[Ranger29860]

Someone needs to make Ranger abreast of the situation in Indiana.



ok explain it to me or send me links :)

[cubical]

How about letting the church decide who is married. Why does the government have to be involved? Was there a 3rd option on the poll?

[Carehn]

Of course they shouldn't. But they are.

It is what it is. You can't pick and choose what to recognize and what not to. Either recognize all of it or recognize none of it.

You guys who don't want to legalize it are being completely inconsistent.

Thats kinda what im saying. Though not yet.

[nbhadja]

Gay marriage = kosher pig. It's an attempt by some to completely redefine a word to mean something it isn't supposed to mean. I believe homosexuality to be a sin but I would never advocate the government use force against those that practice it. However, to call it marriage just doesn't make sense, IMHO.

The views in this forum against gay marriage reek of discrimination and freedom hating. People are being hypocrites.

Marriage is not a Christian invention. Marriages have been taking place for thousands and thousands of years BEFORE Christianity was created. Just because it does not match the Christian definition of marriage does not mean it is not a marriage. Christians did not invent marriage period.

No one can define what marriage is!

[iGGz]

Who gives a shit

[Ricky201]

The views in this forum against gay marriage reek of discrimination and freedom hating. People are being hypocrites.

Marriage is not a Christian invention. Marriages have been taking place for thousands and thousands of years BEFORE Christianity was created. Just because it does not match the Christian definition of marriage does not mean it is not a marriage. Christians did not invent marriage period.

No one can define what marriage is!

There are certain people on this forum that have a displeasing view of gay marriage. Some just disagree with it on a moral basis, but probably still associate with gays in general (my roommate being one of them). Most people here and even more so the people I meet IRL that are Ron Paul supporters are fairly LGBT friendly (even on "gay marriage") regardless of whether they find it a sin or not.

The fact is that gays already have rights in this country (as well as the privilege to privately marry) but they don't receive the benefits that heterosexual couples get for paying a fee to the government for a paper certificate recognizing their union. Technically the government is discriminatory towards heterosexual singles since they don't get the tax cuts that heterosexual married couples get either.

The whole debate has grown into an "accept my beliefs or else" debate and is a consequence of government intervention into our private lives and of our welfare system. Gays just want part of that entitlement pie that every other group of people feel like they're entitled too. If the government didn't guarantee such rights, than this would be strictly a moral debate (which can be just as annoying).

My boyfriend isn't the most libertarian guy, but at least he finds this whole gay marriage thing stupid and doesn't care for the government to be part of our relationship...I think I'm rubbing off on him a bit lol.

[Ricky201]

How about letting the church decide who is married. Why does the government have to be involved? Was there a 3rd option on the poll?

If you hadn't noticed, this country is fairly obsessed about having only two choices and picking the observed "lesser evil".

[Freedom 4 all]

No shit, that ^^^

Everybody is in an uproar over this, frankly idiotic, issue, meanwhile, cops are beating innocent old men half to death in their driveways and federal "officers" are putting their hands down people's pants at the airport, and the wars go on.

I literally could not agree more with everything you just said. I can totally see people who think abortion = murder get upset about that issue, but I can't for the life of me understand why non-gay people care about gay marriage one way or the other. Especially with about a zillion other far more important things going on in the country.

[BlackTerrel]

Just because the majority wants it does not make it right. The ruling against prop 8 was based on the view that the law was unconstitutional.

Then why did we even vote?

I don't think the constitution has anything in there about "gays must have the right to marry". I think it was one gay judge saying he didn't like the vote and that the voters of California could go fuck themselves.

[cubical]

If you hadn't noticed, this country is fairly obsessed about having only two choices and picking the observed "lesser evil".

lol, very true.

[LisaNY]

Who gives a shit

yup, just another divisive issue that has nothing to do with our being free and prosperous.

[specsaregood]

The views in this forum against gay marriage reek of discrimination and freedom hating.
This makes sense since the entire idea of govt marriage licensing was explictly created in order to legalize discrimination. The vast majority of this forum are not for such discrimination as their viewpoint is to get rid of govt marriage licenses. As usual, it is the government that keeps discrimination in place.

[COpatriot]

its a sign of our decadence and pending destruction....Homosexuality has been associated with many dying civiizations of centuries past.

You people think we can actually have economic liberty in a society of moral degenerates?..Guess again. Morality and liberty walk hand in hand. Thats why the left poisons public morality with shit like this....they know that a society of familyless degenrates are easy pickings for enslavement.

Can I "marry" my dog?...My mom?....My sister?...My son?.....

Who let Robertson in here?

[Jay Tea]

its a sign of our decadence and pending destruction....Homosexuality has been associated with many dying civiizations of centuries past.

You people think we can actually have economic liberty in a society of moral degenerates?..Guess again. Morality and liberty walk hand in hand. Thats why the left poisons public morality with shit like this....they know that a society of familyless degenrates are easy pickings for enslavement.

Can I "marry" my dog?...My mom?....My sister?...My son?.....

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/4/1240265992468.jpg

[Southron]

This is an issue best left to the states. Unfortunately, our kritocracy won't allow it. If you want to argue for gay marriage licenses in your state-fine. Just don't impose your morality on another state.

[ClayTrainor]

This is an issue best left to the states individuals. Unfortunately, our kritocracy won't allow it. If you want to argue for gay marriage licenses in your state- fine. Just don't impose your morality on another state individual.

fixed. :)

[MelissaWV]

Going the wrong way. We should be de-legalizing heterosexual marriage.

[Sola_Fide]

fixed. :)

True, but an acceptable middle point to me would be the states.

By the way, this thread is gay and wrongheaded anyway...

[Southron]

fixed. :)

For all intents and purposes, gay marriage is already legal. All most are arguing for is to be licensed by their government.

[Sola_Fide]

This makes sense since the entire idea of govt marriage licensing was explictly created in order to legalize discrimination. The vast majority of this forum are not for such discrimination as their viewpoint is to get rid of govt marriage licenses. As usual, it is the government that keeps discrimination in place.

^^^that.

[BlackTerrel]

This is an issue best left to the states. Unfortunately, our kritocracy won't allow it. If you want to argue for gay marriage licenses in your state-fine. Just don't impose your morality on another state.

CA already tried that. Didn't work.

[Peace&Freedom]

And that is why gay marriage must be opposed, in the interests of liberty. As a matter of civil government, Liberty is not furthered by increasing still further the number of government privileges, as we should be getting the government out of marriage altogether. Every government that has tried to legalize gay marriage has ended up expanding the state, in order to impose its acceptance upon the rest of the population. As a matter of morality, marriage is a holy religious rite that honors the God of liberty---but homosexuality and other immorality does not honor that God and is emphatically UNholy. God cannot sanctify sexual immoral acts as holy, so there can be no such thing as gay marraige.

[Anti Federalist]

its a sign of our decadence and pending destruction....Homosexuality has been associated with many dying civiizations of centuries past.

You people think we can actually have economic liberty in a society of moral degenerates?..Guess again. Morality and liberty walk hand in hand. Thats why the left poisons public morality with shit like this....they know that a society of familyless degenrates are easy pickings for enslavement.

Can I "marry" my dog?...My mom?....My sister?...My son?.....

sofia was right.


Everybody is in an uproar over this, frankly idiotic, issue, meanwhile, cops are beating innocent old men half to death in their driveways and federal "officers" are putting their hands down people's pants at the airport, and the wars go on.

I was wrong.