Author Topic: ABC/Washington Post poll shows majority of Americans support gay marriage.  (Read 686 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
According to a just released ABC/Washington Post poll the majority of Americans support Gay Marriage the first time in the polls history and a marked 17 point increase, with a 9 percent increase among conservatives and larger increases among liberals and moderates. What's more 53 percent think their state should recognize gay marriages made out of state. That's over half the country.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Obama100days/story?id=7459488&a
mp;page=1

 

"...Take gay marriage, legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut and now Iowa, with Vermont coming aboard in September. At its low, in 2004, just 32 percent of Americans favored gay marriage, with 62 percent opposed. Now 49 percent support it versus 46 percent opposed -- the first time in ABC/Post polls that supporters have outnumbered opponents.

More than half, moreover -- 53 percent -- say gay marriages held legally in another state should be recognized as legal in their states.

The surprise is that the shift has occurred across ideological groups. While conservatives are least apt to favor gay marriage, they've gone from 10 percent support in 2004 to 19 percent in 2006 and 30 percent now -- overall a 20-point, threefold increase, alongside a 13-point gain among liberals and 14 points among moderates. (Politically, support for gay marriage has risen sharply among Democrats and independents alike, while far more slightly among Republicans.)..."

Social Buttons


Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I'm really not against gay marriage.

But I do think a lot of the people for it are hypocrites, because they don't support the rights of other nontraditional unions such as polygamy.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
They don't? are you sure?

I support any policy that gives people equal legal rights. If you want to marry a man, a woman, 2 men, 2 women, a man and a woman at the same time, or whatever combination of the above. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to. As long as you obey the law, fulfill basic social obligations, and contribute to society.

I am very happy about this, it shows a great increase in understanding among Americans as a whole.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
My views on marriage are that it has always been a very poor blend of religious and legal. Either take the religion out of it all together, or make it totally religious and let the Church deal with divorces, and who can marry in the first place and why or why not. I still think that's fair; if you don't like the stringency of qualifying for a Catholic Marriage, get a Unitarian Marriage.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
I agree, religious and secular communities should self regulate their moral and cultural traditions without state interference.

The state must only recognize and protect the liberty of people and their equality before the law. It has no need to enforce a single minded view of how one should live. As long as ones life has no negative effects on others, they should be allowed to do what they wish, the way they wish.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I'm really not against gay marriage.

But I do think a lot of the people for it are hypocrites, because they don't support the rights of other nontraditional unions such as polygamy.


Meh, that's besides the point though I do agree. I support polygamy and even incestual couples as long as they are between consenting adults.

I draw the line at consent (for obvious logical reasons that are easy to arrive at), so bestiality and child marriage are out of the question.

I do think age of consent laws are very flawed though in some instances and should probably be lower which would allow for some minors to "consent" to marriage, however that's a completely separate argument.

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
My views on marriage are that it has always been a very poor blend of religious and legal. Either take the religion out of it all together, or make it totally religious and let the Church deal with divorces, and who can marry in the first place and why or why not. I still think that's fair; if you don't like the stringency of qualifying for a Catholic Marriage, get a Unitarian Marriage.

I find the idea of making marriage completely religious in nature to be not only unwarranted (historically speaking) but also highly impractical to implement given all the current legal entanglements regarding the process. Marriage in this country at least is a civil state institution it never has been a religious one (in this country), though religions of all types have marriage rights they do not dictate official recognition of who is married and who is not the state does.

Most fundamentalist Christians don't understand this and that is where a large amount of conflict arises regarding this topic.

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I wish you could see where the Catholics were coming from, though. A lot of people in America are Catholics, and in their faith marriage has always been religious. They have certain laws and customs regarding marriage that they can't keep because the law doesn't support them, the most notable and disturbing being the ban on divorce; people can just get a legal divorce anyway.

What I would do for Catholics, were I in power, is allow them to draw up a legal Catholic marriage. And the law would support them, obviously even as a dictator I can't handcuff two people together, but if they separate, no more marriage licenses, and they're still legally married.

You wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? Allowing Catholics to create terms for their own marriages? Obviously even a Catholic isn't forced to enter into a Catholic Marriage. Gays could still get legally married, I'd just allow individual religions and their individual definitions to exclude whoever they like or add or take away whatever they like from their definitions of marriage, if it's in keeping with their own customs.

I don't think fundamentalist Christians should be able to tell you no about this - but neither do I think that their religious authority should be undermined; let them have their own form of marriage, if that makes them feel better.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
The way I see it, religious communities already have the power to enforce their rules, its called excommunication. If Catholics want to stand up to divorce they should start damming people to hell over it.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The way I see it, religious communities already have the power to enforce their rules, its called excommunication. If Catholics want to stand up to divorce they should start damming damning people to hell Hell over it.

I Can concede that... Largely. Excommunication seems flaccid and impotent in a world where next door, the people living there don't even accept those rules. I have no problem creating a legal institution specifically for people who accept from the outset that marriage isn't something you can just get out of.

There's still the problem of religious fundamentalists not wanting to be a part of the same unions gays can now partake in. As much as I hate these people and their moral superiority and denunciations, I can truthfully see where they're coming from, and there's no reason they shouldn't be accommodated. After all, while marriage has been a legal union in this country, it existed long before as a way to keep the community civilised. Without it, men would either **** or cohabit briefly then leave, and women who could not compete - and were not allowed to compete - for labour, would not be able to support the offspring.

This has existed since time immemorial, and was put in religious context because people pretty much universally obeyed religious law, at least on the surface.

So I can see where they're coming from. I'd give any religion that wanted it their own type of marriage defined as they wish (within the limits of the law and decency, obviously nothing that says beating your wife is permissible or anything of that nature) and I'd back them up with the full extent of the law. They'd be happier that way, and wouldn't need to force their definitions of marriage on anyone else.

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The way I see it, religious communities already have the power to enforce their rules, its called excommunication. If Catholics want to stand up to divorce they should start damming damning people to hell Hell over it.

I Can concede that... Largely. Excommunication seems flaccid and impotent in a world where next door, the people living there don't even accept those rules. I have no problem creating a legal institution specifically for people who accept from the outset that marriage isn't something you can just get out of.

There's still the problem of religious fundamentalists not wanting to be a part of the same unions gays can now partake in. As much as I hate these people and their moral superiority and denunciations, I can truthfully see where they're coming from, and there's no reason they shouldn't be accommodated. After all, while marriage has been a legal union in this country, it existed long before as a way to keep the community civilised. Without it, men would either **** or cohabit briefly then leave, and women who could not compete - and were not allowed to compete - for labour, would not be able to support the offspring.

This has existed since time immemorial, and was put in religious context because people pretty much universally obeyed religious law, at least on the surface.

So I can see where they're coming from. I'd give any religion that wanted it their own type of marriage defined as they wish (within the limits of the law and decency, obviously nothing that says beating your wife is permissible or anything of that nature) and I'd back them up with the full extent of the law. They'd be happier that way, and wouldn't need to force their definitions of marriage on anyone else.


Nope, I'm against legal authority for religions for the same reason I'm against Mormon courts and Sharia law. We are a secular nation. If they don't like that they can leave and go live in the vatican where divorce is handled under vatican law.

Religious rights stop where they interfere with the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual as far as I'm concerned.

Which is why I am against a whole host or "religious rights", including child indoctrination and circumcision.

Ultimately I'd like nothing better then to see religion fade from the conscience of humanity all together.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
This problem stems from the collapse of community networks which resulted from the industrial revolution which allowed common people to travel for the first time since the fall of the roman empire.

Because families no longer create bonds and form communities with commonly accepted traditions and practices, there really is no moral authority outside of religious institutions which were always just a part of the social network, and not a monolithic force that could remain stable by itself.

I think we should encourage community organization and the formation of local clubs, traditions, parties, and councils that mix secular, religious, and cultural practices. I even think local governments should embrace and support such efforts. But I draw the line at imposing laws made by them. If people want to brake such laws, we should empower the groups that make them to eject these people from their groups, but beyond that they should be free to live however they want.

This is necessary to maintain a stable society, if such measures are not taken. Eventually the country will collapse.

"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I could have a competition with Sandy about who hates religion more. I might even win. But I still understand that a lot of the waning morality in the world comes from people who have had to be brainwashed into being moral: The Religious.

And I wouldn't allow anyone to have marriages that go against the laws of the country. Again, nothing like "beating your wife is acceptable" or "you may **** her". But allowing for more than one definition of marriage is a logical step, I think.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
I'd agree with that, if religious groups want their own exclusive brand of marriage than why would gay people want to participate in such a bigoted "club?" As far as I am concerned, gay marriage is necessary, but religious groups can have their own marriage separate from the legal secular one.

You can have catholic marriage, Islamic marriage, Protestant marriage, Jewish marriage, pagan marriage, hell you can have satanic marriage. Let religions set up their own rules, and have them use their religious authority to enforce them.

I don't see the problem here, and I personally view religion as essential, not because I am religious, but because the religion acts as a moral glue, until a secular power whether private or public fills the role of determining morality and culture, you need religion.

I personally think we should encourage secular alternatives to religion, philosophical and political parties would be idea, as well as cultural, and regional clubs and neighborhood associations, councils, ect.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
This problem stems from the collapse of community networks which resulted from the industrial revolution which allowed common people to travel for the first time since the fall of the roman empire.

Because families no longer create bonds and form communities with commonly accepted traditions and practices, there really is no moral authority outside of religious institutions which were always just a part of the social network, and not a monolithic force that could remain stable by itself.

I think we should encourage community organization and the formation of local clubs, traditions, parties, and councils that mix secular, religious, and cultural practices. I even think local governments should embrace and support such efforts. But I draw the line at imposing laws made by them. If people want to brake such laws, we should empower the groups that make them to eject these people from their groups, but beyond that they should be free to live however they want.

This is necessary to maintain a stable society, if such measures are not taken. Eventually the country will collapse.

I want a weaker culture not a stronger one. Most aspects of culture are illogical and unneeded, not to mention problematic.

That said, I don't think it's the government's job to be promoting any kind of community organization let alone religious institutions which is strictly prohibited in the Constitution.