Most Americans support gay marriage

"Favored" ?
No.

"Acceptance" is the word the study used.

Leave it to the Freep to get it wrong.


Copy and paste less.... research and speak for yourself more.
Rule 11 and all....

 

I wrote this last year, when SCOTUS rejected an appeal from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin:

The death knell for anti-gay haters is knocking at their door, and they know it, hence the extra heated growls and rancor as each state's ban gets knocked down.

And even if

Even if ...

these Courts were not ruling in favor of Equality as fast as they as -- and even if this SCOTUS did not reject this appeal...

the real death knell --

Top line, third number over:

 

You must be new here, welcome to the insane asylum. You're going to hear some of the most vicious lies told about us that you will ever hear. Chin up though, this is their last refuge.

 

I say it's immoral. It's been considered immoral for centuries. The premise of the person who started this thread was that support for homosexual marriage has changed dramatically in 25 years. Why? Because more people now think that homosexuality is acceptable, and that is because more people have rejected traditional morals.

No.

Now, I answered your questions, quid quo pro.

Is it moral for an adult male to have sex with a 13 year old girl?

I know it is illegal, but do you say it is immoral?

 

Why is it immoral?

 

So your excuse is to use a logical fallacy of "Well it's been that way, that's why we should ban it"? Pathetic. Here's a hint, if you think it is immoral, don't do it yourself. There, solved.

Then why is you are ok with immoral things being legal. There are LOTS of things legal that are immoral as well. Why aren't you petitioning to make them illegal, why aren't you vocally fighting them?

In our society, yes I think it is immoral. However, it doesn't matter what "I" think. What our society has now are rules and laws in regards to age of consent and penalties for breaking those laws because it has been learned children are not fully developed mentally or able to handle adult situations in a mature manner.

Now, you may disagree with that and think it is ok to diddle a 14 year old, however, society has deemed it inappropriate for you to do so and created laws to protect the child.

So, if you find something immoral, DON'T do it yourself and you'll be fine with whatever sky fairy you believe in.

 

Sorry, you haven't answered my question. Quid quo pro.

 

I think most people are just sick and tired of hearing about something they can't change anyway. You can only beat a dead horse for so long before your shoulder goes out.

 

Coalition of African American Pastors ?? Nice try Barney. I'm still here and I'm not going to let you get away with this. The CAAP is affiliated with some of the most rabidly anti gay bigots around

Now here is some truth:

 

Nice dodge! But yes, diddling little girls is immoral for very good reasons- it does lots of damage mentally. Do you like to diddle little girls, is that why you ask? Why would you use that as a comparison to two adults getting married? It scares me that you don't know the difference between adults and children.

 

So if the majority of a society believes it is moral (and it's legal in that society) to chop the heads off those who do not adhere to their religion, that's perfectly acceptable behavior in that society and we have no business sticking our noses in to that society and telling them it's immoral and should be illegal.

I didn't say I was OK with it

Who says that I'm not?

So if society says that homosexuality is immoral, it is OK for society to make it illegal.

I know society considers it illegal, I want to know if YOU, as an individual, think that is immoral? You are copping out of answering the question.

So if I think rape moral, it's perfectly fine for me to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

So a 13 year old girl is a "little girl" and its immoral to have sex with her. How about a 16 year old girl? Is that immoral?

 

You do realize that all of your bloviating is irrelevant to the outcome , don't you?

 

I see you have adopted the same position as the Iranians with respect to nuclear arms.

 

It doesn't have to be war if people like you would just come to your senses and realize that nothing is really going to change for most people with gay marriage being legal, while greatly improving the lives of gay people. Why are you so upset about this?? Trust me the sky will not fall. If you don't read the news, you won't even know when it happens.

 

You confuse moral with legal, again.

Haven't seen any posts from you on the other immoral, yet legal things. Care to show us?

"OK" is subjective. If you are talking about OUR society, no, it isn't ok because we have a constitution that protects people, including homosexuals.

Um I already answered you in an above quote (in fact you included that quote), maybe you should take a little better time reading than foaming at the mouth.

Show me where it is legal for you to do so and show me how the constitution protects you in raping someone.

Yet again, immoral is subjective. There was a time in our country where doing just that was LEGAL if you were married. It isn't now. So were the founding fathers immoral or moral? We are discussing what is LEGAL. Right now, it is LEGAL in some states to marry a 16 year old with parental consent.

So out of curiosity, what are you going to do when SSM becomes legal. Are you going to leave the U.S. I mean it will be an immoral nation according to you, why would you stay?

 

I happen to believe that these people are right:


We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)


Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence


Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877


Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom.
Patrick Henry


I never … believed there was one code of morality for a public and another for a private man.
Thomas Jefferson, In a letter to Don Valentine de Feronda, 1809

 

I bet the Justices are already working on their findings.

 

Yup, I think that they already decided. They still have to go through the motion of holding oral arguments thought. Imagine the outrage on the right if they just said, to hell with it. We've herd enough already. Head would explode. Well, they will anyway. I'm looking forward.

 

I only personally know a relatively small number of gay people, yet most of my large circle of friends whose views I know are in favor of it as well. It's legal in my state right now. If I hadn't been made aware of that by the news, I wouldn't have noticed. Nothing is different.

 

birds of a feather.......

 

We'd be astounded if you did NOT surround yourself with bigots. But you might explain to us how your life has become awful.

 

^This!

Most people have no dog in that fight. And while some do certainly have a firm stance on it, most simply default to the politically correct position because it's what they think they're supposed to do. Just as they defaulted to the opposite position in the '80s. Because the average person doesn't think deeply about many things. So in order to avoid social consequences when a controversial subject comes up in conversation, they simply look around to see what everybody else is doing and follow the herd. Decades of heavy propaganda have changed the direction of the herd. But the herd is still just as mindless as ever.

If there were no social ramifications (bullying) for opposing same sex marriage, you would see a lot more varied answers on the subject from the gen-pop.

 

People say one thing to the pollsters, then do another in the voting booth. That is all that means.
People are becoming afraid of the witch hunt for anti-gay heretics.

 

Nonsense, of course. I agree with Unifier that few people have a dog in the fight. In fact, in a perfect world only gays would have any dogs, and so they'd have nobody to fight against. Same sex marriage harms nobody, in fact it doesn't even threaten anyone with anything. It's a non-starter unless people whose business it isn't decide to MAKE it their business.

I read a fascinating study once, where they re-worded the Bill of Rights into common vernacular, and went door to door asking if people would approve of laws like that. And the large majority said NO. It's one of those odd truths that most people, given the choice, would rather deny rights to others that they themselves enjoy, even if granting others the same rights does them no harm at all.

And so we have these ballot initiatives that say essentially "should this state prohibit people you don't know from enjoying the same rights you do" and sure enough, the large majority in nearly every state said yes. In the words of the immortal Pogo, we have met the enemy and they is us.

 

You know what's really annoying? Stupid unsubstantiated statements like, "Same sex marriage harms nobody".
Prove it. What if I were to say, "Same sex marriage is detrimental to society"? Prove that wrong. You can't.