Gay unions

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:34 pm

I think the category implies no close family or friends. And it's safe to say that lots of people fall into that category without being in any denial. My wife, for example, has no cousins at all (straight or gay). And she was raised in a very rural area, small town. It's safe to say she doesn't have any gay friends or family. So they may not be liars.

I just think the numbers in each category are really interesting. I don't know what they mean, and I rarely put much stock in the accuracy of polls. But there do seem to be some patterns that I was genuinely surprised to see.

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:43 pm

such as?

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:00 pm

I just thought there would be more support for gay marriage in several of those categories. Like, I was really surprised that 51% of Democrats polled opposed gay marriage, and only 36% support it. The Republican stats are not surprising at all. Independent people seem to lean right in this poll. I'm very surprised that in no category does support outweigh opposition. I'm surprised that the overall number from 1996 is not dramatically different from now (65% opposition then vs. 62% opposition now). And I'm surprised by the figures in the "have a gay friend/family member" category, mostly the "not sure" number. I would think that having friends/family members that were gay would be more of a catylist to deciding one way or the other how one felt about the issue.

Again, I don't know what any of it really means, or if the figures matter. I just find statistics interesting, and this one related to a thread on here.

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:43 am

Actually, Noise, it looks to me like support outways disapproval on the 18-34 group, which is by far the most interesting stat here since it's dramatically different from the rest.

This is the first time in ages I've seen young people being more liberal than older folks on any poll. (Though young people do, in general, tend to be more socially liberal, as opposed to issues relating to the economy, defense, or even free speech/religion, which seems to confuse people, i.e., everyone for free speech and religion as long...as long as it doesn't offend them.)

I think the reason most people are against it is that most folks are unable to distinguish between personal disapproval of something and whether or not it should be legal. As liberal as I am, I have absolutely no problem with a religious person believing that gay marriage is not the real thing in the eyes of God or whomever for whatever reasons. That's an intramural question for Christians to resolve, or not, amongst themselves.

I just don't believe ANYONE's religious views, Judeo-Christ should any influence on U.S. law, and I don't understand why people just can't come to grips with the idea that there's no reason they have to in any way approve of or condone other people's marriages.

I, for one, don't condone the thought of any woman being attracted to, much less marrying Bill O'Reilly, esp. while I'm still available. Still, if he's not married now, I'm sure he will be one day. Nothing I can do about it, yet I've adjusted to that fact. Don't understand at all why this is so difficult for other people.

Hey, folks, here's an idea -- how about a "Defense of Marriage Act" in which marriage to Bill O'Reilly is strictly forbidden, since any marriage to this vile, self-infatuated, untruthful, hypocrite on a massive scale is clearly a perversion of the sacred institution and not what the good Lord intended. I'm sure some of you have other people you'd like to expand this law to include....

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:42 am

Bobster,

You are quite right about that demographic. Support aoutweighs opposition, and it is dramatically different. That's a very interesting pattern as well, especially considering the age group it represents.

Thanks for pointing out what I missed.

This is a question, perhaps for another thread altogether:

Can laws really be completely amoral, i.e completely separate from religious views?

HungupStrungup · Post by **HungupStrungup** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:50 am

noiseradio wrote:This is a question, perhaps for another thread altogether:

Can laws really be completely amoral, i.e completely separate from religious views?

Although I disagree with your use of "immoral," the answer is yes.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:45 am

Hungup, "amoral" and "immoral" do not mean the same thing. "Amoral" means "being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply." Noise's use of the word was correct.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 9:33 am

Thank you so much, Miss B.A.

Whether laws can be immoral is another interesting question, though.

El Vez · Post by **El Vez** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:10 am

bobster wrote: I, for one, don't condone the thought of any woman being attracted to, much less marrying Bill O'Reilly, esp. while I'm still available.

There's always the personals over at The Onion. It worked for me!

HungupStrungup · Post by **HungupStrungup** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:00 am

miss buenos aires wrote:Hungup, "amoral" and "immoral" do not mean the same thing. "Amoral" means "being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply." Noise's use of the word was correct.

I apologise to ms. b.a., mr. noise and anyone else I may have confused with my post. I'm well aware that "amoral" and "immoral" are different; that was a silly typo on my part. I plead "just one cup of coffee" brainlock.

But my point was, or should have been, that morality, ethics, and even the very notions of good and evil on which the law should be based, are not the exclusive province of religion.

I think I'll catch up on the other thread before posting more.

firebetty · Post by **firebetty** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:12 am

noise,
i guess it isn't funny when i steal a joke from chris rock?

cosmos · Post by **cosmos** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:41 am

If the Americans on this board don't like the government, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!! I sure as hell didn't vote Bush into office, but now I'm laughing because SOMEBODY did vote him in. And get ready, because if the Democrats do actually come up with a halfway viable candidate (which I'm convinced they won't), Bush is going to pass as many "conservative-based" laws as possible through before he is done. Someone needs to step up for the Democratic Party soon!!

Good luck and everyone take care......I'm done with the net for a while!!

HungupStrungup · Post by **HungupStrungup** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:45 pm

cosmos wrote:I sure as hell didn't vote Bush into office, but now I'm laughing because SOMEBODY did vote him in.

If memory serves, that would be the Supreme Court.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:16 pm

Ooooh, Hungup. Let's please continue that thought (good and evil...not being the exclusive province of religion, etc....)

But really maybe this discussion would be best carried out on the other thread. It's not about gay unions, and people may want to continue that discussion here. I don't want to hijack it.

Firebetty,

I feel very stupid. You even had all those laughing smileys. I'm sorry that I didn't catch the joke.

I've even seen the Chris Rock act where that joke comes from. No excuse...

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:28 pm

El Vez wrote:
bobster wrote: I, for one, don't condone the thought of any woman being attracted to, much less marrying Bill O'Reilly, esp. while I'm still available.
There's always the personals over at The Onion. It worked for me!

They have personals at the Onion?!

Well, I guess I can rest assured that my nemesis, Bill O'Reilly, won't be competing with me there at that den of lefty comedy. Thanks for the tip, El Vez...I'm on the prowl

Elvis Costello Fan Forum

Gay unions

Is it okay for homosexuals to get married?

thread taken care of ("Mission Accomplished!")

mea culpa

a joke by another name