Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets see how this poll will turn out. Are you in favour of Federal law allowing gay couples to marry anywhere in United States?
As for now gay mariage is legal in 9 states - Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusets, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the DC. And California is next in line, Illinois is planniing on legalising gay marriage too.
It is also legal in Canada since 2005.
Unless forced by the SCOTUS, California isn't likely, because the voters in that state have resoundingly defeated it (Prop 8).
Your poll here is meaningless, on a forum with more homosexuals (here to promote their agenda), as a percent of total participants, than the percent of the population of the United States which is homosexual (at most, 3%).
A recent article by Dean Kalahar that appeared on American Thinker states the case plainly, along with the statistics on homosexuality world wide: Articles: The Annulment of Same-sex Marriage
Quote:
"According to five studies compiled by Gary Gates of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and
Public Policy at UCLA, the United States has approximately four million homosexual adults representing
about 1.7 percent of the population. Other studies show the U.S. Census Bureau finding that homosexual
couples constitute less than 1% of American households while The Family Research Report says homosexuals
make up about 2.5% of the population, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates approximately
6% of the population is homosexual.
Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end average of homosexuals in the U.S. would
be approximately 3% of the population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are the ones
championing the cause to change the definition of marriage since the issue most affects them. Furthermore,
since not all homosexuals believe in same sex marriage, homosexuals that actually wish to redefine marriage
diminish the already small numbers even further."
Quote:
From a nominal standpoint, do these facts reach a level of statistical significance to even grant the same sex
marriage debate legitimate consideration in a nation that understands the historic nature of institutions that
hold civilized societies together? Sadly however, it does not take a lot of people to make a ton of noise and
create the illusion of a mass movement.
The numbers tell us homosexual marriage is a false argument hiding behind a politically-correct bandwagon
because Americans have been told it is the tolerant and progressive thing to believe. After all, who wants to
have to answer to charges of homophobia, the default position thrown at anyone who dare challenge the
agenda?
Those who believe in overturning traditional marriage have run a well-marketed campaign of victimhood and
oppression tied to identity politics; where politicians are all too happy to champion sub-groups of the
population to garner votes.
Quote:
Majority rights with minority protections must be respected. But this canon does not mean that minority
demands must not be questioned. To apply same-sex marriage to the 14th Amendment passed on behalf of
freed slaves who were previously considered property and not citizens is intellectual malpractice. Every
American has the same "equal protections" in civil/criminal law, contract and property rights.
As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights. No law prohibits any man or woman
from marrying a member of the opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family.
Marriage contracts are not about feelings, orientation, emotions or desires of adults. Government sponsorship
of marriage sanctions biological fact with a legal commitment between a man and a woman to form a family,
procreate and raise children. This institutional contract offers the best-case scenario for the development of
children by promoting the family institution and ensuring the survival of civilized human existence. There
may be other less optimal situations where kids are raised, but the government must defend the biological
family unit in its legal determination of marriage.
Your poll here is meaningless, on a forum with more homosexuals (here to promote their agenda), as a percent of total participants, than the percent of the population of the United States which is homosexual (at most, 3%).
You are correct. CD Forum has become LGBT central. Suggestions to create a gay subforum are ignored because they want to inject their activist posts into every possible sub-forum.
Good poll - a limited number of clear questions that don't themselves advocate a particular position. And the results so far aren't surprising. People here are reflecting the trend nationwide to favor equality for gays, and the belief that equality means far more than simply living together.
I am heterosexual - my wife and I are coming up on our 38th wedding anniversary in the fall. We both support gay marriage, even though we fall into the demographic (long in the tooth) that is the least likely to be supportive. We have two children, both in their 30s - one supports gay marriage and the other doesn't.
To me, the article quoted above - the stuff about "level of statistical significance" - is nonsense. Equality is not based on numbers, but what is just. Should we as a society prevent green-eyed left-handed redheads from marrying because that slice of our population doesn't rise to the "level of statistical significance"?
Despite our differences - our seemingly vast differences at times - Americans tend to favor a way of life in which people are treated fairly. Same-sex marriage comes down to fairness and equality. It's as simple as that.
And please ... no dumb-as-dirt arguments about a person marrying a dog.
Most arguments against gay marriage involve either:
A) Religious views
B) This idea that "traditional marriage" requires a penis and vagina to be present
"A" is the weakest argument. Religion has no place in this discussion at all. Religious institutions can excommunicate their homosexual marrying couples as they see fit. But, they have no business getting involved with those people that are not members of their religious community. Injecting their beliefs on the general population is simply bogus.
"B" is just silly. If an infertile man can marry an infertile woman under the "laws" of traditional marriage, why can't a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman? Traditional marriage does not require the possibility of reproduction. Marriage is about commitment and stability. It is about giving yourself to one other person. Not just sexually, but in every way imaginable - emotionally, financially. None of that requires a penis and vagina to be present.
No. A contract is between 2 or more people who have voluntarily entered into a contract,it has nothing to do with government interfering in it. Its just government once again overstepping their bounds.
I'm afraid you're very confused. There are many government benefits that flow from the marriage relationship. The parties to an ordinary contract cannot, merely by entering into a private contract, decide they get a personal income tax deduction or exemption from the estate tax, for example. The question here is the denial of legal benefits to an entire category of families based on personal or religious distaste for their relationship.
Feel free to open a poll about those issues, because this one is about gay marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
