Public support solidly for gay marriage

...actually no, it's 1 man 1 woman...but you just keep trying to talk yourself into believing your definition...


Kabuki Joe

 

Uh, no, that's incorrect, it's two consenting adults regardless of sex. Sorry.

 

Uh no, not in the 33 states where Americans have been able to express how they want it defined,that would be EVERY STATE that the VOTERS had a DIRECT VOICE= 33-0.

1 man + 1 woman. Sorry.

 

I'm talking about civilized states and countries. I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what goes on in backward hellholes.

 

But gay people can already travel abroad without being married. Do you think that the rest of the world is just fine with gay people but the thought of two of them married to each other will send them into a rage?

Nobody cares about this issue anymore except to fix it and put it in the past. I guarantee you the moment this is all fixed will be considered a proud day, historically, by every American. Just like when we ended slavery, even though there was a lot more disagreement over that issue than this one. Giving up your slaves actually meant losing money to people. Allowing gays to marry doesn't affect the people most upset about it at all.

 

It's funny. Republicans were fine with completely redefining the word "Liberal" to suit their own agenda, turning it from the name for the values of the people who fought the British and formed this country into a sly pejorative. But they get all pedantic when someone suggests broadening the scope of marriage to make more people happy without affecting straight people in any way whatsoever.

 

...you mean civilized states like New York, where you can look at pics of kiddy porn and as long as you don't own them, you are not breaking the law?...



Kabuki Joe

 

...I agree...if something doesn't directly affect me, like all the pedophiles hanging out in Thailand, I should be ok with it because it doesn't directly affect me here in the US?...so, I'm guessing you are ok with child moletstion as long as it isn't your child...


Kabuki Joe



Kabuki Joe

 

True. Mistakes can cost anyone of us something (i.e financial investments) untoward. Sorry, whoever that person was he or she should have been more attentive (unless something underhanded has taken place-that would be criminal). I'm sure whatever rule they overlooked, could and should have have been anticipated.

Wasn't considering your marriage or anyone else's really just the institution, its long-standing meaning and the specific nature of the participants that compose it. As to wealth, what is one's personal property should remain theirs. I do not want nor seek the property of others. As to the disposition of one's property I agree that there should be no issue on its disposition save supporting an illegal interest.

In America, practices/regulations that carry the weight of law can discriminate. One's skin color or gender can be used to award or disallow a posting at a university/college or a government job or promotion. In the private world this happens too but it is not as overt as what is done in education and government. I speak from personal experience in these circumstances.

I understand the need for limitations too, could "Contractual Coupling for Life, Domestic Commitment Partners for Life, Unified Life Partners etc." (just offered as examples) work for those who are unable to marry the opposite gender but seek the 1400 goal?

I understand for a number of us the moral standard/life philosophy we subscribe to may allow a slide scale measurement. What was considered incorrect can at some point later be considered correct, what was once sinful can become sinless. But for some of us our moral standard/life philosophy cannot be so easily changed or ignored. Not that one can't live in a culture contrary to their moral standard (we must all be somewhere), some just could not personally/morally approve a violation of that life philosophy.

It seems you would like to set a standard. OK they've (emancipated minors) been added to the new definition, they passed your standard. So what of a man and his now sterile mother or grand mother...daddy/grand dad has passed and well the son/grandson does care for her and she him, shouldn't he and mom/grandmother take advantage of the 1400 or any portion of it? Would you exclude him and her? And if so why or why not.

Only if the redefining of what marriage is and has been for sometime is lost to an additional/all inclusiveness.

You object to any another solution accommodating the need or desire for the sought after 1400 objective? If the objective is truly the 1400 and it were offered what offense do you take with the solution? The goal has been met.

If something is sought that would be heretofore unique (as a man and a woman marrying would not be) then let it to be unique in title and description. Marriage constitutes female and male. Some folks, perhaps yourself, wish to define marriage along a behaviour line. OK, but I would choose for it to continue along the line of man and woman.

Well, in fairness I'll share this.

No. I don't see President Obama as a quitter. He was quite chatty about who he is and what he is about. If you listened to him he shared his ideas and goals long before his election. He and those of his political ilk rode roughshod over the will of the people and the process in bringing about Obanacare...which by the way excuses some Americans from it mandates and contradicts his documented promise not to fund abortions. The churches got a wake up call when they were personally promised by the President last November(?) that they would be exempt from portions of Obamacare related to abortion. But were personally told by the President (ealier this year) that the churches would have to violate their tenets and conscience and provide what the President promised they would not. A politician's (any politician's) word is worth? Some's life standard would say that this is just the way things are done. Another drawing on a standard that would hold one to honor their word would find fault. Of course the Obamacare law of the land holds some to comply and others are given a pass on it...interesting allowance/position for a UNIFIER, treat 'em all the same, huh? But I digress again

Wasn't trying to be cryptic. In a word "Control."

To keep the components and long standing meaning of an institution intact. Again choose another unique institution for this unique coupling situation. If the desire is for the 1400 circumstances then accommodate that desire. As with Obamacare why change a system serving 94.+% of the people for 5.+% of the population (15 of 285)? Instead address the specific need of those who find they are lacking. The tail needn't wag the dog.

 

Been a long time since history class for me...So it was the Liberals who sailed on the Mayflower?

 

Yes, civilized states like New York and Massachusetts, both of which I am glad to have called home. Along with New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut (Maine and New Jersey will succumb to marriage equality soon enough) , the Northeast will be solidified as a bastion of equality. These are of course some of the healthiest, greenest, best educated states in the nation with the highest standards of living for everyone.

However if I were you, I'd probably get a move on it down to Mississippi or Oklahoma. The West Coast will be the next to fall to marriage equality after the Northeast. Washington has already done it, California is inevitably moving on from the Prop H8 fiasco, I doubt Oregon will lag behind its neighbors for too long.

 

...all I got out of this was kiddy porn is fine, leave the pedophiles alone as long as they are in a great blue state like New York...and you are right about gay marriage, it will be push on us whether we like it or not, just like 20 years from now and pedophilia get the same consideration...and you sit here whinning how people don't want to accept freaks as normal?...



Kabuki Joe

 

No, I am not talking about pedophiles, which have nothing to do with this discussion. Pedophilia will never "get the same consideration" since it is a completely different issue which is not at all comparable.

And LGBTQ people are not freaks.

 

Not necessarily, no. The boat wasn't filled exclusively with people gearing up for a revolution. But by the time people got fed up with the status quo, yes, it was all fueled by progressive, liberal ideology borne out of the enlightenment. Choosing to reject the divine right of Kings? That's a progressive idea. To actually put down on paper in the founding documents the notion that all men are created equal? Positively radical. This nation was founded on liberal ideology. Freedom of speech, a free press - all this stuff was (and still is) completely revolutionary and about as far from what a conservative bunch of thinkers would have come up with as is humanly possible.

 

What does gay marriage have to do with pedophila? Pedophilia is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disorder. If you want to do something about it you need to focus on nice men with wives and children, not homosexuals. If you're honest, that is.

 

This shows how little polls resemble reality. You can believe polls, or the fact that every state where gay "marriage" has been voted on by the people, it has gone down to defeat. That's the only poll that matters.

 

Polls do resemble reality. And the reality is that support for marriage equality has been growing by leaps and bounds and now has majority support nationwide.

 

Yes, why just the other day I was looking a poll in "support" of the gay agenda http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/246295-californians-set-boycott-harvey-milk-day.html ...and ...ooops...sorrry, that's 85% AGAINST gay indoctrinization in schools...I wonder if that turnout could be related to all the gay marriage inroads getting voted down handily state by state?

 

Not according to the elections. Gay "marriage" has been defeated in every state where the people have been allowed to vote on the issue, And the reason for the difference is simple. Voting is private, responding to a poll is public. People don't want to bee seen as being "bigoted" by saying publicly that they oppose gay "marriage" so they say they support it. But when they don't have to worry about public opinion, as in voting, they vote how they want.

 

Harvey Milk died in 1978, prior to the first diagnosis of AIDS, let alone the discovery that HIV causes it. You can hardly hold him responsible for promoting something that hadn't been discovered yet. As far as what he got up to with a 16 year old boy, I have no idea went down. Maybe it was pretty bad - this is the first I've heard of it. This doesn't change his enormous positive impact in other areas. Because let's face it - we're a nation founded by a bunch of slave owners. If you take anything our founding fathers said seriously despite this fact then you're doing Milk a disservice by reducing him to this incident - a crime far less serious than being a slave owner, by the way.

 

The only judges slotted to be replaced are liberal judges. Thanks for embarrassing yourself, for the thirty thousand time.

 

Fishmatter, today would you promote a rapist to women as their role model? No, of course you woudn't. Now that you know Harvey Milk sodomized a minor who was on drugs and mentally ill, would you support him as a role model for children? No, of course you wouldn...wait a minute... You just did support him in that capacity.

What's the difference between women and children that you would act to protect women, but not children from sex criminals against their demographic?

 

Come on. Would you support people who owned slaves as role models? You clearly do.

I just looked into this whole sordid affair. From what I gather Milk was in a relationship with Jack Galen McKinley from 1964 to 1967. McKinley was born in 1947, although I couldn't find the exact date. But this puts him at 17 when the relationship started and 20 when it ended. It's also unclear what the age of consent was in 1964 in California. I get 16 and 18. But in many places in the US it was 15 or 16, so this wouldn't be classified as a rape of any kind if it took place in, say Arizona. As far as sodomy, how do you know it took place?

So, worst case scenario, Milk was in what appears to have been a long term relationship with someone who, for less than a year, would have been considered underage in fewer than half the states in the US. This isn't a completely untainted situation but it's far from your ripped from the headlines description.

(edit) it was 18 in 1964. Raised from 16 in 1913. But completely legal at the time in over 30 states, and legal today in 38 of them.

So unless you're willing to tar every completely legal heterosexual relationship taking place right now involving a 17 year old person and an adult as a rape, I think you're guilty of sensationalizing things.

Do you support slavery, by the way? Because by your arguments you have to.

 

No, that's not the reason at all. Think a little deeper on this issue, perhaps you will realize why this talking point of yours is BS.

 

You can call it anything you want, but the fact remains that whenever people have been allowed to vote on gay "marriage" the issue has gone down to defeat. But there are news reports backing my views
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=153805733