Welcome to PatsFans.com

Dinosaurs headed towards extinction

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Aug 11, 2010.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,649
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Granted this is only one poll, but it's pretty amazing how quickly Americans are evolving on this issue. In 1990, only around 20% of Americans supported gay marriage.

    FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: CNN Poll is First To Show Majority Support for Gay Marriage

    A landmark of sorts was achieved today as CNN just came out with a poll showing a 52 percent majority of Americans agreed with the statement that "gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid." Some 46 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement.
  2. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,703
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +477 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey


    Heck when I was in high school people still thought a gay person could make you gay.

    Actually we thought if we got a semi in the boys locker room that we might be gay ... we just didn't know it.

    It's a good sign moving forward that people are realizing we may all kind of look alike but we are all very very different and it's okay ... the earth still spins.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
  3. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,819
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +146 / 2 / -1

    I have a relative who was among the earlier gay people to legally marry.

    It was clear to me things were changing when my father -- a pretty old school guy -- said he didn't understand why anybody else cares whether gay people can get married, too.
  4. Run DMC

    Run DMC Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,498
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Gay people have just as much right to totally ruin their lives as hetero tards. Tally ho!
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,845
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    It has always been obvious that a minority has made the most noise and is the best organized.. if you took a poll as to how many really care about this issue and the ineveitable outcome, it would overwhelmingly show that most would not really care..
  6. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The reason marriage is recognized by the state is because the state has a vested interest in providing incentive to procreation. Once the incentive is removed, the state should have no interest in recognizing marriage. And when that happens, every scenario becomes possible... people "marrying" kin, cattle and condiments...
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2010
  7. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,819
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +146 / 2 / -1

    marriage as it currently exists has no relation to procreation.

    Kin, cattle, condiments -- love the conservative mind.
  8. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,230
    Likes Received:
    225
    Ratings:
    +315 / 7 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    It's apparently a short leap between mankind and mustard to some.
  9. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,819
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +146 / 2 / -1

    Consenting adults, animals, inanimate objects... All the same, I guess.

    (It's like the people -- also conservatives for the most part -- who think that legalizing pot must also mean letting kids smoke pot...)
  10. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Over the last 30 years or so, I agree the focus on marriage has become less about family & community and more about a financial vehicle, primarily to latch on to employer-provided benefits or entitlements. Which is why I'm of the mind either retain the marriage in its historical definition or dissolve it entirely, as you'll see if it continues to evolve as a financial vehicle it will change completely -- weren't people here already indicating it would be of benefit between relatives to secure assets or assist in illness?
  11. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    I'm not shocked by this, I mean most people I know never had a problem with it to begin with. All the anti-gay marriage cries seemed to come from televangelists lol rather than from typical average people.

    I used to think this was one issue all states should just agree on, same as general marriage and divorce laws. It just seemed silly and messy for people to have to go state to state for things like this and I still think that way- except - lately states' rights seem to be under attack so I get the fact we want to hang onto those rights as they stand. Nothing exists in a vacumn but really, I'm not really surprised by the poll but it's definitely good news for gays.
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,860
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    In Maine it's Sheep, Moose and Bob Cat.
  13. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,819
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +146 / 2 / -1

    Was it ever -- as a legal institution, not religious -- about procreation, though? not its possible intent, but in actuality? Clearly it used to be much more important to have children only within the confines of marriage, but I don't think there was any legal imperative, it was a societal norm.

    Seems to me that incentives for procreation have been more in the form of tax breaks for dependents, but I'll be the first to say I know virtually nothing about the history of US laws in this area.
  14. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Then there is no point to marriage whatsoever -- it is simply a financial vehicle -- another form of power of attorney and the state should not provide incentive. That's really the root of it, why should the state promote marriage at all? The incentives for children came about as the breakdown of traditional marriage and the nuclear family. Its the state incentivizing growth and stability.
  15. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,819
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +146 / 2 / -1

    Not just financial -- it conveys other rights as well.

    I'm a believer in getting government out of marriage altogether. Replace it with civil unions for the legal institution (and everything that goes with it, financial or otherwise).

    Leave marriage to religious institutions, internet-ordained ministers, ship captains, whoever wants to marry people or call themselves married. Since people mostly are concerned from a religious perspective, from what I've seen, religions can continue to place whatever requirements they want of people marrying, including preventing gay marriages.
  16. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Interesting thought.
  17. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    We agree that if that is the ultimate destination for marriage, the civil union or essentially a power of attorney over decisions and assets, then the state has no business in it. However, as a traditionalist, I think it is a bad move culturally for the state to have nothing to incentivize and I continue to believe personally (I'm sure we could go back and forth with statistics, surveys, personal stories, etc.) that a one man and one woman marriage is the consistently most successful institution for the raising of healthy children (that's by no means to say in all circumstances).
  18. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Exactly. They have that right. If it's an issue that's very very important to you and your church disagrees with that issue then you're free to leave that church. But typically people don't agree with their church on everything anyway, it just depends on how important to YOU those disagreements are.

    Leaving one's church might be hard for someone who's really into their particular religion though which is too bad.
  19. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,819
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +146 / 2 / -1

    Why should the state be incentivizing marriage, though, when there is nothing in marriage to encourage procreation (if that's the goal) or to improve child-rearing (if that's the goal)? I won't dismiss either of those possible goals out of hand -- though just as I'm skeptical of other government efforts to encourage and incentivize citizens' behaviors, I am skeptical of them -- but I don't see how marriage is, or has ever been, directly related to them.

    As for 1 man, 1 woman, maybe that's the ideal. Again, I'm skeptical, but I could see it being the ideal. But it seems to me that there are so many exceptions, or just that the ideal is so rarely reached, that that ideal is irrelevant. I don't think there's any way that a hetero couple who don't love each other or aren't particularly good parents -- and that's many couples -- would be expected to do a better job raising a child than a gay couple who love each other and love their children. And since gay couples are often adopting, that means that many more better chances for children who otherwise might be raised in foster homes.
  20. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,819
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +146 / 2 / -1

    Absolutely. Catholics, Jews, I'm sure pretty much every religion has their requirements when it comes to marrying within the church (etc.), and you can abide by them or not, whether you're heterosexual or homosexual.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>